The Scotsman is quoting British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying, "If people looked at these cartoons and were to replace the images of the Holy Prophet with images of Jesus Christ or the Virgin Mary, they can see that, even in our culture, if they were directed at the Judeo-Christian traditions, there would be similar outrage."
Right. And where was he when the films "Hail Mary" and "The Last Temptation of Christ" were being protested? Were the theatres being burned down? Did anyone storm Martin Scorcese's home and burn it down? Did people burn the American flag or threaten the theatre owners or Scorcese or the actors with death? I protested at a theatre in Minneapolis that showed Hail Mary and nothing like that happened.
Here's a note I sent Mr. Secretary via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's feedback website:
Secretary Straw,
You are quoted in The Scotsman as saying, "there would be similar outrage" if the cartoons had been of Jesus or Mary.
How wrong you are. Not only have there been innumerable cartoons, there have been blasphemous films (Hail Mary, The Last Temptation of Christ) and more novels than you can shake a stick at. Were embassies burned? Were flags or books burned? Were murderous threats uttered? No! People peacefully demonstrated, prayed the Rosary in front of theatres, boycotted advertisers, etc. But no violence was ever done or even threatend.
That's because we're talking about two different religions here -- one teaches its followers to love their enemies and forgive; the other teaches its followers to cut off their enemies' heads or to subjucate them.
Please be truthful and don't say stupid things just to placate crowds. The truth cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere pacification.
Monday, February 06, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Come now, Brother Randall, let us agree on some things in our discussion. First, let us not use terms like "right-wing," for such terms avoid intellectual honesty and smear our interlocutors as things to be labelled rather than as human beings to be loved.
Second, let us also avoid the intellectual dishonesty and arrogance that says we are better than our ancestors simply because time has progressed ("antiquated, 19th century biblical scholarship"). Or, as the great G.K. Chesterton said, "My attitude toward progress has passed from antagonism to boredom. I have long ceased to argue with people who prefer Thursday to Wednesday because it is Thursday."
Third, let us also agree that we will fully read and accurately present what the other has written and not put into it what we want to see. For, I did not mention "The Passion of the Christ" at all, hence your comments object to something I never even mentioned. (Unless, of course, you're referring to my interview with Jim Caviezel, which you then should have mentioned.) Nor did I call "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "Hail Mary" films of an historical nature or heretical. I said they were blasphemous, (im)pure and simple.
As someone who has had to deal with much in Catholic life, I too have been forced to look at "unfortunate truths." But we're not alone in doing so, Brother. The Church herself looks at these truths everyday -- and daily repents. There is nothing new here.
Please note also, Brother, that I was not talking of the history between Islam and Christianity from the 7th century to the 20th. I was talking of the recent past as was Jack Straw.
The whole point of the Denmark cartoons is that they are supposedly blasphemous, not historical. I contrasted the reactions of Christians to those of Muslims when faced with the same reality -- people who are seriously insulting those we uphold as having some divine characteristic. When the blasphemous films I did mention were shown, no violence was committed. People protested by praying the Rosary and other acts of prayer and protest. But when someone satirizes Muhammed, riots break out, embassies are burned, people are killed. And this is not in a localized area, but over a great portion of the world.
The contrast is clear and unmistakable. I did not exhonerate those in the past who did not follow the Church's "official" teaching, as you call it (which, if I am not mistaken, comes from the command of the Lord Himself), to love one another the way Christ loves us. Now, as then, no one follows the command perfectly, nor will we ever.
But at least there is the command, something which is lacking in Islam. We Christians can at least say we have failed to do what our Lord commands. Since Muslims have no such command, there is nothing to hold them back from doing what they did.
I will ask you, Hana, as I asked Brother Randall, O.S.B., and as I ask all readers and those who wish to comment, to refrain from calling me or anyone else names. Slinging the terms "uneducated," "narrow-minded," "shallow" and "close-minded" around do nothing to contribute to an honest discussion. They also happen not to be true.
Please note that I did not say that the presence of bad Muslims who cut off people's heads connotes the non-existence of a command to love one's enemies. I said plainly that there is no such command in Islam at all. Hence those Muslims who do not yield to rioting and violence are actually fulfilling a higher law than that of shari'a.
However, those Muslims who do take those actions are not violating Islamic law. How can they be when you have passages like this: "Slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful" (Surah 9:5) So, pagans, repent or die.
Or for Christians and Jews, "Fight against those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last day, who do not forbid what God and his messenger have forbidden, and who do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued" (Surah 9:29) So, Christians and Jews, repent or be subjugated to us for the rest of your lives.
Yes, I know there are varying intepretations of Islamic law around the world, hence the existence of the Wahhabi, Sunni, Shia and numerous other parties in Islam. But if Islam is so peaceful, why would its founder command that pagans be killed and others be subjugated? This is not the way to peace.
Interpretations don't argue for anything that you're saying, either. All it says is that there are varying interpretations. And if there are varying interpretations, then there is no authoritative interpretation of Islam. All of the Islamic parties are on a par with each other. All of them have certain claims on being the most pure form of Islam, but there is no definitive authority to say which one really is. So one imam's interpretation of Islamic law is just as good as another's.
Hence, while those Muslims who cut off people's heads are murderers, they're also still Muslims. No imam or ayatollah has pronounced those men who have committed such barbaric acts as no longer being part of the Muslim religion. And even if one did, another could just as easily reinstate them.
Perhaps I pushed things a little bit when I said that Islam teaches its followers to cut off their enemies' heads. Maybe it doesn't say to cut off their heads, but it certainly does say to kill them and in my book, that's not loving one's enemies.
Post a Comment