<< MISFITS GRAVITATING ~ MAIN ~ REPORTINGS MADE >>
POINT PROVED
The ABC reports:
Middle Eastern leaders and analysts have warned of a potentially violent backlash in the region to the Pope’s remarks implicitly linking Islam to violence.
(Via reader Peter W.)
Wally
Shouldn’t that be “einz, zwei, drei..” (or something like that - it has been 20 years since I did Kraut).
The media should take a tip from Basil Fawlty… “don’t mention the war”, or should that be, “Don’t mention the crusades?”
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 09 15 at 10:37 PM • permalinkWhile someone maybe needed to say it, I’m not 100% sure the head of the catholic church should be pointing fingers or making references to any other religions use of violence to spread the word…
There was a little thing call the inquisition that afflicted Europe for a good many years… And didn’t the catholic countries war against England and the Netherlands to stamp out the heretics?? And the conquest of South America wasn’t exactly a blood-free cake walk either…
Lets not totally forget our history in our enthusiasm to acknowledge the new bully on the block… But the mussies are really gonna get their knickers in a knot over this… Wonder if there are any ulterior motives???
Keelty:
“I think a statement like the war against terror is an easy statement to make. But terrorism is a crime, it’s murder. It’s more about a mindset and a motivation than it is about a war ...
If they treat Islamist terrorism as a crime, just like car-theft or rape, rather than as war - as declared on us by Jihadists, then we can’t win.
The Clinton Administration blew it with Osama Bin Laden, precisely because they were approaching it from the conventional criminal angle rather than applying the rules and concepts of warfare. Instead of dropping bombs, they were arguing over indictment proceedings.
It’s hard to know if Keelty actually believes this stuff or if he’s saying it for a specific political reason. If he genuinely believes it however, he should spend the rest of his career writing parking tickets in Kingston.
#6 BenK: “Sooner or later the coginitive dissonance is just going to become too much and some poor bastard at the ABC’s head is going to explode in the middle of writing an article.”
It would be more fun if someone’s head exploded on live TV while reporting this insanity.
Pay-per-View, anyone? :-D
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 09 15 at 11:00 PM • permalink#8 Cassanova,
Are you saying Islam is 500 years behind the times, and not ready to join the 21st century?
There was a little thing call the inquisition that afflicted Europe for a good many years… And didn’t the catholic countries war against England and the Netherlands to stamp out the heretics?? And the conquest of South America wasn’t exactly a blood-free cake walk either…
Like my 8 year old niece said “That was then, this is now”.
Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2006 09 15 at 11:10 PM • permalinkForgive this Jewish scholar for presuming to comment on the “primacy of the primate”, so to speak, but my studies indicate that the foundation of the Pope’s temporal “potency”, for lack of a more salubrious word, actually derives in large part from the words of the Prophets—specifically Isaiah.
Here’s one:
22:22. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Et dabo clavem domus David super umerum eius et aperiet et non erit qui claudat et claudet et non erit qui aperiatAnd again…(the first is most telling):
28:16. Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation. He that believeth, let him not hasten.
Idcirco haec dicit Dominus Deus ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem lapidem probatum angularem pretiosum in fundamento fundatum qui crediderit non festinet28:17. And I will set judgment in weight, and justice in measure: and hail shall overturn the hope of falsehood: and waters shall overflow its protection.
Et ponam iudicium in pondere et iustitiam in mensura et subvertet grando spem mendacii et protectionem aquae inundabunt28:18. And your league with death shall be abolished, and your covenant with hell shall not stand: when the overflowing scourge shall pass, you shall be trodden down by it.
Et delebitur foedus vestrum cum morte et pactum vestrum cum inferno non stabit flagellum inundans cum transierit eritis ei in conculcationemSo, please correct me if I am wrong, but is it not part of the “duties” of the Bishop of Rome—which august personage, in the Oriental Orthodox Church (see below) and the Eastern Orthodox Church, is accorded the title “first among equals” among the overseers of the church—to continue the contest with the powers of evil—this having been a permanent feature of the Christ’s life?
Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.
——————————-
His influence extends beyond the Church of Rome, therefore, to the following:- The Eastern Orthodox Church
- The Armenian Apostolic Church
- The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria
- The British Orthodox Church
- The Indian Orthodox Church of the East
- The Eritrean Orthodox Church (Tewahedo Church)
- The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Tewahedo Church)
- The Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch (also known as the Syrian Orthodox Church)
- The Malankara Jacobite Syriac Orthodox Church
- The Assyrian Church of the EastFinally, may I point out that, according to prophecy, the Bishop of Rome ”...shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.”
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 15 at 11:18 PM • permalinkWhile not usually a big reader of papal speeches, I thought it was fascinating and well-reasoned. His comments on Muslims were built on quotes from a 15th century Byzantine emperor plainly hassled by Islam, but consistent with typical modern Christian understanding of “gunpoint conversions” and spreading the religion though violence. He took the theme that the biblical idea that “in the beginning there was the word” and discussed the possible translations of the Greek word “logos” as either “word” or “reason” and went from there. His audacious conclusion is that God is a God of reason, not force. That’s a crude oversimplification, it’s a pretty intricate speech.
And the Muslim reaction is pretty ridiculous, yeah.
Read it yourself at http://www.zenit.org/english and go to Documents, then “Papal address at Regensberg.”
Posted by Matt in Denver on 2006 09 15 at 11:19 PM • permalink#3, this comes close:
Religious leaders across Mideast rage against pope’s comments on Islam
And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
Posted by Art Vandelay on 2006 09 15 at 11:32 PM • permalinkJust several weeks away from the Pope’s visit to Turkey, Michelle Malkin points to what many “moderate” Turks are reading at the moment: “It’s a hot-selling novel titled Papa’ya suikast (“Attack on the Pope”) which predicts that Pope Benedict will be assassinated in Istanbul.”
More on the book from Amy Welborn.
I’m afraid the subtlety of the Pope’s speech (as Matt in Denver has mentioned) will be lost in the clamor of accusations of him being anti-Islam.
Reading the linked speech it is clear he is distinguishing between the teaching of Christianity and Islam on the subject of spreading the religion by force and the concept of whether you can act unreasonably (eg violent conversion) and still adhere to God’s nature. He points out that Islam’s concept of God is different and in Islam, Allah is himself not bound by concepts of rationality (itself a fairly subtle and interesting point).
Nowhere does he accuse Islam of spreading its faith this way or say that christianity didn’t, he just points out that Islamic teaching can be interpreted as allowing violent conversion whereas his interpretation of scripture is that violent conversion isn’ t consistent with the Catholic Church’s concept of god.
The “Cast the First stone” argument does not hold for islam.
Islam is a looted religion, in line with the looting of passing caravans which gave the Mohamed his kick start on the Arabian peninsula.
Since everything outside Islam is Booty to be shared amongst the faithfull, it should come as no surprise that Islam also is looted from Judaism, christianity and the kabbaa idolaters of Medina and Mecca (see SR’s satanic verses).
