The Pope is embroiled in a nasty mess over remarks he made in Regensburg, Germany, containing a quote from fifteenth century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, made to a Persian (Muslim) emissary. It concerned violence as a way to spread one's faith:
"Show me just what Muhammad 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."
He's surprised the Muslim world is upset? Mrs. R., who is Catholic (lapsed, I'm happy to say), said her jaw dropped. OK, Pope Benedict XVI (neé Ratizinger) complains his remarks were taken out of context:
As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus which he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, to make that opinion his own in any way. He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come. ( href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.statement/index.html>CNN)
Context, yes. It might be contextually useful to remember this was just two hundred years after the Fourth Crusade. Yes, four bloody attempts to spread faith by conquest. Two centuries before the Counter Reformation, the Thirty Years War and the rest of the long and bloody history of spreading the Christian faith by violence. Context? Nevermind.
What interests me more is how maladroit this Pope is in negotiating the treacherous waters of international relations. Sort of like George Bush. For most of the first half of the twentieth century Popes worked hard and successfully to consolidate power in the Vatican at the expense of local dioceses and national hierarchies. Pope Pius XII did this even though it meant cozying up to Mussolini and Hitler. The overriding issue wasn't Pius's anti-Semitism (which was real but probably not very virulent). It was the protection of Vatican power, independence and influence. By the 1960s the Church was probably at its zenith and its conservative nature fitted in well with the Cold War.
Then came the social upheavals of the 1960s which produced tectonic cultural shifts around the world and brought us the sweetness of Pope John XXIII and the reforms of Vatican II. The changes were deep and fundamental but produced a backlash, in US politics with the Reagan administration and in the Church with Pope John Paul II, a Reaganesque and deeply conservative Pope who managed to undo much of the atmosphere of Catholic renascence of the 1960s while still retaining a relatively benign face. Reagan similarly destroyed the movement for openness and community in US politics and government, but did it in a way that still had a human face, despite its inhuman soul.
Now we have Pope Benedict and George Bush. Neither of them seem to care anymore about putting a human face on their policies, or, for that matter, know or anticipate what the rest of the world will think. Both "play to their base" and are intent on purifying the Church or their party. Neither of them can put the genie back in the bottle, either the change of the sixties or Vatican II. In both cases the objects of their attentions will shrink and wind up the refuge of the True Believers.
Good. It can't happen fast enough.
- Log in to post comments
The "Holy Father"? I thought that was supposed to mean god.
At least that's the way it is in them gud ol suthrn baptist church's wer I wuz razed.
I'm going to get to work on a list of highly offensive and bigoted things I can get away with saying in public, because I will include the disavowel that it is "in a strictly academic sense".
It's funny to remember my childhood Sunday school teachers trying to explain why the Catholics were going to hell. You see, it's not just enough to be Christian; you must also be of the correct denomination if you want to avoid the fiery castigation of hell.
It's even funnier to recall how I was always the only one out of a consistently large class (20+) who took to arguing with their nonsense. Absolutely nobody else seemed to care.
Edmund: You have to learn hate somwhere. If there is a Hell, it will be completely populated by souls who thought it was a place for people of the wrong religion. That's the only scrap of justice I can wring out of the whole idea. If they need Hell to do the right thing, then as far as I am concerned they can go to hell.
It seems to me the pope is almost shrinking his church to be the radical conservatives, much like Bush has managed to do with his base. Some of my more 'relaxed' republican neighbors voted for him, lulled by their cheap gas and big houses. Now they are distancing themselves from the radical element of the right wing and not answering their phone calls for cash.
I see the same thing happening to catholics in my area. Sure they still go to church, but a vast majority of them no longer donate money nor do most of them think this pope is worth his prada shoes. They are very embarassed by his comments the other day and think it just throws gas on a fire, adding fuel to an already explosive situation.
Some companies try to do this as well... it's known as shrink to profitability in some circles. Is this pope shrinking the church, both members and asset wise, in some strange idea that it will make it stronger?
Yes, G, it is in fact Ratzinger's goal to have a "purer" i.e. more fascist and therefore "stronger" Church of Rome - many commenters said so at the time of his selection.
G, MC: You got my point exactly about both of them.
I disagree with one thing that you said, "how maladroit this Pope is in negotiating the treacherous waters of international relations." Cardinal Ratzinger has a long history of rigid dogmatism, and as head of the "dogma department" of the Vatican, dealth with people all over the world. He knew exactly what he was doing by using that quote, and he got the desired result - to form an even wider chasm between Christianity and Islam.
I read the lecture.
What hit me, was that it's hard to take a statement out of context when there is no context for the quote within the speech.
Maybe I don't just don't get how popes lecture (I am descended from a long line of New England freethinkers) but I wound up thinking that either the guy is a really bad lecturer or evil.
