John Allen is perhaps the best Catholic journalist we have. Measured, reflective, incisive, learned, accurate. A couple days ago he wrote a piece at the National Catholic Reporter on “Politics and the Global War on Christians.” Coming from anyone else, it may sound alarmist (even though it wouldn’t be in fact), but when John Allen speaks about an issue of such gravity, Catholics and others of good will should listen. Excerpts:
Most people, most of the time, are fundamentally decent. Hence if they knew that there’s a minority facing an epidemic of persecution — a staggering total of 150,000 martyrs every year, meaning 17 deaths every hour — there would almost certainly be a groundswell of moral and political outrage. There is such a minority in the world today, and it’s Christianity. The fact that there isn’t yet a broad-based movement to fight anti-Christian persecution suggests something is missing in public understanding.
Allen goes on to list examples of recent Israeli Jewish attacks against Christian holy sites, and continues:
Why haven’t these blatant acts of prejudice become a cause célèbre? I can think of at least three reasons.
First, some Christians may be hesitant to speak out because, in this instance, the prejudice is coming from Jews. Given the long and depressing history of anti-Judaism in Christianity, some Christians may, in their gut, be tempted to feel: “Yeah, this is disgusting, but in a way we’ve got it coming.”
Second, most Christians in the Holy Land are passionately pro-Palestinian, for the obvious reason that many are Palestinians themselves. Some Christians in the West sympathetic to Israel are therefore reluctant to take up their causes, however deserving in themselves, for fear of weakening the Israeli position.
Third, the travails of a handful of Trappist monks in Israel — or Dalit and tribal Christians in India, or Nigerian Christians menaced by the Boko Haram, or the 150,000 new Christian martyrs every year generally — simply have a hard time breaking through the media filter in the West, perhaps especially in the United States, where it’s now all 2012 elections all the time.
All of this, however, amounts to an explanation, not an excuse. If the defense of persecuted Christians is ever to become a transcendent social cause, analogous to the defense of Soviet Jews in the 1970s, or the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s, it can’t be selective in its energy.
If the perception is that the West will push back when Muslims harass Christians, but not when Jews do it — or, to take another perceived inconsistency, that the United States will react when Christians are menaced in Iran, but not in China — then the oppressors will rightly conclude that the real concern isn’t defending a vulnerable minority, but scoring political points. [...]
One wonders what difference it might make if Christians across the West, both in officialdom and at the grassroots, were to react that swiftly and unequivocally — protesting not just anti-Christian outbreaks in Israel, but wherever they occur.
There are at least 150,000 at-risk Christians on the planet right now who would probably love to find out.
(Cross-posted at leroyhuizenga.com)
September 8th, 2012 | 2:23 pm
Refreshing to see an article bemoaning actual persecution of Christians, and not invented, phantom persecution. While I think that we should push back against any persecution, the way Israel and Jews there treats Christians is very different from the way Christians are treated in the Islamic world. Also, modern-day Christians have nothing to do with the Christians of the Middle Ages, and hence do not ‘having it coming’. Those are the words of Christians who sit in the comfort of their own homes, in the West, and condemn other Christians to suffer, to soothe their own guilt of conscience.
So focusing mostly on the greatest atrocities, which take place in the Islamic world, is in no way hypocritical. Just a short while ago, a 14-year-old Christian girl in Pakistan was arrested on charges of capital blasphemy (which Israel does not know), because she allegedly did something to the Koran. Any time there is even a rumor that the Koran has been defaced, Muslim mobs go to Christian neighborhoods and burn, torture and murder. Example: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/world/asia/03pstan.html
And no one cares. A Danish newspaper publishes cartoon, and the entire Western world trips over itself to condemn freedom of speech. But as for condemning murder and persecution of our own, no, can’t do that. Thank you, political correctness. Thank you, cultural relativism.
September 8th, 2012 | 3:33 pm
I think it is difficult for many people to think of Christians as a minority group when there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world (33% of the world population). Muslims are second with 1.5 billion (21% of the world population). Jews, on the other hand, number 14 million, or just 0.22% of the world population.
