Unbelievable.  Who would have thought Pope Benedict could get his foot that far down his own throat.  Shocking. 

Might turn out yet more shocking, to the faithful of Islam, than the Muhammad cartoons.  Already, in one week, riot squads have been deployed, the Pope has been burnt in effigy and three churches have been firebombed.

Nothing to worry about, of course.  As Heri Budianto, organizer of a protest in Jakarta is quoted to have clarified, “Only Muslims can understand what Jihad is.  It is impossible that Jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

And now, quite properly, Pope Benedict has made complete, full and tremulous apology.  He didn’t mean anything by it, since, as he put it, "This was a quote from a medieval text which does not express in any way my personal thoughts."  Moreover, no way did he intend to shock Islamic sensibilities.  He was actually trying to pay his respects – attempting to “.. frankly and sincerely express my great reciprocal and mutual respect with the Muslim faith."  He really and truly is “deeply sorry”. 

Let’s hope Pope Benedict’s apologizing proves adequate.  He can’t do much better – short of begging forgiveness on his knees or converting to Islam.  Let’s hope.  The Muslim Brotherhood said it is good enough.  Though a former deputy of the Al-Azhar Mosque said that it isn’t enough.  And, presumably, whoever gunned down the Catholic nun in Mogadishu didn’t think it good enough either.  Finally, close readings of recent statements from an al Qaeda group could also be interpreted to indicate the apologizing was not enough.  The Mujahideen Shura Council’s statements read, in part, that, “…  God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome...  God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen."

Pope John Paul would never have done anything so inadvertent.  Certainly, he was capable of shocking.  Shockwaves originating from his support of Polish Solidarity were such that some blame the world-wide collapse of state communism on him.  Some blame the end of the Cold War on him more so even than on Lech Walesa or Ronald Reagan or the Afghani Northern-Alliance.  It’s not that Pope John Paul didn’t cause shockwaves.  It’s that Pope John Paul never caused inadvertent shockwaves, for.. well, for God’s sakes.  Pope John Paul was definitively purposeful. And isn’t that what being Pope must be about? Isn’t that what pontificating means?  What conceivable sense does inadvertent pontificating make?

Whereas Pope Benedict was reported very upset that his speech on Islam offended Muslims.  Like, what’s the big deal?  It’s not as if Pope Benedict himself declared the Prophet to nefariously have commanded spreading Islam by the sword.  It’s not even as if the Pope mentioned that someone sitting next to him had so declared. Nope. Not even. All the Pope mentioned was that someone back in the 14^th century – some Byzantine emperor – had declared it.  And that emperor is long dead.  All Byzantium no longer exists – long gone to dust.  It’s only academic, now.  So the Pope doesn’t get what’s so shocking, what the big deal is. 

But it is a big deal. And it absolutely is shocking for the Pope to mention anything whatsoever about Islam being sword-happy. Because there’s no forgetting the sword-happiness of Christian fundamentalism.  There’s no forgetting Christian crusading, for instance.  Christian crusading repeatedly started by Papal decree.  It’s a huge deal.  Given the abandon with which Crusaders plied swords at heathens by Papal decree, how dare Pope Benedict even allude to the faithful of Islam wielding swords at infidels?  Sure, on March 12^th, 2000, Pope John Paul apologized for past sins of the Church.  But so what?  That apology clearly didn’t go far enough.  It didn’t go anywhere at all.  Pope John Paul failed even mentioning the Crusades.  He failed mentioning anything in particular.  He might have been apologizing for the Crusades; or for the Inquisition; or for other persecutions of Muslims or Jews or Protestants; or for endlessly forcing conversion against heathen cultures; or for countless other divisive, unjust, totalitarian and murderous acts so effective in bloating temporal church power – provided the infinite pretext of Divine mandate.  Merciful, soul saving Divine mandate.  To save their souls, for the heathen’s own good.  The bible and the sword – one in each hand.  No way are church hands appropriate for pointing fingers.  Such stains. Totally shocking just waving them hands around.  But pointing fingers with hands like that – regardless advertent or inadvertent?  Unbelievable.  

