Karen Armstrong’s apologetics.
By Paul J Cella Posted in War — Comments (8) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
What a remarkable tissue of animosity and vilification this is. Karen Armstrong, former nun, now Islamic apologist, is fed up with moderation when it comes to castigation of the Christian West. Now is no time to mince words! The Pope is a dangerous man! No time, as well, to let something so small and pitiful as accuracy, much less fairness, stand in the way of polemic. To take one example, consider the sand-pounding stupidity of this passage: “It was when the Christians of Europe were fighting brutal holy wars against Muslims in the Middle East that Islam first became known in the west as the religion of the sword.” I suppose Charles Martel was fighting what he regarded as a pacific religion, which by some astonishing fluke of history managed to extinguish the ancient Latin civilization of north Africa, subdue Visigothic Spain, and march right through southern France — all without recourse to violence. I suppose Christians of the West knew nothing about the shattering of the Byzantine legions, and the conquest of the ancient Christian lands in Egypt and Syria, in the 7th and 8th centuries. I suppose the Christians of southern Europe, subjected to Muslim slaving raids for centuries before the Crusade was preached, thought their captors the bearers of a peaceful creed.
Armstrong is fond of referring to “our Islamophobia” and the people “we have wronged,” but it is clear as day where her real intellectual identification lies in this. Here as elsewhere, her ambition seems to be the traducement of the Christian West and the exultation of Islam. That this project has made her wealthy and renowned in the West is a comment on our decadence
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Lifitng the veil on Islamist hate — Comments (1) »
Karen Armstrong’s apologetics. 8 Comments (0 topical, 8 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
doesn't think.
It kills me how easily liberals can talk about the mean, scary Christian right out to take away everyone's rights and to declare a Christian theocracy in the US.
But they can't bring themselves to condemn what happens every single time there is a real or perceived insult to Islam, or if they do condemn it comes with one of those lovely "buts" in order to offer up an excuse for why they were somehow justified in their actions.
In effect, here is what happened:
Pope: Historical figures have said that Islam has a problem with intolerance and violence. Christianity has had the same problem. True religion can never be forced.
Islam: For saying that, you must die. We will destroy Christendom and grind you dhimmi under our heels. While we're at it, we'll kill a few Christians and burn a few churches, even though they had nothing to do with your comments.
This proves the point about Islam, which claims for itself status superior to every other religion and philosophy. The intimidation by Islam (backed by Iranian imperialism) of our religious and political freedoms will only intensify until we take a stand. The West must say that it doesn't matter whether what somebody says offends Islam. If the criticism is wrong on the merits, refute it on the merits, don't murder the speaker. Now we know how Europe felt in 1937 as Hitler's menace grew.
I agree completely with your take on Armstrong's shameful piece in today's Guardian. Since my comments on that article were a bit long to post here, I put them in a blog entry. I also posted them as a comment to Armstrong's article on the Guardian, in case she or her defenders care to respond.
I appreciated your blog entry.
I've read a couple of Armstrong's books and it seems to me she articulates a seductive theory, prevalent amongst self-styled enlightened semi-religious westerners, that there is indeed one God who has been discovered by many religions but that the big three, Judaism, Christianity and Islam really have hit nearly identically on the same understanding of God. Her writings are suggestive of the idea that God actually made revelation to these various peoples independently through Abraham, Christ and Muhammad. She is not the first Catholic to make such an argument and there is a logic to it, in that one may fear that the same criticisms labeled against Islam may be labeled against Christianity, giving way to secularist atheism. And its a hopeful way to resolve religious conflict while maintaining the idea that a benevolent God really is overseeing mankind's religious activity.
So regarding what motivates her apologia, its the refusal to give up on her hopeful theory that causes her to manipulate and force fit the facts to fit her theory. She is well-intentioned but misguided. She should have paid more attention to the herald that first brought her to God...there will be many false prophets who come in his name.
John E.
just Cindy Sheehan in disguise? Sounds about the same level of insanity.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Don't those Muslims who are demonstrating, setting fire to churches, killing nuns, and threatening the West realize that they are proving Benedict's point, that Islam spreads by the sword? Benedict was trying to say that God doesn't force people to believe, He invites them lovingly.
If Muslims really wanted to prove Benedict wrong, they would set up an ecumenical council between Christians and Muslims in, say, Constantinople, and allow churches to be built in Saudi Arabia, and let people choose for themselves between Jesus and Mohammed on their own merits.
In the meantime, we have to follow Jesus' advice on those who don't accept His teaching...shake the dust off our feet and leave. What a terrible shame, over a billion people left in the dust, but no swords.
The bad news: Conservatism is hard to sell. The good news is that it works.
Armstrong suffers from a severe case of White/Western Guilt.
The world, apparently, can full well tolerate Muslim riots every time the prophet suffers a perceived insult - what it apparently can't tolerate is the "bigotry" of the Pope.