(no subject)

[desertvixen]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14903823/

Muslims say pope's apology not good enough
Groups in Turkey, Iraq, Palestinian territories demand 'clear' statement
Updated: 1 hour, 55 minutes ago

ANKARA, Turkey - Muslims in Turkey, Iraq and the Palestinian territories demanded Tuesday that Pope Benedict XVI make a clear apology for his remarks on Islam, instead of saying only that he was “deeply sorry” that Muslims had taken offense.

The prime minister of Malaysia, which chairs the world’s biggest Muslim bloc, said that Benedict’s expression of regret was acceptable.

In Turkey, protesters said Benedict must make full amends before a planned November trip that would be his papacy’s first visit to a Muslim nation.

“Either apologize, or do not come,” read a banner carried by a group of demonstrators from a religious workers’ union.

Iraq’s parliament also rejected Benedict’s explanation of his remarks, saying it was insufficiently clear.

The parliament “demands the pope take practical steps to restore respect to the Islamic world and its religion, and a clear-cut apology for what he said,” lawmakers said in a statement read at a press conference.

Apology 'insufficient'
The top Muslim clergyman in the Palestinian territories similarly demanded that Benedict offer a “clear apology.”

The mufti of Jerusalem, Mohammed Hussein, urged Palestinians to halt attacks on churches in the territories, but held the pontiff responsible for the outpouring of anger.

“So far, we consider the apology of the Vatican Pope insufficient,” Hussein told reporters. “We firmly ask the Vatican Pope to offer a personal, public and clear apology to the 1.5 billion Muslims in this world.”

In a speech last week, the pontiff cited a Medieval text that characterized some of the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad as “evil and inhuman,” particularly “his command to spread by the sword the faith.”

Benedict said Sunday that he was “deeply sorry” that Muslims took offense, and stressed that the emperor’s words did not reflect his own opinion.

Malaysia, which chairs the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference, had demanded that the pope offer a full apology and retract what he said.

“I think we can accept it and we hope there are no more statements that can anger the Muslims,” Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told Malaysian journalists late Monday in New York, where he is attending the U.N. General Assembly.

Abdullah’s comments, carried Tuesday by the national news agency Bernama, came after he met with President Bush, who told the Malaysian leader he believed that Benedict was sincere in apologizing.

Turks demand pope's arrest
Seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza were attacked following Benedict’s comments. Damage was minor and no one was hurt, but it unsettled the small Christian minority, which accounts for about 2 percent of the 3.4 million Palestinians.

In Ankara Tuesday, the protesters demanded that the Justice Ministry arrest the pope upon his arrival in Turkey, where he should be tried on charges of insulting Islam and causing hatred based on religious differences, local media reported.

Ilnur Cevik, editor-in-chief of The New Anatolian newspaper, said in a commentary that the pope must reach out to Muslims before visiting.

“How can the pope make amends and convince the masses with religious sensitivities in Turkey that he is not an enemy of Islam and that he wants to forge an atmosphere of coexistence?” Cevik wrote. “If he fails to do this, it will be very hard for the Turkish people to give him a warm welcome.”

In Turkey, the pope’s remarks strengthened the widespread view that he is hostile to the country’s campaign for membership in the European Union.

As Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the pope questioned whether the EU should open its doors to Turkey, saying it might be incompatible with European culture.

Secular Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted government accused the pope after his latest remarks of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades, and called on him to offer a sincere and personal apology.

Catholic bishops met in Istanbul on Monday and decided the pope’s visit to Turkey in November should go ahead, said Monsignor Georges Marovitch, the Vatican embassy spokesman in Turkey. The pope was invited by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, a staunchly secular leader.

Benedict is scheduled to visit Turkey from Nov. 28 to Dec. 1, where a focus of his visit will be meeting with the Istanbul-based leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians, Bartholomew I.

