The Deacon's Bench

The Deacon's Bench


Butchered: Muslim extremists cut off Catholic’s hand

posted by jmcgee

It happened in India:

Suspected Islamic militants have chopped off a Catholic professor’s hand in Kerala for allegedly insulting Islam in an exam question paper.

Professor T.J. Joseph was attacked on July 4 in while returning home from Sunday mass with his mother and sister, a Catholic nun.

Kochi inspector-general of police, B. Sandya, told ucanews.com that an Islamic extremist group is suspected of the crime and have arrested four people and impounded a vehicle.

She said the attackers used the vehicle to block Joseph’s car before dragging the professor from his vehicle and chopping off his right hand. The attackers then threw the hand away before fleeing.

Church-managed Newman College in Thodupuzha had suspended Joseph, its Malayalam professor, on March 25 for allegedly preparing a question paper with insulting references to the Prophet Muhammad.

St. Joseph Sister Mary Stella said the assailants attacked her brother with an axe and swords.

“They also attacked our elderly mother,” before fleeing, she said.

Her brother had been threatened three times following the question paper row, she added.

Police say officials suspect the Popular Front of India, an extremist group and its political wing the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) for being behind the attack.

There’s more background at the link.

Meantime, this report indicates doctors spent most of the day in surgery trying to re-attach the hand:

Joseph’s doctors say he will remain in emergency care for at least another week. “When he was brought to the hospital, he was almost dead. There were some fractures and injuries all over the body. He had lost a lot of blood,” shared Dr R Jaykumar.

You can find more reports with other details here and here.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(64)
post a comment
Mike12493

posted July 5, 2010 at 11:11 pm


Let’s pray for these four men…



report abuse
 

Rafael G. Perez

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:15 am


So sad to see this type of hate and intolerance in the world. May the Lord have mercy on these men.



report abuse
 

Joe of St Therese

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:28 am


We pray for these men for their conversion to the True Faith…extremeism is once or twice, a pattern has developed, not one that I am a fan of



report abuse
 

Jake

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:52 am


Yes, lets pray for these four men to come see me while I have my Uzi in my hands and teach them what it is like when real justice is given to them also.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:38 am


I cannot condone the actions of extremism here. Yet, the fact that it happened was due to one persons action that was viewed as an insult to a group of people. As commons sense should have been the rule in this case, perhaps the professor should have thought of the possible consequences before he acted. Freedom of speech is one thing, but obviously it was not conducive to progressive dialogue between the two faiths involved here. Freedom, and it’s absolute concrete meaning, must be carefully assessed when one finds themselves in certain situations. It is much easier to speak out against others when one is safely in the company of those of like minds. When one finds themselves as a minority in the company of those who have an opposing opinion and are very willing to destroy anyone who opposes them, silence is often the wiser choice. As a professor, I would imagine that he would have deduced this by sheer reason alone. This makes me believe there is a great deal more to his actions than the story reports.
It seems that the professor and the extremists both were exercising their own ideas of freedoms. Both used the freedoms incorrectly. The professor was not following the example of what Christ teaches on humility and respecting one’s neighbor. The extremists took it upon themselves to do what extremists do in cases like this, which is always against what Christ taught. Humility would have spoken louder in this case than any extremist could hope to. The professor is in a position where he can be influential to students, and if his question was derogatory, then the Catholic university was correct in suspending him. Catholic universities in general are suffering an identity crisis enough as it is. Having professors who would possibly incite violence (either by word or acts) by their questionable teaching methods is only one of the problems.
It would have been better, it would seem for all parties involved, if the booming and profoundly pointed sound of silence would have been practiced in this case. Preaching the Gospel of Christ by being outspoken in personal opinions, and not what the Church actually teaches, could incite violence, and in this case it did. But was the professor preaching the Gospel or just stating a personal and/or political opinion? It is really not possible to know, unless one would be able to read the offending question. It is tragic that what happened did, and we should be thankful that it was not worse. History is full of incidents where a few words, misused or spoken, have cost innocent lives. As Catholic Christians, we must be aware of our actions and words. We preach the Gospel of Christ much more by our actions than we ever will with words. God will ultimately deal with those in opposition in His own way, and this is what we must be resigned to, whatever may befall us.



report abuse
 

Mr Flapatap

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:37 am


It looks like the original article has been deleted.
I wonder what the question was.



report abuse
 

MP

posted July 6, 2010 at 5:58 am


It took a while to find a description of the actual exam question (http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_print_link.cfm/blog_id/28357) and a pdf of the actual exam (http://bloggerhanif.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/controversial-b-com-question-paper-professor-nabbed/). Few people seem interested in what the professor actually put on the exam.



report abuse
 

J

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:37 am


Jeral Franklin Archer,
Your response belies two problematic points about you.
1. You don’t even know what the offending passage on the test was.
2. “It seems that the professor and the extremists both were exercising their own ideas of freedoms.”
You think that cutting off someone’s hand is theoretically equivalent to quoting someone else’s article as a sample passage for a punctuation sample.
What is wrong with you?



report abuse
 

Thomas

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:13 am


If the “common sense” approach had been taken, then a professor’s hand would not have been cut off because someone didn’t like a question on an exam. We’ve had enough of this, “Oh, but you insulted this group of people; you shouldn’t have done that” BS. We as Catholics are insulted all the time, in the media, on television, and we’re even being martyred and mutilated in Islamic lands. We don’t amputate the members of those who insult us. Neither do we behead them, or threaten to kill them for insulting the Bible or Tradition. It’s time for sanity to be returned to the world again. We can’t make excuses for these idiots, or cow down in the face of their persecution.
If the professor had exercised common sense and forethought, as you suggested, and he arrived to the conclusion that “Gee, I shouldn’t include anything but flattering and glowing references to Islam for fear that my hand may be amputated by a maniac wielding a sword or axe,” then we have a serious Islamic problem we need to deal with.



