{"id":219077,"date":"2010-02-09T14:31:00","date_gmt":"2010-02-09T19:31:00","guid":{"rendered":"tag:magazine.nd.edu,2005:News\/14210"},"modified":"2010-02-28T18:09:40","modified_gmt":"2010-02-28T23:09:40","slug":"the-differences-are-similar","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/219077","title":{"rendered":"The Differences Are Similar"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><em>Beware the world\u2019s most threatening religion, a dogmatic, anti-democratic spiritual regime governed by clerical tyrants bent on worldwide domination! Migrants and refugees escaping political repression in their homelands, they cross the ocean determined to exploit the very freedoms they will eventually strive to overturn. Garbed in religious costume to set them apart, these swarthy foreigners huddle in enclaves in our cities and towns.<\/em><\/p>\n<p><em>Bent on undermining our values and transforming our way of life, they swear allegiance to an authoritarian despot who issues religious edicts that govern virtually every aspect of their lives, from how they are to vote to how many children they are required to have. Their treatment of women is especially barbaric. Among their number are many given to violence, embedded in secret underground networks. Despite their apologists\u2019 denials, the mass of believers is sympathetic to the terrorists and shares their basic political orientation. And make no mistake: the new immigrants seek to establish their own schools, seminaries and \u201cprivate\u201d religious institutions, which will serve as safe houses and nurseries of radical religion and revolution.<\/em><\/p>\n<ul id=\"callout\">\n<li>Related article<\/li>\n<li><a href=\"http:\/\/magazine.nd.edu\/news\/14593-muslim-christian-relations-if-not-brothers-good-neighbors\">Muslim-Christian relations: If not brothers, good neighbors<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The reader acquainted with the history of immigration will recognize this rant not as the post-9\/11 script of a right-wing talk show host bashing Islam and Muslims, but as the mantra of 19th century nativists decrying the hordes of Roman Catholics invading New York, Boston, Baltimore and points west.<\/p>\n<p>First came the \u201cunwashed\u201d Irish and, in their wake, the Polish, German, Lithuanian, Slovenian and Italian Catholics who did indeed transform the United States from the 1840s to the 1920s. Throughout this period of intense waves of European migration, the Catholic was the face of the religious \u201cother,\u201d the threatening embodiment of the superstition and mindless submission to authority that had buttressed the monarchies of old Europe, from which the godly had fled.<\/p>\n<p>To the nativists\u2019 way of thinking, America had been created a nation dedicated to anti-Catholicism, that is, to enshrining and protecting the freedoms of religion, thought, speech and assembly which the Bishop of Rome condemned. They could point to many examples of Catholic obscurantism, not least <em>Mirari Vos<\/em> (1832), the encyclical of Gregory <span class=\"caps\">XVI<\/span> \u201con Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism,\u201d which decried \u201cthat harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>In his spellbinding account of the tensions between <em>Catholicism and American Freedom<\/em>, Notre Dame historian John T. McGreevy documents a century\u2019s worth of polemics against Catholics. He quotes a Protestant reaction to Pope Pius IX\u2019s condemnation in 1864 of liberalism, church-state separation, democracy and modern science. \u201cThe comprehensive lesson [of <em>The Syllabus of Errors<\/em> . . . is that Romanism is incompatible with Republican institutions. Like slavery, it is a hostile element lodged within the nation, gnawing and burning it like a caustic.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>The hostility toward Catholics lasted for many generations. In <em>American Freedom and Catholic Power<\/em> (1950), a best-selling screed on the enduring \u201cCatholic problem,\u201d author Paul Blanshard sought to inspire a \u201cresistance movement\u201d to counter \u201cthe antidemocratic social policies of the hierarchy . . . and every intolerant or separatist or un-American feature of those policies.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>His follow-up, <em>Communism, Democracy and Catholic Power<\/em>, defined Soviet Communism and Catholicism as parallel threats to American democracy. Blanshard, McGreevy notes, attacked nuns as belonging to \u201can age when women allegedly enjoyed subjection and reveled in self-abasement\u201d and accused the parochial school of being \u201cthe most important divisive instrument in the life of American children.