Thursday, 30 September 2010
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Thursday, 9 September 2010
Why Qu'ran Burning is Wrong - and What Else Needs to be Said...
The controversial pastor in Florida who has now got world attention may likely not go ahead with the burning of the Islamic Holy Book, the Qu'ran, on 9/11's ninth anniversary tomorrow, Saturday. US President Barak Obama has asked him not to go ahead with this act which, according to Obama, contradicts American values of religious freedom and religious tolerance. He is, of course, right. For those of us who have had the privilege of growing up in a free, democratic society, we respect life and uphold tolerance (but that is not so in non-democratic societies). It also is, according to Obama, an opportunity for terrorist groups to recruit more fanatics. Again, he's right.
The threat of buring the Qu'ran has received world-wide condemnation, from the Catholic Church to the secular atheist in Europe, as well as from most Americans. Pastor Jones is, therefore, not representative of all Americans - that is clear and important to point out. And he is certainly not represenative of Christianity. Yet despite all that, the fanatics call for the killing of Americans everywhere. The Indonesian government claims that this act threatens world peace and a cleric would have considered it a declaration of war. And Iran, of course, had to blame the Zionists (i.e., Jews) for the initiative...
Now, we all agree that it is wrong to burn religious Holy Books. But we should ask what other issues relate to this act and its response, especially the response from the Muslim world.
What is at stake? Several things:
I guess there are more issues involved than listed here, but let's consider the issue further in view of these points.
Offence and Tension
Burning any religious book is offensive to people of that religion and to those who believe in freedom, tolerance and respect. Indeed, the threat alone has caused outrage worldwide, violently in the Muslim world. How ever much I disagree with such an act, there are several things hardly anybody talks about anymore: 9/11 was caused by people who take the Qu'ran seriously; the pastor's actions are in response to Islamic terror and in protest of the Ground Zero Mosque; Muslims are so easily angered and quickly turn to violence (cf., violent outbursts about Muhammed cartoons in the Danish press); Bibles are being burned, flags set ablaze, Christians are being persecuted, and human rights are abused in many Muslim nations - yet, and this is the irony if not hypocrisy of this situation, no one really cares about that. Why does no one point out that Muslims are so very aggressive and they actually themselves do to other religious books what one man was about to do to theirs - isn't that wrong, too? I don't for a minute believe in religious retaliation, and adhere to not repaying evil with evil. But this double-standard in global opinion is unacceptable, no matter how bad this pastor's planned actions are. But no, nobody can say anything against Islam - and why not? Because they turn violent, and onbody wants that; and not just bin Laden's bodyguards, no, your average Muslim in Pakistan, too. Western politicans and media are actually afraid of Islam's response to any form of criticism thereof - does Islam hold us hostage? Inroinically enough, Islam is the only religion that with global protection: Islamophobia is banned (hypocritically, on the other hand, Zionism is equated with racism! What a distortion of history...)
Response and Aggression
This violent response and aggressive behaviour by vast numbers of normal Muslims should be questioned and analysed. Does it not show a fanatical attitude once their sacred things are touched? What should that tell us? Isn't it interesting to observe that after 9/11 Islam has actually became more acceptable in the world? That to me, does not make any sense - at all. Yes, of course, there are many moderate, normal Muslims in the world - and I saulte them for their involvement towards peace. But are they also upset, on moral grounds, when fellow Muslims burn American and Israeli flags or Bibles - or persecute Christians?! Obama was right that lives of American troops will be endangered by these threats and actions of burning the Qu'ran. These are unecessary dangers for an already endangered army. But no one questions the radicals about them just using that incident as an excuse for more terror and bloodshed. Yet is the pastor alone to be blamed for this or is it simply a 'good excuse' to justify anti-Western aggression and terrorism? In today's interview of TIME Magazine's editor , the man was couragous enough to point out that there are people who are easily offended and are actually looking for a fight - would anyone dare point the finger at those of the Muslim religion? I doubt it. Interestingly, a British minister pointed out that this American pastor's intentions also endanger British troops. Why is that? What does a British soldier have to do with an American offender? The connection is simple: to the radical Muslims, even some 'moderate' ones, these foreign armies are one and the same. THey are infidels. While everyone blames Tony Blair for British casualties, few blame the radicals - double-standard? Yes indeed. And few understand that here is a link between democracy and freedom with peace and security (See Natan Sharanky's The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to overcome Tyranny and Terror).
