Predictably, the greatest beneficiaries of the Western enlightenment blamed reason, the true victim of Muslim rage through the ages. The editors of The New York Times said this morning, to the eternal discredit of that once great paper, that[t]he world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
This is obscene. Apart from its factual inaccuracy -- there is no evidence that any of the enraged Muslims "listened carefully" to the words of the pope -- this is like blaming a beaten wife for provoking the bastard who throttles her. It is the leaders of prayers in the mosques of the Muslim world who call on their faithful to riot in the streets. It is they who sow pain and incite violence, and anybody unburdened by a loathing of Western civilization knows it. Pope Benedict has nothing to apologize for. The leading clerics of the Muslim world have a great deal to apologize for.
Indeed. I am getting sick and tired of the non-stop (threats of) violence coming from the so-called Muslim world. Every time someone says something, or publishes a cartoon the Muslim clerics do not like, Muslims all around the world go crazy. I do not know about you, but I am completely fed up with this. For the New York Mohammed, umh, Times, to once again appease those who (threaten to) use violence, is something that infuriates me even more than the (violent) 'protests' Muslims turn to when they feel insulted (something that happens every other day or so): The New York Times should defend the freedom of speech, honesty and reason: instead it chooses to side with the Muslim hooligans. The New York Times is only able to do what it does, because of we in the West embrace before mentioned values. Without it, the New York Times would not even exist.
Bunch of cowardly, dishonest, appeasing bastards.
UPDATE
Also consider reading Luboš Motl marvelous take on the Pope's lecture.
From that article, about the NYT:
In their anti-papal rant sold as editorial, The New York Times have joined the primitives who call for a "deep and persuasive apology" from a Pope who "sows pain" which is "tragic and dangerous". I would have some appreciation for such journalists if they were at risk that they would be burned at stake for their outrageous blasphemy against the Holy Father. But this is not how the Western world works in 2006.
Today, they're just cheap parasites who want to sell their distasteful diatribes and they figuratively resemble hooligans who, together with a gang of wild monkeys, penetrate into a senior house to rape someone and they happen to choose a 79-year-old accomplished pianist who speaks 10 languages.
The New York Times editors should be ashamed but I am not gonna demand apologies because my attitude to the truth dramatically differs from the attitude of the Islamist and New York Times-like PC militias who apparently think that if they force someone to say something or accept a belief, it changes the truth. My opinion happens to be rather close to Prof. Ratzinger who thinks that the arguments and the good will are the things that matter.
Moreover I am not backed by thousands of terrorists who would help me to force the editors to apologize. ;-)
The sword and a forced apology don't change anything about the truth, dear Al-Qaeda, feminists, and the New York Times. Both the terrorists and the editors would be much better off if they tried to learn something from the wise Gentleman instead of piling hysterical attacks against him based on a selective misinterpretation of individual words from the Pope's speech, a speech that neither the terrorists nor the editors understand.
Read the entire post, it's a great read.
Cross posted at Liberty and Justice
1 comment:
Anonymous,
You say Hinduism adopts to modernity. I get the feeling you don't know much about Indian society or Hinduism. Do you know the story of the Bhagavad Gita? Do you know what the Caste System is?
You say Christianity and Islam are primitive, and you say it as if both are equally primitive. I will grant you that many, if not most, scientists are atheists, or agnostics. However, I would contend that there is nothing in the scientific method which demands that a person be an atheist or agnostic. In fact, Einstein believed in God.
At the same time, many scientists do seem to believe that the scientific method demands atheism. It doesn't demand atheism, instead, it demands that one look for a material-based reason for the happenings in the physical world. When scientists think that that means the scientific method demands atheism, they are showing us that they have a blind adherence to the scientific method. Kind of like how some Christians have a blind adherence to Christian dogma.
Anything else you want to say, Anonymous.
Post a Comment