Can’t offend the Muslims

Can’t offend the Muslims

If only they were as concerned about blasphemies against Christ. Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, former prefect for the Congregation for Eastern Churches said editorial cartoons depicting Mohammed in European newspapers are “a scandal.” The cartoons were originally published in Denmark and the Foaming Bronze Age Fanatics around the world blew their tops because you can’t depict the Prophet in any way, shape, or form. In a show of support against Islamic intimidation, some French and German newspapers published them too.

But Silvestrini says this is bad, bad, bad.

In the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini wrote that the deliberate mockery of religious beliefs is offensive, and should be curbed. He said that the cartoons which have caused a furor across Europe and the Islamic world illustrated a tendency in Western society to consider liberty of expression as an absolute right.

Except the cartoons don’t mock Islam, they mock the violent and repressive tendencies of some Muslims.

So where was Silvestrini’s complaints when Rolling Stone blasphemously depicted hip-hop idiot Kanye West as a crucified Christ on its cover? I expect his editorial on NBC’s “Will & Grace” upcoming episode mocking Christians will be published any time now.

We’re all so afraid of offending Muslims or accusing them of being violent because, well, you know, they might commit acts of violence in retaliation. Meanwhile, Christians shuffle meekly into dhimmitude.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

  • Dom,

    I gotch yer back, hom.

    It will be interesting to see if the “Just War Doctrine” kicks in during our life-time; when Europe falls under Sharia.  We might actually have to break out the old Confirmation hardware:

    …the “Breastplate of Righteousness… the Gospel of Peace… the Shield of Faith… the Helmet of Salvation…and the Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God” (Ephesians 6:13-17).

  • Shades of Salman Rushdie – again. Amid the seriousness of the situation (not the cartoons themselves, but the idiotic reaction to them…) I am slightly amused to see the multi-culti elites in France, Germany and other EU nations hoist by their own petard, so to speak.

    The hypocrisy of the Muslim communities is also a sight to see. They can, and do, ridicule Jews and Christians at will in their own publications, but get all a-twitter when the tables are turned on them. I see no future for them in western civilized societies. They like to dish it out but can’t take it themselves.

    Welcome to democracy folks!  But then you wouldn’t be very familiar with that, would you? Not much democracy in Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia or points east is there? So why don’t you stay there…? Oh, you want what we have, do you…? Well boys and boys (seeing as the girls don’t have a voice…) freedom comes at a price. And if you are not willing to pay the price, stay home!

  • I may post on this on my own site, but in the meantime . . .

    I kind of agree with you; but I also kind of agree with the cardinal, and even—bear with me—the Muslims getting upset.

    Someone at the the Shrine of the Holy Whapping said something like, Muslims need to realize that sacred things are “sacred to you”—a problematic formulation, since that implies that things sacred to us, but not others, are fair game, too . . .

    Comes the response—but Christianity is the true Faith! Indeed, it is; however, that’s not a very convincing reason for non-Christians—so if we want to appeal to them to show our sacred things respect, we do better to appeal to a broader principle.

    Which is why it would be appropriate to treat the sacred things of Islam with respect; indeed, it would be appropriate to do so, even if Muslims don’t reciprocate, because doing so gives us credibility with more fair-minded folks, including among Muslims, and it is courteous and therefore, true to ourselves.

    Courtesy itself suggests that, where it doesn’t impinge on our own legitimate freedom of action, we should accord respect according to the other’s norms, not our own—i.e., were I to visit a mosque, I would follow their rules (if they didn’t involve any compromise of my own beliefs) for a house of worship, not mine. The example that comes to mind is the taking off of shoes.

    About the cartoons:  being mindful of Muslims’ sensitivities on this subject, I don’t know if I would draw an image of Mohammed; I don’t know that I wouldn’t, but until I felt a compelling reason, I wouldn’t, and I wouldn’t publish such images. So I am not planning to put those cartoons on my web site, but if a compelling reason presents itself to me, perhaps then I would.

    About the reaction and counter-reaction: I have no problem with Muslims voting with their dollars, although I would say, direct it against the actual offenders. I heartily endorse freedom of speech and the press, so of course the government should do NADA about this. I kind of wish the Rolling Stone cover had elicited, say, a hundredth of that outrage from Christians (manifested itself in legitimate ways). I have no opinion, at present, about the other publications printing the cartoons; as I said, I choose not to do so on my little blog, but don’t forgo the right to do so.

