| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| When even the Pope has to whisper | |
| 2006-02-19 | |
Islam is the unexploded bomb of global politics. US foreign policy - the only foreign policy there is, for the United States is the only superpower - proceeds from the hope that a modern and democratic Islam will emerge from the ruins of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Is it possible for Islam to reform? A negative answer implies that Ahmadinejad's January 5 call for world domination falls within the Islamic mainstream... The previous day, the London Guardian leaked a European intelligence report detailing Iran's efforts to acquire technology required to build nuclear weapons. A very few writers, including this one, have rejected the possibility of Islamic reformation, to the stony contempt of universally accepted opinion. Now Pope Benedict XVI has let it be known that he does not believe Islam can reform. This we learn from the transcript of a January 5 US radio interview with one of Benedict's students and friends, Father Joseph Fessio, SJ, the provost of Ave Maria University in Naples, Florida, posted on the Asia Times Online forum by a sharp-eyed reader. Fessio described a private seminar on the subject of Islam last year at Castel Gandolfo, the papal summer residence: The main presentation by this Father [Christian] Troll was very interesting. He based it on a Pakistani Muslim scholar [named] Rashan, who was at the University of Chicago for many years... Rashan's position was Islam can enter into dialogue with modernity, but only if it radically reinterprets the Koran, and takes the specific legislation of the Koran... and now applies them, and modifies them, for a new society [in] which women are now respected for their full dignity, where democracy's important, religious freedom's important, and so on. And if Islam does that, then it will be able to enter into real dialogue and live together with other religions and other kinds of cultures. And immediately the holy father, in his beautiful calm but clear way, said, well, there's a fundamental problem with that because, he said, in the Islamic tradition, God has given His word to Mohammed, but it's an eternal word. It's not Mohammed's word. It's there for eternity the way it is. There's no possibility of adapting it or interpreting it, whereas in Christianity, and Judaism, the dynamism's completely different, that God has worked through his creatures. And so it is not just the word of God, it's the word of Isaiah, not just the word of God, but the word of Mark... by establishing a church in which he gives authority to his followers to carry on the tradition and interpret it, there's an inner logic to the Christian Bible, which permits it and requires it to be adapted and applied to new situations. The interviewer then asked Fessio, "And so the pope is a pessimist about that changing, because it would require a radical reinterpretation of what the Koran is?" Fessio replied, "Yeah, which is it's impossible, because it's against the very nature of the Koran, as it's understood by Muslims." Hebrew and Christian scripture claim to be the report of human encounters with God. After the Torah is read each Saturday in synagogues, the congregation intones that the text stems from "the mouth of God by the hand of Moses", a leader whose flaws kept him from entering the Promised Land. The Archangel Gabriel, by contrast, dictated the Koran to Mohammed, according to Islamic doctrine. That sets a dauntingly high threshold for textual critics. How does one criticize the word of God without rejecting its divine character? In that respect the Koran resembles the "Golden Tablets" of the Angel Moroni purported found by the Mormon leader Joseph Smith more than it does the Jewish or Christian bibles. Strange as it may seem, the pope must whisper when he wants to state agreement with conventional Muslim opinion, namely that the Koranic prophecy is fixed for all time such that Islam cannot reform itself. If Islam cannot change, then a likely outcome will be civilizational war, something too horrific for US leaders to contemplate. What Benedict XVI thinks about the likelihood of civilizational war I do not know. Two elements of context, though, set in relief his reported comments concerning Islam's incapacity to reform. The first is that Benedict's comments regarding the nature of Muslim revelation are deliberate and informed, for his primary focus as a theologian has been the subject of revelation. A second element of context is Benedict's admiration for the US separation of church and state. In an essay published in this month's issue of First Things, Benedict makes the remarkable (for a pope) statement that the US model is what the early church really had in mind. He proceeds from the famous argument of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) that "because of human weakness (pride!), they have separated the two offices" of king and priest. Neither the state church model of Northern Europe nor the secular model of France, Italy and Spain has sufficed, Benedict observes. It is most promising that a European, indeed one who speaks with the authority of the throne of St Peter, has explained the difference between the Christian foundation of the US political system and theocratic Islam - even if the explanation came in the form of a stage whisper. I expect this to have profound consequences. Later in the same essay, Benedict takes up a theme I have addressed over the years, namely the moral cause of Europe's demographic implosion (see Why Europe chooses extinction, April 8, 2003), writing: Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire. My investigation of the causes of Europe's present decline was inspired by comments of then-cardinal Ratzinger in a book-length interview with the German journalist Peter Seewald published in 1996 as The Salt of the Earth. Nothing is really new in Benedict's present formulation except, perhaps, his sense of urgency as the hour grows late and the moment of truth approaches. In the cited essay, Benedict excoriates the pessimism of Oswald Spengler, who claimed to have discovered a deterministic pattern of rise and fall of civilizations. Instead, he argues that "the fate of a society always depends upon its creative minorities", and that "Christians should look upon themselves as just such a creative minority". I agree with the pope, not with my namesake. My choice of nom de guerre is ironic rather than semiotic. The fact that the West still has such a leader as Benedict XVI in itself is cause for optimism. It might be too late for Europe, but it is not too late for the United States, and that is where the pope's mustard seeds may fall on fertile ground. By Spengler | |
