I’m So Sorry That The Truth Is So Upsetting To You

Any life coach worth his salt will tell you that if you’re going to apologize, you should apologize for what you actually did, and not for the results of your actions.

Example: I’m sorry I ran over your cat with my Hummer.

NOT

I’m sorry you are angry and saddened because I ran over your cat with my Hummer.

If you can’t make a sincere apology for the action, then there’s no sense apologizing at all; it’s empty and meaningless.

I’ve noticed a trend in the apologies that are issued by public figures in response to a public outcry over something they did or said. They are always the second category of apology–I’m sorry you’re all pissed off at me, but not really that sorry for what I did.

Yes, historyenne, somehow I doubt that Benedict is really all that sorry about what he said, although I’m quite sure he isn’t pleased with the reaction. I’ve gotten the feeling from him before that he has a deep affinity for the middle ages, when a Pope really had power. Remember, in his pre-election status, Cardinal Ratzinger was the head of the group that was formerly known as the Inquisition. I suspect he’d feel right at home in the 14th century.

We never really leave the molding influences of our childhoods behind, do we, Herr Pope?

Benedict’s follow-up actually was eerily reminiscent of Adam’s classic “Concession Speech.”

http://fanaticalapathy.com/2004/11/03/concession-speech/

Yeah, the “I was just quoting somebody else!” defense doesn’t always work. My friend’s six-year-old daughter and her friend were very fond of singing one passage from Avril Lavigne’s “I’m With You” - “It’s a DAMN COLD NIGHT/trying to figure out this life…” and then saying, “But, mommy, it’s in the song!”

Still, it’s time for the Muslim world to pop out a few leaders who are willing to take a radical stand and say that burning down Catholic churches and shooting Catholic nuns in the back at the women’s and children’s hospitals where they work as nurses probably isn’t the best way of making the point that Islam is a religion that embraces peace.

Also, I seem to have missed the outpouring of contrition one week ago from Muslims all over the world over the events that were perpetuated five years earlier. If we’re doing apologies, maybe we should set aside a week so there can be apologies all around.

As a recovering Catholic, folks who know me know I’m the last person in the world who’d ever be defending a Pope BUT:

1) From what I understand, based on the CBC news coverage of the subject, he was merely recounting history, not making a personal statement, and recounted this among many other things. Sorta like if I recounted the fact that many Americans supported the notion of lynching blacks - I’d hope nobody took that to mean that *I* supported lynching blacks.

2) Is it a wee bit weird that the moderate Muslim leaders must constantly say “Please don’t be making these false accusations of Muslim violence…there are many among us so affronted by such unjust accusations they become violent.” Sorta like “Don’t call Joe a wife beater, because it’ll make him so mad that he’ll go home and beat his wife.”

At 79 years old, Der Popenfuhrer is really only a rebound pope, the sort of pope you take home at last call to avoid going home alone. Still, when your short time pontiff drinks all your beer and orders porn on pay-per-view before he leaves, you rub your head and think, “Never again.”

Keep in mind that John XXIII was a rebound pope, too, just a placeholder until Archbishop Giovanni Montini could be made a Cardinal so he could become Paul VI. (Not that you need to be a Cardinal to become a Pope - any never-married male Catholic in good standing is technically eligible - but the College of Cardinals seems to have forgotten that.) And John XXIII, in less than five years, made major changes to the nature of the Catholic Church through the Second Vatican Council. So, never underestimate the dynamic ability of a placeholder.

Harold & Mo nailed it. Sorry guys, but you’ll now be villified for my agreement. These people of the “peaceful religion” only want to cut your head off. As a radical wingnut Christian, I’ve never had that urge.
Jim H = Asshat.
Siobhan, I just got a glimpse, but I had a large yellow/black/white dots bird feeding @ the humming bird feeder. I would guess some type of woodpecker???