This would be just a bad case of plagiarism if it were not for the creative additions made in the name of Allah in the seventh century.
Those supremacist and exterminationist additions mean that unlike in the Christianity, where the murder and enslavements of peoples taken as booty are strictly against the Word Of Jesus Christ even when done in His name, for Islam the opposite holds true.
Murder and enslavement is sanctioned by the prophet and those who do it are following the teachings.
That those who preach the killing of the infidel and the hate against Jews and christians, should have the audacity to be enraged by the POPe’s comment is therefore to be expected.
remains to be seen if the lefitst western fifth columnists press will join in the lambasting.I blame the Yanks.
If they hadn’t gotten on their high horse after WWII and forced the French and the Poms and the Belgians to give up their colonies, none of this might have happened.
There would be no Pakistan (or Bangladesh) - especially a Pakistan with nukes.
Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, Egypt etc would still be colonial outposts with reasonable governance and low corruption and the colonial masters would be free to kick the tar out of any locals that got uppity.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 09 16 at 12:03 AM • permalinkWisdon, peace love and understanding is against the Iranian constituion amongst other things
Posted by WeekByWeek on 2006 09 16 at 12:03 AM • permalink...predicts that Pope Benedict will be assassinated in Istanbul.
Hmmmm, I wonder what the law of unintended consequences would say about that if it happened?
The Americas have the lion’s share of baptised Catholics, with 49.8% (approx 541 million); Europe accounts for 25.8% (approx 282 million); Africa has 13.2% of the total (approx 143 million); Asia - 10.4% (approx 113 million); Oceania - 0.8% (approx 9 million).
The Mussies have already pissed off 837 million Hindus, 12.9 Million Jews, and about half of the remaining 1+ billion Christians.
Go for it.
The Old Testament, as everyone knows, has its fair share of violence too.
“And Sehon came out to meet us with all his people to fight at Jasa. And the Lord our God delivered him to us: and we slew him with his sons and all his people.
“And we took all his cities at that time, killing the inhabitants of them, men women and children. We left nothing of them.
” ...There was not a village or city that escaped our hands: the Lord our God delivered all unto us…Wasting all (Og, King of Basan’s) cities at one time…sixty cities, all the country of Argob…but the cattle and the spoils of the city we took for our prey.”
- Deuteronomy (Douai version) Chapers 2 and 3.“But if thou forget the Lord thy God, and follow strange gods, and serve and adore him: behold, now I foretell thee that thou shalt utterly perish.”
- Deuteronomy 8:19.Charming stuff. The main difference now is that Muslims still cling to such outdated justifications.
I honestly believe that *most* Muslims are not violent.
And I really *really* hope that Benedict has the sense not to apologize for this.
The worst offense is letting the hotheads intimidate people to silence. For one thing, how can we *possibly* expect *Muslims* to stand up to jihadists when people in the West refuse? If Benedict can’t stand up to the jihadists how can any Muslim or Arab or Persian be expected to say a single word of censure about the violence? We can’t.
He’s the Pope for God’s sake.
We need a do-over on the Danish cartoons, too. Because if Western media lets itself be intimidated by the threat of violence to not portray Muhammad as violent… who the heck can?
We complain about the lack of a “moderate” voice in Islam, of a lack of some sort of demonstration of the “religion of Peace” slogan… but how can we expect anything of the sort when the Western media, the high priests of “free speech”, just fold when threatened with violence?
And if the Pope apologizes, as if *he* said something wrong?
I don’t believe it. My irony detector just exploded! It’ll take me hours to clean it up. Doh!
Posted by andycanuck on 2006 09 16 at 12:48 AM • permalinkWhy not ask the Byzantines how to cut a deal with the followers of Mohammed?
/silence of the grave
One of the more famous treaties covered the ceding of a number of territories including most of modern Syria in exchange for peace and territorial integrity of the Byzantine empire (rump that was left anyway). However shortly after the treaty was signed a massive earthquake flattened and killed the majority of the Byzantine population on the (now) Gallipoli penninsula. The Muslim emporer used this as an excuse to break the treaty and imported massive numbers of his people to take over the land. His excuse for breaking the treaty? “Allah willed it”.
This was the final death knell for the Byzantines as they then had their bitterest enemies about a days march from their capital.This little slight of hand by the ABC shouldnt go unmentioned. In most other articles the pope is reffered to as quoting Manuel, in the hands of the ABC he is repeating the criticism. A small issue but yet again the ABC shows it cant lie straight in bed!
In the speech, the Pope repeated criticism of the Prophet Mohammad by the 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who said everything Mohammad brought was evil “such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”.Apart from being factually and historicaly accurate, i can see why that might upset people bent on the same thing, using the same methods…..
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 16 at 12:57 AM • permalinkCasanova, you forgot to use upper-case “C” in your references to the Catholic Church.
And if you want an example of Christian Talibanism in history, you couldn’t do much better than Cromwell’s lunatic jihad against Catholicism. (We’ll leave Henry VIII’s al Qaeda-like headchopping aside).
Thanks, though, for the Keysar Trad/Ian Paisley version of reality.
The medieval inquisition employed erstwhile norms for evidence, punishment and torture; these are un-Christian only to modern sensibilities but were normal at the time. Moreover, the inquisitions were far milder than their equivalent tribunals at secular law. The Papacy - going back to late antiquity - was never the principal and driving force behind instances of physical violence in relation to heretics (some of whom, often enough, were actually - not merely theologically - dangerous).
St Augustine, St Martin of Tours, St. John Chrysostom, St Ambrose of Milan, St. Bernard of Clairvaux all condemned the killing of heretics. So did the papacy and the Lateran Council of 1139. It was not uncommon at that time for the faithful to be critical of the clergy for being wimps on this subject. (Much, as now, capital punishment advocates criticise the Holy See). The secular authorities were far more ruthless - seeing Manichaeans and others as clear and present dangers to social harmony.
When Catholicism became universal in Europe, there followed a complicated and not always wonderful relationship between ecclesiastical and secular ideals vis-a-vis heretics and justice. This relationship - survived the Reformation: torture in Geneva, attempted genocide by Protestants in Ireland, Penal Laws against Catholics in England, intolerance and religious executions in the American colonies etc.
Together, Church and State developed a new and increasingly humane modus vivendi (and separations) over time, in a trajectory of constant improvement and modernisation. As for the papacy, it undoubtedly played the most important and powerful moderating role on the excesses of secular authorities for centuries. To the extent that the Church took advantage of secular power to serve it’s own theological interests, that was often wrong and is admitted.
It is this kind of mutually reinforcing advancement that Mosque and State are yet to demonstrate a willingness or an ability to match.
#21 Casanove. My point…precisely?
Tough question. Maybe I was attempting in my own particular fashion to point out that if there were anyone in the “West” (you’ll pardon my generalization) not only qualified but bound by duty to speak to the issues long under discussion, it would be the Bishop of Rome.
I’ll try to make my point more clearly next time—upon revision, the post was a bit vague, I suppose.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 01:43 AM • permalink#23
I’m afraid the subtlety of the Pope’s speech will be lost in the clamor of accusations of him being anti-Islam.
