News-Record.com

"For 24 years, PIC has worked to build bridges of communication "

So PIC was around when Robert Maplethorpe did his photos of a cross soaking in a jar of urine, and then more recently the national media reported some artist smeared dung on a likeness of Mother Mary and called it art.

Did PIC issue statements condemming those actions and calling for "sensitivity"?

Just curious.

"Our rejection of violence in no manner represents any disrespect for Islam, or for any tradition."

Anyone read this sentence and scratch your head? To me it sounds like the writers are inferring that Islam is violent but they, in their personal rejection of violence, don't disrespect Islam.

"Muslims in our community and around the world, protesting peacefully and creatively, are demonstrating their own commitment to peace and reconciliation among peoples."

Yeah right. I've yet to see this, can you run a few stories on it N&R?

While said Muslims are peacefully protesting the cartoons, can they also peacefully protest the violence of the brethren?

Dr. and Mrs. Hull ahve been doing tremendous work for many years and we owe them a debt of gratitude.

As for the uninformed "smear" comment after, I would not dignify the insidious implication with a response, except to point out the innacuracies: 1) Mapplethorpe did NOT create the photograph "Piss Christ", which was done by Andre Serrano, a deeply conscientious Catholic who has spoken about his struggle in terms of fiath and doubt, an honored tradition in many religions. It is quite similar to the philosophy of "Jesus of the Dungheap", whereby one is not afraid to look into the dirtiest areas of human existence, like Mother Teresa did, and find beauty amidst the illness and suffering and waste.

Chris Ofili's "Holy Virgin Mary" image incorrectly described did NOT have elephant dung "smeared" on it: the dung, which is traditional for honorary ceremonies in certain African nations, was carefully dried, preserved and sealed, then applied in geometrically-shaped forms to a gold-leaf-esque background and lapis-esque robe on the figure. It also served as "supports" below the work, was purposely not hung high and far from the viewer, but propped at eye level against the wall.

Both Mr. Ofili and Mr. Serrano are respected and admired for their work and its considered content, however sensationally it has been marketed.

Thanks for the name corrections, Freddy. Should those two art works being "content" somehow soothe those who were offended by them, regardless of the artist's motives?

Hugh,
Do you EVER talk about something you actually KNOW about?
Dr. Hull has done tremendous things for this community for years. The group he co-founded, sponsored a speaker a few weeks ago and I attended. The speaker was the author of "When Religion Turns Evil" and did a tremendous job of explaining how little we know of Islam and even less of ITS right wing crank jobs. There were Jews, Christians, people of color, and turbaned heads in attendance. It was truly a rainbow of our community. All were there for a better understanding of religion and its errant sects.

Hugh, maybe you should try to learn more about things rather than listening to Rush all the time. Clue: Rush is entertainment.

Congrats Deac, your first post in a long time that didn't contain "Bush is a failure". Kudos for sticking to the subject, albeit I'm not quite sure what Rush has to do with it.

Hugh's basic premise is right on the money, even if his examples aren't. Religious diversity groups (often heavily weighted with Christians) are very quick to defend bad behavior by other faiths in the name of understanding and tolerance without effectively or strongly speaking out against violence and intolerance. This "our rejection of violence in no manner represents disrespect for Islam" is weak and sappy. How about "if you want to be counted among civilized people you have to act civilized. We are saddened by the actions of some Muslims in this situation and disappointed by the weak-kneed response of the rest." The Christian faith strongly rejects the behavior of the Muslims. Christians need to live out their faith by strongly rejecting this before even thinking about talking about understanding.

Spooge,
So, are you saying condemn before trying to understand and tolerate?

No, DD, I'm saying that Christians have a duty to live their faith first, understand and tolerate second. The Christian faith rejects this kind of violence. Let me hear a strong repudiation of this and a call to stop before being accepted back into the community of civilized people. After that they can mumble about understanding.

Freddy,

You do a great job stating the artist's intention as HOWEVER, the question was: Did PIC condemn it?

If instead, the artists had wiped dung and piss all over Mohammed, do you think your comments about the artists intentions would mean squat in stemming the violence.

The artists who drew the cartoons also had 'noble intentions'. But I don't see anybody speaking up for those.

I think both are disrespectful but I don't demand an apology from anybody. They can save their apologies for God or Muhammad.

Spooge, Dan and Hugh, Couldn't have said it any better or added to. I guess just an Amen will do.

The author is correct. The Golden Rule is inherent in MOST relegions. The students of islam evidently can't find it in the koran. The extremists can only be stopped by the moderates. They must point them out. They are the ones that must insure that their children are not being brainwashed by their "relegious instructors". They are the ones that must cut off the funds to terrorists. They are the ones that must find a way to make peace with israel. If they don't step up they will be responsible for whatever happens.

Prime Minister Winston Churchill asked this question when he addressed the U.S. Congress in 1942: "Do they think we are made of sugar candy?" The "they" he referred to were the enemies of Britain and the U.S. Now, that question comes up again in the war on terror. The Washington Post last week published an entire article describing how Muslim artists over the centuries had, in fact, depicted Mohammed in their work. But The Post shied away from showing what their article described. In Germany, pre-Mardi Gras parade officials ordered participants not to satirize Islam or Muslims, so as not to give offense with a probability of violence. This weakness only tempts the Islamist terrorists to ever more murderous outrage. This is the path of appeasement that Europe took in the 1930s. The editor of that conservative Danish journal said he published the cartoons because he was concerned for press freedom, perhaps, perhaps not. The question remains where are the defenders of freedom of the press in the West? It would seem that they have shown disdain for Christian boycotts and reasoned appeals not to blaspheme Christianity, but then appear to cower before savage onslaughts of the Islamist. When one attempts appeasement of radical Islamic jihadists, it is a form of negotiating with terrorists and will only breed more violence and terror. So much for building bridges with those who burn them while under construction.