Fowler, dear fellow, that’s not quite what I said. My point was a paraphrase of the famous quote (whose source I can’t trace, thanks to the plethora of piñatas we call the Internets) that “All that is required for evil to triumph is for men of good will to do nothing.” (Einstein, maybe?) The popular noise out of the echo chamber is that all Muslims share in collective guilt, all Muslims want to cut off your head and burn down your church and kill your pope and fly jets into your skyscrapers. That’s not true, at all, any more than it is true that all Christians bomb abortion clinics and think Jews should go swimming back to Africa with a lesbian tucked under one arm. But as long as moderate Muslims (yes, they do exist) continue to hold their tongues and allow radicals to act as the most audible spokesmen for their religion, the wingnuts will be able to make a case.

Thanks, Harold. “They all want to cut your head off” is just a silly statement. No, most of them don’t. I remember hearing someone say, soon after Sept. 11, “You don’t try to understand a rabid dog. You just kill it!” Actually, you do try to understand rabies, so you can prevent it.

It’s the height of foolishness to ignore your enemy’s motivations, but this administration has feverishly tried to obscure them with ridiculous statements like “they hate our freedom.” In addition to conflating Al-Qaeda with Saddam, this administration also wants to label as terrorists all the various factions doing battle in Iraq—factions which have very different goals.

Muslims are as capable of reason as anyone, and it’s ignorant to tar them all with the brush (brush them all with the tar?) of terrorism. As for the mindless barbarism WF would like to attribute to Muslims, it hasn’t been that long since Americans were publicly lynching people—other Americans—complete with picnics and photo opportunities. I’m pretty sure they were all Christians, too, but I don’t blame their religion for these atrocities.

Now, I am curious about the meme that “moderate Muslims aren’t speaking out.” Is that really true? I rather suspect that we wouldn’t hear about it if they do. Would our major news outlets carry those stories?

That should read occasional “asshat” and frequent “fanatical typo-ist.”

The other day I caught myself thinking… I had been in a discussion about Christians that led to inclusion of more religions and separation into sects.

What I realized was that at this time, in this place, for me, “Christian” has begun to mean “Christian whacko” - in the same way that “Muslim” means “Muslim whacko” to many others. (I said “for me.” Personal perception, most likely flawed. Deal.)

It’s not important to me, right now, to compare one group to the other. What I’m interested in is how the volume of the voice overtakes all other possibilities. If the people who are screaming and waving Bibles and (whatever the modern-day version of snake-handling may be) can make me forget the Epsicoplians sipping sherry (okay, the ones not verbally beating on gays) and the Methodists and Lutherans having pot-lucks and even the Witnesses peacefully going from door to door.

It does make me wonder if the equivalent is true in Islam - that the majority of Muslims are not visible, simply because they’re not screaming.

Not funny, I’m afraid. Got to stop this “thinking” bit.

The pope’s got the kind of apology down that makes one want to reach out and put one’s hands around their windpipe. Is that wrong for me to say? I’m sorry. I’m so sorry you think that’s wrong for me to say.

But the Church did used to do those same things. The difference is that Islam is lagging behind about 600 years, chronologically speaking. It’s about due for its own Reformation, but it will have to be an internal one, not imposed from outside. Sort of like democracy.

On a lighter note, I just got a new catalog from Northern Sun today. They have a new car emblem in the “Evolve,” “Dinner,” “Sushi,” etc. Fish family. It is the FSM…Flying Spaghetti Monster! Yay!

Sorry, that satorial comment should have been to Mo

Sharon, thanks for the mention of Northern Sun. That site is quite fun.
For those who have an hour or so to burn - http://www.northernsun.com/n/s/index.html

Sort ‘em all out an let ‘em kill God, or however that bumper sticker that keeps popping up on big pick up trucks goes, and whoever the ‘em of the moment is/are.

dee,

Thank you for digging that up… it made my morning.

Jerry, there was an interesting article in the September 11 edition of the New Yorker about one moderate/modern Islamic scholar. Unfortunately, it didn’t end well for him; clearly it’s risky business to preach moderatiton. However, it still offered some hope after the other articles in the same issue about the state of things in the middle east. His views and his teachings did reach some, and it seems to offer a path out of medieval views. We can only hope …

I think Siobhan is referring to this. If not, then there are TWO candidates in Iowa who are behaving ethically. Who woulda thunk it?

