AmericanPapist Comments
The Cardinal is being a bit naive. I read the letter twice. It is slyly polemical in its repeatedly quoting Christ in Mark 12:29
as He cites Deuteronomy 6:4 and in which Christ says: " Hear of Israel...
the Lord is one." And the letter quotes little else from the bible or from Christ. The Koran explicitly attacks the concept of the Trinity in several places and this part of Deuteronomy when selectively quoted appeals to them because of the "Lord ...is one" element which they repeat in the beginning ...middle and end of the letter and repeatedly.
The good Cardinal is missing the anti Trinity theme which goes from the beginning of the letter to the end.
Here are some anti Trinity passages from the Koran and they are the backdrop for the letter repeating this theme ad nauseam however eliptically concerning the 1st commandment...which they could have cited without bringing in Christ's repetition of it and without citing the "Lord... is one" part...they brought Christ in because Christ repeated the "Lord ...is one" despite Christ being in our view part of the Trinity...(distince but not separate):
Surah 5:73 "They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."
Surah 4:71 " The Messiah Jesus son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of God, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him; so believe in God and His Messengers. Say not "Trinity": desist! It will be better for you: for God is One: Glory be to Him! (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs."
Who cares if Muslims don't believe in the Trinity? I certainly don't. I doubt the Cardinal is looking to gain theological unity here; he's looking to open a dialogue which could help us work a bit more closely than we do with Muslims in a positive way, rather than going in constant fear of conflict.
That they do not believe in the Trinity was not the point my post made. That they insinuated it repeatedly in a letter about peace was bizarre and either polemical or meant to curry favor should any radicals read it. Read here...an Anglican Pakistani bishop of Rochester who specializes in the area of Islam and who had the same reaction that I did:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...icle2638044.ece
The important thing is to take baby steps. It's pretty simple at this early stage in the game to embrace the positive and ignore--for now--the differences of thought. It's absolutely crucial to support moderate Muslim clerics and scholars who speak out in the name of peace. It's not easy to do when fundamentalists are willing to kill them for such a stance. So I'm with the cardinal in seeing this as extremely positive, and we can get to the meat and potatoes of the issues later.
Well-put, Nathan.
Nevertheless, the next move for peace in on their shoulders, not the Pope's or the Church's inasmuch as Catholic missionaries and laity continue to be harrassed and killed in Muslim nations while the same is not the case for Muslims in places where the Church has influence.
There is a huge distinction that needs to be made with respect to the West and Christianity - Italy is not run by the Catholic Church (abortion is legal there). Nor are many other ancient nations that were formerly Catholic...so the war in Iraq and Afghanistan is not a Catholic crusade.
So what exactly are they talking about when they say "we" should seek peaceful co-existence, when we - the Catholics in the West are not calling for crusades against Muslims at all, and even the USA's actions since 1990 have not involved US aggression against hapless Muslims as much as force to liberate civilians from dictators or terrorists.
Our liberation of Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq have hardly been wars of occupation and forced conversion. Those we fought were not minding their own business planting flowers and singing kumbaya.
So what are they talking about? Virtually all of the violence against civilians in the world today - from the Phillippines, East Timor, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Middle East, Lebanon and Europe - are caused by radical Muslims, not the USA or "the West" Christian or not.
It's not Western secularists or Christian immigrants raping Muslim women but Muslim immigrants in Norway and Sweden doing that. And it's not Christian or secular Westerners burning cars in Cairo or Mecca but Muslim 'youths' doing this in Paris, Brussels, and London.
The most we've done bellically is preach just war theory which specifies that combatants ought not harm non-combatants. Meanwhile the Muslim radicals are preaching the INTENTIONAL killing of innocents as a means of holy war.
I fail to see then why we have to respond to them for peace to come. We're the aggrieved party not the aggressor in this.
It's important to seek peaceful co-existence but not at any cost, especially of the truth. Until they begin being reciprocal in their respect for religious freedom in their lands - as we have been in ours - there's little chance for peace. Our people and converts will continue to be treated badly and they will continue to grow in numbers and democratic representation and thus power - in our lands.
Without reciprocity this talk of peace is a one-way proposition and sounds more like an ultimatum: "surrender or else".
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
