Why the Pope was right

[topgun12]

According to the times newpaper in the uk...

"There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2362630,00.html

Do you agree with the quote that benny gave?

[Shedinja5000]

Yes. However, said quote would be just as true if he were talking about Christianity. It seems the Pope has never heard of the Crusades...

[atonal chaotic]

So... how come everybody's focusing on what the pope said against Islam, when the majority of that speech was against secularism?

[mirage]

Because no one cares about what he said about secularism and there isn't a global political storm over it?

Just a guess.

[mirage]

William Rees Mogg is a twat.

Whether the Quran is distasteful (it is) or not, the Pope is not the person to air the topic, especially without admission of any problem whatsoever with the Churches track record.

It's the act of a political fuckwit and most unhelpful. People have already died. The topic is discussed the whole damn time anyway and there is no sign now, as there has never been, that the brainwashed morons known as the Muslims are capable of questioning a single aspect of their religion beyond why the entire world has got it in for them.

[Aria]

Why must the Pope do that? How many Imams and Clerics have said similarly terrible thigns in regards to, well, just about everyone else in the entire damn world? Why do they not have to qualify everything they say with things like what you want the pope to do? The Islamic world wants a double standard. Fuck them, all of them.

[Kope]

According to the times newpaper in the uk...

"There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2362630,00.html

Do you agree with the quote that benny gave?

the muslims are killed, raped, tortured in iraq, and who claim to be christians or jews. and yet the pope has said nothing to them even to let them know that he feels their pain.


he has no credibility,the pope was a nazi sympathesizer.

[mirage]

Why must the Pope do that? How many Imams and Clerics have said similarly terrible thigns in regards to, well, just about everyone else in the entire damn world? Why do they not have to qualify everything they say with things like what you want the pope to do? They should and they don't, so they are twats too.

In addition, I frankly expect a little better from the extremely well educated leader of one billion followers. His responsibilities are proportionately greater.

The Islamic world wants a double standard. Fuck them, all of them.Also, not particularly helpful. Yes, many of them do want a double standard. Ironically it is precisely the perceived double standards of "the West" that they feel so pissed about.

[mknomad5]

I read enough of the whole speech to find that it is fairly clear in context, that the intention was to illustrate the nature of radicalist religion in general (which extremist muslims are now engaging in, in various forms of jihad) and that it is not God’s will to force one’s faith on anyone. Of note is that this admonishment is coming from the Catholic church, once a perpetrator of this very thing, forcing faith on people. It seems reasonable to accept in light of this that perhaps the Catholic church has learned this lesson the hard way, and as such, they have some credibility in this admonishment as it amounts to, “do not do as we have done; do not make the same mistakes as we, as in misinterpreting God’s will”.

Are muslims to deny that there exist factions who claim to be representatives of Islam, who employ the concept of forcing their faith on others violently? If not, then here are two reasonable reactions: heed this admonishment and attempt to weed out those who practice spreading of the faith ‘by violent means if necessary’, or accept that violence is an acceptable way to spread the faith in some cases, as the verse in the Koran says. In either case, taking offense in a violent way and expressing extreme anger is quite inappropriate and unreasonable, which, as has been said, is of the same sort of behavior the Pope was warning us against, though not as vehement.

[Jedi Mind Trick]

So... how come everybody's focusing on what the pope said against Islam, when the majority of that speech was against secularism?
So why aren't Atheists out in the street burning effigies of the Pope and calling out a secular fatwa for his death? :Cheeky:

[Malachi151]

Well, first of all, the Bible doesn't have any specific passages that call for the "killing of infidels", the Koran does. Jihad IS a part of the religion, it is deeply ingrained in it, and there are about 10 passages in the Koran that discuss killing, torturing, or otherwise harming people who do not follow the word of Allah, the New Testament does not contain such passages, however one could argue that the OT is similar, it OT doesn't recommending killing other people because they are infidels, it just has god telling his peeps not to mix with others and to kill them to prevent mixing in cases were they happen to conquer others, whereas the Koranic passages are more of a war against everyone just because they aren't Muslim.

