U.S. Copts Association
Web site: www.copts.com
Email: copts@copts.com
Alexandria, Egypt (10/21/05)—Over 10,000 Egyptian Muslim protestors and Egyptian police on Friday, October 21, 2005 surrounded the Mari Girgis (St. George) Coptic Orthodox Church in Muharram Bey street, Alexandria. The violent protestors were incited by October media reports alleging a church play ad “offended Islam.”
According to reports from U.S. Copts informants at the St. George Church, since 12:00 PM CMT over 10,000 Muslim protestors have flooded the streets outside the building, trapping inside the church three priests and 70-100 Coptic youth. The protestors, armed with Molotov cocktails and other weapons, brandished copies of the Qur’an and demanded that St. George priest Father Antonious convert to Islam.
Officials deployed approximately 1,000 soldiers from the Egyptian army and seventy armored vehicles to help subdue the mob. Soldiers released tear gas and fired live bullets to disperse the thousands chanting in the streets.
Friday’s protests come after initial street protests one week earlier and the Wednesday stabbing of a Coptic nun by a Muslim student.
Protestors were responding to several inflammatory newspaper editorials alleging the St. George church had produced a stage play that allegedly “insulted Islam and the Qur’an.” The production to which the articles referred was a church play which was staged once over two years earlier in 2003 for St. George’s parishioners, referred to the modern political problem of Islamic extremism, and referenced neither the Qur’an nor Islamic theology.
Copts, the indigenous Christians of Egypt, number approximately 15 million people and constitute between 12-15% of the Egyptian population.
Pictures of the protest can be viewed at www.copts.net and http://www.copts.net/forum/showthread.php?p=86447#post86447 .
The tragedy is if this were reversed, say 10,000 Christians surrounding a mosque in Amsterdam, demanding the conversion of the inman. This would be all over the news being analyzed by the talking heads about the rising anti-muslim mentality that must growing in Europe.
Yet, here it is two days later and nary a talking head talking about it.
JBL,
The problem of silence is bi-partisan. I was banned at Redstate.org for complaining that the Iraqi Constitution was too Islamic and did not provide adequate protection for the rights of religious minorities such as Christians. Not only did they ban me, they called me an Islamophobe and a religious bigot.
This is from a conservative site. If I had complained on a liberal site, I would probably be in jail right now defending myself on hate-crimes charges.
Many liberals in the United States simply can’t bring themselves to criticize Muslims. By the same token, most conservatives can’t either. If a conservative tells the truth – that many of the average Muslims on the street support more radical agendas than do their more secular leaders in many countries – he/she is running completely counter to the Bush line that ‘Democracy will solve everything!’
Look at Egypt in this case. The Egyptian government is 1) corrupt, 2) hooked on American aid, 3) mostly secular, 4) open enough to Western pressure that Christmas is an official holiday now, and 5) facing the Muslim Brotherhood as its primary domestic opposition.
How might all this change if Bush gets his way and Egypt has fair and free elections? What happens if the Muslim Brotherhood sweeps to power on the strength of the fundamentalist vote? How might the scene in this article play out if a fundamentalist government in Cairo decides NOT to send in troops and save the church? How many Christians would have died in that scenario?
I have argued again and again against Democracy in the Middle East. Egypt is not a democracy, which is why the government stepped in to preserve the Church and the Christians inside. I want regimes that are pro-Western and protective of Christians. Voting only opens the door to a Muslim Hugo Chavez who comes to power by blaming everything on the Christians and then proceeds to oppress them as a campaign ploy.
Glen
Interestingly enough Bat Ye’or has pointed out that various European countries (and now possibly the U.S.)have been aware of mistreatment of Christians inside the borders of various Muslims states, BUT, because of what the European country considered to be OVERRIDING policy goals required cooperation of the Muslim state, the European country overlooked the mistreatment of Christians and participated in the denial of the persecution of Christians and other non-Muslims. She points to cooperation between the U.K. and the Ottoman Empire in the 19th and early 20th century, as an example.
Sometimes Copts inside the U.S. are afraid to complain about conditions back in Egypt because they rightly fear retribution of relatives or Copt churches and communities back in Egypt.
This is somewhat similar to what is going on with China and North Korea. The U.S. wants China’s influence over Korea (supposedly beneficial) and the U.S. therefore hesitates to press China concerning its negative actions in other policy areas. I suspect that China can directly control North Korea and that China is encouraging, if not directing, North Korea in its misbehavior towards the U.S.
