International Islamic Council Demands Boycott of Vatican
We're going to have to remember this next time we want to say that reactionary Muslims make interfaith dialogue difficult. A borad Islamic boycott of the Vatican would do wonders to establish some common ground between Jews and Catholics ("... yeah, we know what you mean - the lack of all those high tech products from Syria are just killing us too!")
Lynn-B from In Context calls our attention to rampant stupidity at the International Islamic Council for Propagation and Relief (no, we have no idea what it is):
More than 90 international organizations, members of the International Islamic Council for Propagation and Relief, chaired by Sheikh Al-Azhar Tantawi have demanded an apology from Pope Benedict XVI for his anti-Muslim statements. The foreign ministers of the 56 member-countries of Organization of the Islamic Conference also demanded that the pope withdraw his anti-Islamic remarks. The International Union of the Muslim Scholars declared that they would not have any relations with the Vatican, its organs or representatives anywhere in the world until the pope changed his stand enabling constructive and earnest dialogue with the Vatican.
Personally, we don't think that they're going to go through with it. If they ban all Muslims from standing in those hideous lines outside St. Peter's (slogan: "the only place in Italy with slower security checks than Fiumicino"), then it's going to be awfully suspicious when nine or ten 20-something male Muslims all show up on the same day. Although we're wondering if the statement that "they would not have any relations with the Vatican" includes actually "conquering it."
We do want to call your attention to a couple of things in the article. First, according to our traitorous press (and no, we don't mean that all the press is traitorous - we just mean that we've heard this argument from ones who may, in a strict legal sense, be traitors)... anyway, some have argued that Muslim reactionaries don't pay attention to the Western press. That is obviously untenable denial:
While the supreme spiritual head of the Catholics in his arrogance and conceit refuses to make any sincere attempt to correct his mistakes, leading Western newspapers have criticized Pope Benedict XVI for some of the actions he took once he succeeded Pope John Paul II. The New York Times described the pope’s charges against Islam as grave and painful while the French newspaper Le Monde said, "Six months after the publication of the caricatures lampooning the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we hoped that the pope to be moderate in his statements about Islam and not link it with extremism."
It's funny - that NYT article was so filled with indefensible apologias that it was literally the first thing that we wrote about when the Papal jihad really got rolling. At the time, the specific passage about pain caused us to point out that:
The Pope doesn't have to apologize to people who are hurt by arguments. If the New York Times editorial staff thinks that they can make a convincing argument for why the Muslim conception of Allah does not imply a transcendent God and a contingent metaphysics, they're more than free to do so. But if they can't explain why the Pope was wrong, they should do us all a favor and stop pretending that they have any right to play schoolyard traffic cop, forcing mean old Catholicism and Judaism to let Islam play kickball with them.
That still seems like a reasonable position, even when it's Islamic Councils repeating the New York Times. We do have to say, though, that this Arab News writer is a gem. We can't actually remember a lot of MSM outlets pulling the "he was a Nazi" card on the Pope like he kind of sort of does:
There is no point in exacting a reluctant apology from the pope. His past points at his intolerance, bigotry and racism. The best strategy to deal with such a bigoted religious head is by severing all relations including diplomatic ties with the Vatican as long as he continues to be at the helm.
Bold words coming from an Arabnews.com writer - this would be the same outlet that in mid-August published an editorial demanding that Arabs stop comparing Israel to Nazi Germany... because it was making the Nazis look bad (we're not even joking about that - seriously - go check it out - that's the argument!).
Anyway, the rest of this current article isn't exactly "honest" ("honest" in the sense of "reflecting the salient parts of the truth"). It says that Benedict "dismissed the official in charge of holding dialogues with the Muslims". Not exactly - Benedict sent the guy somewhere in the Middle East so that he could have dialogues with Muslims. We think he was sent Egypt, but we're not sure about that part – in any event, he was sent to somewhere where he could go do his job.
The article says that the Pope wrote the article himself. That part is actually true. Benedict writes a lot of his own speeches, especially those having to do with theology. He does this because there simply aren't many people who can think - let alone write - the kinds of things that he thinks and writes about. If you have even the slightest inclination to object to this obvious fact, we challenge you to get through the first ten paragraphs of this 1991 presentation on Conscience and Papal authority and pretend that he's within even a couple standard deviations of the norm. And so if it's not style and content, what exactly do people expect him to hand around his paper for? Is there someone in the Vatican supposed to check this Pope's statements for dogmatic theological consistency – as if there's anyone who can recognize heretical inclinations better than he can? Obviously that's not why people are complaining that Benedict's speech didn't go through normal channels. What they really want is someone weak to have told him "you shouldn't make that very interesting observation about the nature of religious sensibilities, because there are millions of people out there who do things like riot over cartoons". This plea for normal procedures is just a way to demand that the Pope not make sound and reasonable arguments because people might get their feelings hurt - because really, why shouldn't the rigorous search for truth have to take a backseat to hysterics of illiterate mobs?
Speaking of illiteracy:
US President George Bush expressed his appreciation for the pontiff’s attempt to clarify his position with regard to the statement that provoked the Muslims. The US leader said that the pope’s stand should not be interpreted as a clash between religions. On the other hand it is a clash between the murderers who employ religion as a cover for their crimes and those who believe in peace. No doubt Bush’s statement is an appreciation of the anti-Islamic stance taken by the pope and the neoconservatives' hatred of Islam.
