It is possibly worth mentioning that in Fat Charlie’s world, women did not simply turn up. You needed to be introduced to them; you needed to pluck up the courage to talk to them; you needed a subject to talk about when you did, and then, once you had achieved those heights, there were further peaks to scale. You needed to dare ask them if they were doing anything on Saturday night, and then when you did, mostly they had hair that needed washing that night, or diaries to update, or cockatiels to groom, or they simply needed to wait by the phone for some other man not to call.

But Spider lived in a different world.

-Neil Gaiman, Anansi Boys

In the middle of a piece asking where the Muslims protesting over the atrocities in Darfur are, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown makes the following statements:

The pope was wrong to say what he did, and is injudicious to believe what he does — that Christianity is more rational and reasonable than Islam. These self-righteous Christians conveniently ignore the Inquisition, the Crusades and Jesus’ “I come not to send peace but a sword.” Both faiths have the propensity to fall into violence; both are capable of bringing to humans luminous insights and peace. Pope Benedict has apologized, but that will not be the end of it. As street protests grow, people may well die because they heard from someone that the Catholic leader said something that was against our Prophet. That is all it takes for the rage to burn.

Allow me to paraphrase: “It is injudicious to believe that Christianity is [ED: note the present tense use of the verb] more rational and reasonable than Islam… and to prove it, I’ll pull out two examples from at least half a millenium ago, and pull some of Christ’s words out of context.”

Since the emphasis on the “half a millenium” ago part mostly decimates the first two examples, I’m going to focus purely on the last one. The quote that Yasmin uses is from Matthew 10:34. In the interest of context, I’m going to go back to Matthew 10:16 to begin the full quote.

Matthew 10:16-42 KJVA

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. [17] But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; [18] And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. [19] But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. [20] For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. [21] And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death. [22] And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. [23] But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. [24] The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. [25] It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? [26] Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. [27] What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. [28] And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. [29] Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. [30] But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. [31] Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. [32] Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. [33] But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. [34] Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. [35] For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. [36] And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. [37] He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. [38] And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. [39] He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. [40] He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. [41] He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward. [42] And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

One of the most consistent lessons learned from reading the things that Christ told his disciples is that there will always be those who refuse to hear the truth, those who are made angry by those speaking the truth. Christ came to save us, but He knew that His words would not bring peace, because there would be those who refused to hear them. The quote that Yasmin uses out of context was not intended to be an exhortation for violence, but a warning that violence would be coming.

I’m not Catholic, so I don’t hold the Pope to be infallible by any means, but I have to go back to what I posted yesterday:

The quote that Benedict cited said, “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.” Regardless of whether the quote has any basis in reality, it seems to me that it’s pretty simple to argue against. “Mohammed brought [this], and it is neither evil nor inhuman because [insert reason here].”

Yasmin wrote, “As street protests grow, people may well die because they heard from someone that the Catholic leader said something that was against our Prophet. That is all it takes for the rage to burn.” Yeah, it’s hard to see why someone would think that (some) Muslims might be less rational and/or reasonable than Christians, isn’t it?

( þ This Blog is Full of Crap )

Sorry this is so late. I wrote it last week and it sat in a text file here on my PC without getting posted.

Pope Benedict XVI is being compared to Hitler by Turkish lawmakers.

The pope made some “inflammatory” remarks while in Germany on Tuesday, and there’s apparently been quite the backlash:

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey’s ruling Islamic-rooted party joined a wave of criticism of Pope Benedict XVI on Friday, accusing him of trying to revive the spirit of the Crusades with remarks he made about the Muslim faith. A Turkish lawmaker said the pontiff would go down in history “in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini” for his words.

Mussolini? Hitler? Benedict finds himself in some pretty infamous company. So, what’d he say?

Benedict quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

“The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war,” the pope said. “He said, I quote, ‘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 Vatican, of course, claims the remarks weren’t intended to be offensive, but without any context with the rest of the speech, I can’t form any opinion of my own about the intent of the comments. By themselves, they seem to me to fall far short of the crimes of Hitler or Mussolini. I don’t know, though. Again, I can’t find a full text of the speech. Maybe Benedict followed his quote with a cry to lock Muslims up and gas them en masse, but you’d think that some news agency would be mentioning that bit of the speech if it had been made.

