The despicable New York Times
The other night a conservative friend asked me why I subscribe to the New York Times. I told him that I know it's a liberal paper, but it's also a very, very good paper, and I can read through and deal with the bias. This morning's editorial page, though, made me as mad as I think I have ever been at the Times. Here's why: its editorial calling on Pope Benedict to make a "deep and persuasive" apology to Muslims. Here's the thing in its entirety, with my comments in boldface and brackets.
---
THE POPE'S WORDS
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “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.”
[Context, please? By declining to put the Pope's quote in the fuller context of the speech, and to explain why he quoted this emperor, the Times gives the impression that the Pope was being merely provocative.]
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.
[What, not the least concern over the disturbing fact that Muslim mobs around the world have taken to the streets in full-throated protest against the mere words of the Pope in a long, scholarly lecture spent mostly castigating the West? If Muslims overreact to the least little thing that offends their sense of religious dignity, that's fine with the Times, because it's the fault of anyone in the West who dares to criticize them? If Christians reacted in the same way to the constant insults and degradations of our religion in this culture, the Times would go nuclear, and shriek about the dark night of theofascism threatening to descend upon us, silencing free speech &c. But when actual theofascism shows itself among Muslims, then the Times seems to think it's the fault of those who have the nerve to exercise their right to free speech. Longtime readers of this blog will remember that I was at a Pew Forum religion conference earlier this summer, at which an Ivy League professor considered to be one of the world's leading authorities on Islam and Islamic history declined to talk with us journalists about certain relatively minor aspects of early Muslim history on the record. Why wouldn't he? Because he was afraid that to do so might get him killed. That is astonishing, isn't it? That a leading scholar did not feel free in the United States of America to discuss this or that aspect of Islamic history, for fear that Muslim fanatics would hunt him down on his campus and take his life for blaspheming the Prophet. This is not an uncommon situation; ask Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists. But the Times takes out against the Pope for one remark in a long speech about how violence can never be used for religious goals, only reason? Astonishing. And outrageous.]
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”
[Oh, so it's impermissible to have a negative opinion about relations between nations without being accused of fomenting "discord"? The Pope happens to be right about the Turkish situation; Turkey -- where they put people on trial for mentioning that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenian Christian population a hundred years ago -- is an Islamic society, with its own traditions, traditions that run deeply counter to Europe's. The Pope might have been wrong in what he said -- I don't think he was at all, but let's grant that he might have been -- but expressing a political and cultural judgment about the suitability of a large Muslim nation joining the European Union is perfectly legitimate. If Turkish Muslim leaders were to say the same thing from their point of view, would the Times take them to task for fomenting discord? Of course they wouldn't, nor should they. The Times, though, has absorbed the liberal/dhimmi mentality, which is geared toward appeasing Muslim hotheads at all costs. Reprehensible.]
A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.
[What the heck does that mean? That because the head of the Catholic Church worries about his flock losing Catholic identity, he's intolerant, and unsuited for interfaith dialogue? Does a religious leader have to abandon the core convictions of his faith as a prerequisite for talking with people of other religions? Would the Times have the nerve to make a similar demand of Muslim clerics? Of Jewish ones? Of course not, because that kind of demand is absurd and insulting. I get tired of people who yell "bigotry" every time there is the least criticism of Catholicism or Christianity, but I'm telling you, this Times editorial really does come across as having special standards that apply to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and not to leaders of other religions.]
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
[This sniveling capitulation of the New York Times in the face of Islamic fanaticism and intolerance is tragic and dangerous, not so much because it represents a great newspaper's cowardice in the face of religious fascists' attempt to silence any criticism of their religion, but moreso because the Times' disgraceful response represents the point of view of quite a significant number of people in the West, who believe they are being progressive and moral by abasing themselves before the illiberal demands of Muslim leaders. One doesn't have to believe the Pope was right to use the quote he did to stand up for his right to say it, and to recognize that the real threat to liberty and human rights in all this are those Muslims who are hysterically braying for the Pope to apologize. If the West is going to adopt the attitude of the New York Times in these matters, the danger and the tragedy will belong to us, and be of our own making.]
