Hat tip Jihad Watch and Times of India
Here in the US, we are tying ourselves in knots because a TV channel suspended a reality show actor named Phil Robertson because he told an interviewer that according to his Christian beliefs, homosexuality is a sin. He expressed it in a civilized manner and never advocated violence toward gays. So the big debate in the US is whether it was right to suspend Robertson from the show or whether his right of free speech should be respected.
But who is discussing this? In India, a Muslim cleric is advocating death for homosexuals (and unmarried couples who live together). He has issued a fatwa, and he is describing exactly how it should be carried out.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Bareilly-cleric-issues-fatwa-against-homosexuality-live-in-relationships/articleshow/27666252.cms
"A person may be burnt alive, pushed from a high wall or be beaten publically (sic) with stones if he indulges into either of the two behaviours," the fatwa states.
Regardless of what you may think of Robertson's remarks, is this case in India not of higher significance? It is not just in India, and this is not a case of some isolated crackpot cleric. This is what applies pretty much all throughout the Islamic world though the severity may vary from country to country, from death to flogging or banishment.
It seems that we are very quick to condemn any Christian statements disapproving of homosexuality, but we are ignoring it when others call for the death of gays based on their religious teachings. Why is that?
Aw, you know the reason why.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Why is that?"
Because most Americans are sane and are offended more by a popular American TV star's anti-gay rant than by some obscure Muslim cleric who lives thousands of miles away in India.
Talk about reaching.
Its a typical example of the "blame others first" mentality that many if not most Christians and/or Republicans hold.
Anonymous,
I don't know where the Republicans entered this piece, but the point I was trying to make was that while some or many Christians may condemn homosexuality (which I do not), they do not call for a death penalty to be applied.
Do you see the difference?
As for the "obscure Muslim cleric thousands of miles away in India", I made the point that he is not just one lone voice in the wildnerness. He is following mainstream Islamic thought on this. This is what is preached from one end of the Islamic world to the other.
It is not reaching. It is a refusal on the part of the Western left, media etc to recognize who would do the most harm to gays.
Who would do the most harm to gays?
In America, its definitely Christians particularly of of the Conservative strain.
Anonymous,
And what harm would they do? They have no legal means to hurt gays. What harm can that Duck guy do besides express his religious beliefs-which he has a right to do?
Keep in mind that while I am not on board with same sex marriage, I oppose any discrimination against gays.
What exactly is the problem you have with me describing the terrible things that happen to gays in the Islamic world-sanctioned by Islamic law?
Are you really for defending gays-as I am-or are you objecting to me describing the Islamic point of view toward gays?
It's kinda hard to have your cake and eat it too.
Anonymous has another stunning lack of self awareness. Coupled with a finely tuned sense of victimization with a lack of concern for reality and you get a crazy worldview.
What is great about this debate, found here, is the fact that we can debate. Anonymous and Miggie make their points. They are not shot, beheaded, or hung by the neck in this Country. This is what is called free speech. The "Duck Commander", Phil, has every right to express his belief in the part of the Bible that condemns homosexuality. This is what he believes. For the Gay population to condemn him and express that he has no right to express his opinion is not what this Country is all about. Gays have their opinion and the Duck commander has his. The A&E cable channel is on the wrong tack, when they want Phil to apologize for what he believes in and wrong to threaten to cancel him because of his beliefs. Free speech must reign
Squid
I think A & E similarly has a right to fire someone if they think he harmed their brand. A & E is considered left of center and maybe they think he is a liability.
It happens to be a very popular show which contains a number of things that are an anathema to the left... Marriage (complete families), Religious convictions, Patriotism, Aversion to Homosexuality, Capitalism, Guns, and no doubt a few more. They also end every episode with a prayer and thank Jesus. That is like showing a cross to a vampire.
Is A & E willing to lose millions by letting this program leave their network over this or will they try to walk it back? The left wing media is losing viewers and readers and money and yet they maintain their leftist ideology. It trumps their business decisions.
The Robertsons will not film without the patriarch and no doubt another network would love to have them if they leave A & E.
It will be interesting to see what A & E does and how they weasel out of their situation.
Post a Comment