[luke warm]

did anyone read what the pope actually said? who in their right mind could possibly be offended by those remarks? hell, i've read worse things from posters here about christianity, and none of those posts threw me into a murderous rage

now there are some muslims actually calling for the assisnation of the pope... there's already been a nun killed over this... my questions are simple ones... why don't we hear every leader of the free world come right out and call these radical islamics murdering bastards? why aren't they treated like mad dogs?

yes, we can go back in history and see atoricities aplenty from all religions, but that is beside the point... this is now, that was then... why does the world stand by and take this crap?

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that the Popes comments were extremely regretable and demonstrated a fair amount of ignorance. In particular, I find the following comments by Benedict's rather telling:

>In the seventh conversation ("diálesis" - controversy) edited by professor
>Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war).
>The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: "There is no compulsion
>in religion." It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was
>still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew
>the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning
>holy war.

As the Times of London points out, these Sura are held to have been written during the middle period, after the Prophet Muhammed already controlled a state. Muhammed was far from powerless, he was not under threat, and the Muslim faith was expanding rapidly.

http://www.timesonli...2360087,00.html

As Andrew Sullivan notes, this is one of the only times in the piece that Benedict speaks clearly and in his own worlds and he comes across as ignorant at best.

Equally significant, given all the ***** going on in the world right now, one really needs to ask whether we need the Pope pouring gasoline onto the fire. I don't that fundamentalism Islam is a major concern in the world today. (Personally, I'm equally concerned about fundamentalist Christians in the US, Hindu Nationalists in India, and Chinese Nationalism in the new Jet Li movie).

However, I don't believe that singling these groups out and demonizing them is an effective tactic. These groups feed on persecution and portraying themselves as victims.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Sep 18 2006, 06:58 PM, said:

now there are some muslims actually calling for the assisnation of the pope... there's already been a nun killed over this... my questions are simple ones... why don't we hear every leader of the free world come right out and call these radical islamics murdering bastards? why aren't they treated like mad dogs?

yes, we can go back in history and see atoricities aplenty from all religions, but that is beside the point... this is now, that was then... why does the world stand by and take this crap?

I will note once again, that the type of behaviour that you are attacking is in no way unique to the Islamic faith. Rather, it seems to go part and parcel with most forms of fundamentalism.

Here in the US, Pat Robertson advocated the assassination of the Hugo Chavez on the 700 club. We're not talking about an isolated dingbat here. Falwell has an enormous popular following and has the ear of the Shrub... I can pull out a wide variety of other lovely quotes from Robertson, Fallwell, and the rest of the religious right.

We're also lucky enough to have a fair number of home grown Christian terrorists blowing up ferderal office building and taking pot shots at abortion providers and the tax collector.

The BBC had a great special the other day titled the Doomsday Code which showcased "end times" fundamentalists here in the US and their linkages to the policy process. Personally, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned by these idiots than their Islamic brothers.

[luke warm]

you seem to be arguing from the 'others do it also' perspective... my point is that ALL of the religions zealots in the world who advocate terrorism and/or murder are equally reprehensible... i have no problem with calling robinson an idiot and potential 'murdering bastard' for his chalvez remarks... also, my original post said that this type behavior isn't unique to fundamentalist islam... all 'murdering bastards' should be called what they are

Quote

Personally, I think that the Popes comments were extremely regretable and demonstrated a fair amount of ignorance.

and the penalty for regretable comments, even those from ignorance, is to murder nuns and threaten assassination?

the fact remains that i personally have been offended quite often by many remarks made on this very forum against my beliefs... as much as i am offended, i would not for one moment attempt to muzzle those who make such remarks, especially by violent means

regardless of any regretable and/or ignorant statements made by the pope (and don't forget, what you see happening now is a reaction to his quoting another, not to the passage you quoted), those who advocate death and destruction simply because someone has and exercises the freedom to speak his mind are uncivilized and dangerous people

the pope's message was on faith and reason, and how those are incompatible with a 'convert by the sword' view... one can agree or disagree with that premise, but my questions are the same... you have rightly condemned robertson et al for similar remarks... you have not refrained from that condemnation to keep from "pouring gasoline onto the fire"...

