www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Embassies burn in cartoon protest

DJS,

Sophistical games are beneath you. The whole context of our discussion has been on whether or not Mohammad is a prophet, and whether or not acceptance of that his claims by a Catholic involves the sin of apostasy.

Please, I beg you, stay on topic, and answer the four questions, because that will allow us to move beyond this sad affair.

Blessings to you,
Todd

DJS,

Thank you very much. I really do appreciate your answers, and I hold no hard feelings from out discussion.

May God bless you,
Todd

P.S. - DJS, please ignore my previous post, it was made while you were answering the questions.

Todd. Don't mistake the powerful tool of reductio ad absudum for a sophistical game. Now that I've responded to your questions maybe you'll read over my posts and hear what I was saying to you.

DJS,

I pray that God bless you and your family on the Sunday of the Prodigal Son and the feast of St. Meletius.

Todd

Thank you Alice for posting John Paul II's thoughts on the subject. Clear in its critique and charitable in its tone, it should serve as a model of the conversation for us all. Sadly, some here disagree with his approach and do not consider such topics as being within his area of competence.

Muhammad, insofar as he received elements of Jewish and Christian teaching, and brought pagans and idolaters to monotheism, could be said to have exercised some degree of prophetic impulse.
Of course, insofar as he contradicted Christian teaching, he was a false prophet.

It isn't necessarily "either/or".

It is the intent of the jihadists, by their violence, to cause a reaction against Muslims in general. This, of course will serve to radicalize more Muslims.
Insofar as some of you identify, without qualification, "Islam" with "terrorism" you are playing into their hands.
Take a cue from the late Holy Father, who, compromising nothing of the Truth, reaches out in charity to people of good will wherever they are found.
-Daniel

Dear Iconophile,

For the sake of those that cannot understand clearly, I am reposting some of what the Pope said:
-----------------------------------------------------
"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely 'reduces' Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son.

In Islam all the richness of God's self-revelation, which constitutes the heritage of the Old and New Testaments, has definitely been set aside.

Some of the most beautiful names in the human language are given to the God of the Koran, but He is ultimately a God outside of the world, a God who is only 'Majesty', (someone up there), never Emmanuel, God-with-us. (A God that comes within us).

-------------------------------------------------------

He goes on to say:

" Islam is not a religion of redemption. There is no room for the Cross and the Resurrection. Jesus is mentioned, but only as a prophet who prepares for the last prophet, Muhammad. There is also mention of Mary, His Virgin Mother, but the tragedy of 'redemption' is completely absent. For this reason not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity."

----------------------------------------------------------

You went on to say the following:

"It is the intent of the jihadists, by their violence, to cause a reaction against Muslims in general. This, of course will serve to radicalize more Muslims.
Insofar as some of you identify, without qualification, "Islam" with "terrorism" you are playing into their hands.
Take a cue from the late Holy Father, who, compromising nothing of the Truth, reaches out in charity to people of good will wherever they are found."

I say:

The Pope reached out in charity, but in no way did he compromise his beliefs and faith. Yet in a way, you are saying that we should bow down to their sensitivities and/or demands. If we did so, then isn't there a possibility that the demands of the leaders of Islam, (who the people follow blindly), will become greater and greater. Could the world then end up under 'sharia' law in order to appease the Muslims?

If that were to happen, wouldn't Mohammed have gained the world, and wouldn't we have lost it?

Zenovia

To treat people with courtesy, to avoid needlessly offending them, and to refrain from demonizing them because of what some members of their race or religion do is not "giving in to their demands". Indeed, to act the way many on this forum do is to contribute to the radicalization of ordinary Muslims. Ugly caricatures of the founder of their religion do the same.

Interesting that Todd says that to call Muhammad a prophet is "heresy". He, after all, has said it is not within the competence of the Magisterium to comment on whether another religion worships the true God or not. For him to label someone who holds that Muhammad was a prophet as a "heretic" would suggest that he, Todd, does possess a competence that the Church does not!
Curious...
And a question: we know that Jews do not proselytize, but if they did would they be pure and simple "false prophets" if they converted tribes of idolaters to the worship of One God? Granted, if they were turning Christian peoples away from the Gospel they would be false prophets, but what if they were enlightening peoples who had only the coarsest paganism?
Muhammad's initial target was the pagan Arab tribes, not Christians..
-Daniel

Dear Friends,

I agree with Daniel completely and I must say that there have been a great number of tangential elements introduced into this thread (which makes it like most other threads on this forum! ) that detract from the straightforward point being made.

