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 otherÄôs 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 warÄô does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.” The then-cardinalÄôs 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 peoplesÄô 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,
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 think 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.”
Finally,
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. Benedict got this one right; he got the terrorism communique wrong.
Posted separately after neither Rob or I could get the whole comment through.
(Problem was “bet” and “money” Rob – I think).
Actually, the larger number of suicide bombers over the last 20 years have been Hindu Tamil Tigers.
Im tired of this fact-free intifada of bollocks. Now you’re saying violence inheres in Islam, but no more than any other group in humanity?!
Huh? Ah forget it.
Im outa here… Where’s that guitar thread?
“…violence inheres in it – as, of course, it inheres in humanity.”
Learn to read you moron.
Got it first time round CL. My point stands.
[...]
“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 weÄôre 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.”
Then I’m glad you agree with me.
C.L. are you really interested in my response? Given that I’m time constrained and I’ve had a shitty day and I hate dialup, I’m just wondering.
You don’t at all help the cause of dialogue by claiming that your interlocutor is hysterical.
My point simply was that you were in no position to wag your finger about Catholicism. Which you’ve now confirmed – you selectively follow Benedict. However you might point that out to your readers rather than go on as though you’re putting on your papal mantle using locutions like “finita est”.
That’s hardly the way to invite debate, and you weren’t coming clean about your position, I’d suggest.
I’m not sure why CL’s comment was blocked (but I would remind people that the longer your comment is, the more likely you are to accidentally set off the spam trap), but I’ve managed to shoehorn it in where he posted a test comment. That’s my best guess as to where it belongs in the chronology.
Oh little Catholics, can never think for themselves…
Thanks Robert. That was good of you. Problem is recurring, however, with a far briefer comment. Will post in parts again.
Mark:
And you did wonders for the dialogue by implying in your original post that my papal exigesis was propounded for “political reasons.” Did it occur to you that I crafted my opinions on the basis of the overwhelming preponderance of analysis that had been afforded Benedict’s speech – or that I was careful to check a variety of news agencies and individuals?
My point simply was that you were in no position to wag your finger about Catholicism. Which youÄôve now confirmed – you selectively follow Benedict.
Conflating Catholicism with the papacy.
You thus confirm my suspicion of closet ultra-[is this regarded as spam?]montan-ism. The latter being a notion whose repudiation, of course, was perhaps the major raison d’etre of Vatican 2.
What I implied – said plainly actually – was that I selectively assess the efficacy of the Vatican’s political policy. You reduce this to the absurd and cultish statement that I “selectively follow Benedict.”
Whatever that means.
I just wrote: “I am completely loyal to Roman authority in essentials only.”
Essentials being the Deposit of the Faith. That comes to us from God and is preserved and passed on through the ages by the ecclesium of the People of God – by the Church.
Not the man Benedict.
I suggest you familiarise yourself with Lumen Gentium.
I purely just can’t resist putting out fire with gasoline.
Q. What’s the difference between the Pope and the Rev. Moon or L. Ron Hubbard?
A. About 1800 years.
Sorry C.L. missed it. Eh it was late – no excuse I know.
Mark, I am aware of C.L.’s views (hey yes I would even break the confessional seal) and his nota benes but what could I say to that? Apart from not being a Catholic, and never knowing when C.L. is just being provocative for the sake of it (blogging anonymously does sometimes mean that our blog personas take on a life and character of their own), whatever I would want to say is probably not appropriate for a public forum. Maybe cut each other some slack and save the stoush for the pub so we can all watch?
Um others above. Yes it is common for some to talk of Judaism, Christianity and Islam as the monotheistic religions (of course we forget the famous exceptions) or the “Abrahamic faiths”. But Christians worship a God who has revealed Himself as Trinity. And while Judaism doesn’t preclude a Trinitarian God even if God is not understood and known as such by Jews, no self respecting Muslim can cope.
