Yesterday I posted a piece about Catholic leaders contemplating a more realistic stance toward Islam. Here is another in which the dhimmitude option comes in for some gentle questioning. From the International Herald Tribune, with thanks to the Norwegian Kafir:
ROME - One is from Nigeria, a man who grew up among Muslims and says there is no clash of cultures.
Wow. Really? A man who grew up among Muslims says that? In Nigeria? If he really says that, I wonder if maybe he grew up in a lovely padded cell, say, on the outskirts of Lagos.
Another is from Germany and believes that it might be useful to talk to Muslims but that it is better to revitalize Christianity. Others speak of the need for Muslims in Europe to integrate better or even to become more secular.By coincidence or not, many cardinals mentioned as candidates to be the next pope have strongly expressed positions on Islam and on whether the Roman Catholic Church's relations with Muslims should be conciliatory or a notch more confrontational.
John Paul II had a consistent, even groundbreaking, strategy for addressing Islam: Talk at all costs, even if there were few concrete results. But in the Vatican, and especially since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, his unbudging advocacy of dialogue had long spawned criticism, mostly quiet, as being not muscular enough.
Now, although relations with Islam will not be the decisive issue for the 115 cardinals who will meet to select the next pope, the debate is seen as vital because it intersects centrally with other major issues facing the church: increasing secularism in Europe, contrasting with the religious revival in the Islamic world; relations with other religions, a priority for John Paul II; and the rising number of Muslim immigrants in Europe. The dwindling number of Christians in the Middle East is also a major concern.
Though the discussion in the church is nuanced,
Oh, that's good. Muhammad B. would approve.
less a matter of opposing camps than of shades and emphasis, much of it revolves around two questions: How great a danger does Islam, the world's second-largest religion, present to Christianity, the largest? And how useful would it be to continue, in the same way, John Paul's policy of dialogue between the faiths?Most cardinals who are considered possible papal candidates lean closer to John Paul's embracing of dialogue. But there are hints, too, that cardinals want to overcome what has been a major internal criticism of the pope's efforts at talks with Muslims: that it has managed to reach out only to moderates, not to the hard-liners who pose greater risks.
"I would hope that in the future, the way of dialogue would in fact increase and make inroads in the other parts of Islam," Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the archbishop of Westminster, England, told reporters on April 6....
"I would hope that in the future, the way of dialogue would in fact increase and make inroads in the other parts of Islam," Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the archbishop of Westminster, England, told reporters on April 6...."
How has the "way of dialogue" so far made things easier, in the Middle East or anywhere else, for Catholics, or Christians, or non-Muslims generally? It has not. One of the things Bernard Lewis has said that might be engraved in one's memory is that compromise does not exist for Muslims; all concessions and aid and smiles from the Infidels, and promises of understanding, will be pocketed, and exploited. But there will be nothing in return; far from it -- the assurance that Islam will triumph, that if Muslims are patient, very patient, a good deal of the non-Muslim world will fall into their lap, will be confirmed.
This is not understood by those in the Western world. They lack the imaginative sympathy, the real imaginative sympathy, to comprehend the psychology of Muslims -- which means, of course, most Muslims. They take the becks and nods and smiles as meaning something -- well, so they do, but not what the leaders of the Western world, including the one about to entertain "Crown Prince" Abdullah (of the family that seized control of Arabia, and renamed it after itself, and has arrogated to itself much of that country's unmerited oil wealth).
Since the "Dialogue" with "the moderates" has been such a smashing failure, why not indeed extend it to the "fundamentalists"? Is this not the policy urged by Alastair Crooke and his fellow "conslutants" at Conflicts Forum? Of course it is. But at least he is getting paid for his services. No one is paying those Cardinals who think that "dialogue" is the way to proceed.
And in any case, the idiocy of some in the Western world will be paid for, in unpleasantness, in expense, in danger, and in death, by the entire Infidel world. When Chirac makes his deals, and gets his payoffs, it is not he alone, or his descendants (save for his Muslim grandchild) who will suffer, but everyone in France, and because of France's significance, everyone in Western Europe, and because of Western Europe's significance, the United States as well. Thus Chirac, Schroder, and the E.U. bureacracy (including Javier Solana, who employed Alastair Crooke to offer Hamas such words of sympathetic encouragement, Chris Patten, Romano Prodi - now running to replace Sua Emittenza in Italy, and all the rest).
"Dialogues of civilization" are now all the rage, the Muslim rage. They keep down the amount of critical scrutiny. They buy time to further entrench Muslim populatons in the Western world, aggressive, insistent, ever-more demanding and hostile populations.
The ability of people to deny the evidence is disturbing. About smoking's link to cancer. Obesity's link to heart disease. Global warming. The nature of Islam. Some things are matters of individual survival, while other things....
