The Muhammad Film Trailer: An American Priest Reacts

[Jetavan]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

That was a delightful and thoughtful testimony, thank you kindly for sharing it with us

I hope many folks read it take it to heart..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[podkarpatska]

Thanks for posting! Patriarch Bartholomew issued a statement this week on the same subject, albeit in 'Byzantine churcheeze'.... "The Ecumenical Patriarchate believes it is our obligation to dialogue with those who are different than we are to gain insight into the other’s symbols, their priorities, and their way of thinking.  Symbols are external representations to which all people connect their own internal meaning and values.  In developing an understanding of the symbols, we come to understand the person.  To destroy symbols is to inflict pain on the people who honor those symbols and the traditions they represent in their heart." http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/statement-on-religious-tolerance-and-violence

[Charles Martel]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

[FormerReformer]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

[podkarpatska]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

[FormerReformer]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

Actually, I think Patriarch Bartholomew had some good words on the subject, and of course we (as individuals) should avoid offending people as much as possible.

That said, I think Martel's (and the priest in the article) words were a little over-the-top. There's nothing "outrageous" about the film itself, not in the American sphere. I think the reason so many (in the Ortho-sphere and elsewhere) are "bellicose and belligerent" is that many of these criticisms of this movie have nothing to do with the movie itself- was it well-shot, decently acted (I doubt it, seeing as how many of the actors had filmed entirely different lines, only to have them over-dubbed later, and weren't actually aware of how the footage would be used), did it have good direction, a thrilling score, or didn't it. Instead, the criticisms of this film are based on the fact that it is "offensive". Cry me a river. When Christians have been offended by Western-American artists, all we get is smug smiles and condescending replies that it is "part of the nature of art to be offensive".

And don't get me wrong- before I thought of Orthodoxy I wrote punk songs about seducing nuns titled things like "Sacrilicious". I am not necessarily against the idea of offensive art, not necessarily coming to the aid of whining right-wingers crying "When you do it to us it's not bad, but now...." But, seriously, the Muslim world wants to get it's panties in a bunch because they don't like a movie? Fine, they aren't ready to play with the big boys. But don't act like like these Mohammed movie makers are somehow to blame.

[Charles Martel]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

Actually, I think Patriarch Bartholomew had some good words on the subject, and of course we (aE individuals) should avoid offending people as much as possible.

That said, I think Martel's (and the priest in the article) words were a little over-the-top. There's nothing "outrageous" about the film itself, not in the American sphere. I think the reason so many (in the Ortho-sphere and elsewhere) are "bellicose and belligerent" is that many of these criticisms of this movie have nothing to do with the movie itself- was it well-shot, decently acted (I doubt it, seeing as how many of the actors had filmed entirely different lines, only to have them over-dubbed later, and weren't actually aware of how the footage would be used), did it have good direction, a thrilling score, or didn't it. Instead, the criticisms of this film are based on the fact that it is "offensive". Cry me a river. When Christians have been offended by Western-American artists, all we get is smug smiles and condescending replies that it is "part of the nature of art to be offensive".

And don't get me wrong- before I thought of Orthodoxy I wrote punk songs about seducing nuns titled things like "Sacrilicious". I am not necessarily against the idea of offensive art, not necessarily coming to the aid of whining right-wingers crying "When you do it to us it's not bad, but now...." But, seriously, the Muslim world wants to get it's panties in a bunch because they don't like a movie? Fine, they aren't ready to play with the big boys. But don't act like like these Mohammed movie makers are somehow to blame.

Ok, if you have no problem with producing junk film for no other reason other than to offend an entire religion's sensibilities then you would have no problem with Muslims producing a movie mocking the Jewish Holocaust in Europe during WWII.

OK? so who's "panties" are in a twist now? Are you ready to play with the big boys? And when Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals go acting up, don't go blaming Muslim movie-makers as if they're somehow to blame.

See how things like this can play out?

The good Father is right, there's just no excuse to go out of the way to intentionally rile up a whole group of people other than to offend something they consider sacred and holy. the movie is pure junk and American anti-Muslim agitprop.

[Ansgar]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

I thought that the guy creating the movie was a copt.

[Kerdy]

It was bad cinema.  Nothing else.  The only apologies which should be offered is for eroding my IQ a few points after seeing it.  Everything else is politics and fear.

[FormerReformer]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

Actually, I think Patriarch Bartholomew had some good words on the subject, and of course we (aE individuals) should avoid offending people as much as possible.

That said, I think Martel's (and the priest in the article) words were a little over-the-top. There's nothing "outrageous" about the film itself, not in the American sphere. I think the reason so many (in the Ortho-sphere and elsewhere) are "bellicose and belligerent" is that many of these criticisms of this movie have nothing to do with the movie itself- was it well-shot, decently acted (I doubt it, seeing as how many of the actors had filmed entirely different lines, only to have them over-dubbed later, and weren't actually aware of how the footage would be used), did it have good direction, a thrilling score, or didn't it. Instead, the criticisms of this film are based on the fact that it is "offensive". Cry me a river. When Christians have been offended by Western-American artists, all we get is smug smiles and condescending replies that it is "part of the nature of art to be offensive".

