Pope baptizes fierce critic of Islamic radicalism during Easter Vigil
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
One of the best-known Muslims in Italy, a journalist who in some ways is the heir to Oriana Fallaci as the country’s most prominent critic of Islamic radicalism, is to be baptized this evening by Pope Benedict XVI and received into the Catholic church.
Magdi Allam, a columnist and vice-director of Corriere della Sera, Italy’s leading daily newspaper, is among seven new Catholics from five countries to be personally baptized by the pope during the Easter Vigil Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
Particularly in the wake of recent charges by terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden that Benedict XVI is leading a “new crusade” against Islam, the reception of such a high-profile Muslim convert during the holiest period of the Christian year could further inflame Catholic/Muslim tensions.
A spokesperson for Italy's Muslim community, Yahya Pallavicini, said that he "respects the free choice" made by Allam, but voiced "perplexity" about the timing and the decision to receive Allam in a place "of such great symbolic importance."
On the other hand, the choice to baptize Allam during the Easter vigil could also be read as a sign of determination from Benedict, that he will not be intimidated by implied threats such as those voiced in bin Laden's recent audiotape.
Allam, 56, was born in Cairo, Egypt. His family later immigrated to Italy, where he became a prominent journalist, known for his fierce criticism of Islamic fundamentalism. Allam has also repeatedly criticized what he regards as an anemic response from Western governments, Italy in particular, to the threat posed by the radicals.
“Italy, Europe and the West made a big mistake by opening the doors to too many integralists and extremists, who were running from their countries of origin because of their connection to terrorism and extremism,” Allam said in 2005.
“We allowed them to take control of mosques in European countries,” Allam said then. “In effect, the West nourished its own enemy because of a naïve approach.”
Allam’s most recent book, which appeared in late 2007, is titled Viva Israele. In it, Allam argues that Israel represents a culture of life, in contrast with militant Islam’s culture of death.
In a recent interview with an Israeli news agency, Allam was asked about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His lapidary response: “I hope that someday Israel will capture Ahmadinejad and force him to live the rest of his life between the walls of Yad Vashem.”
Those views have not made Allam universally popular. He’s received numerous threats from Islamic radicals over the years, and typically moves in public with an escort. His tough line, however, has also sometimes drawn criticism from moderates, both Christian and Muslim, who see him as sometimes inflammatory.
That was the spirit of a letter critical of Allam’s latest book published in the Italian journal Reset, signed by some 230 writers, academics and activists, both Muslim and Christian, in its July-August issue.
“Journalism risks falling into the logic of cheering for one sports team against another, rather than being rational and analytical, above all when it’s dealing with delicate and sensitive subjects such as religion,” it said, accusing Allam of adopting the all-or-nothing logic of “totalitarian ideologies.”
The appeal was signed by a “who’s who” of center-left Italian Catholic opinion, including Enzo Bianchi, founder of the ecumenical monastery of Bose; Paolo Branca, an expert on Islam and advisor to Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi of Milan; Alfredo Canavero, a scholar who also writes for L’Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops; and Alberto Melloni, a well-known church historian.
In effect, this school of thought believes that Allam’s hard line actually serves the interests of Western neo-cons and Islamic radicals, both of whom, they say, benefit from polarizing opinion in order to justify unending combat. Meanwhile, a number of leading Italian figures leapt to Allam’s defense, insisting that his critics are in denial about the realities of radical Islam.
Though Allam has typically described himself as a “secular Muslim,” he is no stranger to the Catholic church. Over the years, he has been close to the Communion and Liberation movement in Italy, becoming one of the star attractions at the annual “Meeting” sponsored by the movement at the Italian seaside resort of Rimini. That event typically draws in excess of 700,000 people, including the cream of Italy’s political class.
During those sessions, Allam has typically voiced deep appreciation for Catholic social doctrine and, more generally, for the strong defense of a link between reason and faith offered by both John Paul II and now Benedict XVI.
Allam enthusiastically embraced Benedict’s call to resist a “dictatorship of relativism,” connecting it to the struggle against Islamic extremism.
“We must put together a coalition of values among those who believe that all life is sacred, to fight a kind of ideological nihilism that sees life’s value as merely relative,” he said recently. “Only in this way can we remove the roots that nourish the terrorists’ wars.”