Quote

Personally, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned by these idiots than their Islamic brothers.

i don't believe you... that aside, are the people who killed the nun and the people who call for the pope's assassination mad dogs? are they murdering bastards? are you somewhat selective as to the fire you are willing to pour gasoline on?

[mike777]

Reading the USA media accounts of what the Pope said or did not say or meant or did not mean are very unclear.

What the heck did the Pope say and mean?

[mikeh]

Is it clear that the nun was murdered because of the Pope's statement? Many nins have, unfortunately, been murdered for many reasons, and from my limited exposure to the media statements on this tragic death, there seems to be no reason to link the two occurrences other than temporal coincidence. Of course, it makes for good entertainment for the 'news' media to link the events... but that hardly proves anything.

And to start by calling those muslims outraged by the Pope's statements 'murdering bastards' based on that questionable linkage seems to me to be a trifle immoderate.

Even if the murder was casually connected, why assume that this act was done with the tacit or explicit approval of the majority of those who are outraged by the Pope's incredible (except that, given his track record, perhaps it is not so incredible) blunder.

By the way, what do we think of high-profile conservative pundits who announce that the solution to Islamic issues is to invade the country, kill the leaders and forcibly convert the population to Christianity?

We'd call such people raving idiots, yet precisely such a person is a best-selling author in the US and a frequent guest on conservative talk-shows.

And the US military has a general who, in trying to build morale in the troops about to invade Iraq, described their mission as a crusade.

I note that none of the outraged Islamic leaders have suggested that the solution to the Pope is to invade Italy and convert all Italians to Islam.

While the reaction to the Pope's statements seems overdone, people(s) who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

[Gerben42]

I disagree with most of the pope's views but I think it is good that he makes clear that you should not spread religion with the sword.

But the truth is if people want to be offended they will find a way, this is true esp. with fundamentalists. I would not be surprised if he had not used the quote they would have found something else.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Sep 18 2006, 08:46 PM, said:

Quote

Personally, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned by these idiots than their Islamic brothers.

i don't believe you... that aside, are the people who killed the nun and the people who call for the pope's assassination mad dogs? are they murdering bastards? are you somewhat selective as to the fire you are willing to pour gasoline on?

Believe what you want...

Comment 1: I certainly don't approve of killing nuns or assassinating the pope. I'd go so far to say that killing in general is a bad thing. I thought it was poor form back when right wing death squads were killing nuns in South America. Its equally bad when Islamic fundamentalists are taking out their frustration with the Pope's comments on an innocent Catholic ministering to the poor in Somalia.

Comment 2: Personally, I don't often use words like mad dogs or murdering bastards. This type of rhetorical flourish is (typically) a deliberate attempt to dehumanize the target. Quite honesty, its very short step from trying to dehumanize these "mad dogs" to arguing that they should be put down. Pretty soon, you've created clear moral equivalence between yourself and the people that you condemn.

Comment 3: I think that religious fundamentalists here in the US have the potential to do a lot more harm than their muslim brothers. From my perspective, the two groups are equally stupid, but the folks here in the US have a lot more power and influence.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 09:11 PM, said:

Reading the USA media accounts of what the Pope said or did not say or meant or did not mean are very unclear.

What the heck did the Pope say and mean?

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

(I read the english translation, however, I'm not well acquainted with the philosophical traditions being discussed and am not going to try to provide a summary)

[luke warm]

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 01:11 PM, said:

Reading the USA media accounts of what the Pope said or did not say or meant or did not mean are very unclear.

