In Florida, there is a preacher who plans to burn a print of the Koran.
There are many voices say he should do not do this, and it concerns me deeply.
The problem is, the voices I am hearing are saying it is wrong for the preacher to burn the koran because it will endanger troops in Afghanistan. Because of reprisals by foreign governments. Because of reprisals by Muslims against his fellow Christians.
All in all, there are so many voices basically saying he should not be it - all related to fear of revenge. Does anyone else feel this signals something is wrong?
The reason to do or not do something is reduced to fear? Surely, the principle argument should be is the act itself morally or otherwise simply wrong? And yes, what he is suggesting is wrong. No more wrong than any of the suggested consequences however.
Attacking the symbol of a religion because of the acts of a small group - or even a large group - of the followers of that religion, is morally wrong. Just as for followers of that religion to then attack others who were born in the country this man was born, or others who may have people in their country who have the same religion as this man, or may be the same religion as this man is also wrong. If there are degrees of wrong this is even more wrong.
It is wrong to seek revenge on a religion because of an act of a small number of people from that religion. In all cases. And those who suggest revenge against people of this preachers religion or from his country - or against others not even from his country on the basis that they may or may not be of his religion..those people should also be held in the same contempt as the original preacher.
