Arrogant Presumption
Being a major leftist newspaper means never having to treat anyone as better than you. Such is the case with the New York Times. Since the Pope’s remarks on Islam at Regensburg on September 12th, the Times has gone from simple reporting of the speech “Pope Assails Secularism, with a Note on Jihad” to pompous demands for an apology and a need to meet with “high-level experts on Islam” to help him submit and humble himself before the Islamic world.
To define this as it is, an outrage by an organization that understands religion about as much as a three year old understands quantum physics, truly doesn’t encompass the scope of arrogance and pomposity that is the New York Times. I would imagine if anyone, the Pope understands quite well what Islam is and what its followers are capable of.
Certainly his predecessor did after being shot by one of the practitioners of the “Religion of Peace”. Even that same fellow has warned Benedict not to travel to Turkey as planned for fear of Benedict’s life. When your predecessor’s would-be assassin starts giving you security advice, perhaps that’s a sign to worry.
I’m still at a loss exactly as to what Pope Benedict is required to apologize for. The Times erroneously implies that he has “apologized” by offering his regrets at his “ill-considered comments”. Interestingly, others are clarifying the Pontiff’s position a little differently than the times. Consider this from quote from an article on the continuing demands for the Pope's "apology".
George Weigel, author of "God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church," said the pope expressed regret over the way his words have been twisted and misunderstood, but did not back away from them.
"The over-the-top reaction in the Muslim world simply underscores the truth of what he said at Regensburg, which is that unless Islam develops the capacity to be self-critical -- unless Islamic leaders take responsibility for saying to their extremists that violence in the name of God is wrong -- then there can be no genuine interreligious dialogue," Weigel said.
"There has been not the slightest backing off of that, and there can't be, because it's true," he added.
One would get from that the Pope meant what he said and feels his remarks were vindicated by the response he has received. The irony is quite thick in even referencing a historical figure who calls a certain group mindless thugs and getting a reaction from representatives of that same group that speaks to mindless thuggery. Sometimes these just write themselves.
If anything, the Pope’s remarks and inference of historical perspective on the current situation, a situation which completely does NOT entertain “genuine communication” (and by the way, what “leader” is he supposed to genuinely communicate with considering the Pope has no Islamic analog?) between Christianity and Islam, say things that needed to be said many years ago, but either out of fear or neglect haven’t been voiced. There is a danger here that has been allowed to fester and grow.
As Islam has seen a reformation, it has not been towards liberalism or enlightenment as happened with the Christian reformations, but towards a return to a more fundamentalist understanding of early Islam and to the time when Mohammed wrote and spoke of conquest and dhimmitude of the infidels. That’s you and me, by the way. There will likely be no Renaissance of Islamic thought mainly because the catalysts that need to be there, the ones that lead to Christianity’s Age of Enlightenment, simply don’t exist. Islam isn’t going that way and the moderates are quickly losing ground.
If it takes the Pope for that issue to receive international attention, then, well, I guess it takes the Pope. Only a true secularist or “humanist” would think that the Pope’s only hope of understanding Islam would be if “high-level experts” could “help guide him” to a better understanding. So he needs to be proselytized to in order to be a true convert to the "Religion of Peace". Advocacy of proselytizing one’s faith for other’s to better understand it is something the New York Times hasn’t endorsed in living memory. I suppose in Islam the Times has finally found a religion with which it can do business.
In my opinion, the Pope doesn’t need to apologize. The Times does. Its insults and intolerance of the Papacy and its place in Christendom defines offensive. Multicultural doesn’t mean everyone but Christians (and Catholics are included in that heading). Let them remove the log from their own eye before lamenting on the speck in someone else’s for a change.
Hat tip to Newsbusters for keeping up the coverage on this issue.
Being a major leftist newspaper means never having to treat anyone as better than you. Such is the case with the New York Times. Since the Pope’s remarks on Islam at Regensburg on September 12th, the Times has gone from simple reporting of the speech “Pope Assails Secularism, with a Note on Jihad” to pompous demands for an apology and a need to meet with “high-level experts on Islam” to help him submit and humble himself before the Islamic world.
To define this as it is, an outrage by an organization that understands religion about as much as a three year old understands quantum physics, truly doesn’t encompass the scope of arrogance and pomposity that is the New York Times. I would imagine if anyone, the Pope understands quite well what Islam is and what its followers are capable of.
Certainly his predecessor did after being shot by one of the practitioners of the “Religion of Peace”. Even that same fellow has warned Benedict not to travel to Turkey as planned for fear of Benedict’s life. When your predecessor’s would-be assassin starts giving you security advice, perhaps that’s a sign to worry.
I’m still at a loss exactly as to what Pope Benedict is required to apologize for. The Times erroneously implies that he has “apologized” by offering his regrets at his “ill-considered comments”. Interestingly, others are clarifying the Pontiff’s position a little differently than the times. Consider this from quote from an article on the continuing demands for the Pope's "apology".
George Weigel, author of "God's Choice: Pope Benedict XVI and the Future of the Catholic Church," said the pope expressed regret over the way his words have been twisted and misunderstood, but did not back away from them.
"The over-the-top reaction in the Muslim world simply underscores the truth of what he said at Regensburg, which is that unless Islam develops the capacity to be self-critical -- unless Islamic leaders take responsibility for saying to their extremists that violence in the name of God is wrong -- then there can be no genuine interreligious dialogue," Weigel said.
"There has been not the slightest backing off of that, and there can't be, because it's true," he added.
One would get from that the Pope meant what he said and feels his remarks were vindicated by the response he has received. The irony is quite thick in even referencing a historical figure who calls a certain group mindless thugs and getting a reaction from representatives of that same group that speaks to mindless thuggery. Sometimes these just write themselves.
If anything, the Pope’s remarks and inference of historical perspective on the current situation, a situation which completely does NOT entertain “genuine communication” (and by the way, what “leader” is he supposed to genuinely communicate with considering the Pope has no Islamic analog?) between Christianity and Islam, say things that needed to be said many years ago, but either out of fear or neglect haven’t been voiced. There is a danger here that has been allowed to fester and grow.
As Islam has seen a reformation, it has not been towards liberalism or enlightenment as happened with the Christian reformations, but towards a return to a more fundamentalist understanding of early Islam and to the time when Mohammed wrote and spoke of conquest and dhimmitude of the infidels. That’s you and me, by the way. There will likely be no Renaissance of Islamic thought mainly because the catalysts that need to be there, the ones that lead to Christianity’s Age of Enlightenment, simply don’t exist. Islam isn’t going that way and the moderates are quickly losing ground.
If it takes the Pope for that issue to receive international attention, then, well, I guess it takes the Pope. Only a true secularist or “humanist” would think that the Pope’s only hope of understanding Islam would be if “high-level experts” could “help guide him” to a better understanding. So he needs to be proselytized to in order to be a true convert to the "Religion of Peace". Advocacy of proselytizing one’s faith for other’s to better understand it is something the New York Times hasn’t endorsed in living memory. I suppose in Islam the Times has finally found a religion with which it can do business.
In my opinion, the Pope doesn’t need to apologize. The Times does. Its insults and intolerance of the Papacy and its place in Christendom defines offensive. Multicultural doesn’t mean everyone but Christians (and Catholics are included in that heading). Let them remove the log from their own eye before lamenting on the speck in someone else’s for a change.
Hat tip to Newsbusters for keeping up the coverage on this issue.
posted by Rob Beck | 6:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home