Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's Guardian Article (1) - Interfaith Dialogue. Holy Hell, Are These People Stupid
The Guardian is pissed off because Pope Benedict XVI - the spiritual leader of a billion people - suggested that he thinks that his religion is superior to Islam. This is like every single Friday in the Muslim world, where worshipers are told in sermons that they are superior to the Jews and Christians, who are pigs and apes (query: is it that the Jews are pigs and the Christians are apes... or the other way around... or are there pigs and apes who are Jews and pigs and apes who are Christians?... and is the ape thing like a Darwinian thing, or did they just guess?). Anyway, pigs and apes every Friday in the Muslim world, Pope says "in the 14th century, the Muslims sure did try to conquer Europe a lot", global riots. Guardian says that it's his fault because he's not trying to appease the barbarians at the gates. What does the Guardian suggest?
In fact, Pope Benedict XVI's short papacy has marked a significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue. John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace.
Wow. This is spectacularly stupid on just so many levels. This is really like a caricature of the European mindset applied to everything on the planet, from interpersonal relationships to religion to diplomacy on Iran: talk a lot to reduce hostility, when that doesn't work get other people and talk some more to reduce hostility, and when that doesn't work all that's left to do is to pray. Of course, they don't actually finish that cycle, since during the prayers you get slaughtered by incoming hordes who think that your prayers are actually reasons that they should hate you. But these things happen. Let's go from the end to the beginning:
(1) "pray for world peace" - the Guardian is upset because Benedict hasn't had prayers for world peace recently. We're not sure how to break it to them, but we're going to try to let them down lightly. Guys, the praying for world peace thing: it didn't work. That's why Benedict had to get up and make everyone understand that jihadist Muslims are coming for Europe. More prayer: unlikely to help.
(2) "dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders" - and hasn't that paid off bloody dividends! Good think JPII got all those religious leaders on the same page, huh? If he hadn't, he might have missed the opportunity to set up some sort of stable and long-term understanding between religious leaders. You know, we made fun of JPII back then - but all his efforts have really paid off in the form of all those Muslim clerics coming forward in recent days to tell their followers that while anger is justified, violence against other religions never is. Seriously, let's have some more "dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders" - see if you can get the African animists to come back too. They were exotic and really made everyone in the 1990s feel like it was a small world and soon we would all just get along.
(3) "significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue" - you know, we appreciate that sometimes our diatribes get the better of us, and maybe the invective becomes a little much. We recognize that, and we're working through those issues. But there's a special spot in our "are you effing kidding" hearts for suggestions that interreligious dialogue can do anything to stop anybody from attacking anyone. It's not just the absolutely unbeatable argument that religious hatred occurs prior to belief rather than a result of belief - people believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 because they're anti-Semites; they're not anti-Semites because they believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. Seriously, it's an unanswerable argument - but you know, that's not even why interreligious dialogue is stupid. Interrelgious dialogue is stupid because WE ALREADY KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE POPE. For the love of everything that's holy, we don't need to know about their feelings any more. We've heard enough about their feelings. They want to kill him. Seriously, he said that in the 1300s Muslims were trying to conquer Europe and now they want to kill him. That's how they feel. We don't need dialogue to tell us that. This is so infuriating, seriously - in the Guardian's mind, what exactly would an interreligious dialogue between the Pope and a jihadist look like?
Pope Benedict XVI: Good morning, and thank you so much for coming. I've really been trying to take as much as much time out as possible from shepparding the BILLION people I'm responsible for so that I can meet the obligations for dialogue that the international press says I owe everyone, ever since my subtle and elegant discussion of Aristotle and Plato caused so much anger in the Muslim world. So let me begin today by saying that, as Juan Cole reminded me because he's a better Catholic theologian than I am, Vatican II compel me to open my heart to the rays of truth in your great religion. And I hope that maybe we can come together, as Isaac and Ishmael did, in the shadow of our mutual father Abraham.
Jihadist: Convert or die, kafir.
And that's it! We're done. There's no more to go after that. Seriously, we've just spent another two days reading these absurd articles that throw in recommendations for interreligious dialogue as if it was an unquestioned good. We have not read a single explanation - not a single one, we've been trying to pay attention - that goes so far as to even hint at an explanation for why it's good.
We, on the other hand, think it's bad. And we have a reason. Here's the argument:
(a) Muslim fanatics get angry and burn things when they realize that other religions think that Islam is not good or true.