report abuse
 

Brad

posted July 6, 2010 at 11:59 am


Gotta love the terrorists’ apologists. Why, oh why, is anyone, least of all Western Christians, carrying water for terrorists? Sick. Yes, you are sick. Yes, you.



report abuse
 

Fuzzlenutter

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:38 pm


It really is way past the time to rid this earth of these disgusting and barbaric members of the “Religion of the Perpetually Enraged”…



report abuse
 

tiredofallofthis

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:41 pm


Religion of Peace my fanny!!!!!!



report abuse
 

alwyr

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:49 pm


Jerald Franklin Archer – You, Sir, are REPREHENSIBLE



report abuse
 

Steven Spence

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:50 pm


Yep, another example of the “religion of peace” alright…



report abuse
 

acyl72

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm


The question probably was some really “offensive” query into whether a brown burkha is overly sexy or should the person wearing it be asked to go home and change into a white burkha or maybe even stoned to death for wearing a brown burkha in public.
And jeral, you need to go back to the cave or goatskin hut you came from and spare us all your explanations for hacking someone’s hand off. You are an offense to all people that actually have a spine and have evolved beyond the neanderthal stage.



report abuse
 

Allie F.

posted July 6, 2010 at 12:57 pm


MaybeNASA’s new mission, per Obama, will stop this!!!!!



report abuse
 

JF Archer -

posted July 6, 2010 at 1:27 pm


The bible taught me to turn the other cheek but also to fear no evil. What it did not teach me is to hide behind a coward’s moral equivalence in order to avoid confrontation. I imagine the professor knew he was endangering himself, but he showed courage where you would have shown cowardice, apparently.



report abuse
 

David

posted July 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm


Jerald Franklin Archer,
Wow! If only you were there to counsel the likes of Thomas Moore! We would have less martyrs (real martyrs, not the ones that muslims and the media call martyrs today), but hey, we would be gettin along right?
The kind of moral relativism that equates the exercise of freedom of speech with the freedom to chop the hand off of another human being is quite revealing indeed.
If we just didn’t have Catholics (and their crazy notions of the world)in India, then we wouldn’t have so many muslims forced into violence.
Uh huh.
The sad part is, Mr. Franklin probably is a teacher.



report abuse
 

peter c

posted July 6, 2010 at 1:41 pm


Islam ..the so-called Religion of Peace..is based on the teachings of a man who participated in the be headings of 600 men ,women and children..led 78 battles..77 he started…and forced a 6 year-old girl to marry him whom he raped when she was just 9 years-old.
He told his followers to use the sword to expand His religion…to subjugate women..to have many wifes…and that girls as young as his child bride were especially good to have..the age of consent even today in Iran is 9 years old and younger in other Muslim states…
The History of Islam is a 1400 year history of murders…wars..invasions…terrorison…forced conversions..sharia laws…stonings…intolerance supreme…slavery..hate for Jews and people of the Book(Christians) and it continues today.
Christians are being murdered by Muslims every day in Islam even now..in Africa and in the Mid East…This poor Priest is just one case.The sickness of Islam is one of Hate…ignorance..fear…and of following a mudering pedophile.



report abuse
 

HIndsight

posted July 6, 2010 at 1:46 pm


Religion of Peace.



report abuse
 

BillyG

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:02 pm


Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition.



report abuse
 

Jeff in MD

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm


For those of you who were wondering what the offensive question was:
The authorities of Newman College, told AsiaNews that in the test, Prof. Joseph tells the story of a fishmonger who, despite hard work, becomes increasingly poor. The monger’s name is Mohammad. In his desperation, he spoke to God and also asked his brother why his fortunes were dwindling. His brother told Mohammed:”Why are you calling God, God, God….” Students were asked to specify the punctuation of the narrative.



report abuse
 

Dusaa-1975

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:21 pm


More people are killed by Islamists each year than were killed in the 350 years of the Spanish inquisition.



report abuse
 

acyl72

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:23 pm


Jeff in MD. Thanks for the clarification. My first reaction on reading that was also to cut off the prof’s hand and beat him and his elderly mother like a rug. It’s clearly a case where he provoked the normally placid religion of peace.



report abuse
 

Greg

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:33 pm


And Obama wants to reach out to these 7th century retards why? Just always remember that there are two kinds of Muslims: Jihadists, and potential jihadists.



report abuse
 

Burgher

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:34 pm


BillyG
NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
The Spanish Inquisition MAY have not happened if the Moors had not brutally taken over the Iberian Peninsula under the Caliphate of Cordoba 600 years befor.



report abuse
 

MotherRedDog

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:36 pm


Not to worry. Obama’s NASA head will be making Mooslims feel good about themselves so they won’t hate Joooows and Christians any more. If you believe that, I have beautiful beach front property on the Gulf of Oil I’d like to sell you.



report abuse
 

Jim

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:38 pm


Please, please, everyone! Why are you not respecting and celebrating these students’ cultural diversity? It’s not every day that you encounter people from the 7th century.
But it’s happening a lot more often. Ask Theo Van Gogh.



report abuse
 

KevinMN

posted July 6, 2010 at 2:59 pm


Religion of piece, my a**! This not a Holy War against the west. this is an Islamic Crusade against the world.



report abuse
 

Paul B.