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3>A common devotion<\/h3>\n<p>Perhaps American Catholics aware of their own history can sympathize with ordinary Muslims today. In their insistence on staying true to their traditional codes of conduct, sexual mores and family structures, despite scorn from religious or secular liberals, some Muslims might remind some Catholics of themselves.<\/p>\n<p>In \u201cclinging\u201d to mosque-going and fasting, prayer five times a day, and enrollment in religious schools, Muslims follow a path trod by generations of American Catholics who accepted the label \u201cdefiant\u201d or \u201csuperstitious\u201d or \u201cun-American,\u201d rather than abandon their religious devotions. And in refusing to repudiate their religious leaders \u2014 even while selectively disobeying, or simply disregarding, certain unpopular or controversial pronouncements \u2014 Muslims worldwide are no less orthodox in practicing Islam than millions of Catholics are in their (selective) obedience to authoritative Church teaching.<\/p>\n<p>In fact, while the tensions between Roman Catholicism and Islam are familiar from the headlines, far less attention has been paid to the convictions, experiences and challenges shared by these two global, monotheistic, mission-centered traditions as they have encountered the modern world. Not least, a scriptural foundation for mutual understanding can be identified in Islam and Catholicism\u2019s common devotion to the God of Abraham, the privileged place in their respective ethical traditions for the prophets of ancient Israel, and the exhortation of both the <em>Qur\u2019an<\/em> and the New Testament to evangelize, or convert, all nations.<\/p>\n<p>More important, perhaps, for addressing today\u2019s hot-button political issues is the fact that the theologically and scripturally informed worldviews of Islam and Catholicism constitute a platform for a robust interfaith dialogue and collaboration on matters of social ethics. Unlike many secular groups, Muslims and Catholics embrace a theological anthropology, that is, a view of the human person as created by and oriented toward God. Moreover, they share the moral conviction that the family, not the supposedly autonomous modern individual, is the fundamental social unit.<\/p>\n<p>From these shared assumptions flow the two traditions\u2019 respective understandings of scriptural imperatives, public responsibility and the \u201ccommon good.\u201d Thus, for example, a profound moral and religious obligation to the poor and dispossessed has shaped both Islam and Roman Catholicism. Each of these ancient traditions has also developed a sophisticated ethics of war and peace. And each has struggled in the modern era with challenges to religious authority and knowledge posed by science, technology and the rise of modern notions of the individual. Likewise, democratic forms of governance, religious pluralism and the modern concept of human rights have confronted these traditions, demanding a response from within.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, it is their confrontation with \u201cmodernity\u201d that provides Catholicism and Islam with a fascinating and potentially historic conversation starter. Unlike Protestant Christians, Roman Catholics share with Muslims a historical memory of the ancient and medieval eras \u2014 and the precedents they set for themselves and others during ages of faith-driven conquest and political-cultural sovereignty.<\/p>\n<p>Drawn inexorably into the ominous, alluring, tradition-eroding global whirlwind known variously as \u201cthe Age of Reason,\u201d \u201cthe Enlightenment\u201d and \u201csecular modernity,\u201d these two religious giants have indeed \u201cclung,\u201d sometimes desperately, to their respective patrimonies. They have been battered and bruised by what the American scholar of Islam Marshall G.S. Hodgson called \u201cthe Great Western Transmutation.\u201d But they have also survived and in some ways thrived.<\/p>\n<p>Unquestionably Catholicism and Islam, both in its major Sunni and Shi\u2019a branches, will play a critical role, separately or together, in determining the fate of the earth in the decades to come. In a time of religious and ethnic violence, deepening poverty for the \u201cbottom billion,\u201d environmental crisis and resource wars, it would seem creative, loving and responsible for Catholics to engage Muslims on many levels.<\/p>\n<p>Is it possible for these traditions to reflect critically together on the challenges of keeping faith in a supposedly secular age? To discern ways of bridging differences and consolidating areas of agreement? To contribute to the debates on integral human development, freedom and responsibility, genetic engineering, the sanctity of human life and other fundamental ethical issues that loom before us?