****

A couple of thoughts:

1. Granted, the apology was kind of wishy-washy - sort of an "I'm sorry you were offended", not "I'm sorry I offended you". I don't want to get into whether an apology should have been required at all, but where he says it wasn't reflective of his own opinion? Then why say it? Also, on a totally cynical note, maybe you should save speeches that might be inflammatory until after your visit to a Muslim nation. The Vatican plays in the political game as well as the religious one.

2. Is the Muslim world going to apologize for the violence they have committed? What about the churches that were damaged in this go-round? Are Muslim leaders going to apologize for anti-Christianity and anti-Western remarks?

3. Is it going to occur to SOMEONE that perhaps the best way to respond to statements that your religion/culture is violent is NOT to commit acts of violence?

I realize there are moderate voices in the Muslim world calling for restraint, but they're not being listened to very much.

DV

Comments

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

On 1: He chose to use a quotation. No, he didn't say it, but he had a wealth of things to choose from and he chose to take a 700 year old statement, and use it, entire, when the entirety said that all of Islam generated nothing but evil. "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,". The statement is incredibly offensive, on it's face. As an hisoric artifact it can be ignored. As a specific quotation one must ascribe meaning to it. I don't see any way to gloss that meaning as without offensive intent.

2: The Muslim "world" didn't commit violence. It's not as if some equivalent of the Vatican Guard went out and committed violence. It was individuals. If the 82nd gets sent someplace to destroy things, then the US has to apologise. I don't recall Israel(or America) being told to apologise when whatisname shot up the prayer in Jerusalem. There is no single group to blame. I am not going to personally apologise for the death of Dilawar, because I had nothing to do with it.

3: I hope so.

TK

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

The Muslim "world" didn't commit violence.

I know, and I should have phrased it better.

Actually, I think this may be where part of the problem comes from, in that there is no one supreme Muslim leader. From my POV, it looks sort of like anyone can grab the microphone and say whatever they want. Until enough other people grab the microphone and contradict them, there's going to be problems.

On the quotation, like I asked, why use it if you don't agree with it? Unless you're immediately following it up with a rebuttal.

DV

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Your're right, I missed that. It seemed to me you were saying the apology was good enough, even if less than perfect.

Me, I think his apology ought to have been abject, but looking at his lack of introspection (based on his statements about his past) it's about the best I expected of him. Lets just say he's not my favorite Pope.

There are lots of religions which don't have one leader (The various catholic faiths have various sorts of one leader, but apart from the Pope, those are much of a muchness of "primus inter pares"), and even the Pope has limited powers of being right (I'll not go into the inherent diffulties of the "inerrant" doctrince of "Ex cathedra which is no small part of why I ended up in the Army instead of the Jesuits).

Even the Mormons, with their Prophet have a disorganised lower structure, where anyone (who is male) can be the beneficiary of revelations.

I don't see that having one "supreme" leader, who can be somehow held to account for the, spontaneous, reactions of the members of the faith is a good thing. Is the Pope to be held accountatble when Catholics choose to murder homosexuals, or abortion providers? No.

Should he condemn their actions, yes. Has he. No.

Does that make the Church guilty? I don't think so.

TK

[desert-vixen.livejournal.com]

Not my favorite Pope either. Only my second one, but still.

DV

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

He's my fourth Paul VI, John Paul I (a terrible choice of name, as the first in such a series is only so named after a second comes to be; seeing the old books which refer to, "Queen Elizabeth" is amusing, but I digress), John Paul II and the present.

I was, however, not looking to merely those in my lifetime (though of those I've been alive to see, he is probably the worst, probably ranking them Benedict XVI, Paul VI, John Paul II, and John Paul I, the last of which had the potential of being one of the best popes in the history of the church, even had he lived for so little as another month).

John Paul II was conservative, and mildly reactionary; Bendecict is downright reactionary, as his name indicates.

He has the potentional to be more damaging to the Church as Pius IX.

TK

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

"Me, I think his apology ought to have been abject, but looking at his lack of introspection (based on his statements about his past) it's about the best I expected of him. Lets just say he's not my favorite Pope."

Better even than the abject apology would have been the ability to look at a particular quote, run it through the "how would this sound to anyone else in the world *other* than me" machine, and pay attention to the resounding shouts of alarm.

