The Religion of Peace

On the Islamic reaction to the Pope's comments, start by reading Port McClellan's MBMc's comments.  He paints the picture quite nicely with his title:  "Pope Quotes Byzantine Emperor; Somalis Shoot Nun"--and, we might add, "burns churches and threatens Pope's life."  Have we heard from the proponents of "proportionate responses" that kept yelping earlier this summer?  Can the rage against the Pope--or a cartoonist for that matter--be seen as proportionate?

Does it bother any of the talking heads that, in fact, the Pope was QUOTING someone--someone who happened to be under attack by the Muslims?  I doubt it.  I also doubt it matters that, historically speaking, Islam did spread by the sword.  Plus, the use of force is not something totally abandoned by many of the faith's modern practitioners.  In fact, Al Qaeda in Iraq has said its "war against Christianity and the West will go on until Islam takes over the world."  No ambiguity there.  The War continues.  It is against Christianity.  It is against the West.  It will not end until they conquer "THE WORLD"--not historical Islamic territory, Gaza, Israel, or other talking-head "the problem is..." territories.

This new flare-up ought to show the world the fragility of Islam's psyche.  It's a religion so strong and confident in its own truth that it can't stomach cartoon depictions of its prophet--try to imagine the "Piss Christ" art controversy if it had been, shudder, "Piss Muhammad".  I objected (not rioted mind you) then to that so-called artwork, but riots and fire bombings did not ensue, and it was far more insulting than the cartoons or a quotation from some Byzantine Emperor.   The strangeness of people rioting, killing nuns, burning churches, waging war against Christianity, and threatening death to the Pope, over a comment that painted Islam as violent, or evil, is striking.  Talk about proving your opponents point.

This highlights the fact that the people rioting and those fanning the flames are unstable and their position untenable.  Their position is morally unsound, and they cannot win any war, if those on the Western side were ever to decide to fight and to fight on reasonable terms.  Moreover, for the media to "analyze" this with the Pope and the rioters on the same moral level is absurd.  Even if you believe the Pope misspoke or went too far with a dangerous quotation, this response is ludicrous.

One commenter to my last post noted that we'd lose the PR battle if we bombed a terrorist cemetery.  I don't disagree, because I don't think we can win many PR battles on the international stage right now.  But sometimes PR must take a back seat to more compelling and more serious matters.  That time is now.  We need to start taking this problem seriously.  We must stop pretending appeasement will get us anywhere.  If the other side has declared a war against you, you cannot simply declare peace and stick your head in the sand.

"An appeaser is the man who feeds the crocodile hoping he would be last to be eaten"--Winston Churchill

As the sign at the zoo says,

Please don't feed the crocodiles.

Thomas More

allthesemore@yahoo.com

P.S.  Hugh Hewitt points us to Richard John Neuhaus at First Things (both Hewitt and First Things are on the blog list down on the right) for his take on the situation.

Comments

[Tim]

First Things has also been looking at this (which makes sense, as they're Catholic). A few pages down today's postings, Robert Miller writes "a decent respect for the intelligence of the man on the Throne of St. Peter demands that we conclude that he quoted the text intentionally, knowing what the consequences would be, and did so for a reason."

Specifically, John Paul II tried the appeasement approach, but Christianity hasn't gotten any results, so Benedict (Miller suggests) is now saying "we will treat you how we want to be treated." I guess I would summarize by saying that if you want to have a substantive dialog, you have to be able to make substantive statements (without fearing for your life).

A related thought from First Things a while back is that Muslims speak out "Islam is a religion of peace" whenever someone claims it isn't. But they don't seem to speak out when other Muslims incite violence. If a Muslim wants to claim that Islam is a religion of peace, their arguement should not be with the West, but with other Muslims.

[Thomas More]

All solid points Tim. I wonder, though, about the intentional components about the Pope's speech--given that he seems to be apologizing for parts of it now. How do we reconcile the did-it-on-purpose v. I'm sorry dichotomy?

[Tim]

First Things also linked to the first apology and a news article about the pope's apology. In the first apology, we have:

"The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions."

And in the news article:

"I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," the Pope said.

So really, it's not "I'm sorry I said that", but "I'm sorry that you took offence by it". First Things called it a non-apology apology. I'm inclined to agree he knew exactly what would happen and may have even figured out how he would phrase the non-apology apology before this all started.