The quote that Benedict cited said, “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.” Regardless of whether the quote has any basis in reality, it seems to me that it’s pretty simple to argue against. “Mohammed brought [this], and it is neither evil nor inhuman because [insert reason here].”

Instead, we’re hearing how offended people are, hearing accusations that Benedict is like Hitler and Mussolini, and demands for an apology. Even assuming that Benedict’s remarks weren’t at all grounded in reality, that there was no context for them, that he was giving offense purely for the sake of giving offense (or, as the Moroccan daily Attajdid claimed, because he has joined the “Zionist-American alliance against Islam”), I find it hard to believe that the cause wouldn’t be better served by a rational explanation as to why Benedict’s quote was false. Prove he’s wrong, then demand the apology. Of course, if the “cause” is simply to stoke the fire and make Muslims angrier and angrier in an attempt to recapture the outrage that was felt last year when the Danish cartoons were printed, then the response is a little more understandable, if less defensible.

Speaking of quotes that don’t really help Muslims to win this argument:

Aiman Mazyek, head of Germany’s Muslim council, said he found it hard to believe that the Pope really saw a difference between Islam and Christianity in attitudes toward violence.

“One only need think of the Crusades or the forced conversions of Jews and Muslims in Spain,” he said.

Maybe it’s just me, but here’s what I read: “Okay, yeah, sure, Mohammed spoke of spreading the faith via the sword, and Christ was pretty much the ultimate pacifist, spreading his faith through kindness and love, but there were some maniacs 800 to 1000 years ago who twisted the teachings of Jesus Christ beyond recognition in order to justify a war under the (false) guise of trying to convert us, so you’re just like us!” I don’t know about you, but that argument doesn’t sway me much.

I stopped by the comic book store this afternoon and got rid of my pull list (though I do intend to go back in and purchase those comics that’ve already been ordered for me).

It’s kind of sad, but I’ve been less and less excited about reading my comics lately, and it’s a lot of money to be spending on something I’m just not enjoying as much as I used to.

Ann Althouse has a relatively interesting post about her reaction to a photo of a group that met with former President Clinton, including a “feminist” blogger. The thread, as a whole, is an interesting look at modern feminism (not to mention the state of civility on the internet), I think, but I found this comment the most interesting (Emphasis mine, but the italics are Philo’s quote of something Ann said, if you’re unfamiliar with that convention):

Philo said…

Ann,
I’m judging you by your apparent behavior. It’s not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about.
If you look at the picture you linked to in your first post on Jessica and her breasts you’ll see that at least six other people are looking in the same direction Jessica is looking. As is common in large gatherings there was clearly more than one camera here, hence the picture you see.

As far as I can tell your two posts on Jessica offer nothing more than sheer jealousy that liberal, nay, feminist bloggers are being given space to speak with President Clinton. In t-shirt and jeans no less (though your protestations echo Kurtz, I can’t possibly believe you’re nitpicking as to what people wore to a private meeting with a president).

Your attacks on Jessica are incredibly juvenile. Inane, irrelevant, unconstructive, vacuous, and insulting to the intelligence of anyone who wasted their time reading it. I seriously feel dumber for having read these two posts.

Can you please offer one substantive critique of a feminist blogger, attractive or otherwise, young or otherwise, attending a meeting with Bill Clinton?

I’d note that Jessica is probably the youngest blogger there. Her presence is a sign of stature and her brilliance. She is deserving of praise for breaking into a meeting defined by middle-aged men and women.

3:18 PM, September 15, 2006

Y’know, I’m not a fan of Bill Clinton, for reasons that go far beyond the simple fact that I disagreed wholeheartedly with any number of his policy decisions. But if I were invited to a luncheon with him, I’d wear a suit or not go. As a later commenter (Seven Machos) said, “I can’t believe that you would not wear your best, most business-like suit to a meeting with any president of any country, present or past, whether you like the person or don’t.”

Is it terribly old fashioned of me to think that that’s so obvious that it shouldn’t have needed to be said?