Now that the article 'header' has your attention, I must inform you that this article is not about a Judeo-Christian war on Islam over the Danish cartoons, even if such is likely to soon take place, judging by the article Cartoonish Hypocrisy, co-Authored by J. Peter Pham.
Hamas, the freshly-elected majority in the PA legislature, graphically peddles on its website the notion that God demands the killing of Jews, and promises entry into paradise to those who would carry out that diabolical command: "We shall knock on heaven's doors with the skulls of Jews."
In the Magic City article entitled, America Must Preserve Its Culture by Christopher Adamo, Mr Adamo points out that...
"To date, few if any American newspapers have published the disputed cartoons. Yet these same individuals would immediately sound a clarion call if any Christian organization were perceived to be flexing its muscles in an attempt to similarly influence society....Europe�s abandonment of the Judeo-Christian foundations of its culture during the last century has left it devoid of any firewall against the enormous encroaching pressures of militant Islam. Certainly its insipid and fanciful premises of �social justice� and post-modernism are no match for Islamic zeal."
The issue I raise today is one of hypocrisy; the hypocrisy that says it is not OK to offend Muslims but it is OK to offend Jews and Christians.
When Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ' came out there was quite a bit of negative media coverage, so I went out and bought a copy (took me three weeks to get it to open - a common occurrence here in China), and having watched it, wondered what all the fuss was about.
The fuss of course was about treading on people's toes and giving offense. In "What Is a Picture of Muhammad, Anyway?," By Robert McHenry he points out that taking offense is often a choice by those seeking the moral high ground, or by those wanting to gain some leverage over others.
He writes: 'The case of unwitting offense (perpetrated by person A) clearly and properly places the onus on (person) B. B has choices. B can say, "You know, in our tradition we don't do that." He can say "There are those who would be quite provoked by what you have said [or done]." He can even ignore the whole incident. Or, of course, he may choose -- choose -- to indulge in an emotional outburst ranging in fervor from a rebuke to a rebellion.'
As far a Muslim offense at the Danish cartoons is concerned, what we have failed to understand is the importance that Muslims place on the religious life, and for them, there is no demarcation line between the secular and religious.
What I think is interesting about the Danish Cartoon debacle, is that the Muslim world has managed to manipulate the event and get people cowering, a feat that no Jew or Christian has managed in relation to the horrendous 'religious sacrilege' that every so often raises its' head under the banner of 'freedom of artistic expression'.
If we were to apply a western more sanitary version of the Muslim reaction to religious sacrilege, then maybe we too could reclaim some of the lost respect for our religions, and more than that, a respect for our traditional national cultures. We could for instance decide that (Here is the article header that caught your attention)...
These infidels should be cast out from amongst us; their public accreditations stripped; left with no place to hide or find work; no place from which they could escape public scorn and derision. It would be justified, as these people care nothing for our society, our traditions, our heritage, and we likewise should care nothing for them. They are not one of us!
We stand at the junction of two crossroads. One is called Hypocrisy, and the other called Truth. The Muslim world has backed us into a corner, and if we don't come out fighting them, but instead, cower before their great and terrible might, then we are hypocrites to continue to permit the ongoing public humiliation of our religious and therefore cultural heritage.
If the Muslims win this battle of religious and political correctness, then it is time for the religious folk in the West to stand up and act in similar manner to reclaim our own lost dignity.
So next time you hear someone running down someone for being religious, start up a campaign designed to disempower that complainer. Next time someone demands the removal of some religious icon, or worse, who defiles such an icon, raise all merry hell. Plaster their picture all over town, boycott their stores, work places, schools etc until they apologise for their behaviour.
If freedom of expression is a democratic right, the non believers have a right to express their non belief in any way they choose. But if these recent events are anything to go by, we will soon be required to have one standard of 'democratic freedom of expression' in relation to all things Muslim, and quite another in relation to all things Judeo-Christian.
Is that acceptable?
For the time being, whilst it is still permitted me, let me leave you with a depiction from a Muslim site, which I think is both funny and offensive.
R.P.BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
R.P.BenDedek (pseudonym) is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at www.kingscalendar.com, and is a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News. From Brisbane Queensland Australia, he currently teaches Conversational English in China.
The King's Calendar' is a synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. www.kingscalendar.com
Photographic Stories
