As a believer in something myself, it should be easy for me to side with the Muslims when their most revered prophet is portrayed insultingly. The secular media has gotten away with things like this for so long, insulting religious traditions, that at a certain level, I am glad that these haughty Western secularists are getting their comeuppance. But the burning of embassies, the calls for behaeadings, the burning of flags--this is not the response of a people who believe in a spiritual transcendent something. The Islamic culture, which at one time led the world in scientific knowledge, sophistication, and tolerance, is being hijacked by extremist thugs. We have Osama Bin Laden, we have Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and we have the various imams inflaming and inciting the poor Muslims to violent frenzy because of a cartoon. Where is the great sultan Saladin when you need him? Saladin was a picture of tolerance and humanity, teaching the European knights a thing or two about real chivalry, even as he championed the cause of Islam. He was like that because he was a devout Muslim, a true defender of Islam.
In a Washington Post article where Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose defends his decision to run the cartoons, he recounts an interview with a Danish stand-up comedian wherein the comedian admitted that he had no trouble urinating on the Bible in front of the camera, but he wouldn't do the same thing with the Koran. Why is that? Does the secular press think we Christians don't mind? That we'll simply turn the other cheek? Does the secular media think that believers are not offended by this sort of thing? Remember this is the same secular media that takes offense at prayer in public schools or the Ten Comandments in city hall.
If only the protests to the Danish cartoons were run by the moderates and not the extremists, I'll gladly add my voice to theirs. The callous disrespect of people's personal beliefs has gone on long enough. But as a civilized person, violence should be the last resort; not the first. I understand the outrage, I just don't understand--and condone--the violent protests. Extremist secularism should not be met by extremist fundamentalism.
In a Washington Post article where Jyllands-Posten editor Flemming Rose defends his decision to run the cartoons, he recounts an interview with a Danish stand-up comedian wherein the comedian admitted that he had no trouble urinating on the Bible in front of the camera, but he wouldn't do the same thing with the Koran. Why is that? Does the secular press think we Christians don't mind? That we'll simply turn the other cheek? Does the secular media think that believers are not offended by this sort of thing? Remember this is the same secular media that takes offense at prayer in public schools or the Ten Comandments in city hall.
If only the protests to the Danish cartoons were run by the moderates and not the extremists, I'll gladly add my voice to theirs. The callous disrespect of people's personal beliefs has gone on long enough. But as a civilized person, violence should be the last resort; not the first. I understand the outrage, I just don't understand--and condone--the violent protests. Extremist secularism should not be met by extremist fundamentalism.
1 comment:
another one bites the (Van Winkle) dust.
Post a Comment