It is also, I think, difficult for Christians all over the world to feel the same kind of solidarity that Jews do. And I think it is very difficult to think of Christians as analogous to Soviet Jews or or South African blacks. An attack by extremist Jews on Trappist Monks in Israel, while appalling to hear about, is difficult to think of as Jews persecuting Christians. It should not be ignored, but it strikes me as more about Israeli politics that the worldwide persecution of Christians. Certainly Christians in the United State and many other parts of the world have no reason to claim they are being persecuted by Jews and Jewish extremists. It would be bizarre for me to confront Jewish friends and acquaintances here in New York and ask them what they are doing about the persecution of Trappist Monks in Israel.
September 8th, 2012 | 6:09 pm
“I think it is difficult for many people to think of Christians as a minority group when there are 2.1 billion Christians in the world (33% of the world population).”
Yes, this is true, at least for “many people” in the US (and perhaps the West in general). I find that Americans either forget about the rest of the world, or ignore how it differs from us.
I have spent about half of my life abroad, often in places where Christians are, in fact, the minority. They are often truly the poorest of the poor. These are usually subject to discrimination and persecution.
I think that in the U.S., there is a rising prejudice against Christians, too, so that there is little sympathy for foreign Christians.
September 8th, 2012 | 6:40 pm
Oh, as for the odd lack of outcry against worldwide Christian persecution, I attribute it to three things: 1) political correctness, 2) moral cowardice, and 3) the fact that most Christians in the west don’t really believe in Christianity enough anymore to fight for it.
September 9th, 2012 | 3:10 pm
Very good news: the Iranian pastor Nadarkhani was released yesterday. He had been imprisoned in retaliation for a complaint he had filed – because he did not believe that another man’s ‘holy book’ should be taught in public schools to all children – he complained when new guidelines required that the Koran be taught to all schoolchildren, including his. That is the ugly face of persecution, and it has suffered a temporary defeat with Nadarkhani’s release.
September 10th, 2012 | 10:19 am
“A Danish newspaper publishes cartoon, and the entire Western world trips over itself to condemn freedom of speech. ”
What? When did that happen (“the entire Western world trips over itself to condemn freedom of speech.”)? Or are you making this stuff?
September 10th, 2012 | 11:10 am
Sergio: What? When did that happen (“the entire Western world trips over itself to condemn freedom of speech.”)? Or are you making this stuff?
“Freedom of speech” was a reference back to the Danish cartoons – I meant an exercise of freedom of speech. How often were we lectured on how ‘offensive’ these cartoons were, while the murdering hordes who rose up in response were not much condemned (at least, not by the politically correct) and got exactly what they wanted: anyone publishing the cartoons (or any speech that they do not like) will receive a response, either of violence or of being called names by the politically correct.
September 10th, 2012 | 12:24 pm
Maximilian:
But then again, you claimed that “the entire western world trips over itself to condemn freedom of speech”. Sorry, I never saw the ENTIRE western world doing that. I saw many people actually coming supporting freedom of speech, including internet campaigns with banners in support of the newspaper that published the cartoon and/or Denmark in general.
Curiously, among those who sided with Muslim protests against the cartoons, were many Christians (including the Catholic Church). Personally, I stand as a matter of principle with the right of freedom of speech, including the right to publish blasphemy against any religion. But I also think you can analyze this out of a context of a growing islamophobia in Europe and an attempt to provoke Muslims, so that the violent up rise of some of them is presented as definitive proof of their “barbarism”. So although I support the right to publish this defamatory literature, I am deeply suspicious of the intentions of those who produce it (in the same way I support the right of, say, holocaust revisionist historians to publish their books, but at the same time I think they should receive harsh criticism for their intentions and methods).
September 10th, 2012 | 1:35 pm
Sergio: Sorry, I never saw the ENTIRE western world doing that.
And you don’t see hyperbole, either. I am part of the Western world, so by definition, and I did no such thing, so by definition, it is to point out the disgraceful response from many people who value political correctness over free speech, who are more bothered by cartoons than by murderous mobs, who think that taking offense is worse than a man entering Kurt Westergaard’s home with an axe.
Sergio: I saw many people actually coming supporting freedom of speech, including internet campaigns with banners in support of the newspaper that published the cartoon and/or Denmark in general.
How many newspapers in the US published the cartoons? Zero. Hell, the cowardly Yale University Press refused to publish the cartoons… in a book about the cartoons.
Sergio: Curiously, among those who sided with Muslim protests against the cartoons, were many Christians (including the Catholic Church).
And this is an absolute disgrace. There is no right not to be offended, especially when your specialty is taking offense, as it is for many Muslims.