In fact the divisions run very wide. We Christians for example, address God as Father (the Father of the Lord Jesus Christ), but many Muslims (e.g. in Pakistan) find that blasphemous. Never mind our well known different understandings of Jesus. In some ways, the fact that we both make mutually exclusive truth claims makes it easier for us to understand each other even though we don’t agree. I may have expressed that rather simplistically but I claim fried brain status tonight. But I think that’s what C.L. is getting at in one of his comments on this thread.
Me personally, of course I would say Islam is a false religion. But that doesn’t mean I hate Muslims or disrespect their religious practice anymore than I hate my Jehovah’s Witness cousin, my atheist father, my semi-pagan new-agey sister-in-law and so on and so on. I just won’t stand around watching if any one of them – even if they are family – wants to kill me or someone else be they Christian, Muslim or the local bum on the street. I don’t know what’s so complicated about that.
OK real brain fry tonight so I’m outta here.
“Me personally, of course I would say Islam is a false religion.”
Don’t you guys worship the same god though? And all the theological argy-bargy is just over that revived prophet shit?
And the practical difference between this and Moon’s “True Parents”, Hubbard’s Thetans or the Trimurti is what?
Nabs, I can hear you as David Bowie singing that!
C.L., so how do you determine what is political and what is “essential to the deposit of faith?”. It could be argued that Catholic social teaching about war is – and therefore you’d be on the wrong side of the Pope in supporting the Iraq War.
And if you’re not an ultramontanist, then why do you need to harness Pope Benedict to your point of view?
I’ve noted your remarks about violence “inhering” in Islam (and in humanity) which seem rather metaphysical. Given that comment sounds rather more defensible then many of your previous over the top characterisations, have you now retracted your view that Islam is evil?
If you have, perhaps we don’t have too much more to talk about.
If you haven’t, then you need to demonstrate how your citations of Pope Benedict support your views.
It’s clear that Mark has taken into account the context. As he said, you regularly ommit bits of the Pope’s statements you don’t like. Far from assimilating his views to the Pope’s – if you go back to the first time he raised the issue you’ll find him noting the complexity of Benedict’s views and his disagreement with some of it.
By contrast, you want one liners – “Pope condemns Islam terrorism”.
And I don’t read Fyodor’s comment in the way you do, no, not at all.
I’d like to see you and observa regularly denounce abuses of women’s rights by Christian leaders, and Christian homophobia. The gauntlet is thrown…
Nabs, I can hear you as David Bowie singing that!
C.L., so how do you determine what is political and what is “essential to the deposit of faith?”. It could be argued that Catholic social teaching about war is – and therefore you’d be on the wrong side of the Pope in supporting the Iraq War.
And if you’re not an ultramontanist, then why do you need to harness Pope Benedict to your point of view?
I’ve noted your remarks about violence “inhering” in Islam (and in humanity) which seem rather metaphysical. Given that comment sounds rather more defensible then many of your previous over the top characterisations, have you now retracted your view that Islam is evil?
If you have, perhaps we don’t have too much more to talk about.
If you haven’t, then you need to demonstrate how your citations of Pope Benedict support your views.
It’s clear that Mark has taken into account the context. As he said, you regularly omit bits of the Pope’s statements you don’t like. Far from assimilating his views to the Pope’s – if you go back to the first time he raised the issue you’ll find him noting the complexity of Benedict’s views and his disagreement with some of it.
By contrast, you want one liners – “Pope condemns Islam terrorism”.
And I don’t read Fyodor’s comment in the way you do, no, not at all.
I’d like to see you and observa regularly denounce abuses of women’s rights by Christian leaders, and Christian homophobia. The gauntlet is thrown…
Trinitarian theology was central to Rahner’s differentiations too, Saint, from memory.
Strictly speaking, Nab, Moonie and Ron were founders so they can’t be compared to the pope who is merely the founder’s vice-roy.
