Not that they've seen it yet, of course. "Dutch Muslims, Christians prepare jointly to criticise Koran film," from Expatica (thanks to Sr. Soph):
AMSTERDAM - Dutch Protestants and Muslims have joined in preparing a statement critical of the yet-to-be-released Koran-film of MP Geert Wilders, a Protestant Church spokesman said Monday. [...]Wilders says his film will demonstrate why the Muslim Holy Scripture "is a fascist book that incites people to commit violence." [...]
The Protestant Church and two umbrella organisations of the Muslim community in the Netherlands - Contact Group Muslims CGI and Contact Muslims and Government CMO - were due Monday to discuss the text of a joint statement.
The Council of Churches, an umbrella organisation of all Dutch Christians - Protestants and Catholics - was also expected to take part in the meeting.
Silly Dhimmi's!!!
Just why Christians would condone and thereby legitimize a theology and political system that is decidedly anti-Christian is completely beyond me.
Silly Dhimmi's! "Fitna" is for kids, not for tricky rabbits!
Dhimmitude without the sword of Allah! What an accomplishment!
Does anyone think that there will be any demonstrations in front of Dutch consulates or embassies in support of Geert Wilders, when his film comes out? If not, maybe some could be organised?
It is unclear how small and unrepresentative such groups -- titles mean nothing -- may be. There are always those eager to appease, in every country, at every time, about almost anything. One needs to know more.
Silly Dhimmi's!!!
Posted by: Demvaril at March 18, 2008 8:17 AM
Just why Christians would condone and thereby legitimize a theology and political system that is decidedly anti-Christian is completely beyond me.
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at March 18, 2008 8:23 AM
It is easy to understand: They are brothers in faith.
Again and again Christian leaders show what they really are and ordinary Christian support them by just continue to be Christians.
I have no intention to slander someone, who for me has the same substance as a tooth fairy. I just try to show that one can not fight Islam from Christian position. Too many leaders of Christian community are doing quite the opposite. They are looking for a dialog and peace with Islam. I am totally against it. And don’t tell me they are not good Christians, just look who signed “Christian response…”. Those people carry much more weight then you or any other Christian contributing to this blog.
Some quotes:
Referring to his planned trip to a mosque in Syria, the Pope said he hopes the visit will strengthen dialogue with Muslims and promote a "fruitful and peaceful cohabitation.
the Grand Mufti of Syria, used the Pope's visit to call for an alliance of Muslims and Christians against the Jews.
Pope Benedict has returned to Rome at the end of his first visit to a predominantly Muslim country having apparently successfully defused criticism that he views the Islamic faith as "violent".
He reached out to Muslims by praying facing towards Mecca in a famous mosque.
In December 2006 the Victorian (Australia) Civil and Administrative Tribunal decided that two pastors of the Catch the Fire ministry were guilty of vilifying Islam under the Victorian Racial and Religious Tolerance Act of 2001. When the Islamic Council of Victoria received the favorable verdict they were congratulated by Uniting Church, Catholic Church and Anglican Church members in what one is tempted to describe as a proper expression of Christian sentiment
28 March. - The leaders of the Anglican and Catholic churches of New Zealand had withdrawn from the forthcoming anti-islamic conference, saying that the Muslim faith is not a threat to society, said agency Islamonline Materials newspaper Presse (The Press).
Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.
“A Christian Response to “A Common Word Between Us and You” is a shameful document signed by hundreds of Christian leader from around the world.
Yesterday (27.02.08) the Vatican joined the al-Azhar university in Cairo in condemning the republication of Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard’s depiction of Muhammed with a bomb in his turban, but the Catholic state and the supreme institution of Islam in the Sunni world didn’t say a word about the foiled plot to kill Westergaard, who has been in hiding since November last year.
Archbishop of Canterbury advocating Sharia for British Moslems.
Archbishop of Canterbury: Israel's Security Fence, not Radical Islam, to Blame for Arab-Christian Emigration.
The former archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday he was "ashamed to be an Anglican" following Monday's vote by the Church of England to disinvest from companies whose products are used by the Israeli government in the territories.
Until Christians clean up their act and stop appeasing Moslems you are not my allies in the fight against Islam.
