Monday marked 100 days of Benedict’s papacy. I’ve just been reading National Catholic Reporter journo John Allen’s excellent book on Benedict, and I’m also intending to write a long piece in the not too distant future about Benedict’s epistemology, his vision of Europe, and its likely political consequences.
But I’ll content myself today by quoting the Pontiff on recent events:
Pope Benedict XVI has described terrorism as the action of small groups of fanatics rather than the result of a conflict between civilisations.
“There is no conflict between civilisations. There are only small groups of fanatics,” Italian newspapers Thursday quoted the Pope as saying.
In this context, I was quite struck by a piece in The Guardian, where historian of Islam Karen Armstrong pointed out that we never referred to the IRA as Catholic terrorists. Quite.
Armstrong writes:
We need a phrase that is more exact than “Islamic terror”. These acts may be committed by people who call themselves Muslims, but they violate essential Islamic principles. The Qur’an prohibits aggressive warfare, permits war only in self-defence and insists that the true Islamic values are peace, reconciliation and forgiveness. It also states firmly that there must be no coercion in religious matters, and for centuries Islam had a much better record of religious tolerance than Christianity.
Like the Bible, the Qur’an has its share of aggressive texts, but like all the great religions, its main thrust is towards kindliness and compassion. Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practice their religion freely, and forbids the use of fire, the destruction of buildings and the killing of innocent civilians in a military campaign. So although Muslims, like Christians or Jews, have all too often failed to live up to their ideals, it is not because of the religion per se.
We rarely, if ever, called the IRA bombings “Catholic” terrorism because we knew enough to realise that this was not essentially a religious campaign. Indeed, like the Irish republican movement, many fundamentalist movements worldwide are simply new forms of nationalism in a highly unorthodox religious guise. This is obviously the case with Zionist fundamentalism in Israel and the fervently patriotic Christian right in the US.
In the Muslim world, too, where the European nationalist ideology has always seemed an alien import, fundamentalisms are often more about a search for social identity and national self-definition than religion. They represent a widespread desire to return to the roots of the culture, before it was invaded and weakened by the colonial powers.
That’s spot on. The French sociologist, leading theorist of desecularisation and expert on political Islamism, Gilles Kepel, has argued that the sociological causes of radical Islamist movements (leaving aside the obvious causes related to the complex interactions between Western neo-Imperialism and the Middle East) relate to the blocking of political paths to opposition to authoritarian regimes. In particular, the suppression in the Cold War context of Communist parties (and it’s worth remembering that the Iraqi Communist Party was a strong and courageous opponent of Saddam) and the discrediting of secular nationalism by Nasser’s 1967 defeat by Israel.
If you don’t have a public sphere, and you turn out simultaneously many more educated technicians and aspiring intellectuals than you can employ, and at the same time have a gross maldistribution of wealth and no welfare system worth the name, you end up with political and social frustrations that can only find a religious outlet, and lay the basis for an internal and oppositional subculture through the outreach of radical Mosques.
In other words, spreading freedom and democracy 40 years ago or so in the Middle East would have been a good idea.
There’s been a strong strain of criticism of media and political representations of Islam in the West, associated with the work of the late and lamented Edward Said. Said, as a literary scholar, was well aware of the power of rhetoric. And to brand suicide bombers, and the subcultures that spawn them (which in turn have complex historical and cultural derivations and causes) as “Islamic terrorists” is to use the rhetorical figure of synechdoche - the substitution of the part for a whole. Rhetoric of course was damned by the classical Greek philosophical tradition as linked closely to sophistry. And in this case, the elision of Islam and terrorism in this phrase has clear effects which go far beyond the rhetorical. To put it simply, it’s an untruth. But an untruth that does malicious work in the world by creating the exact mindest (Christianity vs. Islam) that Osama Bin Laden wishes to inculcate.