Actually, the Pope’s speech is besides the point. The Islamists have had it in for the Pope for a long time. His recent speech was a convenient excuse for the latest Jihad du Jour, but certainly not the cause of it.
Under reported of course, will be the further victimisation of Christian Palestinians. Under reported of course, because they are victims of Muslims and nobody can blame Israel.
It should be noted that there were no significant numbers of swordpoint coversion of unbelievers to Christianity until after half of Christendom was conquered by Islam. Like iconoclasm, holy war is something Christianity learned from Muslims.
And what country was the most holy-warrior about swordpoint conversions, that sent conquistadors in the name of God to convert the American Indians, that fought to suppress the heretics in the Netherlands, that tried to invade England with the Armada, and whose ruling dynasty launched the Thirty Years’ War?
Why, the one with the longest and most intimate exposure to jihad, the one that spent the most time under the rule of Muslims before being reclaimed by Christendom. Spain.
Since time immemorial, heresy within a country has been punished, by the Greeks and the Romans no less than the monotheists. And people have gone to war for secular goals (land, wealth, slaves) claiming the support of the gods similarly across the globe throughout history. And when a religion posed a threat to the state’s legitimacy, like Christianity in pagan Rome or Judaism at the time of the Maccabees, the state has clamped down. That’s all garden-variety persecution.
But the idea of a war of religious conversion was invented by one man, at one particular moment in history. And the name of the man was Mohammad, strife be upon us.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2006 09 16 at 02:25 AM • permalinkOh, and C.L.‘s post at #34 speaks to my point rather well.
Folks should also remember that small “c” catholic and large “C” Catholic are essentially synonymous, id est: “universal”. Usage is, as pointed out, a matter of respect.
My respect for the Roman Catholic Church came after long study, characterised by an overarching (and very difficult) superordinate, representational, and combinatorial process in the search for and reception of information.
I am looking at this very moment at a menorah dating from 13th Century Spain that has been passed to the eldest male of the paternal side of my family ever since the Expulsion of 1492 (I’m not the eldest, but I am the only non-Christian).
The subsumption of my existing cognitive structure, acquired over decades on a substantive, non-verbatim basis was not easy, given the cognitive structures left from the residue of my early learning experiences.
For me, there is no forgetting such things as the Inquisition, forced baptism, the pogroms, the Holocaust and more.
Hoever, the great virtue of modern Judaeo-Christian plurality and tolerance as C.L. described—occurs because certain details, while never forgotten, are consciously integrated into the “story of us all” and losing some of their individual identity and hence their power to divide and set us one upon the other.
I can see this post is already more than a bit vague.
Suffice to say that I honestly believe no such process occurs in Islam—at least not in any continuous, generational way.
So, we find ourselves in an intellectual as well as mortal struggle with what is essentially an autistic mindset, modern Islamic Fundametalism (leave out “modern” if you like), with no time for a theraputic approach.
I am rambling. Others here put it more plainly and effectively.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 02:26 AM • permalink#24 Davo. Well summed up!
Islam’s Five (Ig)Noble Truths: plagiarism, plunder, murder, the chattel-isation of women, and war (to keep expanding the tax/theft base). Without the death threats and the promise of pillage and sex slaves (plus free virgins for all killed while expanding the empire), it would have been the small and soon-forgotten cult of a few Arabian tribesmen.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 16 at 02:49 AM • permalink39. MentalFloss
My shot at it.
Islam has never had a “reformation” period. Christianity has been challenged by splinters and scects within it who have prodded and poked it towards gentleness. Each made more and more of the virtue of meekness, compassion, and charity, and ,due to the fairly straightforward messages in the New testament found it hard to maintain a “harsh” tone.
Evil has been done by Christians and churches in the past, some with good intentions some venal and vain.
However If you had been a conquistador which would have been considered worse. Human sacrifice or servitude to a parthenon of devils followed by eternal damnation? Or war, conquest, and conversion allowing you access to heaven?
A few centuries later and the church changed enough to prefer persuasion to force.
Islam never had any scruples about forcible conversion WHEN IT WAS STRONGER than surrounding groups. An inversion of the Christian method.
Im rambling a bit too im afraid. There is no central figure such as the Pope to moderate Islam, instead they seem to be stuck in the pope/anti-pope schism (sunni and shia) which split the catholics for so long.
It may also be worth considering that many of the wort excesses of the Catholics were committed during this time.
Im not religous but its not hard to spot a reasonable influence vs a rabid one.And to be a thread hog heres a quote from Winnie for you.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).”Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 16 at 02:51 AM • permalinkMentalFloss:
Christians of the Reformation and post-Reformation Churches often use the term Catholic with a lower-case “c” in order to underline their belief that all Christians are part of one - catholic - Church and that this is what is meant by “catholic” in the Nicene, Athanasian and Apostles’ Creeds.*
This is incorrect. There is only one Catholic Church and its visible head on earth is the successor of St Peter - presently Benedict XVI. As such, it should always be written with an upper-case “C”. (This to respect both Catholic and protestant sensibilities - the latter, after all, do not actually believe the Pope to be the head of the lower-case “catholic” church).
*(Use of the oxymoron “Roman Catholic” is employed for the same reason).In 1615, at the trial of Galileo, Cardinal Bellarmino stated that:
“To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.”
In 1993, Sheik Abdel –Aziz ibn Baaz, supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia stated:“The earth is flat. Whoever claims it is round is an atheist deserving of punishment. [1993, quoted by Yousef M. Ibrahim, The New York Times, 12 February 1995]
“Are you saying Islam is 500 years behind the times, and not ready to join the 21st century?
Yes.
38 warmongerng lunatic
The idea that the conquistadors had possibly learnt their jihadist ways and absorbed them into their catholic faith, from the centuries under muslim rule before the reconquista had occured to me. The exterminationist nature of this genocide is truly appalling and rivals the islamic Conquerors outrages.
Is there any evidence for this?40
yes if Mohamed had not had those epileptic fits in which he claimed to his followers that he had been selected by the angel Gabriel to spread the word, he would have been just another pillager and murderer in the anals of history.
How a simple illness can change the course of mankind! Is there a SCI FI movie here?Does no one else here find it interesting that pretty well the only way critics ever employ moral relativism between Christianity and Islam is to compare modern Muslim behaviour with that of Christians 500 years ago?
Posted by JJM Ballantyne on 2006 09 16 at 04:01 AM • permalinkYes, Catholicism had the Inquisition, but that was hundreds of years ago and the Church moved on.
Islam did not. Never did. Still stuck in the 7th century.
And if anyone thinks Joseph Ratzinger is going to apologise for what he said, they forgot that the Pope is still God’s rottweiler.
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 09 16 at 04:02 AM • permalink#48 and #49. Exactly. For instance the Old Testament dictates quite clearly that homosexuals should be but to death while the Quran doesn’t. Yet there is not a single Christian country where this is law, but several Islamic countries that mandate capital punishment for being gay. In the only Jewish state you can be gay and join the army. Yes the Inquisition murdered apostates but stoped hundreds of years ago where as in many Islamic countries apostasy is still a capital offence and has been acted upon as recently as last year.