As for atheists and defending secularism, yes, we need to be doing that too, but of course....

[Kope]

Are muslims to deny that there exist factions who claim to be representatives of Islam, who employ the concept of forcing their faith on others violently?

do you have any proof to substanitate that?

[Alethias]

So why aren't Atheists out in the street burning effigies of the Pope and calling out a secular fatwa for his death? :Cheeky:If i thought it were possible, I'd prefer to lead him away from hatred than burn him. I would not want to directly impose suffering on him just because he indirectly risks imposing it on others by using his position to support hatred and violence.

He strikes me as insensitive and uncaring. Not the best choice for a popey kinda guy, i think.

Alethias.

[Common_Cents]

The Pope should make sure he isn't running a front for pedos before he goes after the savage hordes.

[Alethias]

The Pope should make sure he isn't running a front for pedos before he goes after the savage hordes.Well-spoken. He should clean his own house before attempting to clean up the world.

Alethias.

[Nialler]

I think a large part of the problem is in the nature of public discourse, and how it normally proceeds. If his wish was to make a point about a faith being propagated at sword-point, then it was appropriate to raise the quote - but only in the context of admitting to the same thing in the RCC's past. It's like recommending to someone not to take drugs: the message is much more powerful if you relate personal experience - in particular, when the person you're addressing knows already that you have taken drugs. Not to do so would be considered an unusual omission, and will lead to questions about it. It also misses out on an opportunity to make a powerful point of the "See this scar on my head? That happened because I thought that I could fly" etc etc.

Benedict referred back to a time when the church's behaviour wasn't above reproach. Ho omitted to mention that in his speech. How much more powerful his message would have been had he said: "But we ourselves were guilty of the same thing. Sadly, we continued in our errors through The Reformation and even into the 20th Century when we were tragically weak when faced with a dreadful expression of religious tyranny. We who have have erred and been so weak see the errors in our thinking and implore all faiths to join us in non-violent expression of our creeds".

[mirage]

^
|
|

Well said.

[spacejunkie]

Well, first of all, the Bible doesn't have any specific passages that call for the "killing of infidels", the Koran does. Jihad IS a part of the religion, it is deeply ingrained in it, and there are about 10 passages in the Koran that discuss killing, torturing, or otherwise harming people who do not follow the word of Allah, the New Testament does not contain such passages, however one could argue that the OT is similar, it OT doesn't recommending killing other people because they are infidels, it just has god telling his peeps not to mix with others and to kill them to prevent mixing in cases were they happen to conquer others, whereas the Koranic passages are more of a war against everyone just because they aren't Muslim.

As for atheists and defending secularism, yes, we need to be doing that too, but of course....

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

If a man still prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall say to him, "You shall not live, because you have spoken a lie in the name of the Lord." When he prophesies, his parents, father and mother, shall thrust him through. (Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other: do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

Suppose a man or woman among you, in one of your towns that the LORD your God is giving you, has done evil in the sight of the LORD your God and has violated the covenant by serving other gods or by worshiping the sun, the moon, or any of the forces of heaven, which I have strictly forbidden. When you hear about it, investigate the matter thoroughly. If it is true that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, then that man or woman must be taken to the gates of the town and stoned to death. (Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)

One day a man who had an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father got into a fight with one of the Israelite men. During the fight, this son of an Israelite woman blasphemed the LORD's name. So the man was brought to Moses for judgment. His mother's name was Shelomith. She was the daughter of Dibri of the tribe of Dan. They put the man in custody until the LORD's will in the matter should become clear. Then the LORD said to Moses, "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death. Say to the people of Israel: Those who blaspheme God will suffer the consequences of their guilt and be punished. Anyone who blasphemes the LORD's name must be stoned to death by the whole community of Israel. Any Israelite or foreigner among you who blasphemes the LORD's name will surely die. (Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)