What the heck did the Pope say and mean?

the pope's message was on faith and reason, and the cause of what is happening now seems to be this part, in which he quoted manuel:

"'Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.' The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable."

he then went on to agree that violence in and of itself is not a reasonable way to gain converts... only a moron would disagree, and only a mad dog would kill over that disagreement

Quote

And to start by calling those muslims outraged by the Pope's statements 'murdering bastards' based on that questionable linkage seems to me to be a trifle immoderate.

is calling for the assassnation of the pope a "trifle immoderate" or is it bloodthirsty insanity?

Quote

Even if the murder was casually connected, why assume that this act was done with the tacit or explicit approval of the majority of those who are outraged by the Pope's incredible (except that, given his track record, perhaps it is not so incredible) blunder.

what blunder? what track record? if you mean his going on record as being opposed to terrorism or if you mean his usage of quotations to make a point that faith and reason are linked, are those bad things? it's one thing to be outraged, it's quite another to react with violence over that outrage

Quote

While the reaction to the Pope's statements seems overdone, people(s) who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

"overdone" seems a tad tame, don't you think? and exactly to whom do you refer when you mention glass houses and stones? if you refer to me, show me the house or the stone

Quote

Comment 1: I certainly don't approve of killing nuns or assassinating the pope. I'd go so far to say that killing in general is a bad thing. I thought it was poor form back when right wing death squads were killing nuns in South America. Its equally bad when Islamic fundamentalists are taking out their frustration with the Pope's comments on an innocent Catholic minestering to the poor in Somalia

richard, i take out my frustrations in many different ways, depending on the frustration (and the source)... some of my means of doing so can probably be called "bad"... so you'll forgive me if i seem to differentiate between having a few drinks and killing a nun

Quote

Comment 2: Personally, I wouldn't don't often use words like mad dogs or murdering bastards.

then use your own words... call them poor, misunderstood, peace loving people who sometimes can't control their reactions... the fact remains, this isn't the first time they've used violence in an attempt to make themselves look like the victim rather than the aggressor, or in an attempt to make the rest of the world speak (or write) only the words acceptable to *them*... anybody remember salman rushdie?

Quote

I would not be surprised if he had not used the quote they would have found something else.

probably true... jihad, you know?

[arrows]

there going to be a war between Christians and Muslims, sadly seems it going to happen during my lifetime

[luke warm]

i really don't think this has anything to do with christianity vs. islam... the ones promoting and performing the terrorism hate everyone - except those converted thru the reasonableness of their methods

[mike777]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

Just a quick reading of this, and I may be very wrong but the Pope seems to imply that the Muslim God is capricious and not rational? The Muslim God can disavow his own words?

Is this really what the Pope is saying or am I way off base?

"The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

Also I do not understand this point. How is violence incompatible with the nature of God? The flood? Pillar of Salt? Blood offerings? etc etc?

"The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. "

[pbleighton]

The Pope quotes Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who he describes as "erudite" as saying ""Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". " After that, he never criticizes any part of this remarkably bigoted statement. It is therefore logical to assume that he agrees with it.

And he is surprised at a negative, passionate rection from Muslims?

What is this guy smoking?

Peter

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 09:52 PM, said:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

Just a quick reading of this, and I may be very wrong but the Pope seems to imply that the Muslim God is capricious and not rational? The Muslim God can disavow his own words? 

Is this really what the Pope is saying or am I way off base?

The focus of the Pope's speach is the concept of Logos and its relationship to the secular and the divine spheres. He goes to great length to clarify the Catholic concept of Logos with the limits of secular traditions of empirical reasoning.

In the course of his discussion he also attempts to contrast Catholicism with Islam. Here, once again, he does so by focusing on the concept of Logos. More specifically, he focuses on on the act of conversion by the sword as being antithetical to a god who mainfests himself through reason. Benedict also notes that some Muslim scholars claim that Allah is not bounded by reason.