In a world where our daily lives, and our security, are affected deeply by words, their misuse and a culture of the “noble lie” where “leaders” try to convince us we are in the midst of a clash of civilisations for their own purposes, it’s worth attending closely to Pope Benedict once again:
In all these realms, the cynicism of ideology has benighted conscience. Side by side with the cynicism of ideology, and often closely bound together with it, is the cynicism of the interests and of big business, the ruthless exploitation of the earth’s reserves. Here also is the good shoved aside by the expedient, and might setup in the place of right.
As well as our liberty, and our security, we also need in these times to defend Truth.
test
Invoking Our Lady of Fatima…
The above two comments refer to strange circumstances which prevented comments on an earlier version of this post which went up just after midnight.
Well, Mater Dolorosa is my patroness and for many years her image looked over my boyhood room. So I guess I won’t disagree with your post now. Another miracle!
mark, cool post.
I had a longer post which got lost in the ether. So you get dot point form:
1) Subcultural theory needs a lot of work to get it up to speed for the current era of disaffected youth and religious subcultures.
2) There seems to be gesture towards complexity more than truth in the above. The ‘noble lie’ is not so much a falsehood, but a necessary nontruth for the maintenance of social order (I do not mean this in a negative way). To clarify, it is not that the ‘truth’ is not sought, nor is simply a more in depth approach sufficient, only that it is clearly evident that some serious research is needed that enters into a dialogue with various stakeholders so the knowledge produced is the knowledge that matters.
I am sure there was more but tis lost now.
Mater Dolorosa.
Salutations from the vale of tears!
Glen, actually, there’s some very good sociological work on this - not much of which sits within subcultural theory per se (though it could have interesting applications).
That’s the problem with the truth, too, it is complex and resists simplification.
It’s a very nice post Mark. Glad to see you Derridaists getting on board the Humanist Project at last. And the Pope’s a German intellectual now! Better than a Polish bear. That’s great.
Habermas & Derrida: Modernism a beneficiary of war in Iraq
That’s one of the things about Benedict I’ve been very interested in (have a read of the last link). There certainly has been a turn in the academy away from relativist postmodernism towards a more phenomenological humanism and a different epistemology. In what will be the major project of his pontificate (the fight against relativism), he has something to work with. His opponents - the relativists - are now the right wing postmodern Bushies and neocons.
“Let us say it openly: These politicians took their moral ideas of state and right, peace and responsibility, from their Christian faith, a faith that had undergone the tests of the Enlightenment, and in opposing the perversion of justice and morality of the party-states, had emerged re-purified.”
The tests of the Enlightenment. The Last Temptation.
I spoke too soon. He’s still a Believer. Oh, well.
Well, wbb, the Pope is a Catholic.
He is correct historically to say that the underpinnings of ideas of human rights and democracy are Christian.
“the underpinnings of ideas of human rights and democracy are Christian”
Christianity may have given cutting edge expression to those concepts in its day, but I doubt that it can lay claim to the concepts themselves. There’d be a universal underpinning to them insofar as they are good ie humanist.
In optimal conditions all decent societies would have tended to these values. Europe, while Christian, had some great advantages materially that allowed the flourishing of these ideas.
Totalitarianism in mass society and brutal overlordism in isolated communities, regardless of their religious values, depend upon tightly constrained modes of production or perilous relations with external and more powerful neighbours.
The words of Christ concord well with the political ideas of Enlightenment but so would those of many of the revered figures of history.
If Benedict is correct historically as you say then it is mainly because Europe was Christian for a very long time and had to get it right eventually.
Speaking as someone whose stock in academic trade is the history of political and social ideas, wbb, Benedict is right. Concepts such as human rights and the notion of equality which distinguishes our democracy from ancient Greek versions derive directly from Christian principles and cultural motifs - not just as an indirect effect of Christian culture and the growth of European ideas and state forms coinciding in time and space.
They are also very far from universal, and your friend Habermas experiences extreme difficulty and logical contradiction in attempting to argue that they’re so exclusive of cultural context. Because they’re not.
That’s not in the slightest degree to say that humanism is not a viable political position - but this becomes a very complex debate which perhaps might be for another day.
Which is no doubt what two eminent German intellectuals are discussing here. Spooky and spookier!.
Das ist ein sehr schones Bild, Herr Stock.
