Pastor Terry Jones Rethinking Cancellation of Quran Burning

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 08:06:23 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Saying he'd been lied to, Pastor Terry Jones has backtracked from his announcement calling off his Quran burning project. Now he says he's contemplating going through with the stunt.

We're definitely going to think it over and reconsider it," the Rev. Terry Jones told reporters Thursday night. "Now we're in somewhat a state of limbo, and we have to rethink of course our position."

In addition to this morning's plea from President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates called Jones today. The FBI was on scene at his Dove World headquarters today. They also issued a bulletin:

"While the FBI has no information to indicate a specific attack has been planned against the United States or U.S. assets in response to the 'International Burn a Koran Day' event, the FBI assesses with high confidence that, as with past incidents perceived as acts of desecration against Islam, extremist actors will continue to threaten or attempt to harm the leaders, organizers, or attendees the event," the FBI posted in a bulletin.

Were they there for security or to warn him he could be arrested? For what? I wrote up some possibilities here.

< Terry Jones Folds, Calls Off Quran Burning | Thursday Night Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Pastor Terry Jones Rethinking Cancellation of Quran Burning | 26 comments (26 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I do hope the DOJ/FBI is not using its power (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by Peter G on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 08:24:20 PM EST

to intimidate or silence someone, no matter how odious that person and his views may be, for exercising his First Amendment rights, by conducting a "criminal investigation" on "suspicion" of far-fetched charges (such as the ones you suggested, TL, frankly). We've seen that story before, from Nixon's "enemies," Daniel Ellsberg, and the Berrigan (anti-war priests) Brothers' "plot" to "kidnap Kissinger" to the Bush Justice Department's attacks on Muslim charities, anti-World Bank demonstrators, and on and on.

Jones needs different deal (1.00 / 1) (#4)
by diogenes on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 10:52:01 PM EST

Let him retract desire to burn Qurans in light of tolerance in exchange for Islamic tolerance of American newspapers printing the Danish cartoon on 9/11. Surely the moderates in Islam wouldn't kill people over cartoons, would they?

Security Theater (none / 0) (#2)
by Ben Masel on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 08:46:03 PM EST

The FBI contingent is there, nominally, to protect him, but with the implicit message that if he goes through with his stunt, they won't be there forever.

Lied to? (none / 0) (#3)
by gyrfalcon on Thu Sep 09, 2010 at 09:06:34 PM EST

Where does he say that? I don't see it in the linked article. Who does he say lied to him?

Right wing nuts appear intent on turning (none / 0) (#5)
by BobTinKY on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 08:59:53 AM EST

our imperial adventures, presented to us as fighting terorrism, in Iraq & Afghanistan into holy crusades. That is not what Bush, and now Obama intended, and it may prove to be more than what the Government is willing to stomach.

Deplorable situation yet it may force the US out of these senseless wars that only exacerbate terrorism.

And before anyone suggests otherwise, I am not in favor of Quran burning. Our foreign policies, lying to get into Iraq, and over the top repsonses to the 9/11 crime have brought us to this point. I am just thinking about how it will play out.

German radio reports (none / 0) (#6)
by scribe on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 09:09:18 AM EST

that German troops in Afghanistan have shot and killed one person. There was a mob of people at a German base protesting the comng Koran-burning in Florida and punctuating their protests with rocks. One thing led to another and at some point the Germans opened up.

Well done, "pastor" Jones.

As dispicable... (none / 0) (#7)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 09:21:43 AM EST

as Jones is...that blood is on the hands of German occupiers, who have no business being in Afghanistan to have rocks thrown at them. Or, to be fair, if you're of the opinion the occupation is kosher you could blame the rock throwers and the German soldiers...but not Jones.

The ash from books is on the hands of Jones (if they go through with it), the hate in his soul is on him. I just can't get down with excusing violence and blaming bloodshed on those who have caused no one to bleed. Bullets and rocks make people bleed...book burning, though appalling and totally f*ckin' ignorant, is not violent. Lets not forget that.


for the most part (none / 0) (#8)
by nyjets on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 09:47:02 AM EST

For the most part you are correct. However, one minor quibble. Book burning, and jones rants can make it easier for someone who is already predisposed for violence. I am not saying that persons actions should be excused. Only that people like Jones can make it easier for a violent person to act.
Put another way, Jones legal responsiblity in this case is tenous. However, JOnes does have a certain moral responsiblity.
(and no, I do not want to see the police lock him up unless he really did commit a crime.)


