Charles Krauthammer points out the hypocrisy of "moderate" voices in the cartoon controversy. From the Washington Post, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
As much of the Islamic world erupts in a studied frenzy over the Danish Muhammad cartoons, there are voices of reason being heard on both sides. Some Islamic leaders and organizations, while endorsing the demonstrators' sense of grievance and sharing their outrage, speak out against using violence as a vehicle of expression. Their Western counterparts -- intellectuals, including most of the major newspapers in the United States -- are similarly balanced: While, of course, endorsing the principle of free expression, they criticize the Danish newspaper for abusing that right by publishing offensive cartoons, and they declare themselves opposed, in the name of religious sensitivity, to doing the same.God save us from the voices of reason.
What passes for moderation in the Islamic community -- "I share your rage but don't torch that embassy" -- is nothing of the sort. It is simply a cynical way to endorse the goals of the mob without endorsing its means. It is fraudulent because, while pretending to uphold the principle of religious sensitivity, it is interested only in this instance of religious insensitivity.
Have any of these "moderates" ever protested the grotesque caricatures of Christians and, most especially, Jews that are broadcast throughout the Middle East on a daily basis? The sermons on Palestinian TV that refer to Jews as the sons of pigs and monkeys? The Syrian prime-time TV series that shows rabbis slaughtering a gentile boy to ritually consume his blood? The 41-part (!) series on Egyptian TV based on that anti-Semitic czarist forgery (and inspiration of the Nazis), "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," showing the Jews to be engaged in a century-old conspiracy to control the world?
A true Muslim moderate is one who protests desecrations of all faiths. Those who don't are not moderates but hypocrites, opportunists and agents for the rioters, merely using different means to advance the same goal: to impose upon the West, with its traditions of freedom of speech, a set of taboos that is exclusive to the Islamic faith. These are not defenders of religion but Muslim supremacists trying to force their dictates upon the liberal West.
I love you Krauthammer! Krauthammer for president!
Excellent article, Krauthammer! But he needs to take it a step further. If the moderate Muslims are really just window dressing and PR agents, then this cartoon rage is the norm. The Muslim world rejects free speech and since free speech is a pillar of democracy then the Muslims reject democracy. So call off the Iraq the Model project and reverse Muslim immigration to the West. Wake up Charles! Just admit you were wrong about Iraq and let's work to fix this mess!
Please join me in a letter campaign to MSM news organizations to print the Danish cartoons in defiance of Islamic rule over and submission of the Western World.
(here are a few)
Washington Post
===============
letters@washpost.com
New York Times
==============
letters@nytimes.com
executive-editor@nytimes.com
managing-editor@nytimes.com
Los Angeles Times
=================
letters@latimes.com
Washington Times
================
http://www.washtimes.com/contact-us/
My letter:
Print Those Cartoons in Defiance of Islamic Submission!
Show some courage! Defend our country's right to freedom of speech! Do not be silenced into submission!
Do something. Or do nothing and have your daughters suffer the consequence when they are forced to wear hajibs and endure repeated beatings and rapings, and your sons brainwashed into becoming suicide bombers.
Which do you choose? Courage or submission?
I usually agree with Krauthammer. However, there are a handfjul of Muslim voces that do protest the demonization of Jews, Christians, etc. Then again, they're in exile, or possibly on the way to conversion to something else...
(PS. Did you express this much religious sensitivity or political correctness with Andres Serrano's Piss Christ?)
I disagree with Krauthammer … the cartoons are true, what Arabs say about Jews are lies.
This is something people are forgetting. Mohammad was a violent man. For the moment, forget about the reaction (even though it is consistent with the example of Mohammad). Focus on the message in the cartoon. Is it true that Mohammad was violent? Who can deny that? Is it true that Mohammad terrorized critics? What happened to the Poetess who dared to criticize Mohammad? Is it true that Mohammad plundered and slaughtered?
Let’s focus on the truth. Sure, the cartoon style has its faults but the content is in essence true. Krauthammer missed the proverbial elephant in the room.
I have similiar threads about talk radio, they do no like the cartoons, but denfend their right to be published. the cartoons are effective as there is truth to them, that is why they are so important for a free society. l have emailed to various print medias thanks to the links ahead!
need to make the left who control the print media and major broadcast ashamed of their lack of any courage.