Two paragraphs into an unfocused talk on faith and reason, he throws in this 600 year old statement but never explains why he chose to use it, never puts it into a current historical perspective, indeed never even refers to it again (unless, as I mentioned earlier, my ignorance of papal lecture styles left me without the skills to decipher his words). Totally bizarre.
rutsuyan: I agree with you. I meant maldadroit from the prespective of usual norms of international diplomacy. Like George Bush, he couldn't care less. I'm sure he wishes he didn't say it for the reason hehas to spend a lot of time on it, now. Quite a nuisance. But the other effects are OK with him.
Brook: I think rutsuyan has it right. The style is about separation, not inclusiveness. Like George Bush.
The Vatican needs improved security now that the Vicar of Christ has made his "bring 'em on" announcement. Halliburton is polishing an unsolicited proposal to properly outfit the Swiss Guards with new uniforms, black SUVs, revised interrogation techniques first field tested by the Inquisition and the IED detection gadgets that have worked so well in Iraq.
Clarification for the record (although I don't think I said anything that would indicate otherwise than what I write here): I don't think the Catholic Church is especially bad. In fact there have been a lot of very progressive Catholics (e.g., Liberation Theology, Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker, etc.), just as there are a lot of progressive Protestants, Muslims and Jews. Most of them are noteworthy because they are so different than the majority of their co-religionists and certainly than their established religious leaders, like the current and late Pope. The Pope is acting just like a lot of other lousy religions, governments and institutions. Badly.
Badly indeed, as John Hogue recounts (pg 154 re Apostolic Voyage 30):
I am amazed at the bigotry that drips with anti-Catholic hatred implicit in many of the comments. So far, no one has apparently even noticed that lunatic Muslims have, to this point, apparently shot a nun to death in Somalia secondary to this and firebombed Christian churches in the West Bank in the few days since the Pope's comments were widely reported. So murdering people and bombing churches is not worth a comment but we can all try to outdo each other in our hatred of one of the pillars that gave rise to our civilization. There is a phenomena among Jews popularly refered to as the 'self-hating Jew' to describe Jews who minimize, apologize for, and ignore, sometimes join in anti-semetic social phenomena. It appears there is a larger version of this in the 'self-hating Westerner' who never misses a chance to refer to alleged Christian sins of commission and ommission yet has to be shamed into criticism of whatever tyranny is current at the time. We saw this during the Soviet era when crimes of communist regimes were minimized, explained away or ignored. We see it now with pretty much the same folks minimizing, eplaining away or ignoring Muslim lunitics rioting over cartoons, or now murdering and firebombing over comments in an academic lecture. As a letter in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz said a couple of days ago, hopefully we won't all be reading the Al-Quds Post in twenty years. Who knows, but perhaps we may consider a pro-forma condemnation of the fools who murder and bomb because they object to someone's comments before we return to contemplating how evil Christianity is. That women in Latin America refered to above has infinitely more freedom than a women in Saudi Arabia.
carl: We've let just about every major religion have it in this space. Because they deserve it. You are right to condemn the violence against Christians because the Pope says something stupid. Religious bigotry from Muslims, Catholics, Protestants and Jews begets violence. We don't need any of them.
I do get the sense that you also fail to criticize "your side." Israel acted morally? Yeah, right. Blindness is non-sectarian, my friend.
It might be contextually useful to remember this was just two hundred years after the Fourth Crusade. Yes, four bloody attempts to spread faith by conquest.
You mean on the Muslim side of the ledger? The Crusades were, at least initially, defensive maneuvers on the part of Christians, in reaction to Muslim conquest and violence.
carl: I haven't seen what you describe as "the bigotry that drips with anti-Catholic hatred implicit in many of the comments." Could you please be explicit, with examples? To help you out, here's the Webster's dictionary definition of the term "bigot": "one intolerantly devoted to his or her own church, party or opinion. Syn fanatic. enthusiast. zealot." The only posting I see herein that seems to have those requisite descriptors is yours.
As regards what the Pope said: "Show me just what Muhammad 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." Now there is bigotry. Note the use of the word "ONLY". Words like that are dead giveaways of the bigot.
Then for him to claim that he only meant to use this quote as an academic "reflection" on violence in religion is pure hypocrisy. He could have chosen any of thousands upon thousands of quotes, and he chose instead one which said Muhammad brought ..."things only evil and inhuman." Did he google to find the most inflammatory, hate filled, insulting and volatile quote he could possible use about the founder of Islam, then pick the one at the top of the list? It certainly could never be construed as an accident. So if by design, what was his design? What did he intend the repercussions to be?