No doubt Islamic reaction has been due to perception that Pope Benedict was pointing fingers at Islam.  No doubt Pope Benedict put his foot in his mouth – all the way down his throat.  Thing is, though, that prior to choking on his foot, Pope Benedict was raising critical questions concerning the role and significance of religion.  Pope Benedict might not be well advised to raise such questions.  He might not prove adequate answering the questions he was raising.  But that doesn’t mean we can afford continuing ignoring the questions he raised. 

We must answer the questions Pope Benedict raised.  Otherwise, we remain in ignorant denial while confronted by conflict and culture clashing of potentially biblical proportions.  Better not.  The questions raised by Pope Benedict, while hazardous to raise, are not too difficult to answer. 

In broad strokes, the questions raised by Pope Benedict aren’t so difficult – so long as we eliminate one delusion prior answering.  One delusion likely clung to with a death-grip by Pope Benedict and his Catholic church.  Just one delusion: that there are three rival world-major religions.  Not so.  There have been three world-major religions.  There now remains only one. 

No rivalry between world-major religions exists.  Any rivalry now existing is not between world-major religions. 

In fast broad strokes, then.  The prototype world-major religion was Judaism.  And Moses totally brought something new to religion – and to culture and to politics and even to the battlefield.  Something new of unparalleled significance: the principle of God’s singularity and corresponding capital injunction against idolatry – against worshipping ought but the singular God.   

It can’t be over-estimated – the significance of the singular God principle. It constituted a novel federalism, an unprecedented upgrade in nation building.  It forced and re-enforced cultural unity – rooting culture not merely in shared experience but in shared principle.  It transformed a rabble temporarily distinguished by shared experience into a people, a society entirely distinguished by interpreting and understanding experience – whether or not particularly shared – in light of shared fundamental principle.  It was first and chief of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”  This singular God principle brought about a collective identity so cohesive that it persists to this day – despite all intervening, interfering vagaries of history. 

To start grasping the significance of the singular God principle, contrast the siege of Jericho with the siege of Troy.  The walls of Jericho came tumbling down within days.  Whereas the walls of Troy, if they were tumbled at all, took years.  And though Homer’s Iliad makes incomparably better reading than the Old Testament, and though neither might turn out literally true, it’s the contrast between the stories themselves that illuminates and signifies.  For the Greeks were fractious, factious and divided.  Inevitably divided – Greek divisiveness inflected and reflected the petulant squabbling atop Olympus.  The siege of Troy wasn’t war.  It was soap-opera.  Athena having her own agenda meant, definitively, that Achilles stood apart from Agammemnon – sometimes even against.  So much for unity and dependable chain of command.  On the other hand, the Jews besieging Jericho suffered no such collective Achilles’ heel.  Their unity, formed and informed as chosen of the singular God, proved rock-solid.  More solid than the walls of Jericho.  They hardly had to lift a finger.  Their unity vested them with seemingly miraculous powers.  So the walls of Jericho came tumbling right down.

There followed, eventually, the second world-major religion.  And Christianity was no prototype.  Like Moses, Jesus too brought something new to religion – and to culture and to politics and even to the battlefield.  Something completely overpowering.  To the singularity of God, Jesus added universality of access.  Provided adequate submission – unconditional surrendering to Christ – anyone could become a member of the Christianity club.  More even: everyone had better become members of the club.  Lest their immortal souls be damned to perdition.  Lest unbelief damn their souls to everlasting fire (Matthew 25:41) and everlasting punishment (Matthew 25:46).  Best rush to saving souls – regardless what pain to impure, impious, sinning heathen flesh.  For all pain of flesh passes – but the soul’s damnation continues everlasting. 

It was an utterly, totally overwhelming innovation.  Never mind whether the innovation was Jesus’ or Saint Paul’s – it’s not about taking names and fixing dates.  What matters, what signifies, is Christianity’s provision for converting – for browbeating or intimidating or threatening or cajoling or guilting or burning or nagging or torturing or proselytizing or missionaring or deceiving or however otherwise transforming the heathen, both individual and cultural, into foot-soldiers.  Into junior recruits.  Into more Christians.  Ever more Christians.  It was unprecedented sales-forcing – sword in one hand, bible in the other. 

