Swords and Scallops

(click image for larger version)

Gerald of The Closed Cafeteria linked to both of my entries about faith in college life. You can see over the past two days what effect it's had on my page views. 345 referrals from http://closedcafeteria.blogspot.com! My hit counter almost doubled just from the views of the last few days. Thanks a lot Gerald!

This week is Diversity Week [pdf file] on campus, which I forgot to mention yesterday when I blogged about the Campus Crusaders. As part of my freshman orientation class, and because of my interest in the subject, I attended the presentation "There is no Clash of Civilizations" by Dr. Nasser Zawia. Here is the abstract:

Colorfully restating a theory in international relations that advocates the superiority and dominance of Western culture and values of those over the East, Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntington's "The Clash of Civilizations?" (Foreign Affairs, Summer, 2003) provided a rationale that has influenced current American foreign policy, resulting in the perception that conflict between a "unified" West and a militant "Islam" is inevitable, absolving Western militarism and and notions of empire from responsibility. Using photographs from recent Fullbright-sponsored research in the Middle East, this workshop comments on cross-cultural collaborations between Western and Muslim academicians, and Muslim and non-Muslim governments.

I walked in hoping that maybe, just maybe the presentation would shed some light on the conflict between Muslims and, well, the rest of the world. However, I had a feeling there'd be plenty of things that I'd disagree with. Dr. Zawia presented the follwing points, as I remember them:

• The Clash of Civilizations is a myth, because the West is the one dominant civilization; all other civilizations are minor and exist under Western dominance
  


• Colonialism, Post-Colonialism and Neo-Colonialism are to blame for the struggle of the people in former colonies. Borders seperated people like the Kurds into five countries and forced nomadic lifestyle in the Middle East to change. Once the colonial powers left, they left problems behind for the fledgling governments to deal with.


• As a result of various forms of colonialism, former colonies, including Muslim countries have been left with no power in organizations such as the UN. (A political cartoon showed a table labled UN, with Uncle Sam seated at the center, and several other countries, with mirrors for faces, reflecting Uncle Sam's face, showing that Uncle Sam was at every seat in the UN)


• There is no historical evidence to show that Islam is inherently intolerant of other cultures and beliefs.

I can understand where he is coming from in the first two points. However, I had a hard time swallowing some of the others. Everything seemed to blame the US, the West, or Israel. I smiled when I saw a map of the Middle East, his point was showing the division of Muslim lands after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, with Israel smack dab in the middle unlabeled.

After his presentation ended, he opened the floor to questions. A fellow pharmacy student asked the question like "Was it wrong for the US to invade Afghanistan, even though it was in response to the 9/11 attacks?" Dr. Zawia dodged the question a bit, claiming that not all Muslims are terrorists and that the US should not equate Islam with terrorism. He then proceeded to say that yes, humans have the right to attack those who attack them, but that it was unfair to the innocent people of Afghanistan (innocent?).

After a few questions, I decided to stir the pot up a little with this question. "You stated in your conclusion that there is no historical evidence that demonstrates that Islam in inherently intolerant to other beliefs. I don't believe that the Muslim people cannot accept democracy, because we clearly have Turkey as a secular democracy. However, how do you feel about the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia, the execution of those who convert to Christianity, etc.?"

Again, I felt he dodged the answer, talking again about the extremist elements in Islam and such for a few minutes. In order to get back on focus I asked him, "What I'm trying to say is, do you feel that this tolerance is reflected in Muslim Sharia Law and Dar al-Islam?" I expected a yes or no answer, or something like it. What I got was a five minute speech about how Islam is probably more tolerant than I thought. He stated that it was the Muslims that protected the Christian and Jewish Holy sites in the Holy land while they were in control, and that the Muslims did not destroy the statues of Buddha and Hindu structures that we see today.

I was unsatisfied, but he addressed another question. Another man raised his hand, seemingly tip-toeing by saying something like "I've been hearing from our media that there is a dislike of the West and the US in the Middle East. I don't want to believe it, but maybe other people might, can you confirm if it's true?" Dr. Zawia then talked about how there is a demonization of Muslim words, like Hawalah, the Muslim transfer of money, painted as underground terrorist funding.