Suppose there are prophets among you, or those who have dreams about the future, and they promise you signs or miracles, and the predicted signs or miracles take place. If the prophets then say, 'Come, let us worship the gods of foreign nations,' do not listen to them. The LORD your God is testing you to see if you love him with all your heart and soul. Serve only the LORD your God and fear him alone. Obey his commands, listen to his voice, and cling to him. The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death, for they encourage rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of slavery in the land of Egypt. Since they try to keep you from following the LORD your God, you must execute them to remove the evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NLT)

But any prophet who claims to give a message from another god or who falsely claims to speak for me must die.' You may wonder, 'How will we know whether the prophecy is from the LORD or not?' If the prophet predicts something in the LORD's name and it does not happen, the LORD did not give the message. That prophet has spoken on his own and need not be feared. (Deuteronomy 18:20-22 NLT)

Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm


Shall I go on?

[hagiograph]

The scariest part of all of this is that a firestorm is brewing (as there always is) between "faiths". Clearly the Pope must believe that Christianity is superior to Islam and the Imams must believe Islam superior to Christianity.

It can't go any other way. The whole game is set up such that tolerance CAN'T possibly exist. If tolerance exists then one must confess that maybe their faith isn't "right", or worse yet, that maybe God isn't even around to care.

Praise God for giving us such a commonality in His infinite love and mercy!

-h

[chapka]

I think a large part of the problem is in the nature of public discourse, and how it normally proceeds. If his wish was to make a point about a faith being propagated at sword-point, then it was appropriate to raise the quote - but only in the context of admitting to the same thing in the RCC's past.

But, in context, that clearly wasn't his wish. The Pope set up the line as intentionally jarring and made it clear that in his view it was an overgeneralization; he did this not to make a point about Islam but a point about Christianity and about why a specific kind of Christian philosopher rejected the spread of faith through violence. The point Ratzinger was making was that the idea that faith can be defended through reason and debate is central to his idea of Christianity.

Now, I personally think Ratzinger's speech is hypocritical, because it blames the mixing of faith and violence solely on the Reformation while ignoring the--to him--irrational behavior of the princes of the Church in the centuries between Constantine and Luther. But I do think people are overreacting to this one reference in the speech. I strongly suspect that almost none of the people rioting in the streets about this have actually read the speech or know what it was about.

[Nialler]

Their anger, though is because his point is at odds with the historical record. To quote a philsopher who was actually wrong doesn't automatically transfer the burden of error to the original person.

In this case, it can be seen that the original quote ignores the fact that at the time, the aggressors were not Muslims.

[Autonemesis]

OT doesn't recommending killing other people because they are infidels, it just has god telling his peeps not to mix with others and to kill them to prevent mixing in cases were they happen to conquer others, whereas the Koranic passages are more of a war against everyone just because they aren't Muslim.

How is there any significant difference? I see no basis on which to ennoble the OT Jews' reasons for killing non-Jews over any Muslim reasons for killing non-Muslims. Both rationales utterly fail to justify the act.

[Malachi151]

Shall I go on?

Actually, yeah, that would be good :) Looks like Judaism has even more killing in it than I thought (I think think that possible).

It still isn't exactly the same. The Islamic verses are even more directed to others, while the Jewish ones are mostly directed inwardly, but yeah, they both suck.

A world of Abrahamic religions is just not a good place. Why can't people see that these religions have come to dominate specifically because of their violence and imperialism?!?

[Worldtraveller]

I think a large part of the problem is in the nature of public discourse, and how it normally proceeds. If his wish was to make a point about a faith being propagated at sword-point, then it was appropriate to raise the quote - but only in the context of admitting to the same thing in the RCC's past. It's like recommending to someone not to take drugs: the message is much more powerful if you relate personal experience - in particular, when the person you're addressing knows already that you have taken drugs. Not to do so would be considered an unusual omission, and will lead to questions about it. It also misses out on an opportunity to make a powerful point of the "See this scar on my head? That happened because I thought that I could fly" etc etc.