I have felt for years that active, overt persecution of traditional Christians would come to the United States, possibly in my lifetime (age 57), most certainly in the lifetime of my son (age 19). It may come at the hands of evangelical theocrats since the evangelicals are really no friend of the Orthodox. It may come at the hands of militant secularists, or Islamic jihadists. It doesn’t really matter. I see Jim Holman’s point posted some time ago that the attitude of many so called Christian supporters of Bush could quite easily lead to active persecution of “wrong” types of Christianity. Any theocracy does that.
Obviously, to the extent that we have Islamic influence on our laws and culture, those laws and that culture will be anti-Christian. But as Fr. Morelli points out on the other side of this site http://orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MorelliScore.php, perhaps we are not so Christian after all.
Jesus commands us to watch and pray, to lead a life that allows the Holy Spirit to transform and transfigure us. I can’t help but thinking that if I spent half the time and energy praying and reading the scripture that I do thinking aboout theological and political conundrums–I would be far better off.
As Shakespeare so aptly said through Hamlet: If it be now, it is not to come, if it is not to come, it will be now, if it be not now, yet it will come, the readiness is all. I know I’m not ready, I suspect that few of us are.
So this is what the Western world can expect when Muslims become the majority in about 50-75 years from now. I would hate to be living in Europe — especially England. I wrote about this on my blog. A recent study found that the use of artificial birth control has significantly contributed to the decline of mainline Protestant denominations. I believe this is a microcosm of what we can expect of Western civilization as a whole. A people who refuse to multiply will ultimately be divided and conquered. It’s just a demographics thing. Perhaps now would be a good time to get into the prayer rug business. By the time your grandchildren are old enough to run it, they might become wealthy. It’s just a thought anyway.
Michael, I too have had the same nagging feeling that persecution would drive out the church in this country. I’ve felt this since my sophomore year in college 19 years ago, and it’s been intuitive, not the product of some kind of rational examination and conclusion. My sense has been that just as the church began in persecution, so now (or soon) it will endure persecution as “Christendom” reaches its final death throes (of course, I don’t mean the gospel or those who are accounted worthy to remain steadfast), American society completes its process of fragmentation into tribes (identity groups), and the godless consolidate power. And many of the godless will act in the name of God, as they have always done.
God owns the gospel, and He gives it to whom He will, and He will protect those He protects. The faith will survive unbroken, and God will raise up hope in unexpected places as He has always done. Glory to Him, the only lover of mankind.
#6 Or you could have them learn Chinese.
Notes 5,6: Such pessimism! The Church is thriving in this nation, and by and large, it appears that we are becoming a less violent, more peaceful nation. Our ideas of the origins of this nation are highly romanticized and ignore the many social ills that existed. Even some evangelicals agree.
I don’t see that this battle going on is between believers and nonbelievers but between believers who think that government can make men virtuous and those who realize it can not. “When evangelicals turned to social reform in the early 1800s, they did not seek to enact the Bible into law. They did recognize the Bible as the clearest and best revelation of morality, but they also believed that God revealed his moral laws to all human beings by writing them on their hearts.”
Some seem to take my libertarian approach towards government to mean that I favor a completely unrestrained personal life. Far from it. I simply believe very strongly that when government tries too hard to “flesh out” spiritual values in every realm of human existence, it can only end in tyranny.
JamesK writes: “Such pessimism!”
Yeah, I don’t understand it. I don’t think there’s been a time when Christianity of all flavors has been more powerful than now. (Note — not necessarily more popular, but more powerful.) There’s the president whose favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ, who also now nominates Supreme Court justices based on their religious affiliation. This president also now channels public money into religious organizations with social work programs. Every church in the country is subsidized through property tax exemptions. A significant percentage of the Senate and House of Representatives is fundamentalist, evangelical, or Catholic. There are huge Christian publishing houses and TV networks, and hundreds of radio stations around the country.
I mean, the list goes on and on. But for some reason the Christians feel like they’re on the ropes, about to be driven out of the country at any time. I don’t get it.
JamesK wrote: “I simply believe very strongly that when government tries too hard to “flesh out” spiritual values in every realm of human existence, it can only end in tyranny.”