In itself, Allam's conversion may not generate much reaction in the Muslim world. In recent years, Muslim critics of Allam's work have often assumed that he was a Christian, in part because of his clear affinity with the Catholic church. The fact that Benedict XVI personally baptized him on such a high-profile occasion, however, could be read by some as a provocation.
Perhaps fearing that reaction, the Vatican issued a statement this evening playing down the significance of Allam's inclusion among the new Catholics baptized by the pope.
“For the Catholic church, every person who asks to receive Baptism after a deep personal search, and who makes a completely free choice following adequate preparation, has the right to receive it,” said Jesuit Fr. Federico Lombardi, the Vatican spokesperson.
“For his part, the Holy Father administers Baptism in the course of the Easter liturgies to the candidates who are presented to him, without making distinctions among them. He considers them all equally important in terms of the love of God and the welcome of the community of the church.”
What did Jesus do? That's
What did Jesus do? That's what I try to fall back on. Did he tell the Roman centurion to change his religion before he did a miracle for him? No. Did he tell anyone that you know of to change their religion? What he told everyone was how to live rightly. And how not to. And one of the things he told us was to give to Caesar what was his and to God what was his. Playing politics with baptisms is giving Caesar what belongs to God.
Actually, earthenvessel,
Actually, earthenvessel, what Jesus did and continues to do through His Church, is invite everyone to follow Him, The Way, The Life ( Light ) and The Truth.
Only His Sacrifice, His Passion, Has the Power before God, The Blessed Trinity, to Forgive sins and Lead us to Salvation. This Gift of Eternal Life is offered to everyone who desires to Love God and follow Him, The Light, the Truth, and The Way.
Perfect Love requires desiring Salvation for everyone. Charity requires that we let His Truth be known simply because we Love and desire Salvation for everyone. If we Love someone, we tell them the Truth.
No one can coerce someone to Love them. It is a Gift that is given freely from the Heart. God gave us the gift of free will so that we could make the free choice to Love Him as He Loves us.
Of course if the person was
Of course if the person was ready for the Light of Christ, he should be baptized. Allam seems like a very courageous and determined individual; at this point the Pope cannot afford to back down. He was one of five people to be baptized; as even the Muslim spokesperson in Italy said, he had a "right to his free choice", and it does not seem, on this occasion, an isolated, political act, as it was done BEFORE Bin Laden made his two taped threats. Before I read the story in its entirety I felt differently, but in this case, I have to agree that this action to baptize Allam (whatever he, himself, might have intended, and there's the rub!) had more spiritual significance. Could the press have accused Pope Benedict of "discrimination against Muslims" had he refused? A Catch-22!
The decision to embrace a
The decision to embrace a faith is a deeply personal one and one anyone of us can respect. However, when you are a pope that has been known to say things that has contributed to a deepening of a rift between the Catholic Church and the world's muslims and then you baptize an outspoken critic of Islam in the most public way possible, it is not only possible but probable that you are trying to poke your thumb in someone's eye.
Having worked just a little in the realm of drug and alcohol prevention, there is nothing more difficult to watch than a public person who goes through recovery and then has to live out his recovery in the public eye. When this is made worse by the media, programs who interview the person in the fervence of of early recovery and then show them maybe months or years later, exhibiting old chemical using behaviors, it is humiliating and not helpful. It is people using someone's struggles as a source of amusement. It is exploitation.
The pope's public baptism of this person smacks of exploitation to me.
I would not, nor would anyone here, advocate denying baptism to someone who desired it. And though baptisms used to be small little ceremonies witnessed by family members, I have grown to appreciate baptisms at the heart of the mass which symbolically and actually welcomes the child (usually) into the church community. But while Holy Saturday Mass is a celebration of a faith community, in St. Peter's square, with the TV cameras running, it is also a media event. This new convert should not have been exploited this way and if he WANTED to be baptized in this fashion, he should have been discouraged. Yes, it can be a question of who was using whom. At our Holy Saturday service we baptized two new members and welcomed about a dozen more into our faith community. I was very struck by their solemnity through out the whole event. At first I was disturbed by the solemnity and then I understood that they all understood the gravity of their undertaking. They all looked joyous at communion which I think says a lot about the RCIA process.
And while Catholics spend a lot of time focussing on the baptism of this one person, our ranks continue to relatively shrink. World-wide islam grows. If we were to look at it like an equation, we might well find that more former Christians are embracing Islam than the other way around. Certainly cradle catholics find their way in to other demoninations as well.
