First, I should probably state my own position here. In short, I think the Pope made a provocative step knowingly, and should have realized what it would cause. For that, IMHO, he acted irresponsibly.
OTOH, the Muslims’ reaction played into his hands. Imagine the impact, if the Muslim leaders would simply state - politely - that they found the Pope’s speech offensive and inaccurate. Of every Muslim who feels hurt, to send an email + a letter, saying simply: “I believe you were wrong, please apologize”. Acting in violence to protest being called violent is probably not the smartest move.
Having said that, I find this article interesting. Not sure I agree to it, but IMHO a valid argument. Opinions welcomed.
No one likes to hear the truth about themselves. The only change that can come about in the Muslim area is going to be by internal movement–and probably the only way to facilitate that from the outside is by having it in their face how “behind” they are. Which, probably, the best way to accomplish is through trade and tourism and such. Telling them “Y’all are backwards, violent hicks and murderers! And your founding fathers were too!” isn’t likely to prompt anything positive."
However, as the Pope, you’re pretty much allowed to say whatever the hell you want so…if I was in his position, sure might as well!
Anybody got a link to the text of what he said? I’ve been watching this for two days on MSNBC and the Internet, but can’t find out exactly what he said.
Thats because if you read the entire speech you could put that quote into the context of his entire speech and not neccessarily run away with sensational headlines. He was making a speech about violence and ignorance as it relates to religion and in it used an provacative quote that referenced both. Now I’m the last person to stand up for the pope or the catholic church, but jesus tapdancing christ… Someone must have dropped an irony bomb in the far and mideast when you make a speech about ignorance and violence relating to religion, then are responded to with threats and effigies
To me, the line: “Pope Benedict XVI fears the decline of reason in the West” is eyebrow-raising. What I’ve seen of Benedict doesn’t make me think he’s a champion of reason. Granted, I pay very little attention, and would gladly accept correction if he is.
There’s an article in this week’s Newsweek about the lecture. It repeatedly insinuates that Benedict quoted Manuel II because he agrees that “Islam = evil” (which is itself a ridiculously simplistic interpretation of the quote).
Regardless of whether he meant to imply that “Islam = evil”, he is saying that his God would never have supported spreading of religion by the sword. He does explain why that shouldn’t be relevant to the case, i.e. that the word of God comes before the morality of God, and if Allah said to spread his religion by the sword then so be it. However, modern Islam is trying to solve the inherent rift in their religion that this is indicitave of. They want to say we’re nice, moral, loving people who don’t want to kill people, and that the terrorists in Muslim lands are misunderstanding the Koran. But the very founder of the religion itself supports the terrorist viewpoint of the religion.
Someone was talking in a thread in the last week or so about how their savior is always painted blue in illustrations, because the actual person in life was black.
But even that is a potentially misleading simplification, I think. Benedict’s lecture was about a religious debate that’s been going on for centuries: whether or not “God’s will” trumps human reason. He quoted a 14th century dialogue between a Christian and a Muslim over whether Mohammed embraced violence as an example of that debate. The example may be apropos to current world events, and I’m sure that’s why he chose it, but the point was not to endorse one interpretation of Mohammed or the other.
Yes, but as said, at the moment that’s a touchy issue for them. Just because someone’s faith says he should be fine with something (like the skin color of his religions savior) doesn’t mean he is.
If the Pope is arguing for logic, then between the Byzantine Emperor and Mohammed, the Emperor was far more logical. Any rational person at the time of Mohammed would have viewed him as a David Koresh or Joseph Smith who went about threatening to kill people. Bringing up a conversation where someone bipartisan and rational is saying, “Well clearly God would never command such a thing as Mohammed does.” is quite definitely a jab. The Byzantine emperor may say, “Though I suppose it is our duty to follow God’s will.” but the fact that the emperor isn’t helping Mohammed fairly well shows that he doesn’t believe that God did command that nor ever would.
Yes, that’s a good point. Perhaps the pope should have offered a parallel example in which the topic was religious violence perpetrated by Christians, in order to more clearly convey that all faiths struggle with the same question.
However, if you read his address,you will note that violence is neither central to, nor even strongly associated with, the point he was making.
In the paragraphs following the excitable quote, you will find him discussing the difference between the complete Transcendance of God put forth by various Muslim scholars as opposed to the association of God with logic* found in the Greek Fathers of the Church. His point was that a belief that transcends logic (using that word in a slightly different context) is not a belief that can be supported and his ultimate point is that some Christians have begun moving toward the same sort of Transcendant belief and that they are doomed to fail.
Yes, I am aware of the issues in which people find Christian logic to suffer a number of fallacies. However, it is not traditional Christian belief that God could declare theft or infidelity to be good because that would violate the logical constraints of the Christian view of God, although there have been some** Muslim scholars who have asserted that God could declare theft and infidelity “good.”
** I am not aware of how strongly this belief is held or expressed in Islam, only that it has been asserted.
So as I understand it, the pope was quoting a Paleologus, Byzantine ruler, who first accused Mohammed of turning from peace to violence to spread his religion, and then argued (that is, Paleologus argued) that violence is never a way to spread faith (like the Spanish Catholics did in the Americas in the 16th and 17th centuries.) And the pope basically was saying, “I agree with what Paleologus was saying.” Do I have that right?
I generally agree that this is his actual thinking and in general agree with it (though not the idea that “Muslims” are the problem as opposed to certain aspects of Muslim fundamentalism and cultures) I welcome his efforts on both these fronts.
I just wish he wasn’t such a nasty bigot when it comes to unbelievers. Not that I expect that from a Pope, but his speech insulted directly and indirectly, the godless countless times (perhaps without even realizing it) in ways far more fundamental than he criticized Islam. I’m not about to go shooting any nuns over it though. But such a person holding himself a champion of reason is certainly a little bit deserving of an eye roll.
I gotta confess … having the man who is the main upholder of virgin birth, saints, statues that weep blood, various miracles, and divine infallibility when speaking ex cathedra paint himself as the defender of “reason” is absolutely delicious …
It’s all about freedom of speech. Feel free to make the same snide comments about Mohammed and let your next of kin tell us what happened. Maybe you can get it on film in time for Jackass-4.
