There they go again

Here's a worthwhile comment from (of all things) an Anglican commentator:

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

I don't know what the long-term consequences will be of the Pope's quoting these lines from the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manual II Paleologos. Certainly there will be much tighter security around the Holy Father from now on. The point is that the Pope used the words "I quote" twice in order to make it plain that he did not necessarily agree with the Emperor's views. And last weekend he said explicitly that he did not share those views.
But the Pope need not have quoted Manual II at all. His point would have been made with even greater forcefulness if he had gone to the fountainhead and quoted Mohammed himself. As Efraim Karsh shows in his recent book Islamic Imperialism, the Prophet commanded his followers:

Fight all men until they say, "There is no God but Allah".
Osama bin Laden quoted those words immediately after the attacks on the twin towers.


The British press and the BBC continually upbraid European nations for their history of conquest and imperialism, but make no criticism of Islamic imperialism. And while the slave trade is a favourite topic in schools' history syllabus, Muslim involvement in the slave trade is rarely mentioned. Heathen Africans counted as less than human for these Muslims. British colonial rule actually replaced the Muslim slave trade in Africa. Islam was imperialistic from its origin.

The most disturbing aspect of the controversy over the Pope's words is the implicit consequence that there are things you are not allowed to say, even if they are true. The Pope has not misrepresented Islam. The Prophet was a warrior and he was proud to be so. What is it that his followers are now ashamed of and so hypocritically offended by? Truth is truth even - especially - when it is unpalatable.

In his lecture in Germany, the Pope also criticised irrationality in religion. But now we see Muslims burning effigies of him and firebombing churches in Gaza and West Pakistan. And that's nothing new: the torching of churches is a regular feature in many Islamic lands. Where's their rationality? Where's their tolerance? Christianity is prohibited in Saudi Arabia. If I were to try to walk down a street in Riyadh wearing my dog collar - worse, a cross round my neck - I'd be thrown into jail. Yet in Britain we allow Muslims to build mosques in every town and city.

Benedict XVI called for a dialogue between religions and instead he has been rewarded by this hysterical reaction on the part of some Muslims, most of whom have not read the lecture itself but have merely ignorantly quoted phrases taken out of context and splashed in newspaper headlines. The only hope we have of mending relations with Islam is for the hierarchies in both faiths to speak to one another in a calm and scholarly way with tolerance and mutual understanding the main objective.

Fat chance. An African Mullah's incitement has led to the murder of a nun, and a prominent Imam has called for "a day of anger". What I find most bizarre of all is the irony. Muslim extremists are effectually saying, "Don't you dare say that Islam is an aggressive and violent religion - and if you do, we'll kill you".

Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill & Chaplain to the Stock Exchange. He is the author of The Politically-Correct Gospel.>

I love this: "the pope needs high-level experts on Islam to help guide him">

The Times and Catholicism ... Whew do they have problems with it. Any thoughts from anyone about why the Times treats Catholicism so obtusely?>

As somebody else stated earlier, which bears repeating, the same people criticizing the pope for speaking up against Islamicism, are also criticizing Pope Pius XII for not doing more to stop Nazism.>

I don't mean to be flippant about this situation, but I can't help my initial reaction.

It reminds me of my very first encounter with the net acronym YMMV. It was in the midst of a heated debate, and from the context of the debate, I was convinced that it stood for You Make Me Vomit. The ensuing rush to laugh at my innocent mistake nearly derailed the heated debate, as I recall.

Of course, I've long since been corrected. Don't know if that makes sense to anyone, but there it is. Your Mileage May Vary, of course.

8)>

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with having experts in Islam serving in the Curia to reality check the Pope's statements - whether it be Michael Fitzgerald or someone else. To poo-poo that is like saying that Benedict has no need for a CDF or in-house theologians to check his statements because, Benedict being Benedict, he can't make theological mistakes. It may very well be that Benedict did not have confidence in Archbishop Fitzgerald and dismissed him from the Curia for that reason. Fine, but if no one is checking on his statements, or if his people are too intellectually intimidated to contradict or challenge Benedict in something that he wants to do, that's not good either. It is a commonly bad trait of Catholic bishops not to listen to advice that they don't want to hear. It would be disappointing to learn that Benedict also suffers from this very clerical disease - one that I suspected that he, unlike JPII, didn't have.>

"Because they hate Catholicism more than they fear Islamism."

