I just wish I believed that peace with Muslims was possible. I rather consider them like the Borg though - resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Or die.
The conclusion I’m coming to, and I’m not done studying Islam, is that while moderate Muslims may exist, Islam itself is never moderate. At its core, orthodox Muslims have the example of one violent, crazy SOB by the name of Mohammed, who pretty much sets the tone.
While I’m not a fan of deconstructionism, if Islam wants to take a crack at it, all well and good. The problem is, I think, that religions which consider themselves exclusive, divinely inspired, and called to convert the world tend not to want to back down on fundamentals.
And the fundamentals of Islam ain’t pretty. Hence the reason Islamic “fundamentalists” blow stuff up.
The problem is, I think, that religions which consider themselves exclusive, divinely inspired, and called to convert the world tend not to want to back down on fundamentals.
Yes, but then one has the example of Anglicanism … (end snark)
Even so (and I’m not sure I disagree with your assessment of the roots of Islam), it seems to me that (a) peace with some Muslims is possible, and (b) it’s a good work to encourage that subset of Muslims to be as large as possible.
And (c) if I understand right, HH is pushing hard on the notion that “freedom of conversion” is high up on the list of things “moderate” Muslims need to accept if they don’t want to be lumped witth the crazies blowing stuff up. Which is, of course, where we need to end up. It seems to me that the Gospel does better than the message of Islam when compulsion is not involved.
I agree with you both. What’s nice is that Cdl. Tauron is using all the right cautious terms for this endeavor. A great improvement over the far more Islamophile Abp. Fitzgerald.
Well, yeah, most likely. But it’s good of HH to try.
peace,
I just wish I believed that peace with Muslims was possible. I rather consider them like the Borg though - resistance is futile, you will be assimilated. Or die.
The conclusion I’m coming to, and I’m not done studying Islam, is that while moderate Muslims may exist, Islam itself is never moderate. At its core, orthodox Muslims have the example of one violent, crazy SOB by the name of Mohammed, who pretty much sets the tone.
While I’m not a fan of deconstructionism, if Islam wants to take a crack at it, all well and good. The problem is, I think, that religions which consider themselves exclusive, divinely inspired, and called to convert the world tend not to want to back down on fundamentals.
And the fundamentals of Islam ain’t pretty. Hence the reason Islamic “fundamentalists” blow stuff up.
Well, yeah, most likely. But it’s good of HH to try.
The problem is, I think, that religions which consider themselves exclusive, divinely inspired, and called to convert the world tend not to want to back down on fundamentals.
Yes, but then one has the example of Anglicanism … (end snark)
Even so (and I’m not sure I disagree with your assessment of the roots of Islam), it seems to me that (a) peace with some Muslims is possible, and (b) it’s a good work to encourage that subset of Muslims to be as large as possible.
And (c) if I understand right, HH is pushing hard on the notion that “freedom of conversion” is high up on the list of things “moderate” Muslims need to accept if they don’t want to be lumped witth the crazies blowing stuff up. Which is, of course, where we need to end up. It seems to me that the Gospel does better than the message of Islam when compulsion is not involved.
peace,
I agree with you both. What’s nice is that Cdl. Tauron is using all the right cautious terms for this endeavor. A great improvement over the far more Islamophile Abp. Fitzgerald.