Fresh from his comments thread denunciations of Islam, The Currency Lad is now seeking a pontifical blessing for his views, and attacking a few straw cultural stereotypes along the way. Referring to Pope Benedict’s talk to Muslim representatives in Germany, C.L. makes this sweeping statement:
By paraphrasing in the header a famous maxim about the power of Rome, what dispute am I suggesting Pope Benedict has finalised, by example if not decree? Simply the question of whether there should ever be a direct linkage made in public discourse between terrorism and one particular religion. The chauvinists of cultural equivalency still insist no comment on Islam be allowed into the agora unaccompanied by a Borgia. To anyone paying attention, this has now become officially silly.
You’d actually be hard pressed if you read the (short) text of Benedict’s remarks to find in it the “linkage” C.L. claims. But I’m unaware that there is a taboo on mentioning that distortions of Islam - political Islamism - which do have religious and political roots are associated with terrorism. And since I agree with the Pope, and C.L., that truth should be the basis for dialogue, I’ll reproduce the text beneath the fold, and let readers judge whether C.L.’s putative ally in white said anything that will bear the weight C.L. wishes to place on it for his own political reasons.
Dear Muslim Friends!
It gives me great joy to be able to be with you and to offer you my heartfelt greetings. I have come here to meet young people from every part of Europe and the world. Young people are the future of humanity and the hope of the nations. My beloved predecessor, Pope John Paul II, once said to the young Muslims assembled in the stadium at Casablanca (Morocco): “The young can build a better future if they first put their faith in God and if they pledge themselves to build this new world in accordance with God’s plan, with wisdom and trust” (”Insegnamenti,” VIII/2, 1985, p. 500). It is in this spirit that I turn to you, dear Muslim friends, to share my hopes with you and to let you know of my concerns at these particularly difficult times in our history.
I am certain that I echo your own thoughts when I bring up as one of our concerns the spread of terrorism. Terrorist activity is continually recurring in various parts of the world, sowing death and destruction, and plunging many of our brothers and sisters into grief and despair. Those who instigate and plan these attacks evidently wish to poison our relations, making use of all means, including religion, to oppose every attempt to build a peaceful, fair and serene life together.
Terrorism of any kind is a perverse and cruel decision which shows contempt for the sacred right to life and undermines the very foundations of all civil society. If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress towards world peace. The task is difficult but not impossible. The believer knows that, despite his weakness, he can count on the spiritual power of prayer.
Dear friends, I am profoundly convinced that we must not yield to the negative pressures in our midst, but must affirm the values of mutual respect, solidarity and peace. The life of every human being is sacred, both for Christians and for Muslims. There is plenty of scope for us to act together in the service of fundamental moral values. The dignity of the person and the defense of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavor and of every effort to bring it to fruition. This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. It is a message which must be heeded and communicated to others: Should it ever cease to find an echo in peoples’ hearts, the world would be exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism. Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.
During my meeting last April with the delegates of Churches and Christian communities and with representatives of the various religious traditions, I affirmed that “the Church wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions, in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole” (L’Osservatore Romano, 25 April 2005, p. 4). Past experience teaches us that relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding. How many pages of history record battles and even wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the name of God, as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity. The defense of religious freedom, in this sense, is a permanent imperative and respect for minorities is a clear sign of true civilization.
In this regard, it is always right to recall what the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council said about relations with Muslims. “The Church looks upon Muslims with respect. They worship the one God living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to humanity and to whose decrees, even the hidden ones, they seek to submit themselves wholeheartedly, just as Abraham, to whom the Islamic faith readily relates itself, submitted to God. … Although considerable dissensions and enmities between Christians and Muslims may have arisen in the course of the centuries, the Council urges all parties that, forgetting past things, they train themselves towards sincere mutual understanding and together maintain and promote social justice and moral values as well as peace and freedom for all people” (declaration “Nostra Aetate,” No. 3).
You, my esteemed friends, represent some Muslim communities from this country where I was born, where I studied and where I lived for a good part of my life. That is why I wanted to meet you. You guide Muslim believers and train them in the Islamic faith. Teaching is the vehicle through which ideas and convictions are transmitted. Words are highly influential in the education of the mind. You, therefore, have a great responsibility for the formation of the younger generation. As Christians and Muslims, we must face together the many challenges of our time. There is no room for apathy and disengagement, and even less for partiality and sectarianism. We must not yield to fear or pessimism. Rather, we must cultivate optimism and hope.
Interreligious and intercultural dialogue between Christians and Muslims cannot be reduced to an optional extra. It is in fact a vital necessity, on which in large measure our future depends. Young people from many parts of the world are here in Cologne as living witnesses of solidarity, brotherhood and love. They are the first fruits of a new dawn for humanity. I pray with all my heart, dear Muslim friends, that the merciful and compassionate God may protect you, bless you and enlighten you always. May the God of peace lift up our hearts, nourish our hope and guide our steps on the paths of the world.