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:11 pm


Whatever the nature of the prof’s questions was, this is unconscionable. My prayers for the prof, and also that the hideous spirit behind all these Muslim atrocities will be fully exposed and renounced.



report abuse
 

M. Mariani

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:25 pm


This man is a true hero standing up to the abominable and diabolical sect of mohamet the false prophet. To think that since Vatican II the Church teaches that Catholics, together with the Muslims adore the same merciful God that will judge mankind on the last day. Sad but true. CCC 841. Can you imagine such bold heresy, apostate and antichrist teachings escaping the notice of most if not all so called Catholics? It gets much worse than that, wake up Catholics! Go to ciaovatican2.blogspot.com. New blog, new apostolate. God Bless.



report abuse
 

VileInfidel

posted July 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm


Yet another fine example from the peace-loving followers of the “Religion of Peace”. I guess that “No compulsion in religion” doesn’t translate all that well into Hindi.



report abuse
 

William

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:05 pm


It is nice to see that such wonderful examples of love, tolerance, understanding, compassion, and enlightenment as those of the “Reliigion of Peace, Love, Justice, Compassion, Mercy, Tolerance,”
and so forth as examplified in this example.
Let us remember that Islam is the Religion of Peace, Love, Understanding, Tolerance, and Compassion, and that all other faiths are backward, wrong, violent, and hate filled.



report abuse
 

Tapestry6

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:06 pm


Paul B said: My prayers for the prof, and also that the hideous spirit behind all these Muslim atrocities will be fully exposed and renounced.
Paul,
the Father of Lies and Hate is behind every evil, malicious act in this world. We all know his name.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:31 pm


Mr. Archer wrote, “the fact that it (the maiming) happened was due to one person’s action that was viewed as an insult to a group of people.”
This remark is very typical of persons who are so psychologically weak and insecure that they always automatically take the side of the aggressors in every instance, no matter how unjust or unfounded the aggressors’ actions. It is very dysfunctional, and is often encountered in dysfunctional families, in which, for example, a young child is brutally beaten by the one of the parents, and the spouse blames the child for “bringing it on himself” by “talking back,”, or in which a young girl is raped by a stepfather, and accused by her mother of “provoking” the attack by “dressing trashy”. In this way, weak and pathetic adults who ought to know better, stay “on the good side” (even in an imaginary sense) of the scary, powerful perpetrators.
It is really very horrible and sad to see this kind of emotionally stunted thought-process in operation, but it’s really not that uncommon.



report abuse
 

Pat N.

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:34 pm


….doctors who saved his life? Any Muslims?
The point is, Islam didn’t do this. Violent fanatics who claim Islam did. I don’t think Timothy McVeigh was a Muslim.



report abuse
 

Suzan

posted July 6, 2010 at 4:56 pm


Pray for the victim AND his attackers.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm


Perhaps from the comments from some of the know-it-alls here I may have to stand in the corner for awhile and where the dunce cap. Another case of common sense being thrown out the window in the heat of hate and assumption. It is nothing new to me, and I doubt it will be the last. I tend to say things that offend, but they do not offend all. If you were offend, I am sensible enough to apologize for it, but still must maintain my belief that the professor could have done differently. He was not suspended from the university for nothing. Some people failed to see the exact meaning of what I said, and took it on themselves to determine my personality dysfunction and other traits that they cannot possibly know about me. This is a perfect example of how people can make bad judgments in light of their limited understanding, myself included here. It is assessing the truth where there are little facts, and even less understanding of the situation. I would just wonder how many of those who speak bravely would have dealt with it if they were the professor. It is easier to give in answer, or rather opinion, (or even comment on this forum) in a protected environment than to be outspoken.
As I read more on the subject, and have come to the conclusion that perhaps the professor would have been better off using a different subject–it seems to be all a great misunderstanding. I will have to try the same thing in a roomful of Islamic terrorists and then you will think I am some hero to be sure. Heroes only become heroes by using intelligence. Some here are confused at the message that my post was attempting to convey.
Thanks for the very warm comments and I will have to sit back an assess the meaning of common sense well before I open my mouth in the future. Our modern world of judgmental and perfect people have no use for seeing the other sides of things, but there was only one poster who would be praised in their solution to the problems we face with Islam today–the use of a gun seems to be the message of peace here. Interesting concept coming from a Catholic source.



report abuse
 

Gen X Revert

posted July 6, 2010 at 6:28 pm


Every day there are more stories of muslim violence – even an actress who was in a Harry Potter movie was threatened by her own father and brother for dating a non-muslim. Islam is truly evil.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 6:47 pm


J. Archer complains of “Another case of common sense being thrown out the window in the heat of hate and assumption.” I don’t know what “case of common sense” you are referring to, but if your idea of “common sense” is to view as equivalent (“It seems that the professor and the extremists both were exercising their own ideas of freedoms. Both used the freedoms incorrectly. The professor was not following the example of what Christ teaches on humility and respecting one’s neighbor”) the words of the professor and the attacks on him by Muslim extremists, then I would say that you are in possession of precisely the same amount of “common sense” that the family of a rapist has when they claim that a young girl “had it coming.”
Precisely zero. Zero common sense.
I don’t need to meet you or know you to know that the remarks from which I quoted above are typical of persons with a highly dysfunctional point-of-view. Whether you are indeed such a person, or whether you had temporarily taken leave of your senses, I don’t pretend to say, nor did I say in my remarks earlier.
There is no equivalency between saying or writing what you have every God-given right to say or write, wearing what you have every God-given right to wear, and going where you have every God-given right to go . . . and retaliating by wreaking bloody violence upon another human being. NO EQUIVALENCE! NONE!
And if you think that there is, then yes, you are dysfunctional. God help you.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:35 pm


