-
Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report
May 17, 2013 | 115 comments
-
Transsexual Flights from Reality
May 3, 2013 | 91 comments
-
State Funerals and Christendom
April 23, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Hero of Star Wars
April 19, 2013 | 45 comments
-
Margaret Thatcher the Methodist
April 9, 2013 | 38 comments
A Further Perspective
Libyan Horror, the Religious Left, and Free Speech
Liberal religionists express solidarity with the State Department’s party line.
In the wake of the attacks on the U.S. embassies in Egypt and Libya, and especially the murders in Libya, will the Religious Left defend free speech or align with demands that Islam’s critics be silenced?
Some U.S. religionists seem angrier over the elusive anti-Islamic film that supposedly provoked Islamist mobs into mayhem and murder than over the attacks themselves. That Koran burning Terry Jones, the bizarre pastor of a small Florida congregation evidently touted the film, has also enraged Religious Leftists, who have implied moral equivalence between insulting Islam and murder.
Already fortified by two decades or more of multiculturalism, 9-11 only amplified the Religious Left’s zeal for accommodation of every variant of Islam. Radical Islam, with its fierce intolerance for the sexually liberated and free thinkers, not to mention empowered women, should terrify liberal religionists in the West. But the Religious left has fairly studiously avoided direct critique even of Taliban-style theology, preferring more vaguely to disparage religious extremism.
The implication is sometimes that zealous Christians in America are as threatening as al Qaeda. In fact, the Religious Left always has fired far more specific and frequent rhetorical salvos at conservative Christians, evangelical and Catholic, who are deemed the main obstacle to the Religious Left’s cultural and sexual agenda. Never mind that ardent Muslims, with widespread support even in moderate Muslim societies, favor capital punishment for sexual malefactors and religious dissenters. The Religious Left, despite its global rhetoric, was always more concerned about domestic politics than human rights for anybody in Iran or Saudi Arabia.
And it has always been a source of pride among liberal religionists that they are supposedly more attuned to the sensitivities of other religions, primarily Islam, than are more provincial conservative Christians. The head of Southern Methodist University’s seminary carefully explained the latest situation yesterday.
“American Muslims understand that built into the fabric of their religious convictions is the tenet that representing the Prophet Muhammad in any way would be abhorrent,” said William Lawrence, dean of United Methodism’s Perkins School of Theology in Dallas. “Conversely, American Christians are very familiar and quite comfortable with depictions of Jesus dying on the cross. But it’s not the role of American Christians to tell others what the tenets of their religion should be simply because they don’t recognize them in their own religious traditions. So this should prompt an important discussion about why such a tenet is significant in Islam.”
Should Muslims be able to ban depictions of Muhammad through civil law or intimidation? Lawrence didn’t say. Instead he continued: “In our society we have a very high level of commitment to freedom of speech, including the freedom to say something utterly reprehensible. But in many other parts of the world, that freedom isn’t constitutionally assured. In those societies, the actions of the U.S. film producers (behind ‘Innocence of Muslims’) just wouldn’t be tolerated.”
True enough, but does the United Methodist seminary dean have any preference for either perspective, i.e. free speech versus blasphemy laws? If so, he demurred. Instead, Lawrence concluded in neutral terms: “It has been interesting to see the U.S. Secretary of State and President Obama — as well as political leaders in Yemen, Egypt and Libya, whose political systems are still in development — condemn the content of the film while at the same time condemn the violence that has erupted over it. And it is encouraging to see the leaders of those countries say that the people of the United States aren’t to blame over the work of one person.”
Should we be “encouraged” that majority Muslims societies still generate rage, however contrived or exploited, over an obscure film half a world away that may or may not exist? Lawrence evidently discerns common ground between Muslim Arabs and Americans leaders who equally denounce murder and the production of low quality insulting pseudo films.
More specific than the United Methodist seminary dean was liberal Baptist clergy Welton Gaddy of the Interfaith Alliance, which was founded in the 1990s primarily to combat the Religious Right. Writing for the Washington Post, he surmised “how much work is left to be done before we fully eradicate the prejudice and heal from the wounds inflicted 11 years ago.” The implication is that anti-Islam sentiment in America since 9-11 is as much if not more the problem than radical Islamic terror.