Not directly on topic, but close enough: Papa Ratzi reckons we’re the most crap Christians on the globe.
Jeez, he makes it sound like a bad thing…
Sorry Papa, but this ex-Mick is girt by pride.
Singing:
STR…
AYA..
Straya!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pope-singles-out-faithless-australia/2005/08/21/1124562753623.html
The Popes statement : ”past experience teaches us that relations between Christians and Muslims have not always been marked by mutual respect and understanding”:
This is a point which moderates on both sides would appreciate in the historical context and a beginning for understanding.
” as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.”
Surely this a reminder of the political Borgias now on both sides of the extremist fence, one which says ”evil doers/death to the axis of evil” and the other says ” death to the unbeliever”
” The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other‚Äôs identity.”
CL and many others, prima facie, do not seek reconciliation as they seemingly frame Islam in a ‘Huntingdon Clash of Civilisations’ only. As for respect, we get statements such as ”Islam is inherently violent” , “emigrate to Iran” , ” stoning women to death at the drop of a hat” and in terms of unsubtle dialogue “anybody who doesn’t see it my way is a moron” which goes rather too close for comfort to ”you are either with us or against us”.
Far from reinforcing CL’s
”…example if not decree? Simply the question of whether there should ever be a direct linkage made in public discourse between terrorism and one particular religion”:
I think a strong case can be made that it argues that the version of ‘Currency Catholicism’ espoused, is part of the problem, and not the beginning solution of dialogue that Pope Ratzinger is calling for.
You’re not reading the ‘text’, Mark.
See “forest, trees. (etc)”
Pope meets Muslim leaders, discusses terrorism.
Get it?
A nuanced thing this papal diplomacy. Not so nuanced in this case. Benedict also chose not to visit a mosque, as he did a synagogue. Asked if he’d call Islam the “Religion of Peace” last month, he refused. By such means - as well as by telling a denomination’s leaders what their responsibilities are regarding the education of their own youth - very strong assertions are made.
The BBC’s David Willey, travelling with the pope:
The “linkage” I was referring to is a now acceptable public discourse wherein Islam is specifically associated with the problem of terrorism, however sensitively. This is a marked change from the recent past.
Really, though, someone who has literally appropriated the identity of the pope - and who has regularly attributed to him carefully selected political notions - shouldn’t be so bold as to criticise others at all.
——–
Other right-wingers who ‘got it’:
The New York Times:
Pope Urges Muslims to Confront Terrorism.
The Associated Press:
Pope Urges More Muslims to Fight Terror.
The Washington Post:
Pope Urges Muslims to Fight Terrorism.
The Melbourne Age:
The World Peace Herald:
Pope urges Muslims to combat terrorism.
The Chicago Sun-Times:
Pope implores Muslim leaders to fight terrorism.
———
You left out of your coverage of my post the following:
You also failed to mention the opening remarks about the irony of our PM being criticised — here at LP, by some - for meeting with moderate Muslims, when that’s exactly what the pope himself has just chosen to do.
But if you want to see a sweeping distortion wherein a Catholic cedes to even Republican protestants the far more Benedictine view of life, go here.
As the Guardian is reporting just now - probably as part of its famously right-wing political agenda - the departing Pope has made “an uncompromising warning that Catholics must strictly follow the church’s teachings” and said that “Christians should not choose the bits of doctrine they liked and ignore the rest.”
Note bene.
Meantime, the position of the Church on the Iraqi war is plain to see for its split between Catholic neo-conservatives and the Pontiffs per:
http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_08_29/article.html
”As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war‚Äô does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The then-cardinal‚Äôs remarks also suggested that the United Nations, rather than George W. Bush, would be the proper public authority to decide upon war with Iraq: “the United Nations … should make the final decision,” he said. “It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power.””
One can readily surmise from this that the ‘Borgias’ of modern times will remain on the periphery of the Catholic mainstream.
Shorter C.L. - my spin is the same as the media’s and no one has the right to criticise me.
And CL’s publicly unacceptable underlying discourse, highly distinguishable from Ratzinger’s, is that ALL MUSLIMS are collectively responsible for ‘terrorism’.
So stupid as to constitute capitulation.
Thanks for coming.
He meant what he said and he said what he meant. What that is is as plain as a pikestaff. He associated terrorism with that aspect of islam which refuses to accord non-Muslims the dignity of their beliefs. Then he told them how THEY had to change Islam. Then he told them what they will become if they do not. All couched very diplomatically - after a couple of millennia, the Vatican is good at that, hence the exquisitely measured weighing of words.