Ergo:
Q. WhatÄôs the difference between the Prophet and the Rev. Moon or L. Ron Hubbard?
A. About 1500 years
Two short questions, C.L., that to my mind haven’t been clarified in all the verbiage.
1. Do you retract your characterisation of Islam as an evil religion?
2. Given that you judge Benedict’s political interventions on a case by case basis, how does the linkage you say he makes (which to my mind is not in the slightest established by all you’ve said) represent a final answer? Since his views on Palestine don’t at all end the debate for you?
Whatever can MarkL, Canberra mean by this?
Apocalypticism and RWDBism seem co-equivalent.
Beware the second prong
for it prongs for thee!
First belly laugh on this thread! Thanks, Lefty E!
And to further paraphrase Jackie D’s sermon:
No prong is an fork, entire of itself
every piece of cultery is a piece of the table, a part of the main
if a leftover be washed away by the scullions,
Our dinner is the less, as well as if a maitre d were,
as well as if the order of thy friends or of thine own were
any man’s check diminishes me, because I am involved in paying it in kind
and therefore never send to know for whom closing time tolls
it tolls for thee.
“No prong is a fork
That’s two and counting!
700 Club fatwah
Kim, after the theological dust has settled thanks for the 2 questions for CL. Very nicely distilled.
Re the second prong, a howler monkey bespoke its code not so long ago with ”bring it on”. No 2 howler monkey is currently preparing the USAF to nuke Iran on the pretext of any further attack by anybody on the USA.
RWDB and apocolypse indeed are two sides of the same coin.
For a C.lancy L.abelling summation: The Sum of all Apostasies Posing Clear and Present Dangers for Abdul Without Remorse: Operation Proxy Ecclesiastical Witch Hunt.
I retract nothing. I write almost every day. People are welcome to assess the results and criticise same at will.
Do you retract your faulty analysis of Nostra Aetate?
Question 2 is meaningless unless you’re arguing that a composite plank of Gallicanism is an adherent’s inability or unwillingness to write about or cite the pope. Gallicans are collegeists. Collegialism in Catholicism accords the papacy the pre-eminent and constitutive authority-presence within the college. Again, I direct you to Lumen Gentium – a document sadly neglected here it seems.
The title of my post was explained within it: “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.”
Pope meets Muslim leaders, refuses to do so on their ground, discusses terrorism. This has been interpreted the same way the world over.
Does LP now withdraw its argument that this was just a coincidence?
I do retract and apologise for insulting LE yesterday.
No prob CL.
Shorter CL:
1) Islam is an evil religion.
2) I reserve the right to criticise the Pope when I’m feeling French…but not with French letters.
Okay, CL Islam is inherently evil because terrorists are Muslim, so is Catholicism inherently evil because the IRA are Catholics?
Who’s arguing anything is a coincidence, C.L.? The post just says what Benedict is saying is nothing particularly earthshaking, and that we don’t need to follow your lead and regard all further discussion as closed. And that he said nothing to back up your claim that “violence inheres in Islam” or “Islam is a false and evil religion” or whatever it is today.
You accuse other people on this discussion of being hysterical while your theological hairsplitting becomes harder and harder to follow.
Why not come out in your own voice on a post and write your denunciations of Islam instead of hiding behind the Pope? Particularly since we now know you’re a Gallican and what you really mean is – I agree with Benedict therefore no one dare question me.
I repeat – are you emulating the Cordoba martyrs, C.L.?
It’s more up to date now Mindy.
Pat Robertson, the US evangelical leader gave a ‘fatwa’ (smh) today:
”Conservative US evangelist Pat Robertson called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, saying…”
The no-shit-Sherlock logic; the shorter reciprocity C.L.:
1) Pat Robertson espouses murder of a foreign head of state, a lefty.
2) Murder is inherently evil.
3) Pat Robertson is a Christian.
4)Therefore Christianity is evil.
Always goes off beam on number 4, n’est pas?
1) Gough Whitlam okayed the East Timor invasion.
2) It turned into genocide.