Krauthammer has been a stout supporter of the Democracy-Is-On-the-March business. He is changing, but his long devotion to the Administration, his cheerleading for the Iraq Tarbaby, his failure to see that only two things matter now -- stopping Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons (and certainly not preventing or failing to help another country do so), through one or possibly a series of attacks, and stopping in its tracks, and reversing, the islamization of Europe.
One's enthusiasm for this writer depends therefore on his coming to understand that he had not done the work previously necessary (has he done it yet?) to come to a conclusion as to whether or not the Bush Adminstration, not in the perfectly justified attempt to discover, and destroy, any major weaponry, but in its further messianic aim to bring "democracy" (which necessarily required a loss of Sunni power to the Shi'a) to Iraq, and in so doing, to create Iraq the Model (why any Sunni Arab state would take a formerly Sunni-ruled, now Shi'a-ruled state as a "model" is unclear -- perhaps no one took seriously the Sunni-Shi'a divide, or thought it could be overcome, as apparently such a problem never was mentioned by Chalabi, Allawi, Makiya, or any of the other Shi'a advisers on the Future of Iraq who played such a prominent role in forming the views, and creating the expectations, of Washington officals). Krauthammer never gave any sign of being other than an enthusiast for the Administration's policy in Iraq, never showed the slightest skepticism, never showed any hint of disenchantment with this misallocation of men, money, materiel, never gave a hint that just perhaps remaining in Iraq not only would not help, but positively hinder, efforts to deal with the much more important problem (it always was more important) of Iran's weapons project and malevolence, and with the potential islamization of Europe.
One waits, not for an admission of mistake (that would never do, not by any of those involved, including some prominent repeaters of the "moderate Muslims are the solution" mantra that they came up with a while ago, and who will simply change their tune, without any express recognition of how wrong their analysis has been, and instead blandly alim that they have been "saying it all along"), but at least some sign that the obstinacy of the Bush-Rice course, in its failure to come up with an energy policy (the $120 billion added to the budget for Iraq and Afghanistan amounts to 24,000 times the amount -- $5 million -- added to the budget for wind energy, which tells us a good deal), in its continued adherence to the nonsense of some absurd "two-state solution" (Israel's borderss do not matter to Muslims; an Infidel sovereign state simply cannot be permitted to exist -- once that is understood, then we can either throw Israel to the wolves, in the hope that that buys time (time to do what?) or the Western world can do something else, and back Israel to the hilt, back it more than the Israeli leaders themselves now back Israel, and recognize not only the moral collapse that failure to protect and support Israel would bring on, but that Muslim control of the Holy Land would swell Muslim triumphalism that must, at all costs, be prevented -- for the sake of Infidels everywhere else as well as those in the Middle East.
Krauthammer needs to see, at long last, that the Administration, having placed America's bets on Iraq the Model, Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations, was wrong. It was wrong because Bush and Rice and others do not, cannot, will not understand that Islam itself, and not some "perversion" of the "noble faith," is a permanent menace to Infidels everywhere. Some Muslims may not believe in military Jihad, but only in other methods. Some may not support the idea altogether -- but most do, just as most Believers support the imposoition of Shari'a. Why should the evidence of what is in Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, and what the history of Islamic conquest shows, continue to be denied, explained away, or perhaps not even considered?
Krauthammer's long support, so uncritical and so confused, for the Bush Administration's messianic belief in "democracy" -- initially as a panacea, and now reduced to a mere palliative -- is something he, and a good many other "conservatives," will simply have to reconsider. Otherwise they will look as ridiculous as the Adminstration will look if it continiues to spend hundreds of billions on this tarbaby, working to prevent, rather than doing nothing to prevent, the sectarian and ethnic divisions that could so easily be exploited for the purposes of increasinig division and demoralization within Dar al-Islam.
Krauthammer and so many others like him should ask: was the Iran-Iraq War a good thing for Infidels, or was it not? Would hostilities between Sunnis and Shi'a in Iraq, especially if they draw in men, money, materiel from both Saudi Arabia and, on the other side, the Islamic Republic of Iran (think of the dilemma for the Alawites in Syria -- do they help Iran, or do they worry about their own Sunni population? Or can they continue to help both sides in order to remain in power, and hence alive?)?