Maybe between original Mormonism and Islam there was little difference (angel Moroni/angel Gibreel... polygamy, etc.), but between Catholicism (Savior/son of God Jesus) and Islam (minor prophet/ lesser-than-Mohammad Jesus) there is nothing but difference.
And what has "culture" to do with it?
They are faiths, not societal mores.
Time for Catholic leaders to crack the Koran.
It negates their religion, if they only knew it.
How is that acceptable to these parochial poobahs of patriarchy?
(Or does that one similarity... male domination... tie them tightly together beneath the surface disagreements?)
According to the collection of the mea culpa's of John Paul II (When a Pope Asks Forgiveness, by Luigi Acctotli, 1998), JPII's three principle messages about Islam were that 1) christian and muslims are brother under God, 2) they should strive to rise above past wars that have separated them, and 3) they can only do this by mutual forgiveness.
There's a pretty widespread recognition (I bet even at the Vatican) that there has been nothing mutual about the forgiveness. It's been a one-way street. Muslims apologize for nothing.
Why does the Church seemingly spend so much time and energy "pontificating" on past wars, and very little about the current religious wars and conflicts? If only there was as much outrage and defense for persecuted christians in 2005.
The basic tenets of Christianity (mercy and forgiveness, we are all sinners, we must atone for sins past and present, martyrdom for one's faith) seem to render the Church incapable of defending itself against Islam, which isn't hindered by such concepts. I do fervently hope the Church finds a way to defend itself and really, really soon.
If anybody has read Bat Ye'ors Islam and Dhimmitude, they might get an idea of the mindset behind this "rapproachment", in simple form a piece of the pie is better than none at all. The Christian heirarchy doesn't care what Islam does, so long as it can retain influence over it's piece of the pie (it's constituency).
That Nigerian Cardinal is Arinze, and book makers give him the odds on being the next pope.
And of course the sheeple catholics will fall in line, either keep their mouths shut, or engage in apologia and denial.
Religion is faith, dogma,ritual doctrine, eschatology for the little people, but for the big guys, those with robes, caps, and authority, it is
power and privilege.
The Catholic church made a big thing of Pope JPII's will, he didn't own anything (except Catholicdom).
Mao Tse Tung received a measly $300 a month allowance, however he owned China and had at it's beck and call all of the resources of China on demand, just as the Pope has at his call all of the resources of The Church.
I had an uncle, a Southern Baptist Preacher, he received an allowance of $300 a month, all of which he invested in property, because his parsonage, utilities, insurance, car, were provided by his church, and even food, and on his birthday and Xmas he was showered with expensive gifts (from a congregation that was mostly poor white southerners). My aunt seldom cooked dinner for him, as he had the custom of taking dinner at various households in his congregation.
Mullahs, priests,preachers, rebbe's are shepherds who tend the flock, and the job of a shepherd is to watch over the flock, keep them under control until it is time for the fleecing and the slaughter.
Religious leaders hold forth as representatives of god on earth, and claim the ability to speak for god and interpret god, in truth the claim to extemporal authority is the easy road to power, privilege and even wealth.
Islam is not the only example, but in Islam, especially Iran and Saudi Arabia, the mullahs control the society and have more socio economic prestige and power,than the average person could dream of. In Iran, and soon to be Iraq, the mullahcracy is corrupt, powerful and rich, and it is nepotistic, cronyism reigns.
The sons and grandsons of the Ayatollahs and Hojats e Islam, become themselves Ayatollahs and influential mujtahids.
The only constructive dialogue with Muslims seems to be the kind that Commodore Edward Preble engaged in when he sent Lt. Stephen Decatur and a detachment of Marines into Tripoli harbor in 1804 to kick their asses. It got their attention then and it gets their attention now. As long as Marines continue to kick their butts back to the 7th century as they have been doing now for more than 200 years, everybody seems to be able to coexist. Why tamper with a system that for at least two centuries has demonstrated that it works?
What has Christianity to do with rank Christ denying paganism? numbat
Kelley, Christianity does not teach us to atone for all of our sins. It teaches that Jesus Christ paid the penalty for our sins--that's atonement. I refer you to the First Letter of Peter (he was supposedly first pope, after all, to Catholics) and the letter to the Hebrews. They're towards the back of the New Testament. Also, Jesus himself said, "The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." (Mark 10:45). Our job is to repent of our sins and accept this gift in humble gratitude.
Giaour, I've also given out of my poverty to support men who could've earned a lot more doing some other job because I'm grateful that they're willing to share full-time their spiritual gifts, insights into the Scripture, compassion, and wisdom (often happens when they're older men) with others of us who must spend the time teaching English to non-native speakers, translate, etc. Oops! I've forgotten! The infinitely wise Jeffersonian infidel will still think me just a pathetic dupe unable to speak in more than monosyllables and pronounce "Jesus Christ" in less than five syllables. 豈有此理!
Eeeeek! Kepha also speaks in tongues! (never mind he learned them by books, teachers, papers, etc.)