Another man then asked, "I've been hearing from our media about the education in the madras schools, can you explain?" Dr. Zawia then explained how the school system in Arab countries needs significant reform, and he acknowledged that the hate of the West and US comes from the education system and mosques. However, I was annoyed that he found some way to blame the US again, by saying that the US gives a disproportionate amount of funding to Israel over Africa, and that the US really isn't serious about helping the situation out.

After that, someone asked about what would happen if the West lost dependency on Arab oil, and Dr. Zawia remarked that it would be the best thing in the world for the Arab people, but not the Arab government. He actually refuted the notion that the US is going to war for oil with the statistic that the US only imports 13% of its oil from the Middle East. Though, he did add that they are protecting the oil for Israel and other allies...

I guess I can't say I was disappointed, because I was expecting question dodging. If I got a straight answer, I would have pressed on and asked about the current conflict with the Pope and Islam, but it would have been a fruitless endeavor based on the previous questions. I want to state that I respect Dr. Zawia, a professor in the Pharmacy department here at URI. To be fair, he might not have fully answered my question because a good response may have taken more time to explain. However, the presentation left me with more questions than answers. I'm reminded of an interview that Wafa Sultan did on Al-Jazeera seen here (a partial transcript available here):

The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions, or a clash of civilizations. It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality. It is a clash between freedom and oppression, between democracy and dictatorship. It is a clash between human rights, on the one hand, and the violation of these rights, on other hand. It is a clash between those who treat women like beasts, and those who treat them like human beings. What we see today is not a clash of civilizations. Civilizations do not clash, but compete.

What do you think about this "Clash of Civlizations?"

Via Catholic News Service:

Catholic, Orthodox cite friendship, plan for 2007 dialogue meeting

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Catholic and Orthodox representatives ended an important theological meeting on a good note, citing a "spirit of friendship" and making plans for a follow-up encounter next year.

A joint statement issued at the end of the Sept. 18-25 meeting in Belgrade, Serbia-Montenegro, said the approximately 60 participants had discussed in depth a draft document that touched on papal primacy and the role of Eastern Catholic churches.

The draft document "was carefully examined in a shared spirit of genuine commitment to the search for unity," the statement said.

A joint committee was appointed to revise the text in light of the many observations and comments made during the discussions. The revised text is expected to be taken up in a meeting hosted by the Catholic Church in 2007, the statement said.

It was the first time the Catholic-Orthodox international dialogue commission had met since 2000, when talks were broken off over tensions related to the re-emergence of Eastern Catholic churches in post-communist Eastern Europe.

"The meeting of the joint commission was marked by a spirit of friendship and trustful collaboration," the statement said.

It said the draft document, titled "The Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church: Conciliarity and Authority in the Church," was discussed at three levels of the church's life: local, regional and universal.

The statement offered few details of the discussions. Catholic participants said before the meeting that papal primacy was thought to be the most important and problematic issue on the table and that the Belgrade meeting would be part of a long process eventually leading, it was hoped, to some form of agreement.

Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top ecumenist and head of the Catholic delegation to the meeting, told Vatican Radio Sept. 22 that the most important result of the meeting would be "the friendship we established in these days."

He characterized the atmosphere in Belgrade as "very serious but also very calm and friendly." He said both sides had faced theological questions with honesty, noting their differences, but without polemics and with a clear desire to overcome disagreements.

"This is certainly a starting point and a hope for the future," he said.

Pope Benedict XVI, while in Germany in September, had said he hoped the Belgrade meeting would lead to real ecumenical progress between Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

Cardinal Kasper said establishing a gracious dialogue climate had been a good first step.

"In this sense, our meeting corresponds well to the pope's desire. We all have hope that concrete steps can be taken," he said.

We could really use a lot more unity in these times. It sounds like the steps are being taken in the right direction.

Via my laptop's 1.3 megapixel webcam.