Benedict referred back to a time when the church's behaviour wasn't above reproach. Ho omitted to mention that in his speech. How much more powerful his message would have been had he said: "But we ourselves were guilty of the same thing. Sadly, we continued in our errors through The Reformation and even into the 20th Century when we were tragically weak when faced with a dreadful expression of religious tyranny. We who have have erred and been so weak see the errors in our thinking and implore all faiths to join us in non-violent expression of our creeds".
Umm...Nialler for Pope!?! :D

Or at least, the pope's speech writer.

Cheers,
Lane

[chapka]

Their anger, though is because his point is at odds with the historical record. To quote a philsopher who was actually wrong doesn't automatically transfer the burden of error to the original person.

No; but to quote a philosopher for a particular purpose doesn't necessarily constitute an endorsement, either.

In this case, it can be seen that the original quote ignores the fact that at the time, the aggressors were not Muslims.

I'm not sure exactly what this refers to. In the fourteenth century, I think it's hard to argue that the Ottoman Empire was not one of the aggressors in the territorial battles of southern Europe. And I think it's especially difficult to make that argument considering that the quotation in question was written during the Ottoman siege of Constantinople, which was pretty clearly an aggressive land grab by the Ottomans.

[mirage]

But, in context, that clearly wasn't his wish. The Pope set up the line as intentionally jarring and made it clear that in his view it was an overgeneralization; he did this not to make a point about Islam but a point about Christianity and about why a specific kind of Christian philosopher rejected the spread of faith through violence.I don't see how you get that from the text.

There is no comment of criticism I remember other than he responded to his interlocutors with "surprising brusqueness". And why choose a condemnation of Islam if he was making a point about Christianity?

[chapka]

I don't see how you get that from the text.

There is no comment of criticism I remember other than he responded to his interlocutors with "surprising brusqueness". And why choose a condemnation of Islam if he was making a point about Christianity?

He also pointed out that there were conflicting texts in the Quran and distinctions in the way Christians and Jews were to be treated as opposed to Pagans, which he explicitly stated weren't taken into account by the author (whom he (doubtfully) identifies with Manuel II).

And he was quoting it not as a condemnation of Islam but as a comparison between Islam and what he saw as "hellenized" fourteenth century Christianity. In other words, in Ratzinger's view, "Manuel" so strongly rejected the idea of spreading faith with the sword because the teachings of the Greek philosophers which inhered in the Greek translations of the bible were central to Christian teaching.

[mirage]

He also pointed out that there were conflicting texts in the Quran and distinctions in the way Christians and Jews were to be treated as opposed to Pagans, which he explicitly stated weren't taken into account by the author (whom he (doubtfully) identifies with Manuel II).I don't see how that in any way distances the "Pontiff" from the criticism that Muhammed brought nothing but inhuman things.

What? "There was slightly less vile treatment of Christians and Jews, and by the way, the incorruptible God-dictated book that is the corner of the faith is inconsistent." It hardly tones the implication down to anything remotely acceptable to a Muslim.

And he was quoting it not as a condemnation of Islam but as a comparison between Islam and what he saw as "hellenized" fourteenth century Christianity.A condemnatory comparison. I still don't understand how any of this mitigates the offensive implication.

In other words, in Ratzinger's view, "Manuel" so strongly rejected the idea of spreading faith with the sword because the teachings of the Greek philosophers which inhered in the Greek translations of the bible were central to Christian teaching.
Irrelevant. He was claiming that Mohammed commanded it and what novelty he brought was solely composed of "inhuman things".

What relevance is it to the offensive nature of this statement why he rejected violent conversion?

The Pope did nothing to distance himself from the opinion, and if his intention was to criticise Christianity, or religion in general using violent methods, then his choice of this quote strongly critical of Islam is odd in the extreme.