God damn,
do I hate dhimmis, Islamo Christians and collaborationist fools. This kind of behavior has to be some sort of mental illness predicated on deep self loathing. This kind of crap is every where and it really makes me want to avoid church and giving any money to any church based charities and advocacy groups. I don't need to spend more money to help pay for slitting my own throat and destroying western civilizaton. It is so sicking how , everytime as on cue , these dhimmi morons come out of the wood work to spew their vapid, damnable tripe.
Alot of organized relgion is a mental illness as it is. A lot of religious types are all about control and I think they admire Islam for that ,in a low key wy. Frankly if the payday looks good they'll likely convert. It seems likely these people are representatives of irrelevant mainlne Protestant churches that gave up the ghost so to speak and have devolved into utopianist,leftist advocacy groups. Leftist , utopianist and totalitarians are gonna go Muslim, mark my words!
How true is this? Written in 2006.
http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
And check this out also:
Interview with Udo Ulfkotte.
http://www.analyst-network.com/article.php?art_id=732
Perhaps the former Bishop of Breda, "Tiny" Muskens, will add his voice to the protest?
Pray to Allah, Dutch bishop suggests
Perhaps this will shed some light on the subject...
http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/interreligious/striving-e.html
world council of churches
Striving Together in Dialogue
A Muslim-Christian Call to Reflection and Action
This document has been published by the World Council of Churches and other partners, including Islamic organisations and specialised journals. Hopefully, it will be widely circulated and used in discussions and educational programs.
It is the fruit of a Muslim-Christian meeting held in Amersfoort, Netherlands in November 2000. Convened by the World Council of Churches, it took stock of the various Christian-Muslim dialogue initiatives of this organisation since 1991.
During the last nine years, Christian and Muslim religious leaders, educators and activists have discussed the thorny and sometimes divisive issues of religion, law and society, human rights, religious freedom, community rights, mission and da’wa and communal tensions. This document draws largely on their questions, reflections and conclusions.
[The History of Dialogue: Taking Stock] [The Current Situation: Threats and Opportunities]
[Renewing Common Affirmations] [Priorities for Action]
The History of Dialogue: Taking Stock
1. The last three decades have seen many efforts, some of them concerted, towards a new understanding between Christians and Muslims. They are noticeable in the broad areas of dialogue, education and scholarship. Christian-Muslim relations were historically marked by confrontation. The change, it is often claimed, did not occur until Christians, in the West more particularly, were willing and able to rethink their relations with Islam and the Muslim world. The development of ecumenism, the critical re-examination of Christian mission and the awareness of increasingly being pluralist societies -- some formerly "Christian" -- account primarily for a new call to dialogue. Past exchanges between Muslims and Christians are depicted as polemical, if they are even acknowledged.
2. While it is true that the complex history of Christian-Muslim relations has known much rivalry and war it is often forgotten that there were rich and fertile encounters in the realms of life and ideas alike. Unfortunately, one of the features of our historical memories has been the way in which conflicts overshadow peaceful experiences and accusations drown the voices of understanding. Something similar happens at the level of religious views, when perceptions of difference displace common or shared principles.
3. Traditional universes were self-contained. Exclusivist and reductionist attitudes towards other religions prevailed. Nevertheless, Islamic history bears witness, especially during the formative phase of Arab-Islamic civilisation, to a remarkable ability to invite and integrate the various contributions that Christians were eager and able to offer. Active in transmitting and developing knowledge, in the various fields of science and philosophy, Christians could also engage in dialogue on matters of revelation and reason, not only as apologists. Despite varying social and material constraints, contacts between people, exchanges and collaboration were never broken.
4. In modern times and in many countries, emerging national identities, rooted in cultural bonds, strengthened by an awareness of common interests and destiny and shaped by the rules of a new political order, brought Muslims and Christians closer to each other. New relationships transcended traditional barriers. They were distinct from those based on religious affiliation without necessarily contradicting them. These relationships sometimes gave primacy to national solidarity and minimised the need for interreligious dialogue. In some quarters it was feared that religious identity, made explicit in dialogue, might threaten national unity.