Sergio: growing islamophobia
You mean, criticism of Islam? Yes, once people discover what Islam is, they tend to become critical of it. It has nothing to do with a phobia of any kind – which is why there is no such word for any religion but Islam.
Sergio: and an attempt to provoke Muslims, so that the violent up rise of some of them is presented as definitive proof of their “barbarism”.
Perhaps you should know what this case was about, before you make uninformed judgments about the individuals involved. The case began when no artist would agree to paint a picture of Muhammad in a book about him, out of fear. In response to this, Jyllands-Posten commissioned the cartoons.
Sergio: So although I support the right to publish this defamatory literature
It was neither defamatory, nor literature. It was a couple of cartoons.
Sergio: in the same way I support the right of, say, holocaust revisionist historians to publish their books,
Of course, we all know about the Jews who have burned down American embassies, because the US will not criminalize holocaust denial. We know of all the holocaust deniers, who have to be under round-the-clock protection, because of death threats by Jews. Nah. Jews will not respond violently even when people deny one of the greatest crimes in history, that their parents and grandparents were branded like animals and then gassed – and other people will murder, torture and torch embassies over a few cartoons they don’t like.
September 10th, 2012 | 1:57 pm
Maximilian:
“And you don’t see hyperbole, either. ”
Well, I knew you were using an hyperbole, but then I will like to see the statitistics of how much of the “western world” supported free speech or not in this case. You haven´t offered any evidence to support your assertion, even if hidden between a rethorical figure.
“How many newspapers in the US published the cartoons? Zero. Hell, the cowardly Yale University Press refused to publish the cartoons… in a book about the cartoons.”
And they were under the obligation to reprint them to satisfy you or anybody else in the name of “free speech”? Free speech is the right to publish or express yourself, not the obligation to.
“You mean, criticism of Islam? Yes, once people discover what Islam is, they tend to become critical of it. It has nothing to do with a phobia of any kind – which is why there is no such word for any religion but Islam.”
No, I mean the hatred and spacegoating of islamic immigrants in Europe by many political sectors. Specially when they are presented, as you do, under the concept of an unified other (in this case, “Islam”). That is what I meant.
“It was neither defamatory, nor literature. It was a couple of cartoons.”
Really? To publish a charicature of a prophet appearing as a terrorist that is sacred to more than a billion of persons in the world is not defamatory? You are trying to fool who?
“Of course, we all know about the Jews who have burned down American embassies, because the US will not criminalize holocaust denial. We know of all the holocaust deniers, who have to be under round-the-clock protection, because of death threats by Jews. Nah. Jews will not respond violently even when people deny one of the greatest crimes in history, that their parents and grandparents were branded like animals and then gassed – and other people will murder, torture and torch embassies over a few cartoons they don’t like.”
Being this exactly an example of what I was trying to say. So some muslims respond in an extremist way, and that is a way to judge all muslims and of course “islam”, to satanize them as a giant collective. I remember the nazis did something similar with jews…they were accused of different stuff mostly (“controling the banks and the media” for example), or sometimes of concrete incidents (for example the murder of the german diplomat in Paris, by ONE jew etc…). That is all the excuse people like you need after all…
September 10th, 2012 | 3:24 pm
Sergio: Well, I knew you were using an hyperbole, but then I will like to see the statitistics of how much of the “western world” supported free speech or not in this case. You haven´t offered any evidence to support your assertion, even if hidden between a rethorical figure.
Correct, but you did. Let me quote you: “Curiously, among those who sided with Muslim protests against the cartoons, were many Christians (including the Catholic Church).” The Catholic Church has about one billion adherents, and though many individual Catholics supported the cartoonists/free speech, the hierarchy did not and sided with cultural relativism and political correctness.
Sergio: And they were under the obligation to reprint them to satisfy you or anybody else in the name of “free speech”? Free speech is the right to publish or express yourself, not the obligation to.
So it is, but you were arguing that the cartoonists had a lot of support. Zero newspapers in all of the US is not particularly impressive. Newspapers in the US failed to stand up to cultural relativists and the politically correct. And Yale University showed itself to be cowardly beyond belief.
Sergio: No, I mean the hatred and spacegoating of islamic immigrants in Europe by many political sectors. Specially when they are presented, as you do, under the concept of an unified other (in this case, “Islam”). That is what I meant.
