Posted on 09/16/2006 3:56:54 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
September 16, 2006 - 06:46
In a surreal clash of the sacred and the profane, the New York Times - that citadel of secularism - has declared in its editorial of this morning that Pope Benedict "needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology," for having quoted a 14th century Christian emperor who said:
“Show me just what Muhammad 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 Times is only being fair and balanced, I suppose. After all, hardly a week goes by that you can't pick up the paper and read an editorial condemning this or that mullah, imam or ayatollah for the latest fatwa ordering the death of such-and-such infidel or the destruction of entire countries found to be an annoyance. Or not.
But the Times suddenly gets religion, if they'll excuse the expresssion, when it comes to the Pope. Oh well. At least there's one hopeful sign in all this. It was of course Stalin who dismissively asked how many divisions the Pope had. By its editorial according great weight to the words of the Pontiff, the Times would appear to be breaking with Uncle Joe. Might this be the start of a hopeful trend?
Concise explanation of the cancer known as Muhammadanism
I'm glad to hear that. He is the right man at the right time. Just as JPII was in the face of Communism.
The Democrats always insist on getting "admissions" and "apologies", etc., as if those things have any meaning or would accomplish something. If the New York Times and the Democrats ever did get their "admissions" and "apologies", what would that mean, exactly? What would be accomplished? Would "admissions" and "apologies" change anything? Anything at all?
(The sick, irrational, liberal mind - - what's with it? Chemical imbalance maybe? I wonder if someday some clever psychiatrist will be able to explain it to normal humans.)
NYT: Holy Writ of the Church of Liberalism
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1702188/posts
Ping to this analysis....
Several things bother me about this Times editorial demanding an apology from the Pope.
1. The usual problem with such editorials. The editors of the Times seem to think it is their right to lay down the law to the whole world, and the world ought to jump to obey them. You could call this the typical hubris, or chutzpa, of the Old Gray Lady.
2. Once again they reveal themselves as more sympathetic to Muslim extremists than to the West, and once again they reveal their rabid hatred of Christianity and especially of Catholicism.
But the worst sin committed by this editorial hasn't yet been mentioned on this thread, I don't think.
3. They are at the business of stirring up hatred against the West in the Muslim world, much like Newsweak and their lies about Koran flushing.
PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET KILLED OVER THIS, ANCIENT CHURCHES ARE GOING TO BE BURNT, ARAB MOBS ARE GOING TO BE RAMPAGING THROUGH THE STREETS MURDERING PEOPLE, and the persons responsible for stirring up this hatred against the Pope are Pinch Sulzberger and Bill Keller.
Sure, the fanatics will rampage whatever the Times says, but it's not their job to try to stir up further hatred for their own political purposes. Their job is to tell the truth and to calm hatreds, even if their efforts will probably be ineffectual. At least they could TRY to be on the right side, the side of civilization against terror and murder.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
You said exactly what I felt but couldn't articulate.
Thanks for your clarity of thought!
No problem. Glad someone gets it. :)
I would like to say to the NYtraitors, that they have no moral authority in this and to just go ahead and file for formal bankrupt because you are, morally and fiscally.
It seems that some educated moslems of the 14-15th centuries were more civilized than their counterparts of the 21st century. They engaged in dialogue. Some others engaged in 'holy wars'. Lines were neatly drawn.
Now we do not see any moslem cleric, sunni and shi'a, trying to engage dialogue. We see all of them crying sacrilege and calling for more violence or for a humiliating apology, while at the same time trying to invade Europe demographically, and the 'New World' is on their waiting list. They are creating a complex and interlaced situation, both on the ground and on the intellectual level where they find some support inside the western world. What a difference from 600 years ago.
You wrote:
"OK I will bite. Why was he quoting the old German guy if he didnt agree?"
Did I not just quote you? Does that mean we agree? And he didn't quote an old German guy. He quoted a Byzantine emperor. He was Greek and not German.
I think you have bitten off more than you know what to do with.
"And given that the guy had been dead for many hundreds of years, what caused it to just mysteriously pop out of his mouth."
Nothing mysterious about it. He just read a book in which the quote appeared. You really haven't been following this story have you?
"Did God make him say it? For a man of peace, I find it difficult that the pope didnt know he was throwing gasoline on a burning fire."
I don't. All he did was quote someone. He never said the quote was true. He also never said it was untrue. He merely quoted it as an example. He assumed, incorrectly, that people wouldn't make fools of themselves over this quote because he was NOT using it to attack anyone, but only as an illustration of part of his discussion. He forgot, or has yet to learn, that Muslims are wackos and don't care about context.
"Hell why didnt he just call for a fourth crusade to rid the Holy Land of non-believers?"
Because there already was a Fourth Crusade (around A.D. 1200). There were seven or eight crusades in fact.
I think you should stick to snacks you don't have to chew.
"W" should toss the NYT in the clink for putting Catholics in danger of losing their lives at the hands of "newsie" inspired mobs of ignorant Moslems.
Bump for later reading...
"And Satan is running rampant over the earth these days."
Let those with eyes see. It has been apparent for a while now for those paying attention.
I personally worry far less about a heathen Korean lunatic or even a godless China than about religious fanatics of any religious persuasion.
I consider your perspective slanted and naive. It totally ignores the historical fact that people form civilizations and in those civilizations are institutions including religions. What you said above could just as easily be said of governments and patriotism. It fits nicely with the Leftist philosophy permeating our media today. In any case, it is diametrically opposite of Conservative philosophy that this website, the Free Republic represents.
By the way. You wouldn't happen to be a Libertarian, would you?
:-) Yay!
Finally, in principle, I would say that libertarian ideals are closest to my philosophy.
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.