It started small, Christianity.  But it conquered the Roman Empire in a hurry – and, albeit more slowly, sought continuing from there.  Initially and for a while, nothing could stand before it.  Judaism, the initial world-major religion, never came anywhere near qualifying as a rival.  It made no provision for converting ever more Jews.  To the contrary.  Jews never got over gleefully thumbing their noses at everyone else for not having been God-chosen onto their team.  Judaism never had a chance.  Yet, Christianity did encounter a rival.  Before Christianity could manage saving the world for Jesus, the third world-major religion emerged.  Islam. 

Who knows whether Muhammad brought anything new to religion.  It’s debatable.  What is self-evident, though, is that Islam managed everything religious that Christianity did – and managed it just as well.  The singularity of God remained.  And so did the provision for converting.  The zeal for converting.  All that changed was converting style.  But otherwise, apart from style, what effectively was the difference between Christians converting heathen souls regardless damage done heathen flesh – and Muslims forcing infidels to choose between converting to Islam, dhimmitude or beheading?  No effective difference.  Perhaps the Quranic Verse of the Sword (Sura 9:5, which abrogates numerous earlier verses – such as Sura 2:256, "Let there be no compulsion in religion; truth stands out clearly from error.") or Suras 17:16-17 ("When We resolve to raze a city, We first give warning to those of its people who live in comfort.  If they persist in sin, judgement is irrevocably passed, and We destroy it utterly.") dictate Islamic converting zeal more overtly – but that’s just a matter of style.  Not of substance.  There’s no effective difference. 

And so, with the emergence of Islam, there began a vying between two rival world-major religions.  The prototype first world-major religion failed to qualify.  It remained prototypic.  The rivalry between the second and third, between Christianity and Islam, however, was acute – and unabated.  It was stalemate between them.  Christianity conquered the north.  Islam conquered the south.  They never managed conquering each other, though.  It was stalemate between them. 

But Christianity stumbled.  A host of new prophets – from Copernicus to Galileo to Newton and Darwin – emerged preaching materialism.  They tripped Christianity up so bad it fell on its head.  The Christian church collapsed, crushing Christian fundamentalism in wreckage.  

It’s considered a good thing, the collapse of the church.  We refer to the collapsing as enlightenment.  And it was earth-shaking.  For while it caused no truth of nature to alter, it entailed categorical transformation in the nature of truth. 

Thus collapsed the church.  The very foundation pulled out from under it.  By transformation in the logical character, in the very nature of truth. Where churches had once stood there remained but wreckage; and in that wreckage, crushed, lay fundamentalism.  All fundamentalism.  Any fundamentalism.  Irrelevant whether Judaic, Christian, Muslim or whatever else.  Governance by fundamentalism was past reviving where churches had once stood.   

What was the transformation in the nature of truth?  Simply this.  Imagine whatever biblical doctrine.  For instance, imagine a bible passage declaring, “All crows are black.”  Prior enlightenment, had anyone claimed to have seen white crows, the response would have been, “Which part of all crows being black didn’t you get?  If it wasn’t black then it wasn’t a crow.”  And, had the person continued claiming to have seen white crows, it would have gone badly for them.  Since crows being black would have been received as definitive prior enlightenment.  There was, therefore, no coherent claiming otherwise.  Talking white crows might easily have resulted in shunning or leeching or exorcising or staked burning.  Not so subsequent the enlightenment.  Post enlightenment, claiming to have seen white crows would have elicited a completely different response: “Really?  Maybe it isn’t the case that all crows are black.  Maybe there are white crows.  Show me.”  It would no longer have gone so badly talking white crows.  Since crows being black would have been taken as a – descriptive – matter of fact post enlightenment.  And thus, there emerged the possibility that describing all crows as black was, as a matter of fact, incorrect.  False. 

Not only was biblical doctrine opened to questioning in terms of personal security.  Falling into materialism meant that biblical doctrine came to be taken as potentially false in fact – rather than received as definitively true in meaning by divine fiat.  Everything was opened to questioning.  Any even biblical doctrine came to be regarded as possibly false. Truth ceased being a function of privileged biblical revelation.  It became a function of material evidence. God could not be harmed by this – but where churches had once stood, fundamentalism lay crushed.