How exactly does this mean that one should refrain from pointing out that Islam is a religion that commands the death penalty for apostates like Rev. Nadarkhani? The main problem appears to be the way Islamic immigrants present themselves, not the way their religion is (truthfully) represented by anyone.
Sergio: Really? To publish a charicature of a prophet appearing as a terrorist that is sacred to more than a billion of persons in the world is not defamatory? You are trying to fool who?
He is no prophet to me, Sergio. To me, he is a run of the mill lecher with 14 wives (including a 6-year-old girl) who murdered his political opponents and killed 700 Jews and sold their women and children into slavery. And he is entitled to the same amount of respect as any other lecher with a 6-year-old wife, political killer and mass murderer.
He was not represented as a terrorist, that would be an anachronism, but as a violent man – which he was – to show that he was used by the Muslim world as a reason to murder and torture – which was promptly confirmed by the reaction to the cartoons.
Sergio: . So some muslims respond in an extremist way, and that is a way to judge all muslims and of course “islam”, to satanize them as a giant collective.
Where did I judge “all Muslims”? I did judge Islam. It’s not “some Muslims”, it’s “many Muslims”. Example: more than 80% of Egyptian Muslims believe that apostates should be killed.
I still see no explanation for why Jews don’t react violently to people who maliciously deny that six million Jews were branded and murdered like animals, while all it takes to set the Muslim world ablaze is a couple of cartoons.
Sergio: I remember the nazis did something similar with jews…
I do not recall Jews flying airplanes into high rises and killing thousands, do you? I recall Jews living in fear of their life during the reign of the Nazis, not people who published a cartoon Jews didn’t like living in fear of their life. That you would even make the comparison shocks one to the core.
Sergio: That is all the excuse people like you need after all…
Yes, I am a Nazi for disliking the ‘prophet’ who murdered 700 Jews and sold their women and children into slavery. That’s what Nazis do, oppose killing Jews and enslaving their families.
September 10th, 2012 | 4:42 pm
“How many newspapers in the US published the cartoons? Zero.”
I think your memory might be off.
There was quite a protest by many members of the media criticizing some of the media’s self-censorship of Danish cartoons. The fact is the cartoons themselves are easily accessible by Google search and availbe at wikipedia, so it’s very hard to argue they haven’t been extensively published in the United States–aside from the number of newspapers with integrity that did publish the cartoons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_newspapers_that_reprinted_Jyllands-Posten%27s_Muhammad_cartoons#United_States
September 10th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
Maximilian:
“Correct, but you did. Let me quote you: “Curiously, among those who sided with Muslim protests against the cartoons, were many Christians (including the Catholic Church).” The Catholic Church has about one billion adherents, and though many individual Catholics supported the cartoonists/free speech, the hierarchy did not and sided with cultural relativism and political correctness.”
Yes, the Catholic Chuch hierarchies, as you point, were against the publication of the cartoons. Who knows what most catholics had to say in that respect.
“So it is, but you were arguing that the cartoonists had a lot of support. Zero newspapers in all of the US is not particularly impressive. Newspapers in the US failed to stand up to cultural relativists and the politically correct. And Yale University showed itself to be cowardly beyond belief.”
As Joe Mc faul pointed above. And I hope you are not reducing the West to the United States, since many news papers in Europe also reprinted the cartoons.
“He is no prophet to me, Sergio. [...] He was not represented as a terrorist, that would be an anachronism, but as a violent man – which he was – to show that he was used by the Muslim world as a reason to murder and torture – which was promptly confirmed by the reaction to the cartoons.”
Nor Muhammad is a prophet to me (I am an atheist). But of course, that is not the question, the questions is that Muhamed is THE prophet for muslims,a dn the intend of this cartoons was defamatory or blasphemous. Again, I support the right to publish it, but the pretend to deny the intentions of the people who draw it or published it in Denmark. It´s to obvious to fool anybody.
“Where did I judge “all Muslims”? I did judge Islam.”
Wow…you didn´t judge all muslims…just the WHOLE Islam. That is why in your next sentence you ask why Jews, in general, don´t react in a violent manner. Again, who are you trying you fool?
“I do not recall Jews flying airplanes into high rises and killing thousands, do you? I recall Jews living in fear of their life during the reign of the Nazis, not people who published a cartoon Jews didn’t like living in fear of their life. That you would even make the comparison shocks one to the core.”
