Quoting hatred is still hatred

During a speech in September, Pope Benedict XVI managed to insult and belittle an entire… During a speech in September, Pope Benedict XVI managed to insult and belittle an entire religion. By saying that Islam is a religion based on violence and that it is “spread by the sword,” bringing only “evil and inhuman” things to the world, the Pope not only upset millions of Muslims, but also helped to perpetuate the stereotype of radical Islamists, vindicating the millions of people worldwide who fear and despise Muslims.

Once critics began to yell at the Pope for sounding suspiciously like a bigot, he pulled out his trump card. Those words weren’t his; they belonged to Manuel II Palelogos, an ancient Byzantine emperor. Yelling at the Pope for something a dead guy said thousands of years ago is just plain silly. The Pope couldn’t be pinned down with any harsh criticisms or be heralded as a bigot since he was only using the words of someone else.

Funny though, during his entire speech, he never once mentioned the emperor or gave him any credit.

It seems that Pope Benedict — despite making himself the enemy of Muslims everywhere — still inspired Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilali, the top Muslim cleric of Australia.

Al-Hilali wanted to make a statement about the current debate on the use of veils by Muslim women. He likes the idea of veils, so he referred to all deviant unveiled women as “uncovered meat.” Al-Hilali went on to condone the rape of any uncovered woman, saying that it’s the fault of the “uncovered meat” for attracting cats. If only the woman had been “in her room, in her home, in her hijab,” rape would never happen to her.

In a response similar to that of Pope Benedict’s speech, rabble rousers began to voice their disgust at al-Hilali’s sexist speech. Al-Hilali, however, was prepared. He learned well the Pope’s controversy, and when people began to call for his resignation and an apology, al-Hilali had the perfect excuse ready. He was merely quoting someone else — though he refrained from naming the source — and since they weren’t really his words he couldn’t be held responsible for their impact.

Once again, however, during his original speech al-Hilali made no mention of the fact that he was bringing in someone else’s viewpoint and presented the words as though they were his own. It was only after he was criticized that al-Hilali tried to shift the responsibility to another person.

These examples prove that using the words of a fellow bigot, sexist, racist or otherwise prejudiced person allows leaders like popes and clerics to get away with making offensive statements. They are allowed to appear as prejudiced as they please. And as long as they cite their sources, they can claim innocence rather than take responsibility for presenting their followers with bigoted sermons and viewpoints.

Any leader, whether a pope or a president, must be held responsible for everything he preaches to the public, even if he is using words that are not his own. Admitting that they were not the creators of prejudiced phrases should not grant leaders immunity from criticism or any repercussions that follow their speech.

Furthermore, apologizing by saying that they didn’t realize calling all Muslims violent or all unveiled women meat was offensive is also not enough. When we believe their excuses and let them get away with being prejudiced, it only opens the door for other leaders who want to merely “quote” bigots.

The ideas that Islam is spread through violence and that any woman without a veil is simply asking for it may not have originated with Pope Benedict or Sheik al-Hilali. But these religious leaders agreed with those ideas, and it was only after people began to vilify them for their speeches that the two began mentioning that they were just quoting someone else.

Considering that the Pope is quoting an ancient emperor and al-Hilali won’t even mention his source, neither of them is making a good argument for having only reiterated what some before them said. Before their respective controversies, both men presented the words as their own. And by choosing to use those quotations in their speeches, they are admitting that they agree with the original speaker. Any apology afterwards is merely an attempt at damage control and trying to soothe the angered public.

When I think Christians, I think pope, and the same applies to Muslims and clerics. Pope Benedict’s and al-Hilali’s outrageous statements only serve to tarnish the image of their own religions. These two religious leaders have the power to show the world the good sides of their religions that are often ignored, but instead their speeches have now only caused more people in the world to view Muslims as sexist and Christians as bigoted.

But then again, they were just quoting someone else.

Shannon’s favorite bigot is Archie Bunker. E-mail her at slb46@pitt.edu.