Danger and Death
Endangering anyone is not right. But not only are soldiers threatened, so are Christian missionaries. Hence, this kind of tribute to 9/11 and protest against radical Islam is indeed dangerous. Yet some would argue that this is indeed the fault of that Christian lunatic, hence what's the complaint then? But, again, no one seems to be fair to the big picture: Christians are already being persecuted, tortured and/or killed in Islamic nations (including Turkey) - and, you guessed it, no one really cares. Why? No one wants to confront the evils of Islam head on. Just last week I saw the stoning of a woman and the beheading of a man in Saudia Arabi, and today I saw the mutilation of a thief in Iran - who addresses these serious human rights offences carried out by governments? I wonder why these Muslims who condemned the terror attack of 9/11 are not more active in spreading peace among their own people... I wonder why no Muslim nations condemn Hamas and Hizb'Allah for terroroism against Israeli civilians... I wonder why! This pastor's planned actions are actually more of a protest against the Ground Zero Mosque rather than an insult against the Qu'ran. World opinion centres on that one planned act - however bad it is - but no one sees that this is a way to protest against that highly controversial mosque. I really don't want to be near Ground Zero tomorrow...
Bad Reputation
Finally, as if Christianity - according some people's version of it - doesn't already have a bad enough reputation, this pastor's action makes everything even worse. The 'aggressive atheists' are having a field day. People even condemn all forms of religion as fascism or fanatiscism. Why? Because of one man's actions - which have not been carried out - a man who hardly has a following? Isn't that exaggerated? I struggle with this kind of double-standard and exaggeration - it's not just and it's not right. Indeed, some blame the media for blowing this incident out of proportion, and that Obama & Co should have kept silent to avert tension. The truth is there would have been outrage and protests anyway and with the same amount of aggression, and the reason why the media has covered this in such a way and why high priofile leaders got involved is because of the aggressive reaction by the Muslims community worldwide.
The point is this: burning the Qu'ran is morally wrong and destructive in terms of Western-Muslim relations, but aggressive behaviour and radicalism in the name of Islam is even worse. While the world condemns the former, they fail to respond to the latter. Such double-standard is unnacceptable and will lead to further tension if not war.
The threat of buring the Qu'ran has received world-wide condemnation, from the Catholic Church to the secular atheist in Europe, as well as from most Americans. Pastor Jones is, therefore, not representative of all Americans - that is clear and important to point out. And he is certainly not represenative of Christianity. Yet despite all that, the fanatics call for the killing of Americans everywhere. The Indonesian government claims that this act threatens world peace and a cleric would have considered it a declaration of war. And Iran, of course, had to blame the Zionists (i.e., Jews) for the initiative...
Now, we all agree that it is wrong to burn religious Holy Books. But we should ask what other issues relate to this act and its response, especially the response from the Muslim world.
What is at stake? Several things:
- it's offensive and will only further increase tension between the Muslim world and the US and the Western world at large.
- it has caused an aggressive response of the Muslim world.
- it has endangered US and other troops in Muslim nations (e.g., Afghanistan).
- it has given Christianity a bad name, despite the fact that this pastor is alone and most, if not all, of Christendom worlwide does not support the burning of the Qu'ran.
I guess there are more issues involved than listed here, but let's consider the issue further in view of these points.
Offence and Tension
Burning any religious book is offensive to people of that religion and to those who believe in freedom, tolerance and respect. Indeed, the threat alone has caused outrage worldwide, violently in the Muslim world. How ever much I disagree with such an act, there are several things hardly anybody talks about anymore: 9/11 was caused by people who take the Qu'ran seriously; the pastor's actions are in response to Islamic terror and in protest of the Ground Zero Mosque; Muslims are so easily angered and quickly turn to violence (cf., violent outbursts about Muhammed cartoons in the Danish press); Bibles are being burned, flags set ablaze, Christians are being persecuted, and human rights are abused in many Muslim nations - yet, and this is the irony if not hypocrisy of this situation, no one really cares about that. Why does no one point out that Muslims are so very aggressive and they actually themselves do to other religious books what one man was about to do to theirs - isn't that wrong, too? I don't for a minute believe in religious retaliation, and adhere to not repaying evil with evil. But this double-standard in global opinion is unacceptable, no matter how bad this pastor's planned actions are. But no, nobody can say anything against Islam - and why not? Because they turn violent, and onbody wants that; and not just bin Laden's bodyguards, no, your average Muslim in Pakistan, too. Western politicans and media are actually afraid of Islam's response to any form of criticism thereof - does Islam hold us hostage? Inroinically enough, Islam is the only religion that with global protection: Islamophobia is banned (hypocritically, on the other hand, Zionism is equated with racism! What a distortion of history...)
