Reply #44: I wouldn't go so far as to say that.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

While it's possible that violence might ensue, it's far from certain. While I agree that a reasonable person must take into account all the potential consequences of his actions, I wouldn't go so far as to characterize a putative flag-burning as "the height of reckless provocative stupidity." This I would reserve for something on the level of Kruschev's decision to move nuclear missiles into Cuba in 1962, despite the potential for global nuclear annihilation as a result. And while a responsible actor must be aware of the potential for violence to result, I would not say that a flag-burner's motivation is start a fight. His or her motivation could easily be the same as the secular student group's: to make a point. The culpability for any ensuing violence hinges on how likely the flag-burner thought violence to be. Now in the case of the secular student group, violence may be seen as slightly more likely: it's not often that somebody is harmed over disrespecting the flag, but there have been high-profile international incidents involving depictions of Muhammad that resulted in hundreds of deaths. However, I believe it was their judgment that such violent outbursts are unlikely in this country. So far they have been right.

It should be noted that the expected reaction of violent fundamentalist reactionaries is different from the expected reaction of Eboo Patel, who is apparently a well-known journalist and author in the United States. I would expect two different reactions from two groups of people: over-the-top histrionics and threats of violence over something so inane and innocuous as drawing a stick figure on the sidewalk from people who regard all depiction of Muhammad, both respectful and disrespectful, as the gravest sin and personal attack imaginable, and something more reserved and reasoned from everyone else. I'll agree with you that we should be aware of the threat of violence from people who already take an unreasonable position on depictions of Muhammad. But drawing stick figures with chalk on the sidewalk is something that toddlers do. I think it ranks as one of the most innocuous and least offensive forms of protest imaginable. It's not something that a reasonable person should take offense at, even though many, many people do. Patel's contention that the depiction of Muhammad has in some way materially harmed the Muslim students on campus is more than a little bit silly. If we're concerned with the reaction the protest might have elicited, I think we lucked out. If the Muslims on campus had stormed the dorms and started beheading people, then that would have been materially harmful to their group. In addition to discrediting them, it has the potential for violent backlash against Muslims not just on their campus but across the nation. But the reaction of the Muslim group showed restraint, civility, and consummate maturity. They even went so far as to highlight commonalities between the two groups and extend a hand of friendship. This has evolved into an opportunity for greater understanding and cooperation between the two groups, and I hope the secular group takes them up on their offer. This has turned out to be serendipitous for the secular group.