The World Council of Churches is upset that a Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, has had the temerity to criticize Islam in his recently released movie Fitna. The movie (which can be seen in an edited form at YouTube; the original host, LiveLeak, has taken it down “for copyright reason”) is a propagandistic montage of Koranic verses, scenes of terrorist violence, raving Islamic preachers, and chilling snippets of interviews with bloodthirsty Muslims. It is meant to persuade, rather than inform, and so is hardly a balanced presentation. But that doesn’t mean that what it depicts isn’t real, as anyone who has paid any attention to the news in the last two decades is aware. But that doesn’t stop the WCC from going on the warpath:

Minute on our religious imperative to foster sensitivity and reconciliation in shifting society

1. In recent years, there have been intense social upheavals emerging from insult, injury and offence aimed at religious communities. The causes of these conflicts are complex and often result from migration and other effects of globalization. Some, in once stable communities in Europe for instance, view these shifts in cultural and religious identities as a threat, leading to xenophobic reactions.

The “intense social upheavals” referred to here include riots, terrorism, bombings, anti-Semitic rallies, pledges to annihilate the Jews or the West, etc. These have, of course, come almost exclusively from the Muslim world. Does that mean that all or even most Muslims participate or approve of such behavior. Of course not. But refusing to recognize who the people are who are cutting off heads and burning cars to protest cartoons is sticking one’s head in the sand.

Please note that the minute says the “causes of these conflicts are complex,” and then proceed to reduce them to “migration and other effects of globalization.” By that I take they mean that Muslims who moved to Denmark were victimized once the got there by the dreaded cartoons of blasphemy, and that Muslims in the rest of the world were victimized by news media and the Internet spreading those same cartoons. At no point does the WCC suggest that the infantile response of thousands of Muslims to cartoons is a sign of either cultural backwardness or even psychological unbalance on the part of those who responded to drawings with violence, They are, rather victims, whose violence has now caused them to be further victimized when the people into who midst they have moved begin to wonder if allowing such touchy people in was a good idea.

2. Migrants, quite often deeply rooted in religious traditions and practices, bring new dimensions to public debates that both enrich and challenge established secular patterns of life. These new challenges, including those occasioned by the displacement of traditional religious communities, find expression in intensive debates about the role of religion in the public and political realm, and in particular in the tension between freedom of expression and respect for religious symbols and values.

There is no “tension” between “freedom of expression” and “respect for religious symbols and values.” There is “tension” between a form of Islam and the mindsets of its adherents that cannot abide criticism of any kind and the tendency of some impolitic people to point out that such a form of Islam isn’t exactly in keeping with Western values. The WCC would be rightfully incensed if anyone suggested that freedom of speech in the West should be curtailed to prevent conservative or fundamentalist Christians from being portrayed, as they regularly are in Western media, as women-hating, gay-bashing, racist totalitarian-wannabees. But if Geert Wilders points out that some Muslims think Jews are monkeys and swine, or that it was Muslims who blew up over 200 people on the Madrid subway, and that some Muslims repair to the Koran to justify their homicide, then that “tension” becomes a real problem.

3. In this context, we echo the concern expressed in the Netherlands and in other parts of the world following rumours of the release of a film against the Qur’an by a Dutch member of parliament.

4. As a fellowship of churches we recall the clear and unequivocal biblical injunction to “love the stranger” in our midst (Deuteronomy 10:19) and that in Jesus’ teaching to love our neighbour, the neighbour is often the one we do not recognize (Luke 10:25-37).

5. We affirm that it is imperative that we address the fears and insults that are experienced by all the communities involved in such situations. The “Minute on mutual respect, responsibility and dialogue with people of other faiths,” approved at Porto Alegre in 2006, provides a framework for those churches who wish to do so.

Keep in mind that this was written by people, who have never, as long as I’ve been listening to them, condemned or uttered a single word of concern about the homicidal, anti-Semitic sewage that pours forth on a daily basis from televisions in the Palestinian territories, Syria, Iran, and even ostensible U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt (for example, the latter ran a 30-some part dramatization of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” on state TV a couple of years ago). But now they are all in a dither to “address the fears and insults” experienced by Muslims who have emigrated to Europe. Their concern for the “neighbour” is touching, if a bit selective.

Recalling also that some of our churches, particularly those in Asia, Africa and the Middle East have centuries-long experience living in communities of religious and cultural diversity,

The reference is to the dhimmitude in which Christians have lived under Muslims since the 7th century.

the central committee of the World Council of Churches, meeting in Geneva, Switzerland, 13-20 February 2008:

A. Recommends to churches facing such challenges to seek opportunities for networking to share the expertise and wisdom of the member churches with experience in living in religious and cultural diversity;

Whatever.

B. Encourages member churches to actively generate a climate of deep respect, communication and mutual understanding in the public sphere by engaging opinion leaders, mass media and other community leaders to emphasize the positive contribution that people of religious faith make to national and community life;

A fine idea, as long as it doesn’t shut down debate over the hate-filled activities that go on in certain quarters.

C. Affirms the unique and strategic role, as well as the moral responsibility, of religious leaders to work towards reconciliation and healing within their own and between communities, and encourages Christian leaders to initiate and facilitate processes that lead communities not only from hostility to peaceful co-existence but also to celebrations of our common life;

I think they mean Christians are supposed to talk to Muslims about everybody getting along together. Great, as long as we aren’t doing so at the point of a knife.

D. Urges Christian leaders to speak directly, consistently and self-critically to their own communities, holding them to the highest ethical standards of loving one’s neighbour, and in extending a hand of reconciliation to communities other than one’s own, whenever a community, its people and their beliefs have been attacked or insulted;

Right. And who is the arbiter of when “a community, its people, and their beliefs have been attacked or insulted”? That community, of course. So if Muslims feel that Islam has been “attacked or insulted” when Geert Wilders quotes some of the more bloodthirsty passages in the Koran, or the Anglican Bishop of Rochester points out that there are areas of British cities where non-Muslims receive a less than cordial welcome, or if Swedes begin to wonder if places like Malmo are safe for non-Muslims to live in, that is the time to “extend a hand of reconcilation,” rather than asking if the speakers aren’t telling an uncomfortable truth.

E. Calls upon Christian communities to seek common cause with other religious communities to respond to crises that occur in such a way as to model a non-violent and respectful solution.

The WCC’s recommendations are so much fluff, some good, some bad, all meaningless. They are all meaningless because they refuse to grapple with the reality that some Muslims are violent, that some Muslims do seek the destruction of Western culture, that some Muslims are vile anti-Semites, that some Muslims have committed loathsome acts of terrorism, and that some Muslims want to see the values of the West subjugated to their own, no matter the cost. Until the WCC comes to grips with the reality that is plaguing Europe and threatens much of the rest of the world–from Bali to the Sudan to New York–nothing it says or does will be of much account.

Advertisement
Privacy Settings