Noting “violence and hatred cannot be the basis for dialogue between the U.S. and the Arab world (really??), Gaddy lamented that “anti-Muslim bigotry that has become all too pervasive in the United States.” The maker of the “hateful anti-Muslim film knew full well that it would provoke anger” among Muslims, he lamented. “We saw what hate brought on Sept. 11, 2001 and we saw what hate looked like when Terry Jones threatened to burn a Koran last year,” he opined, as though destroying a holy book were morally on par with murder.
Gaddy explained that Libya has emerged from years of dictatorship so Libyans would misunderstand that an American film must have government approval. “We will do well to intensify our efforts to promote respect for religious freedom and strive for interreligious understanding every day, which will help create a new context for the inevitable misstatement or offensive remark that provides a framework within which the wrong quickly can be resolved.”
But does “religious freedom” for Gaddy and others on the Religious Left include the right, as guaranteed in America’s Constitution, to attack Islam through film or publicity stunts? Of course Americans have long endured a media and arts culture that routinely mocks Christianity. Should only attacks on Islam merit special regard and protection?
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, birthed by Eleanor Roosevelt, and once universally revered by secular and religious liberals, unequivocally declares in Article 18: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.” And Article 19 says: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
Should critics of Islam, whether thoughtful or stupid, have full freedom of religion and freedom of expression? Enmeshed by radical multiculturalism, and intimidated by violent overseas mobs as well as by domestic political correctness, the Religious Left, among others, seems increasingly ambivalent about these rights.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Appleby| 9.14.12 @ 7:00AM
The choice of your religion is not Cocoa Puffs v. Fibre One. Those of us who are religious, in the old fashioned sense of the world (i.e., we don't view church as a social club where we hang out on the High Holidays and otherwise just send in the cheques) have made a serious study of the matter and prayerfully considered before making a commitment -- and devout Catholics, to speak of the religious affiliation I myself have chosen, accept the entire package of beliefs, not just the ones we think are Fun or Cute or Okay, and do our best to study them and understand what they actually mean. And believe it or not, when Occupiers or silly people or Hippie Scum denigrate out beliefs, mock and laugh at them and demand that we surrender them in the name of Common Humanity's belief that free, unlimited sex and Toxic Envy are what ought to rule the world, we get just as angry as the Muslims do. Of course, y'all count on our not blowing up your businesses, burning down your houses and shooting RPGs at you. If I were you, in these End Times, I'd think that one over. It may not always be thus....
Jack in Wi| 9.14.12 @ 7:50AM
The people who made this film and put it on the internet were not Christians. Millions of Christians will suffer in Muslim countries because of badly made peace of trash. I believe in religious liberty and free speech but the makers of this film wanted this result. They want endless war between Chritians and Muslims. Who do we know that wants that?
RCV| 9.14.12 @ 11:18AM
More antisemitic screed from Jack, blaming "the Jews" for this film.
In fact, it was made by one of his friends. An Egyptin Arab, twice-convicted felon, who pretended that he was "an Israeli Jew" and that the film was financed by American Jews, apparently so that blame would be directed to them. Of course, antisemites like Jack ate this up.
Jack in Wi| 9.14.12 @ 3:19PM
That's a nice fairy tale RCV. Brilliant in execution like most of the false flag operations. What sane Coptic Christian would do such thing. The Copts have lived under Muslim rule for well over a thousand rule. One thing they all know is you don't insult the Prophet out loud. The misery and hate this film is causing is beyond belief. There was nothing anti-semitic in my comment. As I have said many ties here I love the Jews and want them following God, the Torah and the 10 Commandments. Virtually all bad crimes done by people of Jewish ethnicity have been done by people who have abandoned God, the Torah and the 10 Commandments. Of course I wish they really got smart and became Christians, but rightous Jews is good enough.
RCV| 9.14.12 @ 3:33PM
It's no fairy tale, Jack. We know who the guy is. We know his name, his criminal record, the place where he lives in Southern California, and the Coptic Church here he used to attend. Sorry it doesn't fit in with your hope that it was the work of Jews.
Jack in Wi| 9.14.12 @ 7:42PM
This guy, who is nothing but a shadow, is a front man for someone else. Someone who wants trouble between, Muslims and Christians and just before the election. Who could that be? Well whoever did it was brilliant because he has succeeded beyond his dreams.
RCV| 9.14.12 @ 7:01PM
You're such a putz, Jack.