Martyr Pope Blows Himself Up, Destroying Several Churches, Killing Several Nuns. Leaves Ambiguous Suicide Note Explaining Actions.

And anyone who thinks the Catholic Church gave up on its policy of inquisition and forced conversion, burning of “heretics.” etc. because of “study, debate and interpretation” overlooked a few wars in his history book.

There are several Muslim women authors who have spoken out. I think most of them are safely living in the West, however, like Irshad Manji, who lives in Canada and wrote “The Trouble with Islam: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith.”

No male voices spring to mind. There’s Salman Rushdie, of course, but he a novelist. I don’t think he’s written any non-fiction, although he’s been pretty outspoken in interviews.

Okay, if I’m not still HTML challenged - here’s the link to the New Yorker article I mentioned. A Radically Peaceful Vision of Islam, by George Packer from the September 11 issue.

I assume you’re talking about GWB’s speech today? The New York Times usually has a complete transcript.

I think Stephen might mean the Pope’s speech. Here it is, from Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149875

I have no idea if this is complete.

The PRKA manifesto reminded me of one of my favorites, Jon Carroll’s Unitarian Jihad column from April 8, 2005. I love them both. Some of you may have seen the Carroll column - I’ve posted it here before - but it’s worth a new look.

dee, I, too, enjoyed the PRKA article; thanks for the link.

younggrasshopper, I like the mud flap, too, but I really like the Black Death - European Tour - 1547-1551 T-Shirt.

hedera, I think Jon Carroll just about has the Unitarians nailed. And Molotov Cocktail dee of Beatific Beauty, I mean that in a good way.

“Even if you think that the Bush Administration is “burning heretics” and forcing people to convert to Christianity by threat of violence, he’s only in office for another 2 years.”

Thats the only answer i needed to know! 2 years!

Actually, I was speaking more of Bush’s POLITICAL stance rather than his obvious religious stance. And more to the fact that he’s doing it to his own people. If we not AGAINST the terrorist..we apparently are as good as one.

However, you make a VERY interesting point about how extreme the Muslim culture can sometimes be to itself. I admit I do not agree or like the way they treat their women and gay population. However…I like to think of it the way Joseph Campbell tried to explain the difference between a “religion” as opposed to being “religious” or having a “religious experience”. One is the institution…the rules humans set in place by their own interpretations, and the other is the actual spiritual belief. Being Muslim (or Christian, etc…) is not WHY people conduct themselves in ways extreme and destructive. I believe it’s when ANY religion takes what is supposed to be a individual experience (the spiritual connection to your God) and try to control and rule a population by it. NO MATTER if it’s Muslim or Catholic or Islamic…it has lead to most of our most bloody and politically significant events.

And if you haven’t noticed…we haven’t exactly extended the Godliest warmth and open-righteousness to our own. We may not lop off their heads or beat them in public…ACTUALLY, insome cases, we have.

Dunno if any of this abstraction makes any sense…somehow it sounded better in ma head!

I’m still struggling with Sam Harris’ book, but if my interpretation of what he is saying is correct, he postulates that the more secular a society becomes, the less violent it is. Maybe it’s not that the Catholic church gave up its tendency towards mayhem — maybe it’s just that it’s lost its influence. Despite this hiccup of fundamentalism in the US, religion has a progressively smaller role in our culture. This is not true in much of the Muslim world, where Islam is the state religion.

Really –read the book. He does a mean riff on Noam Chomsky, too.

The Pope’s speech made a deliberate, fully-intended comparison between Islam as a religion of the sword and Christianity as a religion of reason. What about the Inquisition? What about the Crusades? What about the “choice” given to Jews, convert or die? What about the Holocaust and the complicity of the “religious” in the destruction of European Jewry? What about the Catholic missionaries in the “new world” who with the aid of armies, violently imposed their religion on the people? What about slavery the world over and the concurrent failure of the “religious to act against it, and their complicity in defending it, even from their pulpits? How can the Pope or his defenders expect that people won’t be upset? I am no lover of ANY organised religion, since the often relatively few fanatics always seem to garner the most media attention, and wreak the most havoc. I strongly agree that it’s long past time for Islam’s moderates to make some noise against the fanatics in their midst. But Christians and Catholics (I’m never clear as to whether they are the same) need to examine their own history and present before they presume to take the moral high ground.

