Attorney General Holder tells religious leaders burning Qur’an is 'idiotic and dangerous'

[Turborama]

Source: Canadian Press

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder is calling the planned burning of the Qur’an at a Florida church idiotic and dangerous.

That's the word from religious leaders who met with Holder for nearly an hour Tuesday to discuss recent attacks on Muslims and mosques around the United States.

The meeting was closed to reporters, but a Justice Department official who was present confirmed that Holder said that the plan by the Rev. Terry Jones to burn copies of the Qur’an at his church in Gainesville, Florida, Saturday was idiotic.

The official, who requested anonymity because the meeting was private, also said Holder was quoting Gen. David Petraeus when he used the word dangerous.

Read more: http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jS_NOkj34VI-1z0T0pIrqFzG23LQ

---

Religious Groups Call On Justice Department to Protect Muslims

by SARAH POSNER

In the wake of the arson at a planned Tennesse mosque site and the planned Quran burning at a Florida church on September 11, a coalition religious groups will meet this afternoon with Attorney General Eric Holder, as part of an effort to urge the Obama administration to do more to protect the religious freedom and safety of Muslims in the United States.

In a meeting with Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Tom Perez on August 30, the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, te Interfaith Alliance, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and Muslim Advocates asked the administration to publicly condemn hate crimes, harassment, and other forms of discrimination against Muslims.

In addition, they urged a "coordinated federal response" to the backlash against Muslims, prosecutions under federal hate crimes legislation, and a Justice Department hotline for victims to file hate crimes complaints. The organizers view the willingness of the Attorney General to meet with them as a positive sign of the seriousness with which the administration views the rising anti-Muslim bigotry and hate crimes. The original meeting participants will be joined by a broader range of faith groups, and are urging the Attorney General to make a public statement on these issues.

Although not planned to coincide, the meeting takes place on the same day as the Emergency Faith Leaders Summit, at which an interfaith group of leaders agreed upon a statement, "http://www.isna.net/articles/News/Beyond-Park-51-Religious-Leaders-Denounce-Anti-Muslim-Bigotry-and-Call-for-Respect.aspx">Beyond Park51: Religious Leaders Denounce Anti-Muslim Bigotry and Call for Respect for America's Tradition of Religious Liberty."

From: http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/sarahposner/3250/religious_groups_call_on_justice_department_to_protect_muslims_/

[RandomThoughts]

1. The source of that problem is.

Self righteousness, fear, anger, and hate.

Not any book they could burn. And in there actions as much as anything they blame it on.

They are on the same side as what they burn, hence why they destroy themselves. Since they in there mind are burning what they see, the hate and fear in some from that religion, the same hate and fear in them.

yet they go after cardboard cut outs, and not that hate and fear, neither the hate in fear in some Muslims, nor the hate and fear in themselves.


And that hate and fear is destroyed or flipped by love.

[cyr330]

2. No Shit--

It IS BATSHIT CRAZY!!!! What else do you expect from the Fundies?

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. Right. Some batshit crazies are going to piss off ...

another bunch of batshit crazies.

Fundies on all sides.

And Petraeus serves to ensure the right of batshit crazies to burn the koran. And for the right of batshit crazies to burn the american flag.

Maybe, just maybe, we should just get the fuck out of Afghanistan and Iraq.

:hi:

[mcollins]

30. Absolutely.

Maybe we can ship all the fundies from both sides to a desert island and let them just kill themselves while leaving the rest of us alone.

[superconnected]

40. +1000

[SnakeEyes]

3. It's idiotic, yes.

It's only dangerous because others are willing to commit murder over it.

[CynicalObserver]

5. exactly. idiocy in and of itself is not for government to decide or judge when

it involves first amendment issues. There seems to be a HUGE double-standard when it comes to defaming,defiling/desecrating christian symbols vs. this scenario. The government does not even decide what 'un-american' is, much less have any business commenting on private citizens expressing themselves.

Once the government starts forming a new class of speech, 'hate speech,' which is defined by them and potentially somehow no longer covered by the first amendment, the types of things you can no longer say or express will only grow. If you don't think the US is heading this way, you are not folling any news, or the views of the new supreme court justice.

Either every person living in this country has a first amendment right, or none of us do. This selective targeting of certain opinions by the government should scare the hell out of people here. Many folks don't seem to be able to think through the implications of this beyond the current administration, or in other words, only want a bill of rights for people who agree with them.

