German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, joins the row over the Pope's words.
Why is German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, joining this row?
What are her intentions or her motivation? Nationalism? (Or should that word be Patriotism?) Does she just like to throw her own punches (one way to get noticed – eh!)? Playing the big leader? (I told you that you were going to have to “move over” Mr Blair – see one of my earlier blogs – but lets face it folks, Blair is right on the edge of falling out of bed altogether and - thank goodness – for ever!) Or does Mrs Merkel have some personal issues concerning this? Does she have some kind of problem with Muslim issues? (She does after all clearly and strongly support Bush and Blair politics and has come out strongly against Iran and other Muslim countries) Has it anything to do with her own religious – or not – history? (After all she is the daughter of a protestant minister, and one who has a slightly strange history, and what about her own history?)
Here are quotes from BBC news online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests):
“……The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has defended Pope Benedict XVI over remarks he made about Islam.
She said critics "misunderstand the aim of his speech, which was to call for dialogue between religions".
Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things…..”
“……In Germany, the Pope's homeland, Chancellor Merkel said the Pope had spoken in favour of dialogue between religions, "which is something I also support and consider urgent and necessary.
"What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," she said…….”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests)
What the Pope quoted: “….(the Pope)…quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul…..”
“…..The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad 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…..….” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests)
From the BBC you can download a copy of the speech by the Pope – but be warned you thriller lovers, it is not a thriller and many theologians (and many others as well) are still trying to figure out what the exact meaning or message of the speech is! (but Mrs Merkel knows so just ask her!)
(Although the BBC gives a “Key excerpts: The Pope's speech” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm)
At best you might say the Popes speech (or quote) is tactless, at worst you might say it is inflammatory and insulting. And is the word arrogant suitable? Well I guess it all depends on your mind set (or religious motivation) as to what conclusion you’re going to draw in the end.
However it does seem to be extremely tactless, or the argument/purpose badly presented, to say the least.
Quoting the same BBC article again:
“……..The BBC's Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the reason for the vehemence of Muslim reaction is simple: America's global "war on terror" is perceived by many Muslims as a modern crusade against Islam……...
……..But he says the culture of 24-hour news, whereby comments can be taken out of context, disseminated and recycled, has also played a part……” (I will get back to this last bit, and the BBC, under another heading)
Surely we expect our leaders to be tactful, careful, balanced and intelligent (and why not with some compassion too?) in how they deal with issues – but Bush and Blair are clear examples that in reality this is just not the case - so since the Pope is also a leader (at least to some) then surely we can expect the same from him? Perhaps even more so from him, since he is a leader of a faith where such words as compassion, forgiveness and love are preached. (But then both Bush and Blair both claim to be religious - and often use this as motivation - and look what they say, and even worse do – did someone mention the word hypocritical? No, oh okay, sorry!)
But why is the German Chancellor Merkel getting involved? This is a mystery, or is it just another case of a leader not being that what we might expect…. tactful, careful, balanced and intelligent (and why not with some compassion too?)?
After all the main theme of the Popes speech would seem to be that of “reason” (and his view of what reason is related to this subject – hardly a surprising theme coming from a theologian or scientific orientated person)!
Yet why he should choose to use a quotation that would (according to the Vatican and Mrs Merkel) seem to have no relevance other than the fact “he just happened to have read this lately” (out of his Popes duties, as a scholar, for fun, or?) at such a time and present it in such a (bad) way is a mystery. Or is it lack of judgement, once again a leader not having the qualities we might expect (or needed) of a leader (more suited to the role of scholar)? Or is there more to it than that?
But it is strange for a leader of a faith that has so much blood on its hands to be talking about other faiths and using quotes that refer to the blood on the hands of these faiths. What is this leader doing to change the situation (other then using scholarly quotes that make things worse)?
And why is Merkel defending the Pope saying: “…… She said critics "misunderstand the aim of his speech, which was to call for dialogue between religions…..“ When in fact his main argument would seem to centre on “reason” (and the title of the speech is: Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections) and as far as I can see nowhere does he actually call for this “dialogue between religions” which Mrs Merkel relates to.
Quoting the BBC again (“Key excerpts: The Pope's speech” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm)
“……..The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application... Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today…..........”
In actual fact he (the Pope) would seem to be arguing that only with the “broadening our concept of reason and its application” do we (only thus) become capable of dialogue between cultures.
One could draw an insinuation from this statement, for example, someone has not a broad enough concept of reason and its application! But who, or what? Couple this with quotes from the past which refer to certain things……..well surely at the very least you start to have the ingredients for a political bomb!
But anyway I would certainly not say that the way the theme has been presented is clearly an argument calling for dialogue between religions as quoted by Mrs Merkel! Perhaps one could draw the insinuation of this from the speech, but just as clearly you can also draw other insinuations from it as well.
