I think we’re talking about women wearing a veil. Or not. It’s the same as if we’re discussing whether Sikhs ought to wear turbans, Protestants to wear bowler hats and orange sashes, or ‘hoodies’ to wear ‘hoods’.
These are not all cultural & religious equivalents.
It’s perfectly fair to mention & criticise Islamofascists, because they are a revolting lot in themselves (in both senses), & because they are already beginning to treat this issue as more undeserved nastiness against poor them. They complain far too much about nothing, which makes it impossible to treat any of their complaints seriously, even those which may desrrtve to be taken seriously - but they are so brimful of self-pity that they can’t see this. This issue is all part of that; it feeds it. I know this attitude of perpetual grievance & self-absorption all too well - it is unpleasantly common in Scotland, so I’ve seen plenty of it. And it is no prettier when it comes from Islamists than when it comes from Scottish Nationalists.
Why does such a tiny thing feed into such a toxic attitude ? Partly because Islam, like other Fundamentalisms, has no equipment for dealing with “the other” as a party to be listed to with respect. The “other”, for the Fundamentalist, is never an equal partner to be engaged with reasonably & respectfully, but is either to be converted - or got rid of. So Islamists are unable to take other cultures, other societies, other PsOV than theirs on their merits: they are not Islamic, they do not come from or exist within a source recognised by Islamists - so they derserve no respect, but only to be put out of mind or out of existence. An issue does not not have to be big, in order to feed into a view of the world, Fundamentalist or otherwise - as the antics of Catholic Fundamentalists show.
I think I am dealing with your topic pretty thoroughly. ##
Nothing wrong with what Jack Straw said. Nevertheless, he must have known the consequences of his words, and some of the things other people are saying, piggybacking on Jack’s words, are not acceptable or justified.
It’s not his fault if people quote or apply his words in a sense he would reject, or has. Is St.Paul to be blamed for the idiocy of everyone who uses his words as a reason to preach that the Pope is the “man of sin” ? Surely not.
If no one said anything that could just possibly be misconstrued, no one would say anything - though that would lead to much less political & religious rot being uttered. ##
Err, I’m not going to comment on this rant, except to suggest a reading of Nostra Aetate.
Mike
Fair enough - but the Fathers of Vatican II did not have to live in close proximity to Islamofascist traitors & thugs. The world has changed very greatly since 1965 in some respects, & even if it had not, that would not in the slightest justify the murder of over 50 people in London (to name only one atrocity of very many in which they have been involved - doubtless you can think of many others). These people are traitors, they are enemies of the Crown, they are murderers, & it is not wrong to call them what they are. If anything, there has been too little plainness of speech, & far too much jargon-filled vapouring that says nothing. Even in the Church - some of the episcopal woffle about Communism is impenetrable; there is a particularly unreadable document from the French bishops on the subject; no wonder the Church in France has collapsed. But I digress. A document written over 40 years ago is not automatically applicable over 40 years later.
If the Church’s doctrine cannot deal with that, it needs to be brought up to date. Islamofascist liars & hate-mongers do not deserve “esteem” - except as criminals who very much need to stop threatening with violence, assassination, bombing, mutilation, & death those who do them no harm. Besides, how much of
Nostra Aetate is even doctrinal ? A lot of it is speechifying, & nothing else - which is fine, but not the sort of thing that constitutes teaching.
Besides, the “signs of the times”, which we are supposed to observe, are not in 2006 what they were in 1965. Why should we think of a group in 2006 what we thought of them in 1965 ? If a group is a danger, for bishops to say no more of it than they did in more placid days is irresponsible. Is the Church to be irresponsible, & not warn of danger ? God forbid.
I notice you don’t question my facts, but only my manners - which suggests that the facts are secure. Thanks
##
