The Silence of Human Rights Groups as to the Persecution of Christians in Muslim Lands (by Robert Spencer):
"The nearly total silence manifests itself in the curiously euphemistic manner in which human rights groups report on the plights of Christians, when they notice that plight at all. For example, Amnesty International's 2007 report on the human rights situation in Egypt dismisses the suffering of Coptic Christians in a single sentence so filled with euphemism and moral equivalence and so lacking in context that it almost erases the crime it describes: " There were sporadic outbreaks of sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians. In April [2006], three days of religious violence in Alexandria resulted in at least three deaths and dozens of injuries." In reality, the strife began when a Muslim stabbed a Christian to death inside a church, and when armed jihadists attacked three churches in Alexandria that same month."
Remember that the Christians in Egypt are a tiny minority, as helpless to defend themselves as Muslims would be in, for example, Nashville, Tennessee. (But of course the good Christians in Nashville would never think of attacking and killing Muslims in a mosque. Is that perhaps a difference in the two religions?)--HHH
Robert Spencer continues: "The passive voice seems to be the rule of the day where jihad violence against Christians is concerned. The 2007 Amnesty International report on Indonesia includes this line: "Minority religious groups and church buildings continued to be attacked." By whom? Amnesty International is silent. "In Sulawesi, sporadic religious violence occurred throughout the year." Who is responsible for that violence? AI doesn't say. Amnesty International seems more concerned about protecting Islam and Islamic groups from being implicated in human rights abuses than about protecting Christians from those abuses."
HHH: I notice this about Amnesty International at the present time: I have donated to it in the past and so am on its list of potential donors. For the past couple of months I have gotten repeated pleas from it to send it money to oppose our duly elected president's barring of Islamic immigrants. I am wondering: Why does Amnesty International, formed originally as a group to help and liberate political prisoners all around the world, want to interfere with one nation's (the U. S.'s) immigration policies? No nation in the world has absolutely and utterly free immigration into its country! Each nation has the right to decide whom it will let in, as each individual has the right to decide whom to let into his or her house or apartment. Yet Amnesty International, rather than trying to help the thousands of political prisoners around the globe, often subjected to abuse or torture, and many of them in Muslim nations, is trying instead to influence U. S. immigration policy, which is entirely determined by the elected representatives of the American people.
Do you really believe that it is more crucial for some Muslim to be admitted to the U. S. as an immigrant--a Muslim who, in accord with his religion (and all Muslims, not just "extremists," believe this) believe that you and I ought to be killed because we are not Muslims, in other words, are infidels--do you believe it is better for Amnesty International to campaign to get someone into your country who wants to kill you than for it to try to protect the rights of political prisoners who are tortured and killed in prisons, often in Muslim nations?
If so, I think your conscience is dead and your priorities horrendous.
Hugh Howard Higgins
No comments:
Post a Comment