It is the norm nowadays for westerners to look to some golden age of peaceful co-existence between Christians and Muslims, go to Spain and it is all over the place, did it ever exist? I wonder.
Certainly bombings, threats of beheadings, threatening protests would make one think that the Pope had said something quite significant in his Regensburg lecture. We cannot say with these events, with the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia and the intolerance of Christianity in Saudi Arabia and so many other Islamic countries that things have changes in the last few centuries from the time of Emanuel II. One could think better had such a vociferous response met the bombings in US, Spain and the UK. I know that most Muslims are decent but I for one want to see it, show the evidence.
Hihad Watch has an interesting explanation for this photograph, it might be an interesting website to keep an eye on in the next few weeks.
What limits? Classic Islamic law stipulates that Christians may live in peace in Islamic societies as long as they accept second-class status as dhimmis, which involves living within certain limits: not holding authority over Muslims, paying the jizya tax, not building new churches or repairing old ones, and...not insulting Allah or Muhammad. If they believe that a Christian has insulted them in some way, even inadvertently, his contract of protection -- dhimma -- is voided.
So are these protestors warning the Pope to behave like a dhimmi, or else? I expect so. After all, so many Christians and post-Christians in the West in recent years have been willing, even eager, to accept such limits -- witness the chastened reaction to the Cartoon Rage riots, in which Church officials, government leaders, and others solemnly pontificated against "insults to religious figures." But it wasn't really a question of blasphemy then, and it isn't a question of insult now. It is a question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior.
And I hope that the Pope, for one, is not willing to do so.
Certainly bombings, threats of beheadings, threatening protests would make one think that the Pope had said something quite significant in his Regensburg lecture. We cannot say with these events, with the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and Indonesia and the intolerance of Christianity in Saudi Arabia and so many other Islamic countries that things have changes in the last few centuries from the time of Emanuel II. One could think better had such a vociferous response met the bombings in US, Spain and the UK. I know that most Muslims are decent but I for one want to see it, show the evidence.
Hihad Watch has an interesting explanation for this photograph, it might be an interesting website to keep an eye on in the next few weeks.
What limits? Classic Islamic law stipulates that Christians may live in peace in Islamic societies as long as they accept second-class status as dhimmis, which involves living within certain limits: not holding authority over Muslims, paying the jizya tax, not building new churches or repairing old ones, and...not insulting Allah or Muhammad. If they believe that a Christian has insulted them in some way, even inadvertently, his contract of protection -- dhimma -- is voided.
So are these protestors warning the Pope to behave like a dhimmi, or else? I expect so. After all, so many Christians and post-Christians in the West in recent years have been willing, even eager, to accept such limits -- witness the chastened reaction to the Cartoon Rage riots, in which Church officials, government leaders, and others solemnly pontificated against "insults to religious figures." But it wasn't really a question of blasphemy then, and it isn't a question of insult now. It is a question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior.
And I hope that the Pope, for one, is not willing to do so.
11 comments:
what are 'post-Christians'?
"what are 'post-Christians'?"
a blogging term?
or perhaps people who once were, I think Clare Short says she is one.
Pope Benedict could have used better diplomacy, he could have been silent, he could have apologized. Or, he could have meant exactly what he said and if he did, it should teach all of us a lesson: No person should use violent measures predicated upon religious beliefs. If that is what Pope Benedict meant because of the recent decades of religious extremism on the part of radical members of the Islamic followers, then his message should be followed with specific statements saying exactly what he meant.
Religion is a wonderful gift from God. It provides solace when we are weak and a path when we are strong. It should and must be a tool to justify violence, no matter the religion or the circumstance.
I do hope that eucharisticus left out one word in the last paragraph of his comment. If not, I am very worried
God bless the Holy Father
God bless the Pope, he is never afraid to speak the Truth,in the same way he spoke to the Canadian bishops recently.
"... detached from their moral roots and full significance found in Christ have evolved in the most disturbing of ways. In the name of ‘tolerance’ [Canada] has had to endure the folly of the redefinition of spouse, and in the name of ‘freedom of choice’ it is confronted with the daily destruction of unborn children. When the Creator’s divine plan is ignored the truth of human nature is lost."
It is the same theme.
According to eucharisticus, no person should use violent measures predicated on religious beliefs. Correction: no one should use violent measures to coerce someone into religious belief. False beliefs are unworthy of assent; true ones appeal to reason and as such ought not to be coerced.
However, laws enacted for the common good can be coerced, even though they are ordinances of reason - or rather precisely because of it.
That is why Her Majesty has the right and the duty to deal with evildoers like the Islamists who demonstrated outside Westminster Cathedral, and to slap them about a bit.
I know a good, solid Catholic man who lives in Salisbury. He has a daughter who he says wants to join the RAF so she can get bin Laden. I asked him whether she wouldn't be happier in the Waffen SS!
So come on, young Catholics! Consider signing up for Queen, country and faith and you'll be able quite lawfully to meat (sic) them in combat!
We have many reasons to associate Islam with violence. But what about the professed faith of our "Christian" leaders who believe they are doing God's work in the Middle East? If I were a Muslim in the Middle East, and I were to judge the faith by the acts its adherents, I don't think I would believe Christianity to be a particularly peaceful religion. Indeed, Blair and Bush seem to find enough in the Bible to justify murder and war. Of course, I don't believe that is a fair representation of Christianity, so it works both ways.
Come, come now, anonymous! Not even the most hardened fantasist could imagine that Bush and Blair are waging a Christian crusade. Especially not Blair, abortion enthusiast that he is.
Christian teaching on the use of violence is that it is the prerogative of the State (whether confessionally Christian or not) to bear the sword against evildoers. The sword is not a gift given to Christians in baptism. If as a Christian you want to have the use of the sword you have to enlist in public service as a soldier, a police officer, a judge, a Prime Minister or a Minister of Defence!
Michael, The Holy Father has recently asked whether the criteria of a just war is still a possibility. After the dreadful Iraq conflict I agree with him.
Benedict xv and Manuel ii were both peacemakers.
God bless the Pope
Anonymous, it's one thing for the Pope to ask whether the criteria for a just war can still be met, and quite another for him or anyone else to give an answer. Moreover, divine law (Romans 13:1-7) reserves to the State the prudential judgement in the use of the sword.
First, what is the greatest temporal evil imaginable? Not "war" per se, but the assault by a state upon another, with intent to destroy it by putting its population to genocide. This is the most extreme case of just cause relative to jus ad bellum
As for the destructive power of modern weaponry. consider this. My father (originally from Slovenia) spent three and a half years on the Russian front in the German Army, as an infantry machine-gunner. He used to say that his unit lost more men before breakfast than the British Army lost in all the wars we've fought since the first day of the Falklands War.
So did the Allies, especially the Russians, but no one calls into question that this was a price worth paying to rid the world of Hitler!
Read "The Virtue of War" by Webster and Cole (Regina Orthodox Press).
Post a Comment