3) Whitlam is the Australian left’s hero.
4) The left backs genocide.
Shorter Fyodor: *click* (ah, google)
Kim, I’m not surprised that you’re confused because you have no real understanding of theology. Mark attacked a post that didn’t even mention him because he likes to think – by all appearances – that he IS the freaking pope. Asked last month if he agreed Islam was the “religion of peace”, Benedict refused. His words above demonstrate that he believes Islam oppresses women and is incompatble with modern Western society.
Why don’t you be a good feminist like Irshad Manji and Aziza Abdulhalim and condemn the evil [misogyny] that inheres in Islam? Do it in a generalised post about misogyny if you like but why don’t you speak the truth as these Muslim women do? Afraid of being labelled right wing? And, by the way, your repeated implication that I have any kinder words or thoughts for any species of homosexual hatred is a lie and you know it. So retract that too.
Mark’s and your analysis of the pope’s speech is eccentric and wrong. You now know this, I’d say, but you’re now too proud to shift. Mark ridicules those in the US who are worried about the morality of stem-cell research – in direct contravention of Benedict’s own view and that of the American Bishops’ Conference. He should give up the gravitar, if not any claim to know the pope’s mind.
—–
“Finally a pope who, before a Muslim delegation, condemns Islamic-rooted terrorism without exception,” Italy’s leading Islamic commentator, Magdi Allam, wrote in the Corriere della Sera daily, saying Benedict’s speech amounted to a “new season” in Christian-Muslim relations.
[Mark knows better than Allam - pffft].
The head of Germany’s Muslim Community, Nadeem Elyas, who met with Benedict, said the discussions were “constructive.” He welcomed Benedict’s comments that terrorism was a common problem of all religions, and not specifically Islam.
["constructive" is diplomatic parlance for 'I'm pissed off']
Hamza Mansour, secretary-general of the Islamic Action Front, Jordan’s largest Muslim opposition group, said it was “unfortunate” the pope singled out Muslims “as if terrorism is of Islamic origin.”
——
End the embarrassment: Retract.
On objective, if not a theological (of which I know little) grounds, I’d call the argument for C.L., so far.
Look foward to the next round.
Peter,
pat robertson never was and isn’t an evangelical.
On the above CL is correct. Mark is not
* clicks *
Lassie quotes two different people who aren’t the Pope to interpret the Pope’s own statements, and fails to see any contradiction between quoting:
“Finally a pope who, before a Muslim delegation, condemns Islamic-rooted terrorism without exception,” ItalyÄôs leading Islamic commentator, Magdi Allam, wrote in the Corriere della Sera daily, saying BenedictÄôs speech amounted to a “new season” in Christian-Muslim relations.
…and…
He welcomed BenedictÄôs comments that terrorism was a common problem of all religions, and not specifically Islam.
CL, your defence is starting to look more and more like a Kremlinologist reading meaning into a May Day parade.
Why donÄôt you be a good feminist like Mark and Kim and condemn the evil [misogyny] that inheres in Catholicism? Do it in a generalised post about misogyny if you like but why donÄôt you speak the truth as these feminists do? Afraid of being labelled left wing? And, by the way, your repeated implication that I have any kinder words or thoughts for any species of homosexual hatred is a lie and you know it. So retract that too.
Finally, Whitlam didn’t “OK” the invasion of ET, but it’s good to see you stay on-message with the RWDB spin. I was afraid you weren’t going to divert onto a new OT rant for once.
