Arkady Ghukasyan: NKR Constitution One Of The Most Democratic On Pos

ARKADY GHUKASYAN: NKR CONSTITUTION ONE OF THE MOST DEMOCRATIC ON POST-SOVIET SPACE

ArmRadio.am
11.12.2006 16:19

The President of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic Arkady Ghukasyan
declared in Stepanakert today that the "referendum held December 10
evidences the irreversible process of building an independent and
sovereign NKR."

Arkady Ghukasyan said that "the adoption of the Constitution was not
an end in itself. It became the diadem achieved during the days of
independence," Mediamax reports.

"The basic law will determine the directions of the county’s future
development," said NKR President, noting that "having a democratic and
balanced Constitution, people have more chances for the recognition
of independence."

Arkady Ghukasyan expressed the opinion that the NKR Constitution is
one of the most democratic ones in post-Soviet space. He assured that
"if Azerbaijan had a similar Constitution it would be easier for
Nagorno Karabakh to resolve the problems with it."

In his words, the Azerbaijani Constitution was adopted for the purpose
of " documental extermination of Nagorno Karabakh, and the negative
reaction of official Baku on the Constitutional referendum in Karabakh
has no basis to be accepted by the international community."

Vartan Oskanian: Azerbaijan Passes By In Silence Calls On Stopping D

VARTAN OSKANIAN: AZERBAIJAN PASSES BY IN SILENCE CALLS ON STOPPING DESTRUCTION OF ARMENIAN CULTURAL MONUMENTS

Noyan Tapan
Dec 11 2006

STRASBOURG, DECEMBER 11, NOYAN TAPAN. RA Foreign Minister Vartan
Oskanian made a speech on December 6 in Strasbourg, at the opening
of the exhibition entitled "State of Armenian Cultural Heritage
in Nakhijevan." The RA Foreign Ministry’s Press and Information
Department submitted to Noyan Tapan the text of V.Oskanian’s
speech, which is completely presented below. "Dear Deputy Mayor,
Dear President, ladies and gentlemen, I would like, first of all,
to express gratitude to the Strasbourg Mayor and the Strasbourg City
Community Chairman who favourable showed hospitality at the Strasbourg
Mayor’s Office to this exhibition which represents the dramatic state
of the Armenian architectural heritage in Nakhijevan. Of course, a
long-lasting tradition of solidarity and cooperation exists between
Alsace and Armenia. Today, when the year of Armenia is being held in
France, I express my great satisfaction with the cultural events to
be organized in Strasbourg in the first half of 2007 which will give
possibility to make Strasbourg, Alsace and Armenia closer. I would like
to congratulate the "Alsace-Armenia Friendship" organization and its
President Pierre Zouloumian who initiated to present the Strasbourg
society these expressive evidences of destroyed centuries-old
culture and killed memory. This exhibition does not only prove the
Armenian presence during that period of time, beauty of the Armenian
churches having been in a good state still since early the 20th
century, values of Romanic art, but also denies the policy of regular
destruction of the centuries-old Armenian monuments belonging to the
whole humanity. This state vandalism arose negative responses of the
international community, particularly, of the Council of Europe. But
the Azerbaijani authorities passed by in silence the calls on stopping
destructions and continue prohibiting entry of international experts
and parliamentarians expressed wish to visit those places. I once
more express gratitude to you for your participation and solidarity
displayed in these circumstances.

BAKU: Azerbaijani And Armenian FMs Expected To Meet In January

AZERBAIJANI AND ARMENIAN FMS EXPECTED TO MEET IN JANUARY

Today, Azerbaijan
Dec 11 2006

"I could not meet with Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian in
the 14th meeting of Foreign Ministers’ Council of OSCE countries held
in Brussels because of lack of time," Azerbaijani Foreign Minister
Elmar Mammadyarov said.

Saying he had met with co-chairs one by one, Mammadyarov noted that
he is expected to meet with Armenian Foreign Minister in January
next year.

The Minister also stated Azerbaijani side tries to settle the problem
peacefully, and believes it, APA reports.