[spacejunkie]

Actually, yeah, that would be good :) Looks like Judaism has even more killing in it than I thought (I think think that possible).

It still isn't exactly the same. The Islamic verses are even more directed to others, while the Jewish ones are mostly directed inwardly, but yeah, they both suck.

A world of Abrahamic religions is just not a good place. Why can't people see that these religions have come to dominate specifically because of their violence and imperialism?!?

Agreed! :)

I can dig up some more killing of infidels in the Bible if you really want me to but I don't have the time to better the lists at:

http://www.evilbible.com/

and

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm

[chapka]

I don't see how that in any way distances the "Pontiff" from the criticism that Muhammed brought nothing but inhuman things.

Saying that the speaker didn't consider certain mitigating circumstances, and that the statement was outrageous, seem to me to be somewhat distancing.

What? "There was slightly less vile treatment of Christians and Jews, and by the way, the incorruptible God-dictated book that is the corner of the faith is inconsistent." It hardly tones the implication down to anything remotely acceptable to a Muslim.

Nothing the pope says is likely to be "acceptable to a Muslim." Is it really a surprise that the Pope thinks that where the doctrines of Islam and Christianity conflict, Chrisitanity is right and Islam is wrong? Or that the Pope doesn't believe that the Quran is "incorruptible" and "God-dictated"? That's a pretty silly standard to hold people to to prevent offending them.

Regardless, the language above is yours, not Ratzinger's. His point is that the speaker is offended not by the actual bloodshed, but by the idea that God can transcend the classical Greek idea of reason.

Irrelevant. He was claiming that Mohammed commanded it and what novelty he brought was solely composed of "inhuman things".

Who is the "he" in this context? Ratzinger wasn't claiming anything about Islam.

What relevance is it to the offensive nature of this statement why he rejected violent conversion?

It's relevant that Ratzinger was talking about the motivation behind the sentiment and not endorsing the sentiment itself.

The Pope did nothing to distance himself from the opinion, and if his intention was to criticise Christianity, or religion in general using violent methods, then his choice of this quote strongly critical of Islam is odd in the extreme.

Unless of course that quote helped to prove his point. Have you read the actual speech? You seem to think that this quote is somehow the central point, and that the rest of the speech is critical of Islam. It isn't, except insofar as it's critical of non-Catholic religions generally. He's just as harsh about Protestants as he is about Muslims.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Just for the heck of it...
Muslims attempt to silence accusations of violence threatening with violence

Saudi Arabia - Today muslim authorities [...]


That would be a pretty fair headline, don't you think?

[Clivedurdle]

Was the concept of non violence, conscientious objection, Ghandi, Quakerism, Peace News all a dream?

[Monkey Wrench]

Also, not particularly helpful. Yes, many of them do want a double standard. Ironically it is precisely the perceived double standards of "the West" that they feel so pissed about.

Is there anything that doesn't "piss" muslims off ? :rolleyes:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Have you read the actual speech? You seem to think that this quote is somehow the central point, and that the rest of the speech is critical of Islam. It isn't, except insofar as it's critical of non-Catholic religions generally. He's just as harsh about Protestants as he is about Muslims.

Very god point: READ (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html)

I think those muslims who said that (I'm trying not to over-generalize) were/are just picking a fight. The pope is too cunning, has too wide a culture, too good a formal education, such loads of expeirence and knowledgeable people helping him, than to have done an act of pure imprudence.

I don't like the guy, but there are things that would be hard to believe.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Was the concept of non violence, conscientious objection, Ghandi, Quakerism, Peace News all a dream?

Yes, a dream we all slowly woke up from starting September 11th, 2001, when bin Laden broke the chains that contained religious violence on all sides. The few humanists here and there were too few to hold the fanatics any longer.

When poeple are angry, they're more susceptible of giving ears to the dysfunctional members of society, the fight-pickers.

