July 06, 2006

Pipes : The Vatican Confronts Islam

As we all know, the Islamic jihadis have an endless list of manufactured grievances. No sooner does the West address one grievance than another is put forth to take its place. One false grievance after another after another after another. The Palestinian question. . . Western troops in Riyadh. . . the treatment of Muslims in this country or that. . . the Mohammed Cartoons. . . the lack of Sharia law in the West. On and on and on.

In the meanwhile, legitimate Western grievances against Muslim nations are endlessly put off, with the acquiescence of our weak Western leaders. Watching the news day after day, one might be tempted to lose hope that our Western leaders will ever come to their senses. And yet, once in a while, we see evidence that there may yet be reason to hope. There may yet be a spark of life in that old, creaking shell of once-mighty Europe. There may yet be a little spirit left somewhere within the bowels of Western Christendom.

Daniel Pipes has the latest on a resurgence of a long-dormant survival instinct within the Vatican:

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves." Thus spoke Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, referring to Muslims. Explaining his apparent rejection of Jesus' admonition to his followers to "turn the other cheek," De Paolis noted that "The West has had relations with the Arab countries for half a century … and has not been able to get the slightest concession on human rights."

De Paolis is hardly alone in his thinking; indeed, the Catholic Church is undergoing a dramatic shift from a decades-old policy to protect Catholics living under Muslim rule. The old methods of quiet diplomacy and muted appeasement have clearly failed. The estimated 40 million Christians in Dar al-Islam, notes the Barnabas Fund's Patrick Sookhdeo, increasingly find themselves an embattled minority facing economic decline, dwindling rights, and physical jeopardy. Most of them, he goes on, are despised and distrusted second-class citizens, facing discrimination in education, jobs, and the courts.

Read the rest here.

Posted by: Ragnar at 12:41 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 440 words, total size 3 kb.

1 OT
Lost the link now but anyone see Putin kissing that boy's stomach? I suspect he is a pedophile.

Posted by: deadmaus at July 06, 2006 01:01 AM (K3594)

2 Bout time the Vatican calls a spade, a spade.

the "turn the other cheek thing" is often misinterpreted.

It wasn't meant as an invitation for a beating. It was a gesture of defiance.

Posted by: mrclark at July 06, 2006 01:41 AM (H9LTb)

3 A la Tyler Durden? ("That's it.... that's good. Get it all out. You'll feel better.")

Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 06, 2006 02:57 AM (c/4ax)

4 I don't quite agree with mclark's interpretation, but if a man smacks my brother, it is not my place to turn the other cheek because it is not my cheek that has been slapped. That is essentially what the Vatican has been doing for the last 50 years. They've been turning the other cheek on behalf of persecuted christians in Arab lands, while they themselves sit comfortably in the Vatican. It's preposterous. Let he who has ACTUALLY been slapped decide if he wants to turn the other cheek, while we who sit comfortably in West should do everything in our power to prevent that against our christian brethren. Enough with this faux piety. It disgusts me.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 06, 2006 09:11 AM (8e/V4)

5 Excellent Carlos. Wish I could draw. I would make some really good cartoons of the muslims goat screwing prophet.

Posted by: greyrooster at July 06, 2006 09:27 AM (NMQrK)

6 Jesus "Tyler Durden" of Nazereth

LOL...

Well, not exactly. There is a wikipedia entry on the subject of "turning the other cheek". There it is explained various enterpritations for the phrase. I take the historical contexualized explanation for myself, which I've posted below.

Those interpreting this passage figuratively have cited historical and other factors in support. They note that at the time of Jesus, striking someone deemed to be of a lower class with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. The other alternative would be to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, they argue, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect demanding equality. Further, it is argued, by handing over one's cloak in addition to one's tunic, the debtor has essentially given the shirt off their back, a situation directly forbidden by Jewish Law as stated in Deuteronomy 24: 10-13:

Posted by: mrclark at July 06, 2006 10:59 AM (0IvYV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
33kb generated in CPU 0.011, elapsed 0.0747 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0683 seconds, 161 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.