Noting that it is possible to get peace accord with to be elected
Armenia President, the minister stressed that if he did not believe
diplomatic settlement of the conflict, then he would move aside and
let Defense Ministry solve the problem.

"Military settlement of the conflicts does not favor, because it can
harm our economic potential. But, there is still an uncoordinated item
between the sides. If we could agree, the problem will be settled,"
he said.

The minister did not give any information about the item saying
that it is confidential. Speaking about the legal status of Nagorno
Karabakh, the minister noted that Azerbaijani side will not give up
its principles.

"We do not change our opinion and consider that, this problem should
be solved in the frame of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and
Nagorno Karabakh should be given the highest Autonomy status," the
Minister said.

URL:

http://www.today.az/news/politics/33771.html

Senate Vote On New U.S. Envoy To Armenia Again Delayed

SENATE VOTE ON NEW U.S. ENVOY TO ARMENIA AGAIN DELAYED
By Emil Danielyan

Radio Liberty, Czech Rep.
Dec 12 2006

The U.S. Senate has again delayed the confirmation of President
George W. Bush’s choice of the new U.S. ambassador to Armenia over
his administration’s reluctance to term the mass killings of Armenians
in Ottoman Turkey a genocide.

The Senate failed to vote on the nomination of career diplomat Richard
Hoagland before going into winter recess late Monday. This means that
Bush will have to again nominate Hoagland for the vacant post or to
propose another candidate to the new, Democrat-controlled chamber
next month. He also has the option of making a so-called "recess
appointment" that does not require Senate confirmation.

The previous U.S. ambassador, John Evans, is believed to have been
recalled by the Bush administration because of his public description
of the slaughter of more than one million Ottoman Armenians as
genocide. Hoagland refused to use the politically sensitive term
with regard to the 1915-1918 massacres during confirmation hearings
at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this summer, angering the
influential Armenian-American community and pro-Armenian members
of Congress.

The panel twice delayed a vote on the nomination before endorsing it
on September 6. Hoagland’s confirmation by the full Senate seemed a
forgone conclusion until a pro-Armenian Democratic senator, Robert
Menendez of New Jersey, put a "hold" on it a week later.

Menendez reaffirmed his opposition to Hoagland’s appointment after
securing his reelection in last month’s mid-term congressional
elections that saw both houses of Congress fall under Democrat
control. He was joined on December 1 by the new Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, a longtime advocate of Armenian issues, in urging Bush
to propose another nominee.

The incoming Democratic chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee,
Joseph Biden, likewise criticized the Bush administration for its
refusal to explicitly recognize the Armenian genocide, but eventually
voted for its ambassador-designate to Armenia. Armenian-American
sources say Biden is therefore unlikely to block Hoagland’s
appointment.

The Senate’s failure to fill the vacant diplomatic post was welcomed
by the Armenian National Committee of America, a lobbying organization
strongly opposed to the Hoagland nomination. "With the adjournment of
the 109th Congress, we renew our call upon the President to recognize
that — as a matter of basic morality — a genocide denier should
never represent the United States in Armenia," Ken Hachikian, the
ANCA chairman, said in a statement.

Another, less radical advocacy group, the Armenian Assembly of America,
has also expressed its solidarity with Evans but now seems reluctant
to drag out the confirmation process. Assembly leaders argue that
Hoagland has not explicitly denied the Armenian genocide.

They also believe that the absence of a U.S. ambassador in Yerevan
is damaging U.S.-Armenian ties.

Spain Intends Open Embassy In Armenia

SPAIN INTENDS OPEN EMBASSY IN ARMENIA

Arka News Agency, Armenia
Dec 8 2006

YEREVAN, December 8. /ARKA/. Spain intends to open its embassy in
Armenia, Spanish Secretary of State Bernardino Leon said at his
meeting with Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian in Brussels.

Oskanyan and Leon discussed the bilateral relations and possible
initiatives that to be advanced under the chairmanship of Spain in
OSCE in 2007.

