In the struggle against Islamo fascism, it’s lead, follow, or get out of the way.

“It’s Deja-vu all over again,” the great Yankee catcher and 20th-century philosopher Yogi Berra is purported to have said.  This is my second-favorite Yogism, topped only by, “We may be lost, but we’re making good time.”

Taken together, these two observations are a perfect reflection of the self-imposed mess we find the world in today.  It’s the 1930s all over again.  A corrupt, evil philosophy is threatening to plunge the world into chaos.  Rather than face down the bad guys and put them in their place, the world prefers to look the other way and pretend everything is fundamentally okay.  When someone actually does something to stop the bad guys, they are condemned for violating international standards, while the fascists merit hardly a word of rebuke.

I don’t expect the feckless French, or socialist Spaniards, or self-doubting Italians, or self-serving Russians and Chinese, or the morally corrupt Cubans, Egyptians, Syrians or other such nations to condemn the rise of Islamo-fascism.  In fact, I expect the exact opposite.  It’s to their benefit to see the hatred of the world focused on the United States and its principal ally Great Britain, rather than on a true, unmistakable expression of evil.  Our “loss” is these nations’ gain, even though it may be a temporary one. 

Besides, everyone knows that Bush is an out-of-control illegitimate president who takes his marching orders directly from God, and this is wrong — unlike the president of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who I presume, er, was democratically elected in a fair contest, who acts and speaks in a highly responsible manner, and doesn’t have any interest in, communication with, or desire to act on behalf of the God of his religion.

None of this short-sightedness and double standard evaluation is unexpected.  Travel to Europe and listen to CNN International, the BBC, or read the overseas editions of Newsweek and Time, and you won’t even recognize this country from the coverage it receives. 

I’d like to think these news sources are just a more sophisticated version of The Globe that routinely “discovers” three-headed babies or B-25 bombers sitting on the moon.  These editors no more believe their stories than I do, but it helps sell papers when pornography laws limit the other theoretical options they have to increase circulation.  However, the parallel isn’t exact, because there’s this annoying tendency to keep hearing Democrat Party leaders and former Democrat presidents traveling overseas reinforce Bush-Big Oil conspiracy theories, and gleefully add to the blame-the-US mantra.  You can’t expect a foreign observer to automatically see through these statements and recognize the blatant self-serving politics for what it is.  When your focus is on regaining power, and you’ll say or do just about anything to achieve that objective, you’ll gladly lend your name to this or any other The Globe story if it furthers your political objectives.

Besides, the reasoning goes, once you’re back in office you can fix any problems you caused, so no harm/no fowl.  This presumes, of course, that the people killed or lives destroyed by the spread of Islamo-fascism you aided through your politically-motivated decisions are kept to an acceptable level, so your reputation isn’t too badly tarnished.  But then again, a Democrat administration can let Africans starve without risking one-tenth the condemnation that a Republican administration receives for “causing” gas prices to rise ten cents a gallon.  So the risk is manageable — as long as we look to CBS, Reuters, the New York Times and the United Nations to define our morality.  

In the world of national or international politics, the focus is always on what benefits you can gain today, and sacrifices you can avoid today.  Rarely does a politician or national leader look at what actions can be taken in 2006 that will make their country or the world a better place in 2016.  Western-government politicians need to get re-elected, and dictators need to keep the army happy.  Neither objective lends itself to long-term thinking, which makes Bush and Blair exceptional men — for all the right reasons.

And to this small group I was prepared to add that reactionary, hard-line, no-nonsense pope (as characterized by the media) who succeeded John Paul II.  If JPII had no qualms about taking on Godless communism, surely Pope Benedict XVI will forcefully, and unmistakably, speak out against the evils of Islamo-fascism.  Condemning these people no more insults the true followers of Allah than condemning David Koresh of Janet Reno Waco fame insults the true followers of Jesus Christ.

The pope’s call for peace in the Israeli/Hamas/”Hezabaloo” (to quote Charles Rangel) conflict of a few weeks back told me nothing of real substance.  Men of peace always prefer peace over war.  JPII didn’t support nuking Moscow, and no one doubted where he stood on the issue of good vs. evil.  So I simply chalked Benedict’s pleas for peace up to a good PR campaign for the new pope who was still getting his international sea legs down as he tip-toed onto the world stage.

