Juan Cole: They're Blowing Up Churches Because of Root Causes (Also: Academic Condescension to Blacks!)
Ladies and gentleman, one of the 25 most influential bloggers on the Left side of the blogosphere. Shameless - but not un-intellectual (!!) - terrorist apologism:
Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir took time out from worrying about the Kashmir issue to protest the Pope. Likewise there were protests by Palestinians in Gaza... Some commentators have complained about Muslim sensibilities in this regard. But in my view, this sensitivity is a feature of postcolonialism. Muslims were colonized by Western powers, often for centuries, and all that period they were told that their religion was inferior and barbaric. They are independent now, though often they have gained independence only a couple of generations (less if you consider neocolonialism). As independent, they are finally liberated to protest when Westerners put them down.
There is an analogy to African-Americans, who suffered hundreds of years of slavery and then a century of Jim Crow. They are understandably sensitive about white people putting them down, and every time one uses the "n" word, you can expect a strong reaction. In the remarks the pope quoted about Muhammad, he essentially did the equivalent of using the "n" word for Muslims. It is no mystery that people are protesting.
Those "protests", as of posting, have included the destruction of eight churches and the murder of a Catholic nun. The President of the Global Americana Institute, a prominent liberal intellectual, has just implied that the offense that African-Americans take to derogatory language is equivalent to a global orgy of murder - and he's done it in the context of criticizing the Pope's remarks that Islam has been historically violent. First, that's empirically laughable given that - even if you grant the analogy, and we don't - you'd have to compare this to national riots that happen when the African-American community has "had enough". Which has happened two or three times this century, as opposed to the two or three times that it's happened in the last two months in the Muslim world (cartoons what?)
Second - and here's where you'd think people would be talking about this - isn't that just a really racist thing to say? That the "strong reactions" that come from the African-American community are just like the "strong reactions" of the barbarians currently storming Christendom's gates? It's the inanity of moral equivalence in reverse - "Muslims protest when they're offended, African-Americans protest when they're offended, Muslims = African-Americans". Except when African-Americans protest President Bush they don't threaten to BLOW UP THE WHITE HOUSE.
Other things to notice in Cole's most recent contribution to public discourse:
(1) "Protests" - They're not murderous attacks or church bombings, they're "protests"
(2) "Since the Pakistani parliament has been fighting Muslim fundamentalists and trying to avoid implementing Islamic law, this was an easy way to stress their Muslim bonafides even as they pursue secular policies" - No, seriously, that's obviously why they did it. The Pakistani parliament is trying to avoid implementing Islamic law, so that's exactly why they must have condemned the Pope - it can't be because they actually agree with the condemnation! We call your attention to our recent post on Juan Cole's tactic of apologizing for Muslim extremism by pointing out minute though true details - like observing that the Pakistani parliament is fighting Muslim fundamentalists and condemning the Pope, so one must have caused the other. You might also do well to follow that post to the post it's based on, where you'll find an overly loquacious description of how liberal foreign policy experts deny "obvious intentions by referencing tiny and irrelevant details". As to the "fight" that's apparently going on - good job guys!
(3) Have we mentioned the condescending racism implied in his post?
(4) There's a link at the bottom to a Vatican II document speaking about inter-religious faith that Cole suggests the Pope should read as an apology. Yeah, we don't think that would work:
(a) "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons... in witness to the Christian faith and life" - actually, Christians are not allowed to bear witness to the Good News in Muslim countries. Missionaries are outlawed under sharia, and not a few have been either tried and executed or murdered on the spot
(b) "Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."... and by saying that "whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim". Charming people. The thing about sending suicide bombers to blow up the Vatican - does that fall under "prayer", "almsgiving" or "fasting"? We're just wondering, in the spirit of interfaith dialogue.
(c) "Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems" - uhhh... isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? You can't talk about how Muslims have fought other people - that's offensive! And then they try to kill you.
(d) "This Sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding" - we learned from protest signs this morning that "Jesus is Allah's slave". That's a kind of understanding, right?
(5) Anyone believe the conclusion?: "Since it is Catholic doctrine, there is nothing wrong with repeating it to the Muslims now, and the whole thing would immediately blow over. Obviously, the question is whether he knows that he's just making things up, or whether he'd be genuinely surprised when the riots continued.
(6) We were going to take this opportunity to mock the "Cole as Theologian" conceit in his Benedict posts. Linking to a Vatican II nostra and declaring it to be binding doctrine is exactly the kind of glib mistake that concieted liberals make when they walk into really complicated debates and declare that some feel-good multiculturalist solution is obviously the right one (yeah, we can all Google "Catholic Muslim interfaith dialogue" - good job Juan!) But the idea of tracing Catholic judgments on Mohammed and then distinguishing between Vatican II as dogmatic and Vatican II as pastoral seemed a little much. Plus, if we did that, you'd have no incentive to tune in later this week for the longer discussion of why Cole should be a little more modest than to lecture Pope Benedict on comparative religion.
