Lots of good points Plech, and it makes an enjoyable debate. All it took was a regrettable off-the-cuff remark to get it started.
In all seriousness after thinking over my original post I would like to apologise for my wording of the sentence: "Any sensible Muslims (if that is not an oxymoron) need to speak up against these kind of ludicrous stories." I realise "sensible" was not a
sensible word to use on my part and the apparent implication that Muslims were separate from other religious types in their lack of 'sense' was not intended; it could apply to people of many different religions. However, I do stand by my opinion that moderate Muslims (maybe I should have phrased it like this to begin with) should be more willing to speak up.
Well, I believe there is in fact loads of debate within Islam on all these issues. I'm not sure how useful it would in fact be for someone to make a public statement to non-Muslims, saying, "This is the authorized version of what Islam has to say on these issues." As you say, who is authorized to speak for widely varied communities is a matter of debate.
What is Anglicanism's position on homosexuality?
I think that some moderate output in the public forum is needed in regards to Islam, if only to move where the effective centre is perceived. A lot of non-Muslims understandably perceive the extremists to be in the majority, or at least a very significant minority, of the faith. I think it would be hugely beneficial to change the perception of Islam amongst non-Muslims (if indeed it is true that the majority of Muslims are 'moderate' in their beliefs).
As for the Anglican position on homosexuality, I think it has become more and more into line with moral beliefs of equality, and although it is not quite all the way there yet across the board, it is a lot further along than Islam. People such as the Bishop of Oxford have been very vocal about instructing people that the homophobic parts of the Bible (both old and new testament) should be ignored, and that these are no longer acceptable in the modern world.
One of the difficulties with religion is that the scripture does not change. It takes a brave and thoughtful person to actually say "this part of our scripture is clearly immoral/wrong/indefensible by any modern standard, and so should be disregarded". I have never heard a Roman Catholic or Muslim say this about certain parts of their respective texts which fall into these categories.
I don't see that the actions of the Sudanese courts are necessarily more closely connected to the life of a Muslim baker in Bradford than Koresh's spastic cult was to a C of E lifeguard in Torquay...
The difference is that the actions of Koresh were never seen as representative of the Christian faith by anyone other than his few deluded followers. Many non-Muslims DO see the actions of Sudanese courts and other Islamic nations (rightly or wrongly) as being representative of Islam; and so it is necessary to inform non-Muslims that these actions are not representative of the faith (if indeed Muslims do feel that they are not representative, it is not for me to tell them what to feel).
Well maybe it is semantics, but I think you have a strange personal definition of "sensible". Newton was a man of his time, a time when the scientific method was in its infancy and alchemy widely believed. If it one day turns out that, say, plate tectonics is an erroneous theory, and it comes to be considered ridiculous, will all those who now work under its rubric be retrospectively robbed of their sensibleness?
Plate tectonics is accepted as a theory because of the wealth of evidence to back it up; it would make someone 'non-sensible' to reject it. I always see faith based things (ie. religion and theism) to be non-sensible purely because they have no supportive evidence. I do take your point though, and have apologised for my use of the word sensible in a conceivably misleading way.
That's a fair point, but I don't think you're making much imaginative effort to understand the way actual human beings think and feel. The US and Britain are currently at war with two Muslim states, are circling round Iran, and have been interfering in the ME and the Indian subcontinent for centuries. Meanwhile, there's a so-called War on Terror which is focussed entirely on Islamist terrorism, and a mood abroad that is borderline hostile towards Muslims. I don't think in these circumstances it's remarkable that many feel defensive, or worry that to publicly censure their co-religionists is to declare sides in a conflict whose they have serious fears about.
Surely moderate Muslims share the wish to eradicate Muslim extremism and terrorism? Some Muslims who declare themselves moderate simply seem to me to hold hypocritical views; you seemed to agree on this point. If they agree that the form of Islam found in most middle eastern countries is incorrect and immoral, then I assume they share the desire of wishing to change it. The debate should be around what are the best ways to do this. I can understand people opposing direct overthrowing of regimes as not being the most effective way of achieving change, but NOT on the grounds that it is attacking 'their faith' as this does not make any logical sense. Whether they support regime change by force or not, they should surely share the
goal of change if they believe what they say about the misrepresentation of Islam.