This is not a criticism of the catholic religion, it is about the person at the head of it that seems to be purposely inflaming and fanning the fires of the ongoing new crusades. On the other hand perhaps you need to be a bigot to be head of the Catholic church: I would guess zealotry and fanaticism would be prerequisite for the job.... just as they would be for the heads of any religion, including Islam. All such religious leaders have to believe with unwavering faith that their way is the only way. The problem is, the Pope made the statement as a politician. The Vatican has huge power as a political body, where actually it is a religion. Iran is run by the state's religious leader, using religious beliefs as the basis for political decisions. And now in America, the Christian coalition has taken over our government and likewise sets the course of our ship of state. We are all on a collision course, driven by madmen. They can't all be right, but they are willing to sacrifice the rest of us to find out who is. The chuckle is, none are.
> What hit me, was that it's hard to
> take a statement out of context when
> there is no context for the quote
> within the speech.
Bingo Brook. I read it, too, and that's precisely what stuck out at me.
Carl: do you really think Revere condones the violence that has resulted from the Pope's words? The point was not that there is any excuse for sectarian violence. The point was that Pope Benedict either wants to sow distrust and emnity between Catholics and Muslims, or doesn't care if he does. Leave the violent fanatics aside for a moment. They are violent fanatics, and would take any excuse for violence.
Pope Benedict is revered as the head of a global religion. Whatever you think of him personally, or Catholicism generally, what he says is assigned weight by his devotees, detractors and disinterested observers alike. And he chose to repeat a centuries old stereotype of Islam as a violent religion, utterly ignoring the violence committed on Muslims (et al.) by champions of his own church. At best, that's hypocritical... at worst, it's deliberately incendiary.
Sam Harris has a delightful analysis of the main points in the Pope's lecture arguing for a "genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today." Harris sez:
Mary; specific, IMO, examples as follows;"Now we have Pope Benedict and George Bush. Neither of them seem to care anymore about putting a human face on their policies," - yes, they are both monsters intent on destroying humanity, etc., etc. "Yes, G, it is in fact Ratzinger's goal to have a "purer" i.e. more fascist and therefore "stronger" Church of Rome - many commenters said so at the time of his selection." Thankfully someone can reads the Popes mind and "knows" of his fascist intent. " Cardinal Ratzinger has a long history of rigid dogmatism,"either the guy is a really bad lecturer or evil." hopefully the former rather than the latter although I would not be surprised if Benedicts academic credentials are stronger than most of the readers on this list (including mine) "The Vatican... Halliburton..to properly outfit the Swiss Guards with new uniforms, black SUVs, revised interrogation techniques first field tested by the Inquisition..." "On the other hand perhaps you need to be a bigot to be head of the Catholic church: I would guess zealotry and fanaticism would be prerequisite for the job.... just as they would be for the heads of any religion, including Islam..." Anyway, don't want to use up to much bandwidth but some of the examples you asked for. I think I would quibble however with your assertion that the Pope may have attempted to "...find the most inflammatory, hate filled, insulting and volatile quote he could possible use about the founder of Islam,..." I am quite sure that in the several centuries since the founding of Islam one could find an exquiste number of quotes from Christian notables proclaiming something more inflamatory that bringing forth evil and spreading the faith by the sword. If that is your idea of inflammatory, hate filled, insulting and volatile then you should try reading liberal feminist material.That is where you will find some real bile.
Carl: Thank you for insulting liberal feminists as a group. As a result I no longer feel any inclination to read your comments. Which were hard to read due to lack of carriage returns anyway.
As for Ratzenburger, I do hope you don't think being anti-him is anti-Catholic. Such would paint the Catholic Church in a terrible light. I dislike him because of his personal involvement in sweeping child abuse allegations under the rug. I suppose that makes me a bigot... I don't like child molesters or their enablers, what can I say.
Tymp, I don't understand how there is to be dialog with a people who forbid me, a Christian, to read the Koran. In radical Islam, only Muslims are allowed to touch the Koran, and translations to other languages are forbidden. In radical Islam, I am not allowed to touch the book, nor read an English translation. I must FIRST convert to Islam and then I can touch the book. I must first learn Arabic before I am allowed to READ the Koran.
If you need proof for my statements, please refer to published articles on the requirements for the detainees at Guantanamo. They require the Koran to be in Arabic, and only Muslims can carry the Koran to them in their cells.
At least in my church I do not have to hide behind a screen at Mass. Please refer to the Washington Post Sept 11-17, 2006 edition, beginning on page 6, "American Muslims, Five Years Later". Even moderate Muslim Americans are having real inner conflict observing religious requirements that Americans view as contrary to the needs of a pluralistic society.
Tymp, what you seem to be suggesting is that the Holy Father should just hold his tongue. How ironic. Revere implies in his main post that Pope Pius XII was complicit with Hitler and Mussolini. The main criticism from many sources, not necessarily Effectmeasure, is that Pius did not do enough, say enough to help Jews. Did not the Holy Father hide Jews in the Vatican? Once, did he not speak out and inadvertantly precipitate a massacre of Jews? The man did the best he could to avoid the destruction of the Vatican and save as many lives as he could. Many individual Catholics, priest, nuns and monasteries also helped save Jews by hiding them.