    So I am cool to what the cardinal is cited as saying, although he may have misspoken or been misquoted, or mistranslated, etc.

    However, I see no reason to poke Muslims in the eye on this one. That anyone is behaving badly is not a reason to respond in kind.

  • Most of my peeve is against the latter rather the former. I agree that we should accord respect for other sacred objects, but only to a point. If entering a Roman temple required me to pour out a libation to the gods, then I’m not going into the temple. If someone claims that the mere mention of their religion by an infidel is desecration, I’m sorry you can’t use that to stop me from criticizing the way people live their religion.

    There is an objective truth here and that is that Islam is a false religion. Of course, it doesn’t mean we should incite them unecessarily.

    Here is where we get to the crux of my pet peeve. We are so fearful of angering Muslims because so many of them act like Foaming Gronze Age Fanatics. Coming to the defense of those who are threatening to massacre Westerners and Christians only encourages them.

    I’m not saying that bishops should be openly applauding the cartoons, but they should just stay quiet.

    I’m not sure if I’m getting my point across. I’m a little distracted at the moment, multitasking while I reply to comments.

  • I agree we should not go out of our way to intentionally cause scandal for Muslims. That would harm our own dignity. But there is far more at stake here.

    Are we living in Saudi Arabia, or are we living in a free society?  If we decide to be afraid of those cartoons we have given the Islamists a victory. It means their irrational standards are extended far beyond Islamic society. To add insult to injury, this would happen because of fear—the fear that editors and diplomats will be killed (after what happened to Theo Van Gogh, it could happen to anyone who critiques Islam, right?).

    If the West is to survive the threat of dhimmitude and jihad, we are going to need some outstanding leaders. So far I haven’t seen anyone of this calibre in the Church—with Cardinal Silvestrini’s comments as an example, the heirarchy is still in denial.

    Read the distorted and self-righteous logic of many terror apologists and their co-jihadists. These are not reasonable people from whom one could hope to receive reciprocal respect.

    We are ‘kufar’—unclean, infidels, children of swine and monkeys. The Quran says so and Muslim practice through the centuries confirms this attitude.

    As for the cartoon itself, there is something ironic here. While depiction of Mohammed is supposedly banned as a way to discourage idolatry, isn’t the recent outrage some indication that Muslims do honour Mohammed as a kind of divinity?

  • The problem that Dom points out is the absurd and obvious double standard playing out here.  Even in the Cardinal’s reaction.  But is the Cardinal turning the other cheek?  Maybe so. 

    I certainly want to err on the side of taking the high ground.  I guess, if we don’t like the persecution, we could just stop being Christians and start “goin’ Jihad” all over anyone that looks at us kinda funny.

    I suppose we can hope that these examples of double standards and unfairness in the face of an implied threat, demonstrate to the world and Islam the differences between the True Faith and the violent teachings of a false prophet.

    As inconsequential as it may seem, I think we should remember this event.  It is clearly a capitulation to an unspoken threat of violence.  I suspect that in the future, we will remember this as an early act of appeasement in the inexorable assimilation of ex-catholic Europe by an Islamic hegemony. 

    The history of the middle east and north Africa show how Islamic intimidation, coercion and persecution can result in an “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” capitulation to the “ambient” culture.  I think the next thirty years or so are going to get very interesting.

  • It is no more wrong for the news media to write about Islam than it is for them to write about the rest of us.

    It is especially all right for them to write about violence in a “religion of peace” and it is perfectly all right for them to illustrate it.  It sticks out like a neon orange cadillac in a war zone.

    Muslims have a problem with illustrations of the prophet in their mosques, homes, books etc.  So be it.  It’s their religion, cracked though it is.  But they do NOT have a right to tell us what we print.  If they don’t like it, they the h*** shouldn’t subscribe.  Period.

  • Westerners should read some history on Mohammed.  He led a religious conquest army AFTER writing the Koran.  He was no peacemaker.  This time off to write, etc, was paid for by his wife—he was a little bit of a, how do I put it, religious entrepreneur.  Similar to J. Smith, etc.  It’s ironic that his wife’s money was the seed money for the most repressive and cruel-to-women religious movement ever seen.

    The thing that gives Islam it’s particular appeal and strength is that it’s an ethnicism.  Arabs hate Jews—historically, fraternally, culturally—and they can’t be Jews; they can’t be Christians because that involves hobnobbing with Europeans who triumph over them-superior culture etc.  So they have to have a religion of their own to call their own.  Bingo.  Islam.  Custom-made ethnic religion of the book.  That’s what this is all about. 