: I hear ya... (none / 0) (#9)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 10:03:22 AM EST

it is certainly more righteous & noble to preach love and tolerance, as opposed to hate and intolerance...and his words and non-violent actions that express hatred are a reflection of him.
But at the end of the day, any violence done is on those that done it...that's all I'm saying.

Did the Nazis (none / 0) (#10)
by jondee on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 10:49:28 AM EST

who made propaganda films - another form of speech - in the thirties make anyone bleed in the "sticks and stones.." sense?


Their films did not... (none / 0) (#11)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 11:25:49 AM EST

did Quentin Tarantino's?

Their concentration camps, their blitzkrieg...hell f*ckin' yeah, that stuff killed by the millions...but not films, dispicable as they were.

It's just a movie...anyone who claims a movie made them kill needs to wise up and look into their heart & mind for the real reasons.


Really? (none / 0) (#12)
by jondee on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 11:46:21 AM EST

"just a movie".. that's all those Nazi pseudo-documentaries were..that cut and dried..

So basically you're saying information can't hurt anyone. So, if I make an impassioned case to the cops about you touching me improperly at the Bills-Jets game, there's no way you could ever get arrested?


Don't bullsh*t me... (none / 0) (#13)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 12:04:04 PM EST

you enjoyed it! :)

Information can hurt...but not physically...the violence in your hypothetical is the arrest, not your lies. The police still require a lil' corroborating evidence before arresting somebody on a tall tale alone...at least on paper:)


They said to just (none / 0) (#14)
by jondee on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 12:13:47 PM EST

point to the spot on that anatomically correct Jim Kelly doll where the man in the green and white beer helmet made me feel "icky"..

But back to the larger point, information, in the form of lies, like say, lies about wmds, have led to many, many people being physically injured..I think you're being a little too fundamentalist-absolutist with your free speech stance; particularly when the means of communication lies in the hands of fewer powerful interests these days.


I see your point... (none / 0) (#17)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:08:46 PM EST

and scribe's point...I guess I just worry about what any attempts to stifle speech deemed to incite violence will do to our free speech rights.

No doubt speech has consequences, but I keep coming back to the guy who fires the bullet or enters the launch code being ultimately responsible for that action, regardless of the lies they've been told or justifications they've been given. I mean we're all born with at least half a brain and a conscience...is it too much to ask to expect people to use 'em once in awhile and stop being sheep?


Free Speech (none / 0) (#18)
by squeaky on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:16:06 PM EST

Ben Masel pointed to this SC case:

Brandenburg v Ohio

Worth a read

I would be against legislating Hate Speech as a crime. It is a crime in Germany and other countries..


This has got me thinking about... (none / 0) (#19)
by kdog on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:21:15 PM EST

John Lennon and the FBI harassing him for what he had say, the law perverted and used as a weapon against him.

Please tell me no reasonable person really wants to live in a society that will do that.


Hate to point the finger (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by jondee on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:49:45 PM EST

at religion, because it's a cultural tradition I've always had a lot of feeling for, but as soon as children are inculcated with the idea that they have to take "the evidence of the unseen" on faith, reinforced by threats of the withdrawl of love and security, rather than being taught the virtues of free and open inquiry in the-here-and-now, the whole insidious, authoritarian cycle of self-deception and the willful deception of others gets set in motion.

People aren't ever going to rely on their "own minds", when they've been carefully inculcated from day one with the belief that some greater outside power or authority ALWAYS knows better than they do..

So much of what we've been taught we need to scrap and just start over.


well said (none / 0) (#24)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:54:41 PM EST

I would give this comment a 10 if I could. that is exactly were we are right now. in denial of science land.


: actually (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by jondee on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 02:05:09 PM EST

I was just paraphrasing something I heard Glenn Beck say the other night.:)

Ironic Example (none / 0) (#20)
by squeaky on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:28:54 PM EST

Lennon incited violence that got him killed..... But since the shooter was a psycho, the argument is null...