An editorial in the New York Times has called on the Pope “to offer a deep and persuasive apology” for “insulting Muslims.”
Thank you frollicking mole. Cl.L. and others.
My education continues…
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 05:52 AM • permalinkMerkel backs the Pope!!!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742603.htmGood news, at least one Euro country hasnt rolled on the floor and pissed on itself.
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 16 at 06:05 AM • permalink#16, MentalFloss, I got it and unlike the blog-holidaying C.L. (just a small dig - don’t really mean anything by it except that I miss reading him) I’m not a Catholic. Given the Pope’s position and its theological underpinnings he has a duty to say what he said. So good for him for being faithful and dutiful.
As for the Koran (Quran, Q’uran, or however it’s supposed to be spelled in English) it really interests me that it is inconsistent and that doesn’t seem to matter even to Muslims who take their religion seriously. Maybe such Muslims can be compared to, say, ABC reporters whose brains have not yet exploded.
With the Old and New Testaments, if your interpretation of a verse is at odds with the meaning of the whole of the rest of the Bible then you have misinterpreted, people will tell you so and your interpretation will command no respect from those who take the Bible seriously. Wander off and, if you can manage it, found yourself a sect or cult or something. But you won’t be considered Christian.
I think Muslim apologists take advantage of the Western, whole-cloth, attitude to the interpretation of the Bible and also of general Western ignorance of what the Koran actually says. So when they want to promote Islam as a religion-of-peace they point to Koranic sayings dating from early in Mohammed’s career when he was relatively powerless and trying to make alliances with surrounding Christian and Jewish populations. They thereby encourage naive, ignorant Westerners to think that we have nothing to fear from them and never tell us in plain terms that the later sayings, from the time when Mohammed was powerful and had no use for such alliances, cancel out the earlier sayings. Those later sayings, of course, are the ones about killing or enslaving all us infidels.
Whatever the thing was that told the illiterate Mohammed to, “Write,” it obviously just made stuff up as it went along. Plainly, ‘the alpha and the omega’ is not at all an apt descriptor for it.
It didnt sound too bad to be. The popes comments arent really an insult to islam - it is jsut an argument against Jihad. he is pretty clear he isnt saying what the byzantine emporor said - he is just noting it has some truth in it - ie that jihad is ungodly.
apparently you can’t even argue against that nowadaysThe MSM is at it yet again. They simply ignore what Pope Benedict said and make the muslims the victims - again. Islam is spread via invasion, wars of aggression, genocide and slaughter and has been from the days of Khalid to now. That is NOT what the Pope was saying when he recounted the debate Manuel II Paleologus and the educated Persian.
QUOTE (all empasis added)
Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he [Manuel II Paleologus] says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death….” UNQUOTE
Islam is still spread by 7th century methods - therefore it is a barbaric relic of a sordid past.
But this is not what the Pope said, he is making a powerful theological point which Islam cannot possibly answer. Pope Benedict again:
QUOTE
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.
Theodore Khoury, the editor of the temporary transcript, notes that:
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 basic rationality. So the God muslims call ‘allah’ can be capricious, irrational and even evil. OK, then this makes the Koran valueless. This ‘allah’ is little more than an avatar of the pagan Greek Gods, who acted like spoiled brats.
Khoury then goes on to quote Arnaldez. Arnaldez noted that Ibn Hazn stated that ‘allah’ is not bound even by his own word. He also said that “nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.@ SAY WHAT??
This means that ‘allah’ is not God. How can God be God if he is unreasonable, hence imperfect. So ‘allah’ is deficient/imperfect. Sorry, God cannot by definition be so. SO ‘allah’ is not God, and never was.So what is ‘allah’?
Based on the behaviour and ‘sanctified’ murderous evil of his followers, as well as the fact that ‘allah’s heaven’ is a whorehouse for rapists, slaveowners, hypocrites, liars, murderers and thugs, ‘allah’ must be the antithesis of God.
Adaddon is therefore a likely candidate for ‘allah’.
MarkL
Canberra#48
Does no one else here find it interesting that pretty well the only way critics ever employ moral relativism between Christianity and Islam is to compare modern Muslim behaviour with that of Christians 500 years ago?
Not unlike how it’s impossible to have a conversation at Webdiary about Palestinian or Islamist terrorism without some arsehole bringing up the King David Hotel.
#55 Janice,
You inadvertantly put your finger on it. You see, interpretation of the Koran isn’t allowed. The koran is the perfect word of god and if it appears inconsistent, that is because of the imperfection of the reader.
islam really is a totalitarian ideology, with no wriggle room allowed. I find it surprising that there can be peaceful muslims, as in fact there are.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2006 09 16 at 08:21 AM • permalinkIf have a lot of faith in your faith, then any slings and arrows should be like water off a ducks back. Someone who is comfortable in their position should be able to ignore with impunity any slights or rough commentary (not that I think the Pope is out of line at all).
The hoo-ha that erupts everytime a muzzi gets offended just shows that they have a lot of insecurity about their faith and what it says - or its place in the world. If I was them, I’d learn to shut up.
Posted by mr creosote on 2006 09 16 at 08:49 AM • permalinkThe ABC is reporting this as a grovelling apology by the Vatican.
“The Vatican’s new Secretary of State, Tarcisio Bertone today said: “The Holy Father is extremely sorry that certain passages of his speech appeared offensive to Muslim believers and were interpreted in a way that does not correspond in any way to his intentions”.”
Bollocks, hes saying if you dont like what it says the problem is with you!
Stick it to em Ratty.Also this lovely little Mafia style warning from a turkish
Donleader.“In Turkey, the country the Pope is due to visit in November, a senior religious figure said the Pope should reconsider his trip for his own safety.”
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2006 09 16 at 08:59 AM • permalinkislam really is a totalitarian ideology, with no wriggle room allowed. I find it surprising that there can be peaceful muslims, as in fact there are.
No, there aren’t. There are Muslims not currently committing violence. Support for violence in the name of Islam is nearly universal, with the exceptions living under threat of violence from the rest of Islam.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 09 16 at 09:29 AM • permalinkHmmmm, I have no patience or tolerance for islamic violence or the conduct of many imams and radicals…
Similarly, and sorry if this offends a few catholics here, I don’t have much respect for the long sordid history of the popes…
And not using a capital C is my choice, I don’t use capital I’s or M’s when typing islamic or muslim either… Its not some deep and meaningful thing about whether where all part of some universal church or whatever as was being said earlier, its just my choice, so don’t get so hot under the collar about it if I’m not a member of it….
