What will be the effect of the behavior of the Islamic world in reaction to Pope Benedict's remarks?
From Wretchard at Belmont Club:
... it would be untrue to say the recent controversy over the Islamic world's reaction to the Pope's remarks have no effect. Just as the public will probably read the Pope's sorrow for the reaction to his remarks as being sorry for his remarks -- that is, as an apology-- much of the simple public will probably regard the apology as the product of a bullying Islamic world as abetted by the liberal establishment, of which the nun's recent death is an example.
And while such sentiments are unlikely to manifest themselves in any large shift in the political proportions of Western countries, it will have the effect of hardening the attitudes of those who suspect they are being sold down the river by the liberals and the left.
Added on to the context of train bombings, airline scares and the ceaseless belligerence of militant Islamic preachers in the West, it will make unctuous remarks at how carelessly and insensitively the Pope has treated Islam just that much more nauseating.
The New York Times for example says "Because the world listens carefully to the words of any pope, Benedict XVI needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology for his hurtful speech." The NYT may be playing to an audience, but not since the phrase "let them eat cake" has there been such an unwitting example of contempt for those outside the charmed circle. We have learned less from Pope Benedict's words then we have discovered from the reaction to them.
If our leaders will not protect Western Civilization, then it will be left to us.
4 comments:
You bring up a good point about how they keep getting angrier and angrier about less and less.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Of course, the question of why we don't seem concerned can be answered by how important football and American Idol are to us, I guess.
I'm gonna say something that will seem strange to most people. I actually worry about Hilary being President, not because I fear she would be too easy on the Jihadis, but because of the opposite.
Basically, I think Hilary is a totalitarian. I believe she is the kind of human being who would do anything that came to her mind, as long as she can get away with it, and as President, she could.
Demosthenes,
I need to be clear. I like Bill Clinton. It's Hilary that bothers me. It's a personal feeling I have. There is something missing in her. I agree with you in comparing what I said about her to BDS. What I said about her does sound like the equivalent of BDS. Maybe I ought to just shut my mouth and wait for it to happen.
My feeling about Hilary is she would go nuclear on an oppoenent very easily; figuratively, or literally.
When I call her a totalitarian, I mean it not in the sense of her being a Communist, but in the sense of her having a need for power and control.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, seemed to like to compromise with people. He seemed to enjoy the game and appreciate its estimable place in American history. Bill Clinton was a good President for his time, in my opinion.
He has been more than a little bit of a snake with regards to his ill-treatment of George Bush, and honestly, I chalk that up to his ambition for his wife.
I agree. It would be better for Bill and Hilary to moderate in face of the Democratic insanity. And, I think they will do so.
Post a Comment