<\/p>\n<h3>The growing fear<\/h3>\n<p>If Catholics are to develop the sympathy for Muslims that would be necessary to make such a project viable, they will have to overcome the formidable social and cultural barriers thrown up by our sensation-saturated media and the reigning politics of division. The murderous suicide attacks of September 11, 2001, unleashed a new round of American nativism, this one directed against \u201cmobilizing\u201d Muslims both here and abroad. Depressingly long is the list of post-9\/11 books, articles, documentaries and blogs, including several published by Catholics, which condemn Islam or Islamism (\u201cpolitical Islam\u201d) in language that could have been lifted from Blanshard.<\/p>\n<p>Conflating Islam the world religion with the sectarian version promoted by a radical violent minority, these popular works feature titles such as <em>American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us, Islam Unveiled<\/em> and <em>Onward, Muslim Soldiers<\/em>. The hysterical and distorted treatments of Islam found in these polemics would make even a self-respecting anti-Catholic blush.<\/p>\n<p>Take, for example, <em>Inside Islam: A Guide for Catholics<\/em>, which announces that while Christianity is a faith built on love and an intimate relationship with the living God, Islam preaches intolerance and unstinting obedience to the command that it be spread \u201cby the word or sword.\u201d The authors \u2014 Daniel Ali, an Iraqi Kurd and ex-Muslim convert to Christianity, and Robert Spencer, the director of Jihad Watch and a one-man cottage industry of anti-Islamic pulp \u2014 claim that Islam is a backward faith that breeds cultural stagnation, the <em>Qur\u2019an<\/em> a theological hodgepodge that has inspired 14 centuries of violence.<\/p>\n<p>Such libels do not seem to bother some Catholic reviewers. James V. Schall, S.J., writing in the <em>Homiletic and Pastoral Review<\/em>, praised the authors for taking seriously \u201cthe need to understand what is wrong with Islam\u2019s concept of the world and its practices.\u201d Unless Catholics do so, he opined, \u201cIslam will win. We vastly underestimate both how it can be attractive and how it uses its financial and military or terrorist power to expand its dominion.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Dominion. Power. Islam. Few Muslims, however, see themselves as members of a global cabal intent on \u2014 or capable of \u2014 achieving world dominion. To the contrary, millions of Muslims in Egypt, Algeria, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan see themselves as powerless pawns and victims of a geopolitical game controlled by non-Muslims \u2014 or by dictators or terrorists masquerading as Muslims.<\/p>\n<p>And yet the fear of \u201cIslamic power\u201d grows daily, in Western societies that feel vulnerable to gradual cultural \u201ctakeover\u201d via immigration, or, more dramatically, by armed subversion. When I arranged to bring the controversial Islamic intellectual, Tariq Ramadan, to Notre Dame as a tenured professor, the reaction revealed a deep insecurity about our ability to withstand the encounter with the religious \u201cother.\u201d French and Swiss journalists called me to ask: Are you an Islamist? No? Well, do you know that this man would make South Bend the capital of global jihad? I stammered something to the effect that if one person can overwhelm a faculty of 800 academics, over half of whom are practicing Roman Catholics, then either our faith must be lukewarm, indeed, or our resolve flimsy.<\/p>\n<p>Some colleagues asked if I was aware that some Islamic countries would not respect my religious freedom, would not embrace me as the religious \u201cother\u201d \u2014 and would never allow Muslims to convert from Islam to Christianity. Yes, I answered, I am aware.<\/p>\n<p>I am also aware of the Second Vatican Council\u2019s \u201cDeclaration on the Relation of the Church and Non-Christian Religions\u201d (<em>Nostra Aetate<\/em>):<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left:1em;\">The church also has a high regard for the Muslims . . . Over the centuries many quarrels and dissension have arisen between Christians and Muslims. The sacred council now pleads with all to forget the past, and urges that a sincere effort be made to achieve mutual understanding; for the benefit of all, let them together preserve and promote peace, liberty, social justice and moral values.<\/p>\n<p>Domers who still regard the Second Vatican Council as an authoritative expression of the Church\u2019s Magisterium might therefore be interested in making \u201ca sincere effort . . . to achieve mutual understanding.\u201d That effort could involve listening to how Muslims respond to the litany of accusations leveled against them and their religion.<\/p>\n<p>To the suspicion that Muslims are inherently violent and inclined toward terrorism, Muslims respond: Stop judging us on the basis of our deviants. Would Christians as a whole wish to be judged on the basis of self-professed Christians who murder abortion doctors \u2014 much less by the deeds of an Adolf Hitler or Timothy McVeigh? (The latter are hardly Christian, but then, some so-called \u201cMuslim terrorists\u201d are hardly Muslim.)