I understand the pressure this man is under, but who is he kidding with a statement like that? Blasphemy leads to violence and hence undermines the war on terror? So are we to assume that if there is no blasphemy, there will be no jihad terrorism? Of course, that is absurd, unless the good cleric wishes to consider the very existence of non-Muslim polities and blasphemous. But in any case, not only is he a good dhimmi, but he is advocating that the free West play the dhimmi as well by adopting Islamic Sharia restrictions on free speech and free inquiry -- which would not be an act of tolerance or respect for religion, but an act that would begin the institutionalization of Islamic supremacism in the non-Muslim West by creating a protected class, sheltered from all criticism or any speech they disliked.
"Bishop condemns anti-Islam film and caricatures," from the Daily Times (thanks to Twostellas):
LAHORE: The Bishop of Iran and the Gulf, Azad Marshall, and the National Council of Churches in Pakistan (NCCP), have condemned the publication of the anti-Islam caricatures and a film by Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders.According to a press release issued on Wednesday, the bishop and the NCCP expressed concerns over “the mischievous acts, maligning the Islamic faith in the name of modernisation, secularism and so-called freedom of expression”. They said the freedom of expression did not provide an open licence to hurt the religious sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.
Marshall called these acts “misconceived, malicious and politically motivated”. He said that these acts, especially in a society that propagated human rights, human dignity and tolerance, were against all decent norms and demonstrated a lack of respect for others religious feelings.
On one hand, the West seeks to bridge gap between different faiths and on the other it creates rift by such acts, Marshall said. “No religion, society or culture should be allowed such acts of blasphemy, which give rise to violence and undermine the global war on terror,” he said and demanded that the United Nations evolve a code of ethics that all religions be treated with same respect and dignity. The Muslim countries should use diplomatic means so that there should be no more instances in future, he added.
That bolded demand means that the UN should criminalize and prosecute those who violate Sharia norms about speaking of Allah, Muhammad, and Islam. In other words, it should become a Sharia-enforcing body.
Good dhimmi. No different than the dhimmis in the West.
Other than ‘nuking’ their own Christian consciences in the process, what other choice do these poor dhimmis but to condemn what they know to be right being surrounded and watched by pure evil the way they are?
Blasphemy is not a crime.
Maybe he should apply his criticism to the intolerant, terroristic dogmas eternally enshrined in the bigoted, hateful Koran.
What Islam says about my own religion, and my sex as well, hurts my feelings every day.
What Muslims and the Qu'ran say about my "prophet" is blasphemous, by their own definition of blasphemy.
Anyone know where I can go to whine, complain, and make money from lawsuits?
Blasphemy is a subjective concept.
In my view, Islam and the Qur'an are blasphemous.
When Muslims and the Qur'an contend that Mohammed was the "seal of the prophets", to me, this is blasphemy. I want to have the right to say: "This is blasphemy!" without being threatened with punisment of any kind.
This bishop is condemning someone else's right to protest Islamic ideas and laws, when the protest was not even within the bishop's sphere of existence, let alone his influence. He demands a code of ethics from the UN to gag dissenters. (Demands this--He's been in Iran for too long. He's starting to sound like a Muslim.)
Well, the UN can do what it wants. Their code of human rights is respected by all, right?
While the UN holds a new circle jerk about this, I intend to continue to voice my critique of Islam.
My apologies to all for my crudeness in the preceeding paragraph.
Also, blasphemy? Mo is not a God.
"Blasphemy is a subjective concept.
In my view, Islam and the Qur'an are blasphemous.
When Muslims and the Qur'an contend that Mohammed was the "seal of the prophets", to me, this is blasphemy. I want to have the right to say: "This is blasphemy!" without being threatened with punisment of any kind." --Abscedere
So right. To me as well, Islam and the Q are the most blasphemous things going.
And one more thing--I'm not advocating punishment for Muslims and the Qur'an for their blasphemy against my faith. They should be allowed to say anything they want. I can always walk away, or turn up the volume on my iPod.