I agree. Despite all these wonderful “Christians” in power, we don’t see much effect on the culture do we. The decisions that are made are frequently fundamentally at odds with Christianity, especially in foreign policy e.g.in dealing with Muslims. IMO it is practically impossible to be a faithful Christian and be a politician–you cannot serve two masters.
Christianity is on the ropes because we have too long gone the way of the world and forgotten or abandoned the way of ascetic witness. Christianity is not a moral philosophy, it is not a political philosophy, it is the way of union with God through repentance, prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Given the hedonistic materialism of the prevailing culture, if the Church is not persecuted, we are doing something wrong.
If we are really going to know how to respond in the political realm, perhaps we should start with answering the question: What does render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s mean?
“Render unto Caesar” has always struck me as a strong differentiation between the things of the world and the things of God. We can approve and join in and even initiate courses of human behavior inasmuch as these participate in God’s will as expressed in the Holy Word, but these are merely human and by nature temporary and flawed. Only the gospel of the crucified Christ can endure in this world beyond the rise and fall of ideologies and societies.
Whose image is on the coin? Caesar’s. The coin itself is an artifact of the Fall, useful in our current context but meaningless in the kingdom of heaven. Thus it is a thing of this world and the powers that rule it.
Whose image is in the heart of man? God’s. We are not made for Caesar’s use, but for God’s. We are made to love as God loves. The world/Caesar depends ultimately on coercion (or at least on compromise) to establish itself. God’s love challenges earthly power to its very core by rendering it irrelevant. This is why the world hates the gospel and will at the last reject and persecute it.
Bill, the logical conclusion of your statement seems to be that Christians should not participate in politics, should not try to influence the worldly course of affairs but rather live our lives in our communities doing as God calls us to do. If we live until He comes, that is His will, if He calls us to witness to His Glory at the point of a heathen sword, that also is His will.
The synergy we have with God is solely in submitting to His will and being transformed and transfigured by His Grace. He will then influence those around us by that same grace, leading many to repentence to the extent that we have repented and continue to repent. We also are obedient to the worldly rulers to the extent that order, justice and mercy are maintained, departing from that obedience only when we are asked to deny our Lord, God, and Savior.
Do I understand you?
Michael, thanks for your post. I believe we agree. I wouldn’t go so far as to say that Christians can never participate in politics or influence the course of worldly affairs. (In this, I may indeed be departing from the gospel, in which case I beg the Lord for forgiveness.)
Politics and the like may be useful to the common good, as I believe they are in America as the founding fathers originally conceived them. While we may be called personally to submit to the sword as witnesses to God’s grace, I’m not convinced that we should passively allow others to be destroyed. We are called not just to love our enemies, but also our neighbors. In any case, we should work to better the lot of our neighbors. This is explicit in Scripture as God’s will for those who call upon him.
But the Kingdom of God is not of this world. Secular ideologies that seek to bring about by human effort those things only God can bring about â?? true peace, true justice â?? can never succeed. Even the American Constitution, which was written by men who understood that the dignity and freedom of man come from God and not from a government, can only be a temporary construct, a pedagogical system that functions something like the Mosaic law, and not the gospel itself. And Marxist or Nietzschian ideologies, based as they are on the denial of human freedom and dignity, only lead to spiritual death (and, as we know, mass human death).
But Christians can participate in public affairs only out of Christian love and principles. And one does not need to be an American to be a Christian!
Are we still in agreement?
Bill, this is an area that I am still trying to figure out. I’m convinced of one thing. That all of the disagreement between sincere and faithful Orthodox Christians on social and political issues will continue until the Church comes to some sense of what her role is vis a vis government in the modern world. It has to be more than slavish fawning over politicians that publically deny much of what the Church teaches or (on the other side) a needlessly antagonistic attitude and general mistrust of government. That way leads to the substitution of political ideology for the truth of the Church.
Have we reached the place where the Church is a voice crying in the wilderness while everybody is holed up inside hearing only the blasphemy, laciviousness, and greed of modern day “entertainment” on the TV or do we honestly have a vital prophetic voice that can promote and initiate real change.
Note 15: I’m not sure where anyone got the idea that “real change” could come about through some government initiative. Personally, I’ve never known a law to inspire me to do much of anything good, although fear of fines or imprisonment can successfully restrain us from making too much of a mess of things. While this fear of punishment may be a useful teaching method for dogs and cats, I’m not so sure it’s equally useful in making us better Christians.