What was he thinking??? His words would not be repeated? Not my favorite, either. I'm not Catholic, but I did revere Pope John Paul II. And don't these guys have speech proofreaders?

"I don't see that having one "supreme" leader, who can be somehow held to account for the, spontaneous, reactions of the members of the faith is a good thing. Is the Pope to be held accountatble when Catholics choose to murder homosexuals, or abortion providers? No."

I agree with this completely. The IRA is no more full of devout Catholics than Al Qu*eda is full of Moslems who *understand* the Koran. And I can't imagine one person, anyway, who could ride herd on the numerous Protestant denominations, here. Did T. McVeigh ever sign off on a religious denomination?

I think this particular Pope has made the world a lot more dangerous right now.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Well, the latter is slighty more defendable than the former, but if one parses the hermenuetics carefully (and not much careful casuistry is required) one can make a case for Just War, a la Aquinas in the case of the IRA (and the later behavior; off announcing bombs, well in advance of detonation helps this interpretation) which would allow them to be devout Catholics.

In the second case, since there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic.

Shiite islam, with it's ayatollahs, is in a better position to declare issues of orthodoxy, but that is part, and parcel, of the hostilities between the sects.

As for his making the world more dangerous, I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at him from a purely religious perspective, in that I see him as both damaging the Church's image (and so her ability to affect change) and the opinion of the faithful, in such a way as to drive them to other faiths.

It was a purely Roman Cathilocentric opinion.

TK

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

"I was looking at him from a purely religious perspective, in that I see him as both damaging the Church's image (and so her ability to affect change) and the opinion of the faithful, in such a way as to drive them to other faiths. It was a purely Roman Cathilocentric opinion."

First, let me say that although I am not Catholic, as I mentioned above, my comments are not intended in the slightest as a slur on the Church. I self-identify as a religious Protestant, but attended Mass twice weekly while living in a Catholic dorm in Germany (In fact, it sounds just *wrong* to say anything but "Lamm Gottes, Du nimmst hinweg die Suende der Welt, erbarme Dich unser."). My husband is a Catholic of the old school; from Central America, he would prefer his Masses in Latin, thank you. This is just to clarify that "the Church's image" is important to me, as well, as is the image of the greater group, Christianity in general, as seen by some in the Muslim world.

"Well, the latter is slighty more defendable than the former, but if one parses the hermenuetics carefully (and not much careful casuistry is required) one can make a case for Just War, a la Aquinas in the case of the IRA (and the later behavior; off announcing bombs, well in advance of detonation helps this interpretation) which would allow them to be devout Catholics."

I understand your point, here, but my point is that people who plot mass murder and terrorist acts may earnestly *believe* and be able to argue that they are the truly devout, but that the mainstream of each of the big three would neither condone the acts, nor believe that they are mandated by God. Extremists believe it, of course, and the extremist preachers, mullahs, etc., IMHO, misuse texts and persuasion to gain a following that will carry out actions that the mainstream believers abhor.

We have Pakistani and Afghani Muslim engineering friends, and when I taught ESL, we had quite a few students who became friends who were *Wahabbists.* Having discussed religion with them at various times, I can say that these persons, at least, would not agree that there are no innocent civilians, and would never take part in violent acts. I have often needed to point out, when in discussion with non-Muslim Americans, that we, here, cannot hold Islam or Muslim people as a whole responsible for the acts of ignited crowds or terrorists.

"there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic."

Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think? In any event, each Muslim is hardly an island unto himself with his/her own interpretation. There are traditions, community, the Koran. Not totally unlike differing interpretations of the Bible among various Christian groups. Frankly, Pope John Paul II spoke more *for me* than Pat Robertson and the PTL Club ever did.

My point about the comments made by the new Pope making the world a more dangerous place is simply that in Middle Eastern areas where there is a Christian minority, that minority may become a focal point of rage by certain Muslim groups incited to believe that they have to take physical or violent actions to defend the honor of the Prophet Mohammed. The Catholic nun in Somalia may have been killed as a result. Churches are being torched. I think it places our troops at more risk, and right now, whatever one thinks about the war in Iraq, the safety of our troops is paramount. And, the West sees the pictures and holds *Islam* at fault.

