U.S. Coptic Christians, Muslims denounce anti-Muslim film
His Grace Bishop Serapion, Head of the Coptic Orthodox Diocese of Los Angeles, Southern California and Hawaii, left, greets Dr. Maher Hathout, Senior Adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, after a news conference in Los Angeles, Monday, Sept. 17, 2012. / AP Photo
(AP) LOS ANGELES - California Coptic Christian and Muslim leaders on Monday denounced an anti-Islamic movie that has sparked violence in the Middle East, as the filmmaker and his family left their suburban home and went into hiding.
The Southern California religious leaders joined a chorus of condemnation about last week's killing of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans as violence continued and the leader of the powerful militant group Hezbollah called for more protests.
At the center of the controversy is Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, a Cerritos man and self-described Coptic Christian who made "Innocence of Muslims," a crudely produced film ridiculing the Prophet Muhammad as a fraud, philanderer and child molester.
Nakoula left his home Saturday and was interviewed by officials to determine if he violated a five-year probation term for bank fraud. Sheriff's deputies helped the family leave the home before dawn Monday to join him at an undisclosed location, a spokesman said.
In a show of unity, a Muslim leader and a Coptic orthodox bishop held a news conference on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall to condemn the film and attacks against any religions.
AP: U.S. destroying secret info amid Beirut unrest
Violent anti-U.S. protests persist in 3 countries
Video: Libyan official on attack: Took months of planning
Video: Mitchell on Muslim protests: "There's nothing new about this"
Maher Hathout, senior adviser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council in Los Angeles, said the reaction in the Middle East has been unwarranted and irrational for such an "insignificant production." He said the filmmakers are "psychologically diseased with hearts full of hate and minds full of ignorance."
Bishop Serapion of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Southern California said the actions of a few ignorant individuals do not represent the views of many Coptic Christians and Muslims.
"We find there is no justification whatsoever that is to do such kind of movie," Serapion said. "As there is no justification to retaliate or attack the Coptic community. The right way to respond to such kind of events is to come together with a dialogue and to overcome such kind of tensions which unfortunately exist."
Many of the 300,000 Coptic Christians living in the U.S. left Egypt to escape discrimination. In the past decade, Coptic Churches have become the target of occasional attacks which have escalated to unprecedented levels since the ouster of long-time president Hosni Mubarak.
Serapion said he spoke last week to Nakoula, who worshipped occasionally at a Coptic Orthodox church in Bellflower. He said Nakoula denied making the film. Nakoula told The Associated Press he had been involved in the production and federal authorities identified him as the man behind the film.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- British flower show in full bloom 16 Photos
- Iran hangs alleged U.S., Israeli spies 77 Comments
- Bungled bank heist in Israel leaves gunman, 4 more dead
- Hezbollah suffers heavy losses fighting inside Syria
- Russia shows accused U.S. spy heading home
- N. Korea fires 6th projectile into sea
- Russia strikes back after expelling alleged U.S. spy
- Two imprisoned over killing Malcolm X's grandson
All of humanity should be ashamed of our acceptance of religious superstition and its elevation to an undeserved status.
It is astounding that otherwise intelligent people allow their lives to be governed by superstitions of primitive tribalists from 2,000 years and longer ago.
Our culture and the world are dominated by these sick cults. They keep humanity in a perpetual state of war; promote ignorance and superstition while accruing wealth, power and sexual gratification from their willing victims.
It is past time for humanity to leave religion to our primitive past.
Religion poisons everything.
Chrsitianty and the Bible, teaches to love enemies, do good to them, pray for them. But man comes in and pollutes even this
The problam is man--he messes up everything. And why? Because just as the Bible teaches, he is fallen and sinful
>Ahh, the old "pretend not to know" tactic, when the answer to my >question is obvious to even the intellectually challenged.
There is a bigger issue here. It is not "freedonm of spech" --it is fantatism, to the point of klling people for their beleifs.
if you look at Islam carefully, you see the whole system is nutty -- they kill **each other** as much as they want to kill Americans. Iran vs Irag--10 year of war, Libya, Syria of today. And these protests just proves how ridiculous it is, and certainly not of God. Even Osama was worried about how often Muslims kill Muslims.
>what do you think was the ultimate motivation for the filmmaker voicing their ignorant opinion?
I don't know but it does not matter..."
Ahh, the old "pretend not to know" tactic, when the answer to my question is obvious to even the intellectually challenged.