P.S. I’m sick and tired of persons who attempt to draw comparisons between an act that may be ill-advised, imprudent, or otherwise something of-not-a-good-idea, but is not essentially wicked AND an act of cold-blooded, vicious, barbaric, brutal, cruel VENGEANCE, which IS wicked.
Do not try to make equivalent an act that falls short of perfectly praiseworthiness and malicious act of vengeance.
Human frailty. People make mistakes. Perhaps what the professor did might be said to fall into the category. Perhaps not. I don’t know. The link is gone.
Malicious, calculating, vengelful acts of violence are not the same as “frailty” or “a mistake” or a “miscalculation”.
They are not equivalent, and if you pretend that they are you are a dysfuntional nutjob, period.



report abuse
 

Loretta in Indiana

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:49 pm


I won’t pray for pieces of excrement. Those attackers were excrement, dressed in human garb.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:52 pm


Sure, I’ll pray for the perpetrators. Jesus commands us to pray for our enemies. I will pray that God will forgive them for their vicious and evil acts, and will convert their hearts from evil to good.
And, no, saying disrespectful remarks about Islam is not, repeat not “vicious” or “evil”. But chopping off a man’s hand is.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 7:54 pm


Marion, have you ever heard of the concept of charity? That is the quality that accompanies respect and courtesy. What possesses you to be so judgmental in a situation where only opinions are being presented and very few facts. My bottom line was to be like Christ in matters such as these, and you are pointing me out as crazy for saying so. I am not sure what you are trying to prove? Can you actually disprove, by a rational argument, that I am really mistaken on the common sense philosophy part of the whole argument?
In the old days, when people knew how to be civil towards one another in a discussion, the words you are using would have been absent. Your responses and those of some others I would expect to see on some Yahoo forum on some article that mentions the Pope or the Church, not here. Your method of debate is odd, and I really don’t know why you are railing at me, but I think I have an idea. Your words explain themselves. I cannot see where you would not see the common sense of a person coming into play where danger is present for both themselves and/or their loved ones.What part of the comment reads that I condone the acts of violence? You fail to look at the philosophical points for some reason and are taking a literal view instead. There is no quick or easy solution to the problem, but to be patient.
One should be careful what they say, it is true, as by assuming that a person is considered dysfunctional in some way is very risky. You may actually be correct, as my family was not the model of the perfect family. Yet I have a right to opinion and observation. How a person reacts to my statements is more telling than you might imagine, and I am not the only one who sees it. I have often been refered to by many coarse and rude words, and many misunderstand the underlying meanings I convey when I write. I just consider the source and the world, and let it go. You would find this a great exercise to follow and then you will find people will take you more seriously.



report abuse
 

Bobbie

posted July 6, 2010 at 8:35 pm


First of all, the professor allegedly insulted…which means there really wasn’t an issue to begin with…They trumped up the charges to impose their man-made punishment. Christians are going to be endangered when the extrme muslims gain power world wide…and it is coming to America. Religious persecution is going to escalate.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 9:06 pm


Christians are going to be endangered when the extreme Muslims gain power world wide…and it is coming to America. Religious persecution is going to escalate.—
There are no genuine Christians who really worry too much about such a situation. If America continues to travel down the path it is presently on, then the above situation is imminent. We have time to change these things. Nobody who follows Christ in a genuine manner is concerned with the world. The issue of who will prevail is only known by God alone. People get rich with such conspiracy theories and doom and gloom talk. A Christian should be at all times prepared to die for Christ.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 9:33 pm


Mr. Archer wrote: “What part of the comment reads that I condone the acts of violence?”
Mr. Archer, answer me just this: What part of your earlier comments DOESN’T indicate that you proposed some sort of moral equivalence between the professor’s (possibly offensive and possibly ill-advised) remarks about Islam (which he nevertheless has every God-given right to make) as equivalent more or less to the Islamic extremists’ vicious attack on him and their deliberate, malicious maiming of him.
I say you hinted at their equivalence.
Are you saying you did not so hint?
Are you saying, Mr. Archer, that all along you meant to state your support for Christians’ God-given right to state the merits and demerits of Islam or any other religion, without fear of retaliation or reprisal of any kind? Are you saying that you meant to express that the malicious and willful attack on him in retaliation by the Islamic extremists was an act of unjustifiable barbarity which all civilized human beings should denounce in the strongest terms possible? Is that what you wished to convey?
I shall await your answer with the utmost interest.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:24 pm