Leon expressed his country’s willingness to support settlement of the
conflicts in the South-Caucasus and, in particular, to make additional
efforts in the Karabakh peace process. The Spanish Secretary of
State’s visit to the region is scheduled for February 2007.

At the meeting, Oskanyan informed his counterpart of the current
stage of the Karabakh settlement and possibilities of progress.

Armenia: Climate Of Self-Censorship

ARMENIA: CLIMATE OF SELF-CENSORSHIP
By Gegham Vardanian in Yerevan

Institute for War and Peace Reporting, UK
Dec 8 2006

Armenian television channels play to the tune of government and
big business.

In Armenian television today, the rules of news journalism are known
to everybody. Journalists say it is a climate not of direct official
control, but of pervasive self-censorship.

"Now everyone knows exactly what to do," said journalist Tigran
Paskevichyan. "There are entertainment programmes, music, films and
so on, but no one thinks about public and political debate."

If in Azerbaijan and Georgia the battle is happening now, in Armenia
the crunch moment occurred four years ago when the politically
independent A1 + television channel was taken off the air. Other
stations took this as a signal to resign themselves to official
control and exercise political caution.

A1 + was stripped of its broadcasting license on April 2, 2002. A week
later, as human rights activists and journalists were rallying to the
support of the station, 17 media outlets released a statement, in which
they insisted that freedom of speech was not in any danger in Armenia.

"This statement was a public declaration of submission, in which the
media said it was better to obey rather than find themselves in the
position of А1+," said Mesrop Movsesian, chairman of the company.

"After 2002, all the TV companies began to be afraid and everybody
understood that there was a certain line along which they had
to walk, and any step to the right or to the left would not be
tolerated. Speaking figuratively, they could be shot without warning,"
said Mesrop Harutyunian, a media expert with the Yerevan Press Club.

Most television channels are now extremely selective in their news
coverage, ignoring opposition figures such as former parliamentary
speaker Artur Baghdasarian.

"For example, when visiting the French University, the foreign minister
of France was accompanied by Arthur Baghdasarian, chairman of the
university’s board of trustees," said Harutyunian. "However, most TV
reports were edited so as to avoid showing Artur Baghdasarian. This
is straightforward censorship."

A recent US State Department report summed this up, "The authorities
continu[e] to maintain tight control over the state-owned Armenian
Public Television and virtually all private channels, which are owned
by businesspeople loyal to [Armenian president Robert] Kocharian and
rarely air reports critical of his administration. Their reporters
are believed to operate under editorial censorship."

Television professionals say much of the pressure on them is
informal and comes either directly from politicians or via the
presidentially-appointed national television and radio commission.

Gegham Manukian, a member of parliament and consultant with
Yerkir-Media television, said broadcasting bosses are invited now and
then for informal meetings or dinners in the presidential residence.

"These are not meetings in the strict sense of the word, no
instructions are given," he said. "Actually, it is up to the leader
himself to decide whether he will do this or that. Naturally, this
will have an effect. But sometimes useful and important issues are
also discussed there."

Armenia has 61 television stations, of which 17 are in Yerevan. Many
of them focus on children’s programming, culture or music. Several,
such as ALM or Kentron TV, which now occupies the frequency once held
by A1 +, are owned by wealthy businessmen.

Shamiram Aghabekian, deputy chairman of Armenia’s national television
and radio commission, agreed to be interviewed by IWPR only on the
condition that what she said was understood as her personal opinion.

She conceded that television exercised self-censorship, but said this
was normal.

"The owners of our TV companies are mostly very rich people –
oligarchs," she said. "They see that the authorities have created
favourable conditions for them to do business, and, naturally, they
don’t want a change of government. The current government suits the
owners of television stations perfectly."

Regional television channels are more vulnerable targets for the
authorities because of their poor finances.

"We receive threats very frequently," said the head of one regional
station, who asked to be identified by the changed name, Baghdasar.