So what is Merkel up to? Defending a German? Her own religious history or family history? Grabbing headlines?
Quote: “……One thing is certain: Merkel possesses a political instinct that helps her to know better than anyone else in her party how to recognize opportunities and seize them as her own…..” Spiegel Online article from June 3, 2005:
(Spiegel Online: Angela Merkel: The Underestimated - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,358868,00.html)
Merkel is the daughter of a protestant minister and although she was born in Hamburg which was then in West Germany her family moved to the DDR (German Democratic Republic) when she was a baby and she was raised in the old DDR.
Quoting the Spiegel Online article again “…….Like most in East Germany, Merkel was a member of the FDJ (Free German Youth Organization). She was also the secretary for agitation and propaganda at the Academy of Science. People would later attempt to draw attention to her past as a way of branding her with the scarlet letter of communism. But given the relative insignificance of her roles, the allegations never stuck. Nor did they do any serious damage to her political aspirations. For the most part, she has made little fuss about her life in East Germany -- in part because she didn't want to hurt anyone, but also, possibly, because she didn't want to expose herself to difficult questions…….”
(Spiegel Online: Angela Merkel: The Underestimated - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,358868,00.html)
What is exactly Mrs Merkel’s past? And why did her father choose to move from West Germany to East Germany? Out of some religious fanaticism or deep conviction (religion was not stimulated or very popular in the DDR)? Or was he simply a communistic or socialistic system believer? Or?
And what about Mrs Merkel’s role as secretary for agitation and propaganda at the Academy of Science, or in the FDJ? Or the fact that in the DDR you had to toe the party line in order to have such positions that she held?
What is the real truth about her past? What about the line of thought and personality she became and developed there? And what role does it play in her present position? Does she not show a tendency to lean towards the views of Bush and Blair? (Did not many people in the DDR and other socialistic countries dream of, and worship, America and the Great American Dream!) What is her real attitude to Muslim countries, or at least the Arab ones, and Islam?
What about the violence the Christian society commits (....Oh sorry, just like the crusades we have an “honourable purpose” so that makes it okay, we are only “defending” freedom and democracy, just protecting ouselves, just spreading our goodness and righteousness, and of course we (the Mrs Merkel’s) are the ones that decide what is really meant and understood by honourable, okay and defending and protecting!
What are her intentions or her motivation? Nationalism? (Or should that word be Patriotism?) Does she just like to throw her own punches (one way to get noticed – eh!)? Playing the big leader? (I told you that you were going to have to “move over” Mr Blair – see one of my earlier blogs – but lets face it folks, Blair is right on the edge of falling out of bed altogether and - thank goodness – for ever!) Or does Mrs Merkel have some personal issues concerning this? Does she have some kind of problem with Muslim issues? (She does after all clearly and strongly support Bush and Blair politics and has come out strongly against Iran and other Muslim countries) Has it anything to do with her own religious – or not – history? (After all she is the daughter of a protestant minister, and one who has a slightly strange history, and what about her own history?)
Here are quotes from BBC news online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests):
“……The German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has defended Pope Benedict XVI over remarks he made about Islam.
She said critics "misunderstand the aim of his speech, which was to call for dialogue between religions".
Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things…..”
“……In Germany, the Pope's homeland, Chancellor Merkel said the Pope had spoken in favour of dialogue between religions, "which is something I also support and consider urgent and necessary.
"What Benedict XVI emphasised was a decisive and uncompromising renunciation of all forms of violence in the name of religion," she said…….”
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests)
What the Pope quoted: “….(the Pope)…quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul…..”
“…..The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad 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…..….” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/ - Merkel defends Pope amid protests)
From the BBC you can download a copy of the speech by the Pope – but be warned you thriller lovers, it is not a thriller and many theologians (and many others as well) are still trying to figure out what the exact meaning or message of the speech is! (but Mrs Merkel knows so just ask her!)
(Although the BBC gives a “Key excerpts: The Pope's speech” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm)
At best you might say the Popes speech (or quote) is tactless, at worst you might say it is inflammatory and insulting. And is the word arrogant suitable? Well I guess it all depends on your mind set (or religious motivation) as to what conclusion you’re going to draw in the end.
However it does seem to be extremely tactless, or the argument/purpose badly presented, to say the least.
Quoting the same BBC article again:
“……..The BBC's Arab affairs analyst, Magdi Abdelhadi, says the reason for the vehemence of Muslim reaction is simple: America's global "war on terror" is perceived by many Muslims as a modern crusade against Islam……...
