Tom, I posted comment at Donald Sensings - there was no other comment on his post at the time. I wrote much in the same vein as my previous post. The Reverend, as he may, has not allowed that comment to remain. I have no argument with him on that. It is his right.
In addition to the content of my last post, I posed these questions -
"Should Christianity be judged on the actions of those who advocate violence against doctors working in abortion clinics and their patients, or the burning of the clinics?"
"I note that the depictions in each of the cartoons are; a half naked man/monster, a devil, Uncle Sam and a Jew. Which of those is a denigration or caricature of your God or the Jewish God?"
Perhaps, since it is most unlikely the Reverend Donald will answer, you could enlighten me?
As for your comment "How many death threats were received by the 'artists' who produced "Piss Christ" and the image of the Virgin Mary in fecal matter and surrounded by close-ups of female genetalia?" -
There was a raruraru here some years back when the new New Zealand Museum was opened in Wellington. Among the exhibits of "contemporary art" was a 3" statue of the Virgin sheathed with a condom. That caused a furore of some dimensions, including threats to burn down the museum (something of a problem that since it is 95% concrete) and to steal the offending article.
Note this as well -
Another museum exhibit, a picture of The Last Supper with a bare-breasted, female Jesus, sparked further outrage. Catholics, joined by evangelical Christians and Muslims, led the outcry.
With regard to moral relativism, can you explain what other form of measure is being used to judge the out-breaks of violent reaction to the insult offered to Islam by this tinpot little editor? Surely the definition of "moral relativism" is the judgement of an action in one morality system by the standards set in another?
Dave, your comment falls in this category of moral relativism as well.
I agree that "the eeeeevil Jooos" have not bombed Cairo, nor has NZ ever attacked Australia over some of their caricatures of NZ and our politicians, nor too has Aus ever attacked NZ other than by bowling underarm in a cricket match but that is a different story altogether. But then, it was not a caricature of Khomenei or Ahmenahabad that was the "cause", was it? As I asked above, which of the caricatures in the cartoons Sensing featured as a response has a depiction of the Jewish or the Christian "God".
The original publication in Denmark of the offending cartoons was something like September last year. Can anyone find for me an Islamic cartoon that features God, Christ or any other Jewish or Christian religious figure that predates the Danish publication.
There is a challenge.
WITH FREEDOM COMES RESPONSIBILITY.
First of those responsibilities must be to cherish the freedom.
Second must (surely) be not to abuse the freedom.
I firmly believe that, in this instance, the freedom of speech has been sadly and sorely abused. As a misuse of that freedom the Danish editor's publication must rank alongside of pornography - in this instance the most grossly obscene.
UPDATE AND LAST WORD -
I posted this as a comment to Dave Justus. It needs to be here as well...
cite="From WSJ article" Returning late one night to his Copenhagen apartment, Mr. Rose slumped in a leather sofa with his wife to watch the news. It showed protesters waving signs that read "Behead Those Who Insult Islam." "This whole thing is crazy, totally crazy," he groans. "I had no idea anything like this would happen."
There is a point, reached here in NZ yesterday by the two local papers that published the cartoons, where one realises the consequences of an action.
In the case of the two NZ papers, they have issued an apology to the local Muslim community for the insult and offence caused without resiling from the right to publish.
Media present, including Dominion Post editor Tim Pankhurst and The Press's Paul Thompson, apologised for the offence caused – but did not resile from the decision to publish.
"They (Muslim leaders) for their part, recognised freedom-of-the-press issues, but we also accept that does not come without responsibilities," Mr Pankhurst said. Twenty-four countries had published the cartoons and in the context of international reaction it was appropriate to print them.
Now, perhaps, rather than concentrating on the "rights", perhaps others might recognise the responsibilities that come with free speech and at least make an apology for the offence and insult to a major religious figure.
In the meantime, the current "up your nose" attitude does nothing for anyone.