Posted on 02/06/2006 7:00:19 AM PST by dson7_ck1249
Oh, puh-leeze. There is nothing in the least offensive, let along blasphemous, in some guy costuming himself to look like Jesus.
It is useful to examine the actual reasons why Christendom has outgrown this sort of barbarism (basically, the theocratic faction was defeated and marginalized to the point where it is now confined to a handful of Fred Phelps types) while the Islamic world still has so far to go in this respect. Bringing up nonsensical "parallels" does nothing to advance such understanding.
See my previous message. The author torpedoed his own credibility (and thus compromised the valid points he tried to make) with that diversion into stupidity.
nothing "in the LEAST"? ha, you'd think that you would at least concede that you could see why one might find it offensive. In the same way that I could concede why I think a Muslim might find the cartoons offensive...the point is that the offensive nature of each of those things might be a matter of opinion (as you have stated yours) but neither are ample reasons to go and blow up embassies and kill people (while threatening to kill more). I think that you're right to say that it would be helpful to examine the undercurrents both political and social that have been at work in the history of Christianity and Islam; however, I also think that your rejection of the drawn parallel as "nonsensical" is inaccurate, I think that a more apt parallel could not be drawn.
My post, I think, explains the rationale behind the very different reactions.
Muslims believe they must defend the honor of their god.
Christians believe that a real God needs no defending, redeeming, or protecting. "Vengeance is mine", says the Lord.
Some people will find offense in anything. However, it simply is not true that Christianity has a taboo on people making themselves look like Jesus in the way that Islam has a taboo against making pictoral representations of Mohammed, and the author damaged his argument with that silly parallel.
fair enough...good point. Thanks!
Take the quote in context, Steve. He's not ordering atheists to be offended. He's stating the fact that this depiction is offensive, even blasphemous, to the average Christian.
So the parallel is clearly there: Muslims offended by pictures they find blasphemous, Christians offended by pictures they find blasphemous.
The contrast in reactions couldn't be more striking. Of course, to the muslim mind, that only proves that Christians aren't as zealous as they are.
While you are perfectly correct in pointing out that Christianity has had it share of theocrats, it is also worth mentioning that the Reformation, which called Christianity back to the teachings of Jesus, gradually brought us back to the use of persuasion rather than force.
Contrary to popular thought, radical islam doesn't need a reformation, it needs a dark ages. The further they drift from their founder, the better.
And Kanye West personally was not outraged by the cover of the article but honored by it.. Tells more about Kanye West than what the article relates..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.