So have modes of production had nothing do with their development? (Am asking seriously.)
Up to a point - more particularly property forms.
The mediaeval concept of “liberties” (which doesn’t mean what we take it to mean now) as it relates both to property right and reciprocal obligations was particularly important - as was the development of what are called “commune” cities. Anyway, long, long story.
I kept trying to post this comment all day yesterday at uni. Let’s see if it works now I’m at home:
There is a good reason that we never called the IRA ‘Catholic’ terrorists: it is because they were a secular, Irish nationalist organisation, not a Catholic one. Although the overwhelming majority of their membership in their recent history were from Catholic backgrounds, many were not confessing. In contrast, Islamic terrorists are Muslims and terrorists, and moreover they believe that their terrorism has something to do with their Islam.
Now, we used to call the IRA ‘republican’ terrorists and no-one imagined that all republicans were terrorists. Most people in England were vocal in imagining however that all Irishmen were terrorists. This is the same with Muslim people today: the nomenclature is irrelevent.
I hate the Guardian.
Agree with Mark K.
IRA never gave catholic doctrine as a reason for their actions.
On the other hand Islamic terrorists do use the Koran and to be quite candid they are probably correct.
Well, Homer, what warrant do you have for that? Have you studied Islamic doctrine?
Mark, I disagree about your interpretation of the Troubles. If you look at the genesis of the IRA, there’s a continuing streak of Catholic mysticism in the rhetoric and ideology, and the distancing of the Provos from the increasingly Marxist Officials was also in part motivated by religious opinions, if you care to look into the history.
To some extent, Armstrong exaggerates her point. How often did we hear in news reports about “Catholics vs. Protestants” in Northern Ireland?
There is undoubtedly a politicisation of religion at work in such situations. However, that gives us no basis for branding an entire faith violent or potentially violent.
The nomenclature is extremely relevant - as the nomenclature used carries the implication that Islam is not a religion of peace.
Pope won’t call Islam religion of peace.
Bravo Papa!
Mark, your notion that Benedict’s front on relativism opens directly onto the footsoldiery of Bushian neo-cons is shamefully contrived. Not long ago you were ridiculing opponents of stem-cell research. This is one example of the relativism Ratzinger has been opposing for decades.
Species of moral relativism exist on both sides of the old spectrum; to locate the phenomenon on the right is un-Catholic, un-Karolingian, un-Benedictine and, moreoever, is itself evidence of a relativistic mindset. Europe is dying because, culturally, it has ceased believing not only in the objectivity of truth but truth as a meaningful objective. This is much more a philosophical legacy of the left than the right. As the Terri Schiavo case demonstrated, however, ungodly nihilism and utilitarianism are now carcinogens of politics generally.
Were Benedict to train his crosshairs on the right because that was considered more saleable and do-able - and because he didn’t want to offend the opinionistas of the left - his pontificate would be meaningless, dishonest and futile. I believe he’s better and bigger than that. Curiously, you don’t. Witness, for example, his condemnation of gay ‘marriage’ as “anarchic freedom” and “fake.”
?
C.L., I did a fair bit of research on Benedict’s views on Islam before I wrote this post. Let me just say that they are nuanced and complex, but certainly don’t imply overall condemnation of Islam or a claim that it’s essentially violent. I’d point out to you that a negative answer to a question doesn’t imply that one believes the contrary affirmative proposition.
I have a lecture to write so I lack the time today to embark on the epistemological voyage your comment invites - as I said I’ll revisit this.
I suggest you read John Allen’s book and have a look at the chapters on Benedict’s politics (he was a prominent opponent of both Gulf Wars and is committed to global justice for the South), as well as his thoughts on epistemology and relativism.
It’s true to say that relativism originated “on the left” if you define certain aspects of Enlightenment thought as left (which is stretching the meaning of the term), but no doubt you’re thinking of postmodernism. As I’ve argued before, it’s now the right who show symptoms of postmodern relativism, creating a faith-based reality through the use of power (it would be interesting to do a Foucauldian study of Bush and the neo-cons some day). Therefore I am heartened by Benedict’s campaign for truth, while respectively disagreeing that he has the whole truth on some aspects of moral theology. But all that’s for another day.
