You are invited to read and if you wish, to register and contribute discussion to as well, the posts made to the most recent subject on the Visiblesoul Forum.

This subject concerns the restriction of free speech when it comes to religions, beginning with Islam and the recent conviction of someone in a German court, and the possible repercussions this may have for the exclusive claims to salvation of Christianity itself.

When you scroll to the bottom of this Journal page, you will come across seven small clickable buttons, each of them with a name on the same little background picture.
The picture is that of the altar and the view through the altar window of the Church of the Good Shepherd, Lake Tekapo, in the south of the South Island of New Zealand.
If you first came to my Journal by a direct route from elsewhere, you may not have realized that it is part of my larger website that includes five other pages. You are invited to visit those other pages as well.

The seventh button takes you to the Visiblesoul Christian Website from which my website and Journal are hosted.

‘The day is coming when British Muslims form a state within a state’
By Alasdair Palmer
(Filed: 19/02/2006)

Please take time to read these disturbing results of a recent survey conducted by Dr Patrick Sookhdeo.
Forty percent of Muslims in Britain want Sharia law introduced in predominantly Muslim communities in Britain.

But before I continue, some baseline facts derived from the 2001 census:

Ethnic groupings within the United Kingdom:
white (English 83.6%, Scottish 8.6%, Welsh 4.9%, Northern Irish 2.9%) 92.1%, black 2%, Indian 1.8%, Pakistani 1.3%, mixed 1.2%, other 1.6% (2001 census)
Religions within the United Kingdom:
Christian (Anglican, Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist) 71.6%, Muslim 2.7%, Hindu 1%, other 1.6%, unspecified or none 23.1% (2001 census)
Total Population:
60,441,457 (July 2005 est.)

Regarding those infamous cartoons…

“They [British Muslims] think they have won the debate,” he [Dr Patrick Sookhdeo] says with a sigh. “They believe that the British Government has capitulated to them, because it feared the consequences if it did not.

“The cartoons, you see, have not been published in this country, and the Government has been very critical of those countries in which they were published. To many of the Islamic clerics, that’s a clear victory.

“It’s confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call ‘adverse consequences’ - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.”

Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that “in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law.

“It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue.”

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo has a PhD from the School of Oriental and African Studies, London University and was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by Western Seminary, Portland, Oregon for his work in the field of pluralism. He was born and raised a Muslim, but converted to Christianity when at university, and his doctorate was based on his study of Islam, a subject where he has expert knowledge and experience. He has also written and lectured widely in the field of other faiths. Both Patrick and his wife Rosemary hold dual New Zealand and British citizenship.

Here are some other interesting words of his that are worthy of note:

In 1980 the Islamic Council of Europe published a book called Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States which clearly explained the Islamic agenda in Europe.

When Muslims live as a minority they face theological problems, because classical Islamic teaching always presupposed a context of Islamic dominance; hence the need for guidance on how to live in non-Muslim states.
The instructions given in the book told Muslims to get together and organise themselves with the aim of establishing a viable Muslim community based on Islamic principles. This is the duty of every individual Muslim living within a non-Muslim political entity. They should set up mosques, community centres and Islamic schools. At all costs they must avoid being assimilated by the majority. In order to resist assimilation, they must group themselves geographically, forming areas of high Muslim concentration within the population as a whole. Yet they must also interact with non-Muslims so as to share the message of Islam with them. Every Muslim individual is required to participate in the plan; it is not allowed for anyone simply to live as a “good Muslim” without assisting the overall strategy. The ultimate goal of this strategy is that the Muslims should become a majority and the entire nation be governed according to Islam.

(M. Ali Kettani “The Problems of Muslim Minorities and their Solutions” in Muslim Communities in Non-Muslim States
(London: Islamic Council of Europe, 1980) pp.96-105

OK, so what would you do?

I have listened to many suggestions, from rounding up all Muslims and deporting them to wherever elsewhere, some Muslim country somewhere, whether they are legal British citizens or not… to working even harder to appease these folk and help them to integrate into society.