And we have no shortage of examples of free speech being trod upon, think McCarthy, and Giuliani whose mantra was arrest them anyway, and let them argue their case to the judge...


how did he incite (none / 0) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:33:37 PM EST

MDC to shoot him?


: He Didn't (none / 0) (#22)
by squeaky on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 01:44:42 PM EST

But in the context of the FBI considering Lennon dangerous because of what he said, it is humorous and ironic to think in terms of dangerous speech being criminal if it incites violence.
The same irony could be invoked for other assassinations.
IOW, imagine Lennon, Reagan, or JFK getting arrested because their speech got them shot at.
Of course who is to say what violence could happen, because of free speech. According to the Wiki entry, Douglas only could imagine screaming fire in crowded movie theater would apply.

Wrong-o, dawg (none / 0) (#15)
by scribe on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 12:15:44 PM EST

Their films set the philosophical, legal and moral framework within which the acts of mass (and individual) murder, depravity and all the rest became possible. How many times have you heard or read of the incomprehension of (mostly) Americans when they hit Germany at the end of WWII and saw the camps, asking how it was possible that the country and culture which had produced Beethoven, Mozart, Bach, Schiller, Goethe and all the other German giants of culture, could produce the death camps and war.

The films and books made it possible. As I was writing this, I went to the bookshelf and pulled down my copy of Mein Kampf, whose title page indicates it was published in 1935 by the Central Publishing Organ of the NDSAP in Munich. In other words, mine is the "official version", from pre-war. How it survived, I have no idea, but it did. It's a pain to read because it's printed in the fraktur type, but it's complete and readable.

Go to the back end and there are a series of pages of ads. In reverse order:

a closeup image of a brownshirt, stern-faced and complete with field cap, under a Nazi banner, with the text "He who reads the Volkischer Beobachter, belongs to those who have picked up the flag of the movement and therefore have sworn allegience to the ideas of the Fuhrer"
Under a reproduction of a magazine cover featuring a profile photo of Hitler "Out of the struggle of the National Socialist movement comes the powerful illustrated newspaper "Illustrierter Beobachter"
A text ad for "Nationalsozialistische Monatshefte", monthlies published under the supervision of Reichsleiter Alfred Rosenberg through the Central Press of the NSDAP.
8 pages of text ads for various publications of the NSDAP - novels, position papers, picutre books of background on media and films ("Hinter den Kulissen des Reichsparteitagfilms", i.e., "Behind the scenes of the Reich Party Day films" - the films of the big party rallies) of Hitler's activities (Hitler uber Deutschland - probably pictures of him and his airplane tours across the country; "Hitler at home" - you get the idea) and so on.

For the 30s, this was the height of advertising technology and messaging. And it was all of a piece - the films and the books and the texts and all that made for a unified reframing that made the atrocities later perpetrated not only possible, but inevitable. And acceptable to those who had been educated otherwise.

Today, we see much the same thing going on through the agencies of Fox (primus inter pares) and it's the same thing - just a different religion being targeted.


Slice it how you will (none / 0) (#16)
by scribe on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 12:22:35 PM EST

The Germans are there as a part of the NATO/ISAF force. Should they be there - who knows. I'm of the opinion (And have long been) that our presence there was of dubious legality and even more dubious utility. This whole drill of "invading a country to arrest someone supposedly wanted for crimes in our country" harks back to Bush the First invading Panama to cover up Noriega's ties to the CIA and who knows what in Central America (and, probably, Bush the First) - something of dubious legality in the first place.

But he got away with setting that precedent and his son and defense secretary expanded on it in Afghanistan and here we are.

The point is - blood has been shed because of the Florida knucklehead. It was inevitable - law of large numbers and all. But it's no less regrettable.


how "international" is something (none / 0) (#26)
by cpinva on Fri Sep 10, 2010 at 04:07:57 PM EST

that's only actually happening at one place? just because i proclaim something is "international" doesn't make it so.

besides all that, this guy is a con artist, who's only interest is in how much money he can scam from the rubes.