Post 15—
While the media, especially the Canadian press, is quick to publish reports and discussions about discrimination against Muslims in Canada itself, the USA or in Europe, that same press is remarkably silent about discrimination or, worse, persecution of Christians in Muslim-majority countries. Sometimes such persecution is due to government policy; sometimes, simply to the local citizens, often with the connivance of government agencies like police and court. Today, such persecution is due to Muslim angry reactions to Western violation of their sovereignty and interference in their affairs. Whatever the reason, no one can deny that such persecution is widespread in these countries, for in the previous two posts we record government acknowledgements of this tragic phenomenon.
So, it is a relief to note that there are signs the media may be opening up to reports about the persecution of Christians. The past few posts seem to indicate that there is some relief in this area. Another recent indication is a guest editorial in the Vancouver Sun (Nov. 17, 2010) borrowed from The Calgary Herald. The opening salvo: “Respect for religious beliefs is supposedly a universal value applicable to all faiths, making the world’s silence on recent attacks directed at Christians so puzzling, and so very unacceptable.” Then: “This lack of action is especially lopsided considering the willingness of governments and organizations to attack anyone offering insults to Muslims.” The article then goes on to catalogue a whole series of cases of persecution against Christians by Muslim. I should really summarize each case the article reports on, but I will spare my Muslim friends the embarrassment. The writer of the editorial writes, “Not one of these incidents has garnered even a fraction of the attention the proposed Qur’an burning caused. This begs the question: Why?” Indeed, why?
He suggests that perhaps this situation is “because Christians rarely riot in difficult circumstances.” Glad that the word “rarely” qualifies the assertion, for I know of circumstances where Christians have rioted—in Nigeria, for example. And if in the USA Christians do not usually riot, ultra-rightists and fundamentalists have loudly demonstrated and elicited Muslim violence by threatening to burn Qur’ans. In Canada, of course, Christians are far "too polite" to go beyond occasional domesticated demonstrations. Or would "too scared" be a more accurate description?
The Calgary writer ends his piece with a strong statement: “By cherry-picking causes for concern, governments and groups expose the hollowness and hypocrisy of their vaunted values. It’s justice for all or justice for none.” Hooray! Thumbs up for the writer and the Herald for bringing this situation to the attention of the general public as well as for the Sun for picking it up. That’s pretty courageous for main stream media. The last post contains reference to an article about Christian persecution printed in Vancouver’s other daily, The Province. Thank you, reporters and editors. Is there is change in the wind? Keep it up!
Of course, if the main stream media have (consciously?) suppressed such stories, there are agencies that exist for the very purpose of reporting on such developments on their websites., while others collect funds to support the victims of such persecution. For some reason they have not managed to penetrate the main stream media, at least, not in North America. It is time the general public become aware of them. This is not the day for me to bring them to you attention, but it is on my agenda for the near future.
The next post will feature a Nigerian Muslim columnist who uses some tough language to explain the lack of democracy in most Muslim countries and their oppressive practices. So, hang around. I’ll be back.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Friday, November 19, 2010
Iraqi Govt to Protect Christian Minority
Post 14
A few days ago, I read an encouraging news item about the Iraqi government promising to repatriate Iraqi Christians who have fled their country because of persecution and discrimination. The report was something similar to that in the previous post about Pakistan. Statistics tell us that Iraqi is emptying of Christians, who have lived there as minorities since the beginning of Christian history. I read the following report from the UK-based Barnabas Aid for November 14, 2010:--
Praise God for encouraging news from an Iraqi ambassador to a European state, who said that his government is committed to assisting Iraqi Christians who have fled their homeland because of the anti-Christian violence. He said that the government will assist Christians who return to Iraq with jobs, money and land to build houses. He also affirmed the possibility of creating a semi-autonomous region for Christians, similar to what Kurds in Iraq have, should the Christians with it. Pray that the Iraqi government will have the will and the ability to carry out these pledges and protect Christians from Islamic militants.
That is indeed an encouraging report. However, since Barnabas does not reveal the identity of the man nor the country to which he is assigned, it seems they must have felt it necessary to hide the identity of this ambassador, which makes me wonder whether he truly spoke the mind of his political masters. It was at least an official acknowledgement that Christians are fleeing his country and that his country is producing Christian refugees. But was he sincere? Did he represent official policy?