I am beginning to think you did not either understand what I wrote or are reading more into it then there is. Let’s start from the top, and I will explain more in detail what my meanings are here (in parenthesis)
Jerald Franklin Archer
July 6, 2010 3:38 AM
I cannot condone the actions of extremism here. (I open with a clear understanding of my feelings on this)
Yet, the fact that it happened was due to one persons action that was viewed as an insult to a group of people. (Therefore they retaliatied by a violent act)
As commons sense should have been the rule in this case, perhaps the professor should have thought of the possible consequences before he acted.(COMMON SENSE should have been the rule, but was not considering the results)
Freedom of speech is one thing, but obviously it was not conducive to progressive dialogue between the two faiths involved here.(If it even existed in the case, realistically)
(Here is the important point) Freedom, and it’s absolute concrete meaning, must be carefully assessed when one finds themselves in certain situations. It is much easier to speak out against others when one is safely in the company of those of like minds. When one finds themselves as a minority in the company of those who have an opposing opinion and are very willing to destroy anyone who opposes them, silence is often the wiser choice.(Every action brings on a reaction—COMMON SENSE, again. Freedom is too often confused with liberty—-God given rights are usually only recognized by the society or philosophy of any one particular group who define them–The Puritans believed they were given a right by God to burn witches. Islam extremists believe they have a God given right to kill those who oppose them. Christians generally just take the stripes–You might be confusing “rights” (God or otherwise) with freedom or liberty.)
As a professor, I would imagine that he would have deduced this by sheer reason alone. This makes me believe there is a great deal more to his actions than the story reports.(a very important aspect of the whole affair–we are actually arguing a point that neither one of us knows the full truth of)
It seems that the professor and the extremists both were exercising their own ideas of freedoms.(sometimes people have a problem differencitating between “liberty” and “freedom”–in the situations he was in, what was the state of the definition of freedom?)
Both used the freedoms incorrectly.(again one must define “freedom” in the light of “liberty”)
The professor was not following the example of what Christ teaches on humility and respecting one’s neighbor. The extremists took it upon themselves to do what extremists do in cases like this, which is always against what Christ taught. Humility would have spoken louder in this case than any extremist could hope to. The professor is in a position where he can be influential to students, and if his question was derogatory, then the Catholic university was correct in suspending him.
(Here is a point whose importance that was completely missed) Catholic universities in general are suffering an identity crisis enough as it is. Having professors who would possibly incite violence (either by word or acts) by their questionable teaching methods is only one of the problems.
It would have been better, it would seem for all parties involved, if the booming and profoundly pointed sound of silence would have been practiced in this case.(Here we acknowledge the essence of the saints)
Preaching the Gospel of Christ by being outspoken in personal opinions, and not what the Church actually teaches, could incite violence, and in this case it did. (For best results, politics and religion should not be mixed)
But was the professor preaching the Gospel or just stating a personal and/or political opinion? It is really not possible to know, unless one would be able to read the offending question.(The case here still seems foggy)
(The rest just closing remarks) It is tragic that what happened did, and we should be thankful that it was not worse. History is full of incidents where a few words, misused or spoken, have cost innocent lives. As Catholic Christians, we must be aware of our actions and words. We preach the Gospel of Christ much more by our actions than we ever will with words. God will ultimately deal with those in opposition in His own way, and this is what we must be resigned to, whatever may befall us.
So, as you can see, and I hope it is clear to your understanding, that there is no equation being implied here. Perhaps you would be so bold as to write a comparative statement that actually proves that what you state exists in my comment. You have my detailed annotations s here, so I just cannot see where you may misunderstanding is coming from. The lesson here is the golden rule and how it would have application in the situation–you missed the obvious point. I hope you do now.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:32 pm


Main Entry: equiv·a·lence
Pronunciation: \i-ˈkwiv-lən(t)s, -ˈkwi-və-\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1541
1 a : the state or property of being equivalent b : the relation holding between two statements if they are either both true or both false so that to affirm one and to deny the other would result in a contradiction
2 : a presentation of terms as equivalent
3 : equality in metrical value of a regular foot and one in which there are substitutions



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 6, 2010 at 10:56 pm


I’ll tally up the score not of points won, but of fouls made by the parties involved, the Muslim Extremists and the Professor, according to your reflections on this story:
“I cannot condone the actions of extremism here.”
Fouls: Muslim Extremists – 1 Foul Prof – 0 Fouls
“Yet, the fact that it happened was due to one persons action that was viewed as an insult to a group of people. Therefore they retaliatied by a violent act.”
Mus. Ext. – 2 Fouls Prof – 1 Foul
“As commons sense should have been the rule in this case, perhaps the professor should have thought of the possible consequences before he acted.”
Mus. Ext. – 2 Fouls Prof – 2 Fouls
“Here is the important point) Freedom, and it’s absolute concrete meaning, must be carefully assessed when one finds themselves in certain situations. It is much easier to speak out against others when one is safely in the company of those of like minds. When one finds themselves as a minority in the company of those who have an opposing opinion and are very willing to destroy anyone who opposes them, silence is often the wiser choice.(Every action brings on a reaction—COMMON SENSE, again. Freedom is too often confused with liberty—-God given rights are usually only recognized by the society or philosophy of any one particular group who define them–The Puritans believed they were given a right by God to burn witches. Islam extremists believe they have a God given right to kill those who oppose them. Christians generally just take the stripes–You might be confusing “rights” (God or otherwise) with freedom or liberty.)
As a professor, I would imagine that he would have deduced this by sheer reason alone. This makes me believe there is a great deal more to his actions than the story reports.(a very important aspect of the whole affair–we are actually arguing a point that neither one of us knows the full truth of)”
Mus. Ext. – 2 Fouls Prof – 3 Fouls
“It seems that the professor and the extremists both were exercising their own ideas of freedoms.(sometimes people have a problem differencitating between ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’–in the situations he was in, what was the state of the definition of freedom?)
Both used the freedoms incorrectly.(again one must define ‘freedom’ in the light of ‘liberty’)”
Mus. Ext. – 3 Fouls Prof – 4 Fouls
The professor was not following the example of what Christ teaches on humility and respecting one’s neighbor. The extremists took it upon themselves to do what extremists do in cases like this, which is always against what Christ taught. Humility would have spoken louder in this case than any extremist could hope to. The professor is in a position where he can be influential to students, and if his question was derogatory, then the Catholic university was correct in suspending him.
Mus. Ext. – 4 Fouls Prof – 5 Fouls
It would have been better, it would seem for all parties involved, if the booming and profoundly pointed sound of silence would have been practiced in this case.(Here we acknowledge the essence of the saints)
Preaching the Gospel of Christ by being outspoken in personal opinions, and not what the Church actually teaches, could incite violence, and in this case it did. (For best results, politics and religion should not be mixed)
Mus. Ext. – 4 Fouls Prof – 6 Fouls
But was the professor preaching the Gospel or just stating a personal and/or political opinion? It is really not possible to know, unless one would be able to read the offending question.(The case here still seems foggy)
(The rest just closing remarks) It is tragic that what happened did, and we should be thankful that it was not worse. History is full of incidents where a few words, misused or spoken, have cost innocent lives. As Catholic Christians, we must be aware of our actions and words. We preach the Gospel of Christ much more by our actions than we ever will with words. God will ultimately deal with those in opposition in His own way, and this is what we must be resigned to, whatever may befall us.
So, to summarize your account, the professor (1) acted so “as to appear to insult other people”; (2) “should have thought of the possible consequences before he acted”; (3) failed to “remain silent”; (4) used his “freedom incorrectly”; (5) failed in “humility and in respect of his neighbor”; (6) “mixed politics and religion.”
Whereas the Muslim attackers behaved as (1) “extremists”; (2); “retaliated with a violent act”; (3) used their freedom incorrectly; and (4) “took it upon themselves to do what extremists do, (i.e. exact blood vengeance.)
Tallying up the scores of the two sides’ fouls, I would say that a lot of reasonable readers would conclude that in your view, Mr. Archer, the now one-handed Catholic professor owes these Muslim extremists an apology . . . for dulling up one of their scimitars with his wrist bone.
Mr. Archer, I am done. Good night. And have a nice life.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 6, 2010 at 11:22 pm


