Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's NYT Article (4) - How They Totally Don't Understand Religion
Of course, we've got a series of (very nicely illustrated) posts going on about this the entire week, so this is something to be expected. And yet, we'd be remiss if we didn't point out the uniquely stupid liberalism implied in this statement. First of all, look at how they're crowing thatthe Pope abased himself in front of Muslims:
Pope Benedict XVI sought Sunday to extinguish days of anger and protest among Muslims by issuing an extraordinary personal apology for having caused offense with a speech last week that cited a reference to Islam as "evil and inhuman... I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace of Castel Gandolfo, "which were considered offensive."
We're not sure that this is an accurate characterization of the Pope's sentiments (which we think were closer to "wow, you people are insane... I'm really sorry you're primitive" variety). But that's not the debate we want to have right now. Check out this line:
His statement came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the pope as a neutral figure for peace among faiths.
Here's the thing - the Pope isn't supposed to be a neutral figure. It's like political rhetoric has just been emptied of any content, and all adjectives are now just synonyms for "good" or "bad", and we all know that being absolutely "neutral" is good. So they needed an adjective, and since this is vaguely about the Middle East "neutral" (of 'as the UN, we can't condemn terrorists because we're being neutral' fame) was the first thing that came to mind. Which was a particularly poor, because the Pope isn't really supposed to be a neutral figure for anything - and what's more, we're pretty sure that the NYT agreed with that when this Pope and past Popes criticized Israel. But that's besides the point. Who do they think this guy is, the Dali Lama? He's the POPE. If Islam is attacking Catholicism, it's not his job to be neutral. If Catholicism is attacking Islam, it's STILL not his job to be neutral. He's the POPE. This is what happens when you let blue-state elites talk about religion - they write idiotic things like this.
Pope Benedict XVI sought Sunday to extinguish days of anger and protest among Muslims by issuing an extraordinary personal apology for having caused offense with a speech last week that cited a reference to Islam as "evil and inhuman... I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address," the pope told pilgrims at the summer papal palace of Castel Gandolfo, "which were considered offensive."
We're not sure that this is an accurate characterization of the Pope's sentiments (which we think were closer to "wow, you people are insane... I'm really sorry you're primitive" variety). But that's not the debate we want to have right now. Check out this line:
His statement came amid much worry in the church about violence and any erosion of the status of the pope as a neutral figure for peace among faiths.
Here's the thing - the Pope isn't supposed to be a neutral figure. It's like political rhetoric has just been emptied of any content, and all adjectives are now just synonyms for "good" or "bad", and we all know that being absolutely "neutral" is good. So they needed an adjective, and since this is vaguely about the Middle East "neutral" (of 'as the UN, we can't condemn terrorists because we're being neutral' fame) was the first thing that came to mind. Which was a particularly poor, because the Pope isn't really supposed to be a neutral figure for anything - and what's more, we're pretty sure that the NYT agreed with that when this Pope and past Popes criticized Israel. But that's besides the point. Who do they think this guy is, the Dali Lama? He's the POPE. If Islam is attacking Catholicism, it's not his job to be neutral. If Catholicism is attacking Islam, it's STILL not his job to be neutral. He's the POPE. This is what happens when you let blue-state elites talk about religion - they write idiotic things like this.
