« Awakening? | Main | Let Harry Potter Die »
September 13, 2006
How's this for a headline?
POPE ENJOYS PRIVATE TIME AFTER SLAMMING ISLAM
All in a day's work...of the press missing the point, that is.
h
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
My own take was that the Pope, in his inimitable way, was giving his version of a 9/11 anniversary message: in this case, showing how the West had self-disarmed and thereby made itself vulnerable to radical violent Islamicists. The inference one is also invited to draw is that all the military effort in the world may be for little or for naught if we don't address this more fundamental issue.
Posted by: Liam at Sep 13, 2006 10:15:59 AM
Oh brother,
I'm with you, Amy. I wonder if they'd put the same thing about President Bush if he said something similar?
Posted by: Mike Hayes at Sep 13, 2006 10:31:22 AM
Irresponsible headline. It is clear from the first paragraph that the Pope took RADICAL Islam to task. Given the current situation, it is totally irresponsible of Guy Jackson and AFP (Agence France Press) to put such a potentially explosive headline on an article especially when the facts as reported in the article do not support the headline. Shame.
Posted by: Therese at Sep 13, 2006 10:33:57 AM
From the article:
His address late Tuesday to academics at Regensburg University, in which he fleetingly criticised the Islamic concept of "Jihad" or holy war, hit the only political note of his six-day visit, during which his addresses have been almost entirely spiritual.
"Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," said the pope, during a complex treatise on reason and faith.
So, is this a case where the headline writer is different from the author of the article? Because it would appear that even the person who wrote the article somewhat understood that it wasn't about "slamming Islam."
Posted by: Dorian Speed at Sep 13, 2006 10:37:57 AM
Does anyone know whom to complain to about the headline? As Therese notes, it's highly irresponsible in the current climate.
Posted by: Eileen R at Sep 13, 2006 10:38:25 AM
In his talk the Pope spent more time on his concerns about what I'll describe as the West's incoherent idolatry of faithless reason.
It makes the West unintelligible to societies that still embrace cultural religiosity, and it makes the West unintelligent in its interaction with those societies.
Posted by: Fr. Stephanos, O.S.B. at Sep 13, 2006 10:43:39 AM
I'm surprised the press even noticed the jihad thing. Usually, it seems like they sleep through his speeches, or just skim them.
'S all Amy's fault. :)
Posted by: Maureen at Sep 13, 2006 10:47:21 AM
Sadly, some are still focussed on his supposed "Nazi" background. On another listserve I belong to regarding organs, his quote about the new organ( a beautiful one) was dismissed because of his "Nazi" background. The press and others seem focussed on one notion and do not let go of it even after having it clarified. Such a state of affairs!
Posted by: Anon in the South at Sep 13, 2006 10:59:20 AM
I'm guessing they went with the "jihad" angle because there was no obvious hook for the usual "Pope condemns sex" headline.
Posted by: Dorian Speed at Sep 13, 2006 11:39:33 AM
Funny, I checked Der Spiegel and Die Zeit, a German magazine and weekly paper, respectively, and they didn't mention Islam at all. The title from Der Spiegel's article yesterday is a quote from a young fan of the pope and translates as, "The Holy Father is simply cool."
Posted by: Joe C at Sep 13, 2006 11:39:34 AM
My experience has been that the headline writers have no idea what they're talking about, because when I read the article usually I find nothing of what the headline screams. Unfortunately, most people only read headlines.
As Fr. Stephanos says, the Pope spent more time on his concerns about "what I'll describe as the West's incoherent idolatry of faithless reason". But of course, the West would prefer to dismiss these concerns.
Better to focus on the known "baddies". So just mention "jihad" and you have every medium screaming it out at the top of their lungs. It worries me because of the current climate and the upcoming visit to Turkey.
Posted by: Mila at Sep 13, 2006 11:44:00 AM
From what I can tell it is mostly the AFP article by Guy Jackson that is getting the strong titles. Check out news at Google using advanced search. Type in afp for news source.
Posted by: Therese at Sep 13, 2006 11:44:04 AM
The headline writer might have erred, or perhaps the "slam against Islam' was somehow edited out of the article. Here is what might be the relevant item from CWN (I use double slashes to set off the quote):
//The Pope opened his lecture by quoting a scholarly work of the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, writing late in the 14th century, about the difference between the Christian and Islamic understanding of God. Tracing the emperor's argument on the use of force and the concept of "holy war," the Pope pointedly quoted from the Qu'ran (surah 2, 256): "There is no compulsion in religion."
Pope Benedict then quoted the emperor's challenge to his scholarly interlocutor:
'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'//
The quotation from Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus used by the Pope does contain a slam against Islam.
Posted by: T Mahoney at Sep 13, 2006 12:00:01 PM
So whic one writes Yahoo's headlines? Al Jazerra or Al Reuters?
Posted by: Tim F. at Sep 13, 2006 12:15:54 PM
You're all right. The headline doesn't just miss the point; it misrepresents what happened.
That said, it does describe accurately my evening two days ago.
Posted by: Boko at Sep 13, 2006 2:12:11 PM
Wait, I take it back. Amy is right about the headline missing the point, or at least reducing a busy day to one point, but, after reading the text of the pope's address, WOW! He DID slam Islam! (I get this from Amy's "Brain Food" post below and the accompanying link.) Good for him!
How's this for a headline:
Pope to Scholars: I SLAM ISLAM!
Posted by: Boko at Sep 13, 2006 2:23:16 PM
The article in the LA Times put a similar spin on what the Pope said, focusing on the condemnation of Islamic fanatacism. But buried in the LA Times story there is also this:
"Ultimately, the pope's long exposition was not about Islam but about his favored themes: the dangers of secularism in the Christian West and the need to better know God, as well as the wish to open 'genuine dialogue' among faiths and cultures. But the remarks on Islam, however couched, were likely to draw the most attention."
So in other words, the LA Times, based on its own preocupation with Islam, is deliberately distorting the overall import of what the Pope said.
Posted by: Dan at Sep 13, 2006 3:05:07 PM
I say let's have the NY Post headline for this:
"Poep: I Slam Islam"
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Sep 13, 2006 4:28:37 PM
JOURNALIST SCRATCHES HIS LARGE BEHIND AFTER ASKING MUSLIMS TO KILL POPE
Posted by: reluctant penitent at Sep 13, 2006 9:43:38 PM
This is what the Pope said:
In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
http://www.oecumene.radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=94807
Posted by: Dudley at Sep 14, 2006 12:37:53 AM
Ihave been reading the Pope's speeches in Italian. The English versions put out by the Vatican are unreadable. Why should this be so?
Posted by: Catherina at Sep 14, 2006 8:38:05 AM
Are they using Babelfish?
Posted by: Ed the Roman at Sep 14, 2006 9:37:59 AM
Does anyone remember "Nazi Priest Promotes Book," the headline in the Spokane Spokesman-Review several years ago? It referred to Fr. Robert Spitzer, president of Gonzaga University.
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/news-story.asp?date=110900&ID=s877557
Posted by: Nick Frankovich at Sep 14, 2006 11:41:24 AM