……..But he says the culture of 24-hour news, whereby comments can be taken out of context, disseminated and recycled, has also played a part……” (I will get back to this last bit, and the BBC, under another heading)
Surely we expect our leaders to be tactful, careful, balanced and intelligent (and why not with some compassion too?) in how they deal with issues – but Bush and Blair are clear examples that in reality this is just not the case - so since the Pope is also a leader (at least to some) then surely we can expect the same from him? Perhaps even more so from him, since he is a leader of a faith where such words as compassion, forgiveness and love are preached. (But then both Bush and Blair both claim to be religious - and often use this as motivation - and look what they say, and even worse do – did someone mention the word hypocritical? No, oh okay, sorry!)
But why is the German Chancellor Merkel getting involved? This is a mystery, or is it just another case of a leader not being that what we might expect…. tactful, careful, balanced and intelligent (and why not with some compassion too?)?
After all the main theme of the Popes speech would seem to be that of “reason” (and his view of what reason is related to this subject – hardly a surprising theme coming from a theologian or scientific orientated person)!
Yet why he should choose to use a quotation that would (according to the Vatican and Mrs Merkel) seem to have no relevance other than the fact “he just happened to have read this lately” (out of his Popes duties, as a scholar, for fun, or?) at such a time and present it in such a (bad) way is a mystery. Or is it lack of judgement, once again a leader not having the qualities we might expect (or needed) of a leader (more suited to the role of scholar)? Or is there more to it than that?
But it is strange for a leader of a faith that has so much blood on its hands to be talking about other faiths and using quotes that refer to the blood on the hands of these faiths. What is this leader doing to change the situation (other then using scholarly quotes that make things worse)?
And why is Merkel defending the Pope saying: “…… She said critics "misunderstand the aim of his speech, which was to call for dialogue between religions…..“ When in fact his main argument would seem to centre on “reason” (and the title of the speech is: Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections) and as far as I can see nowhere does he actually call for this “dialogue between religions” which Mrs Merkel relates to.
Quoting the BBC again (“Key excerpts: The Pope's speech” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm)
“……..The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application... Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today…..........”
In actual fact he (the Pope) would seem to be arguing that only with the “broadening our concept of reason and its application” do we (only thus) become capable of dialogue between cultures.
One could draw an insinuation from this statement, for example, someone has not a broad enough concept of reason and its application! But who, or what? Couple this with quotes from the past which refer to certain things……..well surely at the very least you start to have the ingredients for a political bomb!
But anyway I would certainly not say that the way the theme has been presented is clearly an argument calling for dialogue between religions as quoted by Mrs Merkel! Perhaps one could draw the insinuation of this from the speech, but just as clearly you can also draw other insinuations from it as well.
So what is Merkel up to? Defending a German? Her own religious history or family history? Grabbing headlines?
Quote: “……One thing is certain: Merkel possesses a political instinct that helps her to know better than anyone else in her party how to recognize opportunities and seize them as her own…..” Spiegel Online article from June 3, 2005:
(Spiegel Online: Angela Merkel: The Underestimated - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,358868,00.html)
Merkel is the daughter of a protestant minister and although she was born in Hamburg which was then in West Germany her family moved to the DDR (German Democratic Republic) when she was a baby and she was raised in the old DDR.
Quoting the Spiegel Online article again “…….Like most in East Germany, Merkel was a member of the FDJ (Free German Youth Organization). She was also the secretary for agitation and propaganda at the Academy of Science. People would later attempt to draw attention to her past as a way of branding her with the scarlet letter of communism. But given the relative insignificance of her roles, the allegations never stuck. Nor did they do any serious damage to her political aspirations. For the most part, she has made little fuss about her life in East Germany -- in part because she didn't want to hurt anyone, but also, possibly, because she didn't want to expose herself to difficult questions…….”
(Spiegel Online: Angela Merkel: The Underestimated - http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,358868,00.html)
What is exactly Mrs Merkel’s past? And why did her father choose to move from West Germany to East Germany? Out of some religious fanaticism or deep conviction (religion was not stimulated or very popular in the DDR)? Or was he simply a communistic or socialistic system believer? Or?
And what about Mrs Merkel’s role as secretary for agitation and propaganda at the Academy of Science, or in the FDJ? Or the fact that in the DDR you had to toe the party line in order to have such positions that she held?
What is the real truth about her past? What about the line of thought and personality she became and developed there? And what role does it play in her present position? Does she not show a tendency to lean towards the views of Bush and Blair? (Did not many people in the DDR and other socialistic countries dream of, and worship, America and the Great American Dream!) What is her real attitude to Muslim countries, or at least the Arab ones, and Islam?
What about the violence the Christian society commits (....Oh sorry, just like the crusades we have an “honourable purpose” so that makes it okay, we are only “defending” freedom and democracy, just protecting ouselves, just spreading our goodness and righteousness, and of course we (the Mrs Merkel’s) are the ones that decide what is really meant and understood by honourable, okay and defending and protecting!
No comments:
Post a Comment