(b) Any genuine interreligious dialogue will eventually come to the part of "what do you think about Mohammed". And Jews and Christians who are telling the truth have to go: "honestly, kind of misguided. Killed a bunch of folks, thought the voices in his head were God. Truth be told, not high on the Sunday school role model list"
(c) At this point, jihadists might - we don't say 'will', we say 'might' - might be inclined to obey recent exhortations to kill anyone who insults Mohammed on the spot. And that would be bad, because contrary to what you see on British TV murder in the name of the Prophet is not an ethically defensible way to go through life.
Now we're going to play the game of "how could a human being possibly be so stupid or confused that they could think that interfaith dialogue could possibly help anything"? Well, if you think that our little (a)-(b) narrative isn't true, you have to explain why it isn't true. Let's go step by step.
Step (a): Is it possible that Muslim fanatics don't get angry and burn things when they realize that other religions think that Islam is not good or true? Not outside of the newsrooms of the NYT, the LAT, the SF Chronicle, the BBC, Europe, the Middle East... this joke just got too depressing. Answer to question: no, it's not possible that they don't get angry and blow things up. Let's move on.
Step (c): We know it's out of order, just trust us. This step: is it possible that no jihadist will kill Jews and Christians specifically because of some other Jew or Christian's insult to Allah. No? OK, good talk.
Step (b): So now we're essentially back to the really bad question for the interreligious dialogue junkies: what do you actually want people to talk about? Is it possible that interrelgious dialogue will go on forever, without a Jew or Christian eventually having to point out that have to point out that, no, their religion does not allow them to believe that God was really talking to Mohammed? Well, obviously, no - because it's an article.. No. We're not explaining why Jews and Christians can't recognize that Mohammed was a prophet. If you don't know, go read USA Today and never leave your house again. So it doesn't look like interreligious dialogue solves anything.
But here things get interesting, because we (and you, and honestly even the people advocating this) don't think that they're really interested in people exchanging what they really believe. What they're interested in is having everybody just kind of giving lip service to multicultural bromides about how everyone has their own way of getting to truth (which is the opposite of REVEALED religion, but we're past 'logic' at this point). But here's the thing - even in the ideal circumstance where they have a fake religious dialogue and it goes on for a while, all that's doing is setting us up for more violence later. Why? Because eventually the jihadists are going to figure out that actually, we're lying to them and actually, Jews and Christians aren't so much on the "God talked to Mohammed thing". And how will they find out? Because someone who's actually Christian or Jewish will be talking one day, and they'll say - as if it's obvious, because it any normal society it'd be obvious - that of course they think that their religion is the true one. Could be someone as important as Benedict. Could be someone as unimportant as a newspaper cartoonist. Either way, we're off to the races. Or the streets. Or whereever fine effigies are sold and burned.
In fact, Pope Benedict XVI's short papacy has marked a significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue. John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace.
Wow. This is spectacularly stupid on just so many levels. This is really like a caricature of the European mindset applied to everything on the planet, from interpersonal relationships to religion to diplomacy on Iran: talk a lot to reduce hostility, when that doesn't work get other people and talk some more to reduce hostility, and when that doesn't work all that's left to do is to pray. Of course, they don't actually finish that cycle, since during the prayers you get slaughtered by incoming hordes who think that your prayers are actually reasons that they should hate you. But these things happen. Let's go from the end to the beginning:
(1) "pray for world peace" - the Guardian is upset because Benedict hasn't had prayers for world peace recently. We're not sure how to break it to them, but we're going to try to let them down lightly. Guys, the praying for world peace thing: it didn't work. That's why Benedict had to get up and make everyone understand that jihadist Muslims are coming for Europe. More prayer: unlikely to help.
(2) "dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders" - and hasn't that paid off bloody dividends! Good think JPII got all those religious leaders on the same page, huh? If he hadn't, he might have missed the opportunity to set up some sort of stable and long-term understanding between religious leaders. You know, we made fun of JPII back then - but all his efforts have really paid off in the form of all those Muslim clerics coming forward in recent days to tell their followers that while anger is justified, violence against other religions never is. Seriously, let's have some more "dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders" - see if you can get the African animists to come back too. They were exotic and really made everyone in the 1990s feel like it was a small world and soon we would all just get along.