Thanks Harold, I was looking for the Pope’s speech. Sharon, I appreciate the thought, but I try not to listen to W if I can help it.

You know if you want to look at the history of the different religions in question, remember that Christianity is over 2000 years old while I believe Islam is in the 700 to 800 year range. The position of Islam now is about where the Catholic Church was during some of its worst problems, both in age of the religion and the power it wields in their society. I wonder what the other religions of the time were thinking about Catholics then…

I just read his speech (thanks Harold) and it didn’t seem to me he was talking about Islam at all really. He seemed to me to be more focused on the increasing secularism n the world and concerned that people were dumping religion and embracing a more humanistic way of thinking. (I think most people in the group here can say he has a point.)

Anyway, the only real reference to Islam was at the front where he used a conversation between a Byzantine emperor and an “educated” Persian about the nature of God, specifically that God wants people to act “reasonably,” whatever that means. (As a side note, this conversation took place around 1400. I am pretty sure there was a crusade somewhere around there. Interesting little bit of hypocrisy.)

Given what he actually said, I don’t think his apology was out of line.

Crawfish…I mean Harold, that didn’t take long.
Ann, I don’t think they “all” want to cut your head off, but they “all” don’t seem to mind very much when some of them actually do.

Crawfish?

I think it’s mainly the hypocracy that is so damned bothersome about the Pope’s speach.

“He who cast the first stone…” and all that jazz.

cooper strikes again…

While we’re on the subject of Catholicism, why do nuns take on such non-sequitur names like Sister Michael or Sister Peter (Please, no bull dyke jokes here, okay? I’m asking a serious question.)?

Don’t forget Saint Scholastica–the patron saint of academics! (My mother–an Episcopalian English professor–dressed me up as her for Halloween one year. This was in Detroit…I wonder if I inspired that comedian.)

“Hypocracy”–the political system under which the leader crows to the UN about the virtues of democracy and all the while acts just like an extremist dictator?

No, Sharon –blue suit, white shirt, red tie.

And everyone still knew the Emperor had no clothes.

Hey, now Fanny bit me! Dammit, my comment is so delightfully witty and clever, too. Y’all don’t know what you’re missing.

dee, ex-WASP, thank you. Nice song, by the way. And thanks for the catechism lesson.

Harold, you & I need to start a movement. That rodent is an evildoer!

Ah. There it is. Wingtip shoes and wrestling masks.

…or she doesn’t like wrestling masks.

3 points…

1. How easy it is to lump people into groups, whether it’s “all of them want to cut off our heads” or “the Pope is a hypocrite when he talks about reason because Popes were not all about reason 600 years ago”.

2. The Pope used a bad quote… it didn’t really support his point very well, but I think it was an error in judgment, not a barb. If it was meant to be insulting, then why apologize?

3. I think moderate Muslims have an uphill battle in being heard in all of this. Newspapers and TV reporters aren’t likely to report on people having moderate positions… they prefer the strife caused by extreme ideals. And then there are folks our there who have an unrealistic expectation that people who aren’t outraged by the Pope’s remarks are going to march and have rallies to say “We aren’t angry about this”.

It is not the responsibility of moderate Muslims proclaim themselves as being separate from the bad apples, it is our responsibility (as good Christians and/or Humanists) to treat everyone as individual human beings and not a symbol of those we fear or hate.

I am conflicted in my opinion of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Historyenne, I think the Pope has apologized exactly as much as he thinks is necessary. How many of the people who are expressing violent outrage of his remarks have actually bothered to read his remarks? (See comments 53 and 54, above, for links to transcripts.)

After September 11, I heard some Muslim leaders suggest that the attacks were justified as a response to the grave offense against Islam presented by Western society, its actions and attitudes. How many of us, as members of Western society, have offered a sincere apology for whatever offense we have given by simply existing?

