Two Bad Ideas—Building a Mosque & Burning the Qur’an

Two big items in the news today: first, Imam Feisal Abdul’s article congratulating America on its religious tolerance of Islam; second, an American pastor’s plans to burn copies of the Qur’an on the anniversary of 9/11.

Building a mosque at Ground Zero is a bad idea. So is burning the Qur’an.

The media and politicians on the Left are obsessed with the differences between the two intentions. Putting it mildly, they condone the erection of the controversial mosque. But let’s be honest. Those who haven’t been silent—including President Obama and NYC mayor Bloomberg—have expressed unequivocal support for building the mosque (even though they have equivocated following their unequivocal expressions of support).

What about the pastor, with plans of his own? He is angrily denounced.

Ahem. What about the striking similarity between the two men and their “projects”?

Whatever else can be said about their true intentions, their plans appear to be deliberately provocative. That’s the point that ought to be stressed in the great conversation we’re having about “tolerance” and “rights.”

Within the framework of this likeness—that is, both are deliberately provocative—we can make more useful distinctions between the men and their plans. We should acknowledge their similarity, then ask: as deliberately provocative acts, how do they differ?

Here’s one salient difference. A mosque will have a longer term effect, with direct bearing on more people, than the singular act of burning copies of the Qur’an on 9/11. The minister’s action, if he goes through with it in a few days, will soon be forgotten—even by Muslims, I dare say. But if the mosque is built, it will stand as a permanent monument to—well, what?

For non-muslims, the mosque would not be a monument to anything at all. But can this be said of Muslims? Hmm?

What Made Him Do It?

Yesterday, United States Army Major Nidal Malik Hasan shot and killed 12 people and wounded 31 others at the Fort Hood Army base. He survived four shots and is now hospitalized.

Wild speculation began immediately. Fueling speculation are reports that Maj. Hasan is a Muslim

Flight Ends Well

I’ve never heard of it happening before on a commercial flight, though I may have missed mention of such or am now forgetting. But the news today is stunning. Continental Flight 61 landed safely in Newark, despite the fact that the pilot had died en route from Belgium on a trans-Atlantic junket.

Perhaps in the attempt to sensationalize, news broadcasts have been repeating one other fact in connection with this flight: “passengers report that they had no idea the pilot had died.” Are we supposed to be surprised? I’m surprised if that what’s the media think.

I’m so surprised, in fact, that it wouldn’t surprise me at all if some listeners think they must have heard “co-pilots report that they had no idea that the pilot had died.”

That would be newsworthy. But if it’s what you think, don’t say you heard it here.

* * *

Footnote:

It has also been reported that “the crew gave no indication that the pilot was ill or had died.” Certainly, if the crew did not know of the pilot’s death, this would explain why they gave no indication of it. But that would leave certain other things unexplained, like the safe landing of the plane at Newark.

Another Footnote:

The same ABC news article, authored by a team of two journalists, also includes this remarkable statement:

The pilot . . . died of apparent natural casues.

I don’t know how that happens. I understand the concept of dying from natural causes. But the article says the captain died of apparent natural causes. Does anyone else think that sounds metaphysically bizarre? I should think that if it’s soon determined that the pilot died of actual natural causes, then it will be false, if it means anything, that he died of apparent natural causes. There must be some distinction between natural causes and apparent natural causes that makes it impossible to die from both.

You may be thinking, “But what the journalists meant was that the pilot, apparently, died of natural causes.” But this would be ambiguous. Would it mean more precisely that apparently he died of natural causes (i.e., it appears that he died of natural causes)? Or would it mean that he died of natural causes in an apparent manner?

OK, we should probably infer that the first of the last two options is what the journalists meant by what they actually wrote. But what explains how ABC journalists or in-house editors could make such a simple grammatical mistake?

Simple error? Don’t be too sure. It is the media, after all.