What these creatures of Mohammed do is another thing, entirely.
Okay. I think I'm done now... LOL
>>I intend to continue to voice my critique of Islam. --Abscedere
Ditto. I couldn't care less what the total imbeciles at the UN think or say!
"No religion, society or culture should be allowed such acts of blasphemy, which give rise to violence . . . ."
Strange how it's only "acts of blasphemy" against Islam that give rise to violence. In the Moslem world there are daily blasphemies and insults against Jews and Christians, yet where is the violent Jewish or Christian response? The only violence resulting from these insults is on the part of the Moslems, who are inspired by the mullahs and the media to attacks on Jews and Christians. So, if there is a Western "blasphemy" against Islam, the Moslems respond with violence against Jews and Christians, but if there is Islamic "blasphemy" agsinst Jews and Christians, the Moslems again respond with violence against Jews and Christians. It's clear that the violence is something inherent in Islam, and that any remark or statement may set it off.
No religion should be protected under the law. There should be no blasphemy laws. God will survive and if there is any punishment to be had for blasphemy then God will be the judge.
The argument for no protection is particularly true if a political party sets its self up with the name of a religion in its title. In this case the party cannot say you can criticise the party but not the religion. The religion has been politicised.
Hezbollah - the party of Allah is a typical case in point, but there are Christian parties too.
Theo-political parties are an Aunt Sally for the religion.
BRIGITTE BARDOT is being prosecuted for "insulting Islam". By a dhimmi prosecutor in France. Check it out on Reuters.
When will it end?
"So-called freedom of speech"....smirk, smirk, smirk and eye-roll.
Then there's "Of COURSE I believe in freedom of speech but....." These people have 'very big buts'.
I find it interesting that a "Bishop" would side with a people whose "culture" and "religion" allows sexual relations with underage children, and marriage to the same.
I also find it interesting that child-molesters here in the US have not grasped the "I'm a muslim and this is my culture, so how dare you question me and debase my religion" excuse.
Can someone pose this to the Pope while he is visiting America and maybe get this "Bishop" fired?
Our freedom of thought and speech trumps any other concerns. Sorry, your eminence.
Who knows what pressure he was put under to make this statement.
What else can they say? How long ago is it since the last Protestant Bishop of Iran’s son was murdered by “islamists”?
Enough with the understanding. This is nothing more than rank cowardice. Once upon a time Christians were willling to stand up for their religion and for each other. If not for the crusaders the western world would have suffered the coming genocide centuries ago. If not for the pressure of the colonial powers the Christians in the muslim world would have been wiped out long ago.
If he truly believes in Christ he wouldn't fear becoming a martyr and would use his position to protect his fellow Christians and to make it possible for Christianity to survive.
What can he say? He could document the atrocities non-muslims suffer under muslim rule and turn to his fellow Christians in the west for help. Someone would still listen, and eventually people in the west would open their eyes to the evil that is islam. Instead he joins the muslims in enforcing their rule on the world while the koran is itself blasphemy and a license to oppress Christians.
Bishop or not, that man is certainly no Christian.
yep. The dhimmi bishop's been in iran too long under constant threat of islam.
He's internalized their presumed supremacy. His mind's been twisted.
These MO-rons are really trying to make the UN into a sharia-enforcement police force.
We are sovereign nations and we have our ELECETD officials who are solely in charge of legislating.
I'd say they'd be guilty of overstepping their mandate should they even consider legislating on behalf of un-elected others, i.e. the OIC or similar bodies politic.
I think it's time we started a League of Judeo-Christian Nations so we can start acting as the opposing bloc.
Islam humiliates religious freedom of Christians and human rights of Muslims. It's time for change
by Samir Khalil Samir - 03/29/2006
…
But this gives rise to an enormous question: if Islam is a political project, a movement that uses even the most extreme violence, then it must be fought politically. And, most of all, it would be necessary to no longer call it a religion, a spiritual movement that helps man to create peace. There is in fact in Islam a strong ambiguity to which attention must be drawn: at times, Muslims speak in spiritual terms ("Islam means peace (salam), coexistence, tolerance etc…"); other times, they act politically, justifying violent choices.
