…And No One Saw This One Coming
Overlooking the headline, the Jerusalem Post reported a piece of news from Turkey today regarding the Pope’s upcoming visit that is so unsurprising it’s almost anticlimactic.
Police on Thursday detained a man who fired shots into the air outside the Italian consulate to protest an upcoming visit by Pope Benedict XVI, and the suspect later told a television reporter he wanted to “strangle” the pope with his bare hands.
“I don’t want him here, if he was here now I would strangle him with my bare hands,” the suspect, who identified himself as Ibrahim Ak, 26, told a Dogan news agency television cameraman as he was detained by police.
Back in September, the Turkish PM was asked if the Pope’s quasi-apology (he was sorry that Muslims “got offended” but stopped short of making a full retraction and personal apology as was requested by leadership in Malaysia, Egypt and Turkey) and inflammatory quotes about Muhammad would affect the Pope’s visit to Turkey.
Asked if Muslim anger would affect the pope’s trip to Istanbul, where he hopes to meet with Orthodox leaders headquartered there, [Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip] Erdogan replied, “I wouldn’t know.”
Well here’s his answer. Had the Pope retracted his usage of the quote — as the words were, after all, not his — and apologized for having uttered the words which exited his mouth, while it would have exacerbated the conflict surrounding the issue of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility,the door would have at least been open for dialogue with much of the Muslim public.
Now that door is lamentably closed, and, almost as if on a macabre cue, the violent factions start to show themselves. Just like with Jyllands-Posten, the consequence of the omission of a complete and sincere apology often leads one to speculate, “should I just have not said anything?”
The Vatican couldn’t see this one coming?
Why is it that the reasonable side has the burden of catering to the unreasonable one? That’s an expedient short-term solution that inevitably leads to long-term disaster.
I’m especially surprised to read this on a site that, to put it mildly, thrives on controversy. If a violent response is what it takes to silence opposition, do you think we’ll see less violence in the world, or more?
If I were the Pope, my “apology” would have gone something like “if you people want to threaten violence because I QUOTED something you don’t like, you’re even sicker than I thought.”
Why should the pope apologize for saying something that is so obviously true as demonstrated by this Turkish idiot.
What world are we living in? The novel 1984? Why not literally cut out your brain and surrender it to the muslims. What you’re suggesting is almost the same.
formermuslim, just because a “Turkish idiot” showed his violent behavior doesn’t make all Muslims like that or the entire faith. Have some common sense for god sake. Actually, if I take your logic, I can claim every single religion as a _______.
Just like with Jyllands-Posten, the consequence of the omission of a complete and sincere apology often leads one to speculate, “should I just have not said anything?â€
Indeed. Lets all be good, silent little dhimmi while they slander us in their newspapers and media. Let us keep our mouths shut and quiver every time one of our squeaks causes one of them to be offended.
The response to Jyllands-Posten was inexcusable – given the cartoons that regularly appear in the Arab press about Jews, it reeks of the rankest hypocrisy, and our tolerance of their intolerance will be our demise.
My politics are normally quite at variance with those responding so far to this post, but I’m fully in agreement on this issue. While I’d note that the Pope’s comments were perhaps somewhat ill-considered to begin with – his function, after all, is largely diplomatic in nature – he certainly would be making a fatal mistake to apologize or modify his comments in the face of violence and threats. As pointed out here, we can’t appease thugs and religious fanatics seeking to undermine the very basis of civil society itself through intimidation. And, of course, this appropriateness of this course of action doesn’t have a damn thing to do with whether or not those employing riots to manipulate the system are actually insulted by the actions of their enemies; respect for the sanctity of the law and the personal safety of others obviously transcend the sensitivities of those who would use violence to impose their beliefs on others. This principle is articulated with remarkable eloquence in the last observation by Rich, in which he notes that to give in to such extortion “reeks of the rankest hypocrisy, and our tolerance of their intolerance will be our demise.†This seems to me to constitute a perfect statement of how civilized societies much approach such conflicts; to wit, tolerate everything but intolerance.
The singular beauty of this principle is the absence of moral equivalence, the clarity and simplicity of its application in like circumstances all over the world. It’s refreshing to see such uniformity of fundamental principles, and agreement on policy. Thus, we must be resolute and inflexible in refusing to give in to those seeking to silence the Pope. Precisely as we must act in refusing to give in to those charedim rioting to silence gays in Jerusalem.
“the consequence of the omission of a complete and sincere apology often leads one to speculate…”
Hmmm….
Did you actually *read* the text of his commentary?
Trust me, i’m no Islami-apologetic — but (whoa!) there’s no need for any papal “me-sorry!”; If we now are required to apologize for commenting on some prior historical statement (no matter whether such statement is good/bad, correct/incorrect), we’ve got a huge problem in our world-society. Indeed, the Pope was *polemical* of such comments, not supportive.
If we’ve entered some neo-maoist era where we cannot quote without fear of being associated with that quoted author’s whole-ideology, then we’ve taken a huge, huge leap backwards in our culture and our methods of communication. Putrid.
The Truth is a wholly-other Constant,
and cannot be, ever, malformed
by our surely, ever, warped perceptions.
Indeed, perception is not reality —
no matter how offended by our oft
rank interpretations.
[email protected]
“formermuslim, just because a “Turkish idiot†showed his violent behavior doesn’t make all Muslims like that or the entire faith.”
We are all aware that one person is not representative of the entire group. You are not special for having noticed that. I just don’t feel like putting a footnote at the end of every one of my posts as a disclaimer.
Having said that, muslims are disproportionately violent. And the reason why I blame Islam for that is because the islamic religion is spread over a wide geographic area and over many cultures who have nothing in common other than their religious beliefs. And what else do they have in common? Right, a short fuse.
Why are you still blaming Islam? No ideology has ever pulled a trigger.