Its unclear to me whether this actually represents a clear demarcation between the two theological traditions or whether Benedict is simply lecturing on a favorite topic and being somewhat selective in his choice of examples. (I know that the concept of Logos is a favorite theme of Benedict's academic work.)

[Al_U_Card]

Interesting, in that I could say these things and just be thought ignorant. (But I am not the pope!!) The pope says them and they seem to give credence to the predictions of JP II being the "last" pope and thus we are now observing the ante-christ. He who will, in the guise of peacemaker, cause the greatest conflict of all.

We certainly do live in interesting, if somewhat more than scary, times.

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Sep 18 2006, 02:13 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 09:52 PM, said:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict...ensburg_en.html

Just a quick reading of this, and I may be very wrong but the Pope seems to imply that the Muslim God is capricious and not rational? The Muslim God can disavow his own words? 

Is this really what the Pope is saying or am I way off base?

The focus of the Pope's speach is the concept of Logos and its relationship to the secular and the divine spheres. He goes to great length to clarify the Catholic concept of Logos with the limits of secular traditions of empirical reasoning.

In the course of his discussion he also attempts to contrast Catholicism with Islam. Here, once again, he does so by focusing on the concept of Logos. More specifically, he focuses on on the act of conversion by the sword as being antithetical to a god who mainfests himself through reason. Benedict also notes that some Muslim scholars claim that Allah is not bounded by reason.

Its unclear to me whether this actually represents a clear demarcation between the two theological traditions or whether Benedict is simply lecturing on a favorite topic and being somewhat selective in his choice of examples. (I know that the concept of Logos is a favorite theme of Benedict's academic work.)

Yes Allah is not bound by reason or "man's logic or rational" Is this what he is saying? That Allah is ultimately unknowable by Man?

This sort of goes back to Gnostosism(sp) and the hidden god and the god of the body not the soul. See the Dead See Scrolls and many other writings on this subject.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

Yes Allah is not bound by reason or "man's logic or rational" Is this what he is saying? That Allah is ultimately unknowable by Man?

This sort of goes back to Gnostosism(sp) and the hidden god and the god of the body not the soul. See the Dead See Scrolls and many other writings on this subject.

I'd put a different spin on it...

I think that the central claim is that because their "god" mainfests itself through logos, god is knowable...

[mike777]

hrothgar, on Sep 18 2006, 02:32 PM, said:

mike777, on Sep 18 2006, 10:25 PM, said:

Yes Allah is not bound by reason or "man's logic or rational" Is this what he is saying? That Allah is ultimately unknowable by Man?

This sort of goes back to Gnostosism(sp) and the hidden god and the god of the body not the soul. See the Dead See Scrolls and many other writings on this subject.

I'd put a different spin on it...

I think that the central claim is that because the"god" mainfests itself through logos, god is knowable...

Yes the Christian God is knowable, this is a basic tenet of the faith. The Pope seems to argue that that Allah is not knowable but is hidden?

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Sep 18 2006, 01:35 PM, said:

1.

Quote

And to start by calling those muslims outraged by the Pope's statements 'murdering bastards' based on that questionable linkage seems to me to be a trifle immoderate.

is calling for the assassnation of the pope a "trifle immoderate" or is it bloodthirsty insanity?

2.

Quote

Even if the murder was casually connected, why assume that this act was done with the tacit or explicit approval of the majority of those who are outraged by the Pope's incredible (except that, given his track record, perhaps it is not so incredible) blunder.

what blunder? what track record? if you mean his going on record as being opposed to terrorism or if you mean his usage of quotations to make a point that faith and reason are linked, are those bad things? it's one thing to be outraged, it's quite another to react with violence over that outrage

3.

