Muslim extremists threaten death to those who make cartoons of Muhammad, while in some Muslim countries Christians are routinely imprisoned and killed and their churches burned simply for being Christians. And while the former situation creates a furore with every political figure in the world from Kofi Annan to George Bush feeling obliged to comment on it, the latter passes without a mention on television news or by politicians. And this is in spite of the best efforts of Christian Solidarity Worldwide and Amnesty International to keep them informed.

Why is this? Could it be because the death of a few poor marginalised Christians in far-away places is of little interest compared to the threat of killing a Danish newspaper editor? The one offends against our Western liberal values, while the other, regrettable no doubt, has nothing to do with us. Could it be that a Prophet who is worth killing for is more newsworthy than a Saviour who is worth dying for? Could it be that actually killing a human being is counted less important than mere threats to our freedom of speech?

The row about cartoons of Muhammad in a Danish newspaper began several months ago and only reached a crescendo at the beginning of February this year, with widespread protests, the boycotting of Danish products and the burning of Danish embassies in some Muslim countries. Not only did some of those protests involve threats of death to those who insult Muhammad, they also involved the burning of the Danish flag, an act which is surely just as offensive to Danish Christians as their flag carries the symbol of the cross, the reality of which is dear to all Christians. There is obviously no concept in Islamic extremism of respect for the sensitivities of those of other faiths.

All of this highlights some very interesting points. First, it brings out the division that exists within Islam itself. Representing extremist Islam, Sheikh Abu Sharif, a spokesman for the militant Osbet al-Ansar group, said at a rally in southern Lebanon: “We will not be satisfied with protests. The solution is the slaughter of those who harmed Islam and the Prophet.” But Iraq’s very influential Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, while denouncing the publication of the cartoons, warned that “misguided and oppressive” segments of the Muslim community were projecting “a distorted and dark image of the faith of justice, love and brotherhood ... Enemies have exploited this ... to spread their poison and revive their old hatreds with new methods and mechanisms.”

Why is there this division? While all Muslims are no doubt offended by what they see as insulting cartoons of their Prophet (just as Christians were by “Jerry Springer — the Opera”), more educated Muslims realise that Muhammad said in the Koran, “Say: ‘I am but a man like yourselves’” and keep their protests in proportion. In addition, of course, militant Islamic fundamentalists see jihad (holy war) as a legitimate method of promoting Islam.

This affair also highlights an interesting inconsistency in Western media. Particularly the BBC were accused of double standards for not showing the original cartoons — the source of the news story, while they had proceeded with broadcasting “Jerry Springer — the Opera” in the face of protests from many Christians. Of course, it’s one thing to feel the wrath of a bunch of “Mary Whitehouses”, it’s quite another to feel the fiery breath of Islamic fundamentalism breathing down your neck.

This raises one of the fundamental issues at the heart of this matter — freedom of speech. Many speak as if freedom of speech was some absolute in our liberal democracies. Of course it is not so. For a long time freedom of speech has been curtailed by libel and obscenity laws and laws against incitement to commit a crime. It is now limited by laws concerning racism and religious hatred. Interestingly the recently passed UK law in the latter area would not outlaw the Danish cartoons, as the right to “ridicule and criticise” religions was not banned (due to the defeat of the Government on that point).

As Christians we should hold freedom of speech very highly. Theologically, our speech is a God-given ability and we are ultimately answerable to him, not other human beings, as to how we use it. Historically too, our freedom of speech was achieved by the actions of the Covenanters and others opposing the absolutist powers of the Stuart kings. However, we also believe that we must take the consequences of exercising that freedom. The Lord Jesus exercised freedom of speech, but he also took the consequences — crucifixion. The Apostles exercised freedom of speech, but they took the consequences — imprisonment, beatings, stoning and crucifixion.

Which brings us back to where we started. Is your truth worth dying for? Is publishing a cartoon of Muhammad or ridiculing Islam in a TV sketch worth dying for? That is the question that the secular humanists of the West have to answer for themselves. Of course they will cave in and self-censor, because to them nothing is worth dying for (or even losing economic benefit for).

For the Islamic extremist, his truth is not only worth dying for, it is worth killing for, and if you insult his beliefs, you must be prepared for the consequences. And the consequences will be more terrorism and the resulting step-up in the war against terrorism.

By contrast, Christians in Indonesia and Pakistan have done nothing to insult Muhammad or the Koran. They have been killed simply for being Christians, for exercising their rights of freedom of worship and of expression. And while they are not prepared to kill for their beliefs in retaliation, they are prepared to die for their beliefs, and are not prepared to recant in the face of intolerable oppression and violence. They have the courage of Bishop Latimer burned to death in 1555: “Be of good cheer, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day, by God’s grace, light such a torch in England as will never be put out.”