Regional television bosses say that Grigor Amalian, the chairman of
the national television and radio commission, told them recently that
they should rebroadcast the programmes of Kentron TV, which is owned
by people associated with Armenia’s leading oligarch Gagik Tsarukian.

"Amalian said that he would not object to seeing Kentron TV broadcast
in the regions and that they were ready to pay for this," said
Bagdasar. "We thought about it and asked for a very big price. They
haven’t yet got back to us."

Manukian said that money is a crucial part of the picture, as rich
Armenians are able to buy up favourable airtime.

For example, in the last two months, most Armenian television
channels broadcast a series of reports about a businessmen involved
in politics, who was distributing seed potatoes and organising free
medical consultation services in villages. The reports had the look
of being paid advertising.

Journalist Tigran Paskevichyan said the convergence of commercial
and political interests on Armenian television was having a corrosive
effect.

"Who would pay money [to a television channel] and say, ‘Say what you
want about poverty and the catastrophic situation in the regions of
Armenia’? No one of course," he said.

Gegham Vardanian is a reporter for Internews in Yerevan.

Metallurgical Production Grows 5.4% In Armenia In January-October 20

METALLURGICAL PRODUCTION GROWS 5.4% IN ARMENIA IN JANUARY-OCTOBER 2006 ON SAME PERIOD OF LAST YEAR

Noyan Tapan
Dec 06 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 6, NOYAN TAPAN. In January-October 2006,
metallurgical production made 92 bln 412.3 mln drams in Armenia,
exceeding by 5.4% the respective index of last year. According to the
RA National Statistical Service, metal ores of 90 bln 631.9 mln drams
were extracted in January-October of this year, or by 4.4% more than
the respective index of 2005, while the same indices with respect to
finished metal production made 7 bln 933.7 mln drams and 37.8%. In
January-October 2006, out of the main products of metallurgical
industry, production of molybdenum concentrate grew by 40.4%,
that of copper in copper concentrate – by 10%, while production
of ferromolybdenum and convertor copper declined by 12% and 8.6%
respectively on the same period of last year.

Youth Party To Nominate 41 Candidiates On Majority List

YOUTH PARTY TO NOMINATE 41 CANDIDATES ON MAJORITY LIST

Panorama.am
15:59 05/12/06

The Youth party will propose exactly 41 candidates on a majority list
in all 41 election centers during the upcoming parliamentary elections
in Armenia. This is the first political decision of the party with
ten years of time record which will be followed by a decision to
participate on a proportional list, too.

The information was released by Vahan Babayan, vice chairman of
the party.

Babayan believes the parliamentary elections will be fair because
he says the political awareness of the public is high. In case the
elections are fair, the vice chairman believes all 41 candidates of
Youth party will win the elections.

"We believe exclusive opportunities are created for the youth now –
to participate in the governance through elections and to implement
program provisions," a statement released by Youth party says.

Sargis Zakaryan, another vice chairman of Youth party, says that
everybody in the parliament is ill with "leader mania." He promised
to show the right way to work.

Speaking about forming alliances, Babayan said any cooperation with
opposition that combats for posts in government" is excluded. "We
are ready to cooperate with those forces who are concerned with the
creation and establishment of a healthy state," he said.

Valeri Mkrtumian Appointed RA Consul General To Sao Paulo

VALERI MKRTUMIAN APPOINTED RA CONSUL GENERAL TO SAO PAULO

Noyan Tapan
Dec 05 2006

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 5, NOYAN TAPAN. By the RA Foreign Minister’s decree,
Valeri Mkrtumian was appointed the RA Consul General to the city of Sao
Paulo, Brazil, starting from December 1. According to the information
submitted to Noyan Tapan by the RA Foreign Ministry’s Press and
Information Department, V.Mkrtumian was born in 1948, in Dresden,
Germany. He graduated from the English Language Department of the
Romanic-German Faculty of the Yerevan State Institute of Foreign
Languages after V.Brusov in 1971, and from the Two-year highest
courses of the Moscow Institute of Foreign Languages after M.Torez,
getting the senior lecturer’s title. V.Mkrtumian has been in the RA
Foreign Ministry’s system since 1992. He occupied posts of the Europe
Department and America Department Chief, was the Foreign Ministry’s
Deputy Secretary General. He worked as the RA Charge d’Affaires to
Canada in 1999-2000, and was the RA Consul General to Los Angeles
in 2000-2003. He was elected the Deputy Chairman of the UN Committee
for Programme and Coordination in 2004. He has occupied the post of
the Foreign Ministry’s International Organizations Department Chief
since 2003. V.Mkrtumian was conferred the diplomatic level of the RA
Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in 2001.