"A man who claims to be the producer of an anti-Islam movie that has sparked violent protests across the Arab world and in several Muslim-majority countries says he has no regrets about making the film.
'No, I do not regret it. I am saddened by the killing of the ambassador but I do not regret making it,' Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a 55-year-old Egyptian Copt living in California, told American Arabic-language Radio Sawa.
He was referring to the killing of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other Americans in an attack on the U.S. consulate in the Libyan city of Benghazi by a mob reportedly angered by the film, 'Innocence of Muslims.'
'I am the one who leaked the 14 minutes and put it on the Internet – I am thinking about releasing the full film. Nobody manipulated my film,' Nakoula said."
Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Ne.....z26UJS2tbc
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
TLP| 9.14.12 @ 9:56AM
THERE IS A CONTEST that can be found on Paul Kengor's Article.
Everyone is Welcome, and I hear that there will be Prizes.
Those who missed the last one?
Here's your Chance.
C'mon Applepie.
Don't be a Stick in the Canadian Mud.
It'll be Fun.
Von Mises Jr| 9.14.12 @ 7:26AM
"Freedom" and "Liberalism" have become terms that are used to describe the exact opposite of their historic meaning" (F.A. Hayek - Socialism and War - 1997 - p 189). When Von Mises and Hayek wrote of "Liberalism," they were describing more today what is understood as libertarianism: small government, capital markets and freedom to pursue one's individual goals. The socialist have co-opted the word and it is now virtually synonymous with socialism.
"Freedom" has been perverted to mean freedom from want (free housing, food, clothing, birth control, personal responsibility) versus its classical meaning of inalienable rights to pursue one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness (use and dispose of property as one desires).
So the issue is NOT that classical liberals have compromised their principles. The issue is that current day liberals are socialist and in unison with the worldview of Muslims for a state or Sharia based society with minimal individual rights.
In fact both movements are virtually the same in that one is statist and the other religiousism, exaggerated piety or religious zeal.
Doctor Right| 9.14.12 @ 11:21AM
Actually, both are COMPLETELY statist; one merely posits a religious figure as the "Dear Leader," while the other is a secular, political figure.
As you indicate, their goals are the same - total control of society, and the elimination of individual liberty.
John786| 9.14.12 @ 7:53AM
Extremism does not come out of vacuum. The video in question is a product of rampant Islamophobia, now prevalent in Right wing nuts, evangelicals, and many Zionist factions.
tdiinva| 9.14.12 @ 9:44AM
It appears that the Isamophobes are on to something. Muslims use any excuse to kill non-Muslims. Funny thing is that they will kill you leftwing nuts before they kill off Christians and Jews. In their mind at least they believe in God.
Jade12| 9.14.12 @ 11:48AM
Exactly they will be in the front of the line for the beheading block when that their "useful idiot" days are over.
Doctor Right| 9.14.12 @ 11:24AM
I've watched parts of the video in question, and although it's not well written or well-acted, I found it's depictions of Muslim societies to be spot-on accurate.
I was particularly engrossed by the scenes of anti-Christian pogroms.
Are you implying that these things DON'T happen?
From what vacuum did your moronic anti-Semitism spring forth, Jack??
Al Adab| 9.14.12 @ 2:00PM
John my friend:
The internet is repleat with balsphemous videos, films, speeches, etc. about religious figures, leaders, prophets and so on. I fear this is simply being used as an excuse by those who would turn a great religious tradition to their own political puposes.
I have no doubt that many have learned to fear Islam due to the actions of some in its name. That is a sad fact which reasoned discourse can help overcome. I trust there are many honest men here who can seperate religious belief from evils perpetrated in its name. We know thare has been enough of that over the centuries.
John786| 9.14.12 @ 2:53PM
Sheikh Al Adab,
I agree. The hate video should not have led to any deaths. It would have been better for the demonstrators to put their energy into a positive direction. These events have now become totemic for deeper issues which are well known. It is my firm belief that the Muslim people and America can build a mutually beneficial relationship. Relying on wars will help no one. This is why I continue to urge dialogue and no war in Persia
Al Adab| 9.14.12 @ 3:50PM
John:
As we note, the American acceptance of free speech, even when it is vicious or blasphemous, is one of the cultural factors which sets this nation apart from others even our Canadian or European friends. Sadly that perspective is not shared more widely. In that regard the US remains a light to others showing the value of such tolerance. I fear the current US administration will grossly mishandle these events.
