Nothing like a little public discourse
There are quite a few news stories out there that are directly tied to religion or religious affiliation of one stripe or another. I have about fifteen minutes and room for a couple of paragraphs, so I thought I would clear it all up for you.
................. just kidding.
First, the Pope has created some controversy in the Islamic world by citing a medieval document that called the teachings of the Prophet evil and inhumane. Right now, stories abound on the internet, mostly reporting the shock and anger of the Islamic world, as well as a few rather weak disclaimers from the Vatican.
This may be one of those cases where the perceiption of the Pope's meaning is hitting rather close to home for many people. What he actually meant is anyones guess at this point. The gist of the speech referenced the interpretation of the prophets teachings that Islam is to be spread by force. The Islamic world seems to suffer from the same malady that many Christian sects do, specifically having skin too thin to withstand even the possibility of that someone else does not share their views. One of the points that the Pope made that did not make headlines was that Islam needs to show the same respect to Christianity that it expects from it. In all fairness though, the Christian world needs to take a cue from the late Pope John Paul II, and speak in support of the things that bind us, while studiously ignoring those articles of faith that can divide us.
No matter what the Pope said or meant, the aftermath seems to speak for itself. Read about it practically anywhere. Or here, here, and here.
Then there is the turmoil in the Christian world.
Rosie O'Donnell made headlines this week when she compared 'radical Christianity' in this country to 'radical Islam' in the mideast. The comment was immediately vilified by certain spokesmen for the Christian movement.
You can see a video from MSNBC here.
Note please, that this is a long video as these things go, and that this is on the internet equivilent of talk radio. I will let you draw whatever conclusion you like from it, (like you wouldn't anyway...).
The role of Christianity in American politics is well known and documented, and, I am sure we all have opinions, one way or another, to one degree or another, and I don't expect that will change in the near future.
My point is that Ms O'Donnell's point was twisted and torqued from the get go. Agree with it or not, she specifically noted that "radical Christianity was as much of a threat in the U.S. as radical Islam is in the mideast". The operative term here is threat. The guy from MSNBC then proceeded to paint all Christians, (he termed them as "followers of Jesus Christ"), with the same brush, (implicating that they were a threat to our way of life), thus starting the fire, and then prodding a couple of guests to throw emotional gasoline on the flames.
Like the reaction in the Islamic world to a percieved slight, (whether it be the Pope's recent remarks or editorial cartoons in a Danish newspaper), the very notion of an insult to Christianity, (not an insult, just the possibility that there might have been one) provoked a reaction that was almost off the map, even for the realm of talk radio/internet video. The attitude that is on display from all camps in these incidents is pretty much the same--that their view of things is sacrosanct and above critique or reproach from any quarter, and anyone crossing that line is evil and unworthy of any consideration.
Then MSNBC--God Bless em!--focuses on the moral equivilence issue. What bearing dos this have on anything? It was established that al Quaida killed almost 3000 people on 9/11, and the radical Christians haven't yet killed that many people, so they are clearly not as bad. That is like saying that if Hitler had only killed a million Jews, he would not be nearly as evil. The issue that was danced around on the video is where is the line drawn?
In my mind, even one death or abuse by al Quaida or the KKK or the Christian Right, or PETA, or the NRA or the PTA, or whoever is too many. The idea that any individual can be justifiably deprived of life and basic human dignity for not adhering to or showing sufficient respect for any cause is revolting. That is not to say that it does not happen in an imperfect world, or, in some cases, that the deaths serve a higher purpose, (I am thinking specifically about death in a military conflict), it sometimes happens, but it is, nonetheless, an attrocity against all of us.
................. just kidding.
First, the Pope has created some controversy in the Islamic world by citing a medieval document that called the teachings of the Prophet evil and inhumane. Right now, stories abound on the internet, mostly reporting the shock and anger of the Islamic world, as well as a few rather weak disclaimers from the Vatican.
This may be one of those cases where the perceiption of the Pope's meaning is hitting rather close to home for many people. What he actually meant is anyones guess at this point. The gist of the speech referenced the interpretation of the prophets teachings that Islam is to be spread by force. The Islamic world seems to suffer from the same malady that many Christian sects do, specifically having skin too thin to withstand even the possibility of that someone else does not share their views. One of the points that the Pope made that did not make headlines was that Islam needs to show the same respect to Christianity that it expects from it. In all fairness though, the Christian world needs to take a cue from the late Pope John Paul II, and speak in support of the things that bind us, while studiously ignoring those articles of faith that can divide us.
No matter what the Pope said or meant, the aftermath seems to speak for itself. Read about it practically anywhere. Or here, here, and here.
Then there is the turmoil in the Christian world.
Rosie O'Donnell made headlines this week when she compared 'radical Christianity' in this country to 'radical Islam' in the mideast. The comment was immediately vilified by certain spokesmen for the Christian movement.
You can see a video from MSNBC here.
Note please, that this is a long video as these things go, and that this is on the internet equivilent of talk radio. I will let you draw whatever conclusion you like from it, (like you wouldn't anyway...).
The role of Christianity in American politics is well known and documented, and, I am sure we all have opinions, one way or another, to one degree or another, and I don't expect that will change in the near future.
My point is that Ms O'Donnell's point was twisted and torqued from the get go. Agree with it or not, she specifically noted that "radical Christianity was as much of a threat in the U.S. as radical Islam is in the mideast". The operative term here is threat. The guy from MSNBC then proceeded to paint all Christians, (he termed them as "followers of Jesus Christ"), with the same brush, (implicating that they were a threat to our way of life), thus starting the fire, and then prodding a couple of guests to throw emotional gasoline on the flames.
Like the reaction in the Islamic world to a percieved slight, (whether it be the Pope's recent remarks or editorial cartoons in a Danish newspaper), the very notion of an insult to Christianity, (not an insult, just the possibility that there might have been one) provoked a reaction that was almost off the map, even for the realm of talk radio/internet video. The attitude that is on display from all camps in these incidents is pretty much the same--that their view of things is sacrosanct and above critique or reproach from any quarter, and anyone crossing that line is evil and unworthy of any consideration.
Then MSNBC--God Bless em!--focuses on the moral equivilence issue. What bearing dos this have on anything? It was established that al Quaida killed almost 3000 people on 9/11, and the radical Christians haven't yet killed that many people, so they are clearly not as bad. That is like saying that if Hitler had only killed a million Jews, he would not be nearly as evil. The issue that was danced around on the video is where is the line drawn?
In my mind, even one death or abuse by al Quaida or the KKK or the Christian Right, or PETA, or the NRA or the PTA, or whoever is too many. The idea that any individual can be justifiably deprived of life and basic human dignity for not adhering to or showing sufficient respect for any cause is revolting. That is not to say that it does not happen in an imperfect world, or, in some cases, that the deaths serve a higher purpose, (I am thinking specifically about death in a military conflict), it sometimes happens, but it is, nonetheless, an attrocity against all of us.
posted by eccentric recluse at 3:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home