We'll see how far Krauthammer chooses to educate himself about Islam, about the only two things that now matter -- Iran's nuclear project, and the islamization of Europe -- and the thing that doesn't, that tarbaby in Iraq.
JasonP,
Exactly right. I said months ago that one
could make cartoons showing Muhammad as a
handsome man, with no satire, showing the deeds
of evil that he performed, which are written down
in canonical mohammadan religious texts. It's
the deeds that are evil.
Still, I admit that the reaction to the
cartoons is waking a lot of people up.
Krauthammer is taking his first baby steps (no
offense to CK intended!) towards the truth.
Hugh,
Good point about CK and Iraq. He certainly
could have supported the initial war with no
problem, but the nation building nonsense is
too much. John Derbyshire made a good point about
that in an article form a few years back, about
the speech he wishes GWB had given.
JasonP-
Exactly what I have been emailing in protest to the supine Press and electronic media in the U.S.-
-what is the truth about this guy Mohammad?
Was he a violent warlord who started the Imperialistic mission of a cult of tyrannical theocrats, based on sanctioned theft, sacred slaughter, divine deception, false treaties, assassination, humiliation, slander, slavery and a little pedophilia on the side?
Or was he just a vague "relgious" figure who nobody knows anything about?
Then ask them to read the Hadiths, at least, for the news about his sordid, shameful life.
Let them Muslim "historians" have their say!
Reprint what the accepted stories about the "prophet" are within Islam.
Let's educate the public!
But, it's as if that were all discussing something with learned expressions, and all pretending they know what the topic is, but when you hear every word that spills from their moronic mouths, you get the creeping realization that NOBODY here in the press has done their basic, mandatory fundamental homework.
Is it out of fear -that they DO NOT WANT TO KNOW?
So I ask and ask and ask, -and they do not reply.
Or the auto-reply demonstrates their interest level in the most pressing threat to Civilization and human freedom.
Nil.
My beloveds (Malik and Musa)
May the Creator of the heavens and the earth reward your valiant strivings in the den of inequity of the shaytin.
One ponders the question: Of all the professed religions of the world... WHY has Islam become the chief and sole obsession of so many Americans? Is it purely because of the events of September 11, or are there other reasons? What motivates so many people that are not Muslim to spend countless hours researching Islam if they want nothing to do with it?
Be sure, this is a dedicated, well-orchestrated, totally planned campaign being waged to disuade as many people as possible from their chosen religion (funny, they are not interested in converting the atheists, wiccans or satanists), and turn back as many Muslims as they can from their religion. If this were not so, you would be able to engage in intelligent dialogue with these people and discuss and compare religion respectfully without trading insults.
The tendency to apply today's standards to acts that occurred more than 1,400 years ago is also suspect, given the fact that Muslims are accused of living in the past and following a religion that is archaic and obsolete. The bible, revered by millions as irrefutable truth from God, is never put under similar scrutiny.
For example, Prophet Lot is reported to have slept with his two daughters after the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah at their urging, fearing that the world needed to be repopulated and they were the only survivors as seen in these direct quotes from the bible, NIV:
"Lot and His Daughters" NIV, Genesis 19:30-36
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is no man around here to lie with us, as is the custom all over the earth. 32 Let's get our father to drink wine and then lie with him and preserve our family line through our father."
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. 37 The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab [g]; he is the father of the Moabites of today. 38 The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi [h] ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.
Should we question the morals of Prophet Lot and his daughters for engaging in this obvious act of incest?
Still more distressing passages of immorality can be found in Genesis 38:13-18. I challenge anyone anywhere to find a single passage that says Muhammad slept with his daughters, committed adultery, or fornicated even once outside of marriage:
13 When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep," 14 she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.
15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you." "And what will you give me to sleep with you?" she asked.
17 "I'll send you a young goat from my flock," he said. "Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?" she asked.
18 He said, "What pledge should I give you?"
"Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand," she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow's clothes again.