5. At the global level, the process of national liberation and de-colonization tended to favour a more equitable relationship between Christians and Muslims, thus creating better conditions for a meaningful interreligious and intercultural dialogue. In conjunction with these developments, religious world views interacted with universalist and humanist ideas, demonstrating a greater sensitivity to the spreading reality of religious plurality. Christians, for their part, had to address this reality, defining its significance for their own self-understanding. Optimistic in character, this response gave birth to ideas that, during the sixties and seventies of the 20th century, led to authoritative church texts and various types of guidelines on dialogue. Likewise, many Muslims upheld the idea of dialogue and participated actively in various initiatives. They emphasised the Qur’anic call to dialogue and, in some cases, suggested that the Muslims need to be leading partners in responding to this call.
6. At the same time, dialogue generated controversies. To be sure, opposition was not confined to theological positions nor to an assessment of the legitimacy and value of dialogue. It extended to the identification of partners, issues for discussion and areas of common action. Dialogue was faced with both resistance and hesitation. The expectation that a traditional self-understanding be rethought and liberated from the grip of history was not universally met. Nor could Muslims disregard the past, with all its conflicts and misperceptions, and espouse trust instead of suspicion of the Churches’ intentions towards them. In addition, changes in economic, political and cultural power relations were not sufficient to insure that dialogue be taken in the sense it is intended: free from partisan interest and critical of the domination of one partner over the other.
7. Among the many objections to, and reservations towards, dialogue, five particular ones are worth being underlined. There are those who insist that the local context of communal relations in a given society often makes broader dialogue irrelevant. Others suggest that dialogue may function as a cover for unequal power relations or as an ornament, concealing purposes different from those stated. There are also those who are weary of controversy and tend to be apprehensive of any mutual inquiry and questioning. Fourthly, one finds those who see dialogue as compromising the truth and a betrayal of the divine call to mission or da’wa. A fifth position argues that dialogue is, on the contrary, a more sophisticated form of mission or, even if that is not the intention of its initiators, leading to mission.
8. Objections to dialogue are often aggravated further by questions regarding the representativeness of participants. Dialogue is readily dismissed by its opponents as elitist or marginal because the people involved are said to be unrepresentative. The question of representativeness is bound to that of effectiveness. Partners in dialogue may be expected to commit their communities, especially when they seem to identify strongly with them. But this ignores the fact that churches, and even more their Muslim counterparts, seldom function as centralised institutions. They do not realistically claim undisputed authority over the faithful, especially when matters such as interreligious relations are at stake. When partners in dialogue rightly point out that their influence is limited, their efforts may be seen as irrelevant. But at least symbolically, they continue to be seen as responsible for attitudes prevailing in their communities, even if they choose to be critical of them.
9. It is needless to repeat that current developments, political and otherwise, may be threatening to build up new attitudes of distrust and hostility. This imposes a new urgency in the consideration of Christian-Muslim relations and priorities on dialogue and co-operation. The patient work of recent decades is a reliable resource. Its value cannot be quantified but this does not mean that it bears no fruits. Countless local, national and international experiences confirm this. Participants have discovered that interreligious dialogue is informed by, and informs, the internal dialogue within each religion. What was learned in the last decades lays the foundation for a continuing dialogue which is both hopeful and takes account of the contemporary realities.
The Current Situation: Threats and Opportunities
1. Relations between Muslims and Christians are usually strongly influenced by local and regional histories and events. But broader developments also have a significant impact, especially when they contribute to destabilising societies previously characterised by peaceful relations of mutual acceptance. In situations where uncertainties of change begin to be felt, suspicion and fear can build up between communities leading to tension and possibly conflict.
2. It seems clear that in some parts of the world, the traditional nation state model is subject to growing questioning. Some countries have fallen apart, others are constructing larger entities. States have become too small for some purposes and too large for others. In many post-colonial independent countries, nation-building projects remain incomplete, become fragile or are failing. The borders set by the imperial powers, while mostly unchanged, could not gain universal acceptance. In some cases, they are disputed. Claims to common nationhood have been countered by the fact that ethnic, cultural and linguistic communities straddle sometimes several state boundaries while contributing to divisions within them. National governments are often far from having succeeded in delivering on promises of genuine national independence and social and economic advancement. Indeed, in many instances, early progress has gone into reverse and large sections of the national population have sunk deeper into poverty. Official rhetoric of development, national unity, democracy and human rights often contrast with different realities on the ground. For such reasons, political institutions often lack legitimacy.
