The Dove World Outreach Center (what a name) is going to hold a “Burn the Koran Day” event on Sept. 11 to mark the falling of the World Trade Towers. While they are within their rights to do so, there has been some discussion of it potentially becoming a PR disaster for the US in the Muslim world. General David Petraeus wrote that “Images of the burning of a Quran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan — and around the world — to inflame public opinion and incite violence.” He is arguing that Qurans should not be burned because it endangers the men and women of the US armed forces serving overseas. The full story can be found here.
It should be noted that there is opposition to “Burn the Koran Day” by a group of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian leaders. One member, Richard Cizik said “Watch out, for if you so casually trample on the religious rights of others, your own children may someday see their religious liberties deprived. As an evangelical, I say … you bring dishonor to the name of Jesus Christ.”
What do you think? In times of war should we refrain from some forms of freedom of speech? Is it noble to do so, or would you look down on someone who did that? Do you think Petraeus has a point? Should we refrain from other types of protests against specific religions? What if they were burning a Bible, Torah, and Quran all together? Is that ok?
To start us off: I personally don’t have a problem with someone deciding to not participate in such an event if they thought it was too offensive (whatever that may mean) to the target group. I would not think of that as allowing the target group to dictate the terms of the argument, I’d think of it as a personal decision not to fight that particular fight.
Ok, now tell me why you all think I’m full of it. 
Many of the people who are expressing the most extreme anti-Muslim sentiment lately are doing it under the guise of patriotism and protecting “real Americans.” In general, I don’t think “it will make terrorists sad” is a good reason in itself to refrain from doing something — but to the extent that Terry Jones and his “Dove World Outreach” crew are motivated by blind patriotism and hatred of “the Other,” it’s appropriate to point out to them that backlash against their actions will harm “real Americans.” (I have no idea if that is their motivation. I’m just using them as an example for the general point.) We all weigh the costs and benefits of our actions. This is, legitimately, a cost — and when making the independent decision whether to exercise our free speech, we have to decide if we are willing to face the consequences of how our expression affects others.
TL;DR version — I would be very much against a government ban on all speech that might conceivably endanger US soldiers. Making the personal decision to refrain from such speech, deciding that the potential gains were outweighed by the potential costs, is perfectly okay and even honorable (assuming your calculations are roughly right ;) ).
As stupid as burning a Koran may be [in response to 9/11], I’m not for banning any sort of first amendment right short of directly hurting someone. If a ceremony to burn books is enough to spark more violence [wherever] then pretty much anything will spark more violence [wherever]. Treading on eggs isn’t going to get us anywhere. If [whereverists] want to cry and throw a fit every time someone makes fun of them, that’s their problem, not the criticizer’s problem. Freedom of speech is an important cultural statement that we can get things done… without violence! GASP!
I’m thinking ‘they’ put the First Amendment first for a good reason.
I of course think they’ve do and ought to have the right to burn whatever book they wish.
It’s not something I would ever participate in because I don’t believe in burning any book, and because in this specific instance it’s clearly just naked Islamo- and xenophobia that is motivating the burnings, not a freedom of speech issue.
I somewhat agree with Kyle that it’s not directly our fault if burning a book (or drawing a picture) is enough to incite violence, but if freely choosing to not burn a book could potentially keep people from being killed by religious zealots, it might be best to just not burn the book. Then again, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that we’re allowing the zealoty and violent religious ideology of anyone to influence whether or not we express our right to freedom of speech.
It’s a murky issue.