BUT you did not answer me question and "I stand by my view" that the Christ and Christian images are not comparably "sacred" in Christendom.quote:Do I think that the Danish press shows a lack of sensitivity? Yes? But this does not justify violence.
Symbols of Christ, no matter what the lay or particular Christians feel about them [read: Christians angry enough over 'The Last Tempation of Christ' to call in bomb threats], just aren't as sacred.
It just doesn't translate. It's not the same language or the same word. There's a deeper, different meaning because of the very different tradition in Islam.
KRESGE, when and if people, Christians don't particularly take care to "accurately" depict Christ, as he was, with the available information there is about what Christ may have looked like then there is no way you can legitimately say that the image of Christ is comparably "sacred" to the regard Muslims have towards Muhammad.quote:I think that the ethnicity (or historical accuracy") of the image is irrelevant as to its sanctity or sacredness. They are entirely different things.
For Christians to depict "In Their Own Image" and especially to perpetrate a White Jesus and the attendant Slavery Theology perpetrated on Africans/African-Americans hardly shows Sacred Regard or Stewardship over the image of Christ. Whether it's different or not, it's still strikes against the degree of "sacredness" of the image of Christ in Christianity.
And they were angry because of what??quote:Christians who where angry enough with the movie The Last Tempation of Christ to call in bomb threats to theaters.
All of that stuff aside... Please address my question:
So, basically, people are allowed to completely, purposely and repeatedly desecrate and violate everything that's sacred to one group without reproach... So what's suppose to come out of that process [of controversial publication and then stern censure]? There is NO RESOLUTION in that. Does Democracy = Problems/Conflicts WITHOUT Resolution?