The first conference on Islam, with the participation of Islamic and non-Islamic exponents, ended recently in Berlin: at the same time the lady director of the Opera House in Berlin has decided to cancel a planned performance of Mozart’s Idomeneo as a precautionary measure, to avoid possible fundamentalist reactions (the prophet Mahomet would also have appeared in the opera). Commenting on the conference in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (28/9), Wolfgang Günter Lerch writes: “ If the integration of people coming from a different world from a religious and cultural point of view, such as Islam, is to become something more than a mere formula, the dialogue now undertaken must be pursued, with sincerity and without silences or dissimulations dictated by tactical motives or by the ethics of conviction”. Commenting on the affair of the cancelled opera in the Frankfurter Rundschau (27/9), Knut Pries observes: “…It is undoubtedly the task of the custodians of Western values, normally vigilant, to defend these values with the weapons of intellectual clarity and determination. Recently, this did not happen, when the Pope took the unheard-of liberty of donning the role of the theologian and not having eliminated beforehand any possible distortion of his words with the necessary appeasement. The President of the European Commission is right: the support offered to Benedict in this clash was poor. But whoever wants his Idomeneo must defend his Benedict. Whatever one thinks of religion – expression of the freedom of the spirit that does not tolerate being exploited -, it is on the same plane as art and science and deserves the support of all enlightened people. This support will only have success once the head of the Islamic Council in Germany criticises – instead of praises – the cancellation of the performance of an opera “for reasons of sensibility”. “The irrational reactions to Benedict XVI’s lecture” in Regensburg prove “ that it is urgently necessary to open a dialogue with Arab intellectuals” observes Serge Vinçon in the French Catholic daily LA CROIX (27/9). What is needed, he says, is “to combat the fanatics who reject any thought different from their own and vehemently support efforts to secure a new Arab revival”. “For decades – continues the comment in the French paper – American policy has opposed Arab nationalism, with its more progressive tendencies, supporting instead the more conservative factions of Islam” with the consequence that “the moderates have vanished from the political, social and intellectual scene and the more radical Muslims have never ceased to prosper. This vicious circle needs to be broken”. The announcement broadcast on 27 September of an imminent message of the number two of al-Qaeida, al-Zawahiri, on Benedict XVI, “ sufficient to cause a frenzy of international media speculation”, is commented on by Andrea Lavazza in an editorial in the Italian Catholic daily AVVENIRE (28/9) under the title “If TV does not stop being incendiary”. In Lavazza’s view, “the news arriving via satellite or via Internet” does not “require concentration ” and stimulates “ the less reflective faculties”. Recalling the facility with which information is distorted “with a strong influence on public opinion” , as recently happened with “the last discourse of Benedict XVI at Regensburg”, the editorialist warns the mass media and urges them to show “a supplement of prudence”. “How can we fail to foresee that an offensive or even threatening message addressed at the highest Christian religious authority would inevitably foment other discord, if not acts of intolerance? What’s at stake in dialogue between the cultures today is also being played out at the level of communication. Those who control it with the aim of manipulating instead of informing may cause fires difficult to put out”. A downplaying of the fears of British citizens about the possible repercussions on the United Kingdom of the go-ahead given by the European Commission on 26 September to the entry of Romania and Bulgaria into the EU on 1st January 2007 is commented on by an editorial in the British daily THE GUARDIAN (26/9). “The headlines in the tabloids, seized by panic” in recent days “due to the hordes of Romanians and Bulgarians that would invade Great Britain after their entry into the EU at the start of next year”, seem exaggerated, observes Colenzo Jarrett-Thorpe. In fact, “the Romanian government predicts that some 350,000 people would seek work in the EU but, contrary to what public opinion believes, Great Britain is not for them the first country of destination“, but, at most , “the fourth or fifth” after “Spain, Italy, France and Germany”. “Why is England not so popular?” asks Jarrett. Apart from reasons of language ( the Romanians are Latins, not Slavs) there is a “cultural distinction”. According to the journalist, “ with a typically Latin attitude, the Romanians attach far more importance to the family than to work. They believe, therefore, that they have less chance of integrating themselves and being accepted with warmth” in the UK, and this goes not only for “fruit-pickers”, but also for “ highly qualified persons”.