Isolationism from our surroundings may be a mistake (such as the Amish or those at Christian Exodus seem to desire), but so also is it an error (IMO) to expend tremendous energy in solving our spiritual problems by first working for change in government (as do these Christian political orgs like the FRC and the ever-meddlesome CWFA). For example, is there a crisis with marriage in this country? Perhaps. I’m not sure that starting some initiative to criminalize divorce is going to solve anything, however. It may keep people living under the same roof, but so what? Two people can live together in mutual contempt for many years.
Nothing inspires change like that of a virtuous and well-lived life. Though its effects may not be known for years, think back of the good men and women we’ve met throughout our lives who’ve made us say “I want to be a better person”.
Rumors Hint at an Alito Nomination
Missourian swoons. Something this good can’t really happen, can it? Well, I can dream for a few more days. SIGH.
Michael Baumann said, “I’m convinced of one thing. That all of the disagreement between sincere and faithful Orthodox Christians on social and political issues will continue until the Church comes to some sense of what her role is vis a vis government in the modern world.”
Is it possible that the Church’s role in the modern world is to preach the gospel, administer the mysteries, provide a glimpse on earth of the heavenly kingdom, and encourage us individuals to love each other as God loves us — as well as we, being sinners, can do?
Is it possible that this is enough of a role? I would have to admit that it is a rather large one.
Is it possible for the Church to speak clearly about those things that are required of believers, and clearly leave it to believers, with God’s help, to stay within those requirements as they exercise, in conscience, the social and political liberty with which God may bless them?
Is it possible that many things that arouse passionate disagreement are, from a religious point of view, adiaphora — neither required nor forbidden?
Is it possible that it is not bad for sincere and faithful Christians to disagree on a wide range of social and political issues?
Is it possible that a good role for the church is to keep herself at a wary and respectful distance from the government — neither under the government’s heel nor holding hands with — and exercising control through — the government? (It seems to me that such a distance has been relatively rare in the sweep of the last 2000 years.)
Augie, on a lot of issues I tend to agree with you but a problem comes up when moral issues are politicized and written into law such as abortion. There are several issues, that, frankly there, IMO should be no difference in opinion on the moral, spiritual, ethical side, e.g., abortion, homosexuality, etc. There can be disagreements as to how such issues should be dealt with before the law and politically, but not on the foundational understanding of the sin involved in the activities.
I would love to see the bishops and other clergy stop smoozing the politicians altogether and take a stance of prophetic distance. I hope that the Antiochian withdrawal from the NCC is a step in that direction, but probably not.
Yoo Hoo, Our Enemies Threaten: David Warren October 29, 2005
As fascinating as it is to observe domestic political wars, may I suggest that we raise our heads for moment and listen to what an implacable enemy of our country is saying these days. See David Warren’s essay of October 29, 2005. The Iranians are the people who declared war on us in 1979 and have continued to fund violence against America and its allies and interests. One case in particiular? Kobay Towers in Saudia Arabia. The Iranians did it; they know we know they did it; they know we did nothing in return. These barbarians are loathed by their own people but they have nukes.
You may not like Bush, you may disagree with all of his policies. BUT, he is the ONLY PRESIDENT WE HAVE GOT and the Iranians are on the march, just as sure as Hitler was “on the march” in 1938. Better hope I am wrong.
May I refer to you the distinguished Christian commentator from Canada. David Warren
http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/ essay dated October 29, 2005
Re civil and religious authority … from the 28th Article of the Augsburg Confession. Although I’m not Lutheran, I find it appealing.
12] Therefore the power of the Church and the civil power must not be confounded. The power of the Church
has its own commission to teach the Gospel and 13] to administer the Sacraments. Let it not break into the
office of another; let it not transfer the kingdoms of this world; let it not abrogate the laws of civil rulers; let it not
abolish lawful obedience; let it not interfere with judgments concerning civil ordinances or contracts; let it not
prescribe laws to civil rulers concerning the form of the Commonwealth. 14] As Christ says, John 18, 36: My
kingdom is not of this world; 15] also Luke 12, 14: Who made Me a judge or a divider over you? 16] Paul also
says, Phil. 3, 20: Our citizenship is in heaven; 17] 2 Cor. 10, 4: The weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but
mighty through God to the casting down of imaginations.
18] After this manner our teachers discriminate between the duties of both these powers, and command that
both be honored and acknowledged as gifts and blessings of God.