[Professor]

Whether or not the Pope's statement was correct or not, he didn't have the right to say it. After the Danish cartoon debacle he blamed the cartoonists, arguing that the religious sensibilities of members of any religion trump the freedom of thought and expression for everyone else.

The right to freedom of thought and expression, sanctioned by the Declaration of the Rights of Man, cannot imply the right to offend the religious sentiment of believers. This principle applies obviously for any religion.

-Pope Benedict (February 2006) (http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=83985)
Since his remarks offended the religious sentiments of many believing Muslims, Benedict by his own standards did not have the right to make them - or even to think them.

Ah, Benedict. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. ;)

[BadBadBad]

According to the times newpaper in the uk...

"There is a real problem about the teaching of the Koran on violence against the infidel. That existed in the 14th century, and was demonstrated on 9/11, 2001. There is every reason to discuss it. I am more afraid of silence than offence. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1052-2362630,00.html

Do you agree with the quote that benny gave?

Yes, from here: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_insurgents_pope)

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum about the pope's remarks last week on Islam. The authenticity of the statement could not be immediately independently verified.

"You infidels and despotic, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism when God's rule is established governing all people and nations," the statement said.

The group said Muslims will be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

[Monkey Wrench]

In Egypt, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Habib, at first called the pope's statement yesterday "a sufficient apology." But he later said that it "does not rise to the level of a clear apology" and that his group is still demanding an "apology that will decisively end any confusion."

I think this quote illustrates my point, the Pope apologized and now they're pissed about his apology.:huh:

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Whether or not the Pope's statement was correct or not, he didn't have the right to say it. After the Danish cartoon debacle he blamed the cartoonists, arguing that the religious sensibilities of members of any religion trump the freedom of thought and expression for everyone else.


Since his remarks offended the religious sentiments of many believing Muslims, Benedict by his own standards did not have the right to make them - or even to think them.

Ah, Benedict. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. ;)

So many years i've accused these people of giving us hogwash, I cannot find myself accusing him of saying truths. At most I could only accuse him of saying the truth but not enough of it. If I did.

[Bloodnf]

Well there seems to be a number of subpoints to this whole Pope story.

1. What was his purpose for quoting this Byzantine Emporer's views? Was he agreeing that Islam is a evil wicked religion? Was he contradicting this viepoint? Reading the Pope's speech I'm still not clear as to his purpose.

2. While the Pope is within his rights to believe and say whatever he wants to say, I think as a leader of a large group he has a responisibility to dampen conflict and provoke harmony. Bad mouthing founder's of other religions is probably not the way to accomplish this. Unless of course he wants a conflict with Muslims, then this is probably the right way to go.

3. Another thing is that some people will defend the Pope's speech but seem to have a problem if Muslims find it offensive. I think Muslims have the right to be offended by what they find offensive. As long as no laws are broken. I see the reaction has been pretty muted so far. A few protests in some corners, a few crazies spouting nonsense but all in all the media has had to go far and search pretty hard to find nuts to get outrageous quotes.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

In Egypt, the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Habib, at first called the pope's statement yesterday "a sufficient apology." But he later said that it "does not rise to the level of a clear apology" and that his group is still demanding an "apology that will decisively end any confusion."

This only goea to show up to what point the islamic world is run by fear. He's only scared of what his bases might think or do.

And that's what they want us, the rest of the world, to do: to fear islam's tyrannical decrees.

Fuck 'em.

Excuse my French,
Lógos

[SLD]

This only goea to show up to what point the islamic world is run by fear. He's only scared of what his bases might think or do.

And that's what they want us, the rest of the world, to do: to fear islam's tyrannical decrees.

Fuck 'em.

Excuse my French,
Lógos

Amen! Fuck 'em both. All religion is about power and money. And it is especially about sexual power - the power to deny females their basic rights so that men can fuck them to their hearts content.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why any self respecting woman would be a muslim or a christian or a jew.