I cannot share with you optimism about Iran as it seems to be in the hands of extremists (for want of a better word) bent on bringing the Mahdis' return. Rather like the pre-millenial Christians, oui? The great people of Persia were and could be again a powerful force for the betterment of the nations of the region. The saddest words, "it might have been".
I wish with you that these rioters would create rather than destroy. The possibilities for Gaza when it was returned to its people is an example. There could have been created the Hong Kong or Monte Carlo of the eastern Med. Instead it became a self-destructive, disfunctional "state".
These people do their cause more harm than good through such actions and now the attacks have spread to other countries and against other nations than just the US. Violence begets violence and there are few ways out. We must share that coffee some day.
CJW| 9.14.12 @ 5:32PM
Al Adab
I believe if Obama wins, then Israel will attack Iran because it believes Obama will nothing, except talk, to stop Iran's nuclear program.
The only chance to avoid the war is if Romney wins and informs Iran that we will attack and destroy their program.
The three stooges, Hillary/Biden/Obama, have no credibility in foreign affairs and are perceived as weak and incopetent because they are weak and incompetent.
The three stooges are more concerned with getting condoms for Sandra Flucke than the security of the USA. Obama missed 57% of the presidential security briefings, and all such briefings during the week of Sept 6 leading to the attacks that killed four Americans.
A disgrace.
Tom Kyba| 9.15.12 @ 2:14PM
Sometimes you have a point; most times, as now, expressing your dhimmitude makes you the putz.
Tom Kyba| 9.15.12 @ 2:16PM
This comment was directed to john 786ZERO.
tdiinva| 9.14.12 @ 9:31AM
There is a simple explanation to explain the left's behavior in this and any incident that involves Muslims. You can find it in the school system's approach to bullying -- "A bully is just a friend you haven't made yet." Religous liberals are just putting this idea into practice at a higher level. If we just give the bully (Muslims) what they want then they will like us. On the school yard this approach gets you beaten up and your lunch money stolen; in the larger world it gets you killed.
Doctor Right| 9.14.12 @ 11:29AM
I think you're onto something here, but I'd like to add that much of what drives liberals vis-a-vis "relations" with the Islamic world is really just pure fear.
Liberals reacted the same way to communism and the Soviet Union. They favored appeasement and endless concessions to keep the Soviets from "getting upset," supposedly in the fear that the Russians were willing to risk an all-out nuclear war over any perceived slight or less-than-favorable negotiation.
For example, does anyone remember the absolutely hysterical reaction that Liberals had when Reagan made his "We have outlawed Russia, forever..." joke during a simple mike-check?
Liberals are pusillanimous cowards. They would sell us out for 30 pieces of silver if they thought it would save their worthless hides.
Liberals ought to sart worrying about pissing US off...
spike59| 9.14.12 @ 12:22PM
'we don't want any trouble'...last words spoken before the bully stomps the wimp into the ground...followed by 'wha happened? i gave him what he waaaaaaaaanted...'
Al Adab| 9.14.12 @ 2:04PM
What we have is an administration unprepared for the events taking place today. A lack of planning and the disregard of a need for political, economic and military options due to a utopian world view has led this administration astray. They find themselves faced with a reality on the ground which belies their Faith in appeasement. This creates a dangerous time for the security of this nation which should be, but apparently is not, the first priority of this government.
JD| 9.14.12 @ 5:30PM
The liberal "Christian" in the article said, "it's not the role of American Christians to tell others what the tenets of their religion should be simply because they don't recognize them in their own religious traditions. "
Yet the hypocritical Left constantly tries to dictate to Christians what Christian tenets can be, and yesterday, in a rare slip-up, Hillary Clinton dictated to Muslims what Islam should be. She said "Violence has no place in religion". Clearly, for some religions, violence IS a component. Clinton dictated otherwise, while continuing to fraudulently claim to oppose no religion.
In recent years we have seen liberals assert that homosexuality, abortion, adultery, and socialism are Christian tenets. The examples are too numerous to count. Sometimes they do it to insult us. More often they do it to convince us to embrace these things, or to call us hypocrites for not embracing them.
No one gets to dictate anyone else's beliefs to him. If this liberal tactic alone were to be somehow eliminated, the world would change greatly.
Purp| 9.14.12 @ 6:50PM
No, JD, no religion preaches violence - it's the people who wield their religion like a sword that make it so.