It is NEVER all right to offend any religion. We may agreee or disagree on the reaction of religionists to offenses - but as Christians we cannot but oppose those who show disrespect to ALL religions in the name of "free speech" and especially those who would villify those who are honoured as founders and saints etc. by other religions.

It has no bearing here whether Mohammad is or is not acknowledged as a prophet by Christians. He is so acknowledged by Islam. That doesn't give anyone the right to offend deeply the religious taboos in such a manner. My grandmother, a Presbytera, taught me respect for all faiths and for all people of faith, saying that the "Bolsheviks didn't respect anyone's religion."

I think that is the simple point to be made here.

As for Sharia law, we had that debate in Ontario recently and even Muslim women opposed its legal introduction here.

This morning, after my class, an Evangelical Christian friend showed me an excerpt from the blasphemous "Jesus Christ: The Musical."

It was from top to bottom sheer BLASPHEMY and offensive to Christians.

I don't want anyone ever telling me that that is "free speech."

Let those crass, secular idiots create their own gods to make fun of.

Let them make fun of themselves if they have to.

If that is "free speech," then I say "no thank you."

We should protest that and other such examples of "free speech."

We should never be free to insult the faith of others.

Daniel's points about Muhammad's role in bringing the pagan Arabic peoples to a belief in one God have been reiterated by other Western Catholic scholars of Islam and by the author of "The Koran in the Light of Christ."

Alex

Dear Incognitus,

First of all, I NEVER said that your contribution was not valid - only that I didn't see its RELEVANCE here.

You are most than sufficiently valid, Reverend Sir, and the Forum would not be the same without you.

I am a different story!

Again, the falseness or veracity of another religion's founder is not the issue here.

Giving public offense to the same is the issue.

And because we don't accept other religions than Christianity (and as Christians, we just DON'T), this does not mean we should not protect the right of all other people of faith not to have their religious taboos trodden upon.

Salaam!

Alex

Alex and Daniel,

Sadly, we do not agree about Mohammad.

I can agree with the following comment by Daniel (with some reservations):
I continue to pray for you both, and have no hard feelings toward either of you.

Todd

Dear Daniel you said:

"And a question: we know that Jews do not proselytize, but if they did would they be pure and simple "false prophets" if they converted tribes of idolaters to the worship of One God?"

I say:

No, they would not be false prophets because they would not be negating Christian revalation. Rather they would be edifying them up to the time of Christ's presence in the world.

You said:

"... but what if they were enlightening peoples who had only the coarsest paganism?
Muhammad's initial target was the pagan Arab tribes, not Christians..."

I say:

In the Koran Mohammad's wife told him, what if the angel you saw was not from God; as we certainly know it was not. So I would ask, then from where did it come from if not from God? If Islam is not a Christian heresy, then it certainly would have been a Jewish one. But if you would allow me to post once more the words of Pope John Paul II so that they can be fully understood:

"Whoever knows the Old and New Testaments, and then reads the Koran, clearly sees the process by which it completely 'reduces' Divine Revelation. It is impossible not to note the movement away from what God said about Himself, first in the Old Testament through the Prophets, and then finally in the New Testament through His Son."

Notice that the Pope says' it *REDUCES* Divine Revalation. In other words it takes away what God said in the Old Testament about Himself, and in the New Testament through His Son.

Now *reducing* is a negation, and therefore not of God...or at least the God of creation as we know him. That the masses in Islam show that they do not have free thought and will, and that they follow their leaders blindly, can only give one the impression that it is a cult.

Now to get to the 'insults' of the cartoons. I think it would have been more understandable if the Muslims would have been troubled by the presentation of Mohammed with a bomb on his head, and as a reaction would have tried their utmost to explain that not all Muslims are terrorists.

