Eric Johnson: September 2006 Archives

My daughter Molly, after getting into the drawer with all of the kids' rosaries. Note the contemplative look on her face as she begins the Apostles' Creed:

...and after praying:

Denis Boyles of NRO agrees that the problem with journalists is that they have no idea what Christianity or Islam teaches, much less have a grasp on philosophy:

Part of the problem journalists face when they have to report on complicated, somewhat obscure topics, such as Roman Catholic dogmatic theology, is that graduate journalism courses like JOM926 may stress spelling & grammar, but completely at the expense of “faith & reason.” So maybe it’s not fair to blame journalists for the inanities in the week’s reporting of what was a very complex discussion by a scholarly pope concerning faith and reason in Christianity and in Islam. As you know by now, the pope quoted a 14th-century Byzantine whose millennial empire had been reduced to mere acres and whose people had been dispatched by the hundreds of thousands by Islamic armies who thought death was a suitable end for unrepentant infidels. The emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, ventured to a visiting Persian that surely there must be a better way to do missionary work. Somehow a graduate of JOM926 got hold of the pope’s speech, and that was all it took.

I'm still jet-lagged from a trip, and there's not enough time to write more thoroughly, so here are some fragments:

• The full text of the Pope's apology reveals that the Pope has not recanted that part of his speech -- that "for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." If journalists had bothered to read the full text -- well, they wouldn't have understood it anyway, so the point is moot. But assuming they weren't so lazy, or so ignorant of the philosophical context of the Pope's remarks, that is far more pointed than an intemperate quotation from a Byzantine emperor. It says that Islam downplays the intellect of God in favor of the will of God, while Greek philosophy and Christian philosophy acknowledge the importance of both. That is a crucial departure between the two religions, and it is telling that no Muslims, so far as I can tell, have objected to it.

• At a protest outside Westminster Cathedral in London, Muslims issued veiled threats against Pope Benedict's life, and spouted blasphemies against Jesus. (So much for "respectful dialogue.")

• TigerHawk sounds one of my regular themes, that "liberals, such as the editors of the New York Times, refuse to condemn them because they believe that Muslims are incapable of choices. I may deplore the choices of these rioting Muslims, but the New York Times holds them in contempt, regarding them as nothing more than wild animals." TigerHawk refers to the New York Times editorial chastising the Holy Father for "sow[ing] pain" among tender-hearted Muslims.

• Speaking of the NYT, their contemptible editorial deserves a little more attention. "The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue," the editors intone. "But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims." According to Merriam-Webster, foment means "to promote the growth or development of: ROUSE, INCITE; 'foment a rebellion'." The editors are thus plainly stating that the Holy Father deliberately promoted discord ("active quarreling or conflict"). By misinterpreting the Pope's words as deliberately offensive, aren't the editors guilty of the same crime?

• If you have not already done it, read the Pope's original speech so you can see it in context.

Islamofascism is on the march around the world, which gives Islam itself the appearance of strength and power. (No, I do not equate Islam with the ideology of the Islamofascists, though they share many of the same basic errors and malign tendencies.) But the furor over the Pope quoting a Byzantine emperor's undiplomatic comments about jihad reveals the true state of Islam today.

I agree with Mark Shea on this one: Islam is superficially strong, because many of its adherents carry out horrific violence in its name. With Belloc, I observe that Muslims are largely impervious to conversion -- and today, they are seemingly unwilling to carry out anything like a dialogue. But neither of these things are indications of real strength. If they were truly strong, they would have the self-confidence to shrug off comments that they with which they disagreed, or that were blantantly offensive (and the Pope's remarks were not.)

Instead, as if on cue, Muslims explode into intemperate rage when something offends their delicate sensibilities. But why are they so worred about what non-Muslims say about Islam, when so many of their own brethren say much worse? Islamfascists equate Islam with murder, forced conversion, political oppression, and even genocide, and it's business as usual. Maybe Muslims should spend more time and energy refuting them, if they're looking to preserve the good name of Islam and its "prophet."

But how does one have a dialogue when the other party reserves the right to fly off into a self-righteous rage when they hear something the least bit offensive? I don't doubt that there are Muslims in the world who can discuss their faith rationally, but when I've attempted it, I always get the same reaction, which is more or less, "You have to accept Islam before you understand it." Maybe so, but why would I want to accept something that I don't understand? And how can I understand if you won't appeal to my intellect?

Good luck, Holy Father, in your efforts to promote dialogue with the Islamic world. They don't seem the least bit interested, but God can find avenues that are invisible to the naked eye. The alternative -- decades, if not centuries, of conflict and unrest -- makes it worthwhile.