And don't get me wrong- before I thought of Orthodoxy I wrote punk songs about seducing nuns titled things like "Sacrilicious". I am not necessarily against the idea of offensive art, not necessarily coming to the aid of whining right-wingers crying "When you do it to us it's not bad, but now...." But, seriously, the Muslim world wants to get it's panties in a bunch because they don't like a movie? Fine, they aren't ready to play with the big boys. But don't act like like these Mohammed movie makers are somehow to blame.

Ok, if you have no problem with producing junk film for no other reason other than to offend an entire religion's sensibilities then you would have no problem with Muslims producing a movie mocking the Jewish Holocaust in Europe during WWII.

OK? so who's "panties" are in a twist now? Are you ready to play with the big boys? And when Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals go acting up, don't go blaming Muslim movie-makers as if they're somehow to blame.

See how things like this can play out?

The good Father is right, there's just no excuse to go out of the way to intentionally rile up a whole group of people other than to offend something they consider sacred and holy. the movie is pure junk and American anti-Muslim agitprop.

Me, personally? Nope, not an iota. And last I checked, the worst we'd have to worry about from the Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals is a (peaceful and law-abiding, with proper permits, etc) protest and perhaps a few angry youtube videos.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

 Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'm thinking...



stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Shanghaiski]

It was bad cinema.  Nothing else.  The only apologies which should be offered is for eroding my IQ a few points after seeing it.  Everything else is politics and fear.

Agreed.

It was a greater offense to art than to Mohammedanism.

[JamesR]

Stupid Evangelicals. Now when all those Muslims start flipping out they are going to further scapegoat the native Christians in their backwards land and make it even harder for us.

[Ansgar]

Seriously guys, wouldn.t somebody please provide a link to an article or something, stating that it was evangelicals who did this? Its confusig enough to find out as it is and i really don't want to accuse anybody of anything unless I at least have something to back it up with.

[dzheremi]

Didn't we already deal with this a million times over on this board? Didn't HG Bishop Serapion of Los Angeles (who would be, technically, the "director's" bishop) already say that in his opinion, the man should be in the confessional chair, not the director's chair? I would hope that this would settle the matter, regarding how other Christians should see him and the stupid film he made.

I'm sick of the "but what about..." hand-wringing. Among all the things that the priest in the opinion piece has insisted "just aren't done", a few should added. Threatening, bullying, killing, or otherwise liquidating Christians and other non-Muslim minorities (e.g., recent troubles for Bangladeshi Hindus rooted in violent Muslim reactions to a Facebook post) should be the first. Pointing to the sacredness and inviolability of your own religion while desecrating and blaspheming all that is sacred to others (because, after all, they're not Muslims, so Allah hates them, and wants you to hate them, too) should be the second.

Respect and culturally sensitivity and understanding, if they are to be REAL and lasting, can't be one way streets. But that's all they are in the Muslim world, and increasingly (disturbingly) in many parts of the West, too. We are now seeing the specter of worldwide anti-blasphemy laws being raised by the Arab League and considered by the UN (again). Guess which religion will be privileged under those? The entire argument made by the anti-"blasphemy" crowd (Islamist nutcases that everyone has to pretend to respect because they'll go crazy and kill people otherwise) is straight out of Animal Farm, and I'm sorry, but in honor of the new anti-obscenity law around these parts, I'm going to have to call BS on it. Not because I like offending Muslims or think it is a particularly good idea, but because acquiescing to Muslim demands (made in the context of violence) on this subject actually feeds and strengthens the worldview that created the reactions in the first place: That Muslims are the best of peoples, that their religion and all of its precepts and figures are sacrosanct, and that all must believe so or at least behave as though they believe so, or face the consequences.

I don't think that's a world that I want to live in, frankly. In fact, as Christian people a great many of our forefathers died so that it would not be so. We should be more like them, and less like the priest in the article, in his rush to appease and exonerate evil. Shame on him.

[Shanghaiski]

Didn't we already deal with this a million times over on this board? Didn't HG Bishop Serapion of Los Angeles (who would be, technically, the "director's" bishop) already say that in his opinion, the man should be in the confessional chair, not the director's chair? I would hope that this would settle the matter, regarding how other Christians should see him and the stupid film he made.

I'm sick of the "but what about..." hand-wringing. Among all the things that the priest in the opinion piece has insisted "just aren't done", a few should added. Threatening, bullying, killing, or otherwise liquidating Christians and other non-Muslim minorities (e.g., recent troubles for Bangladeshi Hindus rooted in violent Muslim reactions to a Facebook post) should be the first. Pointing to the sacredness and inviolability of your own religion while desecrating and blaspheming all that is sacred to others (because, after all, they're not Muslims, so Allah hates them, and wants you to hate them, too) should be the second.

Respect and culturally sensitivity and understanding, if they are to be REAL and lasting, can't be one way streets. But that's all they are in the Muslim world, and increasingly (disturbingly) in many parts of the West, too. We are now seeing the specter of worldwide anti-blasphemy laws being raised by the Arab League and considered by the UN (again). Guess which religion will be privileged under those? The entire argument made by the anti-"blasphemy" crowd (Islamist nutcases that everyone has to pretend to respect because they'll go crazy and kill people otherwise) is straight out of Animal Farm, and I'm sorry, but in honor of the new anti-obscenity law around these parts, I'm going to have to call BS on it. Not because I like offending Muslims or think it is a particularly good idea, but because acquiescing to Muslim demands (made in the context of violence) on this subject actually feeds and strengthens the worldview that created the reactions in the first place: That Muslims are the best of peoples, that their religion and all of its precepts and figures are sacrosanct, and that all must believe so or at least behave as though they believe so, or face the consequences.