For myself, Catholicism is my faith home. I think it is more important for people to find a faith home than anything. My step-daughter briefly worked with a church who had a mission to work with people who had grown up unchurched. Think about that. Many of us here grew up in homes where we were baptized as infants, learned our prayers as children, were taught bible stories and saw the church everywhere in the rhythm of life--birth and baptism, first communion, confirmation, marriage, death and the funeral mass. How has that shaped our response to what has happened to us? Absolutely!!
I know this conflicts directly with the church but I rejoice when any soul finds a faith home.
MollyJ, My perception of the
MollyJ,
My perception of the pope's baptizing this man publicly is that it is saying that this goes beyond human concerns of what might offend whom. Its being so noticed by the public is actually irrelevant to what it is, because what it is is so much bigger. It is a baptism into Christ--Christianity, not Catholicism.
One might ask how it is that someone can be chosen for baptism by the pope at Easter Vigil. Is this somehow a better, higher-quality baptism? Not according to the teachings of the Church. When he performs a baptism, the pope is no different from any other person who might baptize someone.
For the pope to say that he should not be the one doing the baptism of this particular person would contradict the understanding of what the pope's powers are and what the power of baptism is. Nevertheless, what is wrong with standing prominently against that part of Islam that wishes to deny people the freedom of religion and doing what Christ instructed when the opportunity arises?
Well, it is an honor and
Well, it is an honor and honorable to be baptized by the pope. But the question still remains, why do it so publicly and in the eye of the camera given the history of both individuals. Everything you say about the validity of the baptism is true so what exactly was the tangible benefit to doing it in the camera's eye. I'm not going to readily swallow that it was done to the glory of God since that could be accomplished by doing it at any chosen time without the cameras running. Most of us stub our toe on our egos now and then and it is possible that both or either cleric and baptismal candidate did so in this case.
Perhaps if we responded to
Perhaps if we responded to this news as if it were all about the baptism instead of speculating to what degree it was about politics, it would be reflective of how much we value our baptism and where that ranks in our lives compared to politics. Muslims live their religion that way--especially the highly reactive kind--by not caring how it looks and only caring about what it means to them. It might be something we should emulate, especially if we believe that there is something special in our understanding and relationship to Jesus that goes beyond his having been wise and influential. If we sincerely believe that he is God crucified for our eternal salvation, we cannot be more concerned with who gets baptized by whom than we are with people being baptized, period.
"...Muslims live their
"...Muslims live their religion that way--especially the highly reactive kind--by not caring how it looks and only caring about what it means to them. It might be something we should emulate..."
I'd like to think that the man who calls himself the heir of the Prince of Peace might aspire to something a little different than this but it is pretty clear that we both have different perspectives on this event.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Well, by all means, let us
Well, by all means, let us give up our 2000-year old tradition of reason--and community--as a part of our faith tradition, and seek only individualized emotionalisms. I would certainly choose to emulate the most reactive of true believers, except my faith tradition (and, oh yeah, my magisterium) tell me not to. Sorry, can't join you on this one.
" encourage you to read this
" encourage you to read this article: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/03/wider-islamo-christian-war-contribution.html Although the author is annonymous, the article itself is a 'reasoned' expose of how Israeli intelligence is pulling all the strings in order to foment a war between Christianity and Islam. It's a sickening read."
Indeed it is, just like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Paranoid conspiracy theories are a poor substitute for evidence, analysis and thought.
Anonymous authorship should
Anonymous authorship should be enough evidence that whatever has been written is not credible.
I have to defend the
I have to defend the original author of the article there, he did put his name to it. Fr. ? at Clerical whispers failed to attribute it or link to the original source.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
I'd love to know who it is
I'd love to know who it is who thinks that, no matter what happens, it is a Zionist plot coming to fruition and that people in Israel believe they would not only survive, but prosper, as a result of a war between billions of Christians and Muslims. Publishing this reflects quite poorly on Clerical Whispers, doesn't it?
I won't post a hot link to
I won't post a hot link to the site, but I did put the address further down (up?) the page. It is on a blog call the ugly truth (wordpress.com).
Clerical Whispers is an interesting site, with little to no original content. I think this was poor judgment on the anonymous priest who maintains that site, but in the absence of any support for the article (or a preponderance of such), I don't think it ruins his borrowed credibility.
++++++
What I'm Pondering...