You give in too easily. You were doing so well. I should have enjoyed being disproven here, but resigning the debate leaves the argument open for another time.
What part of the assessment you present seems it is not what should happen in a real life setting? How do you come to the conclusion that the professor owes an apology? Where does my comment tend to suggest that? Your leaving no room for debate for reasons I have encountered before: you have resigned the debate and resorted to some fantasy scenario of it being some game? Your “game tally” approach is rather disturbing and pointless, as this is not a game–we are actually discussing a very serious point here.
You make the error that you assume the minds of other readers here, which is bold, and leave without disproving my points. Basically, in a “nut-shell” to use a term loosely, you realized that there are many more points (particularly in regards to the definition of freedom or liberty in India) to the argument than you may want to debate here. Volumes have been written on the subject of liberty, personal freedoms and religious liberties for centuries. To this day, no concrete definition has been reached, but is rather the task of the lawmakers to handle and stay busy with.



report abuse
 

Ravi

posted July 7, 2010 at 10:41 am


Will someone be kind enough to tell us what the objectionable Question paper contained? Otherwise, how do you judge the action of the fanatics?Christian missionaries are famous for their Non-violent ways. They never hurt other people’s sentiments,okay?



report abuse
 

romancrusader

posted July 7, 2010 at 10:58 am


Archer,
You were justifying terrorism.



report abuse
 

Jeff Tan

posted July 7, 2010 at 12:28 pm


Mr. Archer
I can appreciate your attempts to clarify this logically, but a few things ought to be pointed out:
1. Christ did not keep quiet when it would have been common sense to do so.
2. Common sense is subjective, as you yourself make clear.
3. The context by which a course of action can be considered “common sense” includes more than just the potential of retaliation, ongoing dialogue and so on: it also includes the intent of persons involved.
4. I did not read anything in the news reports about what the professor intended.
5. We can deduce from the reports what the extremists intend, however: to violently punish those whom they consider to have insulted Islam.
6. Given the absence of certain factors, such as the professor’s intent, it is hard to comment on these events purely on the basis of common sense.
7. We can, however, judge objective morality of actions taken. The facts of these actions seem to be known, including the professor’s controversial exam question. There is no question that, on the objective evil scale, the violent reprisal far outweighs the exam question. I think it is this point that you need to concede, because it is highly unlikely that the objective lack of merit in the professor’s exam question could ever measure up to that of his attacker’s violent act.



report abuse
 

Marion (Mael Muire)

posted July 7, 2010 at 1:04 pm


Jeff Tan wrote, “the violent reprisal far outweighs the exam question. I think it is this point that you need to concede, because it is highly unlikely that the objective lack of merit in the professor’s exam question could ever measure up to that of his attacker’s violent act.”
Exactly right.
However, my money is on Mr. Archer doing nothing of the sort, but responding something along the lines that the now one-handed professor should have foreseen the umbrage Muslim extremists might take to his exam question, and that he therefore brought the retaliation on himself, the Muslim extremists acting, as it were, in a manner perfectly predictable and consistent with their principles, as might an automobile or a locomotive pointed in the right direction and given sufficient fuel, arrive automatically at any given destination.
In other words, both parties were at fault, the professor especially so, since he knew better going in, and therefore the extremists are pretty much off the hook. According to Mr. A.
The prof owes them for their scimitar blade sharpening, which can be very expensive. Those curved blades . . . pricey!
It’s called “blaming the victim.”



report abuse
 

Malik Suhayb Manzer

posted July 7, 2010 at 3:49 pm


The person who cut that professors hand off on the insult of his beloved Prophet(s.a.w.) was an extremist but the one who committed that act of extremism is pictured as innocent here, this is the double standard Muslims are facing world over by christian, hindu and judes extremists.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 7, 2010 at 6:39 pm