“The dignity of the person and the defense of the rights which that dignity confers must represent the goal of every social endeavor and of every effort to bring it to fruition. This message is conveyed to us unmistakably by the quiet but clear voice of conscience. It is a message which must be heeded and communicated to others: Should it ever cease to find an echo in peoples‚Äô hearts, the world would be exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism. Only through recognition of the centrality of the person can a common basis for understanding be found, one which enables us to move beyond cultural conflicts and which neutralizes the disruptive power of ideologies.”
It is quite plain that Pope Benedict is preparing the ground for the worst, while working hard for a better solution than ‘the worst’. It is also plain that while he continues the efforts of John Paul II, he does not rate their chances of success highly. So, in the heart of Germany, he is plainly telling a papal mass congregation of nearly a million people that we may well wind up being “exposed to the darkness of a new barbarism”.
The logical corollary is obvious. And the decks are being cleared for action, if (and only if) that becomes necessary through either the action OR the inaction of others.
BTW, when WAS the last time a secular leader in the West got a live audience say, 20% of the size Benedict just spoke to?
We live in interesting times indeed!
MarkL
Canberra
Shorter MarkL, the Pope said to all those wicked Muslims, in the well known style of Vatican diplomacy crafted over centuries:
“F*** off.”
MarkL, actually the address which you quote selectively from was given to a small meeting of Islamic leaders, not to the Mass at World Youth Day.
And there’s no question of diplomatic dissembling - his remarks plainly do not carry the connotations that you and C.L. wish to place on them. Indeed, there’s not a lot in them with which I would disagree, despite having a very radically opposed view to yours.
The quotation from Nostra Aetate was well chosen.
Given that I, and no doubt Peter, would also agree that Islamic leaders have a duty to educate people so as not to support terrorism, it’s very hard to see where C.L.’s claims of some sort of taboo being broken by the Pontiff are grounded. It’s very clear that Benedict imposes a similar duty on himself. And also very clear that he doesn’t stigmatise “Islam” per se as terrorist, as C.L., repeatedly does, when not openly claiming that Islam is the work of the devil or like epithets. Rather, Benedict, properly, seeks to find common ground between the two faiths, which is a much more productive practice, and one that respects the norms of truth he enunciates.
I wasn’t obliged to quote your whole post, C.L. - it’s open for people to read it through the link. I did find it interesting that you have to more or less ignore Benedict’s actual words and refer repeatedly to context, and I also point out in this context, as you know, since we’ve had this debate here at LP, that you conveniently omit the whole of Benedict’s previous remarks - always the positive ones he makes about Islam, and his other statements which make it clear as the sky that he sees Islam as a faith with much to offer.
Well, it seems Papal statements present enough interpretative problems for commentators here. So, how are you going with Islam, CL and MarkL? Struggling a bit? You guys seemed pretty confident about the basics in earlier posts.
Im wise enough to admit I know little about it.
Oh let me be cynicial and nuanced too.
I have no problem with the Pope speaking with the “nuanced lexicon of high diplomacy” (thanks for the translation Peter Kemp!) and I am not sure why the fuss over C.L.’s post (if I get it, because C.L. sometimes writes above my poor little head, although I am a bit surprised C.L. had never heard the term ‘judaizing’ even though it has been used by Christian theologians in various contexts, never mind Hitler’s twisted thinking).
So nice that B16 didn’t visit a mosque, or kiss a Koran like his predecessor and read the riot act to Muslim teachers. I hope the statement:
refers to Christians worshipping the one God, because no self-respecting Christian will claim that Muslims and Chrisitans worship the same God, just as no self-respecting Muslim would say the same.
Doesn’t mean we can’t live together. We do alright in my neighbourhood. But I can’t share his optimism that
unless it is so couched in nuance that I’ve missed the point (perhaps I am supposed to allegorize Christ into non-existence)
Still, while I hang my hat on the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are just ordinary people who want to get on with their lives, earn a living and raise their families with various degrees of committment and understanding of their faith, and I will encourage and support any peaceful efforts by Muslims or others to curb the fanatics in their midst, I am not holding my breath.
And I am surprised that Christians - of the Currency variety or otherwise - don’t recognise their own contribution to this sorry state of affairs. And I am not talking Crusades here; well maybe.
Ironically, most of the “common ground” the Vatican has been seeking to build on with Islam (including in international fora) relates to bio-ethical, gender-sensitive and sexual doctrines - which doctrines liberal Catholics reject.
I’ve never said Islam is “terrorist” but that violence inheres in it - as, of course, it inheres in humanity. Other religions, however - either by their efforts or by their relatively quiescent natures - are not presently associated with the problem of terrorism on the scale we’re seeing within and around Islam. That is why a great many voices - many of them Muslim - have called for and demanded a reformation within Islam.
As for the words: imagine the most senior Imam of Mecca visiting the Vatican and giving an address on child sexual abuse - filled with references to ’shared problems’ and ‘joint responsibilities’ etc.