I have been told that diversity is beneficial and makes for a better and more interesting society, that the problem is not diversity itself but our reactions to it instead. In line with that view, I have also been reminded that Jesus, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, would have a problem with segregation.

But whoa! Is that a true thing to say of Jesus?

Galations 3:
27 for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

For those who have been baptized in His Name there is no segregation as all of those are one in Christ.
Does that include those who have not been baptized in His Name? It doesn’t say so there.

Dr Sookhdeo believes that the problem is not with the majority of Muslims (I presume he means the 60% who did not answer that they want the introduction into Britain of Sharia law) whom, he claimed, are indeed moderate and accept separation of state and religion, but the problem is with their “self-appointed leaders” and the Islamic clerics. He sees a need to distinguish between these groups as the moderates came to Britain to move away from the theocracy from whence they came.

He saw, for example, Tariq Ramadan, whom the Government appointed as an adviser because ministers think he is a ‘community leader’, as being in reality someone with some very extreme views. Ramadan attacks liberal Muslims as ‘Muslims without Islam’ and he is affiliated to the violent and uncompromising Muslim Brotherhood. Ramadan calls the education in the state schools of the West ‘aggression against the Islamic personality of the child’. Ramadan says that ‘the Muslim respects the laws of the country only if they do not contradict any Islamic principle’. Ramadan adds that ‘compromising on principles is a sign of fear and weakness’. Dr Sookhdeo claims that this man does not speak for the majority of Muslims at all.

Dr Mark Gabriel (not his original Arabic name) also describes a large majority of Muslims as “secular Muslims” - those who believe in the peaceful parts of Islam but reject the call to jihad. He described this large grouping as taking on the cultural trappings of the message but not living it out completely. They may be very dedicated to their system of thought although it does not represent true Islam. Dr Gabriel claims that a great many of Muslims around the world fall into this category. (See Gabriel, Mark A., Islam and Terrorism, 2002) I have mentioned this man’s substantial credentials in another post in Judah’s Journal.

But back to Dr Sookhdeo and this, then, is what he would do…

“First, it [the Government] should try to engage with the real Muslim majority, not with the self-appointed ‘community leaders’ who don’t actually represent anyone: they have not been elected, and the vast majority of ordinary Muslims have nothing to do with them.

“Second, the Government should say no to faith-based schools, because they are a block to integration. There should be no compromise over education, or over English as the language of education. The policy of political multiculturalism should be reversed.

“The hope was that it would to ensure separate communities would soften at the edges and integrate. But the opposite has in fact happened: Islamic communities have hardened. There is much less integration than there was for the generation that arrived when I did. There will be much less in the future if the present trend continues.

“Finally, the Government should make it absolutely clear: we welcome diversity, we welcome different religions - but all of them have to accept the secular basis of British law and society. That is a non-negotiable condition of being here.

“If the Government does not do all of those things then I fear for the future, because Islamic communities within Britain will form a state within a state. Religion will occupy an ever-larger place in our collective political life. And, speaking as a religious man myself, I fear that outcome.”

Personally, I have a problem with the idea of “rounding up all Muslims and deporting them” as that introduces legal issues that deny legitimate human rights to those who are not in agreement with the Islamic agenda. But I do believe in deporting illegal immigrants, those who are not British citizens and have no legal right to be in the country. Add to that, there could be a massive tightening of immigration laws to protect the established cultural heritage and law and order. Not at all politically correct, of course, but it is time that notion was recognized for what it is as well - the tyranny of the liberal left’s pluralism and multiculturalism. And there must be effective prosecutions and convictions (with deportations as appropriate) under whatever laws exsist, including new laws as necessary, to protect and strengthen the established cultural heritage. This is imperative - and no soft measures be allowed towards any relenting of objectives.