| Posted by:Pappy |
| #16 LOL Nimble... i immagine you're not alone here. |
| Posted by: RD 2006-02-19 19:58 |
| #15 The Soviet way would be to force people into such communities. The American way is to incentivize them in, while trying to exclude those who aren't interested in reproducing. In other words, creating a good environment for reproduction for people who, when in such a good environment, want to reproduce. And though people like to copulate just for the sake of copulating; and women's desire to have careers are also valid desires; neither are conducive to having five or six children. Which is what you need to have, at least at first. So these incentives are not for them. Sorry you can't have it all. Either five kids or a career is an exclusive or. People who cannot be allowed into the community are those who do not want to reproduce, but who do want to copulate. One such individual can prevent two other people from reproducing by their interference. Like sterile screwworm flies. While grandparents can have a good influence, such a community would have to be a 'Sun City' in reverse: that is, in Sun City, the young under 60 people can visit, but they are not allowed to stay there overnight, regularly. In this case, the grandparents could visit all they wanted, but could not live in the community proper. The adults you want to have children have to interact with a lot, and mutually support their peers. When couples are surrounded by other couples with young children and pregnancies, they are far more inclined towards children themselves. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-19 19:50 |
| #14 were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size. I don't need to be riminded of this fact. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-19 17:18 |
| #13 It has its similarities, yes. That said, I understand where 'moose is coming from. I just vehemently oppose trying to enforce it through laws or other means. Also, having grown up in a 3 generation household, I'm not at all sure it is good policy to keep grandparents away from their grandkids on a daily basis. The 50s suburbs were an anomaly in history and had their pathologies. Older generations are an important part of a kid's upbringing IMO. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-19 17:09 |
| #12 What Anonymoose is suggesting sounds remarkably like a Muslim community. |
| Posted by: KBK 2006-02-19 17:07 |
| #11 and were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size. Hate to burst your bubble, but there's a billion screaming Mohammedans on the planet and hardly a one of them was conceived through the divine intervention of St. Bud or St. Jack or St. Jim or St. Chivas. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2006-02-19 15:57 |
| #10 Wrt reform: While the Koran is supposed to be eternal, most of sharia is based on the hadith. The debate over sharia law was closed off over a thousand years ago, but people try from time to time to reopen ijtihad. So for all the respect Muslims pay sharia, it isn't "eternal" in the same way the Koran is supposed to be. So at least in theory it is possible to go back and rework sharia, perhaps adding a new principle and getting rid of a lot of the bogus hadith. (If I recall correctly, Khadafi tried something like that.) Problem is that we infidels have no standing in such an enterprise. We can coax, but if the Muslims don't want to do it, it won't happen. Me? I think Benedict isn't quite right: Islam _can_ reform, but won't. Not soon, anyway. |
| Posted by: James 2006-02-19 15:39 |
| #9 moose - you don't EVEN wanna get into trying to reconnect my vasectomy. We're not that friendly :-) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-19 14:23 |
| #8 Who else but the government could prepare an area for new young families to occupy? Who else could provide the right kind of jobs and all the other incentives? The marketplace, as soon as people really want them. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-19 13:35 |
| #7 A personal response here: 'moose, while I applaud your goals you will make contraception illegal over my dead female body. And fair warning - I won't die easily, as I own guns and know how to use them. Just thought I'd contribute a friendly difference of opinion here .... ;-) There are serious issues in a society that is so self-indulgent it does not value children. But let's leave 20th century authoritarian mass-state solutions to the graveyard, whether of the Nazi or the Stalinist kind. With rapidly increasing life spans, we will be able to both pursue careers and have children. Increasingly even my generation, the baby boomers, have had more than one career in succession and that will be much more true for the younger generations. What is needed is a sense that the future holds exciting possibilities. For that, people will work AND have kids -- and raise them well, too. |
| Posted by: lotp 2006-02-19 13:33 |
