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

It seems to me that there is general agreement that the cartoon were not appropriate. The disagreement seems to be in the response that is needed (or permissible). The problem that I think that Alex and others are not addressing in their posts is regarding how one determines what is offensive to Islam, and what to what extent are you willing to give up your free speech since anything spoken publicly about Jesus Christ is offensive to some Muslims. For the Islamists, anything that says other faiths contain truth is offensive. This is the beginning of sharia. In Britian some are voluntarily giving up the symbol of the piggy bank for saving money because it is offensive to Muslims. In the recent protests Muslims demanded that the British flag be changed because it contains a cross. Muslims have succeeded in getting a judge to bar Hindus and Jews from a jury when a Muslim was on trial (but this has not yet been extended to all Muslims yet). King Ferdinand III, who fought to win Spain's independence from the Moors, was removed as patron saint of the annual fiesta in Seville out of deference to Muslim feelings. The Dutch Language Union decreed that the word Christ would now be spelled with a lowercase "c" because when Christ is spelled with an uppercase �C� it is offensive to Muslims. These examples taken from John Leo�s column [realclearpolitics.com] .

Regarding documentation of the lack of hullabaloo last October when the cartoons were first published see the following article [timesonline.co.uk] in Britian�s The Sunday Times.

Excerpt from page 2:
�Akkari included in his dossier three other cartoons that were far more insulting to the prophet, depicting him as a pig, a paedophile and a sodomist. These, claimed Akkari, were sent as hate mail to Muslims. But others, including Ramadan, say they were simply �found on the internet�
Either way they had not been published in any newspaper. Yet, included in the dossier, they were highly inflammatory � and useful propaganda for countries in the Middle East.
Syria was one of several oppressive regimes that exploited the anger. �Yet the Syrian regime is not even regarded by mainstream Muslims as Muslim,� pointed out Ajami. �It is one of the most repressive against the Muslim brotherhood.�
Once again the voice of moderation was lost in the cacophony of religious extremism and the cynical self-interest of political regimes.
Akkari is now reported to fear that he has made worse the very thing he wanted to prevent: the caricaturing of Muslims as violent fanatics. Interviewed in Copenhagen last week he said: �It has been more violent than I expected. I had no interest in any violence . . . it is bad for our case.�

A websearch brings up a number of articles documenting this for those who do not believe it.

Thanks for the link, Administrator. btw, I've been looking around the web for any connection between Muslim pressurea and the latest revisions in Dutch spelling. I have yet to find anything substantive.

Mark Shea has a nice comment on a link to this article [desiringgod.org] .

Dear Alex you said to Todd the following:

"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,.."

I say:

If we cannot state Mohammed is false, then are we Christians. If the first Christians were not able to say the pagan gods were false, then would Christianity even exist today. But then again, that is merely an example of how our society is heading towards the final anti-christ. Welcome!

If I recall correctly though, it was one Dane that drew those cartoons. Since when do we accuse all for the actions of one? Kind of reminds me of the 300 men in Palestine that started burning the homes of all the relatives of a man that had an affair with a Muslim girl. They killed her of course. Isn't it time we started showing a little outrage at murder?

You said to Todd:

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.

I say:

The publishing of those cartoons were justified by those that published them. That is their right, and it is your right to disagree, not to threaten and intimidate...as has been done.

You said to Todd:

"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."

I say:

He kissed the Koran because he was giving a blessing to all those that followed it, and that through our Lord's blessing they would somehow become enlightened. That though is a little hard for some to comprehend.

You said:

"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 say:

That is your right, and it is the right of others to go along with you. Do you truly believe though that it will cause a 'united' violent outrage. It's doubtful! Most people in this world have a free mind. They do not follow others blindly.

You said:

"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?"

I say:

Yes! Definitely yes! Just because in the West we would not be doing these things with the intent to rile people up, does not mean that the Islamic leaders under the subjecation of 'Islam' will not do so. Notice if you will, we are a different culture.

You said:

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

I say:

Angry at us for what? For wanting their oil? What good would it be to them if we didn't want it. Besides, we are not the one's that drew the lines in the sand. The British did!

You said:

"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?"