Dorene:
a) believes the statements of public figures shouldn’t be analysed, without having secured from the statesman a statement about the statement; thus overturns centuries of journalistic custom, renders discussions of public affairs impossible;
b) believes when dignitaries call discussions “constructive” they really mean it. (How is it possible to converse with someone unschooled in the acknowledged euphemisms of diplomacy?). Benedict specifically advised Muslim leaders to take a role in curbing terrorism. Like Christians and others, this is a responsibility they have to accept.
c) reverts to Leftie Strategem #1 (now with addendum). UN Human Rights Rapporteur Maurice Copithorne has described Iran, for example, as “a prison for women.” At the time of writing, no such assessment has been made by Mr Copithorne of a Catholic country. These scenes not from County Cork.
d) reaches for “lesbian” as the first description of a (now best-selling) writer, television producer, journalist, refugee, blogger, activist and scholar; implies her sexuality is what gets the attention; this is a repudiation of one defining element in feminist and sexuality discourse over the last 30+ years.
e) calls the Fretelin-supporting left’s long-held suspicions of Whitlam, vis-a-vis East Timor, “RWDB spin” (!). Please note it was right-wingers who attacked supporters of Schappelle Corby (including me) and sided strongly with Jakarta.
f) misreads four-step syllogism as diversion and “OT rant” when it was a send-up of – and followed directly – Peter’s diversion and OT rant on Pat Robertson and Hugo Chavez. Both gentlemen hadn’t figured prominently hitherto.
C.L., your defence seems to boil down to – I’m right about everything, youse are all idiots.
I’m sure this topic would die the death it deserves to if you weren’t in the lamentable habit of stigmatising the faith of a billion people as evil.
Your comments get shriller, longer and less to the point as you try harder and harder to evade the issue.
Whitlam isn’t my hero. What, pray tell, does Fretelin have to do with whether or not your views on Islam are prejudicial and condemnable?
It’s you who’s hiding behind the Pope’s robes. Speak in your own voice – drop the theological pretence. Post your views about Islam on your own blog without referring to lefties or the Pope.
Go on.
Then we could actually debate them.
Ps – Rob “calling the debate” for C.L. is about the same quality of impartial umpiring we’ll get from the Fair Pay Commission, methinks.
Many of C.L.’s sources in authoritative neo-con journals of record are what the late Edward Said used to call “House Arabs” – lots of little Ahmed Chalabis who’ve sold their souls for a thinktank or academic job in the comfy West and whose soul use is enabling commentators and neo-cons to say – look, Arabs agree with everything the US says. Just saying…
Hiding? Me above: “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.”
And UN Human Rights Rapporteur Maurice Copithorne is a house Arab?
Whatever.
Yeah, whatever, C.L. I note that while you haven’t retracted anything, you haven’t repeated your claim that Islam is a “false and evil religion”.
My point is that you bury these nasty little asides in comments threads, where people have to dig around to find them. If that’s what you believe, have the courage of your convictions and put up a post explaining your reasoning.
If you won’t, why not?
Do you now acknowledge that Islam is not an evil religion?
Yes, or no, please.
You’re something of a master at selective response and quotation.
I referred of course to the “Liberal Islams” you’re fond of quoting.
Not to every single person you singled out – as Peter pointed out, at least two of whom go on to directly contradict you.
As for Benedict, he was asked a question by reporters. In response he said:
But we’d never hear the full story from you, would we? Only what suits your purposes.
Absolutely pathetic, C.L.
Get real – stop distorting others’ views. Make your own explicit and back them up with some argument. And do it on your own blog where there’s a post that people can easily refer to.
I, for one, want your logic spelled out calmly and constructively and not your commentary on Whitlam, the Fretelin, and Lumen Gentium or anything else that allows you to avoid admitting that you’ve characterised a religion held by a billion people as inherently evil.
We let you off too lightly, to be honest, C.L.
Whitlam, Fretelin etc were a comedic syllogism immediately offered after someone else’s comedic syllogism. You’re not even honest about what appears on the thread itself! And if you really think Lumen Gentium is obiter dicta to an argument about the papacy, you confirm my suspicion of ignorance.
The argument was about the interpretation of the Pope’s remarks. Having lost that, you want to shift the topic to the interpretation of my remarks.
