Where is love?

One blog's collection of comments about Pastor Terry Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center plans to burn the Holy Koran, the Holy Book of the Muslim world on the day of the anniversary which is tomorrow runs as follows

Tomorrow is the ninth anniversary of the September 11 attacks in the United States

The Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue of the Vatican says that terrorist attacks “cannot be counteracted by an outrageous and grave gesture against a book considered sacred by a religious community.” It also insisted that every religion “has the right to respect and protection.”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that the idea is a “disgraceful plan.” She is hoping that the pastor will not push through with it.

Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie, who is currently in Pakistan, said this when asked about the pastor’s plan: “I have hardly the words… that somebody would do that to somebody’s religious book.”

US General David Petraeus, the Commander of the International Coalition Forces in Afghanistan, said that the burning of the Koran will endanger the lives of the US troops.

It is an interesting collection of 'commentators'. The Church, The State, Film, and the Military; what a curious world we live in.

The irony of such an outrageous action is that American would die for 'freedoms' like owning a gun. And I would be prepared to bet that the so-called "Pastor" is outspoken on such. Yet the freedom to religion is denied.

For people such as myself the difficulty is whether such religious vilification should be prevented by law. I am inclined to think that it should.

Many, many years ago when they banned the Hare Krishnas from their harmless chanting in public shopping areas in Adelaide I remembered thinking that Christians should be careful because we will be next. Google: fined for handing our bibles and you will get an interesting selection of articles from all over the world. I note that the rather eccentric old chap who does this in Adelaide has just been fined in Brisbane.

There have been, however, serious attempts over a number of years and in different States by some conservative Christians to prevent legislators from addressing religious vilification...this often looks like fundamentalists wanting to be allowed to slam non-Christian religions.

(see some thoughts on a range of issues in previous blogs)

The real philosophical dilemma for the small 'l' liberal is can freedom be extended to those who want freedom to be intolerant. This particular case certainly highlights that dilemma.

Curiouser & Curiouser

It is curious to receive communication from the Family First Party about maintaining Eccelsiastical privilege in legislation.
Belonging to a denomination which has often been accused of exercising undue influence in the Parliaments of this land in a quasi-established-church way I sometimes detect from some of these newer groups a sort of influence envy. Indeed this would seem to be a major dynamic in the formation of Family First...a wish to influence the politcial process. This is so obvious that it doesn't need to be spelled out.
The Anglican Church should remind these folk of that which it needs to periodically remind itself, something to do with cutlery required for supping with the devil (hence the cartoon).
The particular matter that the Honourables Evans & Hood put before us is the seeming removal of the church's right to vilify whomsoever it likes in the name of preaching and "Biblical" teaching.
To be sure they name these issues rather differently "REMOVING" the right to preach and the right to counsel.; which is I sufggest something of a furphy.
There is a real question to be asked here of whether anyone should be allowed to say anything they like in the name of religious faith. I just think this is not on.
While they are particularly citing (surprise, surprise) the right to call a spade a sodomite; if this is to be taken to its logical conclusion then would they be so keen to allow a Calathumpian to say that Pentecostals are narrow-minded bigots, or that Christians in general are polytheistic cannibals, or that Jews add the blood of children to the Passover loaf. [Students of history will note that I use those examples because they represent real accusations of the past]
My problems is that I think it is a very selective exegesis of how Christians are supposed to practise their faith and live as responsible citizens. My reading of (particularly Paul's) teaching about citizenship is that we should be exemplary in complying to the laws of the State, and require at least as much, and probably more, compliance and obedience as the general populace.
Surely when it comes to decrying vilification we shouldn't be reserving the right to vilify who we like, we should be at the forefront of compliance.
I do not want to stifle public debate, or give permission for the sermon police to be formed. But being religious does not give me, or anyone else the right to insult, demean or diminish the rights of anyone else.