"lucid remarks on the religion that is on the cutting edge of the 9th century."

LOL! You crack me up Mark.
Louise | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 6:48 am | #

"see the face of this subhuman zoophile space do you think he belongs to human space? surely not the crusader subhuman space is created for hell and we should thank god for that. why always the same who are insulting the ms faith?why always the same who kill the ms?we should assert that the vil crusaders remain vil crusaders they remain the evil space and they never change because they are the fuel's hell."
caeser from europe

One of the comments on the Al-Jazeera website. Truly frightening.
doubting thomas | 01.31.06 - 7:27 am | #

Frightening?
Oooh, right. Read the comments from readers on the Al Jazeera site. They're talking about freedom of speech and respect for religion, not Islam's right to persecute anybody, Muslim or Christian. Sheesh.
Anne | 01.31.06 - 7:38 am | #

Are you saying that the Christian religion *does* allow offense remarks by both Christians and non-Christians?
Rob | 01.31.06 - 8:00 am | #

Anne:
It's annoyingly hypocrtical for the Moslem to whine and get prissy about some innocuous cartoons of Mohammed and read the effluvia against Jews, Christians and other non-Moslems
Islam is a brittle religion because it's apologetics consist of the sword, the bomb, the spear and the pistol; it'll never develop a sophisticated apologetics to defend itself. Christians and Jews would expose Islam's incoherence

xavier
xavier | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 8:18 am | #

It took me a few posts to figure out "goos" and "geoos" and similar words were "jews".

It is highly ironic that they cry about intolerance when they won't even let Christians repair or build a church in their country, won't let them practice their religion in public, etc.

Welcome to life outside the Muslim cocoon.
c matt | 01.31.06 - 10:16 am | #

Oh, you mean Dar al-Harb?

That's okay. They'll convert it, by the sword, to Dar al-Islam, lickety-split.
Flambeaux | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 10:56 am | #

Rob:

Of course it does.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 11:44 am | #

Yes, Islam is intolerant and a threat to all we hold dear. But in the Catholic blogsphere there are interpretations of Vatican II's teaching on religious liberty (seen through the optic of Leo XIII's Immortale Dei) that come close to being a sort of Catholic Taliban theology. And one can find those who insist that the Holy Spirit approves of burning heretics (through an ahistorical interpretation of Leo X's condemnation of Luther).
Tom Haessler | 01.31.06 - 11:59 am | #

Perhaps everyone will do well to sit back and read the Pope's encyclical on "Divine Love". I think it is best to presume that when one is writing about another's religion they should imagine that they are writing either to an old childhood friend, or at least someone who one can imagine will be a future convert to Mother Church. This wouldn't forbid a healthy debate, but it would impose more of a "love your neighbor" mindset- which is a major concern of the pope's. Everyone is our neighbor, no one is excluded, not even an enemy. Speak truth in love, hate the sin but love the sinner, for there can be no love of God without an attempt to love God's human children- all of us guilty in what we do, or what we fail to do in Love's name. Signed by a frequent "clanging gong" hoping to repent with the aid of a very enlightening encyclical...It does seem that all of the past energy that was once devoted to demonizing and antagonizing Jews, is now being transfered to Muslims, and it is nowJews who are practically given a free pass when it comes to theological and political matters. NO one should get a free pass, not fellow Catholics, not Republicans, not conservatives, no one is above reproach and all are in need of constant reform. Preach the truth, the good news, but do so from a place where the heart and mind of Christ reigns supreme. A tough sell, but it is our Catholic faith, isn't it?
Timothy Shipe | 01.31.06 - 12:22 pm | #

Tom:

True. The thing is, such people are marginalized to comboxes, not running the show.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 12:25 pm | #

Yes, Timothy, you're entirely correct. But naive assumptions that "Islam is a religion of peace", etc. are not helpful. The Holy Father leads the way. The challenge is to foster contacts with Muslims (this is more part of the Church's job than the state's) for dialogue. The Holy Father is trying to prevent the clash of civilizations and insists (along with Hans Kung!) that dialogue among the world's religions is a necessary part of work for peace today. But it will lead to false eirenicism if Catholics are not prepared by in depth knowledge of Islam. Contact and dialogue should be seen as the path toward evangelization (not vulgar proselytism, evangelization will occur when we all learn more effective ways of practicing the program you've laid out).

Meanwhile, militant Islam presents serious political and military problems for the West which must be approached always with respect for natural law and international law limits (no torture, no kidnapping, no imposition of elections by military means without cultural preparation, etc.).