3. The continuing globalisation of economic processes, and of information, is associated with increases in human mobility through migration, refugee movements and the growth of transnational networks. Local cultural identity is threatened. This often further weakens the state and adds to the pressures on national and regional loyalties. New relations between people across traditional ties and webs of interests have created new loyalties and identities in which local community has little meaning.
4. When states become weak, people are thrown back on reliance on traditional community structures and identities for meaning and material security. Conversely, when a state becomes oppressive, people find protection in traditional community structures and identities. In both cases, the effects of globalisation leading to greater cultural uniformity invite, in many cases, a search for specificity and distinction. Such a search favours an affirmation of traditional cultural and religious identities.
5. Everywhere, "meaningful" identities are multiple and will vary depending on particular needs. Professional and economic security may be found in one form of community (e.g. trade union or professional association) daily social networks in another (e.g. neighbourhood, factory, club), social and political activity in yet another (e.g. party, women’s groups) and spiritual search again in another (e.g. religious and worshipping community). But when all such various needs are being met or expressed in one identity, the borders between communal loyalties are mutually reinforced rather than being mutually balanced. Boundaries between oneself and the other are strengthened. They create closed communities within which common and exclusive memories can be developed and activated, the self and stranger are stereotyped and the latter is easily demonised.
6. In such cases, differences in community size become an issue of minority threatened by majority. Insecure communities in one place seek alliances with others elsewhere, perceived to share a common identity, in order to achieve political empowerment. External attention to, and support for, "minority rights" is thus invited. They can be used as a pretext for self-interested intervention by foreign powers. National governments and political movements that are part of "majority" communities which see themselves as threatened by such interventions, see their suspicion towards "minorities" justified and deepened. At the same time, some governments strengthen their power by managing communities and relations between them, exploiting mutual fears, mobilising one against the other and recruiting some in support and thus further undermining the security of others.
7. When communities identify themselves or are identified exclusively by their religion, situations become more explosive. Religion speaks for some of the deepest feelings and sensitivities of individuals and communities, it carries deep historical memories, and often appeals to universal loyalties, especially in the case of Christianity and Islam. And so religion comes to be seen as the cause of conflict and is often in fact an intensifier of conflicts whose causes are outside religion.
8. Such developments in recent decades have, however, coincided with developments in the religious arena. In many regions, what had been thought of as an irreversible process of secularisation has been countered by a "return" of religion into public life. An increased political and social visibility of religion was noticeable before the fall of the Soviet system and has strengthened as a result. In the West, the talk of "Islam, the new enemy" and the "clash of civilisations" points to a certain perception of the role of religion in the public sphere and in international relations. In the Muslim world, religion has regained its vigour, in resistance to Western domination and as an affirmation of the rights of Muslims and their competence to contribute to the making of a new world.
9. As the experience of Christian-Muslim co-operation and mutual understanding grows and spreads it begins to offer a prospect of counteracting processes which tend to globalise conflicts that involve Muslims and Christians. There are cases where a conflict in one place, with its local causes and character, is perceived and exploited as part of a conflict in another, with its separate and specific causes and character. So enmities in one part of the world spill over into situations of tension in other regions. An act of violence in one place is used to confirm stereotypes of the "enemy" in another place or even provoke revenge attacks elsewhere in the world.
10. Muslim and Christian leaders and activists in dialogue are intensifying their efforts to "de-globalise Christian-Muslim tensions". They constantly warn against essentialism and sensationalism and draw attention to the specific local causes of conflicts, whose solutions can be found, first and foremost, in addressing those local causes. They refuse to be drawn into others’ conflicts on the basis of uncritical responses to calls for solidarity and instead help to apply common principles of peace, justice and reconciliation. They can thus help parties to local conflicts to release Islam and Christianity from the burden of sectional interests and self-serving interpretations of beliefs and convictions. Christian and Islamic beliefs and convictions can then constitute a basis for critical engagement with human weakness and defective social and economic orders, in a common search for human well-being, dignity, social justice and civil peace.