I ask such questions because I also read a story today that totally contradicts the above promise. A short report in today’s Province, a Vancouver daily (Nov. 11/2010), tells of continuing attacks on Christians:--
Baghad—A string of anti-Christian bombings has cost six more lives in the wake of a Baghdad church bloodbath, sowing panic in Iraq’s 2000-year-old minority on Wednesday, many of whom now want to flee. “Since Tuesday evening, there have been 13 bombs and two mortar attacks on homes and shops of Christians,” a Defense Ministry official said. The attacks come less than two weeks after 44 Christian worshippers, two priests and seven security personnel died in the seizure of the Baghdad church by Islamist gunmen and the ensuring shootout.
Some readers may argue that you need to give the government time to implement its new policy. You need to realize that Barnabas reports always come some months after the matter reported. There’s been time to implement the ambassador’s promise.
As in the case of Pakistan, we keep hoping….
A few days ago, I read an encouraging news item about the Iraqi government promising to repatriate Iraqi Christians who have fled their country because of persecution and discrimination. The report was something similar to that in the previous post about Pakistan. Statistics tell us that Iraqi is emptying of Christians, who have lived there as minorities since the beginning of Christian history. I read the following report from the UK-based Barnabas Aid for November 14, 2010:--
Praise God for encouraging news from an Iraqi ambassador to a European state, who said that his government is committed to assisting Iraqi Christians who have fled their homeland because of the anti-Christian violence. He said that the government will assist Christians who return to Iraq with jobs, money and land to build houses. He also affirmed the possibility of creating a semi-autonomous region for Christians, similar to what Kurds in Iraq have, should the Christians with it. Pray that the Iraqi government will have the will and the ability to carry out these pledges and protect Christians from Islamic militants.
That is indeed an encouraging report. However, since Barnabas does not reveal the identity of the man nor the country to which he is assigned, it seems they must have felt it necessary to hide the identity of this ambassador, which makes me wonder whether he truly spoke the mind of his political masters. It was at least an official acknowledgement that Christians are fleeing his country and that his country is producing Christian refugees. But was he sincere? Did he represent official policy?
I ask such questions because I also read a story today that totally contradicts the above promise. A short report in today’s Province, a Vancouver daily (Nov. 11/2010), tells of continuing attacks on Christians:--
Baghad—A string of anti-Christian bombings has cost six more lives in the wake of a Baghdad church bloodbath, sowing panic in Iraq’s 2000-year-old minority on Wednesday, many of whom now want to flee. “Since Tuesday evening, there have been 13 bombs and two mortar attacks on homes and shops of Christians,” a Defense Ministry official said. The attacks come less than two weeks after 44 Christian worshippers, two priests and seven security personnel died in the seizure of the Baghdad church by Islamist gunmen and the ensuring shootout.
Some readers may argue that you need to give the government time to implement its new policy. You need to realize that Barnabas reports always come some months after the matter reported. There’s been time to implement the ambassador’s promise.
As in the case of Pakistan, we keep hoping….
Monday, November 8, 2010
Muslim Canadian Congress and Secularism
Post 12
This current discussion started some posts ago and has dwelt on the issue of violence. The discussion continues in this post, but violence now takes a back seat.
I mentioned in Post 11 that there is a contradiction in MCC’s rejection of violence and its embrace of secularism. It uses a secular perspective to reject violence. This stance stands in sharp contradiction to that of millions of other Muslims. I have written an 8-volume work on Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria, where violence has erupted time and again against secularism. Nigeria is by no means the only country where this is the case. It is more common among Muslims throughout the world to regard secularism as their enemy than as an inspiration for tolerance and non-violence.
This is not to say that all Muslims opposed to secularism are violent. I, a Christian, am also opposed to secularism, but I am not violent and do not intend ever to engage in it. The same is true by far for most anti-secularist Muslims, though it may be fair to say that all militant Muslims are anti-secularist, with perhaps a few unusual exceptions. That MCC is at odds with that other Canadian national Muslim organization, Canadian Islamic Congress, does not surprise me, even though at this point I am not sure of the exact nature of their friction. I do need to look into that one of these days.
So, the stance of MCC contradicts that of the world’s Muslim majority.
There is an additional contradiction in the stance of MCC. They are a Canadian organization that has adopted a liberal and secular stance in the Canadian context. They want to contribute to that context in a positive way, an admirable goal that can only be lauded. Their embrace of the alleged Canadian secular ethos is part of that programme. That’s the way to get accepted by the Canadian establishment. A Muslim organization embracing such values is sure to get plenty of kudos from the Canadian populace and media. Wonderful!