Just because someone takes offense at something doesn’t mean that that offense is justified, or that they’re due an apology. It could mean that they’re easily manipulated sheep who are being set up for a fight. In that sense, they’re a lot like some Americans I know.

Is it sad that when I heard this morning about the Christian-on-Muslim violence in Indonesia that the first thing I wondered was whether it would turn up at FanAp, in this thread?

I think it is. Sigh.

Anyway, I’d just remembered someone’s comments way above about Muslim communities not actively rejecting the actions of the violent amongst them, and about how Christians stopped doing this stuff a long time ago (I know I’m really badly condensing that and not taking the points and ensuing discussion into consideration, etc etc.. just noting what little of it was recalled through my sleepy brain fog during the NPR news briefs ) and started wondering how many Christian leaders or Christian communities would get up today to officially scold Indonesia’s Christians for rioting, burning, looting, attacking, etc. Muslims and Muslim businesses for the affront against their own people (who had been convicted of–tada!–brutally killing Muslims). I’m guessing probably not too many.

Please don’t take this wrong–I don’t at all mean to liken these situations in any kind of deep way. It sounds like there were serious issues over the validity of the trial, etc. It just was a curious thing to come up, got me wondering whether Christians would be held to that standard of having to defend themselves and denounce their fellows when any amongst them behave violently as members of their religion (are moderate Christians responsible for Pat Robertson, when he advocates assasinations and bombings? etc).

Thank you to Rick for your point 3 above in comment 91!

ice, you are so right about religions. That’s why I originally broke away from Christianity; I realized that the whole thing was based on fear of hell. Worship me or burn for eternity, even if you never heard of me and never had a chance to. And that is just such a tribal, pre-civilization attitude that I couldn’t bring myself to continue in it. All the good in Jesus’ message, and there’s a lot, is nullified by the fact that you believe in him and follow his teachings in order not to burn in hell. I’m trying to follow the message without buying into the carrot and stick; but it means I don’t spend a lot of time in churches.

“When ever you partake of a strong belief system, whether it’s political or religious, you must be constantly vigilant against radicalism and violence… those never magically disappear.”

Therein truly lies the rub. Most intriguing is the level of destruction and human suffering our current leader has been able to, and continues to, inflict on Iraq because of what his team of evangelists was able to get way too many Americans to believe. Belief systems are horrifyingly two-edged swords wielded all too often to maim, kill, and destroy. And yes, I do categorize what I saw unfold under Bush post-9/11 as a belief system, and a terribly misinformed one at that, featuring “righteous” indignation and ruthless suppression of any and all who would question or criticize the official belief system.

Most devilish might be the unranium dust from the armor piercing munitions, the so-called “depleted uranium,” which is simply the left over isotope from uranium processing, and now, compliments of the extensive use of said ordinance, the gift to Iraq which will keep on giving, and giving, and giving…

Cooper, would you direct your assumsions of superstition, self-delusion and pomposity to Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King Jr.? There are plenty of examples of truly splended people doing truely spledid things in the name of God I suspect that you are deluding yourself if you believe that all “believers” have deluded themselves and only do good works because they are afriad to go to Hell.

Rick,

Without intending any animosity toward noble people who identify themselves as adherents to a particular faith, I must say that I have come to suspect that people do good works because of something in their makeup. There seems to me to be no identifiable correlation between doing good works and adhering to a particular belief system or no belief system, good works resulting rather from some kind of compassion for one’s fellow humans, awareness of the positive value for the human condition of enlightened self interest, or the power of peer pressure - which may be why congregations which place good works first can have a positive influence.

Sectarian belief systems have too spotty a record. I think it was Chief Seattle who observed that he would accept Christianity when adherence to that belief system caused Euro-American Christians to behave humanely in their relationship with Indians (I think he used that term).

Some people extract the humane teachings found within, but not totally definitive of, the body of their religious belief systems. Others do not, choosing rather to draw on the destructive components of their religious belief systems, including for Bible literalist Christians the categorizing of homosexuality as a sin and an abomination in the sight of God, which Karl Rove exploits rather like holy warrior Islamists exploit certain aspects of their religious texts and Puritan clergy did in sympathy with European witch hunts of earlier times in our Euro-American history.