Response and Aggression
This violent response and aggressive behaviour by vast numbers of normal Muslims should be questioned and analysed. Does it not show a fanatical attitude once their sacred things are touched? What should that tell us? Isn't it interesting to observe that after 9/11 Islam has actually became more acceptable in the world? That to me, does not make any sense - at all. Yes, of course, there are many moderate, normal Muslims in the world - and I saulte them for their involvement towards peace. But are they also upset, on moral grounds, when fellow Muslims burn American and Israeli flags or Bibles - or persecute Christians?! Obama was right that lives of American troops will be endangered by these threats and actions of burning the Qu'ran. These are unecessary dangers for an already endangered army. But no one questions the radicals about them just using that incident as an excuse for more terror and bloodshed. Yet is the pastor alone to be blamed for this or is it simply a 'good excuse' to justify anti-Western aggression and terrorism? In today's interview of TIME Magazine's editor , the man was couragous enough to point out that there are people who are easily offended and are actually looking for a fight - would anyone dare point the finger at those of the Muslim religion? I doubt it. Interestingly, a British minister pointed out that this American pastor's intentions also endanger British troops. Why is that? What does a British soldier have to do with an American offender? The connection is simple: to the radical Muslims, even some 'moderate' ones, these foreign armies are one and the same. THey are infidels. While everyone blames Tony Blair for British casualties, few blame the radicals - double-standard? Yes indeed. And few understand that here is a link between democracy and freedom with peace and security (See Natan Sharanky's The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to overcome Tyranny and Terror).
Danger and Death
Endangering anyone is not right. But not only are soldiers threatened, so are Christian missionaries. Hence, this kind of tribute to 9/11 and protest against radical Islam is indeed dangerous. Yet some would argue that this is indeed the fault of that Christian lunatic, hence what's the complaint then? But, again, no one seems to be fair to the big picture: Christians are already being persecuted, tortured and/or killed in Islamic nations (including Turkey) - and, you guessed it, no one really cares. Why? No one wants to confront the evils of Islam head on. Just last week I saw the stoning of a woman and the beheading of a man in Saudia Arabi, and today I saw the mutilation of a thief in Iran - who addresses these serious human rights offences carried out by governments? I wonder why these Muslims who condemned the terror attack of 9/11 are not more active in spreading peace among their own people... I wonder why no Muslim nations condemn Hamas and Hizb'Allah for terroroism against Israeli civilians... I wonder why! This pastor's planned actions are actually more of a protest against the Ground Zero Mosque rather than an insult against the Qu'ran. World opinion centres on that one planned act - however bad it is - but no one sees that this is a way to protest against that highly controversial mosque. I really don't want to be near Ground Zero tomorrow...
Bad Reputation
Finally, as if Christianity - according some people's version of it - doesn't already have a bad enough reputation, this pastor's action makes everything even worse. The 'aggressive atheists' are having a field day. People even condemn all forms of religion as fascism or fanatiscism. Why? Because of one man's actions - which have not been carried out - a man who hardly has a following? Isn't that exaggerated? I struggle with this kind of double-standard and exaggeration - it's not just and it's not right. Indeed, some blame the media for blowing this incident out of proportion, and that Obama & Co should have kept silent to avert tension. The truth is there would have been outrage and protests anyway and with the same amount of aggression, and the reason why the media has covered this in such a way and why high priofile leaders got involved is because of the aggressive reaction by the Muslims community worldwide.
The point is this: burning the Qu'ran is morally wrong and destructive in terms of Western-Muslim relations, but aggressive behaviour and radicalism in the name of Islam is even worse. While the world condemns the former, they fail to respond to the latter. Such double-standard is unnacceptable and will lead to further tension if not war.
Prison & Praise: Getting out of Trouble
We all have them: troubles. But something inside of us tells us that we are not live in troubles, right? Right. But how are we to deal with them? Surely, there are things beyond our control. Yes, true, but some things are withon our control, and - and this is the really good news - we can get the One who controls what is outside our control involved to turn things around! Consider the following.
Paul and Silas were falsely accused, severelybeaten and innocently thrown into prison (Acts 16:22ff). They weren't criminals, they simply expressed the freedom of religion they enjoyed at the time. Some didn't like it and sought to stop them - and they did, temporarily... Paul and Silas were chained up with their feet in the stocks. Circumstrances beyond their power had limited and shut them down. It wasn't their fault; and it lay outside their power to change things. Yet what was their response to the trouble they were in? That is the crucial issue!
Instead of complaining to God and feeling sorry for themselves, they were cheerful and praised God - yes, in prison! And please remember, these were not modern prisons with colour TV, on-suite bathroom, choice of food, daily pocket money, etc; these were tough place you didn't want to end up in. It's simple: being miserable in bad circumstances makers everything even worse (even if you think it couldn't get any worse - it can, be mebing miserable!) Beign cheerful, on the other hand, does make you feel better - even if circumstances won't change - and, beyond that, this kind of praise gets the One involved who is in control of circumstances beyond our power! Paul and Silas got God Almighty involved who turned their circumstances around and brought freedom adn justice to the situation. You can call on the same God to help you - the God who can change what is beyond our control as He is above all things.