I DID post on my own blog about the general question – without reference to, or criticism of, any named individual’s opinions. Just a lonely old post minding its own business. Mark evidently became grouchy someone other than himself analysed a papal statement; so – off he went on an embarrassingly eccentric exigesis supported by no-one else – including the press corps actually there on the occasion. What’s more, he said my analysis was motivated by politics. This is coming from someone – as I’ve said – who apparently thinks he IS the pope and, on the stem-cell issue, essentially ridiculed the Catholic (and Benedictine) position as part of a smear against conservatives.
The accusation of “hiding” is pathetic. Click my site metre – 350 or so visits a day. According to Mark, thousands are visiting these pages every day. If I wanted to hide my views, why wouldn’t I just invent a dedicated LP identity?
Then you: you keep talking about honesty even though you give people to understand – in the Tony Jones thread, for example – that someone like Tony Abbott is an extremist. As regards abortion and IVF, these are unequivocally forbidden by the Church and especially by this pope. If a person is ‘pro-choice’, that person is no longer a Catholic in any meaningful sense.
As for politicians, the Holy See recently encouraged them to do whatever they could in Spain – as is their democratic right – to vote down gay ‘marriage.’ (Described by Benedict as “fake”).
Here’s the point: you dishonestly give people to understand that the Tony Abbotts are trying to trump “the secular law made by the Parliament of Australia under the Constitution.” Within that parliament and under that constitution, Abbott has every right to put his views and seek to promote them. As it happens, the Prime Minister had other ideas. The system worked and Abbott adhered to his conscience. To compare this to Sharia fascism where women get their heads blown off and gay teenagers are hanged is, quite simply, nutty.
So I ask: will you retract your un-Catholic caricature of Abbott and accept that the views he espouses are Catholic views and that he has – the Holy See says so – the right to promote them?; will you unequivocally acknowledge that the evil of misogyny inheres in Islam (Benedict, quoted above: “There is a very marked subordination of woman to man”) and that the moderate Muslims and others calling for an end to anti-female violence should be supported? (Preferably without being labelled with Mississippian epithets).
And will you retract that phrase, by the way, which – millions of African Americans might tell you – is racist? Outstanding Muslim woman gets reduced to ‘a lesbian who gets noticed because she’s lesbian.’ WBB dismissed Salman Rusdie the other day as an “atheist.” (He’s not notable for anything else? Think about it… No?). Everyone else who calls for reform is a “house Arab.”
I’ve let all of you off lightly, to be honest.
Lassie,
a) So you’re a journalist now? Funny, I thought you were engaging in haruspicy [Go on, Google it. You know you want to.]
b) So you’re also a diplomat? That would explain the Advanced Kremlinology going nowhere and explaining nothing.
c) It’s called hypocrisy, Lassie, and you’re full of it. You should recognise the text as well, given it’s mostly yours. Call it a “send-up”.
d) The first description was “lady”. The second description was “quite famous in Canada”. The third description was “critic of orthodox Islam”. The fourth description – and this was the entire reference to her sexual preference – was “That [sic] fact that sheÄôs also a lesbian probably gets her a bit more notoriety.” Which I think is true, and neither a sexist nor homophobic statement. Your confected outrage on this point says more about you than me.
e) I didn’t mention THE LEFT, Fretilin, or their suspicions. I called you on a pathetic diversion OT. Did someone mention Schappellle? Oh, Lassie again.
f) Peter’s syllogism was on-topic. Your send-up wasn’t. It wasn’t funny either, but then you’re not known for your sense of humour. So we’ll let you off lightly, just this once.
Heh! What a nuking!
Looks around at the smoking wreckage CL has made of the tame lefties “arguments”, and smiles ruefully.
CL, I don’t think there is anything they have said that you have not smashed to flinders. Their writhings have been very instructive, displaying all the standard responses of those who carry their particular intellectual disease.
MarkL
Canberra
Re ”after someone elseÄôs comedic syllogism.”
