I am mystified by the discussion that assumes we are to find a way as a culture to tolerate the views of extreme Muslims. Why? If we don’t do that for anyone else why Muslims? It is about fear, plain and simple. We are trying to accommodate them to save our flesh. That is not the way of the West, hasn’t been, shouldn’t be.
There is no question that many religions in the West have taken the brunt of wild-eyed cartoonists and writers who represent their profession with secured boldness. Though many are disturbed by it, the sarcastic and searing taunts of the press have not been suppressed by our government or by our laws because we want to maintain our hard-fought freedoms. Why, for example, is it not appropriate to support Muslims with their ideas about displaying an image of their divine leader, Mohammed? It is appropriate. However, it is not appropriate for them to demand of others who do not adhere to their faith that they be prohibited from displaying his image.
Muslims, within their jurisdiction, can do as they please about this idea. No displaying of the prophet Mohammed by Muslims, but to expect us to adhere to their rules as non-adherents is asking too much. We are a Democracy not a Theocracy. (It is clear that many Muslims don’t believe that or are trying to convert us to a theocracy.) As long as we are a democracy we are free to post, print or preach whatever we desire. I will gladly support Muslims and their desire to enforce their laws but only amongst themselves. For all others? Islamic rules and regs are not ours to obey unless forced, and that is not the way of Democracy.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
About Ed Anderson
I am "non-religious", not an atheist as some suppose, since after reading what I have written many wonder if I believe in "God", I just don't have a name for the concept, "God", nor do I have an origination story or theological mystery tour to stretch your faith. (I have no proof of what I believe and I wonder if my belief in "God" is supportable as I have increasing doubts.) I just can't accept an inflexible point of view that says, "I know what you need, and I know what you should know and here it is, you can have it too." Religionists present yet another obstacle to finding "truth" as they claim to have succeeded exclusively in finding it.
Having been a part of the religious scene for years it is clear to me how easily duped we are to believe in something we have no proof of, has caused an abundance of divisions, and "territorialized" people into believers and non-believers.
Furthermore, my belief in "God" equates to the larger perspective which includes an awareness of "God" in everything. I speculate at times whether or not consciousness is "God" So, my belief in "God" does not necessarily match up to the Christian/Judaeo tradition of a being existing somewhere in the beyond or in one's "heart". If there is a "God" he/she/it could be anywhere and in anything.
Though I believe in God, it is not a belief in the God of Scripture. Too many “holes” in Scripture to satisfy my inquiring mind. It may indeed point me in the right direction but I find it not only unreliable but full of plagiaristic thought and re-writing of some of history’s interesting solutions. I much prefer to trust the minds of men and women who conjecture on the basis of what we now know of our universe than those men and women who trust the minds of ancient spiritual guides who, in turn, contributed to a book allegedly “inspired” by God. It is all unprovable, either side of this argument, but I prefer to invest most of my thinking in current ideas rather than those that show little support in logic. Do I hear an "Amen"?
View all posts by Ed Anderson
Thoughts on Thoughts 
Leave a Reply