[Psephos]

7. good post

The only speech that actually needs protection is speech we don't like.

There is, of course, no right to be free of criticism for vile speech. This is a case that strongly calls for condemnation. However, condemnation should come from citizens, not government, or the First Amendment right is undermined, eventually to become a right in name only. We already have seen this happening.

[CynicalObserver]

9. thank you, it may be the first time anyone has said that to me here,

but the subject is one I would expect people to grasp rather easily. The entire topic obviously goes well beyond the specific speech or expression offensive to muslims in this thread. Hate speech laws in britain can get you in jail just for offending some people with words not directed at them specifically (how can immigration, or the immigration of specific ethnic groups, NOT be a valid political debate topic, including discussing negatives or perceived negatives with certain policies/groups???). They are a great tool for government to remove entire topics from legal public debate. You can bet your bottom dollar that the types of things proponents would like to expand them to include go far beyond making the the victim group of the month have legal recourse to prosecute people who say things they don't like. I would expect eventually to see entire types of political topics to become dangerous ground.

The fact we are in a scenario where the exercise of free speech in this country (or denmark, in the case of the cartoons) causes riots and other violent reactions in countries halfway around the world should give people pause when assigning morally relative blame to american culture. Turn matters around - christian symbols have been almost routinely defiled, (I think urine-christ had public money involved, but even if it didnt) yet I don't see a disposition of tolerance in the event that american christians burn some NEA offices or artists' houses or whatever. I honestly don't think many people care if folks are offended, if they themselves aren't. The signs people were carrying in the protests in london after the danish cartoons make it clear the people the authorities are afraid of offending aren't in the least bit interested in western civil liberties, and would in fact take away a great many of our rights given the chance. There were many that got their point across, but 'To Hell with Freedom' comes to mind as one which expressed itself well.

Modern semi-secular western culture is simply not equipped to deal with what it is facing, and its only response thus is to try to repress its own citizens right to express themselves.

[pipoman]

14. It is shocking how many hereabouts

would advocate for suspension or revocation of free speech over this issue.

[jberryhill]

16. LOL

You have the right to yell "N---RS!" in Harlem all you want to.

It is still an objectively stupid thing to do, because all you are doing is deliberately attempting to piss people off.

Nobody is being "repressed" here. The government is not attempting to stop these idiots in Florida, and neither did the Danish government attempt to stop the cartoons.

The "piss Christ" thing is probably the most misunderstood artistic statement of all time. The redemptive story of Christ is one of bodily fluids - particularly blood. Urine is the product of cleansing blood by the kidneys - the removal of impurities. Christian communion pivots on the drinking of Christ's blood, and it would probably be helpful for you to explore what the piece was about - (e.g. http://markshea.blogspot.com/2009/08/conversation-about-piss-christ.html) Whatever one thinks of the resulting work, it was an affirmation of Christianity, in particular Catholicisim, and not a criticism.

[Rage for Order]

18. The meaning of any particular work of art is subjective

To be interpreted by each individual as it speaks to them. To you, 'Piss Christ' may be "...an affirmation of Christianity, in particular Catholicisim, and not a criticism", but to many people it is simply an insensitive piece of art created for the purpose of offending people. And what of 'The Holy Virgin Mary' with elephant dung and pornographic pictures? What deeper meaning was this supposed to convey, beyond a childish intent to offend simply for the pleasure of being offensive? Should the artist have self-censored so as not to inflame Catholic tensions and risk rioting and death? Oh yeah, that didn't happen.

[Turborama]

20. Just because Christians didn't go on a riot because of those two examples of "art"...

...does not make burning the Qu'ran (which Muslims believe is literally the unedited words of "god" channelled through Mohammed) any less bigoted, insensitive and provocative.

If you want to start throwing comparisons around, what about when Christians used to burn people at the stake for heresy? What about the long wars between Catholics and Protestants during the time of the Reformation?

Maybe Islam, a much younger religion, is going through a similar evolution right now? Who knows? I'm not religious or a theologian but there are historical similarities.

[Rage for Order]

25. "Look, over there, something that happened 400 years ago!"