CL if the falsity of the ‘Christianity is evil’ syllogism equates with the falsity of the ‘Islam is evil’ assertion (and it does, and it was my reason for posting it), then your calling it ‘comedic’ I take to mean you can’t or wont say ‘Islam is not inherently evil.’
Would have been better, (and have saved us all time), as Kim asked many times, if you had simply written the words instead of leaving an answer by default as you appear to have done.
Your intellectual abilities are already well known MarkL as a source of great humour.
For the purposes of continuing or otherwise, to grossly insult everybody here who doesn’t agree with CL, would you care to elaborate on ”intellectual disease” before they all come down on you like a ton of bricks?
Peter, please don’t disturb MarkL while he goes about his “research”. I’m sure he’s very intellect. In his own lunchbox.
Why does the Pope get to tell leaders of an entirely different religion what their job is? Imagine the fuss if Muslim leaders dared say any such thing to the Pope.
Mindy arrives late. Spills beans. Game over.
Game over? The game finished ages ago. Lassie, you retired hurt when you refused to answer Kim’s two simple questions. You’ve been whining coulda been champeens from the blood bin ever since.
/clicks
I’d almost forgotten about that polemical ‘research’ Fyodor, but I’m reminded of something Robin Williams said about military intelligence and inherent contradictions in terminology worthy of a real research effort. A syllogism of being ‘out to lunch’ could possibly be included.
Just wondering: did Buchanan just expose the violence that inheres in Christianity; or is he better understood as a political extremist isolated from the mainstream of his faith community?
If its this Buchanan Lefty E:
http://www.buchanan.org/pa-95-0615.html
Its about (apparantly) lefties ‘violently’ attacking the conservative Christians for their political views/influence.
I think you mean Pat Robertson?
I think you two have it down Pat.
Sorry. Had to get in before Homerkles.
Pat Robertson was, would you believe it, is a former GOP candidate for president if my reading was correct. In other words, use of the religious forum he has (by a contract that can’t evict him for incitement apparently) for personal political extremist purposes, is the name of the game.
It is an example of the latent violence that inheres in some individuals who call themselves Christians— a distinction made that RWDBs should note carefully in repricrocal statements before literally or metaphorically nuking the M.E.
Hey, support Mindy you lefties! As far as I know, she isn’t a lesbian or a “house Arab.” Where’s the love?
Damn fyodor!
Peter,
few RWDB are christians mind you Pat has a strange view of it.
yeah, sorry, I ‘mis-Patted’.
I enjoyed Chavez’ response – offering to sell some oil cheap to poor Yanks in ghettos. jaja!
C.L. still won’t answer the question – does he or does he not stand by his comment that Islam is evil?
And I suggest he read Ratzinger on how Lumen Gentium is to be interpreted.
But you know, we should talk about Simone de Beauvoir’s novels instead!
Indeed we should, Kim.
C.L., so you don’t like my choice of gravatar? I’m a bit of a fan of Benny’s. You don’t have a monopoly, and nor does the Catholic right, on commentary on Papal statements. It seems to me that this is what is riling you.
If one were to properly contextualise Benedict’s statement, one would also have to look at the history of Ratzinger’s views on interfaith relations. When I’ve tried to raise this with you on a previous comments thread, you’ve just resorted to stating that Benedict said “Islam isn’t a religion of peace” and failed to address the positive statements he has made.
Two points.
First, as Kim points out, he did not say this. He was asked a question, to which he gave the response she quoted.
Secondly, the quote you cite above says more about what he thinks is wrong with the West than anything else.
And it’s quite telling that you consistently refuse to defend or reiterate the statement you made about the nature of Islam.
My reason in posting is that I think you are being disingenous in harnessing Papal authority to your views, with the implication that this also buttresses your previously stated views here – which are abhorrent to many.
Oh, and incidentally, I agree with Fyodor that a deplorable misogyny inheres in the mainstream of the Catholic tradition. Fortunately, there are elements in that same tradition which are quite different, just as the tradition of Islam is complex and irreducible to generalisations which are derogatory.