I'd like to see a secularist leader say that. Take the flak from all of them. I say criticize Islam for its violence and criticize Christianity for its. Tell the Jews that their religion is no better and that all of them should just pack it in. If they want to believe in God, fine, but just be a deist then and drop the mumbo jumbo that's in these ancient texts written by ignorant and fanatical people who simply didn't know better. Why oh why do we give such deference to such crap from 2000 years ago? It's bizarre. Fuck religion.

SLD

[spacejunkie]

Sam Harris dismantles the Pope’s speech here ( http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/) in case anyone is interested. I haven’t read the whole thing yet but Sam is usually right on point. Normally I wouldn’t post anything I haven’t read yet but I’ve decided to be Sam’s cheerleader today because the Happy Wanderer pissed me off on a different thread ( http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=3763719#post3763719).

[bookworm14]

I think Benedict XVI knew exactly what he was saying, though he probably misjudged Muslim reaction. There is a network of professional raconteurs to keep things stirred up. The current fuss will worsen and force a clear statement from the Vatican on its real views on the true nature of Islam. And the statement will be backed with facts from Islamic history as well as the behavior of Muslims in the past decade or so, to say nothing of past centuries. Benedict is somewhat hampered by the less than honorable Christian behavior in the Crusades and the witch hunts and burnings in the Inquisition. However, all that was centuries ago. Now, in the year 2006, comparing the personal behaviors of the founders of Christianity and Islam, as well as the behavior of the followers on each side, it is clear to any who have eyes to see, where the weight of guilt falls.
bookworm14

[Monkey Wrench]

Are you saying that the catholic church elevated a political idiot to pope ? I'd like to believe they were smarter than that...sigh.

[Blui]

Since his remarks offended the religious sentiments of many believing Muslims, Benedict by his own standards did not have the right to make them - or even to think them.

Ah, Benedict. As ye judge, so shall ye be judged. ;)
I am pretty sure that by 'offend' it meant a purposeful and intention to slander someone.

[Draconis]

This pope seems to have set out to offend everyone else one group at a time. He had a go at atheists and gays, now muslims, I suppose hindus are the next on the list. It might sound good for the true catholic believers to hear this bilge, but for anyone else trying to keep the peace in the world it's scary.

[lpetrich]

Sam Harris has weighed in, with ‘God’s Rottweiler’ Barks (http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060916_sam_harris_rottweiler_barks/)
The world is still talking about the pope’s recent speech—a speech so boring, convoluted and oblique to the real concerns of humanity that it could well have been intended as a weapon of war. It might start a war, in fact, given that it contained a stupendously derogatory appraisal of Islam. For some reason, the Holy Father found it necessary to quote the Emperor Manual II Paleologos, who said: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman....” Now the Muslim world is buzzing with pious rage. It’s a pity that Pope Benedict doesn’t also draw cartoons. Joining a craven chorus of terrified supplicants, The New York Times has urged him to muster a “deep and persuasive’’ apology. He now appears to be mincing his way toward the performance of just such a feat.

While the pope succeeded in enraging millions of Muslims, the main purpose of his speech was to chastise scientists and secularists for being, well, too reasonable. It seems that nonbelievers still (perversely) demand too much empirical evidence and logical support for their worldview. Believing that he was cutting to the quick of the human dilemma, the pope reminded an expectant world that science cannot pull itself up by its own bootstraps: It cannot, for instance, explain why the universe is comprehensible at all. It turns out that this is a job for… (wait for it) … Christianity. Why is the world susceptible to rational understanding? Because God made it that way. While the pope is not much of a conjurer, many intelligent and well-intentioned people imagined they actually glimpsed a rabbit in this old hat. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, praised the pope’s “deep and complicated” address for its “clarity and openness.” Here is the heart of the pope’s argument, excerpted from his concluding remarks. I have added my own commentary throughout.
SH then went into detail about the Pope's remarks.

