And you thought that the internet would be a great agent for positive change! Of course, in some ways it is. But it is also one of the key vehicles whereby fanatics, bullies and other miscreants of different shades and stripes garner succour and support. At the push of a send button, fellow travellers all over the country, or the world, can be made aware of a picture or a remark that is deemed to be offensive. In many instances, what happens is that they are made selectively aware. Things are taken out of context. Interpretations are forced on them. And thus is outrage orchestrated.

Word is spread. Did you hear what your man said? Let’s strike back. Let’s do it now. Let’s use the pulpits. Let’s mobilise opinion. Let’s get the followers into the street. Let’s threaten the dog who opened his mouth and said vile things against us. We’ll show them what they can and can’t say.
And that’s how it goes. You could claim that it is the ultimate expression of people-power. But that depends on the shared assumptions that are involved. It depends on whether there is a commitment to democratic politics. It depends on the lengths to which everyone involved is prepared to go to impose their perspective on the other. It depends on what sanctions are threatened against whoever is responsible for what has caused outrage.
It depends on your vision of what the world might be. And what it might become.

You’d have to wonder, all the same, what the Pope was on. He chose the occasion of an address at the University of Regensberg, where he once lectured, to make some observations on the relationship between reason and religious faith. The speech has caused outrage among Muslims across the world. In India, Pope Benedict’s effigy was burned by protestors. In the Gaza Strip, thousands took to the streets, with a Hamas official accusing the Pope of joining in “the crusader war against the Muslim world.” In Pakistan, which boasts the world’s second largest Islamic population, after a vote, Parliament demanded a retraction by the Pontiff.
These reactions were mirrored elsewhere – in Turkey, in Indonesia, in Morocco and in Iraq, as well as among Muslims in the U.K. and Ireland.
Anyone who listened to the entirety of what he had to say would find it hard to take offence – hard because you’d be likely fall asleep if you actually had to sit through it. The speech was dense and academic and yet, in truth, not saying a whole lot. But the people who took to the streets had been fed only extracts – which, looking at it from a hard-line Muslim perspective, were indeed potentially inflammatory.
So what did he say, to which Muslims could take exception? Pope Benedict quoted the words of a 14th Century Byzantine emperor, Manuel II Paleologus, no less, who was apparently discussing the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both, with an educated Persian.
“Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,” Manuel had argued back in 1391, according to the Pope, “and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
Is Pope Benedict so out of touch with current Muslim sentiment that he was not able to anticipate the reaction to this statement? Or did he make the reference deliberately, knowing that it might be provocative?
The fact is that he is entitled to his view. He is also entitled to attempt to set out what he believes distinguishes Christianity from Judaism and from Islam alike. And, it seems to me, from a careful reading of the speech, that he did want to suggest that there is a difference, in current practice at least, between the attitude of Christians and Muslims to the way in which Faith can or cannot be imposed on people, and the use of violence in furthering that end.
Of course, the truth is that Christianity – and the Roman church in particular – has itself been responsible for any number of brutal atrocities in the 2,000 year old drive to establish itself as the pre-eminent global religion. Where some of these atrocities are concerned, beginning with the 12th Century crusade, Muslims were the victims – and they have long memories. To have claimed some kind of high moral ground on the issue then was scarcely credible, never mind diplomatic.
Besides, there has been a conflation of politics and religion in the middle east over the past 30 years, with the attempted expansion of the Israeli state being seen among the largely Muslim, Arab countries for what it is: a direct sectarian offensive against the Islamic communities in Palestine and the surrounding areas. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq are seen as extensions of that same conflict and in many ways they are, with Christians rowing in on the side of Jews.
So to suggest – or even to seem to suggest – that Muslims are the only ones capable of using violence, was a bit rich, to put it mildly.
The wider theme of the Pope’s address dealt with reason and religion. Sadly, the reaction to what he had to say illustrates just how difficult it is to reconcile the two. The ironies are obvious. Screaming that Islam is a tolerant religion, followers of Muhammed demand an apology. To show just how tolerant, they dance around a burning effigy of the Pope with smiles on their faces. One woman protestor, everything except her eyes covered by the burka she is wearing, holds a sign which says, “Alas Pope Benedict has lost his mental and moral balance.”
Of course, we have no right to assume that these people are entirely representative of the broad mass of Muslims. But where are the Islamic leaders who are ready to preach genuine tolerance of different points of view? Where are the leaders who might give an example to the great body of Muslims by saying that the Pope is entitled to believe what he believes – now let’s show him how wrong he is merely by what we say and do, and the love and compassion we show, in our everyday lives? Where are the Muslim leaders who are prepared to accept that others have the right to criticise and even to pour scorn on their beliefs, if that is their conviction, without being threatened or intimidated?
This is what religious and political freedom requires of us all: the willingness to accept that religious beliefs, teachings and texts are as open to comment and criticism as any other aspects of life. It is, for example, to do nothing more than repeat a fundamental Christian belief for the Pope – as he did a week after his remarks about Islam – to say that “the crucifixion of Jesus is a scandal for the Jews.” And it would be simply ludicrous for Jews to get the hump about it.
Feelings and emotions are understandably running high in the Muslim world because of the invasion of Iraq and tehbrutal treatment being meted out to Palestinians by Israel. But emotion should not be allowed to run riot. The free expression of ideas is fundamental to civilised society. No one has anything to fear from debate.
Meanwhile, the Vatican has claimed that the point of the speech was to promote dialogue between religions. Now, there is the irony to beat all ironies…