I want our church leaders to work on *uniting* reasonable people of all faiths, not quoting words that could be guaranteed to incite anger or *more* anger in the Muslim world.

I hope this clarified my thoughts. Although comparative religions and religious history were not my fields of study, I do think I am allowed to hold an opinion on the topic.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

"there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic."

Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think?"

A little, but you averred that you could distinguish who was, or wasn't devout. "I agree with this completely. The IRA is no more full of devout Catholics than Al Qu*eda is full of Moslems who *understand* the Koran." .

You are perfectly allowed to have an opinion, but it's possible those opinions are either wrong (viz. Michelle Malkin's opinion that the Japanese were justly interned, and that we should consider doing the same to all Muslims) or merely misinformed.

I can't read Arabic, so I can't do more than read someone elses exegis of the Qu'ran, I even agree with you that those who are violently radical in their understanding are wrong, but I can't say that with certainty (and the early history of expansionist Islam is certainly something one can point to and say it has, at its core, a streak of; religiously, legitimised violence, and those who practice such do have a real understanding of the faith, and the less (or non) violent traditions are aberrant interpretations.

I'm not going to make either of those assumptions, any more than I can really argue that 1 Timothy is not-merely non-Pauline writing (which is fairly certain) but rather was a specific attempt to derail the practice of active female involvement in the early-Church (which, from what I've read seems a reasonable, and even probable, interpretation of the letter).

The other thing is the "devout"ness of those who belong to the IRA, because that's a question of internal motivation. One can be damned devout, and wrong (as you point out wrt T. McVeigh, he isn't seen as identifying with a specifc church, though from his writings, and the way he went about his crime, he seems to be a member of Christian Identity).

I might say members of the IRA aren't, "good" catholics, but I won't say they aren't devout.

I hope this clarifies my thinking.

On a different note, I'm with your husband, I want the mass in Latin, and with a good practice of training in the language (at least of the Mass, its rituals and purpose; as well as the simple meaning of the words) because if I try to attend a mass in someplace like Frankfort (which I did) I can't. My German is enough to get by, it's not enough to understand the liturgy (I don't expect the sermons, and homilies, to be in anything but the local language), which means when I travel I can't partake.

On the issue of the Pope making the world more dangerous, yeah, in this instance he probably has; but that's a function of his devotion. If he believes the things he says, then he (as head of the church) has a duty to speak to them. That he apologised means either he is trimming his sails for public relations, or that his belief isn't a matter of doctrine, but predjudice. Either of those is wrong, and both would demand an apology of more substance than he made.

[hornedhopper.livejournal.com]

"I hope this clarifies my thinking."

Yes, thank you.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I forgot to mention that part of the reason I want to keep Latin in the Church is that so much of the doctrine, dogma, and history is predicate on Latin, and not undserstanding the core language of the tenets on which the religion is derived makes for a lot of confusion (sort of like a self-induced tower of babel).

I don't want to see it (Latin) fetishized to the point of becoming a magical religion (which some aspects of Orthodox Judaism do) but there is something to be said for anyone in the faith being able to discuss the meaning of the text, without the pains of translating the terms (this, again, doesn't get into the question of textual accuracy, and transmission of scribal error; nor yet the intent of such errors when knowingly introduced; exegis is a whole 'nother can o' worms, and one which a panel deciding orthodoxy can [and has] caused to set into concrete, some old worldviews which are against what I see as basic principles of human rights and dignity, but I am a Catholic who 1: grew up in an overtly religious society, and 2: that society is protestant, which has a tradition of individual interpretation; which I have absorbed, which means I tend to analyse doctrine, and live according to my interpretations; guided by that doctrine. That's a whole 'nother can 'o worms too).

TK

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

You may get a bump in visitors, as I just linked to this conversation at Majikthise (http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2006/09/rape_and_other_.html#comment-22686053)

TK