How would you read that? One of your favourite sayings, Mark, used to be “for those with eyes to see…”
Here’s how Ratzinger characterised the thinking of Islam today:
He also noted,
Don’t fall into the ultramonist trap, Mark. Benedict is a wonderful man but on these sort of religio-social and political questions, he is exceedingly fallible. The Vatican - and evidently Benedict himself - admires the capacity of Islam to influence and direct people holistically and morally. As a liberal Catholic, you really should be asking yourself if you want the Catholicism/Islam “common ground” project to go on. Me, I’m a Mannixian Gallican and always have been. I am completely loyal to Roman authority in essentials only. On everything else, the Vatican is not necessarily to be trusted or relied upon.
As for my view that Islam is a false religion: of course it is! I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that the deposit of revelation ended with Him. Islam is a phenomenon to me, that is all. Muslims feel the same way about Christianity, else they’d convert. I bet any money there’d be more mutual respect between me and most believing Muslims than there’d be between most believing Muslims and secularist tolerance mystics. The latter, of course, would be regarded by them as vaguely pathetic.
I have nothing further to add. Except to say that I regard your argument about what Benedict’s speech meant to be precisely the kind of context-free literalism you would otherwise criticise as simplistic.
When John XXIII met Nikita Khrushchev’s son-in-law - Alexei Adjubei - in 1963, the words of the tete-a-tete were of no interest to anyone. It was the where, the when, the why: John was reaching out to the USSR as part of his foolish Ostpolitic. That’s the way it was read by contemporaries. And they were right.
Saint: What I wrote was “Last night I came across a word you don’t see often: judaising.”
——–
Mark:
Ironically, most of the “common ground” the Vatican has been seeking to build on with Islam (including in international fora) relates to bio-ethical, gender-sensitive and sexual doctrines - which doctrines liberal Catholics reject.
I’ve never said Islam is “terrorist” but that violence inheres in it - as, of course, it inheres in humanity. Other religions, however - either by their efforts or by their relatively quiescent natures - are not presently associated with the problem of terrorism on the scale we’re seeing within and around Islam. That is why a great many voices - many of them Muslim - have called for and demanded a reformation within Islam.
As for the words: imagine the most senior Imam of Mecca visiting the Vatican and giving an address on child sexual abuse - filled with references to ’shared problems’ and ‘joint responsibilities’ etc.
How would you read that? One of your favourite sayings, Mark, used to be “for those with eyes to see…”
Here’s how Ratzinger characterised the thinking of Islam today:
He also noted,
Don’t fall into the ultramonist trap, Mark. Benedict is a wonderful man but on these sort of religio-social and political questions, he is exceedingly fallible. The Vatican - and evidently Benedict himself - admires the capacity of Islam to influence and direct people holistically and morally. As a liberal Catholic, you really should be asking yourself if you want the Catholicism/Islam “common ground” project to go on. Me, I’m a Mannixian Gallican and always have been. I am completely loyal to Roman authority in essentials only. On everything else, the Vatican is not necessarily to be trusted or relied upon.
As for my view that Islam is a false religion: of course it is! I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that the deposit of revelation ended with Him. Islam is a phenomenon to me, that is all. Muslims feel the same way about Christianity, else they’d convert. I bet any money there’d be more mutual respect between me and most believing Muslims than there’d be between most believing Muslims and secularist tolerance mystics. The latter, of course, would be regarded by them as vaguely pathetic.
I have nothing further to add. Except to say that I regard your argument about what Benedict’s speech meant to be precisely the kind of context-free literalism you would otherwise criticise as simplistic.
When John XXIII met Nikita Khrushchev’s son-in-law - Alexei Adjubei - in 1963, the words of the tete-a-tete were of no interest to anyone. It was the where, the when, the why: John was reaching out to the USSR as part of his foolish Ostpolitic. That’s the way it was read by contemporaries. And they were right.
Saint: What I wrote was “Last night I came across a word you don’t see often: judaising.” I didn’t say I hadn’t come across it.
Kim: What Nostra Aetate said was this: “The Church also has a high regard for the Muslims, who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth.” (NA3). Monotheism is not the same thing as belief in [A] one God and NA stops short of saying so. Baath argued Islam instilled in its followers the “esoteric essence” of ‘monotheism.’ Karl Rahner did much to solidify the fluid edges of inter-religious dialogue but, vis-a-vis Islam and other religions, regarded Christianity “as the absolute religion, intended for all men.” Hans Kung hoped Islam too would embrace textual criticism and deconstruction and that an “historicocritical study of the holy book will eventually be allowed to become a reality.” (What Salman Rushdie is advocating now and which LP’s religion peanut gallery dismissed last week). Your characterisation of NA as having infallibly decided the definitional theology of God vis-a-vis Islam is completely wrong. The conclusion you anticipate will only be conceivable in dogmatic terms following the Muslim acceptance of a ‘higher criticism.’
