Double standards in religious rhetoric
When I first read about what Pope Benedict XVI had said and the angry reactions of Muslims around the world, my reaction was, “This is ridiculous. How come no one has asked the countless radical Muslim clerics who have said far more inflammatory words about Christians, and for that matter all other non-Muslims, to apologise to everyone?”
The Pope is expected to apologise and explain himself that he’s not inciting violence and hatred against Muslims but not the imams? Surely there’s some sort of double standards going on here?
It wasn’t only after I’ve read the following article that I saw the bigger picture:
The pope and Islam – Islam in Europe – MSNBC.com
From the article:
Islam is not a worldwide organization like the Roman Catholic Church, with a clearly defined local, regional, national and global chain of command topped by a general headquarters like the Vatican, whose top man is the pope.
Islam’s Mecca is a focal point for the prayers of millions of believers throughout the world who are themselves divided along various branches of interpretation and social custom. Though imams may be similar to priests or bishops, there is no “pope,” no elected “grand imam,” to whom they all report.
This basically means that while the Pope may represent all Catholics, no one imam can claim to represent every Muslim in the world. There’s simply no equivalent of the Pope in the Muslim world. So whatever the Pope says, it can be inferred that all other Catholics feel the same as well. And there lies the reason why Muslims took such great offence to what he had said about jihad, and also the double standards in the demand for an apology from him.
Which is dissapointing because the gist of what the Pope had wanted to convey was lost. And that is, for all the violence and sins of the Catholic church in the past, using religion as the pretext to oppress and murder is clearly not the answer and it is “unreligious”.
But just as it always has been, the true message is now drowned out by extremists on both sides. Radical Muslims see this as another attack on their religion which justifies their militant stance, and right-wing Christians, Catholics and pundits see the Muslims’ reaction as further proof that no dialogue is possible and that continued war and violence is the only solution.
And round and round we go. This is a reason that while I may follow Buddhist teachings I’m not religious at all. Because if there exists God or Allah or another higher being, why the fuck is He letting this shit happen to our planet?
Technorati Tags: religion, Islam, Catholicism, Pope Benedict
7 Responses to “Double standards in religious rhetoric”
Leave a Reply
You might also be interested in these
- I like her to take charge
- Of marriageable age
- 2 Married Women and 2 Single Men
- Religious discussion gone to hell in a basket
- The year that was – my 2006, part 2

The Blessed Balance Between Reason and Religion…
The choice of the regnal name Benedict, which in Latin means “the blessed,” is significant. Pope Benedict XVI carefully chose his name (which means ‘the blessed’):
Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak…
An eye for an eye, make the whole world blind…
The ‘WOUND’ is already too deep for both religions…
Hence, I seriously think this religions arguments will still go on for decades to come, unless some MIRACLE happens i guess…=)
Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.
When they ask for an apology, think who needs to apologize first…
but of coz, why bother to ask anyway?
They don’t think.
I totally agree with your last sentence. I don’t follow any particular religion either for a very similar reason. if there is a God, why is there such sadness in this world? why are there so many children starving, so many wars going on? and religion is the cause of so many wars and has been throughout history. not just Muslims vs. Christians but look at the Catholics vs. Protestants in Northern Ireland. I mean, they are both Christians as well!
very sad, but we should consider ourselves lucky (as you said in your last post) that we are NOT living in a war zone and that we can afford to live comfortably.
Lyn: the problem is, we are not talking about being blind anymore – we have ppl willing to die. That just takes it to a whole new level.
Impetuousman: vicious circle, round and round we go.
girlstar7: if you ask me, organised religion is a fallacy. Just like your examples, not only are there Muslims fighting Christians, they are also fighting amongst themselves – all depending on how you interpret the *same* holy books.
I think essentially most religions are good. The concepts of generousity, reciprocity and good will are pretty much universal and they are good guidelines on how to live life.
It’s the politicians/kings/mullahs/popes etc… that twist these teachings into evil to achieve their own goals of power and greed.
Double Standards…
I would like recommend a post entitled, “Two Standards” by a sister over in Egypt (al-Mesr). I thought it was real and insightful. The post compares ideas and behaviors that are respectable in the Western World however, become detestable if…