Thanks for the reference. I
Thanks for the reference. I notice "Ugly Truth" gets some of its ideas from "Crescent and Cross", which is loaded with material intended to inflame anti-Zionist emotions and anti-Muslim emotions and anti-Christian emotions. In fact, there is plenty of anti-everything in both of these blogs.
I think it is unfortunate that anyone, particularly other Catholics, would want to discourage Catholics, pope included, from openly practicing their religion out of fear of the kind of thing that is written in such blogs. It is unfortunate that Clerical Whispers took no position regarding the content of the article since it gives the impression that this is something of significance when it really is just more of the kind of thing that's been around for centuries.
Well, I guess that wipes out
Well, I guess that wipes out the credibility of many writers on here in one fell swoop! Seriously, there are reasons why people might write anonymously. Not that it necessarily applies to this (I haven't been involved enough in this thread to have my words bandied about in relation to it, which seems a problem on this one). Whistleblowers, for one group, often have little choice but anonymity, because there is real risk in life and people sometimes have to choose how much they can handle.
You have a point, however, I
You have a point, however, I think anyone who writes anonymously has to expect that his or her writing will not have the credibility that it would have if he or she were willing to be identified with it.
"Political Correctness"
"Political Correctness" there is nothing I hate but that word.
I am a person of tolerance and deep respet towards Islam but so what if this man decided to become CAtholic. Its great news!
But about those Christian Converts in the Muslim world who are being persecuted and put to death for converting to Christianity.
Many in this forum complain about the Pope baptizing Allam, but that was his personal decision to be baptize and was planned before the "Bin Laden tapes"
There is another Convert Joy Linn of Malaysia. She is a former Muslim and became CAtholic 5 years ago. They are now threatening her for converting to CAtholicism
Are we at this website playing the game of "Political Correctness" and chastising the Pope for baptizing a "Muslim" even though that was his personal decision.
ARe we going as far as to tolerate Extremists in the Middle EAst persecuting and killing my Christian Brothers and sisters all in the name of Political Correctness.
Pope Benedict's theme for Holy Week this year is the Suffering of PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS IN CHINA AND IRAQ! HELLO PEOPLE, AN ARCHBISHOP OF MOSUL WAS JUST FOUND LAST WEEK! WAKE UP! THIS GAME HAS GONE TOO FAR!
I think that many are
I think that many are misunderstanding what is being opposed and what is not. The tactic has more to do with the critical responses than in "political correctness."
I think that we need not fight our opponents in the world by putting on symbolic boxing gloves at a Baptism at the Vatican. The road to peace will not be won by another form of reactionary extremist tactics of our own.
Yes, and the Pope asked this
Yes, and the Pope asked this nation of ours to call off our war that escalated tensions and led to the death of the Archbishop and the persecution of Christians. The Pope is not worried about little ole me and what I think of a baptism. The Pope is worried about President Bush and his power.
This is silly. Chastizing
This is silly.
Chastizing the Pope for baptizing?
Are you all embarrased for being Catholic? We are told to evangelize the world! St. Francis of Assisi is an excellent example of this when evanglizing the Sultan of Egypt, but YOU chastize a Pope for fulfilling a request of a convert for Baptism?
Shame on you all.
"In all things charity."
--St. Pio of Pietrelcina
Tito of Custos Fidei
Tito of Custos Fidei (whoo!): I enjoyed the juxtaposition:
"Shame on you all." AND "In all things charity." Great stuff.
you are attacking the person
you are attacking the person not the arguement.
Sure doesn't sound like me
Sure doesn't sound like me at all.
It's amazing to me how some
It's amazing to me how some people take things and blow it all out of proportion and context to then lay "shame on you all." I think you are overreacting just a tad bit and no one is "chastising the Pope for baptizing" but for using the sacrament politically. This wasn't just a simple case of someone being baptized. The journalist is a public figure whose statements haven't exactly been "Christian" towards his supposed enemy. "Are you embarrassed for being Catholic?" Well, actually, sometimes I am. Evangelizing is one thing, but this is something else. Using a sacrament to state your case against others is not evangelizing, it's a dangerous political game. So much for your "in all things charity" toward people who don't agree with you.
Obvious to me, a lot of people are not actually reading our comments, but are personally attacking us for having a different opinion. Stop with the insults and AGAIN I will say, that I am not against baptism. Look at what has happened with this baptism so far... you are fighting. If you want to go to war against Islam I would like to try and convince you not to. But, you've made your minds up that provocation is fine with you, instead of figuring out a way to peace.