Fyodorene: Muslim homosexual shouldn’t be listened to, eh? I say Imams should be educated properly so Islam doesn’t continue to mistreat women. So does this woman. Go on, sledge her too.
Mark: Ironically, most of the “common ground” the Vatican has been seeking to build on with Islam (including in international fora) relates to bio-ethical, gender-sensitive and sexual doctrines - which doctrines liberal Catholics reject.
I’ve never said Islam is “terrorist” but that violence inheres in it - as, of course, it inheres in humanity. Other religions, however - either by their efforts or by their relatively quiescent natures - are not presently associated with the problem of terrorism on the scale we’re seeing within and around Islam. That is why a great many voices - many of them Muslim - have called for and demanded a reformation within Islam.
One of these Fyodor rejects because of her orientation, showing his own commitment to Taliban morality. (And revealing how he thinks Kim’s opinions get noticed).
As for the words of the Pope’s address: imagine the most senior Imam
of Mecca visiting the Vatican and giving an address on pedophilia -
filled with references to ’shared problems’ and ‘joint
responsibilities’ etc.
How would you read that? One of your favourite sayings, Mark, used to be “for those with eyes to see…”
Here’s how Ratzinger characterised the thinking of Islam today:
He also noted,
Don’t fall into the ultramonist trap, Mark. Benedict is a good man but on these sort of religio-social and political questions, he is exceedingly fallible. The Vatican - and evidently Benedict himself - admire the capacity of Islam to influence and direct people holistically and morally. As a liberal Catholic, you really should be asking yourself if you want the Catholicism/Islam “common ground” project to go on. Me, I’m a Mannixian Gallican and always have been. I am completely loyal to Roman authority in essentials only. On everything else, the Vatican is not necessarily to be trusted or relied upon. I argued B got it right at the weekend; that he got it wrong on that 7/7 terrorism communique.
As for my view that Islam is a false religion: of course it is! I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God and that the deposit of revelation ended with Him. (Catholic doctrine). Islam is a phenomenon to me, that is all. Muslims feel the same way about Christianity, else they’d convert. I bet any money there’d be more mutual respect between me and most believing Muslims than there’d be between most believing Muslims and secularist tolerance mystics. The latter, of course, would be regarded by them as vaguely pathetic.
What is the point of your hysterical reminder about me saying I’d break the seal of the confessional to save a child’s life? Of course I would. Post about it, shout it from the church-tops if you like. I’d rather be an excommunicated man than a priest in ‘good odour’ who stank to the high heavens.
As regards being “ashamed of his successor”, that was - as you know (but left out) - in relation to a decision be the Holy See not to name Israel as a state affected by terrorism. I stand by my denunciation of that typical act of Vaticanological cowardice.
Finally, your argument about what Benedict’s speech meant is precisely the kind of context-free literalism you would otherwise criticise as simplistic.
When John XXIII met Nikita Khrushchev’s son-in-law - Alexei Adjubei - in 1963, the words of the tete-a-tete were of no interest to anyone. It was the where, the when, the why: John was reaching out to the USSR as part of his foolish Ostpolitic. That’s the way it was read by contemporaries. And they were right.
WBB says Muslims aren’t terorists. But most terrorists are Muslims - a fact only the infantile deny. It is the
Rushdies, Manjis (just a lesbo, but hey…) and Abdulhalims that we should encourage. The political left isn’t doing so. Out of spite.
The shorter Mark: “The pope agrees with all of my views.”
saint, as to why people might get steamed up about C.L.’s views on these matters, try two things. For a start, what might charitably be called selectivity. On this thread, C.L. reports (why?) Benedict’s statement that Catholics should abide by all Catholic teachings and not pick and choose - and writes “Nota Bene”. He’s at one point tried to tell me I’m a heretic or something and can’t call myself a Catholic. But on a thread on his own blog, he - in the context of a discussion about pedophilia - has indicated that if he were a priest he wouldn’t respect the seal of the confessional under some circumstances. With regard to what he portrays as Benedict’s views on Islam, he sounds some sort of warning to some of us to take note. But when it comes to Benedict and the Vatican’s views on the Palestinian situation and the policies of the Israeli state, he sings a very different tune.
He goes on to accuse the Vatican of being a potential root cause of terror.
C.L.’s take on Catholicism seems both very political and very inconsistent.
More broadly, C.L.’s total inability to accept that “Islam” per se can’t be equated with terrorism is seemingly more entrenched than that of any other blogger of whom I’m aware. And statements like this one are not isolated:
According to C.L., Islam is a cult, and Islam is false and evil. I totally disagree and reject those statements in the strongest terms. No wonder C.L. can’t bring himself to write anything about the quote from Vatican II that Benedict cites. No wonder C.L. wilfully ignores previous statements by Benedict about Islam being a real response to spiritual hunger. No wonder many of us think that C.L.’s views on Islam are hardly measured and in the spirit of truth which Benedict refers to. Given C.L.’s repeated characterisation of Islam in the most derogatory possible terms, and his utter failure to make any distinction between Islam and political Islamism, there’s a lot of context in his implied claim that the Pope is on his side.