    It really doesn’t have so much to do with God as ethnic identity and its concommitant violence.  That is, the arab people of the middle east are tired of their own cultural failures and they want to blame us without assuming any responsibility for a failed culture.  They have rallied around their religion to do it.  Why?  Because it’s emblemmatic of not being Jewish, European, Asian, etc.  Pure and simple.

  • Thoughts on the appeal of Islam (acknowledging that I’m no expert):

    I agree with Michigancatholic, but I would add that the temptation of violence is always greater in the face of a perceived injustice.

    Islam has an ethnic link, for sure, but it is grow far beyond the middle east into Asia, Africa and even Europe.

    It seems most popular in circumstances where people feel oppressed and hopeless.  Christianity offers a largely internal transformation and peace.  Islam offers that, AND the justification for taking any action to propagate their faith; exact revenge, destroy enemies, punish dissent, etc. 

    Some people have made the case (Fr. Fox) that it is largely an economic issue.  I think this is true, to the extent that economics leave people feeling powerless and hopeless.

    Let’s not forget that the Philippines are now a heated battlefield between Islamic, Christian, and secular forces.  The Church has had centuries to spread the Gospel and has been somewhat successful.  But Islam is insidious and easily exploits the our failings.

    The other place it is really making inroads is in American prisons.  There, I’m thinking that economics don’t play quite the same role.  In that environment, Islam answers the need to place blame and focuses on a solution to their perceived problem; oppression by a godless or pseudo-Christian oligarchy. 

    The extreme militancy seems to appeal to men, especially.  It is possible (has anyone done research on this?) that Islam’s clear gender roles appeals to women, subconsciously looking for the masculine in a largely feminized west?  I bring this up because I just read an article about European women converting to Islam.

    …just thinking out loud.

  • Were we not outraged when Serrano gave us “Piss Christ”?  Of course we were—and rightly so!

    While the artist [sic] felt he was making an appropriate, freedom-of-speech-and-all-that commentary on something (and only God knows what he was thinking!), we felt insulted and demeaned.  Why?  Because someone had intentionally taken an image that we consider sacred and treated it in a profane manner.

    Can we not admit the same for the use of the prophet Mohammed’s image as a terrorist bomber?

    What difference does it make if theirs is a false religion, Dom?  Of course you’re right, but what happened to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”  If we’re not Christians, then what are we?

    True freedom is exercised with the care of others foremost in one’s mind.  I don’t think that the editors and cartoonists who put this one together were exercising “freedom” so much as “license.”

  • Perhaps I misunderstood “michigan catholic,” but I would not underestimate the positive, yet ultimately erroneous, attractions of Islam.

    I think michigan overstates the ethnic and the reactionary features, at least as a current attraction—because they hardly explain what attracts converts in so many other settings.

    Rather, people are attracted to something about Islam—it has a certain simplicity and iron certitude to it: kneel, you worthless creatures, and perhaps I will be merciful!

    Also, I think it was Belloc, or Chesterton, who saw the connection between heretical responses to the Christian dogma of Christ’s dual natures, and Islam: Islam is the next step after monophysitism.

    After all, Islam does have some features Christianity has, but unmoderated, if you will—a missionary zeal, a sense of universal brotherhood (or “submission-hood”), a sense that history will reach a climax.

    The zeal of Islam challenges Christians to recover ours.

  • I cannot imagine how just plain stupid it would be for a woman to convert to Islam. 

    I used to date a muslim man years ago when I was in college and got a first hand look behind the glamorous facade (before my conversion to Catholicism).  In the same group at college, a friend of mine married one of my date’s buddies and ended up over there where women have no medical care and are basically pets with genitals.  Her husband got tired of her and sent her home to visit her mother, divorcing her verbally while she was gone.  When she stepped off the plane in Riyadh on her return, they wouldn’t let her back in the country because her “male relative” wasn’t there to pick her up.  She came back home in shock.  I’‘m glad she didn’t have any children!!  Women with children who get “divorced” while they’re gone have to basically hire a kidnapper to get their kids back.  This is because, by law, children are the propery—yes, property—of the man, like dogs are property.  He can do anything he wants with them—including killing them if they are girls and they don’t come up to his miserable “purity” standards.

    These must be stupid European women who are in relationships with Islamic men who convert to avoid being
    beaten or left.  Women are cattle is Islam. 