However, the Canadian secular establishment really amounts to the establishment of one worldview called “secular” at the expense of other equally Canadian worldviews, especially if these other Canadian worldviews are of an overt religious nature. They may actually have deeper and longer roots in Canadian history, but the upstart liberal-secular establishment has managed to upstage it and assign it a small niche best described as comprising of church, family and the personal. As long as the groups with other worldviews agree to that assigned restrictive place, they are considered good boys and girls. But once they object to that assigned position, you will have the media on your neck and you run the great risk of having all the powers of human right commissions firing their canons of political correctness at you in ways that can legitimately be described as legal violence. You may even be described as, mother of all horrors, a vile stooge of American fundamentalism, surely the worst of all possible Canadian castigations!
MCC, by having adopted this establishment perspective, has in fact allied itself with a very intolerant worldview that may not shoot with the gun but with the weapons of scorn and political correctness that guide the dubious legal interpretations of human rights commissions. Though that establishment uses such great words like “liberal,” “tolerant,” etc., those words hardly catch the venomous spirit with which it operates.
I have let one of my cats out of the bag in this post. I have not defended my allegations, but I will do so as time allows in succeeding posts, though not necessarily in succession to each other. So, if you want to pursue my line of reasoning or have become curious about my Calvinistic-Kuyperian worldview, you’re just gonna have to stick with me for a while. Good luck—a very unCalvinistic parting!
This current discussion started some posts ago and has dwelt on the issue of violence. The discussion continues in this post, but violence now takes a back seat.
I mentioned in Post 11 that there is a contradiction in MCC’s rejection of violence and its embrace of secularism. It uses a secular perspective to reject violence. This stance stands in sharp contradiction to that of millions of other Muslims. I have written an 8-volume work on Christian-Muslim relations in Nigeria, where violence has erupted time and again against secularism. Nigeria is by no means the only country where this is the case. It is more common among Muslims throughout the world to regard secularism as their enemy than as an inspiration for tolerance and non-violence.
This is not to say that all Muslims opposed to secularism are violent. I, a Christian, am also opposed to secularism, but I am not violent and do not intend ever to engage in it. The same is true by far for most anti-secularist Muslims, though it may be fair to say that all militant Muslims are anti-secularist, with perhaps a few unusual exceptions. That MCC is at odds with that other Canadian national Muslim organization, Canadian Islamic Congress, does not surprise me, even though at this point I am not sure of the exact nature of their friction. I do need to look into that one of these days.
So, the stance of MCC contradicts that of the world’s Muslim majority.
There is an additional contradiction in the stance of MCC. They are a Canadian organization that has adopted a liberal and secular stance in the Canadian context. They want to contribute to that context in a positive way, an admirable goal that can only be lauded. Their embrace of the alleged Canadian secular ethos is part of that programme. That’s the way to get accepted by the Canadian establishment. A Muslim organization embracing such values is sure to get plenty of kudos from the Canadian populace and media. Wonderful!
However, the Canadian secular establishment really amounts to the establishment of one worldview called “secular” at the expense of other equally Canadian worldviews, especially if these other Canadian worldviews are of an overt religious nature. They may actually have deeper and longer roots in Canadian history, but the upstart liberal-secular establishment has managed to upstage it and assign it a small niche best described as comprising of church, family and the personal. As long as the groups with other worldviews agree to that assigned restrictive place, they are considered good boys and girls. But once they object to that assigned position, you will have the media on your neck and you run the great risk of having all the powers of human right commissions firing their canons of political correctness at you in ways that can legitimately be described as legal violence. You may even be described as, mother of all horrors, a vile stooge of American fundamentalism, surely the worst of all possible Canadian castigations!
MCC, by having adopted this establishment perspective, has in fact allied itself with a very intolerant worldview that may not shoot with the gun but with the weapons of scorn and political correctness that guide the dubious legal interpretations of human rights commissions. Though that establishment uses such great words like “liberal,” “tolerant,” etc., those words hardly catch the venomous spirit with which it operates.
I have let one of my cats out of the bag in this post. I have not defended my allegations, but I will do so as time allows in succeeding posts, though not necessarily in succession to each other. So, if you want to pursue my line of reasoning or have become curious about my Calvinistic-Kuyperian worldview, you’re just gonna have to stick with me for a while. Good luck—a very unCalvinistic parting!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)