11. It is needless to repeat that a culture of peace among religious communities is grounded in the culture of dialogue. The decades of dialogue between Muslims and Christians, at all levels, have strengthened relationships between the two religions, both individually and institutionally. Extensive personal networks of friendship and trust have been created through dialogue in the midst of conflicts labelled Christian-Muslim, making joint efforts for peace and justice both imperative and realistic. Growing mutual knowledge and interest in a greater understanding are replacing simplistic and uninformed stereotypes. Theological training and religious studies are beginning to include the other in their searching. Although there is clearly a long way to go, the fact of such beginnings gives reason for hope. It is a significant resource for future action.
12. The increasing participation of women in society has mobilised many women into Muslim-Christian co-operation in projects of development and social justice. The experiences of "the dialogue of life" where women play a leading role, can not be separated from the broader dialogue and joint action of Christians and Muslims. In the longer term the massive expansion of women’s participation in higher education, including religious education, suggests a progressively growing challenge to traditional patterns of thinking and structures of power. Such challenge is an essential contribution to the future of dialogue.
Renewing Common Affirmations
1. In a world where Christians and Muslims live as neighbours and co-citizens, dialogue is not only an activity of meetings and conferences. It is a way of living out our faith commitment in relation to each other, sharing as partners common concerns and aspirations and striving together in response to the problems and challenges of our time. Widely accepted guidelines for genuine dialogue, need to be re-emphasised and reaffirmed. A number of common affirmations are to be renewed taking stock of the previous experience and in the light of a Christian-Muslim appraisal of the current situation.
2. Differences are inherent in the human condition and a manifestation of divine wisdom. In recognition of such differences, interreligious dialogue is based on mutual respect and understanding. It should not be used for a theological debate in which adherents of each religion try to prove religious truth at the expense of the other.
3. Partners involved in interreligious work are not required to compromise on any of their basic religious beliefs in order to engage in a constructive dialogue. Much of the significance of dialogue between Muslims and Christians depends on its ability to engage those who are faithful to their respective religions and rooted in their communities. Dialogue is motivated by a religious vocation and is founded on religious values.
4. In dialogue, the deepest meaning of what our scriptures say to us is opened up and speaks anew. Christians are motivated by the teaching that God wills love of neighbour inseparably from the love of God, which is shown in human action through love of others (Luke 10:27; Rom. 13 9-10; Gal. 5:15; John 4:20-21). Christ’s teaching of love includes all those we view as friends and those with whom we may feel enmity for any reason. Such love is not a mere sentimental emotion but an impetus to action (1 John 3: 18) and the basis of trust (1 John 4:18). Christians also recall that they are not to bear false witness against their neighbour (Ex. 20:16). In dialogue, they come to know their neighbours of other religions in ways that enable them to keep this commandment in fact, not simply through vague intention. "What does the Lord require of you" the prophet Micah asks, "but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" (Micah 6:8).
5. As Muslims enter dialogue, they recognise the Qur’anic texts concerning diversity and God’s purpose which say: "O people: we created you from a single [pair] of male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other (49:13) and "We sent you solely as a mercy for all creatures" (21:07). Plurality is inscribed in God’s design: "To each among you have we prescribed a law and open way. If God has so willed, He would have made you a single people but [His plan] is to test you in what He has given you: so excel each other in good deeds; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which you dispute (5:48). Muslims are called to seek justice through their dialogue activities. The Qur’an teaches "Give just measures and weight; do not deprive others of their due" (7:85) and "O you who believe ! Stand out firmly for God as witnesses for fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others turn you away from justice, be just: that is nearer to piety" (5:8).
6. Therefore dialogue is not a negotiation between parties who have conflicting interests and claims. It should not be bound by the constraints of power relations. Rather, it needs to be a process of mutual empowerment of both Christians and Muslims towards their joint engagement in public concerns and their common pursuit of justice, peace and constructive action on behalf of the common good of all people. In this process, Muslims and Christians will draw on their spiritual resources.
7. With this perspective in mind, genuine dialogue implies a recognition of, and respect for, differences. At the same time, it seeks to discover and appreciate common values of Christianity and Islam. A fruitful mutual understanding can not be enhanced unless both convergences and recognised differences are held in a creative relationship. This is equally true of debates within each religious community. Intra-religious and inter-religious dialogue depend on, and feed into, each other.
