Anglican Churches in Iran, Pakistan and Persian Gulf condemn anti-Islam film

They couldn’t find it in themselves to condemn the death and possible rape and torture of U.S. ambassador, J. Christopher Stevens, though. Funny, that.

From here:

TEHRAN – Members of the Anglican Church in Iran, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf issued a statement on Wednesday condemning production and showing of an anti-Islam film on the internet or on any other media outlets anywhere.
“Christians strongly believe in harmonious existence and understanding among people of all faiths especially among the people of Abrahamic faiths with their roots in believing in one God revealed in their Holy Scriptures,” said the statement a copy of which was sent to IRNA news agency.

It added, “In concordance with our Muslim neighbors in Iran, Pakistan and the Persian Gulf, we demand that international media leaders to develop a code of conduct which will stop hateful anti-religious views to be promoted, provoking the sentiments of millions of people across the globe.”

The statement also demanded that international bodies like the United Nations and the World Council of Church, “to expedite the formation of international laws prohibiting such moves and declaring them illegal and punishable crimes in the future.”

Update: The Episcopal News Service has joined in the chorus of those excoriating the makers of the inane little film while completely ignoring the murder of J. Christopher Stevens.:

Leaders across the Anglican Communion have spoken out about The Innocence of Muslims, a film containing anti-Islam content that has so far triggered protests, violence and death in countries like Libya and Egypt.

Both Anglican and Roman Catholic archbishops in New Zealand have condemned the film, its message and its promotion, alongside the Federation of Islamic Associations president and the city of Wellington’s Regional Jewish Council chairperson, Race Relations commissioner and local bishops.

In the Anglican world of indaba, Hegelian middle ground, compromise, a metaphysic without hell overseen by a mushy-love god who appears to be stoned most of the time, it’s remarkable just how judgemental bishop Pierre Whalon becomes when it suits him:

According to Whalon, those who planned and created the film would have much to answer for when they came before the judgment seat of God.

Conservative Anglican bishops call for limiting free speech

From here:

Four North African and Middle Eastern Anglican bishops have written to U.N. Secretary Ban Ki-moon urging the adoption of an international declaration against religious defamation.

Bishops Mouneer Anis of Egypt, Michael Lewis of Cyprus and the Gulf and assistant Bishops Bill Musk of North Africa and Grant LeMarquand of the Horn of Africa wrote to the U.N. leader on 15 Sept 2012 following the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi on 11 Sept.  In the days that followed mobs demonstrated outside American diplomatic posts across the Middle East and attacked U.S., German and British embassies in Tunis and Khartoum, ostensibly in response to a Youtube video that attacked Mohammad.

The bishops wrote that in “view of the current inflamed situation in several countries in response to the production of a film in the USA which evidently intends to offend our Muslim brothers and sisters by insulting the Prophet Mohammed, and in view of the fact that in recent years similar offensive incidents have occurred in some European countries which evoked massive and violent responses worldwide, we hereby suggest that an international declaration be negotiated that outlaws the intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith.”

They said such a declaration would not be a violation of the right of free speech, but would encourage people to be “responsible and self-restraining in expressing or promoting offensive or malicious opinions with regard to the religions of the world.”

I suppose this just goes to show that even theologically conservative Anglican bishops can do strange things when they stray uninvited into politics.
A few points:

First, if the bishops had appealed to fellow Christians to exercise restraint when tempted to mock Islam and its founder because it is a less than effective way of winning Muslims over to Christ, I would have no objection. That’s not what they have done, though: the letter was addressed to the Secretary of the U. N. – not exactly a Christian organisation.

Second, the bishops are clearly making a political point: make insulting Islam and Mohammed illegal. Why? Not because it would put off potential Muslim converts to Christianity, but because of the massive and violent responses worldwide. In other words it’s political appeasement, a willingness to submit to bullies, an act of poltroonery, a grovelling before the barbarian hordes.

Third, the bishops have said nothing that I know of to condemn – let alone call for the banning of – expressions of hatred for Christianity that are routinely displayed in western art – a crucifix immersed in urine, a Virgin Mary covered in dung, and so on – let alone the anti-Christian diatribes that flow with tedious predictability from the likes of Bill Maher. Nor, in the letter, is there any mention of outlawing the anti-Semitism with which Arab nations gleefully indoctrinate themselves and their children.

Fourth, many Islamic nations outlaw Christian proselytising; presumably this is just fine with the bishops since, after all, Christian evangelism offends Muslims.

The complete letter can be found here – until someone decides to outlaw it.