In defense of the Reverend Jones

First off, let me state the obvious: I think the Reverend Terry Jones's idea to burn copies of the Kuran to mark the anniversary of 9/11 is a bad idea. Burning a book for any reason is a bad idea.

That stipulated, however, I must say that, either way, the resulting controversy has already damaged American civil liberties.

Burning objects as a symbolic expression of one's views is a protected right under our constitution. The courts have ruled that burning the American flag is a legitimate form of free speech. It's certainly a popular form of expression in many parts of the Muslim world.

Books aren't different in principle, except that instead of representing ideas they contain them. Burning a book is a little like burning opinion itself or— worse yet— burning knowledge. Maybe it's just my prejudice as an author, but the idea of burning books disturbs me in a way that burning flags, effigies or other symbolic objects doesn't.

Still, the Reverend Jones is within his rights, and under the circumstances it will be worse for all of us if he doesn't actually carry out his distasteful objective. Why? Because Jones's fellow citizens— and for that matter private individuals anywhere— are as free to express their anger, disgust or delight at his proposed action as he is to perform it. So are religious or other civic-minded groups. This is called public discourse.

The government's role

But the one entity that should not be free to enter this debate is the government. And the federal government has done so in this case, with both hands and feet.

Item: Hillary Clinton has called Jones's plan "a disrespectful, disgraceful act [sic]."

Item: Her spokesman, P. J. Crowley, adds that it is "un-American."

Item: The White House issued a statement denouncing Jones, and the FBI visited him to discuss his "safety." And, finally, the U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, General David H. Petraeus, said that Jones will "inflame public opinion and incite violence," particularly against U.S. troops.

The "'un-American' label

Well, you'd think General Petraeus should have enough on his plate fighting a war without worrying about what a minister in Florida is doing. And you'd think everyone in the Obama administration should think a little more carefully about the separation of church and state, not to mention that between the military and civil society.

You might wonder, too, whether it's a good idea for anybody in government to be branding an exercise of free speech "un-American." I think we've all been there before.

There is more to the issue than that, however. The government needs to stay out of the free speech business because it has a unique power to inhibit it. If the FBI has already staked out the Reverend Jones, can the IRS be far behind?

Their lunatics and ours

When I first heard about the Reverend Jones (who has already been burned in effigy in Kabul, by the way, along with the American flag), my first reaction was, "Well, their lunatics deserve ours, and vice versa." But free speech is about the hard cases and the disagreeable personalities.

Civil liberties took a long step backward when the idea of "hate crimes" gained traction. "Hate speech" would be an even more slippery concept— in fact, it would be the effective end of free speech altogether.

The Reverend Jones is apparently in earnest in his conviction that Islam is the Devil's religion. That doesn't mean he hates individual Muslims, although it would be entirely his business if he did. No one accused Salman Rushdie of hating all Muslims when he published The Satanic Verses, but the mere title of his book sufficed to earn him a clerical death sentence that has never been lifted.

Fear of offending Muslims

The fact of the matter is that fear of offending Muslims— which is to say, fear of terrorism— has eroded freedom of expression generally in the West. You will remember the hapless Danish cartoonist who received death threats for depicting Mohammed. Similar incidents have occurred in France and Sweden. Similar fears, I believe, are behind the rush to political correctness in the Ground Zero mosque controversy.

Offensive speech— and I think the Reverend Jones's project, as well as his stated views, qualifies abundantly for such a description—should be countered by other speech, whether conciliatory or denunciatory. That is the way of free societies. But to proscribe such speech for fear that others may react violently to it or because the government wants to restrain it is to proscribe freedom itself.

In the unlikely event that the Reverend Jones goes through with his bonfire, I will be personally pained and affronted to share the same country with such an intellectual barbarian. But as matters now stand, I think you and I will both be a little less free if he doesn't. That's not a good position to have been put in.♦


To read responses, click here.