—-However, my money is on Mr. Archer doing nothing of the sort, but responding something along the lines that the now one-handed professor should have foreseen the umbrage Muslim extremists might take to his exam question, and that he therefore brought the retaliation on himself, the Muslim extremists acting, as it were, in a manner perfectly predictable and consistent with their principles, as might an automobile or a locomotive pointed in the right direction and given sufficient fuel, arrive automatically at any given destination.—-
Your right, I am persistent until I am convinced you can disprove what I said, instead of read into the message I am saying something that is not there. I cannot understand your reasons here, as you fail to prove that I am either defending the terrorists or the professor–you have missed the point completely about the golden rule here. I will not concede that I said anything which is not truth, but rather just hand the victory over by sheer default–you are attempting to see the literal view, when my statement is purely philosophical. You can honestly say that when one does an certain action, that a reaction from another is not going to take place. My statement proved that point alone, whether or not it could have been on the subject that is being discussed, or any other situation. People who want to shake up boxes of dynamite are in danger of blowing themselves up no matter if it is social, political or religious. What part of that moral is not understandable to you?



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 7, 2010 at 6:45 pm


On another note, you need to consider that more has developed in the news story that may change my comment–factors of understanding facts are wanting in my original comment. It sounds as if you would rather have read is simply as:
“The professor was completely correct in all of his actions. The terrorists should owe him an apology for their actions, and ask for forgiveness. I would have done the same thing if I were the professor, even if it cost the live of myself and my loved ones. Bad world we live in so one has to deal with it–realistically.”
Does that comment satisfy your idealistic mind?
By the way, the facts are still sketchy as to the full story here.



report abuse
 

Marion

posted July 7, 2010 at 9:49 pm


Mr. Archer,
I take it you are not writing from the U.S.?
I’m curious about your nationality. Full and fair disclosure: I’m a fifth-generation U.S. citizen, born in the Northeast (New England) and currently living in a metropolitan area of the mid-Atlantic.
Here in the United States our foundational law code (The Constitution) guarantees that our government shall make no law infringing upon the peoples’ right to free speech, the right peaceably to assemble, the free exercise of their religion, the right to bear arms, the right to a speedy trial, the right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and other rights and freedoms. I realize that in other countries the right to speak freely is not considered sacrosanct, as it is here, and so I must bear that in mind, that in your country the viewpoint may be “who cares about free speech? Let the bullies shut me down all they want.” Whereas, Americans would find that intolerable. So that is one piece of my American bias.
I also have to bear in mind that persons in many other countries have had no direct experience of terrorism by Muslim extremists. That’s the second piece of my American bias.
I was prevented from flying on a long-planned trip to visit a friend when the U.S. President closed the airports after Muslim extremists crashed a jetliner into the Pentagon building killing and injuring hundreds (not far from my home). I returned home and sat on the telephone with my aunt while she described the World Trade Center as it collapsed (she was watching from her office across the river) in the aftermath of Muslim extremists crashing jetliners into the Twin Towers, killing 3,000. In the following year Muslim extremists killed several ordinary residents in our area. These extremists were rifle snipers, shooting at random shoppers, strollers, taxicab drivers, grandmothers, and a particular favorite target of theirs was people refueling their automobiles. We became adept at hunkering down while refueling our car so as not to present as tempting a target to the snipers.
I don’t hate all Muslims. Christ forbids this, and it helps that our family physician is a wonderful Muslim husband and father and a dear friend of ours. But he is not an extremist. I very much deplore the violent actions of those Muslim extremists – or any extremists – who physically harm other people.
So, although I was not directly a victim of the 9/11 terror attacks, I, like virtually all Americans have been touched by them. And we had an mini “encore” so to speak a year later here in my community.
I don’t know whether the people in your land have ever been attacked by terrorists or by anybody.
Nor do I know whether the land in which you live values the right of men and women to speak freely.
I’ll be interested to learn whatever you care to share.