Let me guess this right…if some jews commited terrorists acts (which by the way, many of the acts of Israel state qualify against palestinians) or pushed a hardcore intolerant version of their religion, will you be making the same generalizations? Just to get things clear.
“Yes, I am a Nazi ”
No you are not. You are just acting with the same logic of anti semitism, you just don´t seem to being capable of ackowledging it . The Nazi example was just an hyperoble in the hopes of making you realize it.
September 11th, 2012 | 8:26 am
Sergio Méndez – And they were under the obligation to reprint them to satisfy you or anybody else in the name of “free speech”?
Come, Sergio, that comes across as hypocritical to me. They’re publishing a book about the cartoons… and don’t reprint the cartoons? What other motivation could there be? You yourself said that you support people stating “harsh criticism” of “intentions and methods”; why can’t Maximilian do so?
“Muslims” are people. “Islam” is a religion. I’m surprised you don’t acknowledge the distinction.
That’s… at best, woefully incomplete: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnRluVh41LI
September 11th, 2012 | 10:00 am
Joe: I think your memory might be off.
You’re right. I recalled that some people praised newspaper in the US and the UK for their “restraint” (i.e., self-censorship). I should have said that no major newspaper published the cartoons.
Joe: The fact is the cartoons themselves are easily accessible by Google search and availbe at wikipedia, so it’s very hard to argue they haven’t been extensively published in the United States
True, but by that argument, they have even been extensively published in Saudi Arabia. It’s an unfortunate fact that the major media in the US and the UK showed their cowardice.
September 11th, 2012 | 10:19 am
Sergio Mendez: Yes, the Catholic Chuch hierarchies, as you point, were against the publication of the cartoons. Who knows what most catholics had to say in that respect.
And many Americans supported the cartoonists, but the American government, as well as that former leader of the “free world”, Bill Clinton, made it their charge to condemn mostly the cartoons.
Sergio: As Joe Mc faul pointed above. And I hope you are not reducing the West to the United States, since many news papers in Europe also reprinted the cartoons.
No media outlet in the US reprinted the cartoons, other than university and alternative papers. Many papers, American and otherwise, bowed to censorship and thuggery by people who are used to getting their way by issuing threats and beheading journalists.
Sergio: Nor Muhammad is a prophet to me (I am an atheist).
A good definition of atheist might be: “person who opposes all religions, except Islam”. By no means all, but some atheists tend to take this strange position.
Sergio: But of course, that is not the question, the questions is that Muhamed is THE prophet for muslims
And what is the relevance of that? Should that immunize him from satire and criticism that people dole out to everyone else?
Sergio: a dn the intend of this cartoons was defamatory or blasphemous.
Suspicion always haunts the guilty mind. How is it that you claim to know the intent of the people who commissioned the cartoons, and the people who drew them? I would think that the mere fact that artists were censoring themselves, out of fear for their lives, in the 21st century, in a democracy that supposedly has free speech, would be more than enough to spur one to this enterprise.
As I have already pointed out, the cartoons were not defamatory – Muhammad was a violent man and a killer. Why should he be exempted from criticism and appropriate mockery? Why is it ‘blasphemy’, just because some people choose to regard him as their ‘prophet’? Is that somehow my problem?
Sergio: Wow…you didn´t judge all muslims…just the WHOLE Islam.
Islam is a belief system, and I judge it to be ridiculous and violent – like its founder. It wasn’t by peaceful means that Islam spread within a century from the deserts of Arabia to Spain, it was by Jihad intended to spread the religion.
Sergio: That is why in your next sentence you ask why Jews, in general, don´t react in a violent manner.
And you didn’t answer the question. You yourself compared Muslims to Jews, so I think it is entirely appropriate to ask: why is it that Muslims murder, burn and torture over cartoons, while Jews patiently suffer cretins who maliciously claim that their parents and grandparents were not branded and gassed like animals?
Sergio: Let me guess this right…if some jews commited terrorists acts (which by the way, many of the acts of Israel state qualify against palestinians)
Terrorism is by definition a non-state action.
Sergio: or pushed a hardcore intolerant version of their religion, will you be making the same generalizations?
There’s plenty of that – look at the sense of entitlement the ultra-Orthodox have in Israel. I am not fond of Judaism (or any religion), though individual Jews are often very decent people. But it can be interpreted in a way that is non-violent. This is impossible to do for Islam, without contriving a religion that bears little resemblance to Islam.