And in the following passages, David lies with Bathshebah, a black hittite woman, the wife of Uriah, plots for him to be killed in battle, and earns the wrath of God. Notice that the prophets of the bible did not shy away from killing and warfare. Also notice that in 2 Samuel 11:4, Bathshebah lay with David after ritually "purifying" herself from "uncleanness". Why was she considered "unclean"?:
2 Samuel 11:1-26 (NIV)
David and Bathsheba
1 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king's men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then [a] she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant."
6 So David sent this word to Joab: "Send me Uriah the Hittite." And Joab sent him to David. 7 When Uriah came to him, David asked him how Joab was, how the soldiers were and how the war was going. 8 Then David said to Uriah, "Go down to your house and wash your feet." So Uriah left the palace, and a gift from the king was sent after him. 9 But Uriah slept at the entrance to the palace with all his master's servants and did not go down to his house.
10 When David was told, "Uriah did not go home," he asked him, "Haven't you just come from a distance? Why didn't you go home?"
11 Uriah said to David, "The ark and Israel and Judah are staying in tents, and my master Joab and my lord's men are camped in the open fields. How could I go to my house to eat and drink and lie with my wife? As surely as you live, I will not do such a thing!"
12 Then David said to him, "Stay here one more day, and tomorrow I will send you back." So Uriah remained in Jerusalem that day and the next. 13 At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."
16 So while Joab had the city under siege, he put Uriah at a place where he knew the strongest defenders were. 17 When the men of the city came out and fought against Joab, some of the men in David's army fell; moreover, Uriah the Hittite died.
18 Joab sent David a full account of the battle. 19 He instructed the messenger: "When you have finished giving the king this account of the battle, 20 the king's anger may flare up, and he may ask you, 'Why did you get so close to the city to fight? Didn't you know they would shoot arrows from the wall? 21 Who killed Abimelech son of Jerub-Besheth [b] ? Didn't a woman throw an upper millstone on him from the wall, so that he died in Thebez? Why did you get so close to the wall?' If he asks you this, then say to him, 'Also, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead.' "
22 The messenger set out, and when he arrived he told David everything Joab had sent him to say. 23 The messenger said to David, "The men overpowered us and came out against us in the open, but we drove them back to the entrance to the city gate. 24 Then the archers shot arrows at your servants from the wall, and some of the king's men died. Moreover, your servant Uriah the Hittite is dead."
25 David told the messenger, "Say this to Joab: 'Don't let this upset you; the sword devours one as well as another. Press the attack against the city and destroy it.' Say this to encourage Joab."
26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him. 27 After the time of mourning was over, David had her brought to his house, and she became his wife and bore him a son. But the thing David had done displeased the LORD.
Should the bible as a result be viewed as a manual of incest and debauchery because of these passages? What do these passages tell us about the lowly status of women during these times?
And what sense shall we make of the following biblical passages about the sons of Prophet Noah? It has been a long-standing dispute that these passages infer that the black-skinned peoples of Africa are the descendents of Ham, the Canaanites, cursed by Noah to be the eternal "slaves" of their brothers (see Genesis 9:24-27). If this is not true, why haven't these passages been stricken from the bible, as they would have Muslims strike offensive passages from the qur'an? Note also that Noah is reported to have lived 950 YEARS, when the average life expectancy of a human today is about 75 years. I don't hear anyone challenging the validity of this claim.
The Sons of Noah (NIV) Genesis 9:18-28
18 The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham and Japheth. (Ham was the father of Canaan.) 19 These were the three sons of Noah, and from them came the people who were scattered over the earth.
20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."
26 He also said,
"Blessed be the LORD, the God of Shem!
May Canaan be the slave of Shem. [b]
27 May God extend the territory of Japheth [c] ;
may Japheth live in the tents of Shem,
and may Canaan be his [d] slave."
28 After the flood Noah lived 350 years. 29 Altogether, Noah lived 950 years, and then he died.
My beloveds, I give these few passages to you as an example of the deception, dishonesty, and twisted purpose of those who attack you here, who spend all of their energies and exhaust their knowledge and resources attacking Muslims and what we believe, without looking at what they claim to believe themselves.
May God the Creator grant you peace and mercy and forgiveness of your sins. Salutations of peace to Muhammad and all the prophets and companions of heaven.
