Cartoon About the Holocaust and the European Press

[VoxClamantis]

QVP, I was not referring specifically to you or the President of Iran. I am referring to a more general impression I've received that some on the Catholic Right, like Pat Buchanan (since you wanted names), hate Zionism and secularism so much that they seem to sympathize with the Muslims to a certain extent.

 

We should sympathize with them when their land is taken from them and their countries are invaded, and we shouldn't urge that sort of thing on and fund it. But other than that, I don't know anyone, including Buchanan, who sympathizes with Islam itself or thinks that Muslims should overtake Europe.

 

As to HMiS, he is always positing a false dichotomy (to be against Judaism is to be pro-Islam) and throwing around ugly insinuations: any criticism of Zionism or Judaism earns the critic a stern lecture on how we shouldn't ally ourselves with Muslims or "deny the shoah" -- both of which are almost always totally off-topic and only serve to virtually tar and feather good Catholics. I am sick of it.

[Ceildric]

As much as they are for us, they are with us; while as much as they are against us, they are not with us.

We ought not "throw the baby out with the bath water" as it were.  If they attack the excessive decadence of the West, why not agree with them?  As we would only be agreeing with truth.  Yet we need not agree with all of their religion to agree with the Truth and urge the disregard of the false aspects and urge their conversion.

They are still God's creation, and are searching, in their way.  They obviously have been inspired in some ways, but theirs is an imperfect expression of religion.  As Jesus ordered His disciples not to stop the man casting out demons, who was not with them, we should not condemn Truth along with falsehood.  To condemn Truth ever is to condemn God, as He is the source of all Truth.

[royalcello]

We should sympathize with them when their land is taken from them and their countries are invaded, and we shouldn't urge that sort of thing on and fund it.

Agreed.  However, we should not sympathize with Muslims, as Buchanan did, when Danish newspapers publish irreverent cartoons of Mohammed and Muslims essentially demand veto power over the content of the European press.

But other than that, I don't know anyone, including Buchanan, who sympathizes with Islam itself or thinks that Muslims should overtake Europe.

No, Buchanan certainly does not.  That was precisely what I found so frustrating about his take on the Danish cartoon controversy--he'd written a whole book called The Death of the West and ought to know better.  But he does seem to think that it was wrong, or at least foolish, for European newspapers to print cartoons offensive to Muslims, and I disagree.  The sympathies of every Western patriot should have been with the cartoonists and the editors, even if their motives were imperfect.

[VoxClamantis]

No, Buchanan certainly does not. That was precisely what I found so frustrating about his take on the Danish cartoon controversy--he'd written a whole book called The Death of the West and ought to know better. But he does seem to think that it was wrong, or at least foolish, for European newspapers to print cartoons offensive to Muslims, and I disagree. The sympathies of every Western patriot should have been with the cartoonists and the editors, even if their motives were imperfect.

All Buchanan said was that it was a stupid move to defend such cartoons even "we" are trying to get Muslims to swing "West" politically. He wrote: 

Since 9-11, President Bush seems to have understood that if we wish to win the war on terror, we must separate the Islamic masses from the monsters. To defeat the Islamic extremists, we must win the hearts and minds of the moderates.

To this end, Bush has visited mosques. He has held White House celebrations for the breaking of the fast at the end of Ramadan. He has sent Karen Hughes to State to develop ideas to show we respect the Islamic faith and that our war is against terror, not Islam. He has said more times than many of us care to recall, "Islam is a religion of peace."

Those cartoons – insulting, blasphemous, provocative to Muslims – have wiped out much of what Bush had accomplished. The cartoons have given the Muslim radicals visible proof to show the masses that the West mocks what they hold sacred.

One can debate about Bush's overall goals (I'm agin' 'em), but there's no doubt that the cartoons didn't further the cause of spreading "Western values" Eastward.

[royalcello]

Since 9-11, President Bush seems to have understood that if we wish to win the war on terror, we must separate the Islamic masses from the monsters. To defeat the Islamic extremists, we must win the hearts and minds of the moderates.

To this end, Bush has visited mosques. He has held White House celebrations for the breaking of the fast at the end of Ramadan. He has sent Karen Hughes to State to develop ideas to show we respect the Islamic faith and that our war is against terror, not Islam. He has said more times than many of us care to recall, "Islam is a religion of peace."

Those cartoons – insulting, blasphemous, provocative to Muslims – have wiped out much of what Bush had accomplished. The cartoons have given the Muslim radicals visible proof to show the masses that the West mocks what they hold sacred.

Part of what drove me crazy was the ambiguity.  Does Buchanan agree with visiting mosques and celebrating Ramadan?  Does he approve of what Bush was trying to accomplish?  It would seem from the phrase "more times than many of us care to recall," and from his other writings, that he does not, but he doesn't quite say.  

I defend the cartoons because I believe that firmly opposing the Islamization of Europe includes making it clear that Muslims who choose to live in Europe (and we have to be realistic, the number of Muslims in Europe will probably never again be as low as it was before the 1950s) do not have the right to insist that Europeans respect their taboos.  Christians, secular people, and whatever it is that I am, need to stand together on this.

[Croppyboy]

Whilst I agree that Jyllands-Posten was free to publish the cartoons mocking Muhammad, I abhor the hypocrisy behind their, and subsequent European newspapers, use of the “freedom of speech” argument whilst they continue to kowtow to Zionist censorship demands.

If the European media (and European citizens) were truly concerned about the “freedom of speech” issue, they would discontinue their self-censorship of all things Zionist.

Originally posted by royalcello

However, we should not sympathize with Muslims, as Buchanan did, when Danish newspapers publish irreverent cartoons of Mohammed and Muslims essentially demand veto power over the content of the European press.

Do you support the long held Zionist veto power over  the content of the European press (and the speech of European citizens)?

[royalcello]

Do you support the long held Zionist veto power over  the content of the European press (and the speech of European citizens)?

What did I say in my first post on this thread?  Please read carefully!

While I personally think that neither "Holocaust denial" nor anti-Muslim cartoons should be prohibited, it is quite clear that Muslims would legalize "Holocaust denial" while prohibiting anti-Muslim cartoons, and so they have no right to object to Europe's inconsistency.

[Croppyboy]

Thanks for the clarification . . . I missed that . . .

[anamchara]

While I personally think that neither Holocaust "denial" nor anti-Muslim cartoons should be prohibited, it is quite clear that Zionists have in fact illegalized Holocaust "denial" while promoting anti-Muslim cartoons, and so they have no right to object to Islam's intolerance. 

[catholicresistence]

What I hate is the mantra "the holocuast killed 6 milion Jews..." w/o hardly a mention of anyone else- even Gays are passing up mentioning it as they do other "phobic' actions.

 

St. Maximillain Kolbe, pray for us.