<\/p>\n<p>In her book <em>Mecca and Main Street: Muslim Life in America after 9\/11<\/em>, Geneive Abdo reports another typical response to the tendency of some pundits to cluster all Muslims together: We Muslims do not seek a fight with Christians or with Americans: millions of us are Americans! We pay our taxes, observe the laws, raise loving families, and fight and die for the United States. We categorically reject Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and every person who commits acts of terror in the name of Islam.<\/p>\n<p>Indeed, millions of Muslims migrated to the West precisely to escape extremism and violence \u2014 whether practiced by the secular state or a religious group. They believed that America offered them the liberty to practice their faith openly, without penalty or harassment, under laws that respect the right of religious freedom.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, the charge that Muslims seek political domination evokes the following rejoinder. In many places in the world, Muslims are the victims of political domination and state violence. If and when Muslims strike back at their political oppressors, the focus is seldom placed on the provocative political or structural violence practiced by the secular (or religious) state as a matter of policy over many years. Do Muslims have the right to defend themselves against aggression, they ask, or is that only the right of Christians and Jews?<\/p>\n<p>Muslims also acknowledge the serious problems afflicting their global community. Illustrative is the following passage, from an article, \u201cA Time for Introspection,\u201d published shortly after 9\/11 in <em>Q-News<\/em>, a European Muslim magazine:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left:1em;\">Unfortunately, the West does not know what every Muslim scholar knows; that the worst enemies of Islam are from within. The worst of these are the khawaarij [a fanatical early Muslim sect] who delude others by the deeply dyed religious exterior that they project. . . . The Muslims should be aware that despite the khawaarij adherence to certain aspects of Islam, they are extremists of the worst type. Our Prophet said, peace be upon him, \u201cBeware of extremism in your religion.\u201d . . .<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left:1em;\">Our real situation is this: we Muslims have lost a theologically sound understanding of our teaching. Islam has been hijacked by a discourse of anger and the rhetoric of rage. We have allowed for too long our mimbars [pulpits] to become bully pulpits in which people with often recognizable psychopathology use anger \u2014 a very powerful emotion \u2014 to rile Muslims up, only to leave them feeling bitter and spiteful towards people who in the most part are completely unaware of the conditions in the Muslim world, or the oppressive assaults of some Western countries on Muslim peoples.<\/p>\n<h3>Us vs. Them<\/h3>\n<p>What the writer refers to as a \u201chijacking\u201d of his religion \u201cby a discourse of anger and the rhetoric of rage\u201d is a phenomenon that has marked subcultures within Islam and Christianity, as well as Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism, at different points in their respective passages through the modern age. Confronted with a rapidly changing world that has threatened a hallowed way of life, these transnational religions have coped by spinning off modern versions of themselves, designed to contest the supposedly dominant trend, secular modernism (a logic that calls for judging a society\u2019s progress and values without meaningful reference to God or divine revelation).<\/p>\n<p>All of these tactics distort the received religious tradition in one way or another. Religious fundamentalisms imitate the techno-scientific and militaristic tendencies of secular modernity and adopt its instrumental approach to knowledge. Thus, for example, in order to beat back the \u201cgodless\u201d evolutionists, Christian creationists imitate modern science\u2019s emphasis on data and material evidence by trying to \u201cprove\u201d biblical accounts of creation. In doing so, ironically, they reduce the rich religious truths of the Bible to mere scientific formulas \u2014 as if <em>Genesis<\/em> were an edition of <em>Popular Mechanics<\/em>, a \u201chow God did it\u201d manual.<\/p>\n<p>Religious modernisms attempt to wed the \u201cspirit\u201d and \u201cvalues\u201d of the traditional faith to the conclusions of modern science and philosophy. Early modernists like Thomas Jefferson therefore dismissed the New Testament miracle stories as superstition, not science, and transformed Jesus into merely a great ethical teacher with no supernatural powers. The danger in adopting this tactic is that the faith quickly becomes vulnerable to the latest trends in philosophy and science and loses its foundation in time-tested and abiding truths.