| #6 Darrell: Not Soviet, but Levittown and similar communities in post-WWII America. Much of what I am describing has already been done, resulting in the "baby boom generation". Back then, much of what happened was unintentional, coincidental, and circumstantial, but the results were spectacular. That is why America in the 1950s was full of young children. Today, to replicate the situation, the government would have to be deeply involved, but indirectly, not like today when they are in your face, in your wallet, and far more interested in productivity than procreation. Who else but the government could prepare an area for new young families to occupy? Who else could provide the right kind of jobs and all the other incentives? But until the children were born, the government has to leave the reproduction part alone. It can't brow-beat the parents and constantly remind them of their 20-year-long upcoming responsibilities. You don't want parents that are afraid of having children, scared at all the work, frightened of government intervention at the slightest lapse, etc. Instead, the government actually has to let potential parents be somewhat irresponsible. To put it bluntly, most pregnancies are unintentional; and were it not for alcohol, the human species would be a fraction of its size. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-19 13:28 |
| #5 Anonymoose don't look for solutions in economic rationality. A hint "an organism is not adapted to its environment, it is adapted to the environment of its ancestors." |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-02-19 12:33 |
| #4 Remember "Hero Mothers of the USSR"? |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-02-19 12:02 |
| #3 It appears to me, 'moose, that you have just declared that "the government is trying to help, instead of just getting out of the way" and then you have issued a prescription that cannot be filled except through governmental interference: "Areas, regions, or parts of cities subtly set aside ", "Entertainment and materialism need to be carefully controlled", etc. Put it on eastern-European soil and it almost sounds like an old Nazi breeding plan. |
| Posted by: Darrell 2006-02-19 11:48 |
| #2 I disagree about what motivates people to breed. Economics shows that in a poor society, no matter what other variables, people have a lot of children, when children are seen as both a money-making venture for the family and possibly support in later years for the old. However, at a certain economic threshold, which varies by country, people stop having large families, as children move from the "credit" column to the "debit" column for their parents and the rest of their families. They are seen as hard work, expensive, and destined to leave their family as soon as they can. Government has in past proven that it cannot significantly increase the number of children a couple wish to have, but they can further inhibit their desire, so that they have even fewer than two children per couple. The reason for this is straightforward: the government is trying to help, instead of just getting out of the way. This interference, which invariably emphasises "child welfare", makes parenting an even more onerous task. They keep trying to raise the "responsibility" bar for people naturally overwhelmed with responsibility already. So the way to get more children is to purposefully set up the conditions in which people *want* to breed, where children aren't a burden, and are again desireable. Areas, regions, or parts of cities subtly set aside for breeding parents and children--nobody over the age of 40 or so. These places need employment, but for the male only, and otherwise need to be boring. Entertainment and materialism need to be carefully controlled, so that savings rates are high. The area needs to be very child-oriented, with no contraception or abortion available, and housing built to cluster 5-7 families together with a "common yard" between them. These type cluster-houses have been shown to be very conducive to young parents. Some degree of coercion needs to be introduced, such as encouraging single parents to marry, and an emphasis on conformity as far as having large families. Adults who medically cannot have children need to be ushered out. Conversely, there should be no sanction against adultery. At some point, even a small amount of fertility drugs might be introduced, to bring about increased multiple births for parents not breeding properly. Only at this point, when you have couples busily making children, do you start to need the schools, clinics, and other up-front government services. But these have to be as stress free as possible. Even what little entertainment is offered should emphasize having children. This is a comprehensive scheme, an ideal unlikely to happen; but the more elements that do happen, the more likely a birthrate will go up. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-02-19 09:36 |
| #1 Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future. Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present, as though they were taking something away from our lives. Children are seen - at least by some people - as a liability rather than as a source of hope. Here it is obligatory to compare today's situation with the decline of the Roman Empire. This sums up the bulk of Euroland in a nutshell. It also sums up much of the left in the U.S. Yes, one's future is artistic/philosophical/architectural heritage, to some extent. But without humans beings, it's all for nought. It may seem new that people are seeing this behavioral tendency and describing it, but it isn't. Decades ago, in his book The Silmarillion, Tolkien wrote about something very much like this situation in a short story named "Akallabeth". The Silmarillion is a good but lengthy and difficult book, but it might be worth it for 'burgers to pick up a copy, read this particular short story contained within, and then look at the frontispiece and check the year of first publication. One of the great challenges of the West is the need to craft a society where there is freedom of choice for people in their pursuit of careers and avocations yet there is sufficient social norming pressure to induce them to breed in sustainable numbers. The current state of our culture, particularly with regard to feminism in its current guise and the expectation set it tries to prmulgate, will not be up to the task. Some very lofty notions and high ideals may, unfortunately, have to be modified, even jettisoned in order to maintain a sufficient birthrate. I don't necessarily like this, but we may be forced to accept the fact in the face of the alternative - extinction of the West. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2006-02-19 06:47 |