The Campus Crusaders for Christ were out on the quad today. At first, I felt pretty bad for them, because people were yelling "Jesus Sucks!" at some guy who was talking about how "Jesus saved the world and he's alive today." But as I moved on, I saw more signs.



It's hard to read, but the white sign on the left says "Last Days! Satan Rules! Turn to Jesus, Not Church!" with various Bible verses plastered on. I couldn't get close because I wanted to avoid a confrontation which might have ended up with me having a broken laptop.



Here's me sneaking up behind. Apparently these guys know AOL speak.



The reverse of the white sign. Not so bad.

Anyway, I took these pictures coming back from weekday mass. Father John Soares mentioned them in the homily too. Telling people that they're going to Hell is not the way to evangelize. This goes completely against the notion that God is Love. Fear of going to Hell only gets you an imperfect contrition if that is your intention. This is not the way to get people to accept Jesus. They're giving all of us Christians a bad name.

Via OPFOR:

September 11th… 1565
By Lt Col P

The fifth anniversary of September 11th 2001 is upon us. It is fitting that the day should see both a solemn remembrance of the dead and the renewal of a cold-hearted resolve to win the war that was declared on us.

There is however, another September 11th that we should also remember, and from which we can take heart in our own struggle. It is September 11th 1565; the scene was different and so were the actors too, but the nature of the battle was all too familiar. On that day, a small force of European knights and the entire population of Malta dealt Ottoman Turkey a decisive defeat, and in doing so probably saved western civilization.

In May of that year, a Turkish invasion force landed on the island of Malta, held only by a combined force of knights, their hired soldiers, and the mobilized population of the island. The Turkish aim was to seize the strategically located island and clear the way for the expansion of the crescent flag of Islam into the western Mediterranean and western Europe. The Turks, under Sultan Suleiman the Great, also sought to exterminate the last vestige of a crusading order that was still proving to be a dangerous foe.

Those old crusaders were the Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John, of Jerusalem of Rhodes, and of Malta. Originally founded in the eleventh century as a hospital order to provide relief to Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land, they quickly grew into a formidable military force that also protected those Christian pilgrims. (They still exist as hospitallers, but if they existed today in the same form as in 1565, they would surely be the strangest NGO in the world. Imagine a merger of Catholic Charities and Blackwater; imagine Mother Teresa with a .45 and the will and skill to use it.)

The Knights of St John were by 1565 already living anachronisms. (Today, wouldn’t they be called warmongers and the religious right?) The crusades from they derived were old history even then; the Order had been expelled first from the Holy Land and then from the fertile island of Rhodes. They were given the rock of Malta as much to keep them away from Europe as to allow them to get at the Turks, who they saw as mortal enemies. They waged ceaseless war against the Sultan in the form of commerce raiding and other operations.

The Knights knew their enemy well. The Order’s intelligence network gave early warning of the Turkish Sultan’s preparations for a massive attack to crush the Knights for good. Under the Grand Master, Jean de la Vallette, they prepared their defenses and called in their brethren from estates across Europe.

The Knights and the Maltese were virtually on their own in the fight for Malta. The Europe they sought to defend was going to provide little help. The Protestant powers of northern Europe were content to let the Catholic knights fight this battle. Imperial Spain, technically the order’s patron, would prove dilatory at best in sending aid. France had signed a treaty with Turkey some years before, and although much of the Order was of French descent, that country was neither able nor inclined to ride to its rescue.

The siege was brutal. After weeks of attack and counterattack under the hot Mediterranean sun, the Turks took a small position, Fort St Elmo, which guarded the approaches to the main citadels of Fort St Angelo and Fort St Michael. Despite having taken enormous losses, they then hurled their forces against the twin defenses around the grand harbor. More than once their fanatical assaults nearly overwhelmed the defenders; at one point the Turkish assault on St Michael was about to succeed when a surprise attack on the Turkish rear area by the Order’s cavalry caused them to retreat. In June a small relief force of about 700, sent from Sicily, arrived and crept into the fortress under the cover of a fog, and the reinforcement proved just enough to bolster the tired defenders at a critical point.