I was further encouraged when I heard that Benedict finally made a public address concerning the misguided assumptions of radical Islam.  A pope is not required to speak out about international affairs, since his main purpose is to make the means of salvation available to humanity through the guidance of the Catholic Church.  (Lest my observation here be misinterpreted as a plea by me, a Catholic, for the world to convert to Catholicism in order to be “saved,” if you’ve read my other works you’ll know that I don’t hold the view that only those who believe in Jesus go to heaven.  I simply offer this as an obvious statement of fact about how the Catholic Church, and its earthly leader the pope, views its mission.)

The fact that a pope chooses to speak out about an example of real world evil, as JPII did with communism, means that the leader of the Catholic Church has seen enough of a connection here to give us some practical, real-world guidance.  That is a significant step.  Tepid though they were, Benedict’s words were a good start to lay the proper moral foundation for further words and actions along these lines.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read . . . of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

In the seventh conversation . . . the emperor touches on the theme of the 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 on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad 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 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."

So what happened next? 

The bad guys objected to being called bad, and convinced enough people who didn’t care to understand what was actually said that their beliefs were insulted.  The pope was portrayed as an unthinking, uncaring, reactionary boob, a sort of out-of-control pontiff who needed to be reigned in and apologize for his mean-spirited religious slur.  (Now where have I seen this template before?  Oh yes, now I remember!  Please everyone, I am in no way drawing a parallel between how George Bush is treated by the mainstream media and their Democrat allies, and how the pope is treated by the international media and their Islamo-fascists allies.  Never once crossed my mind.  Honest.  Really!)

Unlike that other mean-spirited, out-of-control Christian George Bush who routinely ignores such self-serving criticism and goes about the business of fighting evil, the leader of the Catholic Church immediately fell on his metaphorical sword.  According to the 9/17/06 Chicago Sun-Times, Pope Benedict XVI said that he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his recent remarks about Islam, which he said came from a text that didn't reflect his personal opinion. "These (words) were in fact a quotation from a Medieval text which do not in any way express my personal thought."

So I guess God is pleased by blood after all?  And faith is born of the body and not the soul?  And violence and threats are a legitimate way to have the “sincere and frank dialogue” the pope wanted on this subject?

This is what happens when religious leaders of any faith decide to "dabble" in world affairs.  It’s what happens when you rationalize-away a confrontation with evil, instead of welcoming the opportunity to defeat it through appropriate means. 

Benedict said nothing wrong.  The Islamo-fascists contend that he did, and Benedict apologized to the fascists.  This is a concession to evil, and will do nothing to stem the violence of Islamo-fascism.  Rather, it has emboldened these forces.  Churches are still being burned throughout the Middle East despite the “apology” from the pope.

Benedict should have reiterated his statement, not apologized.  Or, he shouldn’t have said anything at all about Islamo-fascism (however “academic”) in the first place.  He put his toe in the political water by engaging in the discussion, then pulled back at first criticism.  This makes him and the Church look weak morally, and strengthens the underlying base of radical Islam. 

If the leader of the Catholic Church actively seeks the forgiveness of radical Islamic fascists for calling them, in effect, radical Islamic fascists, then he has done nothing but further screw up the international fight against Islamo-fascism more than it already is. He has helped strengthen the power and influence of radical Islam, and has actually made it easier now for Islamo-fascists to pursue their goals.  The pope should be leading the charge against Islamo-fascism.  Or, he should just stay out of this issue all together and not comment on Islam, the Middle East conflict, or any other facet of this issue.  There is no half-way measure he can take on such a fundamentally-important issue.

As both a Catholic, and an American, I’m greatly disappointed in the new pope’s political stupidity and outward lack of moral courage.  John Paul II stood up to Communism, while Benedict XVI apologizes to Islamo-fascism.  The world is headed toward a confrontation that could be avoided, just as WWII could have been stopped in the 1930s if Hitler had been challenged instead of appeased.  The rise of Islamo-fascism is being aided, not diminished, by such politically naïve and misguided actions.

It is déjà vu all over again.  And unfortunately, while we (that is, the world in general) may be “lost,” like Yogi said, “we’re making good time.”