I don't think that's a world that I want to live in, frankly. In fact, as Christian people a great many of our forefathers died so that it would not be so. We should be more like them, and less like the priest in the article, in his rush to appease and exonerate evil. Shame on him.

Amen!

[jmbejdl]

Didn't we already deal with this a million times over on this board? Didn't HG Bishop Serapion of Los Angeles (who would be, technically, the "director's" bishop) already say that in his opinion, the man should be in the confessional chair, not the director's chair? I would hope that this would settle the matter, regarding how other Christians should see him and the stupid film he made.

I'm sick of the "but what about..." hand-wringing. Among all the things that the priest in the opinion piece has insisted "just aren't done", a few should added. Threatening, bullying, killing, or otherwise liquidating Christians and other non-Muslim minorities (e.g., recent troubles for Bangladeshi Hindus rooted in violent Muslim reactions to a Facebook post) should be the first. Pointing to the sacredness and inviolability of your own religion while desecrating and blaspheming all that is sacred to others (because, after all, they're not Muslims, so Allah hates them, and wants you to hate them, too) should be the second.

Respect and culturally sensitivity and understanding, if they are to be REAL and lasting, can't be one way streets. But that's all they are in the Muslim world, and increasingly (disturbingly) in many parts of the West, too. We are now seeing the specter of worldwide anti-blasphemy laws being raised by the Arab League and considered by the UN (again). Guess which religion will be privileged under those? The entire argument made by the anti-"blasphemy" crowd (Islamist nutcases that everyone has to pretend to respect because they'll go crazy and kill people otherwise) is straight out of Animal Farm, and I'm sorry, but in honor of the new anti-obscenity law around these parts, I'm going to have to call BS on it. Not because I like offending Muslims or think it is a particularly good idea, but because acquiescing to Muslim demands (made in the context of violence) on this subject actually feeds and strengthens the worldview that created the reactions in the first place: That Muslims are the best of peoples, that their religion and all of its precepts and figures are sacrosanct, and that all must believe so or at least behave as though they believe so, or face the consequences.

I don't think that's a world that I want to live in, frankly. In fact, as Christian people a great many of our forefathers died so that it would not be so. We should be more like them, and less like the priest in the article, in his rush to appease and exonerate evil. Shame on him.

Amen!

Amen indeed.

[podkarpatska]

But would a wise beekeeper needlessly provoke a hive of Africanized bees prior to removing it just for the sake of enjoying the predictable reaction of the insects? Such a beekeeper would seemingly put himself and others at needless risk and most would regard such conduct on his part as being either intemperate or immature, would they not?

Of course, such a 'beekeeper' might hate and despise bees to such an extent that he might wish to provoke that predictable response due to his inner loathing of such bees realizing that the predictable reaction of those bees might just make otherwise disinterested people unduly fearful of otherwise innocuous bees and whip them into a frenzy of widespread, mindless bee destruction.

[JamesRottnek]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

Way to unnecessarily offend Jews!  Bring on the blood libel!

[Charles Martel]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun? 

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

Actually, I think Patriarch Bartholomew had some good words on the subject, and of course we (aE individuals) should avoid offending people as much as possible.

That said, I think Martel's (and the priest in the article) words were a little over-the-top. There's nothing "outrageous" about the film itself, not in the American sphere. I think the reason so many (in the Ortho-sphere and elsewhere) are "bellicose and belligerent" is that many of these criticisms of this movie have nothing to do with the movie itself- was it well-shot, decently acted (I doubt it, seeing as how many of the actors had filmed entirely different lines, only to have them over-dubbed later, and weren't actually aware of how the footage would be used), did it have good direction, a thrilling score, or didn't it. Instead, the criticisms of this film are based on the fact that it is "offensive". Cry me a river. When Christians have been offended by Western-American artists, all we get is smug smiles and condescending replies that it is "part of the nature of art to be offensive".

And don't get me wrong- before I thought of Orthodoxy I wrote punk songs about seducing nuns titled things like "Sacrilicious". I am not necessarily against the idea of offensive art, not necessarily coming to the aid of whining right-wingers crying "When you do it to us it's not bad, but now...." But, seriously, the Muslim world wants to get it's panties in a bunch because they don't like a movie? Fine, they aren't ready to play with the big boys. But don't act like like these Mohammed movie makers are somehow to blame.

Ok, if you have no problem with producing junk film for no other reason other than to offend an entire religion's sensibilities then you would have no problem with Muslims producing a movie mocking the Jewish Holocaust in Europe during WWII.

OK? so who's "panties" are in a twist now? Are you ready to play with the big boys? And when Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals go acting up, don't go blaming Muslim movie-makers as if they're somehow to blame.

See how things like this can play out?

The good Father is right, there's just no excuse to go out of the way to intentionally rile up a whole group of people other than to offend something they consider sacred and holy. the movie is pure junk and American anti-Muslim agitprop.

Me, personally? Nope, not an iota. And last I checked, the worst we'd have to worry about from the Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals is a (peaceful and law-abiding, with proper permits, etc) protest and perhaps a few angry youtube videos.