Quote

While the reaction to the Pope's statements seems overdone, people(s) who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

"overdone" seems a tad tame, don't you think? and exactly to whom do you refer when you mention glass houses and stones? if you refer to me, show me the house or the stone

1. I objected to the use of the modifier 'murdering' to the description of those who called for the death of the Pope. That is not an endorsement of those sentiments, but those who spoke those words are no more murderers than was Anne Coulter when she advocated the execution of leaders of an islamic country as a pre-cursor to the forcible conversion of its citzenry to Christianity.... an interesting concept given the Pope's apparent belief that Christians do not believe in forcible conversion.... I wonder what he made of the Spanish conversions of South American peoples in the 1500 and 1600s? Were they converted by reason? Odd if it were so, given that the priests who arranged the conversions did not usually speak the native language and the illiterate population could not read the bible even were it translated.

2. see above in terms of the contradiction between the attitude the Pope says his church espouses and presumably espoused throughout history, including 1391 when the quoted dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and his persian interlocutor occurred.... vide also recent pronouncements by Ms. Coulter, a professed Christian. Vide also the Inquisiton: and the 'suggestion' to Jews that they could avoid explusion from their homes in Spain by adopting the Christian faith..... does the Catholic Church have a convenient memory?

Any statement calculated to suggest that there exists a profound difference between Islam and the Catholic Church in terms of the former being prepared to enforce conversion and the latter relying solely upon reason is a blunder or a deliberately deceitful act.... and this cannot be excused by reference to any Catholic past conduct being a mere mistake while the alleged Islamic approach is institutional: after all the Pope was quoting medieval sources, and the Church has repeatedly enforced conversion by the sword, or the stake, in times far closer to the present.

But the blunder to which I meant to refer was the utter stupidity of thinking that any public pronouncement of this nature would not be blown up and seized upon by those whose agenda includes the idea that Islam is under external threat. Bush and his cronies have done their best, through stupidity, incompetence and arrogance, to foster that idea to the point that the publication of cartoons can cause riots around the world. Does the Pope still think of himself as cloistered in the musty halls of academia? Surely he knows that he is now a public figure?

3. The glass house is the US. It is full of decent, intelligent, civilized people, with a wonderful capacity for tolerance. Unfortunately, as with most countries, it is not quite completely full of such people. It also contains a truly scary number fo truly scary people. I am not afraid of most mentally impaired individuals roaming the street, homeless, as we see all too often, but give one a gun, and I become scared. America is a country with a gun: with more and better guns than anyone else and an increasing tendency to use them whenever it suits them..... and to hell with concepts such as treaties or international law. The US, as has been the case with every superpower in recorded history, sees international law as something that applies to lesser powers: the political hacks who are in charge of the Justice Department can write opinions justifying torture, and the President can make speeches calling restraints on his right to torture uncharged, unconvicted hidden prisoners 'dangerous'.

Coulter can advocate multiple murders of Islamic leaders with mass forced conversion, and earn millions of dollars while doing so. Robertson can, on national television, advocate the murder of a democratically elected leader of a free country, and nothing happens to him.

Its okay for an American religious leader to advocate murder yet we call those who reacted in anger to the Pope 'murdering bastards'?

I do NOT endorse anyone advocating the killing of anyone for any words. But those who live in a society that rewards precisely that type of conduct ought to be very careful how they react to people whose main difference is the target of their hatred. You like the Pope, so you condemn those who say kill him. Is Pat Robertson, in your view, a murdering bastard as well? If not, why not? And don't tell me that its because some Somalians killed a nun.... didn't quite a few American servicemen murder quite a large number of Iraqi civilians, in a war commenced after Coulter said to kill all the leaders of the country??

And, to play the devil's advocate one more time, isn't that at least what the American government is planning on doing with Saddam and his henchmen, through the trials to which he has been subjected... in a court which owes its existence and security to American armed forces? (before you react with outrage, I am not an apologist for Saddam and, if he acted as seems apparent, then he deserves a tough penalty and a death sentence would be only tit for tat, unless one is opposed to the death penalty on principle.. but it is at least ironic that the US Government surely knew who and what he was when they were wining and dining and supplying him in 1980-1).