Posted on 03/01/2008 8:14:15 AM PST by jdm
Our friend Robert Spencer reports that the Dutch public broadcaster KRO has given up on its planned production to show that the Bible contains just as much potential for violence as the Koran. NIS News states that the reason that KRO put this project in turnaround is that the producers couldn’t make the case:
In his short film Fitna, intended to be shown in March, Wilders wants to show gruesome events said to be inspired by the Koran. KRO, nota bene itself a Catholic broadcaster, wanted to show that such a film could also be made about the Bible.
The film was “one of the plans for participating in the debate that Geert Wilders has aroused with his proposal to ban the Koran. After extensive research, linking Bible quotations with real political events and acts of violence however produced an insufficient basis for a thorough journalistic production.”
An “insufficient basis”? What does that mean? It means that context is everything. While no one doubts that the Bible contains plenty of violence, it comes in the context of history, not commands. Geert Wilders, the inspiration for this idea, understood the difference. KRO — which according to NIS is nominally a Christian broadcaster — didn’t have enough knowledge of the Bible to understand it themselves.
This is the silliness that accompanies moral relativism. In their quest to prove that all cultures are equal, they rush to excuse barbarity by discovering barbarity in our own religion. Only, we don’t see significant or even fringe “jihadi” movements in Judaism or Christianity, or for that matter in Buddhism or Hinduism either. Only one major religion has that kind of movement, and as Wilders demonstrated, it is based on the core scriptural texts of their belief. That doesn’t mean the vast majority of its practitioners are jihadists, but it does mean that there really are quantitative and qualitative differences between the two texts — which really should be an obvious point.
Perhaps “Christian” broadcaster KRO should familiarize itself better with the Bible. That way, it won’t have to issue embarrassing press releases that reveal their ignorance of its own scriptural texts.
Well they could have pointed out the FACTS........
The violence in the Bible - nearly all of it in the Old Testament - has long been interpreted symbolically by Jews (and of course, Christians). The stories really did happen, of course, but the Biblical retelling and its rabbinic interpretation did not urge Jews (and later, Christians) to go out and do likewise, but to learn from the stories and war against the evil in themselves.
Of course, since Mohammed plagiarized from the Jewish scriptures all that part of his “religion” that did not come from his personal hallucinations, we could look at this two ways. Not only were Mohammed’s “angelic visions” violent, but he used the Old Testament stories as platforms for more violence. Any attempt to interpret them symbolically is, essentially, regarded as a heresy in Islam.
Now it's time to look at the messengers of these religions for the next movie so we can understand who their followers have as a role model to emulate.
Which ones role model is a violent mass murdering, deceiving, slave trading, rapist who engaged in pedophilia and waged genocide?
This will be fun... the behavior of the followers alone will both guarantee its success, and validate the core message.
They should go ahead with their project and reveal what they’ve learned - that moral relativism cannot be applied to rationalize the violence of Islam.
Good luck with this.
There’s that. There is also the fact that almost no Christians are using the Old Testament history to justify violence today. Yet Muslims use the Koran to justify beheading Christian school girls in Indonesia and Buddhist school teachers in Thailand just this year.
One side has renounced violence, even in the past, in the name of God; the other is actively violent - today - in the name of Allah.
The point being, the violence in the Bible is descriptive...it does not direct followers to embark upon military campaigns or kill unbelievers...one would have to refer to the Quran to find directives to kill others. The comparison is either dishonest or made by idiots.
I reached that conclusion in September 2001 when I read The Life of Mohammad, written by Edward, Canon Sell. It's a free download. So, why did it take these idiots so long?
islam rises and falls on the character of the 'prophet' - and we all know what he was...(those that don't better find out before obama-the-kenyan-muslim-arab gets to be CIC of the USofA!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.