We need a television channel that would show videos of people being stoned, whipped, hands and heads chopped off. The media can give the details of their crimes so that the Western Public can judge if they agree with their punishment. Show this program weekly for an entire year.
The television channel could educate the western public by reading directly from the Koran and their other books....and allow the audience to hear the words for themselves. In fact read their book and then show the execution videos. Nothing like words and visuals....something the Muslim world knows well.
Who needs their MOJO.....just show their religious i-mam-mmmms and their radical young men wrapping up men and women....burying them up to their waist......and stoning them to death! And make sure you have your young western women see this television program so they can be educated on this RELIGIOUS CULT......and scared straight for their own safety!
At least this would be a great first step in the education of the western masses who are to busy to read about Islam.
"My beloveds, I give these few passages to you as an example of the deception, dishonesty, and twisted purpose of those who attack you here, who spend all of their energies and exhaust their knowledge and resources attacking Muslims and what we believe, without looking at what they claim to believe themselves."
Dear hatshepsut (how she puts it):
IT'S CALLED THE 21ST CENTURY....................not what was written before B.C. The problem with ISLAM is your religion never got passed the 7th century and that is where you DUST BUNNIES like living. And that is the reason your DEATH CULT must be exterminated and your brothers and sisters who practice ISLAM driven back to the SAND DUNES of the middle east....where you have plenty of micro-rocks to scoot your ass across after defecating.
LET THE GAMES BEGIN!
Tiny minority of "moderates".
hatshepsut -
You want to know one fundamental difference between what you argue and what is reality? The difference is the regard to which you hold the "prophet" (or maybe it's "profit") Muhammad. No Christian anywhere in the world says "You know, I choose to immulate the life of the "prophet" Lot or the "prophet" Noah. No Christian says that. Anywhere. Ok, so Lot got drunk and was essentially raped by his daughters. Ok, fine, it says that directly. Does a Christian anywhere in the world then say "you know, if I get drunk and my children have sex with me, everything is fine. There is precident there from the "prophet" Lot and is therefore lawful".
No.
On the same side of the coin, Muslims choose to "live by the example of the 'prophet' Muhammad", a man who raped, pillaged, plundered, and burned villages, cities, and entire families. Why would you want to live by the example of such a man? Why is he praiseworthy at all?
No christians anywhere comoe up with sayings of "praise Noah" or "praise Moses" or anything of the sort.
Just because stories of immorality or destruction exist in both the Koran and the Bible, that does not make Islam and Christianity co-equals. It makes them nothing of the sort. What matters is people's actions. The actions to the adherents of that religion speak volumes about the religion as a whole.
Muslims fail because Islam is a falure.
And so is the "prophet" (profit) Muhammad.
Thanks profitsbeard & American.
I’m stunned how all this talk about whether it is insensitive to publish the cartoons assumes, implicitly, that they are false in their content. I keep saying to people, “but they are true.” And all the silly analogies between these cartoons and the vicious falsehoods that are propagated in Islamic countries suggest that both sides are putting forth equally absurd notions.
The cartoons are ture!
The objective of jihad is not the conversion of individuals to Islam, but rather gaining of political control over the collective affairs of societies to run them in accordance with the principles of Islam. Individual conversion occurs as a by-product of the power structure of the community passing to the hands of the Muslim community.
Looks like the plan is working. What can't we do next?
Attention Hatshepsut:
I would like to point out a factual error you are unaware of but continue to display in your writings here:
The Muslim god is Allah. The Judeo-Christian god is Yahweh.
These deities are NOT the same. Their teachings are as different as night and day. I won't go into that here except to remark that if the teachings of these two deities WERE identical there would be similarities between Islamic and Judeo-Christian societies. As it happens there is no similarity. Nor will there be.
Therefore, the Old testament characters you write about have no relevance to Islam at all. These people worshiped Yahweh--not al-lah.
Nice try. But please get your information straight.
Should we question the morals of Prophet Lot and his daughters for engaging in this obvious act of incest?
Actually, yes, we should. If you knew anything about the Bible and Christianity, you would know that:
1. The Bible contains all sorts of negative examples (examples of what NOT to do). This is one. All the others you cite fall into this category as well. Just because a character is described historically in the Bible does not mean that his/her behavior is worthy of emulation. Even the generally "good" characters fall into sin (e.g., David with Bathsheba). The only notable exception there is Christ, who, being without sin, is wholly worthy of emulation.