Now who's being naive here? Peaceful and law-abiding? No these people don't protest, they just carpet bomb and "surgically" strike any opposition off the planet. Thank Gawd for Uncle Sam and his Drone technology, they're already now ready  to wipe Iran off the map for those nasty holocaust cartoons and conferences.

Whatever your opinion of the Mohammedans is doesn't matter to me, but let's not deceive ourselves believing that Zionists and Freemasons hold the high moral ground here. That's just being intellectually dishonest.

[FormerReformer]

Father Douglas May continues to be the only U.S.-born Catholic priest in Egypt.  He has lived in the Middle East and Egypt for 20 years since 1977.  Doug attended the Pontifical Institute for Arab and Islamic Studies in Rome in the early 1980s and the Comboni Institute in Cairo in the early 1990s.  Doug is CIDT’s international coordinator in addition to his pastoral work and efforts to promote greater Arab-West understanding and improved Muslim-Christian relations.  After viewing an excerpt of the film on Youtube, Doug expresses his outrage at the intentional or unintentional insensitivity of this film and tries to explain, without excusing, the violent reactions of many Muslims who have either seen parts of the film or heard about it.

The film is total junk created by Zionist biblethumping Evangelicals and their Jewish cohorts with no other purpose than offend fundamentalist Muslims as much as possible. What kind of a people go out of their way to do such things? Of course they'll go and hide behind their "freedoms" to create such filth when the Islamic world starts flipping out. The people who made this movie are gutless cowards and troublemakers who have no accountability for their actions.

(A reply to both the priest and Martel) A little over the top, perhaps?

The West, America in particular, has a long tradition of offending as many Christian groups as possible. Why should the Muslims be left out of the fun?  

How about trying not to offend anyone as urged by Patriarch Bartholomew? Why is it that many American Orthodox seem so quick online to appear bellicose and belligerent?

I'll take the Synod's words to heart as a correct expression of Orthodox teaching on this one: "... in humble recognition of the Divine in all people, His All- Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Ecumenical Patriarchate denounce treating one another with disrespect, disdain, and destructive hatred. In the end, no one benefits from hateful speech, unfounded accusations, misunderstanding of cultural differences, and blaming others to avoid responsibility. Regardless of the path one’s conscience has chosen to follow, we are all intricately woven together into a Divine tapestry and must recognize the beauty and inherent worth of every other thread and cease with the destruction of any part of our collective beauty."

Sorry if that's just too wishy washy for some of you.

Actually, I think Patriarch Bartholomew had some good words on the subject, and of course we (aE individuals) should avoid offending people as much as possible.

That said, I think Martel's (and the priest in the article) words were a little over-the-top. There's nothing "outrageous" about the film itself, not in the American sphere. I think the reason so many (in the Ortho-sphere and elsewhere) are "bellicose and belligerent" is that many of these criticisms of this movie have nothing to do with the movie itself- was it well-shot, decently acted (I doubt it, seeing as how many of the actors had filmed entirely different lines, only to have them over-dubbed later, and weren't actually aware of how the footage would be used), did it have good direction, a thrilling score, or didn't it. Instead, the criticisms of this film are based on the fact that it is "offensive". Cry me a river. When Christians have been offended by Western-American artists, all we get is smug smiles and condescending replies that it is "part of the nature of art to be offensive".

And don't get me wrong- before I thought of Orthodoxy I wrote punk songs about seducing nuns titled things like "Sacrilicious". I am not necessarily against the idea of offensive art, not necessarily coming to the aid of whining right-wingers crying "When you do it to us it's not bad, but now...." But, seriously, the Muslim world wants to get it's panties in a bunch because they don't like a movie? Fine, they aren't ready to play with the big boys. But don't act like like these Mohammed movie makers are somehow to blame.

Ok, if you have no problem with producing junk film for no other reason other than to offend an entire religion's sensibilities then you would have no problem with Muslims producing a movie mocking the Jewish Holocaust in Europe during WWII.

OK? so who's "panties" are in a twist now? Are you ready to play with the big boys? And when Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals go acting up, don't go blaming Muslim movie-makers as if they're somehow to blame.

See how things like this can play out?

The good Father is right, there's just no excuse to go out of the way to intentionally rile up a whole group of people other than to offend something they consider sacred and holy. the movie is pure junk and American anti-Muslim agitprop.

Me, personally? Nope, not an iota. And last I checked, the worst we'd have to worry about from the Jews and bible-thumping Evangelicals is a (peaceful and law-abiding, with proper permits, etc) protest and perhaps a few angry youtube videos.

Now who's being naive here? Peaceful and law-abiding? No these people don't protest, they just carpet bomb and "surgically" strike any opposition off the planet. Thank Gawd for Uncle Sam and his Drone technology, they're already now ready  to wipe Iran off the map for those nasty holocaust cartoons and conferences.

Whatever your opinion of the Mohammedans is doesn't matter to me, but let's not deceive ourselves believing that Zionists and Freemasons hold the high moral ground here. That's just being intellectually dishonest.

Ah, I see where this conversation is coming from now. I have enough of real-world American problems without invoking conspiracy theories. I had overlooked "Zionist" earlier because there is an actual "Zionist" party to be on the lookout against (the hard right-wing Israeli faction with Evangelical support), but I didn't realize we were in "Protocols of the Elders" territory.