A more apt comparison would be to look at what happened when cartoonists dared to draw pictures of Mohammad in 2006. The contrast in reactions to those drawings versus the reactions to Piss Christ and The Holy Virgin Mary a decade ago is more analogous than things that happened several centuries ago.

[Turborama]

28. It is an apt comparison when looking at the comparative ages of both religions.

In 1184, the Roman Catholic Synod of Verona legislated that burning was to be the official punishment for heresy, as Church policy was against the spilling of blood. It was also believed that the condemned would have no body to be resurrected in the Afterlife. This decree was later reaffirmed by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, the Synod of Toulouse in 1229, and numerous spiritual and secular leaders through the 17th century.

Civil authorities burnt persons judged to be heretics under the medieval Inquisition, including Giordano Bruno. Burning was also used by Protestants during the witch-hunts of Europe.

Among the best-known individuals to be executed by burning were Jacques de Molay (1314), Jan Hus (1415), St. Joan of Arc (30 May 1431), Savonarola (1498) Patrick Hamilton (1528), John Frith (1533), William Tyndale (1536), Michael Servetus (1553), Giordano Bruno (1600) and Avvakum (1682). Anglican martyrs Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley (both in 1555) and Thomas Cranmer (1556) were also burnt at the stake.

In Denmark the burning of witches increased following the reformation of 1536. Especially Christian IV of Denmark encouraged this practice, which eventually resulted in hundreds of people burnt because of convictions of witchcraft. This special interest of the king also resulted in the North Berwick witch trials with caused over seventy people to be accused of witchcraft in Scotland on account of bad weather when James I of England, who shared the Danish kings interest in witch trials, in 1590 sailed to Denmark to meet his betrothed Anne of Denmark.

Edward Wightman, a Baptist from Burton on Trent, was the last person to be burnt at the stake for heresy in England in the market square of Lichfield, Staffordshire on 11 April 1612.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_by_burning#Historical_usage

As I said, maybe Islam, a much younger religion, is going through a similar evolution right now?

Maybe protection (by some violent extremists) of their holy book (which they believe is literally the unedited words of "god" channelled through Mohammed) to the death and the sectarian violence we are witnessing in certain countries is the new "Inquisition and Reformation"? Who knows? I'm not religious or a theologian but there are historical similarities.

[jberryhill]

36. Look, over here, someone raised in different culture

Cultures and traditions do not develop because outsiders snap their fingers and say "you should be like us". That's not a strategy for winning the long game.

The culture in which someone can say, "That artist is an idiot" is the product of things that happened in Europe and in America during those 400 years, and which are not the historical and political heritage of every person on the planet.

One aspect of this thing is the position taken by some that "the US government has no business condemning this". The reason why the US government does have business doing that is because people in countries with state-controlled media do not understand the concept, which say you want them to understand, of things appearing in the media which are not government approved.

They just don't know that. They didn't attend your high school civics class.

Calling them stupid idiots or assuming they should understand that, by some process of osmosis, is not a good way to get the point across. It is significant to make the point that "no, we don't approve of that type of behavior" IN ORDER TO MAKE THE LARGER POINT that we do tolerate things which we do not approve of.

[jberryhill]

21. "for the purpose of offending people"

Which is what many Christians thought, and some still think, about the Sistine Chapel ceiling. A lot of expressly Christian Renaissance art was scandalous.

But you have to make up your mind about "subjective interpretation" and "purpose". The artist's purpose is not at all subjective. Serrano's purpose was expressly affirmative of his very real Christian faith, and that is entirely objective and independent of how ignorant philistines might horribly misinterpret it. Granted, those not familiar with various jumping off points between Protestants and Catholics in terms of the imminent presence of Christ in the Eucharist are not equipped for an intelligent treatment of the subject.

The reaction to the portrayal of Mary using natural materials is particularly amusing in view of the Christian notion of humanity as having been created from "the dust of the earth" - i.e. soil. Is that an offensive concept? Again the work goes to an imminent and real connection between the spiritual and the natural. The distance between, say, the divinity of the Christian god and his incarnation as a human child from a human mother is a much larger gap than the distance between man and dirt. To be offended by that is simply to be uncomfortable with basic propositions of Christianity in the first place.