I also have a problem with those who throw at me religious ideas that are taken out of context. We should all be held accountable under the one established secular law, but to be so inclusive as to say that we are all, Christian and non-Christian alike, “one in Christ” is not what my Bible says.
What my Bible does say is that Jesus gave us two great commandments that summarized all the law and the prophets. They were to love God with our whole being, and to love our neighbour as ourselves.
In my view, love includes maintenance of integrity and protection from harm and detrimental destruction as seen from a Christian perspective.

If governments began to take Islam seriously, came to appreciate its real agenda, and took the measures mentioned above and enacted them with absolute firmness, then this “middle road” between deporting all Muslims willy-nilly or cowardly appeasing all Muslims may be our way out. I know this idea will not necessarily be favoured by some of my friends who want all Muslims deported, and I am expecting some to be disappointed with me in this, but I respect Dr Sookhdeo’s views.
I believe in the right kind of firmness that takes control to stop the aggression on both sides. Disrespect for what is sacred is not a good idea, not of any religion - Christianity included. But that does not mean enforced submission to whatever is sacred of any religion - Islam included. I will cover my head with a scarf if I choose to visit a mosque (yes, I have already done that before) but I will not revere their prophet. Islam, nor any other immiscible ideology, must not be allowed to damage the integrity of our Western cultures. Democracy is about majority rule, not minorities conquering outside legitimate processes.
In my experience, freedom of the press actually does involve making discretionary decisions and the editing of some information. This happens routinely on an ordinary daily basis. I would often like to know more about certain issues but they are not in my paper because someone has decided they are not newsworthy, or has not written about them for whatever reason. But editorial discretion should not suffer from intimidation by any one group, or anyone at all.
The ongoing hysteria that has been whipped up lately is, in my humble opinion, both outrageous and ridiculous, serving the political purposes of those responsible for their own excessive reaction. This responsibility needs to be shifted back on to the shoulders of those doing the whipping up and the reacting, and they held accountable. The one who reacts is owner of the reaction.
Such a firmness that takes a fair and just control would then facilitate those of us who are charged to do so, to live according to something I very much believe in - the way that is holy and right in God’s eyes. The following words were written to Christians and actually refer to their interactions among the Christian brotherhood. However, they are to reflect outwardly in their relationship towards others as well:

Colossans 3:
1 Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things above, not on earthly things. 3 For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.
5 Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry. 6 Because of these, the wrath of God is coming. 7 You used to walk in these ways, in the life you once lived. 8 But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator. 11 Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
12 Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. 13 Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you. 14 And over all these virtues put on love, which binds them all together in perfect unity.
15 Let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, since as members of one body you were called to peace. And be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly as you teach and admonish one another with all wisdom, and as you sing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs with gratitude in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

A lovely view of New Zealand’s beautiful harbour capital, Wellington, on a balmy summer evening. If only Wordsworth could have seen this when he was in the mood to write…

Earth has not anything to show us more fair:
Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty:
This City now doth like a garment wear

The beauty of the [evening]: silent, bare,
Ships, towers, domes, theatres, and temples lie
Open unto the [harbour], and to the sky,
All bright and glittering in the smokeless air….

(adapted from Upon Westminster Bridge ~ William Wordsworth, 03.09.1802

I know that Wellington is not London, and in so many ways I am glad that it isn’t.
As much as I love London for it’s history, architecture, museums and galleries, parks, the river that “glideth at his own sweet will” and the shows and so much more, I don’t envy the troubles that have erupted there over the past couple of weeks and are a reflection of the extent to which an alien ideology has washed over British shores to settle its turbulent wash in its wake. Those troubles are not present to nearly the same degree in this country, and it was only in Auckland where a peaceful protest was staged.

This morning one of our Members of Parliament braved an article in the Dominion Post, one that to me spoke a lot of good sense. I will quote most of it here…

“I grew up in a world where being able to migrate to a new country was a privilege. In the 1950s, our Department of Internal Affairs assisted with classes for new citizens. They were instructed about the Kiwi way of life, and the things their hosts valued, including the separation of church from state, and the rights of individuals. The underlying message was that being allowed to settle here was a contract. Once you got residence or citizenship, NZ had to come first.