Sergio: No you are not. You are just acting with the same logic of anti semitism, you just don´t seem to being capable of ackowledging it . The Nazi example was just an hyperoble in the hopes of making you realize it.
Except that the Nazis targeted Jews not for any belief that they held, but for who they were. Semite is a reference to the ethnicity of a person, not someone’s religion. Nazis targeted the Jewish race, and they didn’t care whether the Jews they killed were religious, or even believed in a god. It is surprising that you don’t know this. The comparison between racism and criticism of a belief system is utterly ridiculous.
September 11th, 2012 | 2:07 pm
Ray:
I think there may be a reason not to publish this cartoons, and is not necessarily a question of fear, but a question of not wanting to escalate an aggression (or the intend of aggression) against Muslims. And technically I am still right: The right to publish is not an obligation to publish.
On the other side, I don´t think the distinction you are drawing between Islam and Muslims is clear in this discussion. In the context of the rise of xenophobia in Europe against Muslims, that idea doesn´t hold very well.
Maximilian:
“A good definition of atheist might be: ´person who opposes all religions, except Islam´. By no means all, but some atheists tend to take this strange position.”
First, let me get myself clear: I said, and I repeat it again, that I am 100% for the right of publishing defamatory or blasphemous material, including these cartoons. I think no religion should be immune to criticism. Second, an atheist is somebody who doesn´t believe in God, not somebody who opposes religion per se. There is a difference. I am not a big fan of Islam myself, and I think there is a lot to be criticize in that religion in its many different manifestations. But I do not define myself as opposed to Islam or Christianity, etc. And I certainly not opposed to believers as believers, even if I may disagree with them on many issues (including the existence of God).
Now, that there is freedom of speech to publish defamatory publications against a religion, doesn´t mean I support whatever the content is of neither those publications, nor that I do not think motifs and context matter to analyze them. A cartoon with Muhammad appearing as a terrorist certainly is not intended to be a constructive criticism of Islam, nor is precisely, a very deep criticism of that religion. It is an inflammatory publication with the intention to antagonize the Muslim immigrant population in Europe, a population that is in a context of material and numerical inferiority. Maximilian asks how do I know the intention of the authors of this cartoons? Well, the same way we all interpret what others do or write. I cannot read minds, I can only interpret based on content and context, and I haven´t seen any good argument that shows my interpretation is particularly flawed.
September 11th, 2012 | 5:02 pm
Sergio: I think there may be a reason not to publish this cartoons, and is not necessarily a question of fear
Hah, good one. CNN admitted on live TV that it was scared to death to publish these cartoons, even as the imams who whipped up the Muslim world against Denmark, a small democracy, were handing them out like they were going out of fashion. Interesting how a group of “offended” folk can arrogate to themselves and themselves only the right to distribute the cartoons, and to threaten with death anyone else who dares do the same.
Sergio: but a question of not wanting to escalate an aggression (or the intend of aggression) against Muslims.
That you would dare say, on September 11 no less, that cartoons constitute “aggression” makes me ill. How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like? You talk as if these were the first cartoons ever to be published. No, everyone is mocked, and no one responds in this manner, as I have pointed out repeatedly – and which point has been ignored by you every time.
Sergio: In the context of the rise of xenophobia in Europe against Muslims, that idea doesn´t hold very well.
Kurt Westergaard and the other cartoonists have to hide in bunker-like homes, or they will be murdered, and Muslims are the victims, because cartoons Muslims don’t like are published? Give me a break.
Sergio: First, let me get myself clear: I said, and I repeat it again, that I am 100% for the right of publishing defamatory
Like every other person, you nominally support free speech, while attacking anyone who stands up for free speech, in the face of terrorism and death threats. How about this, if you actually supported free speech, you would be applauding Jyylands-Posten’s refusal to be silenced by a radical religious group that wants to silence everyone by threatening murder.
Sergio: Second, an atheist is somebody who doesn´t believe in God, not somebody who opposes religion per se.
Atheists rarely, if ever, spring to the defense of Christianity, when it is attacked. But there is a significant contingent of atheists that is indifferent to attacks on any religion, except Islam. Hence my definition.
Sergio: I am not a big fan of Islam myself, and I think there is a lot to be criticize in that religion in its many different manifestations.
You’re not a big fan, but you demand the special privilege not to be offended for its adherents and its adherents alone?