Confusing someone's intentions, particularly those of artists who, as a class, express things in symbolic and elliptical ways is one thing. Calling a spade a spade - such as the burning of Korans by a nitwit preacher who maintains an "Islam is of the devil" sign on his church grounds - is simply not in the same class. That guy is not being "misunderstood". His intentions are understood all too well.

However, by expressing his view of the abject idiocy of Dove's manifestation of attention-seeking behavior, is not infringing anyone's First Amendment rights.

[Rage for Order]

23. Pictures of dicks, balls, and asses are natural materials?

Who knew?

I'm not confusing anyone's intentions. Muslims who are offended should write a letter to the editor, cancel their planned vacation to the US, write about it on their blog, or paint a watercolor that expresses their feelings rather than riot, loot, or murder. It's the 21st century; it's time for those who would be offended to the point of deadly violence by a koran burning to grow up..

[jberryhill]

26. Jesus had all of those body parts, yes

You think Jesus didn't have a penis? Was his penis "dirty"?

Finding the natural "offensive" is the kind of rejection of God's creation that, in the Christian perspective, God seemed to reject by incarnation as a part of it.

But, yes, there will always be "Christians" who won't get that.

There is nothing offensive about the organs of reproduction, which the Christian God commands his followers to employ, nor is there anything offensive about the digestive system. You think Jesus was a Ken doll or something?

Again, it is only due to an infatuation with certain Greek thought against which artistic statements affirming the corporeal are deemed "offensive" by Christians.

You should read Martin Luther on the subject of farting.

“But I resist the devil, and often it is with a fart that I chase him away”.

[sabrina 1]

46. Maybe the growing up needs to be done on the part of the bigots

who have unconstitutionally scape-goated a group of American Citizens because of their faith and ethnicity.

I am encouraged by the number of good people, people who clearly understand the dangers of this kind of hate-induced scape-goating in a so-called Democracy, who are standing up against it. You might want to think about getting on the right side of history on this. It's certainly not the first time the world has witnessed it, and we knew it wouldn't be the last.

[CynicalObserver]

42. LOL iindeed. Why not work up an analagous display of

a muslim symbol with something 99.9% of muslims will find offensive at a visceral level and try saying that.

[jberryhill]

43. Because I have no desire to do so

What is your point?

Central to Christian practice is an act involving the bodily fluids of Jesus.

I don't actively seek to offend Christians, Muslims, or anyone else, and I think anyone who thinks that acting with the express intention to stir up hatred is a misguided person.

[sabrina 1]

47. The civil courts in this country have already ruled that not all

speech is protected. The rulings have come in individual cases and that is as it should be.

No one is asking for government interference, nor is the government interfering. However there is a question as to whether or not this IS protected speech.

When ruling on individual cases regarding speech, a lot is taken into consideration.

Eg, you mention that no Christian has gone around murdering people over their symbols being defaced. Well, that's not entirely true. Abortion clinics would beg to differ with you. And in fact in at least one case involving hate speech aimed at Abortion Providers, it was ruled that the speech was NOT protected.

Aside from that, it's interesting that several people in this thread jump to the conclusion that any violence that may come of this, will come from Muslims. Why is that an automatic assumtion? My fear, and the fear of my Muslim friends is that this will spark violence AGAINST Muslims. After all it's not as if it hasn't already happened.

And if this did reach the courts, there is no doubt that Bush's Crusade into the ME where hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been slaughtered and tortured and incarcerated, would be taken into account. Not to mention the sustained campaign to paint all Muslims as terrorists placing them in danger from bigots everywhere.

When was the last time a Christian country was invaded and so many of its citizens murdered? And those murders justified by claiming that Christians are a threat to the world?

Not in my lifetime although history is replete with such events and with the fallout.

If there wasn't the recent history of the war on Muslims, this idiot would not even be known to us. He is a direct result of this government's war on Muslims. Fallout from a crime that has yet to be dealt with.

We are not in a position to whine over the fallout from our Imperial Wars. It should have been anticipated. I know I certainly expected it seeing the hateful and irresponsible propaganda against Muslims that has gone on for a decade now.

So there really is no comparison between an attack like this on Muslims and on Christians. Christians have nothing to fear OTHER than being offended. Muslims have a lot more to fear than simple offense.

And it might interest people here to know that Muslim Americans agree that there is right to this kind of demonstration of bigotry and that it is protected. But that is no consolation to them regarding how it might affect their safety.

