Posted by
Doctor Poddy on Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:45:24 PM
As my previous post noted, the criticism by the AP article was one sided.
It echoed the political correctness of much of the media and universities, that sees the Christian faith as "imposed" by evil white imperialists.
But at it's basis is a racist assumption: That non white people are so weak that they can't chose their faith, but are prone to obey their white masters.
And another racist assumption: That Christianity is a European religion.
This ignores both history and reality.
The reality is that Christianity has been in Asia for two thousand years, and that although it came with colonial powers, it's embrace by millions is more complicated than saying it was imposed by a gun. Korea, for example, was never a European colony, but was evangelized by Koreans. And there is a Christian caste in India that dates back to St. Thomas. And in China, rumors say that Christians are now ten percent of the population, and that their influence is increasing, even though foreign missionaries were deported sixty years ago...Indeed, in Africa, the flood of conversions began after colonialism stopped, and when African converts could explain Christianity in their own cultural experience.
It also ignores how Catholic Christianity was not so much "imposed" as grafted onto previous beliefs, since Catholic christianity recognizes that all faiths have some good in them, and when you present Christianity, you are saying: You know a bit about God but did you know this is what God said to you when he lived here on earth as a man?
This is why the arguments about Crusades is a bit moot.
JohnAllen's article gives an overview of Vatican politics and Benedict that is much more nuanced. I recommend you read it.
Now, Christianity, like Buddhism and Hinduism and even secular confusianism, has had it's eras of persecution and violence, usually done by politicians subverting the beliefs.. but often opposed by others in the faith (St Francis opposed the crusades, for example).
But what is going on now is not a problem with the Christian religion, but a deep disturbing problem in Islam...
What do crusades have to do with killing Christians in East Timor, Indonesian Papua newguinea and Nigeria, the killing of Buddhists in Thailand (which finally was noticed on CNNInt last night) or the war in Kashmir?
The "elephant in the dining room" that is being missed or minimized in much of the press discussion is: What is the essence of Islam, and how do
present day Islamic clerics excuse the murder of the innocent in the name of their religion.
Islamic clerics can talk all they want to about respect, but the dirty little secret is that most Muslims are upset about jihadi murders of the innocent too, which is why they get upset at the charge. ...not because it is false, but because in their heart they know there
is truth in the report, but this is not how they see Islam in their own lives, and they are upset that ALL believers are being falsely charged with the misdeeds of the few.
The second part of this "dialogue" that Benedict seeks is that Islam recognize the rights of Christians in their own countries, and by extension, the right of individual conscience in seeking for God...He is asking: Why no reciprocity for our Philippino, Indian, and African Catholics who live in Saudi Arabia but who have no churches, yet Muslims in Rome can worship freely?
Again, I suspect most Muslims would see nothing wrong with this, yet neither Bush nor Gloria (President Arroyo) dare bring it up to pressure the governments who are afraid of the radical clerics...nor is there much discussion on how Saudi "charity" money is radicalizing Islam in many areas.
Nor is it just the spread of militant limited to Sunni mosques:
GETRELIGIONBLOG
has one disturbing item that is being ignored: That the
Iranian president called for the return of the Twelth Iman...
And if that doesn't disturb you, it should. It means the return of the Islamic empire...
(hmmm...that includes us in the Philippines...or maybe China will just grab up Luzon and let them have Mindinao...I'm not sure where China fits into the war on religions...probably picking up the pieces and making a bundle, but never mind, back to essay).
The third part of the "dialogue" sought by Benedict is even furthur off the radar screen: The fight of believers verses an increasingly radical secularism, especially in Europe.
The Pope's speech was not about Islam, but a cry against the secular west, who has lost both the belief and hopes brought by Christianity and the rationalism brought by Greek philosophy. And he warns that losing these two things leads to anarchy and worse.
And in this, he was not criticizing Islam, but asking Islam to go back to their intellectual roots that include the idea that God is the Logos, that rationality is good, that reality exists, and that there is a logical and spiritual basis for morality and law.
You see, in the culture wars, Christians and Muslims stand on the same side: That women have a noble calling not just as pseudo men but as mothers, that families are important, that people help each other, that you don't cheat or steal, that individuals should be left free from government tyranny, and that education and knowledge is good, not evil.
Indeed, it makes one wonder at the misreporting on rabidly secular papers such as the BBC and NYTimes editorial...didn't they bother to read what was said? Or did they recognize that they were the ones actually being criticized?
One good thing from all of this is that religion is getting a discussion in the press.
a good discussion of various aspects of the controversy can be found at
Ignatiusblog