If anyone was using the
If anyone was using the sacrament politically, it was the man being baptized. It seems to me that he would have a say in the matter and was not forced to be baptized in such a public manner. He is the "fierce critic", not the pope. What would it say if the pope had refused to baptize him and had instead sent him to some obscure parish to be baptized? It seems to me that this would have sent an even sadder message to the world.
well, they could have all
well, they could have all just talked about it (which I'm guessing they did, and at some length). While I think you're probably right that it was the person being baptized who wanted to make it so public, that is not a reason to do it this way in and of itself. And it wouldn't have to have been an "obscure" parish rather than the pope doing the baptism. There are surely a lot of alternatives in Italy! So, clearly it was the choice of all parties to do it. And so now we all live with it...
BTW, glad to see you back (must be a sure sign that Lent is over!).
Glad to be back. The issue
Glad to be back.
The issue of this baptism, as opposed to all other baptisms the pope did during Easter vigil, has to do with how it is perceived by certain people who identify themselves as speaking authoritatively for Islam when they do not. For the pope to concern himself with the sensibilities and reactions of these self-appointed Islamic authorities to the point that he fails to carry out his duties (as assigned to him by God) would not be in the tradition of Jesus, his disciples, or the numerous saints and martyrs.
It is the conversion that sets certain elements of the Islamic world on edge, not the involvement of the pope. It really does not matter that it was the pope who spoke the words of baptism other than that it makes him more of a specific target as opposed to Christianity and Christians in general. Given that his role as the world's authority on the life, teaching, mission, and divinity of Christ, it is only right that he take on the risk of welcoming the convert to Christianity who would most upset the volatile elements of the Islamic world.
If there was to be a wider
If there was to be a wider message in the baptism it should not have even a tinge of provocation; it should have been assiduously Christian, simple, private, exuding the message(s) of Christ and His Church to the convert and to the world not that of the man and man's games. As the humble person should do his/her good works in the quiet, not to be seen or praised so should the church in community and in sacrament. Obviously neither the student nor the teacher in this instance got the lesson.
I looked at this issue from
I looked at this issue from the point of view you are taking, but thought that to view it that way would mean that the pope would somehow have to disappear from the scene or perform no Sacraments. It will always be the case that whatever the pope does will be noticed and evaluated. In this case, we could fault the media for taking note and making an issue out of what is private even when it involves public figures. Would you say that the convert chose to convert to make a political statement and that the Church went along with it?
I think we should begin this
I think we should begin this over with the understanding that baptisms celebrated by the pope at the easter vigil are symbolic/political. That is why people are chosen. That's not a secret; that's what is done. Even when someone unknown is chosen, it's for some symbolic/political reason, if only that someone unknown and humble gets the pope's symbolic/political attention. This is also a tradition, and the reason the media pays attention (and is given the information in advance).
Baptisms are symbolic, but
Baptisms are symbolic, but this particular individual being chosen for baptism by the pope has its own symbolism intended to encourage further criticism of "Islamic radicalism" (how John Allen describes it). Is that what you mean? If so, then I wonder, since we are all critical of Islamic radicalism, what is wrong with the pope's doing this?
I enjoy John Allen's
I enjoy John Allen's comments but at times he exhibits what I call a willful naivete; perhaps he does this to maintain contacts with people who will talk to him and be contacts for the work he does in Catholic journalism. Whatever. I am more concerned about the reactive and radical elements at work in all societies and I do not think Islam has a lock on them.
Do you think that that
Do you think that that walking on eggshells is the appropriate way to respond to the volatile? When would the oppression ever end?
I have no disagreement on
I have no disagreement on what the Vatican intended, which seems as you say. But one of the things to consider when choosing symbols is that symbols are not usually the best way to express nuanced thinking. Perhaps a better approach was a quieter baptism, followed by the individual's expression as a journalist of the importance of the event vis a vis radical Islam, then following some public discussion, a more nuanced response by the Vatican, including their desire to support his belief but not wanting the event to be misunderstood by the peace-loving Muslim. My impression of Vatican efforts seems to be to plunge in, suffer the criticism for the sake of getting a wide audience, and then trying to nuance later. Like I suggested in another post, this approach is going to be of concern to the peace-loving Baptist who may end up regretting what seems to be the poking of the sticks.