As far as it being protected, maybe it is, maybe not. Looking at some of the cases where speech was ruled to be outside the protection of the Constitution, I'm not so sure.

[scheming daemons]

6. Some Republicans need to step up and say this..... they won't listen to Holder

[Martin Eden]

8. When are Glenn & Sarah & Rush going to step forward and say it's idiotic and dangerous??

This is a real no-brainer, so they should be able to do it :crazy:

[lynne]

10. If a fundie burns a koran and no one reports it, will the rest of the world ever know?

- The media needs to turn away, to quit writing, quit taping these nuts as they are only giving them the attention they want. The media could end this entire mess by just not reporting on it.

[Nihil]

12. Now *that* is spot on ...

> The media needs to turn away, to quit writing, quit taping these nuts
> as they are only giving them the attention they want.

:applause:


> The media could end this entire mess by just not reporting on it.

Tell Fox & co that Obama or someone will be turning up ... that should
ensure that some other event takes centre stage ... maybe a lost puppy
in Orlando or something ...

[Froward69]

11. Burn Bibles along side them...

If I lived in Florida I would stop by every motel room between my house and that church and =toss bibles in the very same fire they toss the Korans in. screaming that In America you either celebrate/tolerate all religions or reject all religion.

burning bibles right next to those ignorant bigots 'em. might give them the same feelings of hate and being insulted to realize what craziness they are doing.

this has me just as pissed off as the ground zero community center that happens to be Islamic.

[pipoman]

15. Of coarse you do know

that you could burn bibles until the cows come home and probably would never even receive a threat, no? You could publicly roast a hog using only the heat from burning bibles and as long as you aren't stealing them out of hotel rooms nobody would give a shit. Which does bring up another interesting point. Do you actually steal bibles out of hotel rooms? You do know that they are not there for your taking right? I am sure if you contacted the Gideons they would sell you a case or 2, or are you really not willing to put your money where your mouth is?

[pipoman]

13. It seems to me

nary DUer is calling for stifling Assange and Wikileaks, yet every thread about this tiny group of dopes is overwhelmingly in favor of stopping this.

Free speech cannot and should not be limited by what some group of nutsacks might do in response.

[Bragi]

19. Totally agree! /nt

[Bragi]

17. No-one in the admin has mentioned the right to free speech

What bothers me that the administration, and the inter-faith groups, seem keen to talk about the need for tolerance, but remain silent on the importance of respecting the First Amendment rights of Americans to criticize (or even insult) any religion they choose.

I think this is a serious omission.

If Americans don't talk about this, then many Muslims will continue to believe the propaganda from their own radicals that any American burning a Koran, any slight against Islam, is done on behalf of all Americans, and therefore attacks on Americans would be a justified response.

If American leaders don't talk about this now, then when exactly would be the right time? I think it will be a bit late to leave until after the fatwas are issued and the threats and riots are ongoing.

[pipoman]

22. I really can't quite grasp

people who claim to be liberals and Democrats not siding with the first amendment on this issue. I expect much condemnation of the act and the group, but also unwavering support for their right to express themselves in this way.

[Turborama]

24. OK, say they do make a big fuss about the rights of Americans to insult any religion they choose

in any way they choose.

That would actually verify the assumption that the burning of their Qu'ran (to them a sacred and sanctified unedited word of God channelled directly through Mohammed) is being done as an expression to the world of how all Americans have the "right" (given to them by some other Americans) to insult any religion they choose in any way they choose.

Again, I'm not religious or a dogmatic patriot. I am trying to look at this as objectively as possible through the eyes of both sides.

[Bragi]

29. Except Americans do have that "right"

Imagine if there were no First Amendment, and the only public discourse allowed was what the government allowed. In that context, the burning of Korans (o0r any other insult against a religion) would clearly be seen as something allowed by government. According to some Muslims, since the US government is accountable to all Americans, this would therefore be something generally supported by Americans.

Now imagine the same situation where there are First Amendment rights. In this context, the responsibility of the government is ensure that peoples rights to free speech are protected. The government is not accountable for how people use this right, nor does the government allow or disallow what is/can be said.

Which is why I think this whole debate/discussion/controversy demands that American leaders, and interfaith groups, start making it clear what freedom of speech actually means, and its implications,a nd the fact that the First Amendment is not going to be suspended to prevent otherwise legal anti-religious statements of any sort from being made.