---
THE POPE'S WORDS
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “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.”
[Context, please? By declining to put the Pope's quote in the fuller context of the speech, and to explain why he quoted this emperor, the Times gives the impression that the Pope was being merely provocative.]
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.
[What, not the least concern over the disturbing fact that Muslim mobs around the world have taken to the streets in full-throated protest against the mere words of the Pope in a long, scholarly lecture spent mostly castigating the West? If Muslims overreact to the least little thing that offends their sense of religious dignity, that's fine with the Times, because it's the fault of anyone in the West who dares to criticize them? If Christians reacted in the same way to the constant insults and degradations of our religion in this culture, the Times would go nuclear, and shriek about the dark night of theofascism threatening to descend upon us, silencing free speech &c. But when actual theofascism shows itself among Muslims, then the Times seems to think it's the fault of those who have the nerve to exercise their right to free speech. Longtime readers of this blog will remember that I was at a Pew Forum religion conference earlier this summer, at which an Ivy League professor considered to be one of the world's leading authorities on Islam and Islamic history declined to talk with us journalists about certain relatively minor aspects of early Muslim history on the record. Why wouldn't he? Because he was afraid that to do so might get him killed. That is astonishing, isn't it? That a leading scholar did not feel free in the United States of America to discuss this or that aspect of Islamic history, for fear that Muslim fanatics would hunt him down on his campus and take his life for blaspheming the Prophet. This is not an uncommon situation; ask Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists. But the Times takes out against the Pope for one remark in a long speech about how violence can never be used for religious goals, only reason? Astonishing. And outrageous.]
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”
[Oh, so it's impermissible to have a negative opinion about relations between nations without being accused of fomenting "discord"? The Pope happens to be right about the Turkish situation; Turkey -- where they put people on trial for mentioning that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenian Christian population a hundred years ago -- is an Islamic society, with its own traditions, traditions that run deeply counter to Europe's. The Pope might have been wrong in what he said -- I don't think he was at all, but let's grant that he might have been -- but expressing a political and cultural judgment about the suitability of a large Muslim nation joining the European Union is perfectly legitimate. If Turkish Muslim leaders were to say the same thing from their point of view, would the Times take them to task for fomenting discord? Of course they wouldn't, nor should they. The Times, though, has absorbed the liberal/dhimmi mentality, which is geared toward appeasing Muslim hotheads at all costs. Reprehensible.]
A doctrinal conservative, his greatest fear appears to be the loss of a uniform Catholic identity, not exactly the best jumping-off point for tolerance or interfaith dialogue.
[What the heck does that mean? That because the head of the Catholic Church worries about his flock losing Catholic identity, he's intolerant, and unsuited for interfaith dialogue? Does a religious leader have to abandon the core convictions of his faith as a prerequisite for talking with people of other religions? Would the Times have the nerve to make a similar demand of Muslim clerics? Of Jewish ones? Of course not, because that kind of demand is absurd and insulting. I get tired of people who yell "bigotry" every time there is the least criticism of Catholicism or Christianity, but I'm telling you, this Times editorial really does come across as having special standards that apply to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, and not to leaders of other religions.]
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
[This sniveling capitulation of the New York Times in the face of Islamic fanaticism and intolerance is tragic and dangerous, not so much because it represents a great newspaper's cowardice in the face of religious fascists' attempt to silence any criticism of their religion, but moreso because the Times' disgraceful response represents the point of view of quite a significant number of people in the West, who believe they are being progressive and moral by abasing themselves before the illiberal demands of Muslim leaders. One doesn't have to believe the Pope was right to use the quote he did to stand up for his right to say it, and to recognize that the real threat to liberty and human rights in all this are those Muslims who are hysterically braying for the Pope to apologize. If the West is going to adopt the attitude of the New York Times in these matters, the danger and the tragedy will belong to us, and be of our own making.]
Add to Del.icio.us 
Digg This 
Fave on Technorati