Your approach would be the
Your approach would be the right way to do this, but it depends upon the journalist being a lot more delicate in his way of critiquing, which likely would not have the impact he seems to intend. Were he quieter in his ways, we would not likely even be aware of this event or worrying about reactions to it. I think you would agree that the Vatican does not have the power to direct how this individual goes about expressing his opinions. Since there is no such thing as secret or private conversion, whatever way this would have been done, it would have become public and would have generated reaction from those opposed to Muslims converting to Christianity. Its being as prominent as possible offers a certain amount of protection to the convert, I think.
Perhaps that is true that
Perhaps that is true that the individual involved is more protected. I don't know the answer to that one. I think that people have just been talking about the better way to do things, which is of more interest to many of the world than the possible higher protection level for one person perhaps none of us know much more about than what is stated here. I take it he must be pretty important for this attention, so hardly the unknown and humble among us. So, the baptism protected him with the risk of inflaming the Muslim 'bumper-sticker' types. Still doesn't seem like the best plan, but we do agree on that, and I just hope that the Vatican remembers that it wants to keep tensions down to a level that the many Christians in Muslim lands are not further persecuted simply as a part of heightened tensions.
Why does this remind me of
Why does this remind me of Pius IX's kidnapping the baptized Jewish child?
Does the Vatican have a PR person? In a time when some reconciliation is sought with Muslims, Benedict pulls this stunt. If Allam wants to convert, fine; but why be baptized in St. Peter's square by the gilded pontiff?
"Why does this remind me of
"Why does this remind me of Pius IX's kidnapping the baptized Jewish child?"
That's a question only you can answer. I admit I will be fascinated by your explanation of any remote analogy between Edgar Mortara--a Jewish *child*--being forcibly removed from his home and a 56 year old man freely asking to be baptized.
"Stunt?" And what possible reason would Muslims have to object to the free decision of a Muslim to become a Christian? Yes, that is rhetorical, but it happens--publicly--at every Easter liturgy. Your studied outrage would be better directed at the mistreatment of Muslim converts to Christianity throughout the Muslim world.
First of all, bin Laden is probably dead, given that "his" tape made reference to nothing more recent than late 2006 (a Saudi financial scandal that broke in December of that year). The Muhammad cartoons and Regensburg speech were also 2006 events, making those references equally stale. Especially strange since it was issued on the five year anniversary of the Iraq war, yet he made no reference to that milestone.
More to the point, I think it's safe to say that the Easter liturgy was planned long in advance of the bin Laden tape and was hardly a response to it. There was a message there, to be sure, but as always, the Pope's reflexive critics are drawing the wrong one.
A self-described revolution
A self-described revolution in world affairs has begun in the heart of one man. He is the Italian journalist and author Magdi Cristiano Allam, whom Pope Benedict XVI baptized during the Easter Vigil at St Peter's. Allam's renunciation of Islam as a religion of violence and his embrace of Christianity denotes the point at which the so-called global "war on terror" becomes a divergence of two irreconcilable modes of life: the Western way of faith supported by reason, against the Muslim world of fatalism and submission.
As Magdi Allam recounted , on his road to conversion the challenge that Pope Benedict XVI offered to Islam in his September 2006 address at Regensburg was "undoubtedly the most extraordinary and important encounter in my decision to convert". Osama bin Laden recently accused Benedict of plotting a new crusade against Islam, and instead finds something far more threatening: faith the size of a mustard seed that can move mountains. Before Benedict's election, I summarized his position as "I have a mustard seed and I'm not afraid to use it." Now the mustard seed has earned pride of place in global affairs.
Magdi Allam tells us that he has found the true God and forsaken an Islam that he regards as inherently violent. Magdi Allam has a powerful voice as deputy editor of Italy's newspaper of record, Corriere della Sera, and a bestselling author. For years he was the exemplar of "moderate Islam" in Europe, and now he has decided that Islam cannot be "moderate".
Since September 2001, the would-be wizards of Western strategy have tried to conjure an "Islamic reformation", or a "moderate Islam", or "Islamic democracy". None of this matters now, for as Magdi Allam tells us, the matter on the agenda is not to persuade Muslims to act like liberal Westerners, but instead to convince them to cease to be Muslims. The use of the world "revolution" is Magdi Allam's:
His Holiness has sent an explicit and revolutionary message to a Church that until now has been too prudent in the conversion of Muslims, abstaining from proselytizing in majority Muslim countries and keeping quiet about the reality of converts in Christian countries. Out of fear. The fear of not being able to protect converts in the face of their being condemned to death for apostasy and fear of reprisals against Christians living in Islamic countries. Well, today Benedict XVI, with his witness, tells us that we must overcome fear and not be afraid to affirm the truth of Jesus even with Muslims.
