28 Feb
Was President Obama “wrong” to apologize over the Qu’ran burning?

National Public Radio commentators recently discussed a very interesting question: Should President Obama have “apologized” for the accidental burning of the Qur’an? Some argue that the President should have expressed “regret” over the incident, which acknowledges some degree of culpability. Regret does not contain any element of obeisance that an apology would convey. One can apologize without compromising one’s dignity, or without groveling. Tonality often conveys meaning that goes beyond the words. The White House’s tonality was decidedly humble. In a macho part of the world like the Middle East, a show of strength makes a greater impression. Dignity means everything to a society that respects honor. If you wish to command respect, you have to act with authority and with a sober composure.
Some Republican politicians used this incident to score some political points in the upcoming primaries. Of all the candidates who have taken issue with President Obama, Newt Gingrich seemed to make the most persuasive point that many pundits either ignore or discount. According to Gingrich, the President did not hold the Afghan government responsible for the death of the six NATO soldiers who were killed by a men wearing an Afghan army uniform.
Before the Republican critics start blaming President Obama’s apology, they should remember that Obama’s speech is essentially the same kind of apology that President Bush gave to the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, back in 2008, soon after an American soldier shot several bullets into a Qur’an. The difference between the two desecrations ought to be obvious. In 2008, the act was deliberate, whereas in 2012, burning the Qur’an was accidental. The person burning the Qur’an did not realize this was considered a breach of religious etiquette because the Qur’an already had secret messages scribbled on its pages.
* Who’s Right?
Whereas in the past, I have taken issue with President Obama on many issues, despite his tonality, I believe that he did the right thing by apologizing. Whether a person expresses “regret,” or “apologizes,” the difference between these two terms seems minor; taking the moral high road is not a bad course of action. Therefore, given the religious fanaticism of our times, apologizing seems to be the best approach in de-hostilizing an already tense environment. Obviously, the apology won’t convince the Muslim radicals, but it could detoxify the Muslim moderates. As a chess move, Obama’s apology could tactically change the direction of the political game.
While Newt did not discount the importance of Obama’s apology, he insisted upon reciprocity. Newt felt that the Afghani government also should have apologized, “If Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, doesn’t feel like apologizing, then we should say, ‘Goodbye and good luck, we don’t need to be here risking our lives and wasting our money on somebody who doesn’t care.’”
Newt makes a good point.
What are some of the lessons we might learn from this experience?
Many.
Well, for one thing, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused more economic damage to our own country, as well as the other countries that have participated. The mighty Roman Empire disappeared as a super-power once it overextended itself and spent considerable monies on wars it could not afford. The United States would be wise to apply this knowledge of ancient history and apply its lessons to our current war with the Taliban. It is time to bring the troops home.
As mentioned in an earlier posting, some Muslim scholars have argued in past centuries that burning a Qur’an ought to be performed reverently and preferably on sacred ground, like a the outside of a mosque. Accidental burning of a disposable holy text, while it is a monumental testament to human thoughtlessness, certainly should not be viewed as an act of blasphemy. Once again, if rational Muslim leaders spoke out and condemned the violence, maybe somebody would listen. No religion can afford to tacitly approve psychotic behavior in the name of God. Now that’s true blasphemy—the willful misuse of God’s Name to perpetuate violence toward others. I am curious why scribbling terrorist messages in the pages of the Qur’an is not condemned as a sacrilege by Muslim scholars or leaders? Not even the Haredi would dare disrespect a Torah scroll or a Pentateuch with scribbling thoughts about the sinfulness of the non-Haredi! Continue Reading