Misunderstanding Islam II: In Defense Of Pope Benedict XVI

MISUNDERSTANDING ISLAM II: IN DEFENSE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
Written by Gregory Borse

ChronWatch, CA
Dec 3 2006

Pope Benedict XVI has just returned from an historic visit to Turkey
and some find his trip remarkable more for what it was not rather
than for what it was: namely, a Christian challenge to Islam.

One example of criticism of the Pope’s visit is from the opinion
section of ABC News International. (I employ it here not because it
is exemplary, but because I think it typical).

In an article entitled "Pope’s Silence on Armenian Genocide Shameful",
Attorney Mark Geragos takes the Pontiff to task for his failure to
call attention to the many shortcomings of the Turkish government,
especially in regards to its refusal to admit to the Turkish sponsored
genocide of Armenians in 1915. Mr. Geragos, who is of Armenian descent,
is to be sympathized with-he is a board-member of the "All-Armenian
Fund," an organization dedicated to raising money in support of
substantial infrastructure improvement in Armenia.

Still, his article is perhaps representative of a type-open
criticism of a Christian leader in a post 9/11 world is less risky
than open criticism of Muslim sponsored terrorism, whether emanating
(historically) from Turkey or (presently) from Iran, Syria, or anywhere
else . . . just ask Salman Rushdie, or the family members of murdered
film maker Theo Van Gogh, or the cartoonists who offended Islam in
the Netherlands, or, for that matter, Pope Benedict himself, whose
remarks at Regensburg University in Germany last September caused such
controversy in the Muslim world and led to the murder of a Catholic
nun in Africa, prompting the would-be assassin of his predecessor,
John Paul the Great, to write a letter warning the present Pontiff
not to travel to Turkey . . .

Mr. Geragos’ opening salvo is to criticize Pope Benedict’s "ill
advised" remarks about the "legacy of Mohammed," in his speech
made at the University of Regensburg. Then, Benedict quoted what
Christopher Orlet called "the antepenultimate emperor of the
Byzantine Empire," the now little known Manuel II Paleologus (go
here: 368). At
the time, Paleologus was traveling 14th century Europe trying to
convince the Western and Eastern Christian Empires to set aside
their differences long enough to repel the Muslim threat against
Constantinople. Paleologus failed, Constantinople fell, and, as
Orlet writes, the "Roman-Byzantine Empire. . . disappear[ed] from
the earth forever."

The comments made by Benedict about Islam and jihad that so offended
Muslims-and apparently Geragos-were widely quoted: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only
evil and inhuman . . ."

But here is the context for the above from Benedict’s actual speech:

"In the seventh conversation
(διά&# 955;εξις – controversy)
edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of
the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads:
‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ According to some of the experts,
this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed
was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor
also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the
Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as
the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the ‘Book’
and the ‘infidels,’ he addresses his interlocutor with a startling
brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central
question about the relationship between religion and violence in
general, saying: ‘Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new,
and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his
command to spread by the sword the faith he preached’. . . The
emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on
to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through
violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with
the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘God,’ he says, ‘is not
pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν
&#95 5;όγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born
of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs
the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence
and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a
strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening
a person with death…’" (emphasis added).

