Obama's Quran-Burning Apology: Religious Tolerance or Sign of Weakness?

Protests turn violent in Kunduz

Over the past few weeks, the US Military has been under fire for several dishonorable acts, including urinating on dead Taliban bodies and burning Qurans. Afghan citizens have been protesting violently against our military because of these incidents, specifically the burning of the Qurans. Just yesterday, four people were killed and 50 others were injured during a protest outside of the UN office in Kunduz.

President Obama has rightfully apologized for both of these acts, yet he is being scrutinized by, you guessed it, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum. The White House hopefuls have stated that the Quran burning incident was unintentional, but the shooting of two US military officers was deliberate and should be apologized for.

What these two fail to see is that the burning of those Qurans was by no means an accident. What those NATO officials did was intentional and grossly inappropriate. If the Afghan military was caught burning Bibles or Torahs, Americans would be expecting an apology in return, without a doubt.

Santorum claimed that Obama's apology was "unacceptable". Now, whether or not we are religious, it should be embedded in our brains that the burning of a book which millions of people worship is the deed that's not acceptable. Tolerance is crucial to attaining peace in a world which one false move can cause an entire nation to erupt. So far, many Americans can't wrap their heads around that principle, and it's no coincidence that we are still hated by much of the Muslim world.

The Numbers: Super Bowl vs. State of the Union

Last weekend, the Super Bowl set another US Television Rating record for the third consecutive year. An estimated 111.3 million people tuned in to watch the Patriots vs. Giants game. But on January 24, only 37.75 million watched the State of the Union address. Surprisingly, this number is actually down from last year. 

These statistics made me ask myself if people are apathetic about politics or if they simply prefer to watch sports because they are more entertaining. 

I, for one, am easily bored by watching football games. For some reason, I can't find a way to stay interested in what's happening on the field. But when it comes to political events (i.e. speeches, debates, etc.) I am much more intrigued and can give my undivided attention to what the speaker is saying. At the same time, I realize that I am probably one of the few kids my age who prefers to watch political television programs over football. I've spoken to a couple friends about this matter and they came to a general consensus that it's not apathy that drives Americans to not watch State of the Union addresses; football is better television, plain and simple. They pointed out that even the reporters mentioned how boring those speeches are.

Clearly, Americans prefer to be entertained when they watch television instead of being lulled to sleep by our President. I am not part of that majority, but so be it. Where do you stand? Would you rather watch a State of the Union address or a Super Bowl game that didn't have your favorite team playing in it?