The Rants of Issachar

The riots continue...

So there are riots happening over these cartoons and Antonia Zerbisias of the Toronto Star says that bloggers like me who posted the cartoons are motivated by hate. Uh... No I'm not. If you think I am, then you don't know me. I don't hate Muslims. I don't hate Islam. It saddens me.

Carla says that "both *societies* are requesting the same thing - that the other respect them and their beliefs". To an extent that's true, but I think the "request" of secular society is more important and more legitimate. The modern/free speech/secular request does not favour any religious belief. The Islamist request, (I am deliberately not calling it an Islamic one), demands that Islamic beliefs be given special consideration.

That simply won't work in the modern world. It might work if the whole world was part of Dar al-Islam, but that is unacceptable to most people.

Mr. Zerbisias is wrong. I am not motivated by hate.

Posted by:  Katinka

Firstly, thank you Issachar for tackling such sensitive issues and for doing so with admirable respectfulness and candour.

Although it is true that within our secular Western societies we uphold the ideal of not favouring any religious belief, I wonder if the actuality bears this out. In my experience, Christianity particularly endures a lot of undue antagonism, while anyone slandering a first nations religion, for example, would be at risk of mass shunning and possible legal action.

It seems apparent to me that degrees of favouritism are quite evident even in our seemingly progressive and tolerant secular society.

Posted by:  issachar

I'm not sure I agree that Christianity is the target of undue antagonism. (At least not by the state).

If people want to shun those who slander First Nations faiths, but embrace those who slander Christianity, that's up to them. I don't see the government enacting laws that elevate one belief system over another. The temporal equality of all faiths doesn't require that people appreciate every faith.

Sorry, I've rewritten this a few times and I can't get the phrasing quite right. It's getting mixed up with another thought. Hopefully you get the gist of what I'm trying to say.

Posted by:  Katinka

Well articulated…yes, at a governing level there are no laws that elevate one faith over another. To that extent, I do agree with you.

However, at a covert level within our society, I think there is sufficient evidence that Christianity is more often perceived as an easy target...indeed, it's almost in-vogue to do so. Whilst you would have to search long and hard to find images that attack First Nations religions, it’s difficult not to stumble across examples like Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ, or the more recent work by a Tasmanian artist who chose to mock Christ in his depiction of the Last Supper.

As you intimated, all faiths are equal to the extent that they are equally subject to the same governing regulations (at least in North America). You cannot murder someone in the name of your religion and be absolved from the legal consequences. And yet, there seems to be an obvious disparity between the perception that we are a tolerant society, and the day-to-day reality. Does tolerance simply mean not bombing someone we disagree with? Or have we replaced bombs with almost juvenile images of antipathy? Although the legal right may exist, the latter strategy doesn’t seem all that more progressive to me.

Incidentally, I came across an article by Amir Teheri, (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007934) in which he aptly points out “Islamic ethics is based on "limits and proportions," which means that the answer to an offensive cartoon is a cartoon, not the burning of embassies or the kidnapping of people designated as the enemy. Islam rejects guilt by association. Just as Muslims should not blame all Westerners for the poor taste of a cartoonist who wanted to be offensive, those horrified by the spectacle of rent-a-mob sackings of embassies in the name of Islam should not blame all Muslims for what is an outburst of fascist energy.”

Posted by:  Lisa

I hope you don't mind if I put in my two cents. You two have articulated your points so well.
I think that the idea of multiculturalism in North America has led to this impossible notion of "tolerance" (=intolerance) - that everyone's individual religion, history, and culture must be equally appreciated and embraced. Canada promoted the idea of "multiculturalism" back under Trudeau; now, Canada is one of the most progressive countries in the world.