“Why has immigration policy changed? Why are most Western countries dealing with immigrants who think they have a right to punish their hosts if they dislike something they do? Sadly, the answer lies in the postwar nonsense that all cultures are equal.

“Many Westerners practise cultural cringe, debasing our heritage in the process. Human rights and race relations officials, not to mention otherworldly clerics, argue that everyone, everywhere, has a right to his or her cultural practices and religion, no matter the offence given to their hosts. Some African Muslim practices such as female circumcision have been outlawed, but not the wearing of burqas, despite the clear symbolic intention behind them to repress women.

“The care given to the screening of migrants has slipped disastrously over recent years. the cross-questioning that was normal after WWII is frowned upon now. Result? Five million Muslims now live in France, reluctant to acculturate. Remember the fury over headscarves in French public schools? Other countries have big Muslim minorities who are similarly reluctant to fit in. In Britain, many take offence when anything critical of Islam occurs but show no sensitivity to the offence some Muslims’ own behaviour causes.

“What is sinister is that many Muslims in foreign countries appear to have become a fifth column for Islam. On cue from Tehran or Damascus a demo takes place in Copenhagen, Lebanon, Jakarta, London and even Auckland. While ours was peaceful, in other countries thugs rampaged, many of them the same people who danced in the streets after the World Trade Centre’s destruction. They ritually burn others’ flags, and effigies of Western leaders. They pledge blood to redeem the Prophet. Stalin’s edicts had the same effect on Soviet fellow travellers. Ever since the ayatollahs grabbed power in Iran in 1979, they have waged holy war against the West.

…….

“It’s time our leaders woke up to what Islam extremists are doing. After the cartoons, there’ll be another fight. From 9/11 till today there has been a string of atrocities perpetrated by fanatics in the name of the Prophet. Something akin to war has already been declared by Islam’s lunatic fringe.

“Some say it is too late to tighten up on immigration. But there’s still time here. That Auckland Islamist should be made to apologize for his conduct. If Muslim extremists can’t be reined in, a serious conflagration looks likely.”

(Michael Basset, 13.02.2006)

An Australian-born friend of mine who has lived here most of her life finally decided to seek NZ citizenship. Although Australian and already acknowledging the British monarchy as sovereign, she discovered that she was required to take an oath of allegiance - all over again. If our migrants are to do that, then the Queen becomes their new Head of State to whom they owe allegiance - not to their country of origin - and they are accepting the dictates of our legal system which over-rides any cultural mores that they have brought with them from elsewhere. There are no cultural prescriptions or proscriptions that take precedence over those laws.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I have personally found the events of the past couple of weeks to be quite harrowing, and potentially exhausting. Keeping up with the news in any detail has meant delving even further into things that are unpleasant, unsavoury and really quite ugly. For some of my friends it has been seriously stimulating, providing the chance to inform those bewildered and baulking. For me, I have needed to back pedal at times, to take breathers, to do something suitably antidotal to deal with the chilling satanic evil that seemed inherent in the intense vitriolic hatred and venom spewed at us crusaders and kaffirs. There is nothing nice about this, and my soul seeks solace away from it all. The problem will not go away until it is dealt with, resolved. The truth is painfully real, but it is only the truth - not any of the lies - that will truly set any of us free in the end.

Meanwhile, my garden of roses and the following words seemed to fit the “time out” that I need to keep going.

Oh-oh, I know I should have stayed close to my own patch this evening! Trust me to go meandering. Now look what’s happened! I’ve just stumbled upon it. I didn’t realize until I got to the bottom, of course, but there it was…

Three people you would like to see take this quiz:
1.
2. My friend from New Zealand, Judah (hey, can't help but rope someone else into this — )
3.

Drat! Now what am I to do?

Well, my friend from Toward-the-Goal did have me laughing with some of his responses. I was trying to imagine him sitting there in plaid flannel pajama pants seriously typing away at his keyboard, but somehow plaid flannel pajama pants and being serious just don’t go together too well in my mind. Sorry John, but what a hoot! Now I shall think of you in that get-up whenever you turn up online anywhere. Hehehe. Well, I did have to get you back for getting me into this, didn’t I? Hey folks, hop on over to his site and read the rest of his answers. And while you are there, some of the other stuff he posts to his blog is quite interesting also.