    European/American women are so used to the freedoms of a Christian society, they assume they have those freedoms because of their own merit and they cannot be taken away.  I beg your pardon, but they can.  The guarantee that we have them is Christianity and Western culture.

  • Fr. Jim, we may not have liked Serranno’s display of contempt, but we did not put a fatwah out on him, ie. order a hired killer to wipe him off the face of the earth.  We didn’t burn down any embassies and threaten people bodily over it.

    Wake up.

  • Hey, michigancatholic, that “Wake up” comment is just what I’m talking about.  That’s just plain boorish.

    You didn’t notice me arguing for a fatwah against Serrano.  What I was arguing for was Christian behavior.

    Do we only act as Christians toward others who do?  Or do we take Christ seriously?  The fact that Muslims behave like, well, terrorists should in no way keep us from behaving like Christians.

    All that I’m saying is that it was not the finest hour of the Christian west to first draw a “graven image” of Mohammed and then compare him to a terrorist.  To argue “freedom of speech” is beside the point.  We (and I’m using the term loosely, to include everyone that the Muslims see as accountable for this great offense to their religion) stooped to a level that is below us when we embraced this cartoon, saying essentially, “You don’t like it?  Tough noogies!  We’re going to run it anyway.”

    Christians don’t go out of their way to give offense, especially when the point can be made in another way.

    And I would appreciate your more careful forms of address, since I can’t recall singling you out for abuse.

  • Civilized behavior is something that can be urged for Christians, but not for Muslims.  Is that it? It’s okay if they put out contracts on people?  And burn down embassies?

    We are to be excoriated for expressing reasonable opinions but they don’t even get corrected for killing people.  Is that it?

    Since when is it more serious to publish a **** political cartoon than it is to kill people?  I’m not picking on anyone.  I ask any of you to justify this.

  • Catholics were disgusted by the Piss Christ “artwork” but none of us decided to kill the “artist” or bomb the museum. There is a diference.

  • And regarding Isabelle’s post (have a look at it), isn’t that sign at least as objectionable as the cartoon?  I mean if it doesn’t upset us, it ought to at least upset the Jews.  What do they mean by “holocaust?”

    And why isn’t that objectionable?  And why do they feel free to bomb and murder over a cartoon and we’re not supposed to say a **** thing about this outrageous sign? 

    Again, to those of whom this applies:  Wake Up. 
    I say no names.  You know who you are.

  • Fr. Clark,

    What difference does it make if theirs is a false religion, Dom?

    I was mainly pointing out that they can’t appeal to a Truth that Mohammed is deserving of such honor. Regardless, my primary point is that Muslims want respect for Mohammed, but show no respect in the same vein for other religions, especially the Jews. It’s hypocrisy.

    I’d also make the distinction that it wasn’t the “Christian West” that put these cartoons out there. It was secular Europe, people who have a similar disdain for Christianity.


    Fr. Fox,

    Also, I think it was Belloc, or Chesterton, who saw the connection between heretical responses to the Christian dogma of Christ’s dual natures, and Islam: Islam is the next step after monophysitism.

    In fact, Belloc included Islam in his book “Heresies,” identifying it as a Christian heresy.



    Fr. Clark is not saying that it’s not objectionable. He’s saying that someone else’s boorish behavior does not justify boorish behavior on our part. Nor does it insulate them from correction. But engaging in the equivalent of “Same to your mother” is not a good Christian witness.


    Getting back to my main point: I was expressing some frustration that Cardinal Silvestrini chose to jump into the middle of this incident, but many churchmen are silent regarding similar outrages against Christian sacred objects and persons.

  • The cartoons were put out by secular newspapers.  The cartoon that had Mohammed with a bomb in his turban was funny.  Sorry, but it was too too true. 

    Am I supposed to loose my sense of reason just because I am Christian?

    I am killing no one.  I am bombing nothing.  I have paid no assasin.


    How will we react?  I think we should do some planning now, because it will just take one mentally ill catholic with a gun to justify comparisons with Islamic extremists.

    I’m sure the Vatican is planning something now.  And I’m sure the U.S. Bishops are planning to go and say how interesting the film is.  Not historically accurate, but worth seeing.

  • Andres Serrano’s P*** C***** was paid for, as least in part, by our tax dollars.

    It’s one thing to take pride in the fact that we didn’t go “Rushdie” on his arse, but shouldn’t we be at least a little ashamed that we didn’t do much of ANYTHING? 