Mark, tell me one bit of catholic doctrine the IRA put up to justify their actions?
Yes i have read the terribly repetive Koran and the various hadiths ( although I have only just now found out there are quite a ot of different korans. God only likes talking in arabic and it doesn’t translate well!!!)
Wahibbism is to me the most accurate form of Islam
Wahhabism, Homer, is an 18th century innovation, and one that completely ignores centuries of Islamic debate on the Qu’ran.
I suspect a reading of the NT without any particular historical context would turn up some odd things. And even more so for the OT.
I hate to say it, Homer, but you can’t just take a scriptural text and read it literally ignoring its historical context of interpretation.
And have a read about the Easter Martyrs of 1916.
Mark, don’t run away from the topic either wahabbism is true to Islam or it isn’t.
from my reading it is a more accurate version of Islam than others.
don’t sqib it on the IRA. either name the catholic doctrine that justifies their action or say that you were wrong!
Homer, no it’s not, in my view.
I don’t say that the IRA used Catholic doctrine specifically but there was a fair degree of Catholic culture/mysticism/rhetoric.
Really have to write my lecture now!
I don’t understand why, according to Mark, faith-based reality is post-modern in any degree. On the contrary, any and all faith-based programmes are absolutist.
So whether it’s the Pope and his god-given decree that abortion be banned or a Muslim’s call for women to cover-up, they are both pre-modern and intolerant dogmas, and only True for some in society.
Where post-modernism creeps in, is that for both the above ideologies to coexist, they must agree to live peacefully and respectfully of each other under the morally relatavist framework of liberal democracy.
That’s not to say that there cannot then arise the melding of values tending towards universalism as adherents of each creed slowly match their interpretations of their sacred texts to dissolve difference. This is the democratic process. In fact this Modernism is vital, for there needs to be a permanent tendency for side by side ideologies to merge, otherwise the tensions build and lead to techtonic warfare.
We are unlikely to go to war over stem-cell research today, but eventually common ground must emerge otherwise as we have witnessed with the bombings of abortion clinics patience runs out.
In the case of Fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics, our Modernist system classifies them as criminals and strictly disallows their viewpoint. Rightly.
From my link, above:
Mark: …I am heartened by Benedict‚Äôs campaign for truth, while respectively disagreeing that he has the whole truth on some aspects of moral theology.
Leftist relativism.
‘He’ isn’t espousing these truths. They are the truths of the ecclesium, discerned and affirmed by the sensus fidelium, founded on both Scripture and Tradition. They are infallible. Say credo and accept them or acknowledge you are no longer a Catholic. Simple.
In the case of Fundamentalists who require their women to cover themselves and abstain from worldy pursuits, our Modernist system classifies them as criminals and strictly disallows their viewpoint. Rightly.
Deport Muslims along with abortion clinic bombers.
“either wahabbism is true to Islam or it isn‚Äôt.”
Well, let’s say it isn’t then. It certainly isn’t for Shiites. And there’s more of them, so there. How you can say that the “terrorist version of Islam” is correct is insulting to nearly everybody. So well done there.
wbb, to clarify - I mean “faith-based reality” in the sense of the Bushies - ie disdain for those who live in a “reality based community” and a desire to reshape reality discursively and materially if it doesn’t fit their project. As demonstrated here.
Wahhabism originated in Saudi arabia and was encouraged by the House of Saud as something that propped up their rule (as it still is). It’s still encouraged by the House of Saud. It’s very much a minority interpretation among Sunnis, and the salient point is that it ignores - in a fundamentalist way - centuries of Islamic religious interpretation of the scriptures.
C.L., our “Modernist system” condemns people for crimes not their opinions. Or at least it should.
I’ve mentioned a number of times that I have some work to do today and can’t monitor this thread closely. Accordingly, as on another couple of occasions, if you start making general statements directed against whole groups such as “Deport Muslims”, I’ll close it down and you can debate that somewhere else. But I won’t allow such statements to be made here.