Well, it looks like I shall have to rise to the challenge. Just imagine a kid jumping into the swimming pool, eyes squeezed tightly shut and one hand holding nose. Here I go splash…!

Three names you go by:
1. Judah.
2. Mum-girl
3. Q (no, I’m not filling you in!)

Three things that scare you:
1. Islam
2. What teenage boys get up to when their Moms are not there
3. Big cats - lions and tigers, I mean

Three of your everyday essentials:
1. Granny naps (not that I’m a granny but I believe in getting in a little practice)
2. Food
3. Medication (sigh).

Three things you are wearing right now:
1. Navy tee-shirt
2. Denim jeans
3. Gold Medic-alert bracelet - and my wedding ring

Three of your favorite drinks:
1. Water
2. A classy NZ white
3. A smooth Aussie red

Three of your favorite songs — at the moment:
(Not really being into songs, I have the following to offer instead)
1. Jean Sibelius ~ The Lemminkainen Suite Op.22
2. Beethoven ~ Symphony #7 in A, Op.92
3. Smetana ~ The Bartered Bride

Three things you want in a relationship (besides true love):
1. Companionship ~ especially in sharing the chores
2. Humour ~ the kind that makes you laugh yourself silly
3. Trust ~ complete

Two truths and a lie (you guess which ones are which):
1. I am a South Island Kiwi
2. I used to own and ride a motorbike and can tell a sheep truck 10 miles further up the road
3. I love the way moths dart everywhere at breakneck speed to land in your drink just as you raise it to your mouth, oh and finding a fly floating in your coffee after you wondered what that thing was touching your lips. Grossed out yet? I’m sure I can find some more such things I absolutely love…

Three of your favorite hobbies:
1. Quilting
2. NZ Symphony Orchestra concerts
3. Writing

Three things you really want to do badly right now:
(I think John means “really badly want to do”, don’t you John?)
1. Call in my fairy godmother to clean house
2. Instill 25 years of maturity into my son’s brain
3a. Finish quilting some of my quilts
3b. Become less pedantic about adverbs (sorry - just teasing!)

Three places you want to go on vacation:
1. Oman
2. Norfolk Island (again)
3. Bozeman, Montana (again)

Three things you want to do before you die:
1. Tidy up
2. Empty my In tray - have nothing essential unfinished
3. Use up my fabric stash

Three ways that you are stereotypically a chick / guy:
1. I peck sweetly (and eat whole grains as well)
2. I once laid an egg - he hatched a while back
3. I don’t crow like the roosters.

Three people you would like to see take this quiz:
1. Shakespeare
2. William Wordsworth
3. The Southern Hermit (yep, your turn now!)

Phewwwww! I got to the end of it. Well John, how did I do? Does anything there look as good as your plaid flannel pajama pants? Blame it on Micah. He can blame it on his brother.

There, now I have shattered my image, not that I am sure what it was in the first place. But a little silliness is sometimes a necessary antidote to the serious stuff. There has been plenty of that happening of late, and I for one find the current world news and the stories behind it is enough to scare me witless when I think of how things could become if the trend is not halted.

If the worst comes to the worst, let’s laugh while we can.

How much freedom do you think we have? And how much responsibility goes with such freedom?

I remember being told very early in the piece that with privilege comes responsibility, that one does not exist without the other - or should not, if one was a decent human being. I think the same can be said for freedom, since freedom is a privilege clearly not shared by all in this world. But what exactly is this responsibility that we have? To what extent must it be for others, and how much for ourselves?

The editors of the two NZ papers which printed the Muhammad cartoons yesterday apologized in a meeting with Muslim leaders and convened by the Race Relations Commissioner. They apologized for the offense caused, but did not resile from the decision to publish. In return, the Muslim leaders recognized freedom-of-the-press issues. The president of the (NZ) Federation of Islamic Associations felt it had been a successful outcome.

