Mixed messages from Egypt, Indonesia
Today's CWN headlines include interesting reports from Egypt and Indonesia, from the perspective of Christian eyewitnesses living somewhat nervously in two overwhelmingly Muslim societies.
I know very little about the social and political situation in Egypt. (In that respect I am like many of the analysts who are offering their commentaries so freely in the mass media; the only important difference between us is that I admit my ignorance.) But today's CWN report has the ring of truth, and matches the few basic facts that I do know. The Mubarak regime is corrupt, and its corruption-- combined with a studied indifference to the plight of the common people-- aggravates the nation's poverty. That much, I am convinced, is fact. The protests, we are told, are motivated primarily by frustration with that depressing economic situation. That sounds eminently probable. But then we enter the realm of uncertainty.
Such massive demonstrations do not "just happen." Who organized them, and what are the motives of the organizers? Are they, too, looking for transparency, fairness, and efficiency in government? Or do they have their own ideological goals to pursue? I don't know, and I'm not convinced that the "talking heads" of the media have any better understanding of the situation. Nevertheless we should all be able to understand a few simple points:
- Egypt's repressive regime has prevented the formation of any political opposition party. So if the main forces behind the protests are activists favoring democracy, they are only now beginning to organize their forces.
- When there is no organized opposition, the situation is fluid, and the advantage goes to those forces that are organized.
- Seasoned analysts tell us that the Muslim Brotherhood represents only a small minority. But that minority is organized, and therefore could wield disproportionate power if the situation remains unstable. And yet...
- Stability might require propping up the Mubarak regime, which would fuel resentments and raise the risk of an even more explosive rebellion in the future.
Again, I claim no expertise, and offer no solutions. But to say the situation is delicate would be an understatement.
In Indonesia, the recent burst of anti-Christian violence is unsettling. Today's CWN headline report highlights the statements of Church leaders who are calling upon the Indonesian government to make good on their claims of promoting tolerance and inter-religious harmony. Such tolerance and harmony cannot exist unless religious minorities receive adequate police protection.
Yet do I detect a dissonant note in the statements from Church officials? Father Benny Susetyo, who handles inter-religious affairs for the Indonesian bishops' conference, is quoted as saying that fundamentalist Protestant preachers bear some of the blame for the recent violence, because they "have no respect for other religions." Many of those Protestant preachers are provocative, and maybe they should display more respect for their neighbors. But they are not the ones organizing mobs, looting and torching houses of worship. It is one thing to be rude, quite another to be violent. Any suggestion of moral equivalence between the two only distracts attention from what is necessary here: a concerted campaign by the government to crack down on violent Muslim extremists.
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a current donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: Bveritas2322 -
Sep. 01, 2017 12:06 AM ET USA
The term ideologue applies only to revolutionaries who reject the idea of immutable truth, which Francis and his supporters clearly do. Francis has made it clear he is a process theologian and is oblivious to the damage of moral relativism. Those opposing such an insulting concept of God, implicit in process theology, are not ideologues. Believing that truth is eternal is Catholic, not merely one side of a debate. I admire your essays and expect better than your false equivalency Mr. Lawler.
Posted by: fenton1015153 -
Jul. 26, 2017 9:51 AM ET USA
Popes B XVI and JP II have left a legacy of thought for us. Will the legacy of Francis be as good? All the liberal vs conservative talk is distracting us from the real issue. What would Jesus do?
Posted by: mark.f.santschi7460 -
Jul. 25, 2017 11:06 PM ET USA
The hermeneutics of suspicion.
Posted by: iprayiam5731 -
Jul. 25, 2017 11:26 AM ET USA
The reaction to Benedict's words needs not come from a speculation on Benedict's thought the current situation in the Church, but instead as resonating with the listeners' thoughts on the current situation just the same. Consider an unhappy employee. After a particularly long day a friend at the pub says "you look tired". It rings true with the man as he reflects on just how tired he is with his career in general. The friend didn't mean it that deeply, but it has the deep meaning just the same.
Posted by: Eagle -
Feb. 10, 2011 7:56 AM ET USA
A government crackdown on Muslim extremists is necessary for freedom, but highly unlikely. Unlike Christianity where "separation of churh and state" was mandated by the Lord when He said "Render to Caesar...", in Islam one of the uniting characteristics is the unity of church and state under an Islamic caliph, and another is the division of mankind into believers and infidels. These twins preclude tolerance; evangelization is not to induce a free choice, but a "do or die" command to unbelievers.