I say:

Do you know something! If those leaders said, do not do anything because it is not to our gain, they would not have reacted at all.

You said:

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

I say:

If the Muslim people did know their Koran, they would know that he accepted violence. What he would not accept is anything denigrating towards 'him'.

You said:

"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."

I say:

Then you are saying that the cartoons do not exist and were made up.

You said:

"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."

I say:

True to a certain extent. But Christianity is not based on intimidation.

You said:

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!"

I say:

Yes maybe we should be more adamant about what goes on our T.V.'s, and I do recall that Don Wildmon would publish the names of sponsers of certain programs. He managed to have the sponsers taken away, yet they would continue the program without a sponser. The next year, they would come out with a show even more obscene.

I recall reading once that someone asked the writers why they were putting so much immorality into the shows when it was not profitable. Their answer: We want to see how far we can go.

You said:

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

I say:

I think you should be jealous that we're not reacting that way towards all those that are being killed by suicide bombers. Don't you think that it would be better if they showed that same determination towards the suicide bombers. The ones that are killing innocent Muslims.

You said:

But certainly don't outclass them in terms of determination and inner resolve.

I say:

Yes, the Nazi's had resolve too. Did it make it right?

Zenovia

Imagine the fuss that is going to take off if the Italian Court Case (that got thrown out) about the existance of Jesus as an historical person gets taken on by the European Court. They will do it all again if they are whipped up to it, as he is also a prophet of Islam. Start boarding up the windows again.

Dear Pavel,

I don't think the Muslims will do anything if the case about Jesus is brought to the European court. To them Christianity is the enemy. They don't distinguish between secularism and Christianity. When they protest, it is not because they respect the religions of others. It is only because they are intimidating others into respecting their faith and who they believe in.

When they conquered other places, they would denigrate churches, etc. Let's not forget the Taliban blew up the ancient statues of Buddha.

Zenovia

To Moslems Jesus is prophet of Islam, like Mohammed and John the Bapist.

That there are people called Christians around is of no interest to them.

Questioning the existance of a prophet is going to be very interesting.

ICXC
NIKA

Dear Administrator,
(you Roman Catholic of the Byzantine Rite - where's the offense in that? )

Thank you for your post that doesn't really clarify much! (Frankly, I think your premise is rather silly - you've been reading too many of those "conspiracy-type" articles . . . like my father used to do . . . ).

Tangential issues about what is offensive to Muslims personally i.e. crosses and the like are an ongoing issue.

In your country, I believe an organization defending civil liberties has now succeeded in removing crosses from almost ALL municipal and state emblems (save for two at last count). So the law in the U.S. does acknowledge, and without too great an influence from Muslims, that the Cross is inappropriate, along with some other religious symbols.

As is the case in Canada, Catholics are in the forefront of promoting secularism (i.e. the removal of the Lord's Prayer from the legislature et alia).

These are all worthy topics for other threads.

But when you ask what constitutes an offense to Muslims - I think that is a given.

A direct attack on Muhammad together with the suggestion that Islam as a whole, and not only extremists within Islam, inspire terrorism is an offense based on the widest possible, objective considerations.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Kyiv has issued a major expression of concern for and support of Ukraine's Muslim community in the wake of those cartoons - and condemned the possibility of their being reproduced in Ukraine. It said that such offensive cartoons are inadmissible.

This is quite apart from the fact that the Koran pays a particular tribute to the founder of Islam in a way that is perhaps not found in any other world religion.

And those Danish journalists knew that as well.

As for Muslims and others trying to influence Western society, there are secularists who maintain that democratic pluralism and freedom demand that society be free of all religious institutional influences, especially Christian . . .

Yes, there are areas of Britain where not only Muslim, but Hindu, Sikh and other immigrants have, as members of local municipal councils, voted to OUTLAW the Royal Union Banner (which is not officially the "flag of Britain" but a banner that represents the Crown, a note to you republicans . . . ). And the Royal Union Banner (Canada's name for the "Union Jack" which is officially our Royal Flag) is not therefore flown in those municipalities!

These and other issues are ongoing ones and the position of non-Christian religions is also supported by secularist humanists, and their name is "legion" as you know - along with liberal Catholics and liberal Catholic hierarchs (whose name MAY be legion - I don't know).