Europe didn’t move out of the dark ages until the power of the catholic church had been mostly broken by the reformation.. It didn’t give up its power voluntarily or magnanimously, it fought and connived and threatened to keep it until the very end… The mussies can be harsh and unjust and violent, and so could the catholic reign in Europe… I’m just glad we had people who stood up and resisted it… I won’t ever forget that I would be doing a slow burn if they still held the power…
And sorry, its not going to make me any more friends, but with all the wretched goings on of the popes through history, I can’t believe they are God’s spokesman, representatives or rottweilers here on earth… So to even claim that they are, and are descendants of Peter, while presiding over so many past and modern crimes and injustices of the organisation plus often their own disgusting personal behaviours, while caliming infallibility etc, is more than a little insulting to me…
To claim they have that power when to me they don’t actually makes it more than an academic debate, I can’t turn a blind eye to people who claim to speak on behalf of God while doing so much wrong and just give them the benefit of the doubt…
You seem willing to excuse the catholic church of so many of the things they have done, how mild they were compared to the state, even claiming it was the mussies who influenced them??? They were such a mild bunch and it was a few misguided souls etc??? You don’t create empires and rule them and keep the people uneducated and subservient for hundresd of years, if its just a “few rotten apples” and the pope didn’t know about it… Sorry to have to inform you of that….
I didn’t mean this to turn into some big theological discussion, but a few have come on a bit hot and heavy in here… As stated I have no sympathy for the mussies, but its a pity someone other than the popes who also have a fairly dodgy past couldn’t stand up and say something about it….
Muslim leaders demand apology for Pope’s ‘medieval’ remarks
It shows an amazing amount of perception and astuteness to call something ‘medieval’ that actually is.Of course, in their world and peculiar time warp, it could have been written yesterday. The whole culture is like a bad Star Trek episode ~ Spock and Kirk trapped in the Colosseum during a gladiator review, the communicators aren’t working so Scotty can beam them up, they keep trying to convince the natives that they’re not from there but they just keep getting police verso from the mob anyway.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 09 16 at 09:50 AM • permalinkTo kill and say it is for God is wrong.
To kill and say it is to protect your society may be (in certain circumstances) both correct and an honest appraisal, without pretence to divine approval.
But anyone who does so must hope that they will not be punished by God, for the act of killing is always forbidden.
To say that you do it for God is dishonest and, in all likelihood, downright blasphemous.I didn’t mean this to turn into some big theological discussion, but a few have come on a bit hot and heavy in here… As stated I have no sympathy for the mussies, but its a pity someone other than the popes who also have a fairly dodgy past couldn’t stand up and say something about it….
Sorry casanova (#64) but you’ve lost me. There’s a war on, it’s to the death, and I’m a damn sight more worried right now about what is going to happen tomorrow than what happened some centuries ago.
The Catholic Church has come a long way since the Inquisition. In fact it’s come a long way in the last forty years. To not acknowledge that is spiteful.
We have a long and ugly war to win at all costs. The future of our kids is at stake. The last thing we can afford right now is to drag up ancient greivances among ourselves. When the war is won and peace comes, perhaps then we can talk about the old wounds yet to heal. Not now.
casanova, the history of mankind aside, the point isn’t that we should prefer Catholics to Muslims, but that the Muslim concept of conversion by force is central to their religion, while it is in antithesis to Christianity, and therefore Christians who engage in such practices are acting against the tenets of their faith, while Muslims who do so are acting in accordance to the laws of their faith. You may counter with “well, what does it matter—force is force!” But it does matter when religious beliefs are involved: Christians can be persuaded that what they are doing is wrong and not only keep on being Christian, but become even better Christians, but Muslims can never be persuaded to deny this part of their faith because to do so would make them apostates.
Another important aspect of what the pope was saying is the differences between the Christian and the Muslim concept of God. The Christians believe that God is all-powerful and so on, but that He limits himself in certain ways for our sake—in other words, He makes promises, and being God, He keeps them. Also they believe that the reward promised to humanity is closeness and friendship with God. Muslims on the other hand see God an an unapproachable, totally other being who is beyond all laws and reasoning, who demands total submission, who is not bound by any rules or promises, even His own. Also, you, you squeaking little insignificant creatures, are not to even think of being God’s pal, or call him “Father” or any of that idolatrous rot. God’s not like you, don’t you even be looking at God. Now what sort of society do you think can evolve from such a concept of God? Whether you like it or not, human society is based on a primate alpha-leader structure, and as the one on top behaves, so go the affairs among the lower orders. This can also be seen in the evolution of the Judeo-Christian concept of God from stern punisher on high to loving parent.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 16 at 10:21 AM • permalinkGeoff, that church changes as it has to, as it is forced to… It does nothing voluntarily… As its temporal power over governments and rulers was broken by the reformation (and the dark ages ended), and as the power of media has turned its spotlight on it, so has its behaviour mellowed and improved…
It did nothing voluntarily about the priests abusing children till it came out in the media.. To protect its reputation and its assets, it transfered problems rather than solved them… Thats not spite, its just reality…
I’m not prepared to allow arguments and causes to decide who my compatriots are, unlike the lefties who will make common cause with anyone to achieve their short term aims… Sorry about that…
To the non believers and the heretics (last I heard everyone who wasn’t a catholic was going to hellfire or have we mellowed that doctrine a bit??) both religious groups can, and have been, merciless… I don’t want a resurgence in one, to put down the other… I won’t line up behind someone’s or some groups banner for short term gains if I can’t respect them…
It was a fairly simple point I made earlier, before I was instructed to use capital letters when referring to that organisation and given both barrels about how supreme the power of the pope was… I think I am allowed to respond am I not???
If the popes really wanted to be “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah” as #16 Mentalfloss claimed, maybe Pius XII could have spoken out a bit more about the holocaust, thrown his weight around a bit… That to me would have been the principled thing to do, but money, assets and power have a way of getting in the way of principles…
Manuel Paleologus was a very significant choice for a number of reasons. Firstly he made peace with the Pope in an effort to reconcile the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Rites. Manuel II himself converted to Catholicism leading to a civil war in Byzantium. Eventually Manuel won the civil war and re-established himself on the throne. Manuel II, like many of the Byzantine Emperors, was a theologist. His predecessors were forced by Murad and Bayezit to ‘campaign’ with Turks in Georgia, Armenia and Southern Russia rounding up slaves and wealth for the Ottomans which was always eventually turned on the Byzantines. Manuel II refused to pay tribute and contribute to the Turkish military. He reinforced Morea (southern Greece), Constantinople and what little remained of his empire. He locked the gates of Constantinople and emerged victorious after a six year siege of the city. He regained the Empire’s dignity in its dealings with Turks. Around fifty years later Emperor Constantine maintained Manuel’s policy and died defending the walls of Constantinople in 1453 when the city finally fell. Mehmet II sacked the City, turned the home of the Orthodox Church, Sancta Sophia - reputedly the largest Church in the world, into a Mosque. Thus Constantinople ended as it begun, under the reign of a great Emperor Constantine. Constantine’s body was never found and thus never violated by Mehmet.
Posted by platey mates on 2006 09 16 at 10:25 AM • permalinkWhy aren’t the leaders and PMs of western countries and Christendom speaking up in his defense and the defense of free speech?!?!?!? Why this dhimmified silence? Only the German PM has dared to say anything. Everyone seems to be pretending it’s not happening. Yet all over the muslim world we’ve heard nothing BUT.