(Go here for a translation of the Pope’s entire speech:
tml?sid=94748)

First, it must be understood that the Pope’s remarks are directed not
at Muslims specifically, but at members of the scientific community at
Regensburg University and his topic is not jihad or even violence in
the spreading of any religious faith, but the notion of the splitting
off of reason from faith (and the reverse) in our understanding not
only of religion or science, but of civilization, politics, society,
culture, and human nature. Benedict recognizes that Peleologus faced
a similar dilemma as we face today: he too lived in a world in which
two essential qualities of the human soul were increasingly at odds
with each other-reason and faith. That Benedict made his remarks to the
scientific community of a German University is telling, as it implies
that Europe’s current problems are rooted in the deep antagonism
that secular-humanist reason has especially toward the specifically
Christian faith upon which European civilization was built. But an
important and related corollary for the post 9/11 Western world is
the deeply antagonistic attitude that a radical interpretation of
Islamic faith has of reason of any kind. And Benedict seems not to
have chosen his words by accident.

In a world in which people who have abandoned faith in favor of reason
are pitted against people who have abandoned reason in favor of faith,
disaster lurks.

Hence, to call Benedict’s comments "ill-advised" is simply to
betray a deep ignorance. Benedict’s remarks are the antithesis of
ill-advised-they are quite carefully considered, crafted, precise,
and deliberate-nuanced even. They imply that Europe today faces a
double enemy-one within and one without. And Europe’s denial of the
enemy within (the insistence upon a false dichotomy between reason
and faith) is precisely the weakness that invites the enemy without
(which operates according to a false dichotomy that pits faith against
reason). In this sense, Benedict is a kind of Winston Churchill on
the eve of World War II-warning Europe that it is on the verge of a
disaster, not only because it cannot and will not recognize the enemy
that openly defies it at every turn, but also because it refuses to
assess appropriately those weaknesses of its own character that may
well prove to be suicidal.

To be fair, Geragos’ real concern, something he credits "more
discerning" members of the European Union for being able to recognize,
is "Turkey’s ongoing legacy of intolerance and oppression." Such
a statement, however, in an article that uses the War in Iraq as a
framing device to imply that any success by that measure is actually
failure, is rather astonishing. Turkey, among Muslim nations,
is a model of moderation-from a Western, and especially American,
point of view. And yet, if Geragos is to be believed (and I have
no reason to doubt any facts Geragos offers about life in Turkey
for its non-Muslim minorities), Turkey ought not to be admitted to
the European Union until it "adopt[s] something other than medieval
standards of justice." Geragos’ clear implication is that the Pope,
as a leader of the Christian world, has missed a real opportunity
to instruct the Muslims in Turkey regarding lessons important to
their civilization and, perhaps more significantly, about joining
ours. This assumes, of course, that the European civilizational model
is superior to Turkey’s and that they ought to want to join Europe,
rather than desire to make the EU like them . .

.a stance that is, Mr. Geragos might be interested to know,
antithetical to the prevailing liberal view (according to which all
cultures are equally valid, including Turkey’s–even when it sponsors
Armenian genocide).

But did Benedict actually miss the opportunity presented to him by
his being received in Turkey?

Perhaps a look at some of Benedict’s own words would be
enlightening. Here is part of what he said to the President of the
Religious Affairs Directorate in Turkey:

"For more than forty years, the teaching of the Second Vatican Council
has inspired and guided the approach taken by the Holy See and by local
Churches throughout the world to relations with the followers of other
religions. Following the Biblical tradition, the Council teaches that
the entire human race shares a common origin and a common destiny:
God, our Creator and the goal of our earthly pilgrimage. Christians
and Muslims belong to the family of those who believe in the one
God and who, according to their respective traditions, trace their
ancestry to Abraham (cf. Second Vatican Council, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate 1,
3). This human and spiritual unity in our origins and our destiny
impels us to seek a common path as we play our part in the quest for
fundamental values so characteristic of the people of our time. As men
and women of religion, we are challenged by the widespread longing
for justice, development, solidarity, freedom, security, peace,
defense of life, protection of the environment and of the resources
of the earth. This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate
autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer
in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions.

