Radical Responsibility: The Inner Path to Global Healing

Papyrus

Christian Books: Our Ways To God

Before the Son of Man Comes

Don't Limit Your Money Flow

I know that you, along with the rest of Western Civilization, are marveling at the Islamic world's reaction to a Danish cartoon which featured Islam's holiest of figures decked out in bomb headgear. I actually understand the issue of not presenting their holy figure as a "graven image" much less wearing a bomb-covered hat. I know some Christians who will not wear crosses or have pictures depicting Christ. I get that.

However, a striking testimony to one of the multitude of differences between Christianity and Islam is that Christ would have us "turn the other cheek" and not seek violent vengeance for someone creating an idolatrous image of He whom we worship as Lord. Muslims have a different view. Disagree with it but this is what they believe:

"In mosques throughout Palestinian cities, clerics condemned the cartoons. An imam at the Omari Mosque in Gaza City told 9,000 worshippers that those behind the drawings should have their heads cut off."

An interesting twist to this is how most of the West's newspapers are refusing to air or print the cartoon out of "respect" for Islam. I mean, is that not a reasonable and kind thing? If Muslims are offended by not just a graven image of their prophet but one wearing a bomb for a hat then why add fuel to the fire! Shouldn't you show some respect?

The New York Times seemingly is taking that position. Here is what the newspaper said on February 7:

"(We) and much of the rest of the nation's media have reported on the cartoons but refrained from showing them. That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."

By golly, this almost restores a little of my long-lost faith in The New York Times. This is something to behold that they, usually touted as the "liberal rag" of the Left, would be so charitable.

However, by February 8, they showed "a picture of the dung-covered Mary accompanying an article entitled "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery."

Is this a bit confusing? What happened to, "That seems a reasonable choice for news organizations that usually refrain from gratuitous assaults on religious symbols."? Where did The Time's charity for religion go? Is showing the mother of Christ covered in dung NOT a "gratuitous assault on a religious symbol"? How is the Islamic affair a gratuitous assault and covering Mary the Mother of Jesus not?

Do you get that? Showing Mohammed wearing a bomb-studded turban equals a "gratuitous assaults on religious symbols"; showing a feces-covered Virgin Mary equals a "A Startling New Lesson in the Power of Imagery."

But we turn the other cheek.

Douglas Bower

Platform: The American Chronicle Syndicated Column ? articles have been viewed 79,875 times. Ezinearticles.com ? Articles have been viewed 53,211 times and syndicated via RSS feed 1,266 times. The total readership was accomplished in less than a year.

Doug Bower is a freelance writer, Syndicated Columnist, and book author. His most recent writing credits include The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The Houston Chronicle, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Transitions Abroad, International Living, and The Front Porch Syndicate. He is a columnist with The American Chronicle, Ezinearticles.com, Cricketsoda.com, and more than 21 additional online magazines. His column writing is a major platform from which to promote his books. His book, The Plain Truth about Living in Mexico, was released through Universal Publishers, an imprint of Brown Walker Press. His second book, Guanajuato, M?xico: Your Expat, Study Abroad, and Vacation Guide in the Land of Frogs will be released in the summer of 2006.