Obviously. Because saying that the majority of Muslims are moderate is exactly what people who really hate Islam would say. You know, it's almost like there are certain parts of the Arab and Muslim world that are actively looking for things to get offended about.
Lynn-B from In Context calls our attention to rampant stupidity at the International Islamic Council for Propagation and Relief (no, we have no idea what it is):
More than 90 international organizations, members of the International Islamic Council for Propagation and Relief, chaired by Sheikh Al-Azhar Tantawi have demanded an apology from Pope Benedict XVI for his anti-Muslim statements. The foreign ministers of the 56 member-countries of Organization of the Islamic Conference also demanded that the pope withdraw his anti-Islamic remarks. The International Union of the Muslim Scholars declared that they would not have any relations with the Vatican, its organs or representatives anywhere in the world until the pope changed his stand enabling constructive and earnest dialogue with the Vatican.
Personally, we don't think that they're going to go through with it. If they ban all Muslims from standing in those hideous lines outside St. Peter's (slogan: "the only place in Italy with slower security checks than Fiumicino"), then it's going to be awfully suspicious when nine or ten 20-something male Muslims all show up on the same day. Although we're wondering if the statement that "they would not have any relations with the Vatican" includes actually "conquering it."
We do want to call your attention to a couple of things in the article. First, according to our traitorous press (and no, we don't mean that all the press is traitorous - we just mean that we've heard this argument from ones who may, in a strict legal sense, be traitors)... anyway, some have argued that Muslim reactionaries don't pay attention to the Western press. That is obviously untenable denial:
While the supreme spiritual head of the Catholics in his arrogance and conceit refuses to make any sincere attempt to correct his mistakes, leading Western newspapers have criticized Pope Benedict XVI for some of the actions he took once he succeeded Pope John Paul II. The New York Times described the pope’s charges against Islam as grave and painful while the French newspaper Le Monde said, "Six months after the publication of the caricatures lampooning the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we hoped that the pope to be moderate in his statements about Islam and not link it with extremism."
It's funny - that NYT article was so filled with indefensible apologias that it was literally the first thing that we wrote about when the Papal jihad really got rolling. At the time, the specific passage about pain caused us to point out that:
The Pope doesn't have to apologize to people who are hurt by arguments. If the New York Times editorial staff thinks that they can make a convincing argument for why the Muslim conception of Allah does not imply a transcendent God and a contingent metaphysics, they're more than free to do so. But if they can't explain why the Pope was wrong, they should do us all a favor and stop pretending that they have any right to play schoolyard traffic cop, forcing mean old Catholicism and Judaism to let Islam play kickball with them.
That still seems like a reasonable position, even when it's Islamic Councils repeating the New York Times. We do have to say, though, that this Arab News writer is a gem. We can't actually remember a lot of MSM outlets pulling the "he was a Nazi" card on the Pope like he kind of sort of does:
There is no point in exacting a reluctant apology from the pope. His past points at his intolerance, bigotry and racism. The best strategy to deal with such a bigoted religious head is by severing all relations including diplomatic ties with the Vatican as long as he continues to be at the helm.
Bold words coming from an Arabnews.com writer - this would be the same outlet that in mid-August published an editorial demanding that Arabs stop comparing Israel to Nazi Germany... because it was making the Nazis look bad (we're not even joking about that - seriously - go check it out - that's the argument!).
Anyway, the rest of this current article isn't exactly "honest" ("honest" in the sense of "reflecting the salient parts of the truth"). It says that Benedict "dismissed the official in charge of holding dialogues with the Muslims". Not exactly - Benedict sent the guy somewhere in the Middle East so that he could have dialogues with Muslims. We think he was sent Egypt, but we're not sure about that part – in any event, he was sent to somewhere where he could go do his job.
The article says that the Pope wrote the article himself. That part is actually true. Benedict writes a lot of his own speeches, especially those having to do with theology. He does this because there simply aren't many people who can think - let alone write - the kinds of things that he thinks and writes about. If you have even the slightest inclination to object to this obvious fact, we challenge you to get through the first ten paragraphs of this 1991 presentation on Conscience and Papal authority and pretend that he's within even a couple standard deviations of the norm. And so if it's not style and content, what exactly do people expect him to hand around his paper for? Is there someone in the Vatican supposed to check this Pope's statements for dogmatic theological consistency – as if there's anyone who can recognize heretical inclinations better than he can? Obviously that's not why people are complaining that Benedict's speech didn't go through normal channels. What they really want is someone weak to have told him "you shouldn't make that very interesting observation about the nature of religious sensibilities, because there are millions of people out there who do things like riot over cartoons". This plea for normal procedures is just a way to demand that the Pope not make sound and reasonable arguments because people might get their feelings hurt - because really, why shouldn't the rigorous search for truth have to take a backseat to hysterics of illiterate mobs?
Speaking of illiteracy:
US President George Bush expressed his appreciation for the pontiff’s attempt to clarify his position with regard to the statement that provoked the Muslims. The US leader said that the pope’s stand should not be interpreted as a clash between religions. On the other hand it is a clash between the murderers who employ religion as a cover for their crimes and those who believe in peace. No doubt Bush’s statement is an appreciation of the anti-Islamic stance taken by the pope and the neoconservatives' hatred of Islam.
Obviously. Because saying that the majority of Muslims are moderate is exactly what people who really hate Islam would say. You know, it's almost like there are certain parts of the Arab and Muslim world that are actively looking for things to get offended about.