You pretend that it does not matter, while in fact, the reason you have been suckered in to defend such people, is for exactly the same reason. It seems that you take offense at the extremists who shout "death to America", which is the basis for your defense of idiots trying to provoke the same sentiments in Americans.
It is, in your case, a matter of,"what's good from the goose, is evil from the gander."
I love how baggers always confuse "freedom of speech" with "responsibility of speech. They do it so often that I begin to think that they are really so deluded.
There is no government agency limiting your free speech, if you are willing to accept the consequences of what you say, then you are free to say whatever you want.
Libel and slander are laws allowing for defense against certain types of speech, but if you are willing to accept the lawsuits resulting from them, then you are free slander and libel all you want.
Likewise if you want to foment sedition, (which is, BTW, illegal, and has been from the beginning)and you are willing to accept the legal punishment for such, then go for it, you are free to foment.
Also if you want to publicly make repugnant statements, then you must accept the public reaction, there is no requirement for government to protect you from legal public responses to your speech.
If you cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of your "free speech", then you never had "free speech" to begin with, and you never will.
The First Amendment is under attack; freedom of speech is the core to America's founding and is Our primary defense against tyrants and oppressors. Parading an American citizen around, as an example to any others that might speak out freely for / against his / her opinions, should greatly concern all Americans.
Few in the media are speaking out in defense of the freedom of speech and the consequences of its suppression, even though they have been given vast powers in this great country because of free speech.
"Freedom of speech is the great bulwark of Liberty, they prosper and die together. It is a terror to traitors and oppressors, and a barrier against them" ("Of freedom of speech", Cato letter #15.)
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with this, and as I pointed out to an earlier poster, if you are too weak to accept the consequences of your speech, then you have never known, and will never know free speech.
Speech without consequence is not "freedom of speech", but "impunity of speech", which no longer exists, get used to it, the free speech laws are still as intact as they ever were.
The religion racket is their road to gold plated riches.
Religion poisons everything, starting with chidhood.
So what do you think was the ultimate motivation for the filmmaker voicing their ignorant opinion?
I say it was to fish for a sympathetic response, in order to call for the genocide of a religion.
There can be no other reason, and so, while you posit that the film did not kill, you cannot deny that justifying genocide is in fact the ultimate goal of making such a film.
Yes, there is a big difference, but not as you seem to think.
Islamic extremists feel they must act in defense of their people and religion from a decades-long blatant and obvious attack campaign, of which the film is but a miniscule example in a long history of western hostility, using religion as an excuse.
Conversely, the idiot who made the film can point to no such attack directed towards him, an abject coward of the Cheney/Bush type, hiding behind others to try to avoid responsibility for their acts.
Bush is rich enough to get away with it, (for now, but we're working to bring him to justice) but this Nakoula miscreant obviously is not so rich.
I don't know but it does not matter.
>Islamic extremists feel they must act in defense of their people >and religion from a decades-long blatant and obvious attack >campaign,
This shows you how weak Islam is. If Islam is something, it can stand on its own 2 feet without violence. If you need violence to support it, it shows that Islam is nothing in reality, and what is really at work in not Islam, but inward hatred of men who are different.
Compare with Christianity. Christian missionares will die for the sake of those they are trying to win over, never kill them if they don't convert. And if a "Christian" leaves Christianity, he is more than free to leave, because he never believed anyway (better not to have him in). But if Muslim leaves he is tried, even executed.
Look at Muslim and Islam -- thet are more about killng than anything else. Even their own (Syria, Irag vs Iran, 100k killed).
So what do you think was the ultimate motivation for the filmmaker voicing their ignorant opinion?
I say it was to see if there was enough of a sympathetic response, to call for the genocide of a religion.
There can be no other reason, and so, while you posit that the film did not kill, you cannot deny that justifying genocide is in fact the ultimate goal of making such a film.
Yes, there is a big difference, but not as you seem to think.
Islamic extremists feel they must act in defense of their people and religion from a decades-long blatant and obvious attack campaign, of which the film is but a miniscule example in a long history of western hostility, using religion as an excuse.
Conversely, the idiot who made the film can point to no such attack directed towards him, an abject coward of the Cheney/Bush type, hiding behind others to try to avoid responsibility for their acts.
Bush is rich enough to get away with it, (for now, but we're working to bring him to justice) but this Nakoula miscreant obviously is not so rich.