People ceased being certain of truth.  And since beliefs contrary to their own might turn out true – well, people began tolerating disagreeing.  People became tolerant.  They abandoned convictions that those disagreeing established doctrine were damned or possessed or insane – and, if persistent, better off dead than continuing such devil working.  That’s what the fundamentalism crushing collapse of the Christian church meant.  That the disagreeable were no longer better off dead.

In truth, it was a new dawning.  Ideas were conceived, exchanged and investigated.  Innovation in science, culture and politics flourished.  From the rubble of Christian church and the corpse of fundamentalism, technology began blooming exotic, perhaps unnatural profusion.  Much was gained.  Something fundamental was lost.  But never again would fundamentalism grasp truth in definitive grip.  Not on grounds where churches stood.  And there were no other grounds for governance to issue from the church.  As far as governing went, the Christian church no longer stood. 

Fundamentalism was mourned by some.  Some pined to grasp truth definitively again.  But all attempts marrying materialism with definitive certitude – state Marxism, Germanic supremacism – proved abortive.  Materialism abides no definitive certitude.  And now, where once churches stood, we have fallen into post-modernity.  We have fallen too deep in materialism.  Our tolerance has become too absolute for us to conceive our own former principles.  We can’t conceive any definitive character of truth – and have thereby lost our faith in truth.  And though we retain some our former principles, it is just by habit.  We don’t understand what our principles meant, what we once stood for.  For sure something has been lost – even though so much was gained. 

Meanwhile, however, what happened to Islam?  What happened to Islam since Christianity stumbled?  What’s happened to the mosque since the church collapsed?  Since Islam became the sole world-major religion – since mosques alone retained that old-time fundamentalist grip on governance?  Nothing happened.  Absolutely nothing.  The Mosque remains firm as ever.  Definitively firm.  It is not challenged by temples.  It has never been challenged by synagogues.  No collapsed church has stood once more to challenge it.  Just the mosque remains – un-assailed in that fundamentalism whereby it governs regardless shifting sands of time and circumstance.  Un-assailed – yet for a long good while helpless. 

Helpless.  For what was Islam to do while modernity waxed in such material ways where churches had once stood?  Not much it could do.  Not much but hold definitively tight to old grudges. 

But the day of Islamic helplessness is over now.  Now mosques govern the world’s most affluent regions.  Now Islamic affluence can purchase whatever arsenals it needs at open markets.  Now Islam may not even require arsenals as it penetrates obliviously tolerant splayed open societies – where once churches stood – with relative impunity.  And now Islam likely builds nuclear weapons just for good measure. 

Post-modernity can’t begin understanding Islamic fundamentalism.  Nor can Islamic fundamentalism conceive or appreciate Post-modernity.  But Islamic fundamentalism totally can take advantage of Post-modernity’s confused weakness. 

When a mujahideen explodes himself and as many infidels as possible, it is not because he hates us so much he’s prepared to die in order to strike back at us.  It’s not like that at all.  He is expressing truths.  Definitive truths.  Truths about his eternal rewards – God willing.  Truths about the greatness and glory of God – and what befalls those who refuse to acknowledge and submit to His greatness and glory.  It’s not that the mujahideen is prepared to die for these truths.  He’s eager to die for these truths.  Eager to die killing all disagreeing the truths of Islam.  It’s not like he might be wrong.  Definitively not.  For the meaning of Islamic doctrine received in light of true belief is faith – God-given definitive truth upon which doubt may cast no shadow.  And mujahideen of exemplary faith express God’s truth most absolutely in martyrdom.  They aren’t merely willing.  They are eager.  It is such joy unto the Lord as Christians are no longer able to appreciate – not since Christianity has been reduced to a hobby. 

There have been three world-major religions.  Major by virtue their overwhelming all opposition. Their overwhelming was invariably founded in unifying authority of divinely revealed definitive truth and unified enforcing of truth revealed.  Holy book in one hand.  Sword in the other. 

Judaism, the prototypic first world-major religion dropped from the competition – thereby ceasing to qualify as major.  There remained two world-major religions.  Neither managing to submit the other.  Then Christianity stumbled.  So now there remains but one world-major religion.  Islam. 

There is no difference between the swords of Islam and Christian swords.  A sword is a sword.  It’s just that there are no Christian hands remaining to take it up.  And isn’t it natural concluding that’s what’s really agitating Pope Benedict?