Sergio: A cartoon with Muhammad appearing as a terrorist certainly is not intended to be a constructive criticism of Islam, nor is precisely, a very deep criticism of that religion.
Actually, Westergaard’s cartoon did no such thing, and it was intended as a criticism of Islam. It is very evident that you have not read what he has stated about his cartoon. It’s amazing that you issue vitriolic condemnations against those standing up for free speech, without knowing the full story. It is also interesting that you limit your attacks and condemnations to a man who is in hiding, and don’t speak a word of the people who attempt to silence others by using terrorism and death threats.
Sergio: I haven´t seen any good argument that shows my interpretation is particularly flawed.
You haven’t made a single argument, you simply keep repeating how outraged you are by this “blasphemy”. A good one, an atheist who is outraged about “blasphemy”. I can understand why religious people would think that G.K. Chesterton was right when he said that someone who does not believe in God will believe anything. A more perfect example for the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of politically correct cultural relativism than an atheist complaining about “blasphemy” cannot be found.
September 11th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
Maximilian:
“That you would dare say, on September 11 no less, that cartoon/s constitute “aggression” makes me ill. How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like?”
Read yourself man. You say you are not attacking Muslims “but Islam”, and then you go and make comments like this one. Like if by the actions of terrorists in 9/11 ALL Muslims have “to not to murder”. As if all Muslims committed or supported the 9/11. Is like you want me to say: “I rest my case”.
“You’re not a big fan, but you demand the special privilege not to be offended for its adherents and its adherents alone? ”
You have some reading comprehension problems. I never said that I demand no special privilege of members of a religion not to be offended. I said that I support the right to publish the cartoons. I never said that Muslims have the right to physically intimidate anybody who “offends them”. You are just making stuff. But I also suspicious of the intentions of the cartoonists and the people who published the cartoons, and the evidence is clear. You haven´t explained me how the cartoons consist in any way in a serious intend to criticize Islam and you still refuse to see the context in which they are produced.
You say that you are outraged that the people who published the cartoons are the real victims because they have to hide in bunkers. I do not deny that. But in the general picture Muslims as an immigrant population are not responsible for that, since not all Muslims are threatening to kill them, and in the big picture, it is still true that Muslims are a minority in Europe and in many places they suffer discrimination and persecution. You may pretend to deny that reality to, but it doesn´t make it go away.
“I can understand why religious people would think that G.K. Chesterton was right when he said that someone who does not believe in God will believe anything. A more perfect example for the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of politically correct cultural relativism than an atheist complaining about “blasphemy” cannot be found.”
This is ludicrous. I am not a moral relativist for starters, and more importantly I never said I was complaining about feeling outraged for the cartoons. The point is that for Muslims those cartoons are blasphemous. To acknowledge that other people may feel different than I do is not the same than sharing the feeling; that quote actually shows me why I am as an atheist not opposed to religious people per se, not even religion. You on the other side seem to share the fanaticism of the religions you criticize, since you are not interested in any way in having a civil discussion or relation with people who think differently than you. That sectarian mind is what I dislike in some forms of religion and philosophy, a fundamentalism way of thinking that appears in Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and yes, atheism.
September 11th, 2012 | 8:15 pm
Sergio: Read yourself man. You say you are not attacking Muslims “but Islam”, and then you go and make comments like this one. Like if by the actions of terrorists in 9/11 ALL Muslims have “to not to murder”. As if all Muslims committed or supported the 9/11.
I am merely pointing out that 9/11 was “aggression”, not printing a few cartoons. The actions we saw in response to the cartoons were “aggression”, not the cartoons. For some reason, there were no murderous mobs in the Islamic world, outraged over the fact that their religion had been used to justify the attacks of 9/11. No murderous mobs over stonings. No murderous mobs over the denial of women’s rights. But print a cartoon and folks are outraged. Why is that? And why is it that no other group is like that?
I repeat, there is no right not to be offended, and there is no exception for Muslims.
Sergio: I said that I support the right to publish the cartoons.
You nominally support the right to publish the cartoons, but you’ll attack and slander the people standing up for free speech, like Jyylands-Posten, while speaking not a word in condemnation of people who want to silence them with terrorism and murder. The former is “offensive”, the latter is not to be spoken of.
Sergio: But I also suspicious of the intentions of the cartoonists and the people who published the cartoons
As I said, suspicion always haunts the guilty mind.
Sergio: You haven´t explained me how the cartoons consist in any way in a serious intend to criticize Islam and you still refuse to see the context in which they are produced.