Above all, we can offer a credible response to the question which
emerges clearly from today’s society, even if it is often brushed
aside, the question about the meaning and purpose of life, for
each individual and for humanity as a whole. We are called to work
together, so as to help society to open itself to the transcendent,
giving Almighty God his rightful place. The best way forward is
via authentic dialogue between Christians and Muslims, based on
truth and inspired by a sincere wish to know one another better,
respecting differences and recognizing what we have in common. This
will lead to an authentic respect for the responsible choices that
each person makes, especially those pertaining to fundamental values
and to personal religious convictions" (emphasis added).

These words are significant given that they were delivered to an
almost entirely Muslim audience. For, they deny some fundamental
Muslim realities. First and foremost, they seek to lay as common
ground between Christians and Muslims that we share a belief in "one
God." But, the Muslim faith denies the Holy Trinity-and, more to the
point, counts Christians as infidels precisely for their expressed
belief in "one God in Three Persons-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

According to Islam, this makes Christians idolators and pagans. But is
this a mistake on Benedict’s part? Perhaps it is an indication that one
of the world’s leading Christian theologians is not very well versed
in the Islamic faith. It would be naïve to believe that to be the
case. Pope Benedict is quite well aware of the differences between
Christianity’s understanding of God and Islam’s. His deliberately
quoting that bit about the 14th century Paleologus’ dialogue with a
"learned Persian" proves it. And yet, in a pilgrimage to Turkey-on
a trip that he was warned not to take in a letter from the would-be
assassin of his predecessor, John Paul the Great-a land rich in
Christian history (Benedict said Mass in Ephesus, honored by both
Muslims and Christians as the home if not the final resting place
of the Virgin Mother), he makes these remarks. They are not a
mistake. They are a challenge.

Then Cardinal Ratzinger chose his name, upon his election as
Pontiff, deliberately-pointing to two other Benedicts, especially,
as foundations for his present pontificate. He explained his choice
of name this way:

"Filled with sentiments of awe and thanksgiving, I wish to speak
of why I chose the name Benedict. Firstly, I remember Pope Benedict
XV, that courageous prophet of peace, who guided the Church through
turbulent times of war. In his footsteps I place my ministry in the
service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples. Additionally,
I recall Saint Benedict of Nursia, co-patron of Europe, whose life
evokes the Christian roots of Europe. I ask him to help us all
to hold firm to the centrality of Christ in our Christian life:
May Christ always take first place in our thoughts and actions"
(go here for quote: ).

So, his name evokes two dedicated to Europe-one in "turbulent times
of war" and the other the "co-patron" of Europe, "whose life evokes
the Christian roots of Europe." Significantly, St. Benedict, founder
of the Benedictine Order and of Western Monasticism, is the principal
model in Europe for Christian life as a balance between prayer and
work-in other words, between our concerns for our relations with the
divine and for our relations with our fellow man. The implication is
clear-we must care for both if we are to be whole-as individuals and
as culture-bearers.

It is those Christian roots that are, at present, under attack-not
only in Europe, but in the West. And this Pope has assumed his role
as a Christian leader in a time that requires someone able to see the
forest, as it were, despite the trees. In an age that plays witness
to the ramifications of the war between reason and faith, Benedict
has stepped forth to speak directly to the consequences of such an
artificial-and potentially fatal-bifurcation of the very nature of
man. He makes such comments in the breach. He does so, now, directly
(as at Regensburg) and indirectly, as in Turkey.

And, for such a one, there will be nothing but persecution-from those
within the Europe whose very nature he wishes to preserve and from
those without, members of the Islamic faith, to whom he offers the
olive branch of peace, and an invitation to a coexistence in the
mutual recognition of not merely a common humanity, but a common
humanity rooted in the Divine.

Perhaps the fact that his gestures are being rejected by both parties
is a sign that he is right.

Related: "Misunderstanding Islam" by Gregory Borse
play.asp?aid=23917&catcode=13

–Boundary_(ID_ Z550TtsHZXwhw82+MOK+OQ)–

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.ph
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_benedict_XVI
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDis