Muslim hypocrasy to the fore, again

I've followed with interest this Ground Zero mosque debate and recently found a remarkably similar case from Indonesia:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11279317
My personal opinion on the mosque two blocks from Ground Zero is to agree with Brrack Obama. Religious freedom is constitutionally guaranteed in the States and there is no administrative reason why a private developper who has bought the land shouldn't build whatever building he choses to, provided it's not a terrorist training centre of course. I also believe that the developper should be a little more sensitive to the feelings of locals or try to promote it not as a mosque or Muslim place of worship but rather an interfaith place of worship without the focus on Islam. Either way, I don't approve of the building, I just can't be actively against it.

What is interesting too, though, is the response of the PC brigade or Muslim apologists to the protests against this mosque. While I don't partake in the protests I can understand their feelings. I can also understand why people defend the right for this man to build what he choses on private land he's bought, although I find accusations of Islamophobia a rather predictable and senseless knee-jerk reaction. So it is with this in mind that I noticed this story from the Bekasi suburb of Jakarta, a majority Muslim country with a small peaceful Christian minority.

And what struck me most of all is the open Islamic supremacy, hostility to Christians and blatant unfair treatment by the authorities of a religious minority compared with the response in New York. In New York people are objecting to the sensitive positioning of the mosque, although many are probably simply against it altogether. But how do they react, through official channels. Protests to the Government, appeals against the planning permission etc. Compare this to what is happening in Bekasi. Muslims simply don't want Christians to build a church, they simply don't want Christians to be able to openly show they are practising their religion. Although Indonesia's constitution guarantees religious freedom, this is tantamount to the Muslim Caliphate's treatment of non-Muslims. You can keep your religion and practise it, just don't let us catch you or there will be trouble! And by the way, you must pay a prejudice-tax because you don't share our theological stance.

Christians own the land in Bekasi on which they want to build a church but read the view of a Muslim called Khairul Fuad: "The non-Muslims should understand the feeling of the Muslims here. We are the majority here," he says. "The land belong to us, and the majority of the people who live around it are Muslims."

The land belongs to us because we're the majority. Have you heard this kind of rhetoric used in New York? No, of course not, it would be considered outrageous. Now let's move on to Pastor Jones, a bit of a numpty if you ask me who created an almighty furore with his cheap publicity stunt, which he predictably later abandonned. Was he ever going to burn the Koran, I doubt it. But as offensive as that may be to Muslims, which I don't think it should be, he's not burning the word of God (technically an impossibility) he's merely burning some paper it was printed on. Has he harmed anyone or even threatened to harm anyone? No.

Now compare that to Murhali Barda, the local leader of the hardline Islamic Defenders' Front: "There is no problem with praying. But when they are there with a mission to build a place of worship, it is unacceptable. If we start calling for Holy War, it doesn't matter if we live or die. If there is violence that results from this, then the Christians only have themselves to blame."

One threatens to burn a couple of books and is internationally condemned and even the likes of Obama get involved. And he's the head of an insignificant 50-strong church. The other is the head of an extremist organisation with possibly far more followers and what is the reaction? Nothing. Does Yudhoyono speak out against such blatant violent anti-Christian rhetoric? The man who said the burning of a couple of books could spark a war between Islam and the West, what is his take on this? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Hypocrasy? Anyone?

Of course it's hypocritcal, there's no other way to describe it. But what's also hypocritical is the West's eagerness to defend the rights of non-Christians or non-secularists, in particular Muslims, in our lands and yet we do nothing to help the Christians, secularists and other religious minorities who live under siege in Muslim lands. There is definitely an unfair treatment of Islam in political and diplomatic circles because it is treated with kid gloves, with deference and with a position of favour. And that's simply not fair. Look what happened when everyone bowed to Hitler's whims? Can the world not see the similarities? Do we all want our children or our children's children to live in a world where Islam is the majority religion in all lands and they must convert or live in fear? We must do something and first thing's first, stop pandering to Muslims' and Islam's unreasonable demands.

And stop the hypocrasy, speak out against Islamic hypocrasy before it's too late!