So: the evil that is misogyny inheres in Islam. As also, you add (pursuant to The Strategem), Catholicism. Though, as I pointed out, executions of immodestly dressed women in County Cork are way down.
Should Mark retract that “abhorrent” inherency assertion, Kim?
I don’t question your right to post on my post – of course. But I posted my interpretation on my own blog. I wasn’t “riled” by anyone. You were. Remember?
Benedict above: “There is a very marked subordination of woman to man; there is a very tightly knit criminal law, indeed, a law regulating all areas of life, that is opposed to our modern ideas about society.”
The “marked subordination of woman to man” heads Ratzinger’s summary of Islamic traits. The subordination of woman to man always and invariably leads to violence – which is evil.
And I’m still wondering if Kim will retract her description of Muslim human rights activists as “house Arabs.”
Sorry, C.L., I missed the memo about THE STRATEGEM. What are you on about?
And you’ll need to direct me to your musings on the apparel of County Cork Colleens, it’s a long thread, and I don’t recall it.
At any rate, I’m glad that you’ll be working with Benedict to ensure that there is not a “very marked subordination of women” in Australian culture.
Much love to Mindy, of course.
C.L., I’ll think about your demands for retractions when you answer my first question.
Peter
‘…would you care to elaborate on ‘Äôintellectual disease’Äô before they all come down on you like a ton of bricks? ‘
No, in a word. One does not fruitfully discuss alcoholism with any but a *reformed* alcoholic.
As for coming down ‘like a ton of bricks’, there has been much ineffectual flailing at CL, which apparently counts in the eyes of some as the performance of this activity. There may be a slight powdering of CL with brick dust, but that comes from him dropping the aforementioned load on your collective heads.
MarkL
Canberra
I hope C.L. doesn’t use condoms when he drops a load.
Finished your homework yet, MarkL?
Thanks, Fyodor, belly laugh #3 on this thread!
You should work with him on the same project, Mark, judging from recent questioning of your sexism bona fides. This debate is closed from my point of view. Talk amongst yourselves, say “he lost – we won”, whatever.
The debate was about the meaning of Pope Benedict’s address to Muslim leaders in Cologne. My interpretation of it was reasonable and fair and in accordance with analyses published around the world.
I have spoken, your cause is finished.
Always amusing when the athiests preen and posture about their superior understanding of religion. I wish to thank you for the amusement you have provided so freely. But as to my homework, please do not think that it is a vitally important project for me. The modern left is too unimportant and impotent for that, of course: the serious overtones lie elsewhere. I am not looking at your good selves per se (that would be rude), but at the mechanisms you collectively choose to blind yourselves, so as to preserve your worldview.
Now, who can say ‘The Tojo War Cabinet?’
MarkL
Canberra
”one does not fruitfully discuss alcoholism…”
I thought you were discussing ”intellectual diseases” MarkL but being able to detect alcoholism from your computer, that’s incredible, do you just sniff the on screen paragraphs?
The modern left being impotent, is that because we ”drop…[our] loads”?
The Tojo thing, you got me there, is that some compulsive obsessive test?
But MarkL, Kim and I are Catholics.
Good, Mark. I am glad.
MarkL
Canberra
I, also, am glad that you are glad, MarkL. Tojo War Cabinet? Careful, you’re dribbling on your anorak.
MarkL’s condescension is breathtaking. One wonders if we’re all so intellectually diseased why he bothers stopping by at all.
He’s already explained that, Kate. It’s RESEARCH.
I’m still gravely concerned about the coming of the second prong, and wish to hear more. Preferably from Canberra.
Lefty E.
Keating Towers
Guess what happens when Mr Anagram Generator goes to Canberra, MarkL?
Shorter ‘A Crank Rambler’: Laugh at me at your peril, you’re just microscopic cogs
in my catastrophic plan.
I reckon he’s the kinda guy who puts on a flying helmet and googles when he settles down at his computer for a session online.