report abuse
 

Jerald Franklin Archer

posted July 7, 2010 at 11:31 pm


Marion,
I live in America, and very proud to be an American. I don’t always agree with what is going on, but that is another great thing about being American–one can agree to disagree and make changes through due process. Yes, it is a privileged state of a citizen to be able to speak freely, and we can say that in great safety. We may also give opinions in great safety. The question here is not one of being the a matter of free speech, but how one uses that freedom. Again, I need not remind you of the great amount of information, all extremely diverse in opinion, that exists on the subject.
In my opinion, every one in the world should have what we do, but that is an idealistic thought. Many want what we have, and are welcome to join us here, but it is foolish to attempt to just think one can come in an take it. America will destroy herself before it will ever be allowed to be governed by any other entity. Everyone in the world could have the advantages we have here, but it takes great changes in very small steps to achieve it through time and sacrifices.Above all else, a strong country must be orderly, respectful to authority, religious, and active in the political arena to be successful. Education is too sadly put on the back burner today, and this is principally going to be our downfall, if it does not change. God will address America in His own way, but we have to be conscience that we must help ourselves as well.
I remember 9/11 myself, and can relate to your feelings. I have actually dealt with them on a face to face level when I was in college as some Islamic students I knew would tell me, detail for detail as to what some “associates” were planning for the future. They were very aware of my Catholic faith, but were not threatening to me personally. It always seems that when you are in the company of the potential enemy, they never make their moves, as in their case, they were outnumbered. That was 1984, and I can assure you that terrorists have became much more braver since then- and much more subtle in their ways of attempting to terrorize. I have actually had more incidents of personal violence defending my faith than my country.
I was not shocked when 9/11 happened, as it was destined to happen, given the state of lethargy the United States was in. Materialism, modernism, liberal attitudes and other factors that factor out God from the American equation were responsible for the disaster. This can happen again, if we do not shape up quickly. Often it takes a series of disasters to awaken the citizens of any country. I believe we have become more aware of what is going on around us since 9/11. It was a matter of time. The perpetrators could have been anyone, but as it happened, they were Muslims. It unfolded just as those students had said years prior and with great precision in timing.
The land in which I live values the freedom of speech very highly. It is however, a freedom that one should use wisely. A person who would make terrorist remarks (even in a jest) are in great danger of being investigated by the FBI, so that tends to put a bit of a limit on what is often considered as freedom of speech before 9/11. Real freedom of speech contains no marks of treason or rebellion, but rather one that instructs in a manner that comes to a point where constructive dialogue is produced for the good of all. Many people do not know how to form words to convince (not persuade), but rather will be convinced of their own errors due to the closed minded attitude that is a direct misinterpretation of what is true freedom of speech. We see this happen in anti-Catholic retoric, of which I am on a personal campaign to attempt to change the laws in this country. One cannot make racial or anti-semetic remarks and not suffer a penalty, but makeing filthy remarks about the Pope or the Church is just fine. It is the epitome of what one should consider double standards.
Freedom is defined only by the people who know it. Some have never known it, but they enjoy a certain level of freedom as their dictator dictates it to be. It is not necessarily the freedom of speech that is being subdued, but ideas. Often these ideas are not considered conducive to the state. One can throw the elements of what are “rights” and “liberty” and there will be confusion as to what “freedom” really means. Liberty is gained (through wars or conflicts or rebellions), rights are given (as a result of the victory of the battle) and freedom is earned (through the sacrifice of lives and property).
Now this brings me to a very serious point. Would I be willing to die for these freedoms? Yes, without reserve. I entail that to die for one’s country is also to die for one’s faith. Even though the two are separate, the faith part is a freedom that is included in our Constitution (the most misunderstood document we possess, but still better than the Communist Manifesto). Despite your suspicions that I am either a Nazi, Fascist, Communist, Socialist, Racist Sexist, or even the devil himself, I must say that I am simply a proud American Catholic.
I have often been labeled many of the above terms for my rather conservative views and out-dated thinking processes (termed as super-Victorian by some) that still entail that a person defend themselves, if correct, with reason and some sense of intelligent communication. I also acknowledge when I am wrong with humility and proper apology if necessary. Today many people mistake being open religious in views, straightforward in opinion and conservative in thought as something one only finds in the local madhouses today.
With all our disagreements aside, I am sorry for you personal experiences in the past. In full admission of my blunder here, my lack of considering making a comment or judgment on the story was premature, and this is what happens when one gets only parts of the story. Discussions in light of only have bits and pieces of the facts, make for pointless discussions. I fully understand your disdain for my original comment and must acknowledge that in the future, I shall remember that things that I say, could offend another. It is a case of bridling the tongue in some situations that will produce the better outcomes. God Bless You.



report abuse
 

Kumar

posted July 12, 2010 at 4:58 am


Prophet Muhammed had ordered the murder of a poetess by name Asmat Bint Marwan for writing poetry mocking him and this lady was stabbed to death in her bed while she was suckling her small child. The prophet’s followers are emulating his example now. This is indeed Sharia law being enforced on the people of Kerala!!Actually this murder is the extreme for of censorship as Bernard Shaw remarked once and this is the way it was decreed by Muhammed.



report abuse
 

William

posted July 29, 2010 at 5:54 pm


Is there any comment that is reasonable other than revulsion at this kind of barbarism? In the name of religion?
I fail to understand how this psychotic “religion” ever manages to attract anyone of sound mind.
If this is a “splinter” that does not represent the “true peaceful nature” of Islam, why do the “rational” Muslims allow it to persist?



report abuse
 

jesse gomez

posted September 13, 2010 at 12:27 pm


wake up you sheep! Keep tolerating thier murders and you deserve what you get…the end of christianity. They are multiplying like rats while us Americans prefer to do otherwise. They will out number us within 30 years and if your children or grandchildren do not convert, they will be beheaded…because we have just gotten like the politions we elect, greedy, soft, and stupid.



report abuse
 

Jane Stepman

posted March 5, 2011 at 2:44 am


It was rather interesting for me to read that blog. Thank author for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to them. I would like to read a bit more on that site soon.
Jane Stepman
cell signal jammer



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

This blog is no longer active
This blog is no longer being actively updated. Please feel free to browse the archives or: Read our most popular inspiration blog See our most popular inspirational video Take our most popular quiz

posted 10:42:40pm Dec. 12, 2010 | read full post »

One day more
A reminder: "The Deacon's Bench" is closed! Please enjoy the archives!

posted 11:26:20pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Meet Montana's married priest
Earlier this week, I posted an item about Montana getting its first married priest. Now a local TV station has hopped on the bandwagon. Take a look, below.

posted 10:29:55pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Big day in the Big Easy: 10 new deacons
Deacon Mike Talbot has the scoop: 10 men today were ordained as Permanent Deacons for the Archdiocese of New Orleans. This group of men was formally selected on the day the evacuation of New Orleans began as Hurricane Katrina approached. The immediate aftermath of the storm for this class would be

posted 6:55:42pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »

Gaudete! And let's break out a carol or two...
"Gesu Bambino," anyone? This is one of my favorites, and nobody does it better than these gals: Kathleen Battle and Frederica von Staade. Enjoy.

posted 1:04:10pm Dec. 11, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.