2. Nobody in Christianity holds Lot as any sort of prophet. He's simply Abraham's nephew who is continually getting in trouble and having to be rescued. To be honest, I find him kind of a putz. He's more helpful in learning how to avoid acting than anything else.
Frankly, it scares me that a Muslim would even put forth such a stupid argument. Please go and gain some understanding of Christianity before trying to compare it with Islam. There is no comparison, as the recent cartoon riots so clearly demonstrate.
It's even worse than that JasonP. The cartoons are
not "true enough"!
They show Mo with a bomb turban, the implication being that Muslims are violent.
None of them showed him, that is Mohammad,
performing deeds mentioned in their unholy texts,
like the rapes, the pedophilia, the torture, the
assasinations, ...
If we're going to have illustrations, an
illustrated "Life of The Pedophile Prophet"
would be a lot nastier than the Danish motoons.
Open Eyes, thanks for answering that stupid post above. The guy is going around posting it on various threads. Hopefully he stuck around to read your answer.
I mean, he should find a website of devoted Lotists, and direct it to them. Hmmm. I guess the trouble with that would be that there is no such thing as a follower of Lot. Right.
And then there is this: "Note also that Noah is reported to have lived 950 YEARS, when the average life expectancy of a human today is about 75 years. I don't hear anyone challenging the validity of this claim."
You don't hear anyone questioning it? Where does this guy live, the bottom of a well? Even if you leave aside the hundreds of years of "Higher Criticism" in the western tradition, the notion that there are different senses--literal, moral, allegorical, anagogical--in which biblical passages ought to be read is nearly as old as Christianity itself. Indeed, it probably inherited some abbreviated form of this notion from the rabbinical tradition.
Then we have the suggestion that the racist interpretation of the Noah text--somehow a justification for African slavery--is part of Christian orthodoxy, which it NEVER has been. Rather, it is a heterodox invention that gets trundled out from time to time by self-serving, no-nothing bigots. Moreover, from a critical basis it is a stupid assertion with no basis in the text.
In general, the poster seems to be suffering a common delusion of Islam: the agents of God on earth must be perfect and their acts must be perfect. The Christian tradition makes the opposite claim: the agents of God are bound to be imperfect (two notable exceptions). Thus, it never occurs to Christians to think that every deed of a prophet or saint must be righteous and, thus, an exemplar of moral rectitude.
Christians reserve this status of moral perfection for Jesus; it is no small part of the appeal of the religion that you really can't come up with any deeds from Jesus' life that seem disgraceful or an embarrassment. This is in stark contrast to Lot or Noah or David or Jonah or, indeed, Mohammed. Jesus had no Lolita, no sword, no territorial ambition. Indeed, all three of these are explicitly eschewed by him in the Christian text.
You don't have to be Christian to see the import of this. Assume that early christians made it all up: still, the presentation of Jesus in the New Testament imbued the new religion with certain reflexive tendencies: asceticism, pacifism, ambivalence about holding worldly power. Sure, its members, agents and authorities have chosen to act in conflict with those tendencies again and again, but still, there is always that moral center--the representation of Jesus in the Bible--from which to call these departures into question.
Mountain echo: Thanks.....for your excellent post.
Just bought the danish cartoon t-shirt on sale at www.shopmetrospy.com.
I will wear it in honor of those who were beheaded by mohammedan barbarians and in honor of the freedoms Americans have and will always fight for at home AND abroad.
When it comes to fighting for freedom, in the words of President Bush, "Bring it on".
soapsuds in oklahoma
pythagoras: Another clear difference. Judiasm and Christianity have their roots in the worship of the Sun (mainly via Egypt) and Islam uses a lunar calander. All three religions are mono-theistic but they do not worship the same God.
Quite true, American, the cartoons are only a partial truth. They are quite tame and don't do justice to the full bloody story.
While I have respect for many of the points Krauthammer makes (he sees the phony moderates) he and others have fallen for a post-modern relativism without knowing it. It permeates our culture and often we forget that the important point is to expose the truth. I talk about how that is happening here. We need to be cognizant of this dynamic.