By the end of summer it was clear that the Turks had shot their bolt, despite their having come very close to victory more than once and having inflicted severe losses on the Knights and the Maltese. The Order had made them pay a very heavy price for their gains, and they could not sustain the campaign. The defenders likewise were on their last legs, but their faith and the leadership and iron resolve of the Grand Master held them firm.

On September 8th, when at last a relief force from Sicily appeared bearing 8,000 Knights and soldiers from across Europe, the Turks began to withdraw. But they left a force ashore, hoping to draw the Knights and their soldiers into an ambush that would secure them the victory in the open that they could not gain in the siege. Their fleet was still mostly intact, and even with the arrival of a relief force the issue was still in doubt. The Grand Master recognized what was afoot but was determined to finish them off; he gave orders to sortie a force to meet the Turks and push them into the sea.

One of the soldiers in that force, Francisco Balbi di Correggio, who left a first-hand account of the siege, tells us about that last battle. The force was made of defenders, nearly worn out by months of combat and privation, and the soldiers of the relief, who sought action after months of waiting in Sicily. Tthey advanced on the Turks and seized a commanding height. With an officer shouting, “Santiago, and at them!” they fought a pitched battle but finally beat the enemy down, stopping only when the guns of the Turkish fleet covered the withdrawal. Yet not all Turks made it off. Balbi tells us that hundreds were left on the island; no quarter was shown to them, save one Turk who was sold into slavery.

And so it was that on Tuesday, September 11th 1565, the Ottoman Turks were driven from the Malta by the stalwart defense of a small group of living anachronisms and the island’s own brave inhabitants. The greatest military force in the Mediterranean was broken on the walls of the island’s fortresses, and the swords, spears and shields of the islanders and the Knights.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of the battle. In modern terms, it was not only a great victory in and of itself, it was also a critical shaping operation. In 1571, the Turkish fleet met the combined fleet of the now-mobilized European powers under the Venetian Andrea Doria at Lepanto. The Turks were crushed, and their naval power never again threatened Europe.

The lessons for us today, almost five centuries hence, are equally important. The same enemy exists today. Instead of galleys he uses airliners, and instead of Janissaries he uses suicide bombers. He hates and fears western civilization, and seeks to convert or enslave us. We have to meet him and engage him everywhere he is, just as the Knights did. What it will take to win against him is what it took to win at Malta: preparation, skill at arms, leadership, and above all faith and an iron will.

While I remember our dead, I'll also remember the Knights of St John.

Thanks montanaman for telling me about this.

Via The Chronicle:

Catholic station on the air
Radio Maria broadcasts from western Ohio village


James Hannah
The Associated Press
WEST MILTON — Bringing a Catholic radio station to western Ohio is no easy task. Just ask the small group of volunteers who tried to do it for four years before the heavens parted.
In a few weeks, the group found a radio frequency when few were available, got the station running two days before its license would have expired, and patched the transmission tower after a lightning strike put it out of business.
It’s been a struggle, but the station is accomplishing things, said volunteer James Meyer.
Today, Radio Maria is broadcasting to listeners who live within 40 miles of its tower just outside the village of Botkins. WHJM-FM is the first Radio Maria station in Ohio and only the sixth English-language version in the United States.
“There’s Christian radio everywhere, but not the Catholic perspective,” said coordinator Mary Pyper. “What we wanted to do was to bring a different flavor.”
About 130 Catholic radio stations broadcast in the United States, up from only five 10 years ago, according to the Catholic Radio Association.
English-language Radio Maria stations are in Alexandria, Natchitoches, New Iberia, and Lake Charles, La.; Port Arthur, Texas; and now Botkins.

130 stations now, hopefully we'll see that number increase. There are about 1,000 Protestant radio stations; we need to be able to continue to spread the word!

Some of you may remember this. I was a youngun back then, so I did not see this video until just now. The woman in the video is Sinead O'Connor. I've seen her on TV in the past and never liked her, not only for her shaved head, but for her sub par singing voice. Only now did I find out the terrible things she stands for. She's even been "ordained" and is now excommunicated. Unfortunately, she's recently made the decision to teach Catechism. Hopefully she'll learn a thing or two while studying.