[Charles Martel]

Seriously guys, wouldn.t somebody please provide a link to an article or something, stating that it was evangelicals who did this? Its confusig enough to find out as it is and i really don't want to accuse anybody of anything unless I at least have something to back it up with.

Do a search it's all over the net, this was a collaboration between zany fundamental Christians and Hollywood  pornographers.....

From the Huffington Post;

The movie was filmed on a Hollywood set, and its permit has been linked to a Christian charity.

Media for Christ, a Duarte, Calif.-based Christian nonprofit group, applied for the film permit, the San Gabriel Valley Tribune reported. The charity's misson statement is to "glow Jesus' light" to the world.

Though Joseph Nassralla, the president of Media for Christ, emerged as a force behind the anti-Muslim film, the organization said it had nothing to do with the project and was upset by its content, according to the L.A. Times. Nassralla has reportedly devoted himself to criticizing Islam in speeches and interviews during recent years.

[Charles Martel]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

[FormerReformer]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

[Charles Martel]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

[FormerReformer]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

[Charles Martel]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

Ask any Moslem who's been at the other end of a Drone attack if it was a "theory".

[FormerReformer]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

Ask any Moslem who's been at the other end of a Drone attack if it was a "theory".

I'm sorry, but as a traditional Roman Catholic with the screen name "Charles Martel" aren't you supposed to be the one attacking Moslems?

[Charles Martel]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

Ask any Moslem who's been at the other end of a Drone attack if it was a "theory".

I'm sorry, but as a traditional Roman Catholic with the screen name "Charles Martel" aren't you supposed to be the one attacking Moslems?

Yes, when they invade Catholic land. The U.S., is not Catholic although we might have a Moslem in charge. 

[FormerReformer]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

Ask any Moslem who's been at the other end of a Drone attack if it was a "theory".

I'm sorry, but as a traditional Roman Catholic with the screen name "Charles Martel" aren't you supposed to be the one attacking Moslems?

Yes, when they invade Catholic land. The U.S., is not Catholic although we might have a Moslem in charge.  

As I recall, the Roman Catholic lands were never above protecting another Christian land from Moslem attack.... No guarantees they wouldn't sack your capital though.

[Kerdy]

But would a wise beekeeper needlessly provoke a hive of Africanized bees prior to removing it just for the sake of enjoying the predictable reaction of the insects? Such a beekeeper would seemingly put himself and others at needless risk and most would regard such conduct on his part as being either intemperate or immature, would they not?

Of course, such a 'beekeeper' might hate and despise bees to such an extent that he might wish to provoke that predictable response due to his inner loathing of such bees realizing that the predictable reaction of those bees might just make otherwise disinterested people unduly fearful of otherwise innocuous bees and whip them into a frenzy of widespread, mindless bee destruction.

Or eradicate overly aggressive bees and breed nicer ones.  Why would a bee keeper want such angry bees anyway?  Their existence is a danger to people. 

[dzheremi]

At the risk of being accused of being too literal, Muslims aren't bees. They're human beings. The only way this "poking a beehive" analogy works is if you treat Muslims like animals lacking in any higher cognitive function, and being instead purely reactive on a very basic level such that they can't/shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. As though it is the rest of the world's job to contain them and not upset them, because Lord knows they can't help themselves. No. Nobody forced any Muslim to watch the anti-Muhammad film (and indeed, most who rioted and destroyed people and property over it never saw the video), and nobody forced them to react violently to it. I absolutely refuse to validate their collective mental psychosis by framing things in any other way. If Islam is as peaceful as we're constantly being told it is by Muslims and non-Muslim sycophants, then it makes no sense to expect Muslims to behave like violent animals, nor to hold the corollary view that the non-Muslim world must align itself with the most easily offended, ego-driven people on the face of the planet. On the contrary, I expect them to behave like decent human beings, because not killing people over an amateur movie really shouldn't be a hallmark of "good Muslims" any more than of "good Bahais", "good Jews", or "good people named Doug", "good left-handed people", "good people who prefer dogs to cats", etc. That's standard, everyday, par for the course not being a psychopath, and it's something that all people everywhere regardless of their religion should be able to manage. If they can't, they are dangerously unstable and should be treated as such, not excused or justified or rationalized away with comparisons to bees or anything else that is fundamentally a different type of thing and hence very useless for comparative purposes. (Though, hypothetically, if a swarm of bees attacked the U.S. embassy in Libya, they'd be exterminated, right? Nobody would waste time finding a beekeeper to blame for the attack, because that's less important than dealing with the fact that there are bees attacking an embassy full of people who could be hurt by them.)

The bottom line is that Muslims don't (get to) have more feelings than the rest of us. They're made of the same stuff, they live on the same planet, and they need to learn to freaking deal with life, and for our part those of us who are freely able to discuss these things ought to start making demands of our own so that they know what the score is when it comes to how to deal with things they don't like (since anti-blasphemy laws are not acceptable; most people in the world do not want to live in places like Pakistan that already have these laws, which are evil and anyway routinely abused). If I had my druthers, it would be very simply explained, in some kind of law if necessary, that it is absolutely unacceptable to have any kind of different standards for Muslims than for anybody else, and if they don't like it, they can leave. I mean, really, is that a radical position? There is a reason, after all, why some Muslims in the West advocate Shari'a: Because it is inherently unequal with respect to these kinds of situations and provisions, eternally in favor of the Muslim and Islam over all others. Meanwhile, in the world where most of us live, it's unacceptable to hit a person because of words that came out of their mouth. (Warning: foul language in the link, but I'm posting it because even though it is brought up in the context of teaching a new dad how to react/not react to insults suffered by his child, it absolutely fits here; If you cannot not react with violence, there is no room to accommodate your view, you're plain wrong and stupid. The end.)

