A few weeks before the ninth anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, Terry Jones, a relatively obscure but controversial pastor, shot to worldwide infamy over his pledge to burn the Quran. Head of the Dove World Outreach Center, based in Gainesville, Florida, Jones publicly declared that setting the Quran on fire would demonstrate America’s resolve against radical Islam, saying, “How much do we back down? How many times do we back down… maybe it’s time to send a message to radical Islam that we will not tolerate their behavior.”

Immediately, Jones’ proposed action was condemned by the White House, the State Department, and a large contingent of religious organizations and leaders. General David Petraeus, commander of the International Security Assistance Force, stated, “images of a burning Koran would undoubtedly be used by extremists in Afghanistan­—and around the world—to inflame public opinion and incite violence. [Furthermore,] it could endanger troops and it could endanger the overall effort in Afghanistan.”

The President of Indonesia, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, sent a letter to President Obama urging him to intervene and stop Jones from burning the 200 or so copies of the Quran that were actually sent to him by supporters. Pakistani president Asif Ali Zardari expressed grave concern over the pastor’s threats to burn the holy book of Islam. Nearly a week after Jones canceled plans to burn the Quran, demonstrators throughout the Muslim world continued to exhibit severe anger and outrage at the very thought of setting fire to their holy book.

Despite all the outrage and offense it has caused, at first Jones repeatedly refused to cancel his burning, scheduled for September 11 in order to honor the nearly 3,000 victims of the terrorist attacks. After much thought and an alleged personal phone call from Defense Secretary Gates, Jones relented. But he has steadfastly refused to apologize for his threat. In fact, most recently on Thursday, September 16, 2010, Pastor Jones was asked to apologize for his threat, and he stated, “We have not even burned the Quran. But still violence erupted around the world. This is the face of radical Islam.”

In spite of how offensive Jones’ threat may have been, a couple of things should be considered. First, where was the voice of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)? Aside from uttering relatively lackadaisical rhetoric in ostensible support of Jones’ First Amendment right, there seemed to be no real conviction on their part. Even if the ACLU’s primary method is litigation to assert an individual’s constitutional rights, some might say the organization should have been more outspoken on a debate related to the First Amendment.

Second, some viewed the proposed burning as hate speech outside the realm of freedom of expression, whereas others asserted that a double standard was used by the president. Obama repeatedly refused to comment on the “wisdom” of the location of the Cordoba House but adamantly defended its right to be built in that location, and pleaded for religious tolerance. In stark contrast, Obama immediately condemned the proposed Quran burning action by Jones, but did not mention the latter’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

It is important to note that in the 1989 case of Texas v. Johnson, the United States Supreme Court held that burning an American flag, however offensive it might be, is considered free expression. Justice Stevens referred to the American flag as “a symbol of freedom, of equal opportunity, of religious tolerance and of goodwill for other peoples who share our aspirations.” Thus, according to Kathleen Bergin, a professor at South Texas College of Law, whether the Quran burning is protected speech is not even a question in her mind. “They [the American flag and the Quran] are both venerated objects — one is political and the other is religious…[but] burning them is a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment.”

To protect freedom of religion, we need not stifle freedom of speech. As Justice Louis Brandeis eloquently stated almost 85 years ago, in words that still ring true today: “To courageous, self-reliant men, with confidence in the power of free and fearless reasoning applied through the processes of popular government…if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies…the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

In the end, both freedom of speech and freedom of religion are bedrocks of the First Amendment, and thus of our nation. However, we should exercise caution and wisdom even though we have the right to contemplate and ultimately to conduct offensive behavior. This is the paradox of American democracy; how to balance the two countervailing freedoms, each enshrined in the First Amendment.