As always, this is one the of moments that tests our dedication to the issues of free speech. Everyone seems to recognize that despite the inflammatory nature of the protest, Jones has the right to burn as many Qurans as he wants. The general consensus is that just because one can do something, doesn’t mean one should. This can be best illustrated by a more recent debate involving Cordoba House, the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque.”

In that case it was freedom of religion. After it was decided that the government couldn’t block the center, the argument became one of whether Imam Festal Abdul Ralf was showing proper deference to the victims and families of the victims killed at Ground Zero. Just because he had the ability to exercise that right, he did not have to do it at that particular spot. And so it is with Jones. He can burn if he wants to, but he shouldn’t.

I don’t feel like a hypocrite for criticizing Jones. Although he asserts his protest is “geared towards radical Islam” he isn’t preaching understanding or practicing any kind of diplomacy. Even though he cites “radical Islam” as the target of the protest, the act itself is pointed at all Muslims. In other words, Jones has moved to an extreme to make a point about extremists. Cordoba House’s stated purpose is to promote interfaith tolerance and conversation. Condemning an act meant to be inflammatory while praising the intentions of an act that is meant to be inclusive is not hypocritical.

That being said, I think Jones should only be responsible for his own actions and not the reactions of those who see them. What I mean is that when Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Kabul, says in an e-mail to The Associated Press 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,” I feel he is asking Jones to put his rights on hold for the sake of extremist.

Don’t get me wrong, I understand where Petraeus is coming from — he has his troops ‘best interest in mind. However, I feel the reasoning behind not exercising a right because someone who doesn’t agree with the right will be angry doesn’t make sense. That is to say, tiptoeing around extremists is pointless. The “extreme” part of the title suggests understanding is not something held in high regard.

The reactions — though prompted by Jones provocative behavior — are still the responsibility of the people they belong to. For example, I remember a party back in high school where someone — who was unaware of my presence — informed his friend repeatedly to, “stop being such a nigger” and pass him something. Personally, I feel I wouldn’t have been too off base by reacting with force or similarly unnecessary language.

But I didn’t. I wanted to, but in the end, it wasn’t worth it. The person who said it didn’t apologize — his friends did, which was nice — all the closure in that moment came from me realizing there was nothing to gain from matching his ignorance with more ignorance. Even though I was provoked, the thing I took from the situation was that the control of my actions was the paramount concern — I was responsible for them.

I know I have oversimplified some of the issues here, but my main point is that Jones can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals who are actively looking for reasons to kill or injure others. Jones is an extremist, but anyone who uses his actions to justify violence and hate is just as culpable for their actions as he is.

David Barker is the State News opinion editor. Reach him at barkerd@msu.edu.