I pointed out the context to you, which you ignored. The context was that someone who wanted to write a book about Muhammad could not get an artist to paint a picture of Muhammad, for fear of being murdered. Now, think about it for a second. In democratic Denmark, in the 21st century, where there is supposed to be freedom of speech, artists dare not touch one subject, lest they be murdered. In response to this, not the fevered imaginings of a guilty mind, did Jyylands-Posten commission the cartoons. A dozen cartoons there were, not just the one by Kurt Westergaard which you mischaracterize. And after the cartoonists have been forced into hiding. After Danish embassies have been torched in multiple countries. After an attempted intimidation of a small, democratic country into abandoning free speech to pacify murderous mobs, you have the gall to state that it is the cartoons that are “offensive”?
Sergio: But in the general picture Muslims as an immigrant population are not responsible for that, since not all Muslims are threatening to kill them, and in the big picture, it is still true that Muslims are a minority in Europe and in many places they suffer discrimination and persecution.
One of your many assertions without evidence. They are so persecuted and discriminated against, that their worst grievance is the fact that Denmark allows cartoonists to draw freely, without having to submit their cartoons to murderous mobs. They are so persecuted that they have to strain themselves to find something to take offense at.
Sergio: I am not a moral relativist for starters
Not? How else are a couple of cartoons blasphemous to an atheist? Contrary to your most recent claims, you did not make the tautological statement that “Muslims consider these cartoons blasphemous”. You said that these cartoons are blasphemous, period. An atheist considers these cartoons blasphemous, because of a desert religion’s prohibitions on portraying its founder.
Sergio: The point is that for Muslims those cartoons are blasphemous.
Who is generalizing now?
Sergio: You on the other side seem to share the fanaticism of the religions you criticize
Because I am trying to silence cartoonists? Am I threatening to kill anyone who criticizes my ideas? No, if I did, you might start defending my ideas. I can only shake my head at this.
September 12th, 2012 | 8:31 am
Sergio Méndez –
Congratulations on the technicality. From a perspective of commentary and critique, however, it’s exceedingly difficult to address a visual representation without actually, y’know, showing that visual representation. In this case, it’s “it costs several thousand words to not print a picture”.
And of course, the whole point is that cartoons are not ‘aggression’. They most certainly are not violent aggression. Responding to them with violence is simply not acceptable.
Frankly, the only one I see trying to blur it in this discussion is you…
September 12th, 2012 | 8:47 am
Maximilian:
“I am merely pointing out that 9/11 was ´aggression´ , not printing a few cartoons.”
No you´re not. Let me point you what you are “merely”pointing, in your own words:
“How about Muslims learning that murdering and burning is not an appropriate response to a cartoon you don’t like”
Yes, you are saying that Muslims, as a whole, must “learn” that murdering and “burning” is not an appropiate response to a cartoon. All muslims. Those are your words, I am not making stuff here.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:10 am
Wait, Sergio Méndez – the sequence “all Muslims” doesn’t appear in the quote you produced. In fact, the only person who’s used that particular phrase in this discussion is… um… Sergio Méndez.
September 12th, 2012 | 11:12 am
Sergio: Yes, you are saying that Muslims, as a whole, must “learn” that murdering and “burning” is not an appropiate response to a cartoon. All muslims.
Lacking the word ‘all’ in my post, you simply invent it. Rather typical. You aren’t interested in the truth, the motivations of Jyylands-Posten, or of Kurt Westergaard, or of mine, you simply latch on to whatever straws are in your vicinity to defame and vilify them as much as you can. In all my days, I have never seen an atheist be as outraged about “blasphemy” as this. I also do not know why, in your opinion, Muslims are the sole possessors of the right not to be offended.
For all your complaining about the “blasphemy” of the cartoons, this is the first time that you express disapproval of the murderous reaction to it – and even this disapproval is not volunteered, but implicit in your half-baked defense of Muslims.
September 13th, 2012 | 12:27 am
The west has yet to understand that Hindus in India and in western nations are as anti-Christian as any of the other more traditionally recognized persecutors of Christ.
The world is just waking up to this fact. Persecution of Christians will continue as long as the West remains pagan and steeped in sin.
Wake up now, the hour is later than the forgetful ones think.
Recall the parable of the ten virgins. Many fell asleep.
Wake up O children of the West!
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact