And thus it came to pass: The content of Pope Benedict XVI’s speech stopped being the story — including the fact that the speech was an attack on secularism in the West — and the reaction of many Muslim leaders became the story.
That could only lead to one conclusion, in the mandated Unitarian-Universalism of the New York Times editorial-page suite, the holy of holies for the blue-zip code faith. All religious roads have to lead to the top of the same mountain (even if saying that is, itself, an affront to Islam as well as to traditional Christianity). Otherwise, we would have to do basic, balanced, factual journalistic coverage of people on both sides of historic, complicated, emotional, intellectual religious issues. We would have to be journalists.
TMatt indicates that the Times won't be satisfied until Benedict kisses the Koran. Literally or figuratively. The "soft apology" already offered by the Pope won't be enough.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Mike--
So Benedict made the mistake of assuming that he could make comments to an audience of mature adults?
There was no breakdown here. It was a lecture given in an academic setting. These are the kinds of things that get cited in an academic setting. He said exactly what he meant to say and there should have been no reason, given a reasonable audience, that anybody should have found any problem with it.
That this whole mess has escalated to the level it has a) is absurd b) only serves to suggest a certain legitimacy to the point he is accused of making (even though it isn't actually what he said).
Richard>
Richard,
I don't think what I wrote communicated what I intended. I didn't mean to imply that what he said was wrong, only that traditionally the Popes words are subjected to review. The current Pope is an academic and you are correct, a mature audience would have found nothing wrong in his words.
My point was that the majority of the world is not mature and the media is not typically given to subtlety of argument.
As for the rest what you wrote is what I was trying to get accross. Thanks for making it clearer.>
Yes, we should all get down on our knees and apologize to the Koranimals for their willful misunderstanding of something any half-wit, non-barbarian could've understood, given five minutes of prayerful and intelligent reflection, which is five minutes more than we've come to expect.
I apoligize, oh great and non-violent Islam, for impuning your nature by listening to the speech of the unclean one.
Please don't kill me...
Is that okay, Susan? Did I get it right?
When the nail bombs get to your neighborhood, your appeasement won't buy you five minutes of mercy.>
"When the nail bombs get to your neighborhood, your appeasement won't buy you five minutes of mercy."
no, it won't. but because of her peace making she will be called a daughter of god. - matt 5:9>
Koranimals
Beautiful! I'm going to have to remember that!>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.