This is an EXCELLENT thread!
One of the key points of war is understanding your enemy. As the terrorists (who have declared war upon the west) embrace Islam, and use Islam to further their goals, understanding Islam becomes essential.
Thank you all!
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2006 09 16 at 11:07 AM • permalinkIf the popes really wanted to be “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah” as #16 Mentalfloss claimed, maybe Pius XII could have spoken out a bit more about the holocaust, thrown his weight around a bit… That to me would have been the principled thing to do, but money, assets and power have a way of getting in the way of principles…
The heirarchy of the Roman Catholic Church makes it easy to cast blame. At the top you have the Pope and one can wag one’s finger at Pius and safely cast aspersions on the entire church, yet NOT impugne the religion. A particular Pope’s shortcomings have no bearing on the Catholic faith itself because as Andrea said, “Christians can be persuaded that what they are doing is wrong and not only keep on being Christian, but become even better Christians”. Catholics looks back 65 years in abject shame at the behaviour of Pius and I’m sure there were legions then who would will the Pope do something, anything. Just as Catholics respond NOW to child abuse and parishes demand accountability from priest and diocese. They REACT TO CORRECT THE WRONGS, they PROACT to prevent them from happening.
In Muslimland, no one dares to identify the wrongs, less mind move to expunge those who would pervert Islam…ever. And you can pile up every wrong done in the name of the Catholic Church in the past 2 centuries and barely fill the Muslim corpse count of 2 months in Darfur just this year. And you can pile up all the introspective Catholic navel gazing and subsequent apologies of just the past 5 years and fill Lake Superior. You will be HARD pressed, my friend, to find a SINGLE apology from any of the multitudinous Islamic ‘authorities’.
And really, trotting out old Pope news as evidence of Catholic transgressions against the world is completely unoriginal. I mean, dang. There IS no comparison.
Posted by tree hugging sister on 2006 09 16 at 11:08 AM • permalinkMentalFloss : Re #16 :
Jewish Scholar Eh? It Figures.
Let’s see, remorseless facts, carefully marshalled and beyond refutation.
A careful point by point set of irrefutable logical statements.
Leading to an undeniable conclusion which is thoroughly unpopular and unfashionable.
Other groups get persecuted for being wrong. Only you guys get persecuted for being so infuriatingly right. You leave opponents no choice but to either change their minds, or kick your head in.
You know this, of course. It’s just that you won’t stop doing it.
*Sigh*. Well, if you’ll accept help from this distinctly unspiritual agnostic with a tendency to commit Buddhism, I’m with you.
Even if you won’t accept it, I’m still with you. I’m <strike>stubborn</strike> <strike>pigheaded</strike> <strike>recalcitrant</strike> determined too. Right is Right, fashionable or not. Inconvenient or not. And I’m glad some of my software is in service with the IDF on their submarines.
I’d like to talk with you about Josephus some time, I have an interest in that period of history.
Meh. I have a plethora of bloggable quotes but after two days of watching the spin on the Pope’s speech, I’ll just throw a few links here instead:
(1) The Islamist version. Indicative of many.
(2) An Italian Muslim response. Lonely voices.
(3) So what’s the answer? I doubt expects Islam is capable of reform although I expect him to appeal to reason and dialogue.
This just in: the Pope is a Catholic.(4) In the earliest years of Islam Christians considered Islam as heresy or superstition; or even schismatic. Understandable.
John of Damascus from the church of the East, the earliest Christian witness to a still infant Islam, writing in the early 700s:
And there is also the up until now strong and people-deceiving superstition of the Ishmaelites, being the forerunner of Antichrist. And it is born from Ishmael, who was born from Hagar to Abraham, from which they are called Hagarenes and Ishmaelites. And they call them Saracens, as from Σαρρας κενοι (those empty of Sarah), because of what was said by Hagar to the angel: “Sarah has sent me away empty.” So then, these were idolaters and reverenced the morning star and Aphrodite, who they indeed named Khabar in their own language, which means great. Therefore, until the time of Heraclius, they were plainly idolaters. From that time and until now came up among them a false prophet called Mamed, who, having encountered the Old and New Testament, as it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, he put together his own heresy. And under the pretext of seeming pious, attracting (?) people, he reported that a book was sent down to him from heaven by God. Therefore some of the compositions written by him in a book, worthy of laughter, which he handed down to them as an object of reverence.
More at Kevin’s
A view prevalent throughout the Middle Ages (Dante’s Inferno anyone? Even Marlowe was an Islamophobe)
(5) Even in the twentieth century, some like Hillaire Belloc still like to allude to Islam’s “heretical” roots even if Belloc himself concedes it arose from outside the church, and yet wonders why, unlike other heresies it never died out. Heh, not sure about that. Nevertheless Belloc himself noted
Whatever the cause be, Mohammedanism has survived, and vigorously survived. Missionary effort has had no appreciable effect upon it. It still converts pagan savages wholesale. It even attracts from time to time some European eccentric, who joins its body. <But the Mohammedan never becomes a Catholic>. No fragment of Islam ever abandons its sacred book, its code of morals, its organized system of prayer, its simple doctrine.
In view of this, anyone with a knowledge of history is bound to ask himself whether we shall not see in the future a revival of Mohammedan political power, and the renewal of the old pressure of Islam upon Christendom.
– Hilaire Belloc, The Great Heresies(5) Perhaps I should point him to some missionaries who have had success amongst Muslims but then those I know of are Anglican and Lutheran so Belloc might not approve. Still if you want to consider Islam a heresy, one theses on heresy from a modern day Lutheran’s 30 theses of heresies and superstitions:
A theology that does not say No to untruth cannot say Yes to truth.
——Eberhard Jüngel, “Thesen zur Grundlegung der Christologie,”(6) See (1) above. Reason anyone?
(7) Personally I think another R-word is in order. And it doesn’t start with an apology.
Oh, and the R word isn’t Reform.
I doubt the Pope even believes that’s possible.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48464casanova, one of the differences is that, throughtout the establishment of Christianity in its myriad forms, leaders and thinkers have questioned, constantly, what actions and ideas God/Christ would approve—whether it was to torture a heretic and execute same, in order to excise a perceived evil from the religious community (an evil which, unchecked, would further contaminate the flock of Christ’s) or offer the heretic the chance to recant the heresy and be received back into the community; whether Catholics and Protestants could co-exist (Elizabeth I and her wish not to examine other men’s souls); even the establishment of the Anglican (Henrician) Church was based on what Henry and his bishops and advisors perceived as the true will of God (yeah, yeah, funny how God’s will and Henry’s coincided, and too bad about those wives). All through the Inquisition, the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation—hell, even during the Dark Ages—religious leaders and thinkers continued to question and examine and consider. (Blah blah all those witches burned at the stake! Yadda yadda.)
Does this happen in the Islamic faith?
Also: Muhammad—Angel Gabriel chats him up, apprises him God (Allah) wants him to pread the word through war, slavery, and rape.