Sorry, I should say on the Arabian peninsula because Saudi Arabia as a state is an artifact of British Imperialism in the 20th century. The House of Saud were contending for hegemony in the 18th century and it was at that stage that they supported the invention of Wahhabism.
Commenting on the run.
Mark, I always said you were lecturous!
you now admit sheepishly there is no catholic doctrine to justify IRA acts.Good.
It is a wonder my good friend CL didn’t jump down your throat on this.
wbb,
Wahibbism is much truer to Islam that the shia version in my view. It is the terrorist form of Islam.
Truth hurts sometimes. So there!
Go tell it on the mountain, Homer.
And while you’re at it you can tell all the Catholics in Europe, Africa and South America that papism distorts Christianity
Mark: wbb implied a feature of Modernism was that community consensus rendered particular things criminal, quite aside from what any religious dogma had to say about them. He rightly instanced abortion clinic bombings. Illegal - end of story. I added - also rightly - that it is illegal to force women to cover themselves and abstain from worldly pursuits. (Not opinions in Islam but actuality). It’s very easily argued that people who come to this country with every intention of ignoring such laws have no business being here. Even a few columnists at the Age have now said as much. It says a lot about the confused relativism of the Australian left that the statement of an orthodox feminist doctrine can now lead to a thread discussion being shut down. Another notch on the bedhead of Wahibbism.
C.L., my apologies, I hadn’t read wbb’s comment.
No Liam you have it wrong it is mohammed that has to go to the mountain
Oh dear, if Homer starts in on the puns, that’s reason enough to close a thread surely?!!
Homer: I stayed out of the IRA=Islamism comparison because it was self-evidently flawed. I paid Mark the intellectual courtesy of presuming it was a hastily grappled demonstration of a point he’d make more clearly if not pressed for time.
Liam demonstrates my point about leftist relativism. Viz:
Benedict of lyrical environmentism and anti-capitalism: good.
Benedict insistent about sexuality not being a free-for-all: bad.
C.L., I’d take Benedict seriously on sexual morality. That’s not to say I’d agree with all of what he says, or indeed with the consensum fidelium on this. But I guess I’m a heretic! However, I’d like some Catholic righties (not you, I hasten to add) to take Catholic social teaching on topics such as peace, war and justice seriously as well.
Where’d I say that CL?
All I was doing was needling Homer about the way he seems to know the ‘truths’ about religions just by having a read of their holy books.
To be honest, though, this
Pretty much sums up my views.
You didn’t have to say it for me to see what was in your heart my son.
Go now - to love and serve the Lord.
Say credo and accept them or acknowledge you are no longer a Catholic. - CL
Another notch on the bedhead of Wahhabist Catholicism.
Liam and mark are jealous that I am a funny guy!
Nothing to do with Wahhabism, William. Just a statement of fact: if a Catholic doesn’t believe in the truths espoused by the ecclesium and the pope and bishops united as episcopal college, he or she is no longer a Catholic. To argue otherwise is precisely the relativism Benedict deplores.
That’s not true, C.L. You don’t cease to be in communion with the Church by dissenting from its teachings. It may be that you’re not a good Catholic, but you’re a Catholic. To argue in this way is a narrow legalism contrary to the Christian faith.
You don’t cease to be in communion with the Church by dissenting from its teachings.
One cannot dissent from dogma and the teaching authority of the epsicopal college and in any meaningful way remain a Catholic. A person in such a situation would be a mere fetishist: likes the art, likes the chant, likes the company, likes the view at Our Lady of Victories, likes old Fr Quinncannon, whatever.
For example, a man cannot ‘marry’ another man in Canada and, with him, adopt an IVF baby - created after a veritable holocaust of embryonic bio-externalities (deaths) - and call yourself a Catholic just because you believe in Jesus. You would no longer be in communion with the Church and - as Benedict himself would counsel - you could not and should not approach the altar for communion.
