Appeasement Policy of Book Burning vs Mosque moving

As the ninth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, we’re only hearing one side of an argument that frankly has two sides, and curiously it would appear that the side presented, the popular politically correct side if you will,  is contradicted itself on two hot stories that circulated the airwaves and print media this morning.

Watching NBC’s Today Show earlier today we first heard about how terrible it was for pastor Terry Jones to be organizing an “International Burn the Koran Day”.   John Stewart and all the regular media pundits had jumped on the angle the previous evening, and now NBC was attempting to finish it off the next morning by presenting the argument most heard from leaders across the land;  the proposed act by Jones was horrible.  It was un-American.  It was unacceptable.    How dare Jones incite Islam by burning their sacred book!   And yet later in the afternoon we watched a group of young men in Afghanistan burn the American flag to make their point with “Death to Christians” chants.

The very next story on NBC this morning, was how “Islam will be aroused if we don’t let them build their Mosque near Ground Zero.”   It would make for a recruiting tool, just like Jones and his book burn proposal would.  Our troops would be in danger if we forced them to move the Mosque in New York, so we’d best be tolerant and let them have their way.   Exactly the opposite position argued only moments ago on the very same network,  for the alleged same purpose of “protecting our troops.”    We are to tolerate religious expression to “protect the troops,”  yet only moments before the same network argued to stifle Jones and his religious expression to “protect the troops.”  Nobody was willing to say “from religiously intolerant Muslims in religiously intolerant nations.”

There are two Jesus’s in the Bible.  There is the meek & mild Jesus holding the children on his lap with whispers of niceties.  But there’s another Jesus which we seem to not know how to take:  The Jesus that stormed into the temple and overturned tables while causing quite a ruckus.  Of the two, I wondered, why are we only tolerating the peaceful nice Jesus in this nation, while we sort of sweep the violent Jesus under the same overturned table?  We’re not comfortable with the violent Jesus;  the one willing to fight for a principal.  In 2010, we tend to see that Jesus as unacceptable because he was violent and angry.

The message from today is unmistakable:   Fear this enemy,  react in retreat instead of strength, and do everything they want us to do because if we don’t, they might attack our troops.   They might hurt us again.    We very nicely asked the Iman to show sensitivity with this Mosque, and the Iman refused.  Donald Trump offered to buy it for 125% of it’s value, but he was rebuffed.   And yet when it comes to Christians showing sensitivity to Islam then the expectations reverse.   And perhaps they should reverse, since we Christians would like to think we do things differently than do Muslims?   But is it fair?

Isn’t this fear thing exactly what the Islamic goal was in attacking New York nine years ago in the first place?   To make us fear them?  To make us cower in corners?  To make us feel unsafe within our own borders?  Wasn’t that the point of their attack?  Have they not won?   Clearly that is what we are doing!

Think of it in historical terms.   Is this the way the USA reacted towards the Japanese following Pearl Harbor in 1941?  Is this how we reacted to Nazism & Fascism and other secular regimes that our fathers and grandfathers fought against and died for?   Or did America have a different way of handling things in 1915 & 1939?   Didn’t our fathers & grandfathers deploy a more (dare I say?)  Machiavellian approach to issues of this nature?   Were our fathers & grandfathers right by how they reacted, or were they wrong?   Were the acts of Dresden & Hiroshima …… Machiavellian in nature, or were they actually Biblically driven?  Were they actions that a Jesus who stormed the temple might take, or were they evil and uncalled for?

To take the cynical viewpoint, perhaps we should dress our soldiers patrolling the streets in Afghanistan and Iraq,   in little pink skirts and replace their guns with flowers and loveliness?   Would that appease the Taliban and Al Qaeda to not attack the same soldiers?  Or would it incite them to attack with even more determination and vengeance?  Especially if they were showing bare legs!

In both historical examples prior to our involvement,  1915 & 1939,  we first tried the appeasement / pacifist approach,  and in both cases the experiments failed miserably.   So what some propose today is exactly the same failed experiment of appeasement and pacifism that has been long-since proven to NOT work!   Tell me what historical precedent this appeasement approach demanded today,  in both New York and Florida, is based on?   Specific historical examples please,  of this approach working?   I just gave you two where it failed miserably, what are the two where it worked?

And more importantly,  considering that there actually are two moods of Jesus in the New Testament,  is it more Godly to hide in corners and shadows and cave in to injustice and terror,  like some German citizens did when death camps were built in their neighborhoods?   Or is it more Godly to stand up to intimidation with force and strong acts?   And couldn’t you argue that by Jones backing off this afternoon, that he did in-fact,  cave to pressure to appease the enemy rather than taking a strong stand against them?  Yes it was a stand that we all seem uncomfortable with, but was it the wrong stand?

The New Testament, after all, does state very plainly in Matthew 7:13  “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”   In today’s America, we label that as “intolerant” or perhaps as our own religious arrogance.   But those are the words of Jesus, and they are not the appeasement words that we all seem to yearn for, that welcomes all religions to the Kingdom of Heaven regardless of how those in the religions behave.    Those Words do the opposite.   They demand one single narrow gate to Heaven.

So was Reverend Jones wrong?   Is it possible that Jones was right and all of us urging appeasement are wrong?   How  certain are we, which is more Godly?