Historically, the governments of the USA and Canada, have elevated one belief system over every other one in the public realm and in the government - the tenets of Christianity. They clearly did not uphold Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism. There was, however, individual freedom to practice whatever religion one chose; but this is only because of the influence of Christianity on our governments and leaders. Now, Canadians and Americans are completely disconnected from a common history of faith, justice, law, art, music, etc. Consequently, we are left to create our own culture - one that has no uniform shared history.

My point is multiculturalism has helped create this mess. Our countries once elevated Christianity above any other religion. But now with multiculturalism, all religions must be embraced (except Christianity), and free speech is further inhibited.

Ok, now I'm going to sound totally insensitive - but I think these cartoons should be celebrated. This is what freedom of speech is in fact, - the freedom to express ourselves through peaceful means, even if it goes against popular opinion or causes offense. This should not be supressed. If Allah was mocked, ridiculed, and despised as openly as Christ is in the western world, via art, film, and the mainstream media, and if his name was continually used as a swear in Hollywood....how would these groups deal with that?

Islam, at the core, is not a religion of peace. The reaction of this group is not just "fascist" - it's rooted in their religious beliefs. The Koran clearly gives license to use physical means and war; although most Muslims may not react as this group did - I wonder how many would actually denounce this violence.

Posted by:  Lisa

Isachaar, there are numerous examples of open antagonism against Christianity by the State:
- fines against a newspaper and an individual (in Saskatchewan) over the publication of a Scripture (Leviticus 18:22) that condemned homosexuality
- the Canadian gov't has created laws that allow gays to marry
- government employees who have refused to give marriage licenses to gays have lost their jobs
- in the States, some courts ruled it was unconstitutional for the 10 commandements to be posted on public property
- a lower court US judge also ruled that "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional

That's it for now!

Posted by:  issachar

Sorry... It took a while to get around to responding.

I assume you're referring to this advertisement published in 2001.

I don't consider this to be an example of "open antagonism against Christianity by the State", and here's why:

The reference in the ad to Leviticus 20:13 suggests that homosexuals should be killed. (The verse explicitely states that they should be). To include that reference without including the wider context distorts Christian teaching. Since the ad promotes a distorted Christian message and in doing so implies that homosexuals should be killed I think it's fair to say that the Saskatchewan Human Rights commission is not attacking Christianity. It's also telling that according to the page I linked to, the same commission declined to hear an earlier complaint about one of Mr. Owens' ads that included the references but not his "no gays" logo. This suggests that the verses themselves are not under attack.

The fact is that gay people do get beaten & killed for being gay. (Fortunately, not very frequently). One can make a very good case that the ad is encouraging such action. I hate to be risk being overdramatic, but the devil can quote scripture. Not every message that contains scripture somewhere in it is a Christian one.

As for our gay marriage laws... Nothing has been done to force Christians or churches to bless or perform gay marriages. The government has simply said that it will recognize gay marriages as legitimate ones and it will perform civil ceremonies. If in the future this changes, you may end up being right, but this has happened yet.

It is unfortunate that employees refusing to give marriage licenses to gays have lost their jobs, but the fact is that if they will not hand out marriage licenses to gays they are no longer able to fulfill all the requirements of their jobs. It would be more just to transfer these people within the government service and I believe that they were given that option.

I'm not completely up on all the happenings of US courts, but I do know that a lower court ruling on a major issue like the separation of Church & State is not particularly important. The big ones always make their way up to the Supreme Court. At any rate, are you seriously suggesting that the US government is attacking Christianity? Certainly some people in every country don't like Christianity, but I think you'd have a hard time demonstrating that the US government is attacking Christianity.

Posted by:  Lisa

True, people can quote and distort Scripture out of context and misrepresent Christianity to the world. In that case, we should be sueing a whole lot of people, including all the churches embracing pragmaticsm and false doctrines.