[Charles Martel]

At the risk of being accused of being too literal, Muslims aren't bees. They're human beings. The only way this "poking a beehive" analogy works is if you treat Muslims like animals lacking in any higher cognitive function, and being instead purely reactive on a very basic level such that they can't/shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. As though it is the rest of the world's job to contain them and not upset them, because Lord knows they can't help themselves. No. Nobody forced any Muslim to watch the anti-Muhammad film (and indeed, most who rioted and destroyed people and property over it never saw the video), and nobody forced them to react violently to it. I absolutely refuse to validate their collective mental psychosis by framing things in any other way. If Islam is as peaceful as we're constantly being told it is by Muslims and non-Muslim sycophants, then it makes no sense to expect Muslims to behave like violent animals, nor to hold the corollary view that the non-Muslim world must align itself with the most easily offended, ego-driven people on the face of the planet. On the contrary, I expect them to behave like decent human beings, because not killing people over an amateur movie really shouldn't be a hallmark of "good Muslims" any more than of "good Bahais", "good Jews", or "good people named Doug", "good left-handed people", "good people who prefer dogs to cats", etc. That's standard, everyday, par for the course not being a psychopath, and it's something that all people everywhere regardless of their religion should be able to manage. If they can't, they are dangerously unstable and should be treated as such, not excused or justified or rationalized away with comparisons to bees or anything else that is fundamentally a different type of thing and hence very useless for comparative purposes. (Though, hypothetically, if a swarm of bees attacked the U.S. embassy in Libya, they'd be exterminated, right? Nobody would waste time finding a beekeeper to blame for the attack, because that's less important than dealing with the fact that there are bees attacking an embassy full of people who could be hurt by them.)

The bottom line is that Muslims don't (get to) have more feelings than the rest of us. They're made of the same stuff, they live on the same planet, and they need to learn to freaking deal with life, and for our part those of us who are freely able to discuss these things ought to start making demands of our own so that they know what the score is when it comes to how to deal with things they don't like (since anti-blasphemy laws are not acceptable; most people in the world do not want to live in places like Pakistan that already have these laws, which are evil and anyway routinely abused). If I had my druthers, it would be very simply explained, in some kind of law if necessary, that it is absolutely unacceptable to have any kind of different standards for Muslims than for anybody else, and if they don't like it, they can leave. I mean, really, is that a radical position? There is a reason, after all, why some Muslims in the West advocate Shari'a: Because it is inherently unequal with respect to these kinds of situations and provisions, eternally in favor of the Muslim and Islam over all others. Meanwhile, in the world where most of us live, it's unacceptable to hit a person because of words that came out of their mouth. (Warning: foul language in the link, but I'm posting it because even though it is brought up in the context of teaching a new dad how to react/not react to insults suffered by his child, it absolutely fits here; If you cannot not react with violence, there is no room to accommodate your view, you're plain wrong and stupid. The end.)

I don't think Muslims see it that way, their entire belief system is based on crushing the infidel, especially when he mocks Mohamed or the Quran, they really don't care about your "live and let live" logic or your freedom of speech ideals, these things are totally foreign to them in their respective countries, countries in which this very same infidel has a strong presence btw.

Islam teaches that anyone who insults the prophet or his message need to be put under the sword, this is how this religion was spread and how it now engulfs about a billion people. Like I said, Islam insists on it's adherents to crush it's enemies.

Christianity insists that it loves theirs...........do you love your Muslim enemy?

[Charles Martel]

No one mentioned the "Protocols" but you "Reformer"........Talk about "conspiracy" theories.

If I say "E=mc^2" I might not have "mentioned" relativity, but I still "mentioned" relativity.

Yes, but we all know that "relativity" is a theory, unlike Zionists and Freemasons that actually do exist.
 
Like reality exists.

And the reality is, that when you cross them, they kill you in your own country.

Unlike fanatical, caveman-like Muslims who riot and burn things   because of a stupid video.

The point is, they're not much different but only operate on a different level.

Wow, has this gotten off course. Okay, let's work with your analogy a little:

"E (energy)" is a reality, "m (mass)" is a reality, and "c (the speed of light)" is a reality. The equivalence of energy with mass accelerated to the speed of light squared is the theory.

"Zionists" (in the sense of a faction in Israeli politics to restore Israel to the biblical boundaries) are a reality. "Freemasons" (in the sense that there is a society of people who call themselves Freemasons, some of whom have been members of the US government) are a reality. "Zionists and Freemasons who kill you in your own country if you cross them" is a theory.

Ask any Moslem who's been at the other end of a Drone attack if it was a "theory".

I'm sorry, but as a traditional Roman Catholic with the screen name "Charles Martel" aren't you supposed to be the one attacking Moslems?

Yes, when they invade Catholic land. The U.S., is not Catholic although we might have a Moslem in charge.  