But they have not taken the defensive about their faith. Rather the offensive was taken and they are reacting in a way meant to intimidate others. Basically they are saying we will bully you into submission? Now that works with their own people, for their very suffering in so many lands shows that they are bullied into submission. The very word 'Islam' means to submit.

Now to go further, if their ideals towards their faith is intimidation and force, then by accepting those 'ideals' as they themselves present them, aren't we too submitting to the false 'god' of Mohammed?

Zenovia

Dear Alex,

This goes a little further than just an insult to one's faith. It really means what exactly is the basis of that faith.

Those cartoons were published in October and then other more offensive cartoons were added to them recently. That makes all this uproar intentional and planned. So what exactly are these protesting Muslims trying to prove and/or accomplish?

Let us not judge the motives of others by the 'reasoning' given to us by our Christian based society.

Zenovia

Dear Todd,

If you are saying that because Christians reject Mohammad's claims to be a prophet, that we are then given the "green light" to publicly call him "false," and that to balk at doing otherwise is being "politically correct" rather than expressing simple Christian courtesy et al., then, yes, we DO disagree and quite strongly and decidedly.

IF you are also saying, together with Zenovia, that the religious differences between Christians and Muslims somehow justify the cartoons, then we disagree, again, and quite strongly.

There were a number of people who were upset when Pope John Paul II expressed his respect for Islam when he kissed a copy of the Koran that was presented to him.

But it is that kind of respect, not agreement with the other on what they believe, but RESPECT that is truly Christian in the best possible way.

That is what I understand this post is about and that is how I see the issue.

I'm on the side of Daniel, djs and Pope John Paul II - although not necessarily in that order . . .

Alex

Several posters, including the administrator have made such a claim. Time for a link or other reference ISTM.

Dear Zenovia,

Yes, the Administrator said this in one of his posts as well and I also don't understand the logic of it.

This morning, after my class, an Evangelical Christian acquaintance showed me a clip from the blasphemous, "Jesus Christ: The Musical."

Have you seen it? I wish that person hadn't show it to me as I felt truly spiritually polluted after viewing it - and will definitely protest against it.

I don't know how long it has been out, but since I'm learning about it for the first time, I'm sure it has been out for a while.

The fact that anti-Islamic cartoons were published earlier means . . . what?

That there is a "definite conspiracy" whereby Islamic leaders are inflating something out of proportion to rile people up?

As if Muslims needed any extra prodding to be angry at Americans . . .

Does this mean that those Muslims who, like me with that crap I saw today, only had their attention brought to those cartoons recently were given an interpretation by clandestine Islamist leaders to blow them out of proportion?

As if the Muslim people don't know their own Koran and what it says about defaming their prophet?

There have been untrue stories circulated throughout the Muslim world about other cartoons that do not exist, in fact, defaming other aspects of Islam. Yes, these do add fuel to the fire.

And all Christians should protest against blasphemous things, like that crap I mentioned above. "Free speech?" It is not free speech. It is a form of hate literature.

The Administrator was taken somewhat aback by my referring to Western Christians as "horses' asses."

But the fact that so many secular journalists engage in "religion bashing" including Christian-bashing and get away with it is truly because mainstream Christians have established a tradition here of letting them get away with it.

Yes, there are letters, protests etc. that are summarily dismissed by editors. It isn't a really strong protest whereby the 85% of North American Christians, including nominal Christians, don't raise their voice in unison to say, "Take that crap off the airwaves, NOW!"

The point the Muslims are proving, in ways that are also violent and unacceptable, is that they aren't going to take the kind of crap from secular journalists that we Christians have grown accustomed to letting go by unchecked as a result of our indifference and "I don't care" attitude.

Again, the Administrator and yourself, may rejoin by asking what "I" have done.

It matters not what "I" have or haven't done. This is something that requires the cooperation of the majority of Christians and that cooperation just isn't there.

So I am jealous of the Muslims and how they are reacting to defend their religion and their prophet.

And, most definitely, I respect them for the stand they have taken and their willingness to take on enemies that dwarf them in terms of technological capability - but certainly don't outclass them in terms of determination and inner resolve.

Alex