Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's NYT Article (2) - Condescending, Insufferable Little Pricks
The New York Times is so sophisticated and Pope Benedict XVI, one of the best-known theologians in the last half century, is so not:
Benedict is used to writing his own speeches, and several Vatican officials said he wrote Tuesday’s address, one of the most significant of the papacy, by himself. The officials said there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam. That concern was relayed up the chain of command, the officials said, but it is not clear if it reached the pope.
At a time when the Vatican has just replaced its second-in-command and its foreign minister, many experts also said that did not have enough experts on Islam to gauge reaction to any papal statements. "They have nobody to really ask," said the Rev. Thomas Michel, secretary for inter-religious dialogue for the Jesuit order of priests. "Whoever looked at it and let that go through is someone who doesn’t understand Muslims at all." In February, Benedict reassigned the Vatican’s most senior Arabist, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, then the head of inter-religious dialogue, to Cairo as the Vatican envoy there. The move was seen at the time by some church experts as a sign of Benedict’s skepticism about the value of dialogue with Muslims. "I think one may say, if it is not too impolite, that it is time to bring back Monsignor Fitzgerald," said Mr. Melloni, the Vatican scholar.
Most of what we have to say on this subject was covered in our post from this weekend about the BBC explaining that poor Pope Benedict just doesn't understand Muslims because he's "led a sheltered life in the Vatican" (post: "No Seriously, You Blithering BBC Idiot, Explain to the Poor Sheltered Pope How Islam Works"). And now we've got the New York Times suggesting that the reason that the Pope read from a 14th century manuscript was because no one told him that Muslims have become dangerous. The conciet is just mindblowing. You have to think to yourself: "given the man's intimate familiarity with Islam, his years spent as a theologian, and his 170 IQ points, should we conclude that he knew what he was doing or not?" And if you're the BBC or the NYT, you're actually answering: "no, he must be so stupid that he didn't know what he was doing".
The other thing is that the Pope isn't the only one confused about Muslim intentions, even if you believe the NYT. For instance, the New York Times themselves seem really confused:
It was not immediately clear whether this would tamp down the anger, which recalled the furor earlier this year after European newspapers published cartoons unflattering to the Prophet Muhammad.
Hmm... gosh, we just don't know. Maybe the NYT should "bring back" their Arabist and he can help them decode whether or not global jihadists will milk this for another couple of days, blow up some more churches, and see how things go.
Benedict is used to writing his own speeches, and several Vatican officials said he wrote Tuesday’s address, one of the most significant of the papacy, by himself. The officials said there was concern in the Vatican before he delivered it, both about the reaction among Muslims and how the news media would portray the passages relating to Islam. That concern was relayed up the chain of command, the officials said, but it is not clear if it reached the pope.
At a time when the Vatican has just replaced its second-in-command and its foreign minister, many experts also said that did not have enough experts on Islam to gauge reaction to any papal statements. "They have nobody to really ask," said the Rev. Thomas Michel, secretary for inter-religious dialogue for the Jesuit order of priests. "Whoever looked at it and let that go through is someone who doesn’t understand Muslims at all." In February, Benedict reassigned the Vatican’s most senior Arabist, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, then the head of inter-religious dialogue, to Cairo as the Vatican envoy there. The move was seen at the time by some church experts as a sign of Benedict’s skepticism about the value of dialogue with Muslims. "I think one may say, if it is not too impolite, that it is time to bring back Monsignor Fitzgerald," said Mr. Melloni, the Vatican scholar.
Most of what we have to say on this subject was covered in our post from this weekend about the BBC explaining that poor Pope Benedict just doesn't understand Muslims because he's "led a sheltered life in the Vatican" (post: "No Seriously, You Blithering BBC Idiot, Explain to the Poor Sheltered Pope How Islam Works"). And now we've got the New York Times suggesting that the reason that the Pope read from a 14th century manuscript was because no one told him that Muslims have become dangerous. The conciet is just mindblowing. You have to think to yourself: "given the man's intimate familiarity with Islam, his years spent as a theologian, and his 170 IQ points, should we conclude that he knew what he was doing or not?" And if you're the BBC or the NYT, you're actually answering: "no, he must be so stupid that he didn't know what he was doing".
The other thing is that the Pope isn't the only one confused about Muslim intentions, even if you believe the NYT. For instance, the New York Times themselves seem really confused:
It was not immediately clear whether this would tamp down the anger, which recalled the furor earlier this year after European newspapers published cartoons unflattering to the Prophet Muhammad.
Hmm... gosh, we just don't know. Maybe the NYT should "bring back" their Arabist and he can help them decode whether or not global jihadists will milk this for another couple of days, blow up some more churches, and see how things go.
