The art of whipping up anti-Catholic rage (on author's website as “Apologize for what?”)

The art of whipping up anti-Catholic rage

David Warren, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Saturday, September 16, 2006

The BBC appears to have been quickest off the mark, to send around the world in many languages, including Arabic, Turkish, Farsi, Urdu, and Malay, word that the Pope had insulted the Prophet of Islam during an address in Bavaria.

He had not, of course. Benedict XVI had instead quoted, carefully and without approval, remarks by the erudite 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, in debate with a 14th-century educated Persian. But in the most conscientious media reports I have seen, even the Byzantine emperor is quoted out of context.

By turning the story back-to-front, so that what's promised in the lead is quietly withdrawn in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Roman Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant they did not realize this (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility. From the start, the BBC's reports said the pope would "face criticism from Muslim leaders" -- in the present tense. This is a form of dishonesty that has become common in journalism today. The flagrantly biased reporter, feigning objectivity, spices his story by just guessing what a man's enemies will say, even before they have spoken.

While I don't mean to pick especially on the BBC, when other mainstream media are often as culpable, they are worth singling out here to show the amount of sheer murderous evil of which this taxpayer-funded network is capable. As I write, the BBC website has just posted an "interpretive" piece by their religious affairs correspondent, one Rahul Tandon. He does an unconscionably brief review of publicity the Pope had previously received, as Cardinal Ratzinger and since his elevation, touching upon Islam. By extracting the context from each item on his list, Mr Tandon creates the utterly false impression that the pope is, as the media persistently dub him, "God's Rottweiler," with an especially vicious hate-on for Muslims.

Now watch Mr Tandon pose as the objective reporter: "However, since his consecration, Pope Benedict has surprised many with his attempts to improve dialogue with the Muslim world. He is due to visit Turkey in November as part of that process. "But there have been signs of his earlier views." Note the dripping condescension in the trailing line, as if the Pope is barely able to contain himself. But more significantly, note the implicit assertion that the views of Cardinal Ratzinger changed when he became pope. This is not true, but insinuated as if it were fact.

From now on, the reporting will be about the Muslim rage, and whether the Vatican has apologized yet. That is the "drama" the media will seek to capture -- the drama of the cockfight -- because they know no better kind. That the Pope said nothing intrinsically objectionable will be overlooked, in deference to the Muslim rage, just as the media hid the Danish cartoons from their viewers -- preventing them from discovering how mild the drawings were.

But again: even without the BBC doing the devil's work, with unbecoming enthusiasm, the story would have carried to the Muslim world, where a new wave of anti-Western, and specifically anti-Christian, hysteria is now rising, similar to what was enhanced by tendentious misreporting after the Danish controversy. There are enough other agents provocateurs both in my business and outside it; and surely, enough radical Muslims digging for grievances to extend their own power. The manufacture of grievances, to justify strident demands for their redress, is the tyrant's stock-in-trade. It is what took Adolf Hitler to power over the Germans, and it is what today's Islamic fanatics depend upon to control the Muslims, and push them towards an apocalyptic jihad against the West. Moreover, the basic tactic of bullying is to demand apologies for exaggerated or imaginary offences. It is to make the decent kneel before the indecent.

Already the parliament of Pakistan has voted unanimously to condemn the Pope, without showing the patience or courtesy to find out what he actually said.

This showed the power of the fanatics in Pakistan, for once one of them had tabled the lying motion, not one parliamentarian had the courage to resist it. It is worth adding, that in expressing their blind rage thus, they were illustrating not the Pope's, but the Byzantine emperor's caricature of Islam.

It is cowardly to apologize for imaginary transgressions. Let those who demand the apologies stick it.

David Warren's column appears Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday.

I WISH PEOPLE WOULD READ WHAT THE POPE ACTUALLY SAID AND MAKE SOME ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT!!!

http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

He WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE USE OF VIOLENCE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES!!! He was not discussing Islam at all!!! He was discussing: "Faith, Reason, and the University" ... and stated as part of his conclusion that "...theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences..." and that "... the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions."

His final statement was, "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." The "cultures" he was referring to had little or nothing to do with Islam - he was talking about the clash of "empirically verifiable" vs. "theology" cultures, as he earlier had said, "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."

He is being excoriated for using a quote from over 600 years ago "-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.": "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope made clear he was quoting an ancient conversation. He made clear that this is NOT HIS words, but that of the Byzantine emperor, and that emperor then went on to make a "... decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."

The last sentence was the whole point that the Pope was making during his whole presentation: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. It was one of his many starting points for his theological discussion of "Faith, Reason and the University", part of his conclusion being, "...We will succeed in [broadening our concept of reason and its application] only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today..."

The reaction to the very profound things the Pope said illustrates several things. One of them is that the people are completely incapable of understanding the profound, and that Western universities have fallen short in their education responsibilities, including in their education of the NYSlimes' reporters and their readers who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that they don't know everything. Another is this illustration that people should not be given access to specialized knowledge and discussion, whether that be theological, political, or scientific, without thorough and accurate filtering. Yet another, but by no means the final, is that biased people always misunderstand what even the finest communications expert says.

The Pope's major point is that ALL of the profoundly religious cultures whether they be Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, etc., should not be marginalized by being snootily looked at as a "subculture" not worthy of inclusion in the university environment, and that the university "culture" must engage in reason with the religious "culture".
PLEASE, if you agree with this analysis of what the Pope said, or any part of it, FEEL FREE TO USE IT any way you desire!

Especially, if you go the the "CATHOLIC MESSAGE BOARDS" which I don't frequent, and which apparently have been replete with people angry about what the Pope said.

Fantastic! Thank you for your excellent analysis. It has been seriously annoying the hell out of me that the Holy Father's lecture is being completely misrepresented as a talk "about islam"! It was not that at all as you have explained so well. I will take you up on your offer and ue your analysis as you have written one much better than I ever could. Thank you again!

Perhaps you ought to send this explanation to our news outlets so that they will bring up nthe fact that the Pope was not discussing islam at all but rather all religions and their rightful place in university.(?) I think sending this to Brit Hume might be a good idea becasue he may be the only journalist thoughtful enough to actually point out that the brouhaha in the moslem world is unwarranted since the subject of the lecture was not islam. I think he might even expose the BBC and other news outlets for perpetuating the misrepesentation of the Pope's lecture.

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.