8. Appreciation of both diversity and commonalities can be achieved in dialogue as an educational process that enables each community to come to know better both the other and itself. Muslims and Christians are thus helped to be critical of, and overcome, the many mutual stereotypes, prejudices and misconceptions that serve to propagate suspicions and fear and justify exclusion.
9. But dialogue is not confined to communication or exchange of knowledge. It offers opportunities for interaction and practical engagement in matters of common concern at the grassroots level and in everyday life. Dialogue brings intellectual pursuits and life engagement into an integrated whole. The persuasiveness of the moral messages and the credibility of the intellectual pursuit necessarily depend on inclusive action on behalf of the common good.
10. In a context where religions are finding renewed public vigour, issues of freedom of conscience and human rights generally have re-emerged, in the last few years, as sensitive and even divisive. In this respect, Christian-Muslim dialogue has an indispensable contribution to make in affirming that the principles of human rights and religious freedom are indivisible. It is called to direct the forces of religiosity toward common good, instead of allowing them to breed intra-religious and inter-religious hatred and conflicts. Muslims and Christians agree that freedom of conscience is essential to their respective faiths. But religious freedom does not only imply freedom of conscience but also the right to live in accord with religious values and the recognition of cultural and religious diversity as basic to human reality. More broadly, Christians and Muslims can contribute, through dialogue, to a discourse on human rights that can help reconcile the truly universal principles and the culturally specific claims. Such a discourse needs to be grounded in the respective religions to be genuinely inclusive and universal.
11. While recognising that mission and da’wa are essential religious duties in both Christianity and Islam, Muslims and Christians need to uphold the spiritual and the material well-being of all. Many missionary activities, and the methods they use, arouse legitimate suspicions. There are situations where humanitarian service is undertaken for ulterior motives and takes advantage of the vulnerability of people. Thus the clear distinction between witness and proselytism become crucial. It is the basis for the recognition that people of faith can enjoy the liberty to convince and be convinced and, at the same time, respect each other’s religious integrity, faithfulness to one’s tradition and loyalty to one’s community.
12. In dialogue, Muslims and Christians learn that Christianity and Islam are not two monolithic blocks confronting each other. They also learn that tensions and conflicts in various parts of the world are not an expression of a "clash of civilisations" nor do they define bloody borders between Christianity and Islam across the world. At the local level, dialogue can help diffuse, or even solve, problems that may otherwise be manipulated by external powers for their own purposes.
13. As Christians and Muslims understand justice to be a universal value grounded in their faith, they are called to take sides with the oppressed and marginalised, irrespective of their religious identity. Justice is an expression of a religious commitment that extends beyond the boundaries of one’s own religious community. Moreover, Muslims and Christians uphold their own religious values and ideals when they take a common stand in solidarity with, or in defence of, the victims of oppression and exclusion. The logic of "reciprocity" in addressing minority rights contradicts the unconditional universality of the value of justice. People of faith should not allow themselves to be constrained by the methods of inter-state relations. The logic of reciprocity demarcates the world and societies along religious lines and contradicts principles of equal citizenship.
14. Women and men of faith, engaged in dialogue, affirm the equal citizenship of all persons within any given state or society, cutting across all ethnic, social and religious boundaries. Religious affiliations that unite people with others beyond their national borders need not contradict equal citizenship. Multiple identities are a fact of human existence. People define themselves in terms of various identities related - for example - to nation, religion, culture, family, gender, age and work. In dialogue, no dimension of personal identity excludes another. The more dialogue partners feel secure in their own identities, the more they are able to be inclusive and engage in wider interreligious and intercultural relations and interaction.
Priorities for Action
1. Recommendations drawn during the many dialogue conferences that have been held in the last decade are often very similar. Their repetition may well purport to emphasise their importance and remind Christians and Muslims that the task before them continues to be unfinished. Against the background of assessing of the present state of Muslim-Christian relations attempted in this document, a few of those recommendations need to be highlighted and prioritised for further action. They concern partners in dialogue and structures of co-operation, education and media.
2. In order to broaden its impact, Christian-Muslim dialogue needs to widen its participation and to reflect the diversity of opinions in each community. Moreover, the inclusion of students and young peoples, religious leaders, various professional groups and non-governmental organisations should be encouraged.