Joseph Smith—Angel Moroni visits him, shows him the golden plates, wants him to spread the word of God—through hard work, earning money, and employing the tools and using the fruits of capitalism…
Of course, that’s America for you…
Casanova, I guessed you were an anti-Catholic and you’ve now confirmed the fact. Having given the exaggerated Inquisition myth a run, you’ve now effortlessly switched to the Pius XII myth. What next - the pre-1960 US election gag about how the Kennedys wanted the Statue of Liberty to hold a giant Rosary?
The popes have been far more admirable than the heads of the so-called Church of England or most of the Protestant potentates who continued (like Calvin and Zwingli and Cromwell and Latimer and Knox) to persecute, torture and/or murder people. Hardly a year goes by even today without some pentecostal churchman falling from grace. Meanwhile, the heir-apparent of the headship of the Church of England is a lame-brained adulterer who once expressed a desire to be his mistress’s tampon.
Sinners exist, then, in all Christian communities today just as they always existed in all spheres of Catholic society before the Reformation churches came into existence. It seems to be the fate of the Catholic Church - and the Catholic Church alone - to be held to a standard of perfection Christ himself never expected of it (or of any of us). And the Pope, whoever that might be, can expect to be accused of allowing the Holocaust or Africa’s slow death by AIDS or fomenting religious violence amongst the world’s seething mass of Muslim cry-babies.
What this amounts to, when all is said and done, is that even her worst enemies intuitively believe the Catholic Church is something special. If the Archbishop of Canterbury went door to door in Gaza or Tehran trying to insult Mohammed, it’s possible nobody would care.
The whole - this Christendom of ours - muddles through, however, and its trajectory is spiritual and social enlightenment. The evidence of that is everywhere - from the billions of dollars given to our Muslim neighbours after the Great Tsunami (leaving Middle Eastern nations far behind) to the succour, food, shelter, education, medical care, counsel and sacramental comfort given by the Catholic Church to millions on a daily basis; the Catholic Church which you, Casanova, accuse of doing nothing voluntarily.
This story of uplift (with its light and its shadows) is not the narrative, trajectory or the reality for Islam and the Muslim world; nor has it been for a thousand years.
No matter the arguement. The “Victim Religion”, has scored here, with the Vatican PR people, apologising, and as is usual with us infidels, we cave in, under threats.
The Crusades, well lets have another. I would rather die standing up, than on my knees pointing east in the worship of some primitive dictat.When someone speaks an unpleasant truth, the first thing to do is scream your outrage at being “insulted”, accuse the offender of things he never said, and in general, make so much noise that the unpleasant truth is lost in the cacophany. The Muslims have this down to a fine art. I only hope the Pope will stand by his statements, and that others will stand with him.
Yes C.L., it all sweetness and light isn’t it mate… But thats cool, just don’t take exalted positions for yourself, declare yourself God’s representative on earth, declare your infalibility, give yourself an exalted title like “Holy Father” when your not holy, sell indulgences for the forgiveness of sins etc if you can’t live up to it…
If you want to make out your someone special, then don’t cry when people hold you to a loftier standard… At least the hopeless heads of the Protestant churches don’t do that, although I agree most of them aren’t much to write home about either…
And I’m sure old ratzie is big and ugly enough to whether my few home truthes… Sorry myths/propaganda… No need to play the poor victim card on his behalf… :o)
For the record again, I’m not talking about the mussies, I don’t have any time for their beliefs, although I’m sure every mussie isn’t a homicidal maniac either by the way…
Hm, what kind of Christian are you, casanova, that you are so lacking in charity? (By “charity” I mean kindness and understanding towards those with whom you disagree, as well as an avoidance of things like pointlessly insulting your allies, and other such behaviors.) In any case, you don’t seem to be a very knowledgeable Christian, because many of the things you say are either received popular “wisdom,” much of which comes close to slander (for instance, the idea that no one in the Catholic church “did anything” about pedophile priests until it came out in the media—yes, only the media, who we otherwise slam as being untrustworthy Christian haters, are suddenly the only ones we could turn to!—and the attacks on Pope Pius—there is more than a little evidence that the painting of him as “Hitler’s Pope” was an outright lie), or simply well-worn cliches about Bad Catholics. I’m surprised you haven’t brought up the canard about all those nuns having abortions and burying the fetuses in the convent yard…
But what convinces me of your ignorance is the fact that you read Benedict’s speech and have dismissed it as gobbledy-gook. One of the things I like about this pope is how clear and easy to understand his speeches and writings are. True, he probably referred to many things non-Catholics (and lots of Catholics) don’t know much about, points of theology and philosophy and so on, but I didn’t have any difficulty in figuring out what he was talking about.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 16 at 03:34 PM • permalink#69 casanova. I “claimed” nothing.
In quoting Isaiah I was trying to offer up some additional background, an early “Job Description”, if you will, of what I understand the scope of action and modern role of the Pope in commenting or acting upon concerns/issues/matters both temporal and spiritual.
Take from that what you will. It is not for me to define or circumscribe the power or influence of the Pontiff.
You will doubtless have noted that my comment on the usage of “c” versus “C” was suggested to be a matter of respect—which comment was quite rightly qualified and expanded upon by C.L. in post #42.
I must admit to no small degree of consternation at this interchange.
Among world leaders (the Pope is also a Head of State) I can count on the fingers of one hand those who have come out and spoken “straight”, without fear, about the nature of Islam and the threat it poses to its avowed enemy—the constantly evolving, self-critical and normative Judaeo-Christian “West”; and, well, anyone who is not a muslim.
If I may paraphrase (Matthew, I think): wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, but strait is the gate and narrow is the way, that leads to life, and few find it.
Too many are choosing the wider way.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 05:32 PM • permalinkDear Zoe—I am flattered that you would consider entering into a discussion of Josephus Flavius.
I have English, Latin and Greek editions of his “Antiquitates Judaicæ”, as well as his “Bellum Judaicum”
Of particular interest is the so-called “Testimonium Flavianum”, his “account” of Jesus that has been embroiled in controversy since the 17th century.
I should warn you that many years of study (recently including the long-awaited publication and dissemination of translations and photographic records of the Dead Sea Scrolls works in the late 1990’s) have jaundiced my opinion of his historiographical acumen.
This is quite apart from my views of him as a man, a Jew, a Governor, a General and a Roman Court-Historian!
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 06:01 PM • permalinkI would add: if the Pope can’t say anything about the current conflict because of the history of the Catholic church, then I guess no leader of any other Western nation can say anything against Islam either, since there isn’t a single Western nation whose history is simon-pure—and yes, I include Australia in that list.
And yes, the Pope is a leader of a nation—the Vatican is a sovereign, independent city-state.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 16 at 07:04 PM • permalinkI’m an atheist/agnostic but i thought benedicts speech, which was quite long, was an interesting exposition on the nature of god as described from scriptural writings. Didn’t find it gobbeldy-gooky in the least when viewed on its own terms. Quite a model of clarity actually for such an opaque subject matter.