(3) "significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue" - you know, we appreciate that sometimes our diatribes get the better of us, and maybe the invective becomes a little much. We recognize that, and we're working through those issues. But there's a special spot in our "are you effing kidding" hearts for suggestions that interreligious dialogue can do anything to stop anybody from attacking anyone. It's not just the absolutely unbeatable argument that religious hatred occurs prior to belief rather than a result of belief - people believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11 because they're anti-Semites; they're not anti-Semites because they believe that the Jews were responsible for 9/11. Seriously, it's an unanswerable argument - but you know, that's not even why interreligious dialogue is stupid. Interrelgious dialogue is stupid because WE ALREADY KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT THE POPE. For the love of everything that's holy, we don't need to know about their feelings any more. We've heard enough about their feelings. They want to kill him. Seriously, he said that in the 1300s Muslims were trying to conquer Europe and now they want to kill him. That's how they feel. We don't need dialogue to tell us that. This is so infuriating, seriously - in the Guardian's mind, what exactly would an interreligious dialogue between the Pope and a jihadist look like?
Pope Benedict XVI: Good morning, and thank you so much for coming. I've really been trying to take as much as much time out as possible from shepparding the BILLION people I'm responsible for so that I can meet the obligations for dialogue that the international press says I owe everyone, ever since my subtle and elegant discussion of Aristotle and Plato caused so much anger in the Muslim world. So let me begin today by saying that, as Juan Cole reminded me because he's a better Catholic theologian than I am, Vatican II compel me to open my heart to the rays of truth in your great religion. And I hope that maybe we can come together, as Isaac and Ishmael did, in the shadow of our mutual father Abraham.
Jihadist: Convert or die, kafir.
And that's it! We're done. There's no more to go after that. Seriously, we've just spent another two days reading these absurd articles that throw in recommendations for interreligious dialogue as if it was an unquestioned good. We have not read a single explanation - not a single one, we've been trying to pay attention - that goes so far as to even hint at an explanation for why it's good.
We, on the other hand, think it's bad. And we have a reason. Here's the argument:
(a) Muslim fanatics get angry and burn things when they realize that other religions think that Islam is not good or true.
(b) Any genuine interreligious dialogue will eventually come to the part of "what do you think about Mohammed". And Jews and Christians who are telling the truth have to go: "honestly, kind of misguided. Killed a bunch of folks, thought the voices in his head were God. Truth be told, not high on the Sunday school role model list"
(c) At this point, jihadists might - we don't say 'will', we say 'might' - might be inclined to obey recent exhortations to kill anyone who insults Mohammed on the spot. And that would be bad, because contrary to what you see on British TV murder in the name of the Prophet is not an ethically defensible way to go through life.
Now we're going to play the game of "how could a human being possibly be so stupid or confused that they could think that interfaith dialogue could possibly help anything"? Well, if you think that our little (a)-(b) narrative isn't true, you have to explain why it isn't true. Let's go step by step.
Step (a): Is it possible that Muslim fanatics don't get angry and burn things when they realize that other religions think that Islam is not good or true? Not outside of the newsrooms of the NYT, the LAT, the SF Chronicle, the BBC, Europe, the Middle East... this joke just got too depressing. Answer to question: no, it's not possible that they don't get angry and blow things up. Let's move on.
Step (c): We know it's out of order, just trust us. This step: is it possible that no jihadist will kill Jews and Christians specifically because of some other Jew or Christian's insult to Allah. No? OK, good talk.
Step (b): So now we're essentially back to the really bad question for the interreligious dialogue junkies: what do you actually want people to talk about? Is it possible that interrelgious dialogue will go on forever, without a Jew or Christian eventually having to point out that have to point out that, no, their religion does not allow them to believe that God was really talking to Mohammed? Well, obviously, no - because it's an article.. No. We're not explaining why Jews and Christians can't recognize that Mohammed was a prophet. If you don't know, go read USA Today and never leave your house again. So it doesn't look like interreligious dialogue solves anything.
But here things get interesting, because we (and you, and honestly even the people advocating this) don't think that they're really interested in people exchanging what they really believe. What they're interested in is having everybody just kind of giving lip service to multicultural bromides about how everyone has their own way of getting to truth (which is the opposite of REVEALED religion, but we're past 'logic' at this point). But here's the thing - even in the ideal circumstance where they have a fake religious dialogue and it goes on for a while, all that's doing is setting us up for more violence later. Why? Because eventually the jihadists are going to figure out that actually, we're lying to them and actually, Jews and Christians aren't so much on the "God talked to Mohammed thing". And how will they find out? Because someone who's actually Christian or Jewish will be talking one day, and they'll say - as if it's obvious, because it any normal society it'd be obvious - that of course they think that their religion is the true one. Could be someone as important as Benedict. Could be someone as unimportant as a newspaper cartoonist. Either way, we're off to the races. Or the streets. Or whereever fine effigies are sold and burned.