Paul and Silas were falsely accused, severelybeaten and innocently thrown into prison (Acts 16:22ff). They weren't criminals, they simply expressed the freedom of religion they enjoyed at the time. Some didn't like it and sought to stop them - and they did, temporarily... Paul and Silas were chained up with their feet in the stocks. Circumstrances beyond their power had limited and shut them down. It wasn't their fault; and it lay outside their power to change things. Yet what was their response to the trouble they were in? That is the crucial issue!
But about midnight Paul and Silas were praying and singing hymns of praise to God, and the prisoners were listening to them; and suddenly there came a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison house were shaken; and immediately all the doors were opened and everyone's chains were unfastened.
Instead of complaining to God and feeling sorry for themselves, they were cheerful and praised God - yes, in prison! And please remember, these were not modern prisons with colour TV, on-suite bathroom, choice of food, daily pocket money, etc; these were tough place you didn't want to end up in. It's simple: being miserable in bad circumstances makers everything even worse (even if you think it couldn't get any worse - it can, be mebing miserable!) Beign cheerful, on the other hand, does make you feel better - even if circumstances won't change - and, beyond that, this kind of praise gets the One involved who is in control of circumstances beyond our power! Paul and Silas got God Almighty involved who turned their circumstances around and brought freedom adn justice to the situation. You can call on the same God to help you - the God who can change what is beyond our control as He is above all things.
This afflicated man cried, and the LORD heard him and saved him out of all his troubles.
--Psalm 34:6
Tuesday, 7 September 2010
Israel doesn't care about peace?
Time Magazine has released a very one-sided article blaming Israel for the failure of peace. Here is my letter I sent to them.
Dear Time Magazine,
Israel doesn't care about peace?
Let me come straight to the point: your accusation of Israel's apparent apathy towards peace is one-sided, a distortion of history, and quiet frankly appaling. Can one really wonder why a people - not to speak of that people's century-long history of persecution and displacement - gets fed-up with unfruitful peace talks and empty promises by the Arab leadership? A leadership that doesn't fight terror in its own ranks as promised, and leadership that didn't advance democracy among its people, and a leadership that didn't start educating its children towards peace after decades of hate propaganda. One might remember Shimon Peres' words at the WEF, asking which other nation had to fight seven wars in sixty years of its existence? The person writing the article, I wonder, has he forgotten the consistent 'NO' to peace deals by PA leaders or the call to Intifada or the increase in Arab terrorism in relation to peace talks? Historical facts - even without biased interpretation - speak sufficielntly enough: Israel has offered peace time and again; Israel has accepted the two-state solution several times; Israel has made painful concessions; Israel has fulfilled UN obligations; and Israel is a genuine partner for peace. Israel has offered and acted to build a Palestinian State several times, only to be hindered or turned down. If the PA realised or admitted that Israel would be its strongest ally to establish their state, to increase peace and prosperity, and to get rid of Hamas & Co., things chould change very quickly. I must disagree with your conclusions: wanting to enjoy life and increase prosperity is a human liberty, not a sign of apathy or indifference. The Palestinian Arabs could have that too if they were to acknowledge the Jewish State and work with it to achieve what it has achieved in such a short time - a tremendous achievement!
Gordon Merk, UK
Dear Time Magazine,
Israel doesn't care about peace?
Let me come straight to the point: your accusation of Israel's apparent apathy towards peace is one-sided, a distortion of history, and quiet frankly appaling. Can one really wonder why a people - not to speak of that people's century-long history of persecution and displacement - gets fed-up with unfruitful peace talks and empty promises by the Arab leadership? A leadership that doesn't fight terror in its own ranks as promised, and leadership that didn't advance democracy among its people, and a leadership that didn't start educating its children towards peace after decades of hate propaganda. One might remember Shimon Peres' words at the WEF, asking which other nation had to fight seven wars in sixty years of its existence? The person writing the article, I wonder, has he forgotten the consistent 'NO' to peace deals by PA leaders or the call to Intifada or the increase in Arab terrorism in relation to peace talks? Historical facts - even without biased interpretation - speak sufficielntly enough: Israel has offered peace time and again; Israel has accepted the two-state solution several times; Israel has made painful concessions; Israel has fulfilled UN obligations; and Israel is a genuine partner for peace. Israel has offered and acted to build a Palestinian State several times, only to be hindered or turned down. If the PA realised or admitted that Israel would be its strongest ally to establish their state, to increase peace and prosperity, and to get rid of Hamas & Co., things chould change very quickly. I must disagree with your conclusions: wanting to enjoy life and increase prosperity is a human liberty, not a sign of apathy or indifference. The Palestinian Arabs could have that too if they were to acknowledge the Jewish State and work with it to achieve what it has achieved in such a short time - a tremendous achievement!
Gordon Merk, UK
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)