And, they will be punished by HIM when the time comes.
caitlin| 9.14.12 @ 5:35PM
I haven't seen the infamous film. I haven't searched around enough to find someone who has. Even you, Mr. Tooley, called it "an obscure film...that may or may not exist." What I've heard is that it has no educational or even comedic value. The intent of the author was to rile up the terrorists. To me it's like poking a dog with a stick knowing he may bite you and any bystanders. It's irresponsible and takes advantage of our free speech amendment. Should the U.S. apologize? No. The murder victims deserve more attention, of course, but that guy who made that film should be at least chastised for acting like a preschooler who's testing his parents rules.
Kingofthenet| 9.14.12 @ 5:55PM
There were three third graders -- a Baptist, a Catholic, and a Mormon -- at the playground trying to decide what game to play. The Baptist said, "I'm tired of basketball, baseball and soccer; lets play a game I heard about from my older brother called 'who has the longest hose'".
So the Baptist boy whips out his and it's about three inches, the Catholic pulls his out and it's about four inches, the Mormon pulls his out and it's about six inches.
The Baptist and Catholic boys say, "Darn, you win again; you always win!"
Then the Mormon went home and told his mom, "Hey Mom, I won another game today, it's called 'who has the longest hose'. Mine was almost twice as long as the other boys, is that because I'm a Mormon, Mom?"
His mom answered, "No, son, it's be cause you are 22."
Alex Feltham | 9.15.12 @ 6:12AM
It's not just the MSM. The entire Liberal elite don't seem to get the importance of free speech.
Her's how it looks from London:
http://john-moloney.blogspot.com/
ElGordo| 9.15.12 @ 10:09AM
Jimmy Carter lost Iran
.
Pres. Obama lost Egypt and Libya
.
Either Obama is naive about the Muslim Brotherhood or he wants them to take over the Mideast.
.
See O'Reilly's Super Bowl Interview of Pres. Obama on Youtube where O'Reilly warns Obama about the Muslim Brotherhood...
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6HyXCHndmk
gazinya | 9.15.12 @ 1:57PM
Perhaps it would take the burning and murder of the Lybian and Egyption embassies to get the world to call Christanity a 'religion of peace.' Maybe attacking and murdering some Islamists coming out of Friday Prayers or locking them in their Mosques and setting fire to them before we will ever be on a 'spirititual plane' equal to the current 'religion of peace', Islam. But, of course, these actions would deny us the Heaven that Jesus went to prepare for those that 'TRUELY' accepted Him. We would end up 'hoping' that there actually is a dieity somewhere in this Universe that would actually reward us for this souless, barbaric worldview.
'Leave room for the Wrath of God' in your hearts but let's not leave the room for these godless dolts.
jfxgillis | 9.15.12 @ 7:05PM
Hmmmm.
You're including the Vatican itself as "Religious Left"?
http://www.news.va/en/news/fr-.....n-essentia
ElGordo| 9.15.12 @ 10:44PM
The ingrates are even rioting against the U.S. in Kuwait City, Kuwait.
ElGordo| 9.16.12 @ 9:08AM
OBAMA GIVES MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD FRONT ROW SEATS AT HIS 2009 CAIRO SPEECH
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRewMy7PSX4
.
https://a12iggymom.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/theyre-here-and-in-our-government-hamas-muslim-brotherhood-and-hezbollah/
Nixonfan| 9.24.12 @ 3:16PM
I am pleased to see Islam discussed in non-colonial terms by SMU: "It's not the role of American Christians to tell others what the tenets of their religion should be simply because they don't recognize them in their own religious traditions. So this should prompt an important discussion about why such a tenet is significant in Islam."
I agree that interfaith dialogue is important. But if such a dialogue is to be conducted in a non-patronizing, non-colonial spirit, then not just blasphemy but indeed all of the tenets of Islam and Shiari'ah must be part of the debate, such as the death penalty for apostasy, the mandate to kill Jews in God's name, the status of women, and a non-congenial reaction to marriage equality and the gay rights agenda. Let's talk about those issues in our interfaith dialogue. Are all Jews satanic? Should women be chattel? Should we execute all gays or just some of them? Can a retarded 11-year old girl commit blasphemy, and what should be the punishment? Is it more virtuous to kill a Jew or a crusader? This could be a very productive discussion, with SMU serving as an excellent venue.