There is no deference to mutual respect and multi-culturalism. Magdi Allam forsook Islam because he considers it to be "inherently evil". As he wrote to his editor at the Corriere della Sera:
My conversion to Catholicism is the touching down of a gradual and profound interior meditation from which I could not pull myself away, given that for five years I have been confined to a life under guard, with permanent surveillance at home and a police escort for my every movement, because of death threats and death sentences from Islamic extremists and terrorists, both those in and outside of Italy ...
I asked myself how it was possible that those who, like me, sincerely and boldly called for a "moderate Islam", assuming the responsibility of exposing themselves in the first person in denouncing Islamic extremism and terrorism, ended up being sentenced to death in the name of Islam on the basis of the Koran. I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive.
Far more important than denouncing the evils of Islam, though, is Magdi Allam's embrace of what he calls the God of faith and reason:
The miracle of the Resurrection of Christ has reverberated through my soul, liberating it from the darkness of a tendency where hate and intolerance in before the "other", condemning it uncritically as an "enemy", and ascending to love and respect for one's "neighbor", who is always and in any case a person; thus my mind has been released from the obscurantism of an ideology which legitimates lying and dissimulation, the violent death that leads to homicide and suicide, blind submission and tyranny - permitting me to adhere to the authentic religion of Truth, of Life, and freedom. Upon my first Easter as a Christian I have not only discovered Jesus, but I have discovered for the first time the true and only God, which is the God of Faith and Reason ...
That's the same question I
That's the same question I had doondeck. Fine if he wants to convert, but given his profile, why Benedict in full regalia on Holy Saturday. The Vatican spin doesn't wash. Nothing Benedict does in his ceremonial office is unnuanced or without symbolic meaning. This baptism may very well have been his response to the threats from Bin Laden. If that's true, then the Vatican is playing a very dangerous political game with it's supposed 'sacred' sacraments.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
I encourage all you who
I encourage all you who think I was off base with this baptism being somewhat political, I encourage you to read this article: http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/03/wider-islamo-christian-war-contribution.html Although the author is annonymous, the article itself is a 'reasoned' expose of how Israeli intelligence is pulling all the strings in order to foment a war between Christianity and Islam. It's a sickening read.
I have no problem with Allam being baptised. I have a problem with using sacraments to score points, and everything I've read from Allam in the last three days is all about him using his baptism to score points, and all the while the Vatican sits back and says he was just another convert, one of thousands baptised on Holy Saturday. Right. And pigs fly.
colkoch.blogtoolkit.com
Thanks Colkoch for the
Thanks Colkoch for the information you provided. I went to the website and read the article and it is a "sickening read."
I also encourage everyone to read it before making up their minds about what we are dealing with here.
I want to also clarify AGAIN that I am not against anyone being baptized. Please, let's put this in context.
All of you who have rated
All of you who have rated colkoch's post a 4: I sincerely pray it's a Pavlovian anti-conservative reaction, and that you haven't *actually read* the Clerical Whispers link. If you have and are still hooting support like a Jerry Springer audience, I have no words.
Now for you, butterfly.
I'm appalled that you think it's worth discussion. Like "theories" about racial superiority, it is unworthy of discussion in polite company, let amongst those who claim to follow Christ.
The link is psychotic, Jew-hating drivel. Period. Here endeth the lesson.
There's *NOT A SCRAP* of evidence to support it, aside from the fevered hatred of Israel and a creative imagination reminscent of "The Turner Diaries."
Again, my words are being
Again, my words are being twisted. I said - "I went to the website and read the article and agreed that it is a "sickening read." "I also encourage everyone to read it before making up their minds about what we are dealing with here."
What I said in another post was to discuss the baptism and the possible political ramifications, which I believe are provocative, instead of evangelization. That's my opinion, not a judgment against anyone. But you are making a lot of judgments against me that are way out of line and I must respond to you.