It must be said that "Because God made it that way" does not explain why God decided on one sort of Universe to create and not some other. And is the Universe really that comprehensible? I doubt it. Much of modern science is difficult for many people to understand; this would not be surprising if the Universe was not designed to be easy for us to understand -- if it was designed at all.

But it's interesting that all that got shoved aside by how the Pope approvingly quoted a Byzantine Emperor on how Islam is a religion of violence.

I found it especially curious how the Pope mentioned that Emperor's comments, as if to give himself some wiggle room in case it turned embarrassing -- "Those aren't my words; those are Emperor Manuel's words."

Though when I read
“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and then you shall find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”
I thought of "Let whoever has committed no sin throw the first stone." (John 8:1-11) Which could also be said of many Muslims.

[lpetrich]

Christopher Hitchens has weighed in with The Pope's Latest Offense (http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/), in which he says
The Muslim protesters are actually being highly ungrateful. When the embassies of Denmark were being torched earlier this year, Rome managed a few words of protest about … the inadvisability of profane cartoons. In almost every confrontation between Islam and the West, or Islam and Israel, the Vatican has either split the difference or helped to ventriloquize Muslim grievances.

[Thomas II]

I think a large part of the problem is in the nature of public discourse, and how it normally proceeds. If his wish was to make a point about a faith being propagated at sword-point, then it was appropriate to raise the quote - but only in the context of admitting to the same thing in the RCC's past. It's like recommending to someone not to take drugs: the message is much more powerful if you relate personal experience - in particular, when the person you're addressing knows already that you have taken drugs. Not to do so would be considered an unusual omission, and will lead to questions about it. It also misses out on an opportunity to make a powerful point of the "See this scar on my head? That happened because I thought that I could fly" etc etc.

Benedict referred back to a time when the church's behaviour wasn't above reproach. Ho omitted to mention that in his speech. How much more powerful his message would have been had he said: "But we ourselves were guilty of the same thing. Sadly, we continued in our errors through The Reformation and even into the 20th Century when we were tragically weak when faced with a dreadful expression of religious tyranny. We who have have erred and been so weak see the errors in our thinking and implore all faiths to join us in non-violent expression of our creeds".


That would have been better indeed...I agree with you..

Is it too late for the Pope to say something like that during another speech?

How would he say it?

[Oikoman]

Was the concept of non violence, conscientious objection, Ghandi, Quakerism, Peace News all a dream?

Ask an Indian what it means to 'be a Ghandi' sometime...

[Oikoman]

This pope seems to have set out to offend everyone else one group at a time. He had a go at atheists and gays, now muslims, I suppose hindus are the next on the list. It might sound good for the true catholic believers to hear this bilge, but for anyone else trying to keep the peace in the world it's scary.

If you read carefully, he also takes a shot in a protestants...

[QUOTE=Pope Ratzi]
Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision.[\QUOTE]

The third dehellenization he refers to is the current protestant movement, while its pretty clear his second dehellenization is a dig a the 18th century enlightenment movement. Add that to his condemnation of Islam as a religion of evil (first part) that cannot be dealt with by reason (second part) and you have a warm up pitch in an attempt to start a new Catholic revival.

As an aside, given that there is currently a war going on in two Islamic nations led by Christian invaders, who frequently refer to themselves as doing Gods work, a speach by the pope wherein he states that Islam is evil and cannot be dealt with by reason (leaving what other option... warfare?) is likely to go down like a lead baloon. That doesn't justify the response, but with two wars (three if you count Lebanon) it could certainly be seen as a post hoc justification for Christian violence.

[Malachi151]

I've made some posts on this issue on my blog (which have been informed by this discussiuon), and I am going to make more on it:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/blog/

[chimera]

The hypocrisy is that Christianity teaches the opposite of war, as seen in the passive death of Christ and his early disciples. At least the Muslims are honest when they say that Mahmud was a killer, the doctrine was imposed by his armies in north Africa and good Muslims can fight in jihad and defeat their own
unpopular governments (which papal men do).
chimera