[jberryhill]

44. Who said they don't?

I haven't seen anyone on DU argue that the idiot in Florida doesn't have the right to be an idiot.

[Vidar]

27. Glad he's got that much sense.

[PavePusher]

31. I wonder what happens to Bibles in the M.E.?

Or to the people who try to distribute them...?

Or to those that the locals merely claim are distributing....

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11636135/

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Missions/Default.aspx?id=528160

http://www.topix.net/forum/religion/islam/TS5GV1EH7LUB2675O

http://atheism.about.com/b/2008/06/04/religious-extremists-burn-bibles-in-middle-east.htm

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f99_1208386409

http://www.speroforum.com/a/17283/Muslims-burn-Bible-in-Pakistan

[Douglas Carpenter]

32. except in Saudi Arabia, one can freely purchase Bibles just about anywhere in the Middle East

[PavePusher]

33. I just added some updates that didn't get attached earlier. n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

34. all of those examples except two are either Pakistan or Afghanistan

where there is a great deal of upheaval and sectarian strife - not the Middle East. One exception from you links above was in Melbourne, Australia. The only case mentioned in the Middle East in your links above was in Israel by an extreme Jewish group.

As I said before, except in Saudi Arabia one can purchase Bibles openly and freely just about anywhere else in the Middle East - although I would certainly agree that the authoritarian governments of the Middle East certainly do not adhere to a western standard of religious freedom and tolerance. I would hope that is not the standard of the United States of America.

[Turborama]

35. This map of the most populous Muslim country in the world can come in handy at times like these....

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Indonesia

[jberryhill]

38. Jordan, Syria, Egypt, Morocco, Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey...

...all have Christian populations.

It's funny how some want to pretend all majority Muslim countries are the same.

The real irony is that the United States has more Muslims than a lot of Muslim countries, and American Muslims understand the Constitution as much as any other American.

[Yo_Mama]

37. What's idiotic and dangerous

Is a top DOJ official trying to stop constitutionally protected speech. Private speakers should be saying this rather than a government official. The remedy to stupid and inappropriate speech in our system is criticism, but not that the government should step in and stop protected speech.

No Muslim's religious freedom is impacted here, any more than criticism of Catholicism, fundamentalists/evangelists/Protestants/Judaism constrains the religious freedom of those denominations.

I happen to believe that they are very wrong to burn it, but unfortunately responses like these are tending to justify the action.

The free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the US Constitution, as is freedom of speech. Any Muslim who can't deal with it is fundamentally at odds with the US Constitution. We do not and must allow religious groups to claim that they are free from criticism. That applies to EVERY religious group.

Nothing could make me think that this group is right (or Christian) to do what they are doing, but it is very irritating to be forced to point out that they have the right to do it, and that Muslims' freedom of religion is protected by this WombatChristian group's right to burn the Koran.

The right to burn the flag is constitutionally protected. The right to picket a church, desecrate their symbols, criticize their theology, and revile them is also constitutionally protected.

Note: if they were burning the Koran in different way (say if they took it and burned it on the sidewalk in front of an imam's house) it might not be constitutionally protected speech because the action would be so personally targeted that it could reasonably be construed as a threat, and that is not protected speech.

[Turborama]

39. Ironically, he's not trying to "stop constitutionally protected speech".

He was using his "constitutionally protected" freedom of speech to say he thought it was "idiotic and dangerous", which it is.

Oh, and burning a 1,000 Qu'rans is not what any rational person would call "criticism".

[Yo_Mama]

41. Holder crossed the line

Not with the "idiotic", but if he claimed it was dangerous. Saying that he was "quoting" kind of equivocates.

It certainly is dangerous to the troops, but then any criticism of Islam is dangerous to the troops.

And this is constitutionally protected speech. It just is. There's a lot of things I believe to be wrong, like this, which are constitutionally protected.

I can think of a thousand reasons why other highly-criticized religions might want to set a precedent that would protect them from criticism, and I don't want any of them to get it.

Yeah, burning the Koran, the Bible, making chocolate Jesuses, Piss-Christ art, protesting in front of churches etc are all examples of constitutionally protected speech. It has always occurred and it always will.

[jberryhill]

45. In what way is Holder trying to "stop" anything?