I realize one of my other comments might have suggested that I agreed with the post when I asked you to "prove it." That's not really my fault you have come to such a false conclusion. I don't agree with the post. It has nothing to do with agreement of it. At the time I wrote that it seemed as if such a conspiracy could exist within certain circles in Israel. I can't rule that out as a possibility for some extremist groups in Israel as in Israel their President Rabin was assassinated by an Israeli radical fanatic within their own country and it led to disastrous results for the peace process there. That does not make me anti-Semetic or against Israel to question the possibility there may be internal forces in Israel who are misled and misleading others. You have drawn the wrong conclusions about my comments.
Another point I'd like to make is if one reads Hitler's book, Mien Kampf, does that make them pro-Hitler? (not sure of spelling and I haven't read it - I am actually very busy these days reading the Bible and not a Jerry Springer spectator) No, it does not mean that everyone who reads Hitler's book is a Hitler supporter. Some people who read it are for Hitler, but some read it to KNOW THEIR ENEMY. If I were to read it, it would be to know the enemy so that I could fight it and expose it - bring it to the light of day to defeat evil.
Your comments reflect an ill-got persistent negative attitude and desire to squash any semblance of fruitful, decent or polite dialogue with your Catholic brothers and sisters here. You’ve turned this thread into a sewer of personal assaults to project your personal contempt for progressive Catholics or anyone else you have so decided to hate and bully around. You deliberately falsify what people have said, take their comments out of context, and you interrupt the discussion with unfounded, presumptuous and contemptible charges of “hooting support” for anti-Semitism to further drag us into your muck of hatred. If you really took the time to know your fellow Catholics you would not be making such false accusations against them. If you took the trouble and the time to ask why we might have a different opinion instead of barging in here with your rude and belligerent judgments and arrogant mischaracterizations you might actually learn something new. I suggest you take your hatred and take the sewer of attitude with you until you have cleaned up your act and learned how to behave and speak in a way that will lead to fruitful discussion.
You post a full-throated
You post a full-throated endorsement of a Jew hating conspiracy theory and *I'm* the one who needs to clean up my act? Your refusal to completely disavow it speaks volumes, none of them good. You know exactly nothing about me (a conservative--oh, if you but knew what I did for a living), yet you've reached an infallible judgment about me and my motives. And yet I'm wallowing in the "muck of hatred." Right. Project much?
To recap for the record:
"Prove it was 'conspiratorial nonsense' Dale Price! You can't prove it."
But I'm the bully. Sure. Way to initiate the "decent, polite and fruitful dialogue."
That's not a "suggestion"--that's a chest-poking challenge. And one you still can't quite part from the old Jew conspiracy: "there may be internal forces in Israel who are misled and misleading others."
When someone suggests that we read a horrible, baseless and unprovable accusation against another group so we can "make up our minds," that's not open mindedness--that's an invitation to bigotry.
I don't "dialogue" with people who haven't "made up their minds" such things, let alone endorse them.
There are no "fruitful discussions," or "decent, polite, fruitful dialogue" about unprovable conspiracies.
It's not "a personal attack" to call endorsers of such hideous accusation--it's a demand of conscience.
There's an old saying in legal circles: when the facts don't support your case, pound the law. When the law doesn't support your case, pound the facts. When neither supports you, pound the table. The last paragraph in your post is classic table-pounding.
When you get to the part of the Bible that talks about removing the plank from your own eye, drop me a line.
Dale, let's be reasonable
Dale, let's be reasonable here. I never posted a "full-throated endorsement of a Jew hating conspiracy theory." For the record again, I don't endorse the anti-Semitic link on Clericalwhispers.
I'll repeat for the record: Go to the Clericalwhispers website and complain to them for the anti-Semitism that they posted on their website.
Case closed.
P.S. The current book I am reading happens to be about Jews. It by by Thomas Cahill entitled The Gifts of the Jews - How a Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels. Good book. I highly recommend it. His other book, How the Irish Saved Civilization is another good one. Can we change the subject here for the record Dale? Come on. Please. Peace.
I've found ' Jews , God and
I've found ' Jews , God and History ' By Max Dimont and " The Chosen ' By Chaim Potok an excellent introduction to the experience of the Jews. The Latter was made into a major motion picture featuring Robby Benson.
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
Thanks Luv2Laf. I will log
Thanks Luv2Laf. I will log those books into my growing list of books to read. Have you read Thomas Cahill's Hinges of History series yet?
In his Friday column, John
In his Friday column, John Allen looks at this again. Read Public spotlight on a personal conversion
Dennis Coday, NCR cafe management