<\/p>\n<p>Religious traditionalisms tend to idealize the past, identifying too closely certain previous historical adaptations (for example, the Catholic prohibition against having bodies cremated, in respect for the doctrine of the resurrection of the body) with the living tradition \u2014 the ambiguous but vital \u201cargument\u201d about beliefs and practices sustained and developed across generations. Traditionalism confuses an older form with the evolving heart of the faith; the wrong kind of irrelevance is the result.<\/p>\n<p>Catholics and Muslims have invariably fallen into one or more of these patterns. The result has been a hardening of the lines \u2014 an us-versus-them approach, whether liberal-versus-conservative or us-versus-the-world. This is the mentality of the enclave, not the mission.<\/p>\n<h3>Not so thoroughly secular after all<\/h3>\n<p>So Catholics and Muslims also have this in common: they have been tussling for centuries with secular modernity, and the struggle has now reached a decisive moment. That moment is shaped by a new awareness that modern people of faith, whatever their religious tradition, have more in common with one another than they realized. In a world driven in many sectors by people who \u201cdo not take God seriously,\u201d believers stand apart and share with one another a divinely inspired vision of reality.<\/p>\n<p>Moreover, believers share with nonbelievers a concern to address a host of pressing problems threatening basic human security. Whether Christian, Muslim or agnostic, we all struggle to harmonize the incredible technical and material capabilities we now possess \u2014 to produce genetically engineered food, forge economic, spiritual or political alliances that span continents, create previously unimaginable forms of life \u2014 with hard-earned wisdom about the meaning and destiny of the human person. And \u2014 lo and behold! \u2014 the \u201cseculars\u201d are waking up to the fact that they are stuck with us believers (to put it negatively) and that we have a crucial contribution to make to the global debate about the way forward for all humanity. In short, they are realizing, the world is not quite as \u201csecular\u201d as they once imagined.<\/p>\n<p>This situation raises many questions.<\/p>\n<p>How, for example, do Catholics and Muslims perceive and respond, in their different ways, to the modern endorsement and legal inscription of religious freedom as a universal human right? How does each tradition negotiate the tension between freedom of conscience and the historic mission \u201cto convert all nations\u201d?<\/p>\n<p>How do Catholics and Muslims resist, accommodate and transform the mounting challenges to their male-centered structures and practices? They exist, after all, in a world that is increasingly intolerant of gender discrimination and supportive of women\u2019s rights.<\/p>\n<p>What of the internal challenges posed to each tradition by the critical study of scriptures or the shifting locus and stability of religious authority? What has been the impact of the various waves of democratization and \u201cdisestablishment\u201d in states previously legitimated by religious power?<\/p>\n<p>What do Islam and Catholicism, individually or collectively, offer by way of ethical critiques of, or resistance to, secular and scientific definitions of the human person? How do they describe human dignity and human sexuality in light of technical breakthroughs such as stem-cell research, cloning and other forms of genetic engineering? Finally, what might Catholics and Muslims learn from a respectful interrogation of, and dialogue with, other religious and secular ethical traditions that address these complex moral questions?<\/p>\n<h3>A way forward<\/h3>\n<p>To forge a common path forward requires according respect to the religious \u201cother\u201d. This does not mean relaxing claims on religious truth or overlooking the substantive elements of disagreement. Nor does it mean that Islam and Catholicism have pursued or will pursue similar paths in responding to the challenges of secular modernity.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe Catholic <em>aggiornamento<\/em> had the character of an official, relatively uniform, and swift reform from above . . . that could easily be enforced across the Catholic world,\u201d writes the Catholic sociologist Jos\u00e9 Casanova. \u201cIslam, in contrast, lacks centralized institutions and administrative structures to define and enforce official doctrines and, therefore, the ongoing Muslim [adjustments] to modern global realities and predicaments are likely to be plural, with multiple, diverse and often contradictory outcomes.