Tom Haessler
Tom Haessler | 01.31.06 - 12:42 pm | #

I am currently outreaching to local Muslims to build on some of the political issues we have in common, such as opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and more complete understanding of the post WWI history of the Middle East, which addresses the "Great Game" attitude of much of the Western powers with respect to the peoples of the regions. David Fromkin wrote an excellent, non-polemical history called - A Peace to End all Peace- which describes in bureacratic detail how the British set up and financed monarchs to rule in Iraq, in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and then TransJordan. As well the role of Britain's Christian zionists like their Prime Minister- I believe his name was Lloyd George. The end result of all of this meddling along with things not covered in his book- but of note would be the CIA coup of Iran's democratically elected nationalist but moderate Muslim prime minister M. Mossadegh, and even more recently the American role in promoting the jihadist movement during the Cold War, Israel's early support for Hamas, and the undermining of nationalists/socialists like Nassar. All of this points to a lot of accountability for a lot of people for the war we currently are in with Middle Eastern terrorism. Pope JPII called for this war to be less about military actions, and more about "a courageous and lucid analysis of the reasons behind terrorist attacks". The Church has been calling for much more attention to root causes for the violence- and this goes well beyond just a focus on how Islam is flawed as a religion- it includes much self-critical assessment of the history of colonialism, modern-day neo-colonialism, and a look at the double-standards in US approaches to Israel to that of Arab States and interests. I like what Pat Buchanan said about the threat of terrorism- that "they are over here, because we are over there". I don't think that American "interests" have been necessarily very benevolent towards the majority of Arab/Persian peoples, and this has, if not, created the violence now directed at American citizens, it has at minimum added gasoline to a fire you might argue is inherent to Islamic thought.
Timothy Shipe | 01.31.06 - 1:57 pm | #

"Of course it does."

Oh?

"Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.."
- Matthew 5:22

Liberal democracy may allow offensive remarks, but Our Lord does not. Don't confuse Christianity with the U.S. Constitution.
Rob | 01.31.06 - 2:36 pm | #

Rob:

Try reading Dignitatis Humanae. Error has no rights. Persons in error do. Our Lord's words are not a prescription for civil law.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 2:37 pm | #

"Of course it does."

Serious question: prior to the passage of the Bill of Rights in the US, was there ever a Christian country that did not have, and enforce, blasphemy laws?
Cyprian | 01.31.06 - 2:38 pm | #

"Our Lord's words are not a prescription for civil law."

Mark--
Right. That was exactly my point. This topic is comparing Muslim religious law to American civil law: apples and oranges. In a Christian theocracy, Matthew 5:22 might well be civil law, however.
Rob | 01.31.06 - 3:01 pm | #

But under Islam, Sharia is both religious and civil law.
c matt | 01.31.06 - 4:46 pm | #

c matt is right. There is no division between civil and religious law under Islam. The laws of men (civil law) hold no weight when compared to the laws of Allah (religious law).

It's true that our Lord wants us to speak kind of our neighbor (Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness), but comparing Christian and Islamic religious law is like comparing kiwis and bananas...our laws have been able to adapt to a civil law where religious expression is a right guaranteed to everyone.

And nations where Sharia is allowed to rule areas heavily populated by Muslims, civil law is all but lost. This is why "honor killings" are a common non-crime...the Sharia allows such activities, even if the country's overall civil law does not.
Amy P. | Homepage | 01.31.06 - 4:57 pm | #

But a Christian theocracy is hypothetically just as possible as a Muslim one, is it not?
Rob | 01.31.06 - 5:00 pm | #

True Christian theocracies have been few and short-lived: Calvin's Geneva and the early decades of Puritan Massachusetts. Sharia has been around for more than a thousand years, crushing Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians under the burdens of dhimmitude. Let's remember how those Muslim majorities emerged in the Middle East, Western Asia, and North Africa, shall we? Let's not be so naive as to imagine that if (ostensibly) Christian Europe had never colonized any other regions Muslims would be our loving chums. Consult Bat Ye'or for details, which include modern Christian facilitators of Muslim domination.
Sandra Miesel | 01.31.06 - 7:50 pm | #

It depends on how you define theocracy. If you mean that the ruling clerics of the church hold the power over all governinng institutions, then yes Christian theocracies have been rare. But in practice from the time of Constantine to the Enlightenment most Christians lived in societies where Christianity was the official religion and the government was expected to enforce some form of Christian orthodoxy.

Does anyone think they could have gotten away with mocking portrayals of Jesus in 4th century Rome, or 8th century Byzantium, or 15th century Spain, or 17th century England?

I agree that *today* virtually all Christians in the world accept a principle of freedom of speech that requires toleration of blasphemy. But this is a fairly late development historically. To simply say "Christianity allows free speech and Islam doesn't" is to disregard most of Christian history.
Cyprian | 01.31.06 - 8:15 pm | #

The bottom line is: if the state allows something, but Jesus Christ disallows it, to what rule is the Christian bound? If Christ disallows offensive remarks (Matthew 5:22), then they are disallowed, regardless of how a Judge Alito might rule on it.
Every Christian lives in a theocracy that is hidden in the midst of a society ruled by the "prince of this world". And that Christian best not forget that fact.
Rob | 02.01.06 - 5:39 am | #