As I recall, the Roman Catholic lands were never above protecting another Christian land from Moslem attack.... No guarantees they wouldn't sack your capital though.

Cheap shot. But you're right.

And I want to know where these RC "crusaders" were in 1453?

[dzheremi]

I don't think Muslims see it that way, their entire belief system is based on crushing the infidel, especially when he mocks Mohamed or the Quran, they really don't care about your "live and let live" logic or your freedom of speech ideals, these things are totally foreign to them in their respective countries, countries in which this very same infidel has a strong presence btw.

I am well aware of this. I was not attempting to give the Muslim point of view. I was giving my own point of view.

Christianity insists that it loves theirs...........do you love your Muslim enemy?

Of course I do. I look at Muslims the same as any other people: Nobody is my enemy but that they think that they are. And because I do agree that this is something that Islam teaches, as a result I can truly say I love them as people, but have no love or tolerance whatsoever for their belief system. Islam is not good, but Muslims are as good or as bad as anyone.

[Apotheoun]

At the risk of being accused of being too literal, Muslims aren't bees. They're human beings. The only way this "poking a beehive" analogy works is if you treat Muslims like animals lacking in any higher cognitive function, and being instead purely reactive on a very basic level such that they can't/shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. As though it is the rest of the world's job to contain them and not upset them, because Lord knows they can't help themselves. No. Nobody forced any Muslim to watch the anti-Muhammad film (and indeed, most who rioted and destroyed people and property over it never saw the video), and nobody forced them to react violently to it. I absolutely refuse to validate their collective mental psychosis by framing things in any other way. If Islam is as peaceful as we're constantly being told it is by Muslims and non-Muslim sycophants, then it makes no sense to expect Muslims to behave like violent animals, nor to hold the corollary view that the non-Muslim world must align itself with the most easily offended, ego-driven people on the face of the planet. On the contrary, I expect them to behave like decent human beings, because not killing people over an amateur movie really shouldn't be a hallmark of "good Muslims" any more than of "good Bahais", "good Jews", or "good people named Doug", "good left-handed people", "good people who prefer dogs to cats", etc. That's standard, everyday, par for the course not being a psychopath, and it's something that all people everywhere regardless of their religion should be able to manage. If they can't, they are dangerously unstable and should be treated as such, not excused or justified or rationalized away with comparisons to bees or anything else that is fundamentally a different type of thing and hence very useless for comparative purposes. (Though, hypothetically, if a swarm of bees attacked the U.S. embassy in Libya, they'd be exterminated, right? Nobody would waste time finding a beekeeper to blame for the attack, because that's less important than dealing with the fact that there are bees attacking an embassy full of people who could be hurt by them.)

The bottom line is that Muslims don't (get to) have more feelings than the rest of us. They're made of the same stuff, they live on the same planet, and they need to learn to freaking deal with life, and for our part those of us who are freely able to discuss these things ought to start making demands of our own so that they know what the score is when it comes to how to deal with things they don't like (since anti-blasphemy laws are not acceptable; most people in the world do not want to live in places like Pakistan that already have these laws, which are evil and anyway routinely abused). If I had my druthers, it would be very simply explained, in some kind of law if necessary, that it is absolutely unacceptable to have any kind of different standards for Muslims than for anybody else, and if they don't like it, they can leave. I mean, really, is that a radical position? There is a reason, after all, why some Muslims in the West advocate Shari'a: Because it is inherently unequal with respect to these kinds of situations and provisions, eternally in favor of the Muslim and Islam over all others. Meanwhile, in the world where most of us live, it's unacceptable to hit a person because of words that came out of their mouth. (Warning: foul language in the link, but I'm posting it because even though it is brought up in the context of teaching a new dad how to react/not react to insults suffered by his child, it absolutely fits here; If you cannot not react with violence, there is no room to accommodate your view, you're plain wrong and stupid. The end.)

This is an absolutely fantastic post.

[Cognomen]

This is an absolutely fantastic post.

My favorite bit:

The bottom line is that Muslims don't (get to) have more feelings than the rest of us.

[Charles Martel]

I don't think Muslims see it that way, their entire belief system is based on crushing the infidel, especially when he mocks Mohamed or the Quran, they really don't care about your "live and let live" logic or your freedom of speech ideals, these things are totally foreign to them in their respective countries, countries in which this very same infidel has a strong presence btw.

I am well aware of this. I was not attempting to give the Muslim point of view. I was giving my own point of view.

Christianity insists that it loves theirs...........do you love your Muslim enemy?

Of course I do. I look at Muslims the same as any other people: Nobody is my enemy but that they think that they are. And because I do agree that this is something that Islam teaches, as a result I can truly say I love them as people, but have no love or tolerance whatsoever for their belief system. Islam is not good, but Muslims are as good or as bad as anyone.

I don't really buy that, a lot of Christians talk a good game about "loving" their enemies, but the reality is, do any one of us really? I mean how many people can sit there and truly tell me that they actually have a "loving" feeling for someone who despises them, hates them, some would even kill them given half the chance. I think this word "love" is perhaps the most overused word in Christian theology and the hypocrisy that surrounds it runs rampant. I have to be honest, I don't have a whole lot of hate for anyone or anything but I have even less "love" in my heart for the same as well, I'm just being frank and if most Christians are honest with themselves, they probably feel the same.

