An apt critique of our times, re the Pope's recent speech at the University of Regensberg:
"The pope forgot that the present era is "logocratic," an era in which life or death are determined by labels. The Holy See - like Mohammed, like the Catholic Church, like Islam - is a deep, complex and multi-layered historical institution. But in a world like ours, where ideas and values are constantly reduced to little packages that are easily identified and quickly digested, there is no longer a chance for complex messages." (Dan Rabinowitz, "The Return of Manuel II," opinion column for Ha'aretz Newspaper, Sept 21, 2006)
Is it really true that not only in America but throughout the world we are no longer capable of digesting multi-faceted issues or statements? Have we all truly been reduced to consumers unable to process anything more complex than the standard and often horribly inadequate (and appropriately named) Sound Bite? Why is it that we increasingly want everything to be reduced to black or white, never gray (or grey, or off-white, or jet-black as opposed to coal-black as opposed to bright-white as opposed to true-white...)?
Its really a shame if this is the case, especially since I firmly believe that God, if He is to be found, will not be found in black or white, but precisely in that complex and frightening uncertainty of gray.
Ha. As if any of that was original. Sorry, this particular post, while I wanted to post it, just strikes me as just another voice in a cacophony of gnats and mosquitoes, not really contributing much, not saying anything new. And what is there new to say? Its all been said before, in one form or another, by both the brilliant and the demented. Reminds me of that scene in Garden State where Zach Braff is asked to do something completely original, something that has never been done before in the history of the world...and he sticks out his finger and goes, "boop." (Or something like that...) I wonder if that really is the story of humanity. I wonder even more if there really is a point in hoping for anything different. Is there anything wrong with boop?
5 comments:
So, what do YOU have to say about the Pope's "remarks on Islam?" What shade of gray are they?
I've actually been trying to track down exactly what he said, with no success (I admit I haven't been trying that hard). But it seems to me that if he was quoting a past Pontiff as saying that Islam was long spread by the sword...well, I'd have to agree. Islam WAS spread by the sword for quite some time, and I believe its called for in the Koran. I have to double check that, but that's what I remember from class...
Check out the NY Times archives. That's where I got a direct quote. He basically quotes a medieval text about exactly that-- Islam being propagated through violence. (I'm not sure if he refers to it being called for in the Koran or not). Either way, I don't think it's ok for him to single out Islam regarding violence. (Especially since he is using an Islamic tenet to explain violent fundamentalism-- what about the KKK?). The Bible sanctions violence in numerous ways, whether it be for the punishment of an impious individual or group of people. And how can we define The Crusades except as a Christian Holy War? I have to admit I'm getting nervous just writing this, because you're the religious studies major...
No, you're absolutely right, Islam is hardly the only religion that has sanctioned violence, or even been spread by the sword. In fact, the history of Christianity is at least as bloody as that of Islam in this regard; just take a look at the Inquisition.
Since the uproar though, the Pope has been simultaneously apologizing and defending his comments as a call for dialogue. Its the call to dialogue that interests me...what was the context of the bit about Islam being spread by the sword?
I'll check NY Times when I get a chance.
Do we get to know who you are, anonymous?
I would have to read a bit more about to know exactly why he chose to say it. I feel like it was just in direct response to all the violence in the Middle East-- an explanation even. I guess the reason I think he was out of line is that if he really wanted to open up a dialogue about current affairs, why not then include Judaism and Christianity in his critique of violent monotheism? That's why I don't buy that line...I think he's trying to undoe the social damage he's inflicted on himself. Sorry about the anonymous post btw..I forgot to put my name. :)
Post a Comment