Logically, the cartoons depicting the founder of Islam being also the founder of religiously-based terrorism in modern times is of a completely different category than the other issues.

We had the issue of Sharia law brought before the legislature up here and the Premier not only said Ontario won't be having any Sharia law, but, good Catholic that he is, he has decided to strip Rabinnic and Catholic tribunals of any rights to adjudicate in family cases as well . . .

At the cottage, I have the ORIGINAL U.S. flag, the Stars and Stripes with the Union Jack in the upper left hand corner. This was the flag that General George Washington flew at his private home . . . something to do with the Cross of his patron Saint I suppose.

And every July 4th and other U.S. holidays, I proudly hoist the original U.S. flag on my flag-pole!

Just my way of saying, "I appreciate you" to our neighbours to the south . . .

Salaam!

Alex

Dear Pavel and Zenovia,

Actually, Muslims honour Jesus VERY highly as a Prophet as well as His Mother Maryam.

They believe that Jesus will come as Judge at the end of the world as well.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in one of his books, refers to a gathering of Muslim philosophers some time ago where they urged Muslims to rethink their position on the Crucifixion. Muslim philosophers also affirm that Incarnation would be the BEST form of union between God and man . . .

Muslims venerate many Christian saints as their own INCLUDING St Basil of Ostrozhki in Montenegro in the Balkans and Muslims have received miraculous healings at such shrines - evidently, God doesn't discriminate among the children of Abraham.

The argument that Muslims do this or that to Christians does not justify any offense aimed at them or less charity toward them in general.

Again, the same journalists that offended Islam would think nothing of offending Christians.

It is just that when it comes to Christians, we tend to generally be more forgiving of the secular press promoting atheist agendas than the Muslims.

Pity!

Dear Zenovia,

One more thing, Christians have historically been as nasty toward other faiths and especially toward other Christians.

The schism between East and West was truly solidified NOT because of the Filioque (sorry Todd! ) or anything similar - but really because of Western Crusader agression and profanation of Orthodoxy at Constantinople.

Closer to our times, when I wrote an article about Bl. Nikita Budka the Hieromartyr of Canada and the U.S., an acquaintance wrote me to say that his grandparents were Orthodox and that Bishop Nikita was quite "anti-Orthodox."

As they attended an outdoor service, Bishop Budka, according to him, showed up with others and ordered the people to leave, actually ripping down parts of the tent that was set up for the Liturgy there . . .

He said he could never acknowledge the bishop as a saint as a result . . .

Then there is the destruction of the EC Church by the Russian Church, the burning of Orthodox churches by RC's etc.

Christians are often like Muslims and others in this regard - with the exception that they do it all "for the love of Jesus."

Perhaps this post is offensive to you or others.

I only ask that I be shown where any of what I have written here is false.

Alex

Thanks for your post.

An offensive to the radical Muslims (the Islamists) is anything which speaks negatively of Islam or Muslims, be it an accurate news story, satire, or whatever. In your thread you (correctly) point out the offenses that Christians have committed against peoples of other faiths. Yet, if the Islamists were given their way, you would still be perfectly free to give your honest criticism about Christianity but you could not give your honest criticism about Islam, Muslims or anything related to Islam. In many of the Islamist groups an infidel can be (and is) executed for saying anything critical of either the Islamic faith or Muslims.

The larger question here is whether Muslims in the West are going to live by the rules of the West or by the rules or radical Islam. The corollary question is whether Westerners are gong to continue to live by the rules of the West (watered down and offensive as they occasionally are due to ongoing secularism) or if the West is going to live by the rules of Islam. Given the way the Europeans are now backing down because they fear Islamist violence against those who criticize Islamists, it seems that for now Europe is choosing to accept the beginning of sharia (Muslim � not Western � standards of what constitutes punishable offensive speech). As I said earlier, the better response would be to tell these radicals: �Yes, the cartoons were offensive and good taste dictated that they not be published. But they were published. And we do have freedom of expression, even for offensive speech. We understand you are offended. We will not accept your threats of violence. Public pressure and boycotting of those you find offensive is the avenue of redress, not calls for violence.�

Administrator

Through eyes of mine I see the sky
Darkening as the night draws in
Horizon swept with shadowed veil
Accursed, abominable, awash with sin

The day fades beneath the obsidian cloak
Sun blotted out by Satan's smoke
Our Light has faded the dusk is here
Hearts search the twilight in quaking fear

Stars that once shimmered sparkle no more
Faded their brillliance and effervescence
Timidly they shudder at the dawn of war
Paralysed by power of moon shaped crescent

I found this helpful from RISU:

http://www.risu.org.ua/eng/news/article;9064/

Dear Bob,

Yes, I hope the Administrator reads that as he is "Orthodox in communion with Rome" .

Happy St Valentine's Day to you both!

I got my wife some healthy treats - strawberries dipped in chocolate . . .

And I went to a flower shop and pieced together a magnificent bouquet of flowers - roses, lilies, and some snazzy looking greens, all white - if I do say so myself.

And I also got her a magnificent card . . .

Tonight, we attend one of her favourite restaurants where they serve a marvellous white chocolate, pistachio and whole raspberry desert that is a REAL riot!

Oh, were we talking about something else here?

Also, did any of you know that if you look into the palm of your hand, you can see the Arabic numerals for "18" and "81" that, together, make up "99" for the 99 bead Muslim Tasbih/rosary?

Oh, yeah . . .

Ciao, guys!

Alex

This puts in a nutshell why I believe that the cartoons should not have been published.

But, simply put, the West cannot allow people to be threatened with death simply because they have used their freedom of expression in a way offensive to others. The threat of death is far more offensive that any insult towards Islamists in the original cartoons.

Dear Alex you said:

"Actually, Muslims honour Jesus VERY highly as a Prophet as well as His Mother Maryam."

I say:

But they do not believe he died on the cross. They believe that someone else died in his place. In other words, their 'god' is not a sacrificial god. He is as Pope John II said, only 'majesty'. Also they state quite a few times in the Koran that God did not have a son.

You said:

"Archbishop Fulton Sheen, in one of his books, refers to a gathering of Muslim philosophers some time ago where they urged Muslims to rethink their position on the Crucifixion. Muslim philosophers also affirm that Incarnation would be the BEST form of union between God and man . . ."

I say:

Yet they are still Muslims.

You said:

"Muslims venerate many Christian saints as their own INCLUDING St Basil of Ostrozhki in Montenegro in the Balkans and Muslims have received miraculous healings at such shrines - evidently, God doesn't discriminate among the children of Abraham."

I say:

God will do 'everything' to bring His children to a comprehension of His love, as it was given to us by Jesus. Oh by the way, they venerate Saint George too.

You said:

"One more thing, Christians have historically been as nasty toward other faiths and especially toward other Christians.

The schism between East and West was truly solidified NOT because of the Filioque (sorry Todd! ) or anything similar - but really because of Western Crusader agression and profanation of Orthodoxy at Constantinople."

I say:

The outcome of the Fourth Crusade was really brought about because of the clash of 'cultures' of that time. Things had reached a boiling point. I believe about 30,000 Latins were massacred or kicked out, (I might be wrong about the numbers, I usually am), in Constantinople before that crusade, and there was treachery by the Byzantine emporor during the Third Crusade.

You said:

"Closer to our times, when I wrote an article about Bl. Nikita Budka the Hieromartyr of Canada and the U.S., an acquaintance wrote me to say that his grandparents were Orthodox and that Bishop Nikita was quite "anti-Orthodox."

I say:

Even saints are limited. Many can only perceive things within the limits of their time and place. In other words, through their own personal experiences.

You said:

Christians are often like Muslims and others in this regard - with the exception that they do it all "for the love of Jesus."

I say:

Do they really do it for their love of Jesus, or for the love of 'themselves' and what they themselves are?

But that's different than the Muslim mentality. They are not doing it for the love of themselves, they are doing it because they are blinded. I find it a 'cult'.

You said:

"I only ask that I be shown where any of what I have written here is false."

I say:

None of it is false, yet it does not excuse the world wide riots of Muslims...nor those that are riling them up.

Alex
------------------------------------------------------------------------