Cartoons, a Movie, and the Pope

In the beginning, it was the cartoons. Danish Ahmed Akkari, a Moslem Pat Robertson equivalent, traveled from Denmark to Mecca to make a fuss over some cartoons published in a Danish publication. He added cartoons to his collection and claimed they were all printed. He added material in order to be taken more seriously. However, he was dishonest in doing so.

There was an effect. Because the cartoons depicted the Prophet, they were considered blasphemous by some Moslems. This claim to blasphemy is poorly documented, but since when do religious extremists care about accuracy. Riots occurred; some rioters died; property was destroyed; riots ceased. Akkari was not forthcoming about his falsifications.

Some nubs stepped forward to claim that any publication or words deemed offensive to some religion should be banned. This meant that everything published and all spoken words could be outlawed since offense is so easily taken by some. And, these nubbins ignored the fact that only a very small percentage of Moslems rioted. The wannabe censors ignored the fact that codifying protection against hurt feelings leads only to paranoia of speech and battles over what is offensive and which favored groups would be protected. The result would an increase in violence and insularity.

Next came the movie, the da Vinci Report, which somehow offended a few Christians. Outspoken members of the clergy suggested that the average Christian was not too smart and too easily converted to heresies; therefore, the movie should be banned. Some countries actually did respond to claims that this movie gave offense to Christians and restricted public access to the unaltered version.

It was a small percentage of Christians who had any problem with the movie. There was no great Gnostic revival as some priests and ministers had proclaimed. After all, the Catholic Church had successfully wiped out Gnostic threats many years ago. In those locations where individuals were allowed freedom of choice to view or not, no riots took place.

Then it was Pope Benedict XVI’s turn. From a speech he gave at the University of Regensburg on 12 September, 2006, a few Moslems managed to extract a small part and turn those words into a thing to become excited over. There were more complaints and demonstrations.

Part of the text of the address concerned the concept of reason and religion, a true oxymoron. One section is aimed at faith only Protestantism that is popular with extreme conservative Christians in the United States today. Another part deals with the Pope’s claim that Europe is a Christian state.

The section that drew so much ire discussed a purported exchange between a Byzantine Emperor, Manuel II Palaiologos and an unnamed Persian. Here, the Pope could have done better. After all, the Crusades were acts of violence propelled by matters of faith. Christian Constantinople was sacked by Christian Crusaders. And, the Emperor joined in Ottoman intrigues which seems unlikely for a person depicted as being anti‑Islam.

The Pope stated he was only quoting another; thus, attempted to distance himself from his intent. But, the purpose of the quote was clear. That is that Islam is not a religion of reason. The other allegations against the charismatic and Jesus only Christians were not made nearly as clear.

The Pope committed a sin; the sin of omission. Pope Benedict neglected the history when Jews and Moslems had to flee Christian lands for fear of their lives and were welcomed with open arms by Moslems. He neglected to mention that generally, Moslems have been far more tolerant than Christians. He neglected the bloody and repressive history of Christianity. Church leaders have a hard time taking responsibility for their own inabilities and the shortcomings of their doctrines.

After the complaints and demonstrations by Moslems, Pope Benedict issued apologies for the reaction which he had no control over. He would not apologize for the speech.

The members of the Turkish Diyanet (Presidency of Religious Affairs) presented a petition to the Ministry of Justice demanding that the Pope be arrested when visiting Turkey. Their claim was that the Pope had violated laws on freedom of belief. What they were saying that their beliefs were insulted, not that they were restricted in any way from practicing their religion. Such behavior and words would have Ataturk spinning in his grave.

The concept of attempting to force speech control is unfortunately too common. Gender feminists in the United States have attempted to dictate what words can be used to refer to human females. The Federal Communications Commission suppresses words of Anglo‑Saxon origin. Nigger has become the “N” word. A couple American Indian women have been working to annihilate the use of the American Indian word squaw by falsely claiming widespread pejorative use. While people starve in many parts of our planet, more energy is used to coerce speech and suppress words than to feed the poor.

In the end, it is business as usual. A world religious leader speaks in half‑truths. People get upset about words taken out of context. Presumed insults are spread by gossip. Apologies, meaningful or not, are demanded. Apologies are delivered for acts committed by others.

We all must learn to expect that utterances by world leaders are often self‑serving half‑truths. We must expect there will be reactionaries that claim offense and demand that others jump through their hoops. Then we can understand a bit more of our world.