You know why he can still write this? Because he goes weeks and months at a time without talking to a single person who disagrees with his pompous bullshit.
Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir took time out from worrying about the Kashmir issue to protest the Pope. Likewise there were protests by Palestinians in Gaza... Some commentators have complained about Muslim sensibilities in this regard. But in my view, this sensitivity is a feature of postcolonialism. Muslims were colonized by Western powers, often for centuries, and all that period they were told that their religion was inferior and barbaric. They are independent now, though often they have gained independence only a couple of generations (less if you consider neocolonialism). As independent, they are finally liberated to protest when Westerners put them down.
There is an analogy to African-Americans, who suffered hundreds of years of slavery and then a century of Jim Crow. They are understandably sensitive about white people putting them down, and every time one uses the "n" word, you can expect a strong reaction. In the remarks the pope quoted about Muhammad, he essentially did the equivalent of using the "n" word for Muslims. It is no mystery that people are protesting.
Those "protests", as of posting, have included the destruction of eight churches and the murder of a Catholic nun. The President of the Global Americana Institute, a prominent liberal intellectual, has just implied that the offense that African-Americans take to derogatory language is equivalent to a global orgy of murder - and he's done it in the context of criticizing the Pope's remarks that Islam has been historically violent. First, that's empirically laughable given that - even if you grant the analogy, and we don't - you'd have to compare this to national riots that happen when the African-American community has "had enough". Which has happened two or three times this century, as opposed to the two or three times that it's happened in the last two months in the Muslim world (cartoons what?)
Second - and here's where you'd think people would be talking about this - isn't that just a really racist thing to say? That the "strong reactions" that come from the African-American community are just like the "strong reactions" of the barbarians currently storming Christendom's gates? It's the inanity of moral equivalence in reverse - "Muslims protest when they're offended, African-Americans protest when they're offended, Muslims = African-Americans". Except when African-Americans protest President Bush they don't threaten to BLOW UP THE WHITE HOUSE.
Other things to notice in Cole's most recent contribution to public discourse:
(1) "Protests" - They're not murderous attacks or church bombings, they're "protests"
(2) "Since the Pakistani parliament has been fighting Muslim fundamentalists and trying to avoid implementing Islamic law, this was an easy way to stress their Muslim bonafides even as they pursue secular policies" - No, seriously, that's obviously why they did it. The Pakistani parliament is trying to avoid implementing Islamic law, so that's exactly why they must have condemned the Pope - it can't be because they actually agree with the condemnation! We call your attention to our recent post on Juan Cole's tactic of apologizing for Muslim extremism by pointing out minute though true details - like observing that the Pakistani parliament is fighting Muslim fundamentalists and condemning the Pope, so one must have caused the other. You might also do well to follow that post to the post it's based on, where you'll find an overly loquacious description of how liberal foreign policy experts deny "obvious intentions by referencing tiny and irrelevant details". As to the "fight" that's apparently going on - good job guys!
(3) Have we mentioned the condescending racism implied in his post?
(4) There's a link at the bottom to a Vatican II document speaking about inter-religious faith that Cole suggests the Pope should read as an apology. Yeah, we don't think that would work:
(a) "The Church therefore, exhorts her sons... in witness to the Christian faith and life" - actually, Christians are not allowed to bear witness to the Good News in Muslim countries. Missionaries are outlawed under sharia, and not a few have been either tried and executed or murdered on the spot
(b) "Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."... and by saying that "whoever offends our Prophet Mohammed should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim". Charming people. The thing about sending suicide bombers to blow up the Vatican - does that fall under "prayer", "almsgiving" or "fasting"? We're just wondering, in the spirit of interfaith dialogue.
(c) "Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems" - uhhh... isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? You can't talk about how Muslims have fought other people - that's offensive! And then they try to kill you.
(d) "This Sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding" - we learned from protest signs this morning that "Jesus is Allah's slave". That's a kind of understanding, right?
(5) Anyone believe the conclusion?: "Since it is Catholic doctrine, there is nothing wrong with repeating it to the Muslims now, and the whole thing would immediately blow over. Obviously, the question is whether he knows that he's just making things up, or whether he'd be genuinely surprised when the riots continued.
(6) We were going to take this opportunity to mock the "Cole as Theologian" conceit in his Benedict posts. Linking to a Vatican II nostra and declaring it to be binding doctrine is exactly the kind of glib mistake that concieted liberals make when they walk into really complicated debates and declare that some feel-good multiculturalist solution is obviously the right one (yeah, we can all Google "Catholic Muslim interfaith dialogue" - good job Juan!) But the idea of tracing Catholic judgments on Mohammed and then distinguishing between Vatican II as dogmatic and Vatican II as pastoral seemed a little much. Plus, if we did that, you'd have no incentive to tune in later this week for the longer discussion of why Cole should be a little more modest than to lecture Pope Benedict on comparative religion.
You know why he can still write this? Because he goes weeks and months at a time without talking to a single person who disagrees with his pompous bullshit.