May I recommend
Why There Is A Culture War: Gramsci and Tocqueville in America
John Fonte
… on the main Orthodoxy Today page
(Thank you again, Fr. Hans.)
Note 20: Missourian, for once I agree. The news from Iran is ominous indeed. The problem is: our troops have been otherwise involved with the apparently “more imminent” threat coming from Iraq (which in fact was far less conspicuous than what is currently coming from Iran).
So … what are we proposing here exactly? Military action? If so, what kind? If troops are required, it simply cannot happen without a withdrawal from Iraq or a draft (neither of which I’m really in favor for).
There’s a saying: “Pick your battles”. We did. This is why I never got all the cheerleading and grandstanding for the Iraq war. Too many other obvious threats were brewing.
JamesK, The U.S. has a desirable strategic position with respect to Iran, plus unused air power
I claim no military expertise but I might want to point out that…… Iran is bounded on one side by Afghanistan and the other by Iraq. This means that it is the Iranians who have to something to worry about. We have well-entrenched and well-established military presence on two of their borders. Plus we have made allies of the Shia in Iraq who otherwise would have been disposed to support Iran. Lastly, the Iranian people are very restive under their barbaric masters. If push came to shove, I don’t think Iran would be any more formidable than Saddam’s Army. Remember all the pre-war wailing about Saddam’s Army? Saddam’s Army was the fifth largest army in the world. People predicted that the U.S. forces would be pinned down for months in a siege of Baghdad. THREE WEEKS. It took THREE WEEKS without the help of the 4th I.D. coming down form Turkey.
Withdraw from Iraq? Why would we want to withdraw from such a desirable strategic position? Our air power is fully available for any military incursion into Iran. The Iranians have NO effective defense against our Air Force. No JamesK, withdrawal WOULD NOT be a pre-requisite to military action against Iran. Reinforcement maybe, but, not withdrawal.
Probably the best strategy is back-up support for internal rebellion. We could do that with air power sitting on the decks of aircraft carriers. But perhaps we should leave this topic for those who actually are truly familiar with the STRATEGIC capacity of our armed forces.
Nothing is going to ruin my good mood today. The Alito nomination is genius, just genius. Alito is respected all across the legal community. He is a former federal prosecutor. He has been endorsed by the President of the Criminal Defense Bar in New Jersey who practiced against Alito when Alito was the federal prosecutor. Alito is known for his depth of analysis and his intergrity. Oh happy day.
Note 22. You are welcome, Augie. Why There is a Culture War.
Note 24. The more I learn about Alito, the more I see what a good choice he is. I argued during the election (Christianity and the Presidential Election) that a Bush win was important because whoever won would influence the moral temper of government for decades. I thought Miers was a terrible choice (good woman it seemed but unqualified), but Bush seems to have pulled through. I give him credit for listening to his critics.
Reasons to Like Alito
Scholarship and Intellectual Depth and Breadth:
He is recognized across the legal profession as an intellectual heavyweight. His opinions are thoughtful, well-supported and closely reasoned. He has written over 300 legal opinions as a judge,including important opinions in securities law, copyright, business law, criminal law including sentencing. He has a very broad range of legal interests and expertise in many fields of law.
Third Federal Appointment:
His nomination to U.S. Attorney was unanimously approved, as was his nomination to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Given that it is hard to argue that he is not fit for another federal appointment.
Former federal prosecutor:
This means his has real-life litigation experience. This means that he doesn’t inhabit isolated, intellectual ivory tower. He has been in contact with real witnesses and real people in real life disputes.
Good bench-bar relations, good judicial and professional temperment:
He can disagree without being disagreeable. He has been endorsed by a man who was the leader of the criminal defense bar in New Jersey when Alito was a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. This means that the they appeared in Court against each other. Alito conducted himself in such a way that he earned the respect of his opponent, even though his opponent had a very different outlook on many legal issues. This is not just frosting on the cake. You want a judge who is guided by principle not passion, prejudice, intellectual fads, peer pressure, ego, or the desire to be a trailblazer and attract attention. He has demonstrated that his principles control his conduct even under presssure. No small compliment.
Nice, decent guy:
O.K., this is not very high on the list, but, it doesn’t hurt. He is reported to be very respectful to litigants and witnesses in his Court. People who have worked in the same office with him report that he is personally a very congenial, good-natured and humble man. Married to a law librarian, committed family man. With his brains, most people would be insufferably arrogant.