As another Catholic on this thread, I would also dissociate myself from C.L.’s statements.
The term “Judaiser” - which C.L. spins an unlikely web from, and which features in the bit of his post he wants to draw attention to - was also used (or its Latin cognate was) to demonise Conversos and Marranos by the Spanish Inquisition when they were marked for persecution, execution or expulsion.
It has a long history and many nuances.
For a historian, C.L.’s comments and posts on history are very short on history and nuances.
It’s sad.
Are you trying to emulate the 9th century Martyrs of Cordoba, C.L.? It’s ill advised and inopportune.
To explain, Conversos were forcibly converted Jews and Marranos their descendants. The choice the Catholic Reconquista gave them in Spain in the 15th Century was usually baptism or death.
saint, the statement from Vatican II you refer to does indicate that the Council held that Christians and Muslims worshipped the same God. I guess C.L. is indulging in some “pick and choose Catholicism” by denying the teaching of the Ecumenical Council.
Back to the previous thread and comment by Amir, he has an article in the Age opinion section this morning which explains the Howard plan for wedging the Islamic community. Good to see the MSM print it, saves us some blog time.
So Amir is that Amir?
I’d like to draw attention to an excellent article he wrote recently on a subject that generated some heat right here at LP.
Sorry, late into this one. Not sure what’s more banal: Benny’s statement or Lassie’s hijacking of it. At least the Pope means well.
Meanwhile, this will probably strike the credulists as somewhat perverse of me, but is anyone else really damned proud to be Australian after hearing our country pronounced as the most “godless” on Earth? I had to have a cold shower and a few Boody Marys after hearing that from Benny over the Hill. C’mon, Aussie!
I believe its the same guy Rob, the arguments presented on the last thread and the Age are very similiar.
Like Lefty E., I don’t know enough about Islam to pontificate (!) about it; but this guy writing today in the Oz seemed to make sense and his take on it is not a million miles from C.L.’s position.
That dude looks like a lady, Rob. Manji’s quite famous in Canada as a critic of orthodox Islam. That fact that she’s also a lesbian probably gets her a bit more notoriety. I’m kinda surprised you haven’t brought her up before: she’s a RWDB’s delight, and eventually gets a run on most Muslim-bashing blogs. Which is probably not her preferred audience.
I always thought that it was the same god, but Jesus was a prophet in Islam, not the saviour as in Christianity. I think you may find Saint that a lot of self respecting Muslims would see Allah and God as one and the same.
First time I’ve run across her. What do you think of her arguments, though, Fyodor, as opposed to her profile?
Should have prefaced that comment with ‘Oops’.
Her arguments? That letter’s not a great example, as it’s more of an incoherent spray, and not very constructive. I think the letter to The Australian also reinforces a common view of Manji, which is that her real talent is self-promotion rather than intellectual depth.
That said, while her enthusiasm for a more liberal Islam causes her to attribute - incorrectly, IMO - all manner of social, cultural, political and economic problems to orthodoxy, I think she’s pushing in the right direction. Liberalism good. Authoritarianism bad.
What Mindy said. Jews, Christian and Muslims all believe in the god of Abraham (or Avraham or Ibrahim). You know, that white-bearded patriarchal desert sky-god.
Fyodor - agreed… I girt myself in the flag for a rare moment of wide brown patriotism. See my earlier post.
Kim - good contribution, but let me schuttle your wind (ooh) with my footnote fetish: many, indeed most, Jews were expelled to North Africa after the reconquista, hence the Ladino Sephardic culture. (Sephardic = Spanish).
Look, we can all parse the current state of play in Islam for its 1 billion followers. If I was a muslim I’d probably support Manji’s views, but given I’m not, and given that we are in the middle of a very tense geo-political period where many people have thrown sense and restraint out the window, it is quite simply not the best time for complete outsiders to be offering free advice on this and that aspect of Islamic society.
Bottom line is the only reason all these discussions are taking place now is because of two or three bombings which impinged heavily on the Australian awareness.
If anybody is sincerely interested then they ought to constructively engage with their local muslim community. Otherwise we should stick to out knitting. The alternative is to provide forums for people like CL to play at messing up dangerously politics and religion - for what purpose- I don’t know - perhaps merely personal satisfaction.
At a time when everybody knows that bridges are urgently required, we cannot afford loud-mouths like CL to sit back and lob verbal grenades across the ideological ramparts. For what is the logical course of action to flow from his diatribes against Islam?
And CL is a paragon of moderation and enlightenment when compared to the radio announcers etc that we see on Media Watch etc.
It is not the time to offer up our post-feminist, post-god, liberal version of Islam. The subject here is not religion. The subject here is fear and suspicion.