This is not legalism. It is akin to the ‘fraternal correction’ used by monks in medieval times (and still, for all I know): the reprimand is for your own good. The truth shall set you free, said the Lord. Ergo, falsehood will enslave you and the Church can’t allow that because she loves you. It’s a very grown-up nuance - lost on the whiners of the ultra-libertarian/utilitarian right and the relativistic/eogistic left.
The via media - the middle way (not in the Blairian/Clintonian sense) - is the trail Benedict is sure to blaze.
Theologically unsound, C.L. I’m sorry I don’t have time to elaborate.
Wahhabism originated in Saudi arabia and was encouraged by the House of Saud as something that propped up their rule (as it still is).
I thought Wahhabism was the response of what was, until the mid-1970’s hike in oil prices, basically still a medieval desert kingdom. With the availability of hugely inflated oil revenues, traditional Saudi morality was appalled at the growth of materialism, decadence and degeneracy it associated with the west, and sought to defend itself by a retreat to a pre-modern, medieval pure ideal.
(Only commented to see if my gravatar works. If it does, that long streak of a man waving is arms about is Wilhelm Furtwangler, non-pareil among conductors.)
Theologically factual. By dissent you’re thinking of non-dogmatic teachings which are still ‘in play’ in the Newmanesque sense. The faiths and dogma of the Church - always taught by its bishops in unison with the pope and founded on SS - are not ‘in play’ and never will be.
No, C.L., I’m talking about the pastoral question of who is and is not a Catholic. An excommunicated person doesn’t cease to be one, by the way, which is a point that Cardinal Ratzinger has made repeatedly in his previous capacity. I suggest you do as I’ve done and make an extensive study of Ratzinger’s theology. It might broaden your mind.
Rob, nice gravatar.
That’s a reasonable comment about the way that Wahabbism gathered strength, but not its proximate origins.
I’m off for the afternoon. See you!
I’m pretty sure I’ve read more on and of Ratzinger than most other people Mark. That’s why I know you’ll struggle to present him as an apologist for a liberal take on relativism and much else besides. This cherry-picking project is contrived and contrary to the holistic vision of truth and its espousal which is such an important part of Pope Ratzinger’s theological ouevre. I’m perplexed by your willingness to bowdlerise same by reference to neo-cons and George Bush. You’re trying to ‘own’ him politically and it just won’t work. Arivoir.
C.L., with all respect, I think it’s you who’s cherry-picking Ratzinger for your own political agenda. I have no desire to “own” him - rather I’m very interested in his theological and epistemological position which I’ve noted is complex and nuanced. I made it clear that I intended to write something substantive on that at a later period of time. This post was written quickly, and I’m really just using him as a starting point for ruminations of my own - though I do think the citations for him are to the point.
I have no clear picture of what you mean by “a liberal take on relativism”. That’s a very confusing form of words. I’ve lost interest in scoring partisan points in comments, so I’m not inclined to respond.
All I will say - as my last word - is that Benedict would like people to be attracted to Catholicism because of the joy and beauty it encompasses. I’ll leave it to others to judge whether your style of pronouncing anathemas and judging whole religions as intrinsically evil is attractive or not.
Popper would be on wbb’s side, though.
I have no clear picture of what you mean by “a liberal take on relativism.”
You, further above.
His opponents - the relativists - are now the right wing postmodern Bushies and neocons.
I don’t want to have a thread disagreement either but this, self-evidently, is total nonsense. The truth is Ratzinger thinks in decades and couldn’t give a beret’s pop-pom about George W. Bush. This is what I mean about caricaturing Benedict as liberal hero. And I made no prouncements of anathema. I quoted the Pope himself who “condemned divorce, artificial birth control, trial marriages and free-style unions, saying all of these practices were dangerous for the family” and “fake.”
And if the Pope won’t call Islam a religion of peace, there’s certainly no reason for me to do so. Not, for example, in light of the so-called Sheikh on 60 Minutes who told his male congregants in Sydney to commit assault and battery on women. (For which he should have been charged and deported).
Evil? Absolutely.