I do not think the correctives come from religious texts or belief systems, although some wise reformers, such as MLK, Jr., found ways to call on humane, just admonitions within the body of their religious belief systems, but I honestly suspect it was because they were humanists, not because of their religious affiliation.

Cooper, Thanks for wishing me a nice day. You are correct in that we both seem to be comfortable with our own belief systems, but you seem to be un-comfortable with some other people’s belief systems to the point of being insulting (calling them “self-deluded and pompous”), so it’s rather hard for me to just “leave it at that”. I feel the need to speak up for folks who have a deeply felt, serious, adult believe system.

David, you have an interesting theory, but I’m not convinced. I know too much about the people I mentioned above, and others that I personally know, to think that their belief in God doesn’t effect their desire to do good in the world at all. Also, by your way of thinking it sounds like you believe in innate goodness, that people don’t choose to be good or not good they simply are or aren’t. I don’t think that’s a road you want to go down.

I’m not saying that you can only be good or do good works if you are a believer, just that there are plenty of examples of people who are informed and strengthened to do great things for their fellow humans based on their belief in God.

Weasel… Huh?

I’m generally in agreement with that statement, although again I feel the need to point out that the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movements both owe their very existence to motivated Christians who wouldn’t put up with laws that were clearly against their belief systems.

Even today there is a social justice movement within the Catholic church (ironically, not fully indorsed by the Pope) who’s efforts are meant to make the lives of poor workers in Central and South America better, partly through political change. Nuns and priests have been victims of political murders in this cause. I think we can all agree that these are worthy movements, that they are religion based and that they were and are directed at political change.

David, I agree completely… I was only responding to the blanket statements and insults of people because they are religious.

An interesting interview from Fresh Air with a Muslim leader who has not been splashed across the front of any Rupert Murdoch publication–she talks about a lot of the issues raised earlier in this thread.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6160170

Rick, I never said there were any perfect solutions. I think we will all be better off, however, if we quit trying to protect ourselves from ourselves and from each other, and start taking responsibility for our actions. Depending on the government to protect you from your abusive, alcoholic or drug-addicted (father, husband, boyfriend, wife, girlfriend, whatever - pick one) really works well, doesn’t it?

And prostitution would be a lot easier on the women who practice it, for whatever reason, if they were regarded as legitimate tradeswomen, had health insurance, and got to keep their earnings themselves. They are brutalized by their pimps because the pimps, like everyone else, regard them as subhuman.

Maybe you mentioned “wing-tip shoes”.

Rick, above you stated “that the abolitionist movement and the civil rights movements both owe their very existence to motivated Christians …” Perhaps that statement is partially true. I’m sure that was the case for some of the demonstrators. I’m equally sure that a significant number of protesters were simply tired of getting their heads kicked in solely because of the color of their skin. Any religious platitudes swirling in the air around them were tolerated by these people merely as an means to an end, even if it did make their skin crawl.

Rick, so you say. Actually, the origins of both movements were in the institution of slavery, which, by the way, the Christian Church didn’t seem to have that much of a problem with. Have a nice day.

Rick,

You assume the current drug laws, and the war on drugs in general, are reducing the likelihood of your children getting involved with drugs. I think neither is true. I also heard on NPR, I think, that the anti-drug ads, especially the overwrought ones, are actually piquing the interest of children in drugs. I also think that the fact that drugs are illegal, thereby making them a major black market profit center, serves as an incentive for trafficking, which law enforcement has proved pretty ineffectual in stopping. I share your revulsion at children using drugs. I just think we need to be a whole lot smarter about how we deal with the problem. I am beyond disgusted by politicians posturing as tough on drugs, tough on crime, tough on terrorism, tough on (fill in the blank, including the blank look on their faces when reality occasionally dope slaps them, like it did on 9/11, at least in part because the Bush administration couldn’t be bothered with terrorism pre-9/11 - they had other agendas, including Star Wars and other opium dreams).