But what exactly is responsibility when it comes to personal reactions? If you do something that I find to be offensive, and someone else did not find to be offensive, then does that mean you did two different things? No, of course you didn’t. You did one thing, but there were two reactions. In fact, there can be as many reactions as there are people to react. So who is responsible for the reactions that occur - you, or the people reacting?

Two women are baking cakes in their kitchens, both of them using identical recipes. Coincidentally, both of them leave out the raising agent and the resultant cakes turn out to be a bit of a mess. One of the women, on taking her cake out of the oven, gapes in horror and then worries and starts the negative “self talk” that drags herself down into hopeless despair and self-loathing. Yes, there are many people around whose self esteem rest entirely on their achievements and can brook no failure without it reflecting in a somewhat fragile self image. But the other woman, on seeing her cake, gives a sigh of frustration but matter-of-factly sets about planning how to recover without any harm done. She does not catastrophize nor relate this to her own self esteem. Two quite different reactions to the identical situation, and each the responsibility of the owner of the reaction.

Two men have insults thrown at them, but in a language that they do not understand and so they have no idea what was said. They look at each other and pull one of those faces that says “Did you get that? Neither did I.” They did not feel insulted - not because no insults were thrown at them, but because they did not comprehend. Again they have the same insults thrown at them, this time in their own language which they do understand. The words are heard and a huge network of neurons fire within their brains, both cognitive and affective associations being made. One simply laughs and walks away. The other raises his fists and fights back. Who is responsible for each of their quite different reactions?

Now if I did something that you find to be offensive, I can certainly feel sorry that you have reacted that way, and I am likely to even say that - “I am sorry!” or “I am sorry that you are offended by what I did.” It is quite possible that I might even, out of compassion, say “I am sorry that I offended you” since I know it is not a pleasant experience to feel offended. But that is not to say that I should be blaming myself for your offence taken because, in fact, it was you and not me who is responsible for your own reaction. Would I do it again, knowing that you will be offended? Well… it would very much depend on what exactly it was that I did, and how important in the larger scheme of things it was that I did. I may not wish to offend you, but it may be that there are even more important things to consider. And this is where responsibility comes into the equation. The responsibility to consider all things and to make the decision that I honestly believe to be best.

So our two newspaper editors apologized for the offense caused, and the Muslim leaders recognized the freedom-of-the-press issues. I’m not exactly sure what that means. I would like to think that they took responsibility for their own reactions, but I have not been told that they did. If we are all to enjoy certain freedoms, which in this world are priveleges that all do not have, then we have a matter of responsibility to consider. Is it that we must be responsible for the reactions of others, and if so, to what degree are we responsible?

I think I have been hearing many say that we are indeed responsible for the reaction of others - that the Press is therefore irresponsible to publish information that will have negative social outcomes.

But just a moment… what about those who are doing the reacting? What about their own responsibilty for the attitudes and beliefs that they hold, and to curb their reactions in the interests of preventing negative social outcomes. Is responsibility to be abrogated for them? No, this is a both ways affair. And what about the responsibility we have to protect our freedoms, and to exert them despite the fact that not all will react in the same way? Oh-oh, there is much to consider in this whole big issue, and just right now when I observe the events on the world stage, it is still looking awfully one-sided to me.

With the current furore hotting up against Europe by enraged Muslims worldwide over the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in several more newspapers - first in Denmark, and now in France (whose editor has been sacked for doing so), Spain, Germany, Italy and Holland - we have just heard that our capital city’s national daily newspaper plans to do the same in tomorrow morning’s issue. The editor already knows it is a risky move, the small percentage of the population who are Muslim having threatened that there will be consequences and reprisals.

