Excerpts from John Hari’s article in The Independent:
In 2005, 12 men in a small secular European democracy decided to draw a quasi-mythical figure who has been dead for 1400 years. They were trying to make a point. They knew that in many Muslim cultures, it is considered offensive to draw Mohamed. But they have a culture too – a European culture that believes it is important to be allowed to mock and tease and ridicule religion. Some of the cartoons were witty. Some were stupid. One seemed to suggest Muslims are inherently violent – an obnoxious and false idea. If you disagree with the drawings, you should write a letter, or draw a better cartoon, this time mocking the cartoonists. But some people did not react this way. Instead, Islamist plots to hunt the artists down and slaughter them began. Earlier this year, a man with an axe smashed into one of their houses, and very nearly killed the cartoonist in front of his small grand-daughter.
This week, another plot to murder the cartoonists who drew caricatures of Mohammad seems to have been exposed, this time allegedly spanning Ireland and the United States, and many people who consider themselves humanitarians or liberals have rushed forward to offer condemnation – of the cartoonists. One otherwise liberal newspaper ran an article saying that since the cartoonists had engaged in an “aggressive act” and shown “prejudice… against religion per se”, so it stated menacingly that no doubt “someone else is out there waiting for an opportunity to strike again”.
Let’s state some principles that – if religion wasn’t involved – would be so obvious it would seem ludicrous to have to say them out loud. Drawing a cartoon is not an act of aggression. Trying to kill somebody with an axe is. There is no moral equivalence between peacefully expressing your disagreement with an idea – any idea – and trying to kill somebody for it. Yet we have to say this because we have allowed religious people to claim their ideas belong to a different, exalted category, and it is abusive or violent merely to verbally question them. Nobody says I should “respect” conservatism or communism and keep my opposition to them to myself – but that’s exactly what is routinely said about Islam or Christianity or Buddhism. What’s the difference?
This enforced “respect” is a creeping vine. It soon extends beyond religious ideas to religious institutions – even when they commit the worst crimes imaginable. It is now an indisputable fact that the Catholic Church systematically covered up the rape of children across the globe, and knowingly, consciously put paedophiles in charge of more kids. Joseph Ratzinger – who claims to be “infallible” – was at the heart of this policy for decades.
And the ever perceptive Jesus and Mo:
sorry, didn’t know where else to leave this:
“Hey tildeb,
Actually, yes, I did choose to fall in love with my wife. And I don’t think it’s inappropriate to ask the one who claims to love you to give you all or nothing. Would you allow your spouse to date others? Of course not. And if you truly love your spouse, then you’ll want to be with him/her forever, right? In the same way, God doesn’t ask for anything less than everything from us, for anything less wouldn’t be true love, would it?”
Comment by Pastor Andy — March 23, 2010 @ 10:02 pm |
Leave the comment at your blog and I’ll pop by to read and perhaps respond to what you’ve posted.
Comment by tildeb — March 23, 2010 @ 11:18 pm |
Oh, btw, thanks for stopping by & leaving a comment 🙂
Comment by Pastor Andy — March 23, 2010 @ 10:02 pm |
You’re welcome.
Comment by tildeb — March 23, 2010 @ 11:17 pm |