Junto Boys

THE DOPE ON THE POPE

I had a hard time believing that such a learned, careful man as the Pope, in a prepared speech, could have *accidentally* inflamed Muslims in the current hypersensitive geopolitical environment. Rick Moran of Rightwing Nuthouse agrees that the challenge may have been deliberate.

Since his election to the papacy in April of 2005, Pope Benedict has bent over backwards in an effort to assuage the concerns of Muslims over issues that
place them in conflict with the west. It is therefore something of a surprise that he would knowingly challenge radical Islamists by quoting a long dead 13th century Byzantine vassal Emperor on the “evil and inhuman” practice of forced conversion to Islam.

The fact that both his words and intent were twisted by the fanatics in order to gin up the emotions of their ignorant followers should not have come as a surprise to the Pontiff given similar reactions to other faux “outrages” like the Muhammed cartoons and the fake story about the desecration of the Koran by US soldiers at Guantanamo.

This makes one wonder if indeed the challenge was deliberate and designed to augment his main thesis regarding radical Isam; that violence and reason are ncompatible and therefore ungodly.

. . .

The dilemma for the Pope as well as the West has always been a question of whether or not to engage the fanatics by challenging them or try and address their grievances and appease them. Has the Pope finally decided to cast his lot with those who seek to challenge the extremists? It would appear that the Pope has done so, and on a plane that he seems uniquely suited to occupy; bringing his considerable intellectual gifts and moral authority to bear in an effort to encourage moderates to step forward and work with him to marginalize the terrorists.

Risk attends both the engagement and appeasement strategies. Engagement, we are told, plays into the radicals hands and strengthens the terrorists. By challenging the fanatics, we create more terrorists and make it more difficult for moderate Muslims to support us. On the other hand, getting to terrorism’s “root causes” appears to be an exercise in futility while agreeing with the extremists’ critiques of the western response to terrorism only seems to embolden them.

The Pope seeks a higher plane in the conflict. By risking offense, he goes beyond the superficial dialogue between Christian and Muslims of the past and begins a conversation where it should have been all along; on the nature and practice of Islam in the modern world and how that religion can co-exist with a west infused with Christian values.

Muslims (not all, of course) responded to the suggestion that violence is ungodly with violence. So why apologize for the suggestion? James Lewis addresses that.

I don’t believe the Pope stirred up this tempest by accident. It was leaked to make a point. (Believe it or not, news reporters are not in the habit of attending lectures on church history). So it was a planted story – but deniable as just an historic reference. The Pope sent a signal, and the Muslim world responded with riots. Nobody could have been surprised.

Even the BBC explains today that the Pope wants to start a dialogue with the Muslim world, following the lead of John Paul II. But Benedict wants the dialogue to be reciprocal, and that means that Muslims must reflect on the dark side of their history, just as the Catholics have done to a considerable extent. And they must stop legitimizing violence.

Why was Benedict so provocative? Because he would not have been heard therwise. Benedict is looking for an honest dialogue. No doubt he is prepared to apologize again, as appropriate, for harm done to Muslims by Christians. His planted provocation is designed to ask Muslims: Are you also prepared to mend your ways?

This is an act of courage designed to advance a genuine dialogue of cultures.

There are too little nobility in the world, and too few self-sacrificing heroes like Pope Benedict, who like Jesus is taking a vicious personal beating for the good of the world.