3. Muslims and Christians are increasingly invited to participate in many inter-cultural, interreligious and international dialogue initiatives. While such participation may have a significant impact, it does not always mean acceptance of the underlying assumption of many such initiatives.
4. Christian-Muslim dialogue retains uniqueness and urgency, locally, regionally and globally. It deserves to be the focus of continued attention and multiplied efforts. The cumulative experience acquired in this bilateral dialogue and the long-tem engagement should be sustained beyond short-lived considerations and expediencies.
5. The strengthening and the creation of Muslim-Christian bodies at national and regional levels remains a priority. Such bodies should engage with civic and religious authorities in the pursuit of justice, equality of citizenship, human rights and civil peace. They are called to play a leading role initiating planning and implementing dialogue and co-operation projects. They also have a particular responsibility in dealing with tensions and conflicts that affect Christian-Muslim relations and in ensuring that problems specific to one context do not spill over into others. Muslim- Christian bodies and institutions should make efforts to learn from each others’ experiences and develop ways of co-operation across regions.
6. Christians and Muslims should be encouraged to engage in joint study and research. They should involve academic and other bodies in developing guidelines for the preparation of text books and teaching materials which present authentic images of the other, correct misconceptions and promote dialogue and good relations.
7. Educational programming in schools, colleges, universities and adult education systems should be designed to enhance the understanding and appreciation of the various cultural and religious traditions of the world and should, whenever possible, invite adherents of those traditions to take part. This is particularly important when so many people are travelling into different cultures as tourists, professionals, business people, journalists, diplomats, non-government organisation workers, etc. Teaching programmes in theological and religious faculties and seminaries should prepare Muslim-Christian graduates with the training and sensitivity necessary for interreligious dialogue in a plural context.
8. Participants in Christian and Muslim dialogue should actively address the media and make a more creative use of the latest instruments of communication, such as the Internet. This will extend the participation, and awareness of, dialogue. It will also help counteract the effects of sensational, simplistic and stereotypical images and their manipulation.
Geneva, 2001
Off course protestants can be so Dhimmi. Did they signed any petition against DaVinci Code. Silly white protestant Dhimmis. Perfect slaves for muslims in future.
Useful idiots...Christians are shirkers. You know what muslims think of shirk. Shirk is the greatest of sins. So why would muslims cozy up to the greatest sinners, if not for exploitation? And why would these sinners cozy up to muslims if not in the name of idiocy? What are the Christians trying to prove by this display of stupidity?
I hope not too many Christians are being led down the primrose path to dhimmihood, but obviously some are...
MultiCULTuralism sez:
All religions are alike and equally valid. Therefore, the damn dumb dhimmis must close ranks with the Koranists and attack those who refuse to bow to their respective idols.
The Protestant Church in Europe is mostly run by clergy who hold to the teachings of Friedrich Schleiermacher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Schleiermacher
The skinny version of his theology is that all religion is really derived from internal feelings.
"Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self." - FS.
By relegating religion to just the realm of feelings and the personal, he destroyed Protestant Christianities claim of being a religion that also commands truth in the public realm. This played well with secularism since it demands that religion be personal. American Evangelical Christianity, while sometimes elevating feelings above reason, is a move to regain Christianities place in the public sphere. Roman Catholicism, has sometimes played a lower key in the public sphere, but has never bought into the idea that following Jesus is a purely personal matter. Jesus either defines all of a believers life or the person is not a believer. See the current debate on how politicians who approve of the killing of pre-born children should not receive communion.
So, write off Protestants in Europe. They are state paid husks and hold overs from a few hundred years of good Protestant theology and Church life. Look to Rome in these statements but do read the statements with a subtle eye. Rome is very diplomatic, but never capitulates to the falsehood that is Islam.
Remember too, those who are not Christians, we are commanded to love our enemies. This entails even some respect for Muslims. I am hoping that Geert Wilder is hard hitting but fair. Much in the manner of our beloved Robert Spencer.
I think Islam is an evil lie which is born out in the frustration that many Muslims experience with the religion. It just does not deliver much peace internally and less so externally. This is why Islam must kill people who convert, since so many in Muslim lands know that Islam just is not true. In a real way, Islam is a cult because of the shunning and killing of those who convert. This said, love of neighbor is still an important commandment of Christians. This said, history has shown that Muslim leaders are rarely willing to offer reciprocity and Christians did, with regrets, after 400 years of Islamic abuses, engage in a war of liberation called the Crusades. If another war is coming, Christians will exhaust all efforts at peace before engaging in one. This may take 100 or 200 years of discussion before getting to this point. Ironically, it only takes a cartoon to get Muslims frothing at the mouth for war. Alas, the so called religion of peace!