It is the time to say loud and clear, muslims are not terrorists. It’s that simple.
Rob, thanks for the link to the Spiked site. I haven’t come across that before and it looks to have some interesting articles.
I’ve read a bit about Manji before and I agree with Fyodor’s summation on her article.
Other than that, I’m going to stay out of this particular argument.
I find it strange, wbb, that you don’t support Manji’s views from where you sit or stand now, but you would ‘if you were a Muslim’. What difference does it make? Did not being a Muslim constrain you from supporting Salman Rushdie in 1988, when radical Islam condemned him to death for writing a book? Did you step back then and say, ‘It’s nothing to do with me, leave it to the mullahs?’
I would have thought the best thing we can do, as non-Muslims, is to encourage the (Muslim) voices of moderation and reform - vocally and vigorously.
Sp!ked is a good site, Kate, though Mark regards it as right-wing compromised. It’s centrist and contrarian, which is a good thing in my book.
Well, I just read the pieces on abortion which were fairly feminist and lefty. (So maybe you should steer clear of those ones?)
That was a joke, BTW, about you steering clear of them. I wish there was a tone button on the internets. Tone: joking in a smart arse way.
I support Manji - or what little I know of her views (ie the Andrew Denton interview and the Lateline interview last night)- she’s got spiked hair, is obviously educated by a secular enlightenment university - ie her views probably ARE mine. So I do support her views.
What I was trying to say was that rather than let the issue of terrorism which if we are honest is what this is all about bleed out into a gratuitous appraisal of Islam by western commentators of all types we should refrain from critiquing Islam unless we have a stake in it. I do not.
The only religion I feel comfortable shitbagging is Christianity. And that’s becuase it was foisted upon me at an early age and I have the moral right to exact some revenge.
The state of Islam does not give us terrorists. The state of geopolitics in the Middle East and beoynd gives us terrorists. Ask the Russians. They know that whether it is Afghanistan or Chechnya, regardless of the views of the local imam, the locals do not submit to foreign influence very easily.
That said I do occasionally condemn the status of women for eg in say Afghanistan - but right now those issues are sadly like much else off the table. Iraq is busily enshrining Islamic law - the region is going backwards on that score - and even the Americans can see that that is just something they have to wear for the moment. We have intervened and caused a backlash.
Rob, thanks for formulating my views on that site for me in advance of my ever hearing of it. I’ll be sure to email you in future to find out what my opinion is before I do any thinking for myself.
And Lefty E, a slight correction in turn. The Jews of Granada were expelled three years after the Catholic Kings (Ferdinand and Isabella) took Cordoba but the decrees were issued as part of the attempts to negotiate terms for the surrender of the Kingdom of Granada - ie during the Reconquista.
And while we’re revisiting (if not revising) history, many of the Sephardic Jews found an economic and political haven in that bastion of religious tolerance, the Ottoman Empire.
Indeed they did, Fyodor. And any examination of pre and post Reconquista Spain shows that while the situation for Jews and Christians living under Islamic rule wasn’t perfect, it was a lot better than forced conversions, mass burnings of sacred texts, and indeed of people which accompanied it. And the racial ideology which held that being Islamic or Jewish was a stain that descended through generations, and the consequences thereof.
Thanks Mark.
Interestingly, it took another 30 years for some smaller-scale expulsions of Muslims (and some Moriscos - Christian converts from Islam) to take place; and even then it was far less strictly enforced by the Spanish crown.
Spanish Catholics were much more concerned about Jews once the reconquest was complete, in other words.
Quite so - the Ottoman Empire had sophisticated community laws requring respect of different traditions.
Its interesting, if you travel in Spain, you’ll note that Cerdo (Pork) appears uninvited in practically every second dish. Some Spaniards tell me they’re sure its an ideological legacy.
Why are my detailed replies being banned, Mark?
Lefty E
You might find this post at TSOGB on ensaymada interesting. Apart from working with Muslims to no ill effect, this is about the limts of my expertise on the topic.
C.L., have you heard of email?
There are no comments by you in moderation. If you’ve been trying to post a comment and it’s unsuccessful, and I’m not notified of it, then it’s the case that there is a word in your comment which is a common spam word and the comment is nuked immediately without anyone knowing about it. This was explained on an earlier post. I don’t have time to moderate 150 comments a day from spammers.
I find it astounding that you’d jump to the conclusion that your “detailed replies are being banned”. And I resent the implication that I would do this. A lot.
If you read the site, you’d also see that I’ve only got intermittent access to the internet today and your comment has just made a frustrating day more frustrating.
I suggest that if you can’t identify which word in the comment is causing the problem and modify it, you email your comment to Rob Corr (you will find his email address at Redrag - link in blogroll) if you don’t know it, and he can modify it and post it for you.
Unfortunately, I am not in a position today myself to attend to your commenting problems.