    Granted, Islam has taken this “a bit hard”, but can we not look to our Jewish friends as a model of effective, but more restained response?  They don’t throw bombs, but they do organize and exert pressure.  What’s wrong with that?

  • A few weeks about, this story was going around about kids in sweden snapping up a new clothing line with an anti-christian message:

    Some random thoughts:

    1)I just saw it, shrugged and went about my business.  Maybe I should have taken it a little more seriously.

    2)Maybe the Islamic folks that are jiggin’ hard right now over the infidel-cartoon should have mustered a little solitarity with us…heh, heh.  Yeah.  That’ll happen.

    3)The ADL would NEVER have put up with this…

  • I know you’re new here, DaVinci, but it’s a good reminder to everyone that I prefer it if people can make their points in one comment rather than one right after the other. That prevents everyone from having to receive multiple email notifications in a row to flood their mailboxes.


    Regarding the previous point about respecting another religion as we would want our own respected, I do get conflicted a bit when I read the following which was posted on Kathy Shaidle’s blog:

    “My favorite bits: Sura 33, verses 50-53.

    “In verse 50, Allah lists the five categories of women Muhammad is allowed to have sex with. One is just regular wives, purchased the regular way. Two of the other categories consist of cousins. The other two are catch-all categories, the first of the willing (any woman who gives herself to Muhammad) and the second of the unwilling, slave women from conquered groups. Of course that makes Muhammad a rapist, but the way the Prophet recites it, Allah is fine with that.”

  • Domenico, that’s what the Muslims teach.  It is possible for that and worse to occur. 

    Don’t forget that brothers kill sisters if they believe they have *sullied* their purity in some way…like say, speaking to a strange man or letting their veil slip enough to show a lock of hair.  This is supposed to be holy behavior, killing your own sister?  This is not that rare.

    I’m sorry but this is Bull**** when so-called martyrs are told they’re going to have 40 choice whores in heaven as a reward.  That would make Allah, uh, a pimp.  I think an idea like that is sacrilegious and vicious.

  • The thing of it is, there have been images of Mohammed rendered before—by non-Muslims and Muslims alike —without any of the complaint we see presented at these cartoons.

    Mohammed Image Archive

    (Warning—there are some objectively offensive images in the archives: the further “down” the page one goes, the more offensive the imagery)

    Given that the cartoons that are the source of all the contraversy were published four months ago, doesn’t it strike anyone at all odd at the sudden furor?  Why now?

  • Let me see if I understand you:

    Since we (Christians) did NOT issue a fatwah against Serrano, it is now okay for us to demean another’s faith.

    Is that about right?

    Look, of course we are exasperated by the intolerant fundamentalism of the Muslims regarding what we think is only a cartoon.  We are also enraged at their fascist behavior toward their own, and their criminal behavior toward the West.

    But do we respond to them by dropping our own values?

    This doesn’t have anything to say about whether the war is justified (I think it is) or whether other steps should be taken (I think they should).  I am merely talking about whether we should embrace the publication of a cartoon that was intended to offend them and anticipated this response.

    And, remember, the controversy was multiplied when, after the original protests, several newspapers published it again, some on the front page, as an “in your face” rebuttal to those who protested in the first place.

    Nowhere do I say that it’s right to kill or murder; that’s a red herring.  And nowhere do I say that we (Christians) are wrong to protest this behavior, or to protest behaviors like Serrano’s.

    What I DO say is that it’s wrong for us to retaliate by stooping to behavior that’s below us, and the journalistic embrace of the cartoon—and our subsequent embrace of the journalists’ actions—is unchristian at best.

  • “Don’t forget that brothers kill sisters if they believe they have *sullied* their purity in some way…like say, speaking to a strange man or letting their veil slip enough to show a lock of hair.  This is supposed to be holy behavior, killing your own sister?  This is not that rare.”

    True.  It is not at all rare.

    Is any one here not aware of the concept of “honor killing”?  Google it.

  • After all the murders, the blowing up of children and innocent civilians, the beheadings the suicide bombings, the terrorist attacks across the globe, I think someone had to react to it in a manner that was true, effective, and non violent. Someone had to say something in the face of this relentless evil that has plagued the entire world long enough.  They need to hear the entire world say “STOP THE KILLING in the Name of your religion”!  “Stop hiding behind your religion in order to kill us and our Children”.  “If your religion becomes a threat to the lives of my family, community or Nation, your religion will be attacked and ridiculed and treated with scorn”.  Stop the Killing in the name of your religion! Religion gives no one the right or liscense to kill or to burn or to threaten a holocaust against the world.

