It’s a good rule of thumb that there is no one more easily offended than your average despot and surrounding acolytes. Tyranny by nature requires grand fictions, and when anyone dares point out that the emperor has no clothes, or the emperor is living it up while dressing his minions in suicide belts, or the emperor is murdering his own subjects and honing technologies and methods to blackmail, subjugate or kill anyone else in reach, then the emperor and his cohorts take huge offense. If you happen to live under their sway, they chuck you in prison. If you are outside the immediate reach of their secret police and terror squads, they do what they can to maneuver the debate onto their terms. They — who apologize for nothing — demand apologies.
On the list of those most prominently offended by the Pope’s speech, for instance, is Lebanon’s Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, whom Saturday’s New York Times describes as Lebanon’s “most senior Shiite cleric” — a tag that omits his status as chief proselytizer in Lebanon for the Iranian-backed terrorist group, Hezbollah, and one of the gang campaigning — most unapologetically — for the obliteration of Israel. Here’s Fadlallah’s web site, where you can read his dictates on such matters as music and women. By some accounts, Fadlallah has enjoyed the security services of Imad Mugniyah, one of the top killers on the FBI’s most-wanted list of terrorists.
If, regarding the Pope’s speech, we draw up a most-offended list, as the BBC has done, we find it further populated by the likes of a Saudi grand mufti, the Palestinian prime minister, an Iranian cleric, the head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, and one of the world’s leading clubhouses for protecting terrorists, the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Palestinians hurl firebombs at churches, an Italian nun is shot in the back in a hospital in Somalia, and we are invited to ponder whether these deeds should be laid at the door of the Pope for giving a speech. What does it take for the democratic world to understand? With their constant demands for apologies — over cartoons, over speeches, over you-name-it — the chronically offended tyrants of our time, armed with guns and bombs, are on a very real offensive. Against us.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. johnpaul:A religion of peace?????????
Sep 17, 2006 - 6:58 pm 2. johnpaul:I don’t think so http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/islam/faqs/a0028343.cfm
And in the Horn of Africa
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:05 pm 3. johnpaul:http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD129006
And from other places, places you wouldn’t suspect.
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:13 pm 4. Wizbang:http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=jihad&ID=SP128106
Italian Nun Murdered in Somalia
Her murder comes after a Somali Muslim leader demanded jihad against the Pope. From the AP: MOGADISHU, Somalia – An elderly Italian nun who devoted her life to helping the sick in Africa was shot dead by two gunmen at…
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:26 pm 5. johnpaul:A little background reading.
And a glimmer of hope.
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/iran_hezbollah_e1b.htm
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3296917,00.html
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:33 pm 6. johnpaul:It really is time western woollen headed liberals awakened to reality
spoils of war.
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:39 pm 7. nirmal:http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/jihad0806e.htm
Why do we listen? That’s what I thought initially as well. Then I realized one thing. As a Christian immigrant from India, I am acutely aware of the plight of Christian minorities in the non-Western world, especially the Middle East and South Asia. There they are often viewed as stooges of the West, yet the West does not even know that they exist. These minorities will be the first casualties of any “misunderstandings” like this one. I also know that the Pope knows this and if there are any expressions of regret or apologies from him, it will be to avoid any harm to the faithful in these brutal places.
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:44 pm 8. Letalis:Sometimes, being offended is purely an act of agression.
Sep 17, 2006 - 7:50 pm 9. johnpaul:A small bit of anti-tank reading
http://www.jamestown.org/news_details.php?news_id=195
But if you really want to know what the motivation is, and has remained so for over 1000 years, compare these pictures with the brief history of Islamic conquest c.AD630 and for the next 200years, in the book “The Force of Reason”, by the late Oriana Fallaci.
Sep 17, 2006 - 8:01 pm 10. Peter:http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=3346
Then to complete your education, tab down the page and on the box on the left, titled “Slide Shows”
click on “Palestinian Child Abuse”.
I would also add that arming and displaying children in this manner, apart from many other crimes, is also a war crime.
The term “Cannon fodder” springs to mind!!!!!!
Now what sort of society, parents, religion, brainwashes children in this way???
Remember, the child suicide bomber was Arafats gift to the world, – the man who stole billions$ from his people, of our money, gifted by the looney left.
You got to wonder!
Indeed!
Sep 17, 2006 - 8:03 pm 11. Mister Snitch!:Good one Claudia! Thanks for putting it so succintly.
“Why do we listen?” We don’t. The press caves in to these dirtbags, and then we listen to them. (Don’t we?)
Sep 17, 2006 - 8:18 pm 12. Nancy Reyes:I love that the Saudi guy is insulted…Pinoy OFW who hold bible studies are arrested, and my cousin who worked there as a nurse was forced to throw away her rosary, but of course there is no intimidation or lack of religious freedom for the Christian, Hindu or even Shiite Muslim Overseas foreign workers who run the place…
Sep 17, 2006 - 9:09 pm 13. Patrick Carroll:It’s the “Religion of Pieces”, mostly bloody chunks. Pure and simple.
The Pope did nothing but lance a boil.