The undeniable fact is that Christianity is under attack on a global scale by governments everywhere. Now more than ever this includes the western world. In June 2000 the US high courts ruled against student led prayers at public football games. http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa062100a.htm
The courts are driving Christianity out of public life. The high courts have ruled against prayer in public schools, the ten commandments on gov't property (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160925,00.html) nativity scenes on gov't property and even saying Merry Christmas in public schools(http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,71990,00.html) Thanks to the ALCU and the Courts - there is an INTENSE attack against Christianity in the US.

The intelligent design theory has been determined by a US supreme court judge as unscientific; they ruled against this theory being presented alongside the theory of evolution in public schools.

American, Ann Coulter puts it all into perspective. http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=63

Tell me Isachaar, what then would constitute an attack by the government against Christianity, if these are not attacks? These attacks may not bring immediate physical harm, but they will lead to an erosion of civil liberties the more atheistic and anti-Christian the gov't becomes. The gov't is actually being uprooted by these court rulings.

Posted by:  zannebee

There is no attack against Christianity. In the US, we have SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE, which is not the same as attacking Christianity. Christians are perfectly free to worship their religion in the United States. Christians can worship as they please, they can go to church, they can pray, they can talk openly about their religion. What is prohibited is GOVERNMENT SPONSORED RELIGION. This means that a government entity, such as a public school, cannot favor one religion over another. Believe it or not, this is to PROTECT Christians and other religious people from being forced to adhere to a religion that they do not worship.

Because Christianity is the dominant religion in the US (but, please note, not the state religion), Christianity has in the past been granted many privileges other religions have not enjoyed. For years and years, Christian prayer was allowed in PUBLIC school, the 10 commandments and other Christian texts were allowed in PUBLIC buildings, etc. etc., despite the fact that Christianity IS NOT THE STATE RELIGION. What is going on now is not an attack on Christianity, it is more like a righting of past wrongs. If another religion were so privileged, I'm sure that Christians would want that religion pushed out of the public sphere as well. This seems to be a very difficult thing for Christians to comprehend. Please... imagine that the dominant religion in the US is Wicca. Imagine your child being forced to say Wiccan prayers in public school. Imagine seeing Wiccan documents plastered around in public places where your religion, Christianity, is not represented at all. This is what upsets people. The appearance of a government sponsered religion. To you, this is no big deal because you are a Christian and you think that it should be that way. To a non-Christian, it is a big deal. Please try to put your feet in the shoes of a person of another religion and see how it would feel to have what you perceive as the government forcing someone elses' religion on you and your children.

And intelligent design should not being taught in public schools alongside the theory of evolution because it can only be classified as philosophy or religion IT IS NOT SCIENCE. The theory of evolution is science. Science should be taught in science class. Philosophy in philosophy class. It's as simple as that. If a parent would like their child to be taught Christianity and Christian thought in school, there are Christian private schools, or you can home school your child. This is perfectly legal and not prohibited by the government.

An attack by the government against Christianity would be if the government prohibited Christians from worshipping their religion in privately owned areas. Such as: private schools, churches, private homes, etc. Think about it... you are free to worship your religion. At Christmas time, you can put up all the Christmas related paraphernalia you want in your home, in your yard, in any place you own, in your church, outside the church, in privately owned places anywhere. Now, if the government begins banning Christians from worshipping their religion in the private sphere, if the government begins jailing Christians for worshipping their religion, if the government begins shutting down Christian churches, come back and tell me about it. I've got your back then. I'd be one of the first ones in line protesting because I believe everyone should be free to worship whatever religion they so desire.

Also, you may find this interesting, from Wikipedia's "state religion" entry:
"Where state religions exist, it is usually true the majority of residents are officially considered adherents; however, much of this support is little more than nominal; many members of the church rarely attend it. But the population's allegiance towards the state religion is often strong enough to prevent them from joining competing religious groups. Many sociologists theorise that the religious difference between the United States and Europe is an example of this: the continuing vitality of religion in American life, compared to many European countries, is due to the lack of any state church during most of American history."

Posted by:  zannebee

Now this is an example of Christian persecution.