The NYT doesn't hate Catholocism any more than you do. It's ridiculous and shallow to make such an asumption.>

Susan -- I work in the higher-end New York media, and have done so for more than a couple of decades. I think it's *completely* fair to say that many people in the field look at Catholicism with hostility, or at the very least intense suspicion. It's a given in the biz that the Catholics have their own paper, the NY Daily News, and that the others are varying shades of ignorant or hostile to Catholicism. Incidentally, I'm not a Catholic, and I'm not terribly interested in Catholic issues. But I've certainly often been struck by the antagonism many people in the biz show to Catholicism.>

I'm shocked and sickened by the way folks back down from the loony Muslims. If they're nuts, they're nuts! The irony regarding their behavior is astonishing; can they really be that stupid?>

Oh, and why in the world did the Pope insist on using that piece?!What was he thinking?!

He had to know after the comic strip reaction that it would cause problems. Why do it just to prove you can and in so doing cause the death of innocents in the Middle East? There's got to be a better way.>

Anonymous, explain to us all how the Pope "cause(d) the death of innocents in the Middle East". He did not pull the triggers, nor work up the crowds of Allah's crazed devotees. And do you have a name? I disagree with Susan almost all the time, same with Watsy, but they say what they have to say and hang a name on it. Good on 'em. "Self righteous bigots", huh? Charity forestalls me telling you what you sound like; my confession this week is already going to take too long.>

"I think it's *completely* fair to say that many people in the field look at Catholicism with hostility, or at the very least intense suspicion"

Newspapers should look at powerful forces like the Catholic Church with supsicion. See Rod's own crusade against the church in the DMN. Does that mean he hates the church?

The problem is that many Catholics think they are the only ones allowed to criticize. If non-Catholics or if media organizations question, it is considered hostility and hatred. Rod should be reminded how he recently chastised gays and Muslims for being whiney.

This current post is example one of how defensive and whiney Catholics and Evangelicals get when their insitutions are questioned by the larger culture. Now imagine how members of a an actual minoirty religion feel when Rod writes his tirades about Muslims in a town like Dallas.

If Rod, with the backing of the Holy See and the largest single relgilon in the U.S. gets the defensive, imagine how Muslims must feel when their faith is villified.>

And yes, the NYT quite obviously has an axe to grind against Catholicism and Evangelical Christianity.

Imagine for a moment that the Pope in an academic lecture had quoted some obscure 16th century text that referred disparagingly to Protestantism -- thereby provoking violent rampages of church-burning and nun-murdering by angry Southern Baptists throughout the American Bible Belt.

The premise, of course, is beyond preposterous, since except perhaps in liberal fantasy-land that isn't the way Baptists behave.

But if they did, does anyone think for a minute that the New York Times would describe their violent response as "reasonable" and demand that deep and sincere apologies be offered to the offended Southern Baptists?>

But the NYT wasn't just trying to hold the pope "accountable for his actions". They came out and said that the sticking point in interfaith dialogue with the Muslims was that the pope wanted to have it on his own terms. It's precisely for assertions like that that the term "risible" was invented.>

The people decide whether to believe the NYT. If they'd rather believe Rush Limbaugh or the 700 Club, that's their choice.>

Voodoo priests doing blood sacrifices right in front of the tomb! How disrespectful! How shocking! If it were actually true.

"In the interview, [Rev. Vincenzo] Coli acknowledged the criticism but defended the meetings. He denied Messori's assertion that African animists sacrificed chickens on the altar near the tomb of Saint Clare, a contemporary of Saint Francis. Criticism of the Franciscans' activities is a way of indirectly criticizing John Paul, he added...He said that meetings with members of other religions were not a sign of weakened faith, but a mark of mature, confident belief. "We can therefore be open to communication. Clashes are not necessary," he said."

Either Dreher believes the Franciscan to be a liar, or his invective isn't troubled by facts.>