Last month I posted an entry “Here We Go Again” concerning the special treatment that Christianity got in the way of ridicule and misrepresentation, with the pearls of believers being trodden into the mud. Some Christians had protested vehemently about the TV show “The Book of Daniel” created by Jack Kenny, and I asked how it was that political correctness did not work in favour of defending the Christian minority when it would seem to do so all other minorities. Would Jack Kenny dare to create a show doing the same to Islam, or would his head soon depart from his shoulders? The show was withdrawn after only three episodes, there not being enough interest to keep it running.

As a personal comment, I admit that I would not have considered drawing any such cartoons myself, not even now - no more so than I would have encouraged Jack Kenny to portray Christianity as he did either. But neither do I see these two actions as entirely equal to each other for reasons I mention below. Where my reservations occur is that Islam considers images of Muhammad an act of idolatry, and while it can be said that I will write the truth so why not draw the truth, and that it may seem rather precious to show respect where little may be deserved, I do respect the same sentiment in the Amish who will not draw faces on the dolls of their daughters. The bottom line is that I do not seek to give offence although should offence be taken when the action was justified, it may well be that the other has the work of reconciliation to consider. That is something about me, not anything about Islam.

The blogosphere is now spreading these cartoons around like crazy, and the Muslim reaction is incredible. Is there a difference in these situations - the Jack Kenny portrayal of Christianity, and the cartoons of Muhammad? Yes, I think that there is.

Those cartoons that I have seen so far are really nothing but mild in their portrayal of the prophet of Islam - the original ones published in Denmark. They say nothing at all about him that Muslims do not already say about him themselves. It says nothing about Islam that Muslims do not practice that is Islam. In short, they are for the most part objectively true representations. On the other hand, Jack Kenny’s portrayal of Christianity was not a true representation. It was a mockery and seriously lacked any resemblance to truth. Mulims do not like the caricatures, but they will readily worship the same aspects of their prophet as penned in the sketches.

There is another big difference to consider. What kind of reaction resulted in both cases? Compare the small amount of protest by a small number of Christians to the massive and amazingly excessive reaction of Islam where death threats have been issued, flags burned, apologies demanded and punishments requested, ambassadors (Libya and Saudi Arabia) withdrawn from Copenhagon, angry mob beatings, boycotts, a fatwa issued, and numerous diplomatic protests including to the United Nations itself.

Islam will not tolerate crticism, cannot stomach satire, and can laugh off nothing that it perceives as occurring against it. Humour is out. But in the west, this is not just about humour - it is the far more serious matter of holding on to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech surely must allow the freedom to criticize, to annoy, ridicule and even offend. There will always be some who object to something another has said, but except where the laws of libel and slander can be used to moderate such expression, this is considered a right that we need to defend as part of our culture. There are also laws against reactions that are excessive such as death threats and damage to property and person.

The really positive thing about this whole furore, and an outcome that is just what was needed, is that it appears that the west is now finally waking up to just what is involved by the encroachment of Islam. At last we have a situation where it becomes irrational and blind to approve the notion that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance, and that it has merely been hi-jacked by the likes of OBL, al Qaeda and the Hamas, etc, who make it appear to be something terrible that it is not. The hue and cry comes from ordinary Muslims everywhere. They are forgoing any practise of taqiyya and demonstrating just how intolerant and violent is Islam when a slight is perceived. This is the general reaction of all Muslims, not just a few who might be called radical. The real colours of true Islam are showing for all to see. So do we want to lose our freedoms for which our fathers and grandfathers fought to protect in the two world wars of the last century? Surely we don’t. But if we are not to say a word supposedly against Muhammad or Islam, then we are already losing those freedoms.

Now I am wondering what is going to happen in this country after tomorrow. Our newspaper editor knows very well that he is taking a risk. But he is taking a stand, and what worse things may happen if he doesn’t do that? I congratulate him on taking a stand for our freedom.

4 February:

The Wellington Dominion Post - Cartoons ‘test of Islamic tolerance’

The Wellington Dominion Post - Danish cartoons in NZ media raise concerns over trade risk

The Wellington Dominion Post - Editorial
The editorial expresses my own position well.

No cartoons of Muhammad are shown anywhere on this site, or on the sites linked to above.