C.L., I’m too tired tonight to respond in detail. However, I think you’ve mistaken my intention, though perhaps I wasn’t sufficiently clear. I think the problem of what we might call “symbolic politics” and perhaps the politics of reality goes beyond just the right, and is indeed a symptom of a relativism that is broadly cultural. One could just as easily look at Clinton or Blair in this context. However, the Bushies are the ones with all the power in the world at this time, and the most dangerous.
More pragmatically, I think you’ll find that Benedict’s politics will be welcomed by the right on “culture of life” issues, but not on issues of economics and war. That’s when we’ll hear all sorts of qualifications from those who are ultramontanists in other spheres.
On the question of anathemas, I was referring to your belief that you can read people out of the Catholic Church so blithely.
As to your Sixty Minutes sheikh, he proves nothing about Islam.
Sydney Morning Herald, today calls the IRA a “Roman Catholic paramilitary group.”
Surely it wasn’t Catholic mysticism, but Irish nationalist romanticism that formed the theoretical armature of the PIRA in the 70s?
The SMH must be picking up bad habits by extension.
As to the question, Mark, the two would be almost impossible to separate in practice. Try analysing - to give another example - how much of Polish nationalism under Communism was religious and how much secular.
For one thing, there’s no living tradition of Protestant Irish nationalism. In fact, there’s more warrant for describing the Protestant parties and paramilitaries as such - because of the extremely politicised religious tradition which dates back to the pre-1922 days when Northern Irish Protestants were a conscious minority in Ireland as a whole. Many of their strategies, and myths, are still those of a minority group.
I discussed this at greater length here.
This goes to the heart of my point, which appears to have been missed amidst quibbles and theological excursus.
In a condition (usually brought about by colonialism or imperialism of one type or other) where there is no democratic public sphere (see my link above for the argument regarding Ireland) nationalist opposition will manifest itself within religious movements, or be heavily entwined with religious imagery and culture.
The fact that there is no explicit Catholic doctrine cited by the IRA in recent times (though perhaps I’m being too rash in conceding this - it’s a while since I’ve done extensive reading on it) bolsters the point. So too are the Islamic precepts alleged to support terrorism distortions of that religion.
There were Catholic clerics in Ireland, too, up to the 80s who would condone and justify nationalist violence, for reasons which had little to do with the substance of the Catholic faith.
More on Benedict’s views on Islam here.
I wonder what subliminable messages are transmitted by Mark’s gravatar?
I don’t know, Kim, but if they’re only subliminable does that mean they could be subliminal but choose not to be?
Possibly, Liam. I was quoting George W. Bush. Subliminable was one of his coinages in the 2000 election campaign.
However, he may not have thought it through to the same degree!
IRA and Excommunication
It’s important in the discussion regarding IRA and Catholicism that IRA members were excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Therefore, regardless of what specific IRA members stated or media members wrote regarding the religous aspects of the “troubles”, the IRA was not backed by the Church.
While Islam does not have a heirarchy comparable to the Catholic Church, they do have Imams which are the faith’s teachers and leaders. It would seem that a majority of the Imams would declare a Fatwa against terrorism in the name of Islam.
I understand this is an older topic and post but I felt I needed to add my two-bits.
Karen Armstong is not an “Islamic Historian” she is an apologist for Islam.
Violence in the bible was towards very specific people and a determined time in history.
Violence in the Koran is a directive for all time, eternity…huge difference….
In the first 150 years of Islam it invaded and went to war with 83 surrounding kingdoms, simply for not converting to Islam.
Yes, I am a historian of Islam and I honestly can’t believe some of the comments I have seen on this thread.
Yes I have studied Islamic doctrin for my years.
Mark I would have to ask you where you are getting your info from on Islam and I would like to direct you to this article from Frontpage The Pope and Islam.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17772
Islamic law outlaws war against any country in which Muslims are allowed to practise their religion freely…
This is essentially a secular meta-law. It forbids discrimination on religious grounds. By allowing Muslims to practice their religion, it allows Jews and Christians to practise theirs, except it would outlaw theocratic Judaism and Christianity which demonize and outlaw Islam. By the same token it outlaws theocratic Islam.