Christians are their own worst enemies, they are supposed to be smiley, slap happy all the time.
The modern church has done a fine job of dumbing down Christians.
Many people I talk to think Islam is just another denomination, you know...we all worship the same "god" all that good stuff. No body tells Christians that Islam is the opposite of Christ's Gospel.
Oh a few churches know the truth, but the mainline denominations shout them down. The media also plays a part in nominalizing preachers who warn us about what is coming.
The idea of "we are all brothers" is the (apologies to our Hindu friends) "sacred cow" of religion, it is absolutely terrible to "judge" anyone else, never mind that the whole Bible is a book of judgment...between good and evil.
Ironic, considering in the past a much stronger Christian Europe battled back the Muslims.
Well, as Obama said in the 'major speech on race' he just gave, and I'm paraphrasing here, members of all the major religions should adhere to the basic tenet which is common to them all, that we should follow the golden rule and treat others as we wish to be treated. I guess Islam isn't a major religion after all then, right Obama??
Just why Christians would condone and thereby legitimize a theology and political system that is decidedly anti-Christian is completely beyond me.
Posted by: descendantofacrusader at March 18, 2008 8:23 AM
Cause they're birds of a feather. You may not see it that way, but they definitely do.
"It is unclear how small and unrepresentative such groups -- titles mean nothing -- may be. There are always those eager to appease, in every country, at every time, about almost anything. One needs to know more."
-posted by Hugh-
It is pretty safe to say this group does not represent the average christian here in Holland. The protestant organisation has a sad history of sympahtizing with Nicaragua, Cuba and the DDR from the seventies on.
The catholic church I attend here in Leiden does not hold these kind of views. I think it very much depends on the local parish priest. The priest I listen to on every Sunday is not into the multi-culti kumbaya sphere, even though he is of a younger generation. A few weeks ago, he mentioned the Battle of Lepanto in his sermon in a positive way, when Europe fought the Turks somewhat in unison.
Bishop Muskens is also replaced by a more traditional catholic, Van Eijk, and Geert Wilders also has a catholic background.
So the situation here in Holland is not as hopeless as one might think when reading the article above.
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism,was one of history's most virulent anti-semites. His hatred of the Jews was so venomous that the Nazis often cited him. Hitler admired Luther's writings and called him one of the three great figures of Germany.They dedicated the Kristallnacht pogrom in 1938 to Luther. Luther outlined the following actions against the Jews:
Burn all synagogues
Destroy Jewish dwellings
Confiscate the Jew's books
Forbis rabbis to teach
Forbis jews to travel
Expel the Jews from Christian provinces
He called the Jews ' a plague,a pestilence, a pure misfortune in our country'. All this from the founder of Protestantism. The Dutch Lutherans clearly feel very comfortable with rabid Islamic Jew hatred and are bound to ally themselves with such kindred malevolence and Judeophobia. Birds of a feather.
The Catholic Church has an interesting history in relation to Jewish folk, no?
Although recently they did concede Jesus was a Jew.
Beyond parody.
mepeteart
--
Why can't they do all this 'dialog' in SOWdi Barbaria or some other place in Najistan?
Why does all this multiCULTi kumbaya always have to take place in a Western country??!!
Martin Luther did great work by questioning the Catholic Church's corrupt system of Indulgences.
He also freed people from believing that an intermediary, such as a priest, was required before they could talk to God. Which, of course, no intermediary necessary.
Unfortunately, his anti-Semitism is a huge black mark against him, that's true.
In part, because the desire to entwine politics and religion is not limited solely to Muslims. I explained this in a letter I wrote years ago:
When I spoke of people fighting & dying to be free, against whom do you think they were fighting? To a large extent, against various Christian churches.
There are some Christinas - fortunately few - who would take us back to that time of persecution and oppression. Mark my words, those Christians who side with Muslims in opposition to freedom of speech are foremost amongst them.