Are Freedom and Tolerance Bankrupt?
This sign appeared in an article "The Double Standards of France Over Freedom of Expression" shortly after the massacre at the Charlie Hebdo magazine's Paris office in January this year. The article referred to a recent visit by Pope Francis to the Philippines - "'There are limits to the freedom of expression.' He said that freedom of speech and expression are fundamental human rights. However he added that he believes there should be limits to offending and ridiculing the faiths and beliefs of others. By way of example, he referred to Alberto Gasparri, who organizes his trips and was standing by his side on board the papal plane. 'If my good friend Dr. Gasparri says a curse word against my mother, he can expect a punch,' Francis said while pretending to throw a punch in his direction."It seems that the "progressive" liberal-leftists in the West, especially in politics, the media and academia, have failed to grasp and heed this warning. Freedom of expression and toleration of others' views neither means that we must agree with and accept as true other's beliefs or practices, nor does it mean that we must withdraw into our corners and ignore or shun others, nor attack or hurl insults and scorn on them. The first postition is relativism, the second is passive retreat, and the third is aggression.
Western media and politicians frequently take this relative-passive-aggressive approach: Christianity and Islam are two equally valid religions (relativism), but Christianity is regressive and out-of-touch with modern society (passive withdrawal), so we ought to demean and insult Christianity (aggression), while downplaying the almost daily atrocities committed in the name of Islam because the "Christian West" provoked them to anger.
A few websites have noted this not-too-subtle shift in emphasis coming from Pope Francis: we ought to try to understand Islam as a peace-loving, tolerant religion and have dialog with the Muslims. This is quite different from the previous pope's statements that caused quite a furor among Muslims and may have led to his early retirement. The article Cardinal Danneels admits: “Mafia” club brought down Benedict XVI to make Church “much more modern” mentions a dialog between "the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402" as follows -
"In the seventh conversation... the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that sura 2, 256 reads: 'There is no compulsion in religion.' According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the 'Book' and the infidels,' he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: 'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'”The reference to "the early period" indicates the time when Mohammed had not yet gained a large following of warriors. Later he taught that when weak his followers should act peacefully, but when they grow to a viable force they should abandon peace and use the sword to force their religion on others. The article continues -
"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. 'God,' he says, 'is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...'”This statement by the Orthodox Christian Emperor of Constantinople needs to be heeded today by all those Orthodox who would advocate using violence to spread the area under control of their particular jurisdictions: Shedding blood is not acting reasonably and is contrary to God's nature. Here is more of the article -
"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor observes: 'For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.' Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God [Allah] is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practice idolatry."It is entirely acceptable in Muslim teachings to lie and deceive, to say that they are peace-loving and only want to live in harmony with us in our cities. But in actuality we see "no go" zones created where settlements of Muslims insist on living by Sharia law, beating and raping not only their many wives but also any Western woman who dares to intrude into their territory. "Living in harmony with us" means accepting our values, not imposing theirs on our society and culture. This is not just a recent Western view of Islam: see St. John of Damascus’s Critique of Islam in the seventh century.
Freedom and toleration are ideas that must be defined and limited. They are not absolute ideals: they are not infinite and unlimited. Freedom or liberty is not license to do whatever you want wherever you happen to be located. Rather, freedom is the ability to strive toward holiness - what is loving, good and true. Toleration is not smilingly accepting the insulting, vile, vulgar and obscene speech and behavior of those who think they're merely exercising their freedom. Rather, it is mutual respect for values and norms that build up society, and not those that undermine or destroy it. Only when all people promise to and actually do abide by these principles that are deeply rooted in Christ's teachings and example of self-emptying can we insure peaceful coexistence.
(Linked to www.Hosken-News.info of 27 Sep. 2015.)
"Picky, picky, picky! What difference does it make, anyway? Are you from the Grammar Police?" - some people say, when you point out a misuse of the comma. But as the picture shows, leaving out a comma where it should be, or inserting a comma where it shouldn't be, can completely change the meaning of a sentence. A prime example of inserting commas where they shouldn't be is found in Eph. 4:11-12 -
Most newer translations omit those last two commas, as we show here. It completely changes the meaning, so we understand that the apostles (bishops), prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers are to equip the saints to do the work of ministering to build up the Body of Christ. The Church leadership offices aren't supposed to do all the work; instead, they are supposed to equip or train the saints (that's the rest of us in the congregation) to do diakonia-ministry!