Here we go again. Once again Pastor Terry Jones of Gainsville, Florida has started a worldwide...okay maybe just Afghanistanwide... conflagration because he decided to actually burn a copy of the Quran. The adherents of the religion of peace, AKA Islam, resorted to their usual tactics of murder and mayhem to--ahem--peacefully convey their sense of outrage over the desecration of the book the hold to be the very words spoken by Allah to the Prophet. But this isn't going to be about that so much as two other issues that bother me concerning this story: the belief by some on the right that we at home should follow the mandates of generals overseas in order to "protect the troops", and the seeming religious condescension shown towards Pastor Terry Jones based on the fact that his congregation is relatively small. I originally thought of doing two different posts, but I have decided to simply use one longer post to address both issues, so bear with me.

On the issue of allowing for members of the military command to tell civilians that they should muzzle themselves in order to "protect the troops", I have to dissent. I was listening to Sean Hannity in my car yesterday, and he was going on and on about how Pastor Jones should have heeded the call of General Petraeus and not burned the Quran, because we should defer to the military on matters like this. His reading of the situation is that since Gen. Petrateus is in-country, we should defer to his great wisdom on the matter, and if he says something we are doing here at home should be avoided in order to protect the troops then we should abide by that. But am I the only one who sees the problems inherent in such a stance, or the hypocrisy involved in it?

Conservatives seem to like playing "What if" a lot, so let's play a quick game, shall we? What if Gen. Petraeus suddenly announced tomorrow that since we are in a time of war, we should not be having these contentious political arguments about the budget problems we face, as it would show the enemy a picture of a nation divided and would thus put our troops at risk of stepped up attacks? Would we be in favor of kicking the fiscal can down the road because the good general told us to shut up about it? Or what if the good general decided that we should not publicly criticize the Commander in Chief during this time of war, because it might embolden the enemy to press more attacks and endanger the troops? Would Sean Hannity and the like meekly stop all criticisms of the President in an effort to "protect the troops"? I doubt it. And they shouldn't, because if we follow this particular road we make ourselves subservient to the wishes of military figures, which would render our freedoms null and void.

Now, don't get me wrong here. I have nothing but respect for the military, the jobs they do, and the dangers they face. I have had friends and family who served in the military, and have in-laws who serve now. I have an idea of the dedication they bring to the job and the challenges they face, and I appreciate the fact that they are willing to serve to protect us and our Republic from those who would do us harm. But I do not see where Gen. Petraeus or Secretary of Defense Gates have a right to tell anyone in this country what they should do or not do in the exercise of their constitutional rights. Maybe burning the Quran was a bad idea, but this one act by one pastor in one small church in Florida is not the biggest issue facing our forces in Afghanistan, and if this act had not occurred the Islamists in the area would have found some other reason to riot. And just so you know I am not taking some new position on the issue, you check out what I have already said about the issue right here.

As for the hypocrisy angle, it goes right to the top on this story...but lets start with the talking heads. Since I mentioned Sean Hannity, I figure I may as well continue to use him to illustrate my point. Sean Hannity loves to use his radio and television shows to rail against the left for bowing to politically correct attitudes and being willing to stifle constitutional freedoms in an effort to placate the Islamist hordes. Yet, isn't this exactly what Gen. Petraeus is doing and Hannity is championing? What the general is basically saying is that Pastor Jones should not have burned a Quran because doing so incites the enemy against American troops in the region. Back to what if for a second: Can anyone imagine the howling from the conservative press if any liberal had suggested the same thing and had a major member of the new media agreeing to it? We conservatives would have had a field day, and rightly so. So what's the difference when Hannity does it? Is our reaction based on principle or partisanship? And like I said , the hypocrisy on this story reaches to the top of this particular food chain. For all the angst coming from Sec. Gates and Gen. Petraeus about the burning of a Quran in Florida, they had absolutely no problem with a mass Bible burning overseen by the military in 2009. In fact, they used the same reasoning (inflaming the locals) to justify the burning of the Bibles as they used to condemn Pastor Jones for burning a Quran! Anyone smell that mendacity and hypocrisy yet?

The other issue that has gotten me a bit fired up here is the attitude that is being taken by the press towards Pastor Jones. Much of the negative publicity that he has gotten comes from his decision to burn the Quran, which of course marks him as some sort of fundamentalist zealot who is to be shunned by polite society. Personally, I have no problem with fundamentalist Christians, and have in fact written to defend it because I consider myself a fundamentalist. To paraphrase the old song, if believing in the fundamentals of my faith and believing that the Bible is God's revealed Word is wrong, then I don't wanna be right! But what has really been the burr under my saddle on this issue is the way people feel free to dismiss the man because his congregation has "only a couple of dozen" or "a few dozen" members, as if that makes his church insignificant.

The fact of the matter is that most of the churches in America fit that particular criteria, so does that make all of them irrelevant? According to statistics gathered by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research, the median church size for American Protestant churches is 75 members, which translates to 59% of said churches. Again I ask, does that make that 59% of American churches insignificant?

See, the attitude that comes from treating small congregation numbers as if it disqualifies the pastors of those churches from being heard smacks of elitism. It's as if the only people who should speak on religion are the megachurch pastors who command the television airwaves and the imaginations of many in the public. But you see, it is the small congregations that are doing the work of the Lord; while Joel Osteen is trying to sell you another self help book, Bishop Lowe ( my pastor) is ministering to the sick and shut in. While TD Jakes is making sure that Mike Irvin and Emmitt Smith are front and center in his congregation, Pastor Forney (my mother's pastor) is reaching out to the youth in his community to try to keep them on the straight and narrow. While Benny Hinn is buying another jet, Pastor Moss (my sister-in-law's pastor) is standing in front of his congregation and visitors calling the lost to Christ. It is the pastors whose flocks consist of "a few dozen members" who witness to others; whose flocks hand out tracks and proselytize; whose members staff the soup kitchens; whose members minister to the homeless. And they do it all without fanfare, and without seeking it because they are only doing what Jesus required of them in His Great Commission: " And Jesus came and spake unto them saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

Yet these are the people that are to be looked down upon and sneered at?

I don't know what Pastor Jones preaches, and the media horde probably doesn't either. But I do know that he had every right to burn one Quran or a million, without being told by a US Army general to sit down and shut up. And he certainly did not deserve to be ridiculed simply for having a smallish congregation, as if the size of the congregation somehow confers legitimacy on the minister.

I know this one ran a little long and I understand if you skipped the part that didn't interest you. But thanks for reading and let me know what you're feeling about this issue.