    I think we need to pray for the safety of those who made the cartoons.  Their lives and the lives of their families and communities are in grave danger.  I think it is now time to go to Eucharistic Adoration because the barbarism is returning.

    God Bless,


  • Perspective is key here.  The fact that someone doesn’t approve of Islam isn’t 1% as bad as the things that occur under Muslim law. That’s very important to admit.

    There is nothing wrong with pointing out the many, many vicious actions that have been perpetrated in the name of Islam.  News media exist to report the news.  If that takes the form of an editorial cartoon, then so be it. It was a secular decision. The truth needs to be told.

    The violence currently being perpetrated in the Middle East is intimidation, pure and simple.  And that’s in everyone’s face. 

    If you don’t like that, you aren’t alone.  And no one is asking you to stoop to anything you don’t want to.  But you can stop scolding people for telling the truth. THAT’S not Christian.

  • When the towers in New York were bombed in 2001, wasn’t offense intended?  When buses of children in Israel are bombed, is it not the case that offense is intended?  When threats to our lives, including reference to “Holocausts” are made on a daily basis, isn’t offense intended

    But, ooooh, we aren’t supposed to offend.  Not even by telling the truth! 

    Which is more offensive: A stupid cartoon or 2800 innocent people murdered in cold blood in the streets of New York?  A stupid cartoon or busload after busload of dead people in Jerusalem?  A stupid cartoon or threat after threat?  Fatwahs and hit men?

    Don’t tell me about the evils of giving offense.  Tell the people in the Middle East.

  • I’m sorry, Fr. Clark—were you speaking to me in your 4:52 post?  If so, let me reassure you that I in no way believe that we have the right to mock the faith of other religions; I believe that St. Paul was quite clear in Romans 14: 1-19 on our need to refuse to submit to such schadenfruede.

    The point I would like to raise (and that has been raised elsewhere on the Web) is that the basis of this offense (the depiction of Mohammed) is not as universally held by Islam as we have been led to believe.  I would also like to point out that the flames of this outrage have been fanned by the Danish imams themselves.

    Furthermore, I feel I should also point out that the issue was pretty much dead and buried five months ago; it wasn’t until the Iranians were referred to the UN Security Council for their proposed uranium-enrichment program that the controversy blew-up into its current porportions.  And the country chairing then UN hearings on that uranium enrichment program is Denmark.

    In short, this is not about Muslims being offended—although I’m sure that some are.  Rather, this is actually about intimidation, and the cynical manipulation of religion.

  • Mark Steyn (via the Cafeteria is Closed blog) makes an excellent point…

    “Jyllands-Posten wasn’t being offensive for the sake of it. They had a serious point—or, at any rate, a more serious one than Britney Spears or Terence McNally. The cartoons accompanied a piece about the dangers of “self-censorship”—i.e., a climate in which there’s no explicit law forbidding you from addressing the more, er, lively aspects of Islam but nonetheless everyone feels it’s better not to.”

    </a href=“”>link</a&gt;

  • Michigancatholic – I wonder if you’re being intentionally obtuse.  I’ll try one more time to explain myself, and then I’ll quit.

    What Jesus said was, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  He did not say, “Do unto others as they have done unto you.”

    Whether the Danes that began this are Christian or not, OUR response to Muslims cannot be the one they visit upon us, or we are no different from them.  This is the hard language of our Lord; “You have heard it said that you should love your neighbors and hate your enemies.  What I say to you is love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for He makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.  For if you love those who love you, what recompense will you have? Do not the tax collectors do the same?  And if you greet your brothers only, what is unusual about that? Do not the pagans do the same? So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:43-48)

    What is our goal?  Is it to destroy by the sword those who have sworn themselves as our enemies?  Or is it to ultimately convert them to the one true Faith?

    Look, michigancatholic, you do not know me one whit.  Those who do have accused me of many things, but never has it been of being wimpy in the face of danger.  As much as, maybe more, than you or anyone else I see radical Islam as a threat.  However, I don’t think Christians—and in particular Catholic Christians—achieve anything by sacrificing our patrimony because of anger, justified or not.

    I believe that we’ve lasted 2,000 years by being faithful to the Lord’s command, difficult though it may be at times to reconcile to our (fallen) human nature.  This is one of those times.  We have to either choose to believe Him or go it ourselves.

    I know what I’m choosing.

    God bless you.