Posted on 09/17/2006 4:09:32 PM PDT by TaxachusettsMan
Benedict XVI in a disastrous display of public sensitivity, makes the point that Christianity, in its evolution, has learned to forsake violence and defend its faith through appeals to reason—and thus can offer its own experience in the current crisis of Islam.
By quoting from the emperor rhetorician Manuel Paleologus . . . the Pope failed to grasp that under the tenets of radical Islam,
context means little,
intent nothing,
learning less than zero.
If a sentence, indeed a mere phrase can be taken out of context, twisted, manipulated to show an absence of deference to Islam, furor ensues, death threats follow, assassins load their belts—even as the New York Times issues its sanctimonious apologies in the hope that the crocodile will eat them last.
We learned the now familiar rage
with the Danish cartoons,
Theo Van Gogh,
the false flushed Koran story,
the forced change of “Operation Infinite Justice” to “Enduring Freedom”,
the constant charges of “Islamaphobia”,
and a horde of other false grievances that so shook the West, traumatized in fear of having its skyscrapers, planes, trains, buses, nightclubs, and synagogues blown apart or its oil cut off.
So, yes, we know the asymmetrical rules:
a state run-paper in Cairo or the West Bank,
a lunatic Iranian mullah,
a grand mufti from this or that mosque,
can all rail about infidels, “pigs and apes”, in language reminiscent of the Third Reich—and meet with approval in the Middle East and silence in the West.
But for a Westerner, a Tony Blair, George Bush, or Pope Benedict to even hint that something has gone terribly wrong with modern Islam, is to endure immediate furor and worse.
In short, no modern ideology, no religious sect of the present age demands so much of others, so little of itself.
(Excerpt) Read more at victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com ...
I really really enjoyed the book "The Rage and The Pride" by Oriana Fallaci. You can get it online from various book sellers. GREAT book! You can read it in an afternoon. In fact, you can't put it down.
I like VDH, but this essay will not have the reach, scope, or impact of what the Pope said this week.
I think this Hanson guy may be something of a moron. He wrote: "context means little, intent nothing, learning less than zero"
If he had read what the pope wrote he would know that that was exactly what Pope Benedict XVI was talking about at that point. I guess he didn't even read the document?
Self-serving does not begin to describe McCain. . .
I hope Repubs send him to political oblivion; when push, finally comes to shove. . .
He forgot the idiology of American Liberalism. . .
VDH meant that these things don't mean anything to the Islamists. VDH is one of the brightest thinkers out there.
I was all set to be confused and upset that VDH would actually consider that the Pope 'failed to grasp' the possibility that his quote of the Emperor would be pulled out of context. Until I got to the last line of his essay:
And dear Pope: clarify, contextualize, express sorrow over the wrong interpretation of your remarks, but please don’t apologize for the Truth—not now, not ever.
"context means little, intent nothing, learning less than zero"
VDH was refering to Islam never grasping it.
I have NO sympathy for Ratzinger (as Oriana preferred to call him as do I). For an individual who during the controversy of the Danish muzzie cartoons said that people (the cartoon creators) "cannot entail the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers.". Well guess he should have listened to his OWN advise. And further, IMHO, it's BS for him to say that just b/c he quoted the emperor didn't mean that he agreed w/ him. Uhmmmm????? Let me see, what is SOP for when someone quotes another but DISAGREES w/ the statements of the other - Let me think - thinking - thinking - thinking - OH YEAH, they USUALLY SAY THEY DISAGREE W/ THE STATEMENTS or GIVE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS to the statements. So for him to say NOW that he doesn't agree w/ the emperor seems to me to be just CYA in hindsight on his part.
And now the terrorists muzzies that are PO'd about his remarks are providing proof of the words of the Byzantine Emperor by attacking churches, nuns & so on incl the "mujahideen's army" movement threatening the life of Ratzinger himself.
As Paige Hopkins & others have pointed out (& even Barbara Walters, I hear)...when the leader of iran threatens to "wipe Israel off the face of the Earth" you didn't see supporters of Israel nor the Jews themselves bombing mosques & killing islamic workers OVER WORDS spoken by iran...nor did you hear most of the same muzzie & non-muzzie folks who are now complaining about Ratzinger's speech content making the same "dust-up" over the iranian comments then either.
cricket, McCain & his ilk keep IGNORING the FACT that 99.999999999999% (if not all) of the "detainees" are NOT REPEAT NOT covered by the GC b/c they fall into the category of "un-uniformed" hostiles. IMHO, he is still just PO'd that the torture he went thru got him to sign a CONFESSION.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.