"They said the freedom of expression did not provide an open licence to hurt the religious sentiments of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide."
This bishop and the Natl Council of Churches obviously subscribe to the Oprah-ization that has swept the USA. The newest and most absolute inalienable right as defined by the Oprah generation and a legion of p.c. practitioners is the RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. Feelings trump the right to think, read, write and debate. Sorry John Adams you lose. Logos loses out to pathos with this generation. Now my speech and my very thoughts can be judged to be "hateful" if they make you feel bad or -- heavens forfend--- force you to make cogent arguments in favor of your position or ideology. I have college kids working for me who keep me informed about campus thought police and about topics which, if raised for discussion, will garner them an automatic F and/or academic censure. Dear Mr. Adams continues to spin in his grave.
Oh by the way, as an Italo American, I can tell you that there is still one group that you CAN not only offend with impunity but even garner an Emmy Award offending week after week on HBO.
Of course he's going to say things like that. He's afraid of being murdered by members of the so called religion of peace for saying they are violent.
Muslims murder, persecute and oppress Christians all over the world every day. There is little evidence for the claims that Muslims are truly tolerant of Christians and other religions. On the contrary, they often act like the KKK did to blacks in the American south. Be a nice Uncle Tom and you'll be tolerated. Expect to be treated like a human being and you get lynched. That is what Islam is about when they dominate.
Will all those imams preaching about conquering the world be prosecuted?
What about all those Gazan's teaching hatred to their kids? Is that ok? Will they be jailed? They all have their face on the video's. Why aren't they being prosecuted?
"Peace is the absence of opposition to Islam"
Al-Marx
bevc - hey, Bill Maher that little punk is allowed to call the Pope a cult leader of paedophile and call him a Nazi to boot.
Hollywood is a racist as ever.
Now it's Italians and Germans and "rednecks" they insult.
May they enjoy some nice islamic encounters soon.. :-)
I won't shed a tear. Nor will I lift my hand to help them.
he said and demanded that the United Nations evolve a code of ethics that all religions be treated with same respect and dignity.
This could be a bigger problem for islamic states than democratic states. . .assuming the UN enforces it across the board . .snort.
Yet another reason for the U.S. and other democratic nations to withdraw from the U.N. and take our funding with us.
what little sect is this guy a "bishop" of? Oh that is right, the Anglican communion.... Archbishop Sharia would sure be proud!
what little sect is this guy a "bishop" of? Oh that is right, the Anglican communion.... Archbishop Sharia would sure be proud!
"Who knows what pressure he was put under to make this statement.
Posted by: Silvester "
I agree with Silvester. Infidel communities in islamic countries are under tremendous pressure from the ummah. Though our MSM does not publish reports coming from pak and bangladesh, Hindus and Christians in both countries are being slowly wiped out. I read a report in a weekly that told of the complete destruction of Hindu temples in a Bangladeshi village. The reason for doing so ? It is kaffir. Right now, am looking for more weekly journals and periodicals that actually carry some news instead of the largest circulated TOI and DB. Indian posters, can you suggest some ?
Perspective, people!
He was probably just concerned about the lives and safety of Christians (both natives and foreign guest workers) in the region-many of whom are not well-off financially and are essentially defenceless (both legally and physically) and all of whom already face discrimination. Iran, the Gulf states and Pakistan are not exactly hotbeds of religious freedom and tolerance...
Nobody forced him to become a bishop. He took on the responsibility of his own free will. By crawling for the muslims he and his ilk make certain that Christianity will be persecuted into oblivion as has happened all over the middle east. Being a good dhimmi simply isn't in the long term interest of his people. We should demand the same from him as from any other western leader - that he looks after his people and tries to end whatever persecution they face.
No wonder we get stuck with such lousy leaders when we demand nothing from them...