REVERSALS of fortune can be amusing, and when people suddenly find themselves on the other side of an issue, their actions are often revealing. Last week marked the end of a controversy in which the Catholic League, a Roman Catholic advocacy group, demanded an apology from The Cavalier Daily for comics that the group found offensive to Catholics. Now, the Catholic Church finds itself under fire for comments about Islam made by the pope during a speech at a German university. Muslim leaders worldwide have joined calls for an apology from the Holy See. Suddenly, the Catholic League finds itself defending an offensive statement. The situations may seem identical, but there are key differences between the two controversies that warrant closer examination.
The similarities between the two situations cannot be ignored. Both involve a religious group demanding an apology for something it regards as offensive. Both the Catholic and Muslim leaders seem to be uncomfortable with the idea of someone insulting their religion. This attitude reveals a weak faith. If one's conviction is so wavering that a flippant insult or even a serious criticism of that belief threatens it, perhaps one should examine that belief more closely.
Furthermore, both the Catholics and Muslims involved have called for an apology from a party that is not the source of the offending remarks. Grant Woolard, not The Cavalier Daily, was the originator of the comics that offended the Catholic League, and the pope's comments on the violence of early Islam were taken from a medieval source. It is difficult to ask someone to apologize for expressing a viewpoint that was not his own to begin with.
At this level, it seems Bill Donhue's Sept. 14 and Sept. 18 press releases defending the pope on the Catholic League's Web site are hypocritical, especially after he condemned The Cavalier Daily. Here the similarities end, however.
The comments that provoked reactions are vastly different in character. Woolard's comics were silly and mostly pointless -- as comics should be. The pope's comment was part of a serious academic inquiry into the relation between reason and faith. What the Catholics who responded to the comics complained about was the flippant insults towards their religion. They did not challenge the right of The Cavalier Daily to question Christianity in a serious manner.
The Muslim leaders responding to the pope's comments, however, wish to silence any serious criticism of Islam. It is not a hateful insult to argue that the history of Islam has been one of violence and forced conversions. It is merely a statement of historical fact -- as it would be to say the same about Catholicism. Muslims are perfectly welcome to debate that claim, but such a discussion must not ignore facts or silence one side in the name of political correctness.
Not only does the violence inherent in the current protests, which includes threats against the pope's life and explicit threats of forced conversions of Christians in Iraq and elsewhere, prove the pope right, but it reveals a major difference between the Catholic and Muslim responses. Although The Cavalier Daily received many e-mails threatening eternal damnation and at least one phone call from a Virginia Tech student implying that their football team now intends to beat ours -- a task that looks easier and easier -- the paper did not receive any direct physical threats, and no one burned Editor-in-Chief Michael Slaven in effigy (not that we know of, anyway). This difference seems to stem from an acceptance of Enlightenment ideals of tolerance and free speech in America.
The reaction of Muslim leaders in various countries from Morocco to Iraq points to a lack of such values and to a refusal to engage in substantive debate. These groups seem to be more willing to kill anyone who disagrees with them than to defend their beliefs rationally.
It should be said, of course, that not all Muslims are violent or irrational. The pope has made two statements about the incident expressing his regret for any offense it may have caused and clarifying that the views he cited were not his own. Like the Catholic League in response to a similar statement from The Cavalier Daily, many Muslim leaders accepted this apology, showing a respect for meaningful debate.
More radical Muslim leaders, however, have called for a further apology. For example, Mahmoud Ashour, former deputy of Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo, insists the pope "should apologize because he insulted the beliefs of Islam." This insistence not only misrepresents the pope's comments, it demands that the pope apologize for making a rational academic argument. He must not do so, and enlightened people of every faith must support his right to engage in a frank discussion of ideas.
Daniel Colbert's column usually appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at dcolbert@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | YesterdayLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 4 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