And I really do resent the implication that your comments are being “banned”.
Very interesting Anthony - I hadnt realised the level of intent behind the great post-1492 pork drive.
Test
Rob, thanks for formulating my views on that site for me in advance of my ever hearing of it.
Mark, I’m sure I remember you commenting on sp!ked to the effect that it was not a source of unbiased commentary.
No, Rob, I’ve never heard of the site before. You must be thinking of something else.
I think it was at Quggin’s or Catallaxy. But my memory could be playing tricks on me.
…..that bastion of religious tolerance, the Ottoman Empire.
That’s overstating it a bit, Fyodor. The Islamic polity was entirely based on the supremacy of Islam and the law of Allah. Nothing was allowed to challenge that. Full rights were acccorded only to those who were male, free and Muslim. The three principal out-groups - women, slaves and unbelievers - were accommodated by Islam, but strictly on its own terms. In the case of unbelievers, they had to be satisfied by permanent and enduring ’second-class citizenship’, hedged around with cultural bans (such as being forbidden to bear arms or ride horses, wearing distinctive clothes to set them apart from Muslims)) and the payment of tax or tribute to the caliphate (the jizya). Better than the pogroms, but it doesn’t amount to equality either socially or legally.
Or have I been suckered by Bernard Lewis again?
Fact remains, Rob, it was better than pogroms, ghettos and the occasional auto da fe. Liberty can be an absolute concept, but it’s relative in practice.
Its true, it was a Muslim dominated empire, but the key distinction in the Ottoman Empire was between Ibn Al-Kitab and others. Basically, Muslims were the core culture, but Christian and Jewish rites, religous practices and communities were respected and protected by community laws. Zoroastrians and others didnt fare so well. You see a feint reiteration of the same idea in the Indonesian constitution - official religious freedom extends to Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Buddhists - but not to animists etc, who have been subject to forced conversion one of the key religions.
Indeed, Indonesian law (aided greatly by the TNI driving the Timorese into the arms of the Church in self-defense and nationalism) created more Catholics in East Timor than the Portuguese did in 450 years.
Rob, most of the time the legislative measures you talk about weren’t enforced to any great degree, just as it would be a mistake to think that those against Muslims or Jews in Christendom were - except at times of high inter-communal tension and when power politics came into play. On balance, the record of the Caliphates in Spain and the Ottoman Empire though was better than that of Christian Europe.
Incidentally, your Whig paradise, England, killed more people for heresy after the Henrician Reformation than any other European state.
Saint: What I wrote was “Last night I came across a word you don’t see often: judaising.” I didn’t say I hadn’t come across it.
Kim:
What Nostra Aetate said was this: “The Church also has a high regard for the Muslims, who worship one God, living and subsistent, merciful and omnipotent, the Creator of heaven and earth.” (NA3). Monotheism is not the same thing as belief [any] ‘one God’ and NA stops short of saying so. Baath argued Islam instilled in its followers the “esoteric essence” of ‘monotheism.’ Karl Rahner - one of my favorites - did much to solidify the fluid edges of inter-religious dialogue but, vis-a-vis Islam and other religions, regarded Christianity “as the absolute religion, intended for all men.” Hans Kung hoped Islam too would embrace textual criticism and deconstruction and that an “historicocritical study of the holy book will eventually be allowed to become a reality.” (What Salman Rushdie is advocating now and which LP’s religion peanut gallery dismissed last week). Your characterisation of NA as having infallibly decided the definitional theology of God vis-a-vis Islam is completely wrong. The conclusion you anticipate will only be conceivable in dogmatic terms following the Muslim acceptance of a ‘higher criticism.’
Fyodorene:
Muslim homosexual shouldn’t be listened to, eh? I say Imams should be educated properly so Islam doesn’t continue to mistreat women. So does this woman.
Go on, sledge her too.
Mark:
Ironically, most of the “common ground” the Vatican has been seeking to build on with Islam (including in international fora) relates to bio-ethical, gender-sensitive and sexual doctrines - which doctrines liberal Catholics reject.
I’ve never said Islam is “terrorist” but that violence inheres in it - as, of course, it inheres in humanity. Other religions, however - either by their efforts or by their relatively quiescent natures - are not presently associated with the problem of terrorism on the scale we’re seeing within and around Islam. That is why a great many voices - many of them Muslim - have called for and demanded a reformation within Islam.
One of these Fyodor rejects because of her orientation, showing his own commitment to Taliban morality. (And revealing how he thinks Kim’s opnions get noticed).
As for the words of the Pope’s address: imagine the most senior Imam of Mecca visiting the Vatican and giving an address on pedophilia - filled with references to ’shared problems’ and ‘joint responsibilities’ etc.
How would you read that?
One of your favourite sayings, Mark, used to be “for those with eyes to see…”
Here’s how Ratzinger characterised the thinking of Islam today:
He also noted,