Erasmus revisited: In Praise of Folly--Pope Benedict, Islam and just about everyone else
Moss David Posner M.D.
September 20, 2006
One week ago, Pope Benedict quoted a medieval scholar as stating that only negative, destructive things have issued forth from Islam. Subsequently, numerous Moslem sources expressed outrage, dire threats, atrocious commentaries on Christianity and proposals for its ultimate fate at the hands of Islam. The Pope responded by stating, in effect, that it was not his intention to insult Islam; rather, he said, he was simply quoting a source and a statement. He went on to apologize if his remarks had been construed as an indictment of Islam.
This whole sequence is so preposterous that it would be humorous were it not so serious—at least as an indication of a shared moral and intellectual abdication on the parts of the Vatican, Islam, and the general public. There isn’t a legal scholar or attorney within a ten-mile radius of my computer screen that could fail to recognize this simple fact.
Where does one start—or does it really matter? The Pope quotes another cleric with a strong criticism of the very fabric of Islam, and later insulates himself by reminding the public that it was not his personal quote.
This reminds me of the classic Richard Prior line, “Who are you going to believe—me, or your lyin eyes” or, in this case—ears?
Here’s an exercise for you: Next time you go to a cocktail party given by your boss, quote someone who you know who has made a denigrating comment about the boss’s wife. When (not if) he becomes enraged, gently remind him that it wasn’t you who made the comment.
Let’s carry the analogy a bit further: After your protest of innocence, imagine that he threatens to castrate you, promises to decimate your family, and to erase any evidence of your DNA’s existence from the face of the earth.
It’s really a toss-up—which is worse—the abdication of responsibility or the promise of dreadful consequences proceeding wherefrom. I’ll tell you what’s worse: It is the inability of the public, editorialists, or anyone else to hold all parties responsible for their respective parts in this matter.
That last observation is very prescient as well as ominous. We live in an intellectually defective culture that sees all and any issue as a Clash of Titans, with the loudest squeaking wheel being the sole inhabitant of the moral high ground, the modern equivalent of Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. At least, under these ancient rules, nobody but the principles suffer the consequences of their decisions.
We see this failure everywhere: whether it is the responsibility for what we say, or for what we do to others, such as the intellectual integrity and responsibility of determining what is the “decent..humane” treatment of detainees there is no such responsibility assumed by—in this case—the Senate, which, the Supreme Court insisted, is ultimately responsible.
On the other hand, when there exists a clear difference of values, either directly or by implication, such as with personal moral behavior, we pass this issue off as a “personal” choice. Thus, the decision to have sexual relations, with the result of a pregnancy, is now regarded as either a woman’s right to her own body, or, alternatively, her automatic right to a man’s involuntary and exclusive support, in retrospect. Alternatively, the disgraceful attribution of “unwanted” to such a pregnancy as an automatic default setting justifying abortion gives tragically simple and straightforward evidence of this fact. Perhaps we should rename murderers as—those suffering from “unwanted” homicide convictions.
It is tragic in consequence when a civilization takes no responsibility for its behaviors. How much more tragic is it when it’s designated spiritual leaders declare public abdication of that responsibility as their divine right, as in the case of the Pope, or declare divine right to extinguish those whose behavior displeases, as in the case of Islam.
This whole sequence is so preposterous that it would be humorous were it not so serious—at least as an indication of a shared moral and intellectual abdication on the parts of the Vatican, Islam, and the general public. There isn’t a legal scholar or attorney within a ten-mile radius of my computer screen that could fail to recognize this simple fact.
Where does one start—or does it really matter? The Pope quotes another cleric with a strong criticism of the very fabric of Islam, and later insulates himself by reminding the public that it was not his personal quote.
This reminds me of the classic Richard Prior line, “Who are you going to believe—me, or your lyin eyes” or, in this case—ears?
Here’s an exercise for you: Next time you go to a cocktail party given by your boss, quote someone who you know who has made a denigrating comment about the boss’s wife. When (not if) he becomes enraged, gently remind him that it wasn’t you who made the comment.
Let’s carry the analogy a bit further: After your protest of innocence, imagine that he threatens to castrate you, promises to decimate your family, and to erase any evidence of your DNA’s existence from the face of the earth.
It’s really a toss-up—which is worse—the abdication of responsibility or the promise of dreadful consequences proceeding wherefrom. I’ll tell you what’s worse: It is the inability of the public, editorialists, or anyone else to hold all parties responsible for their respective parts in this matter.
That last observation is very prescient as well as ominous. We live in an intellectually defective culture that sees all and any issue as a Clash of Titans, with the loudest squeaking wheel being the sole inhabitant of the moral high ground, the modern equivalent of Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. At least, under these ancient rules, nobody but the principles suffer the consequences of their decisions.
We see this failure everywhere: whether it is the responsibility for what we say, or for what we do to others, such as the intellectual integrity and responsibility of determining what is the “decent..humane” treatment of detainees there is no such responsibility assumed by—in this case—the Senate, which, the Supreme Court insisted, is ultimately responsible.
On the other hand, when there exists a clear difference of values, either directly or by implication, such as with personal moral behavior, we pass this issue off as a “personal” choice. Thus, the decision to have sexual relations, with the result of a pregnancy, is now regarded as either a woman’s right to her own body, or, alternatively, her automatic right to a man’s involuntary and exclusive support, in retrospect. Alternatively, the disgraceful attribution of “unwanted” to such a pregnancy as an automatic default setting justifying abortion gives tragically simple and straightforward evidence of this fact. Perhaps we should rename murderers as—those suffering from “unwanted” homicide convictions.
It is tragic in consequence when a civilization takes no responsibility for its behaviors. How much more tragic is it when it’s designated spiritual leaders declare public abdication of that responsibility as their divine right, as in the case of the Pope, or declare divine right to extinguish those whose behavior displeases, as in the case of Islam.
Print
Email