Sep 17, 2006 - 10:05 pm 14. johnpaul:What other nation would endure these losses from its’ neighbours, and not retliate with extreme violence. Particularly when those neighbours, for the most part, are living on subsidies from the West, behind UN administered (laugh) lines, according to UN brokered peace (laugh) deals, with UN resolutions in place for the permanent disarming of the populations (laugh), and UN resolutions (laugh) for the interception of smuggled arms. Wake up liberal mutton-heads, lay the blame where it lies, and stop appeasing.
Sep 18, 2006 - 5:38 am 15. Alex Reed:http://www1.idf.il/dover/site/mainpage.asp?sl=EN&id=22&docid=52616
The scholarly paper presented by Pope Benedict to assembled professors at the University of Regensburg was an unthinking blunder, the misstep of a slightly befuddled old dear who hasn’t yet learned the media ropes. So the clods at the NY Times and various other outlets of the MSM would have us believe.
Read the text!
It is another example of Benedict’s brilliant, tough, incisive mind at work in all its beautiful clarity, and, as such, whether one is of the Catholic persuasion or not, is a pleasure to behold. This mind does not make blunders, this mind makes subtle points, this mind has a plan.
What Benedict has done in these few paragraphs is remarkable. He is calling for a dies academicus on a worldwide basis, a worldwide reasoned discussion of the very underpinnings of belief and faith, for a shared “responsibility for the right use of reason”. He suggests to us that, “it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason”. Taking up this endeavor, Benedict has staked out, very clearly, the wide horizons of the Church’s philosophical ground vis à vis more constricted worldviews, as he defines them, that of Islam, and that of the relativist/multi-culti/Popperian hoards. This is no blunder, it is very closely reasoned, purposeful thinking. The question of whether there is anyone “reasonable” with whom he can have this discussion remains to be answered. The early response is not encouraging.
The brief bits that seem to have the collective knickers of the p.c., relativist NY Times, et al, and the Muslim “street” in a twist treat the relationship between religion and violence, Mohammed’s exhortation to spread the faith by the sword, and our erudite Benedict’s view that, “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and with the nature of the soul.”, a view echoing that of the Byzantine emperor Paleologus who said, “God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature.” The reactions of Benedict’s hoped for interlocutors speak for themselves. He has set himself a difficult task to try to take up this dialogue, but one worth the doing.
He then goes on to a wide discussion of the hellenistic strand of influence in theology, and the various stages of “dehellenization” in progress. For anyone at all interested in the nexus of faith and reason, or their opposite number, gnosis, Pope Benedict’s paper rewards careful reading with a wealth of ideas to ponder.
On the field of action, confusion reigns. As Ms. Rosett wonders in rightful exasperation, “What does it take for the democratic world to understand?” I would counter that it is not the monolithic democratic world that doesn’t get it, and is thus causing our confusion of response. It is, rather, that part of it lost to the vagaries of the relativist/multi-culti/Popperian worldview and its very narrow horizons (i.e., most of the “elites”, the MSM, the Democratic party en masse, etc.). I leave to her wisdom and courage how best to displace that entrenched worldview, though I suspect that, unfortunately, the eventual weight of events will do the deed.
On the field of ideas, Pope Benedict sees the situation very clearly, and he has now announced his readiness to enter into a reasoned dialogue with both the Muslim world and the relativists of the West. The question is whether either group has the courage or the wits to take up his offer.
Sep 18, 2006 - 3:12 pm 16. Joe's Dartblog:The Pope’s Comments on Islamism
I have failed to follow in this space the Pope’s comments condemning the deadly religious crusade which a large faction of Islam now finds itself prosecuting. But the Anchoress, as the Anchoress tends to do, sums it up beautifully:Any intelligent…
Sep 19, 2006 - 9:21 am 17. Michael:Thank you very much for a very thought-provoking blog. I’d been pondering on this for some time and I was finally able to pin down my response. My answer to this is that you’re right, it isn’t good to coddle people who are so easily offended.
The caveat to this is that we need to pull the mote from our own eye before we can start condemning the Muslim extremists for their behavior.
We are guilty of our own extreme actions, based on our own offended sensibilities. The FCC is handing out random fines to the media because some conservative family groups get offended and launch a campaign to complain. We gasp in horror as a bare breast is exposed during a football game, but there’s no outcry against ubiquitous violence in a television series. We’re so terribly offended by an entire subculture’s choices that we propose a constitutional amendment to ratify discrimination against them, while at the same time we applaud our chief executive for using federal funds to support a particular religious mindset.
Most of the time we’re not as violent as the Muslims who get offended, but that’s just most of the time. We’re not shy about maiming or killing homosexuals, and we’re not at all ashamed of the fact that we’ll bomb a former ally when it serves our purpose. We use rallying cries of “9/11″ and “for the children” to justify our retribution for being offended, but how does this make us any better? Just because our god is bigger than theirs? We are directly responsible for the deaths of more Muslims than the reverse; surely that must mean that God is on our side.
The Muslims who riot and kill in the name of their god are contemptible, but they’re no worse than our own religious fanatics who attempt to use the government to force their morality on the unwilling. The Muslim extremists, at least, are honest about their methods. They may be trying to kill us, but they’re not trying to tell us it’s for our own good.
Sep 19, 2006 - 10:33 am