I know we're way off topic now, so that's all I'll say about it.

[dzheremi]

I don't think Muslims see it that way, their entire belief system is based on crushing the infidel, especially when he mocks Mohamed or the Quran, they really don't care about your "live and let live" logic or your freedom of speech ideals, these things are totally foreign to them in their respective countries, countries in which this very same infidel has a strong presence btw.

I am well aware of this. I was not attempting to give the Muslim point of view. I was giving my own point of view.

Christianity insists that it loves theirs...........do you love your Muslim enemy?

Of course I do. I look at Muslims the same as any other people: Nobody is my enemy but that they think that they are. And because I do agree that this is something that Islam teaches, as a result I can truly say I love them as people, but have no love or tolerance whatsoever for their belief system. Islam is not good, but Muslims are as good or as bad as anyone.

I don't really buy that, a lot of Christians talk a good game about "loving" their enemies, but the reality is, do any one of us really? I mean how many people can sit there and truly tell me that they actually have a "loving" feeling for someone who despises them, hates them, some would even kill them given half the chance. I think this word "love" is perhaps the most overused word in Christian theology and the hypocrisy that surrounds it runs rampant. I have to be honest, I don't have a whole lot of hate for anyone or anything but I have even less "love" in my heart for the same as well, I'm just being frank and if most Christians are honest with themselves, they probably feel the same.

I know we're way off topic now, so that's all I'll say about it.

Alright...I don't really know what in my posts is causing this reaction, but alright. I'm not in the arguing business when it comes to stating my own opinion. I don't really care if you "buy" what I say or not. Maybe the Roman Catholic view of such things is different than the Coptic Orthodox view, seeing as you guys are foreign to the Middle East and were successful in throwing out the Muslims in your own territories (for a little while; Islam is back in the Iberian Peninsula and Italy, as everywhere else, through unfettered immigration), whereas the Copts weren't and have since had no choice but to live, however uneasily, among Muslims. I believe that the examples of Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad, Mohammed Hegazy, and many others who are not famous enough to have their own wikipedia pages speak for themselves. You can either treat the Muslim as a human being capable of being transformed through Christ as any other, or you can say that some are irretrievably lost. I am comfortable with my own convictions, regardless of who thinks they're genuine or not.

[Charles Martel]

I don't think Muslims see it that way, their entire belief system is based on crushing the infidel, especially when he mocks Mohamed or the Quran, they really don't care about your "live and let live" logic or your freedom of speech ideals, these things are totally foreign to them in their respective countries, countries in which this very same infidel has a strong presence btw.

I am well aware of this. I was not attempting to give the Muslim point of view. I was giving my own point of view.

Christianity insists that it loves theirs...........do you love your Muslim enemy?

Of course I do. I look at Muslims the same as any other people: Nobody is my enemy but that they think that they are. And because I do agree that this is something that Islam teaches, as a result I can truly say I love them as people, but have no love or tolerance whatsoever for their belief system. Islam is not good, but Muslims are as good or as bad as anyone.

I don't really buy that, a lot of Christians talk a good game about "loving" their enemies, but the reality is, do any one of us really? I mean how many people can sit there and truly tell me that they actually have a "loving" feeling for someone who despises them, hates them, some would even kill them given half the chance. I think this word "love" is perhaps the most overused word in Christian theology and the hypocrisy that surrounds it runs rampant. I have to be honest, I don't have a whole lot of hate for anyone or anything but I have even less "love" in my heart for the same as well, I'm just being frank and if most Christians are honest with themselves, they probably feel the same.

I know we're way off topic now, so that's all I'll say about it.

Alright...I don't really know what in my posts is causing this reaction, but alright. I'm not in the arguing business when it comes to stating my own opinion. I don't really care if you "buy" what I say or not. Maybe the Roman Catholic view of such things is different than the Coptic Orthodox view, seeing as you guys are foreign to the Middle East and were successful in throwing out the Muslims in your own territories (for a little while; Islam is back in the Iberian Peninsula and Italy, as everywhere else, through unfettered immigration), whereas the Copts weren't and have since had no choice but to live, however uneasily, among Muslims. I believe that the examples of Bahaa el-Din Ahmed Hussein el-Akkad, Mohammed Hegazy, and many others who are not famous enough to have their own wikipedia pages speak for themselves. You can either treat the Muslim as a human being capable of being transformed through Christ as any other, or you can say that some are irretrievably lost. I am comfortable with my own convictions, regardless of who thinks they're genuine or not.

Perhaps I was just projecting onto you my own feelings, if you say you love your Muslim enemy, I have to believe it.

It's not so simple with me, I have to admit, this is probably the hardest thing in Christianity to swallow, to actually "love" your enemy. It goes against all reason and even self-preservation. How can you logically have a anywhere near a loving feeling for your avowed enemies? I don't know, maybe like you said, it's a Middle East thing, but from my vantage point, I don't see a whole lot of "love" going on over there, as a matter of fact, I see hatred burning deeper in that part of the world than anywhere else.

And you're right about the Coptic Christians getting the shaft, seems  no one in the West is concerned about Christian persecution anywhere over there and I even caught hell here on an Orthodox forum for mentioning the Christian situation in Syria.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: The Muhammad Film Trailer: An American Priest Reacts