Am seeing many reports of hysterically violent threats against the Pope by Muslims around the world (the photos of some of the protesters have to be seen to be believed; pure, frothy-mouthed hatred). Several churches have been attacked. Maybe it’s time for the Holy Father to revive the Military Order of the Knights of the Temple. As a Catholic I’ll sign up (for the reserves, at least).
The photographs must be by the Islamic Reuters News group inrelation to the angry pope haters.
I love how the Islamic public relations machine goes world wide and across the globe (geez mr prime minister can we have some Islamic somalians so they can become plackard workers here in australia), and yet the Islamics can’t condem O’Salad Bin Laden when it comes to terrorism and acts of violence.
Mick Kelty you’re wrong, we can’t trust them.
If one little Pope can create this much hysteria amongst the barbarians then think about what joo joo jesus would have caused.I guess movie the Kingdom of heaven sums up this hissy fit by the Lambers, and shows them for what they really are. Don’t blame the pope you backed the wrong horse, blame hez-bol-air…..and Moo Hum mard and Turkey.
Turkey should stop killing women!! You Islamic bastard **ricks!
#86
There has been a lot of irresponsible talk by the likes of Mark Steyn and perpetuated further by loose cannons on this blog that guys called Mohammed are responsible for a lot of bad stuff like this.
So much for that theory - the guy who did this was called Mehmet.
Posted by Margos Maid on 2006 09 16 at 10:14 PM • permalinkJanice said: [the koran] is inconsistent and that doesn’t seem to matter even to Muslims who take their religion seriously. Maybe such Muslims can be compared to, say, ABC reporters whose brains have not yet exploded.
What a brilliant analogy! I do think the current struggle within Islam- -if you can call the utter cowing of the bovine mass by an ultra-violent vanguard a “struggle” -is caused by the refusal of most Muslims to admit that if they seriously try to reconcile the Koran’s prescriptions for how allah supposedly wants people to act with the obvious requirements for a decent happy creative productive life, their heads will explode. Or their bodies will. Or their societies. Or all three.
What most Muslims do is sort of fudge it, and that’s what enrages the Islamists. Their ideal is life as Allah sets out in the koran, ie Sudan, Taliban afghanistan, Iran, saudi arabia. Where there are two types of people: those who are utterly miserable, angry and frustrated, and those who swagger around beating, cowing and throwing acid in the faces of the utterly miserable. Of course the Islamists would be the second group, so they’d be cool.
The rest of Muslims kinda know they’d be in the first group, and they don’t want to be… but to be a Muslim you can’t criticize or question anything Allah said, so.. they have to go along with the first group and pretend that yes, that’s their ideal society too.
Sad. And more explosions inevitable.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2006 09 16 at 10:26 PM • permalinkI’ve only just come from reading the Papal Address delivered at University of Regensburg.
What a thinker! I believe this man is a fit and proper leader.
He is holding out his hand. He is inviting us all to act reasonably “in imitatio dei”—taken to be a Mitzvah in Judaism: ‘Be holy because I, the LORD your God, am holy.’; and in Christianity: ‘Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ Even the stricter forms of Lutheranism use the term “conformatia” or “theosis”, holding that Jesus was singular and cannot and need not be imitated, but followed in his spirit.
Where is the insult here? There is no insult.
Well may adherents of Islam be enraged, but it is a rage born of envy. By their own book and teachings, they have no deity worthy of imitation (and I mean that in the most charitable way possible) and worship instead a man (and not even a nice man).
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 10:31 PM • permalink#93, You jest, surely?
I will not divert this thread with comments on the work of a fraud regarding stories of a fraud perpetrated on a book written by a fraud.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 16 at 10:41 PM • permalink“... maybe Pius XII could have spoken out a bit more about the holocaust”.
This is starting to become a signature comment from those who learn history from colouring books.
The official view, from the Jews.
Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 09 16 at 11:50 PM • permalink#104 Thank you.
I was waiting for someone other than myself to post on Piux XII’s status in Israel as a Righteous Gentile.
It took much longer than I thought it would.
Thank you.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 17 at 12:30 AM • permalinkPerhaps casanova would like to revist the last paragraph of his post at #69?
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 17 at 12:32 AM • permalinkMF
1. I didn’t hit the thread until about 1030, and I was checking the comments as well.
2. This is the 3rd/4th? time I’ve posted the link.
3. Stupidity can be explained; ignorance, not.Cheers
Posted by J.M. Heinrichs on 2006 09 17 at 12:52 AM • permalinkSorry, if you claim to speak on behalf of God on earth, if you claim to be the successor of St Peter, I expect a little more when the people of God are being wiped off the face of the earth… The people God gave his laws too, the people Jesus and the apostles were a part of…
Courage and conviction, many millions sacrificed a whole lot more than pius did, with out his so called power and influence…
Anyway I won’t go on further as I get accused of not being charitable or being on-side… But differences of opinions are allowed…
And Andrea, I stand corrected, I’m sure I’m the only one out there who would think this is a tad verbose and wordy:
In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God’s “voluntas ordinata.” Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done.
De-Hellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.
The principle of “sola scriptura,” on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole. “
[reminder to bone up on more papal dissertations]
#108 The Pope’s words are clear enough.
Matters of weight and complexity such as are laid out in his speech do not admit of monosyllabic “dumbing down”.
They were not addressed to you or me, remember, but to other scholars on a level many aspire to but fail to reach.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 17 at 05:58 AM • permalinkReligion doesn’t have to be only open to the super genius’ amongst us Mental… You don’t have to be able to speak 5 languages and have doctorates in it to have a grasp of what’s what…
No monosyllabic dumbing down is required (thanks for respect shown there), but nor is the use of half the terms he used, so that later someone has to explain to the rest of us what the pope was really on about…
I’m a little surprised by you, are you a practicing Jew, do you belive etc in Judaeism or not… Just wondering how it squares with your concern and support for the pope??? Not meaning to be snarky, just wondering where your coming from, I would expect similar responses from many died in the wool catholics, but maybe not from a Jew???
Your ignorance is no longer amusing, casanova, it is beginning to annoy me in its willfullness. I’m sorry that the Pope didn’t speak in little words and referred to so many people you haven’t read about in the pages of comic books, and I’m sure I’m sorry that MentalFloss isn’t hating on the Pope like you seem to think (based on no evidence I am aware of) that a good Jew should.
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2006 09 17 at 10:35 AM • permalinkOrthodox or Heterodox, Conservative or Reform, Christian or Jew—I believe I made my position on the virtues of modern Judaeo-Christian plurality and tolerance clear way back in post #39. I would direct your attention there.
Mind you, I did use rather stilted phraseology in defining the process of subsumption of nurtured prejudice to the application of the power of intellect.
Thank you, Andrea. I have nothing further to add to your comments, and definitely no wish to engage in contumely or invective with this individual.
Posted by MentalFloss on 2006 09 17 at 05:28 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
And the New Crusades are a go!
I’m cool with that.
Of course, in reality, an apology will be forthcoming. Sigh.