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Genuine hospitality to the other, while respecting differences, nonetheless entails the risk of being transformed by the encounter, even if that transformation is understood as a richer, more compassionate appropriation of one\u2019s own deepest beliefs and convictions. A structured engagement with Muslims and a deeper understanding of Islam\u2019s internal transformations-in-process would provide Catholics with a new window on their own historical journey and contemporary situation within a dynamic global process that is repositioning all the players on the board, not least the major religious traditions.<\/p>\n<p>Is it possible to read the recent stirrings in Muslim-Catholic relations as an opening to a new phase of constructive interaction? Pope Benedict\u2019s controversial remarks in 2006 at Regensburg, Germany, in which he quoted a Byzantine emperor from the 14th century who had disparaged the Prophet Muhammad, caused an international backlash. But the event also made the Church receptive to constructive Muslim responses to the misunderstanding, such as <em>A Common Word Between Us and You<\/em>, an affirmation, issued by 138 Muslim scholars and clerics, of the common ground shared by Muslims and Christians in the profession of the love of God and the love of the neighbor.<\/p>\n<p>These events led to productive conversations, inchoate alliances and, not least, a meeting, hosted by Pope Benedict himself, between 24 Catholic and 24 Muslim scholars and public figures (including Tariq Ramadan).<\/p>\n<p>Such events, building on Catholic-Muslim dialogues already in place, are a beginning. But the future of Catholic relations with Muslims cannot be left to official dialogue and interactions alone. Rather, other sectors of the Catholic community must take initiative, for the sake of the Church and the world.<\/p>\n<p>In this respect Catholic institutions of higher education have a significant contribution to make. The ground-clearing task involves the serious study and deeper understanding of the complex \u201cnegotiations with modernity\u201d conducted by Catholics and Muslims. A coordinated effort is needed, drawing together the best minds in Catholicism and Islam to reason together, compare notes, forge a way forward on issues where common ground and the common good converge \u2014 and, eventually, invite other believers, as well as nonbelievers, into a conversation that could help forge stronger alliances between \u201cthe religious\u201d and \u201cthe secular.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>Notwithstanding their different core religious beliefs, Catholicism and Islam do share common challenges, grievances, and at least some fundamental values. Yet the conversation must not be limited to what Catholics can learn from Muslims and what Muslims can learn from Catholics. (This is true despite the fact that Muslims and Catholics alone account for nearly one-third of the world\u2019s population.) Rather, a pressing question for the 21st century is how individuals, groups, institutions and organizations that define themselves as religious or faith-based can identify and strengthen points of convergence, and work to bridge differences with governments, agencies, institutions and individuals that do not.<\/p>\n<p>Given recent scholarship, as well as events on the ground, it is now possible to contemplate an ongoing and dynamic interaction across various religious and secular traditions. Such collaboration is essential if we are to address economic development, humanitarian assistance, migration and refugee crises, religious and ethnic violence and a host of other challenges facing a rapidly globalizing human community that now clearly merits the name \u201cpost-secular.\u201d<\/p>\n<hr>\n<p><em>R. Scott Appleby is professor of history and the John M. Regan, Jr., Director of the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at Notre Dame. With Patrick Mason he directs a new interdisciplinary research project on Catholic and Muslims in a post-secular age<\/em>.<\/p>\n<hr>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Beware the world\u2019s most threatening religion, a dogmatic, anti-democratic spiritual regime governed by clerical tyrants bent on worldwide domination! Migrants and refugees escaping political repression in their homelands, they cross the ocean determined to exploit the very freedoms they will eventually strive to overturn. Garbed in religious costume to set them apart, these swarthy foreigners [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4248,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-219077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219077","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4248"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=219077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/219077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=219077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=219077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mereja.media\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=219077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}