And now you want Benedict to be silent. Will someone who is ALLOWED to read the Koran please tell me if the Prophet DID say that Islam must be spread by the sword? True or not? In the Koran or not?
If it is there, then Benedict must NOT be silent. He is asking Islam to look at itself and decide if it will be a religion of peace or violence. The Catholic Church has caused much pain over the centuries, but it has also suffered much. Be fair to current Catholics who had nothing to do with Church affairs 500 or 1500 years ago, and are trying to live the message Jesus gave us. Believe me, we have learned some hard lessons.
I will leave it there. I don't know if Effectmeasure spreads it's own kind of bigotry or not. Revere states over and over that he is equally critical of ALL organized religion. That's supposed to make me feel better. It lets Revere off the hook for what comes next in the responses.
I don't like "Sunday Sermonette" very much.
How about considering whether what Mr. Ratzinger said was correct and accurate. It is evident from the violent behavior of Muslim communicants that his comments were both.
LL: "I don't like "Sunday Sermonette" very much."
Is this topic some kinda Sunday porn stop for a librarian of faith? You've had this experience in here before.
There's no intention to be offensive. Sorry if my part of the discussion seemed meant to be offensive to Catholics.
I've noticed Catholics generally have thicker skins and a well developed religious sense of humor - could be the accumulated institutional culpability requires it. It's not all 500 or more years ago as a bunch of American altar boys will testify.
I believe the point about dialog is that there is nothing about which to have a dialog. Anything based on scripture is not open to adjustment by either side.
I can't believe that the citation used by His Holiness was meant to be other than deliberately provocative. The prior stir over the cartoons was surely noticed by the Vatican in a way that would have prevented inadvertent stupidities by the holy professor upon his return to campus. Maybe he was just trying to do his part to engage the Islamofascist. Beats me.
Carl: Well, you read quite a lot into my comparison of Ratzinger and Bush, most especially that I am bigoted against Catholics. I have probably been in a church more recently than you (a guess, admittedly) and participated in a Mass more recently than you (another guess) and have more close Catholic relatives than you (yet another guess), but that wouldn't faze you, I'm sure. I am a very staunch and unashamed and forthright atheist. I make no secret of it and everyone who knows me knows it, too. That doesn't stop me from participating in religious ceremonies when they involve people I love. What I have always told them, and what I strongly believe, is that religion should never be a barrier between people and I have tried never to let it be one between me and others. If having me in Church and even participating in the Mass or the Bar Mitzvah (both of which I have done) makes them happy, I am more than pleased to do it for them, and do it with sincerity and pleasure for their sakes. Period.
Which is why I object so strenuously to the Ratzingers, Jewish nationalists/tribalists who run Israel, Muslim fundamentalists, Christian fundamentalists, etc. They are not just mischief makers but they do great harm in this world. they put the most outrageous barriers between themselves and others, people who are no different than they are. They exclude and they punish The Other. They parctice The One True Faith and they are not content just to practice but must judge others who have no faith or different faiths. This is an effect built in to organized religions and practiced by their leaders, like Ratzinger.
Ratzinger knew exactly what he was saying and he is unapologetic about saying it (as are you and SLC and others here). But prepared words from the Pope are always carefully considered. They are not slips of the tongue. As for Library Lady's demur that we shouldn't hold people accountable for what someone said 500 years ago, that is a sensible remark but it should be directed to her spiritual leader, the Pope, who did just that. On purpose. If he wanted to make a point about the evils of violence to spread religion and use historical examples, how much more humility would have been shown by taking the superabundance of examples from his own Church. Instead he poked the hornet's nest with a sharp stick.
And Islam, like Christianity and Judaism and all the rest are hornet's nests. And the hornets come out to sting and kill. The fault is both with the hornets and those who deliberately poke them and make them come out and sting and kill innocent people.
You can read the New Testament, the Torah and the Koran in a million different ways and find the most violent, abhorrent and morally depraved ideas in it by a judicious choice of textual passages, or you can construct a sweet, peaceful, lovely and humane narrative from the same books. They are a moral Rorsach test for the believer. The believers see one thing in their own book and another in the other guy's book. I am not defending Islam. I consider it on a par with Judaism and Christianity, a dangerous fairy tale that is doing great harm in the world. The world would be better off without any of them.
If there is any bigotry in this thread it rests, IMO, with those who say, "Hey, what about the Muslims? Arent' they the real murderers?" Yes, there are Muslim murderers and thugs. And Jewish murderers and thugs. And Catholic murderers and thugs. And Protestant murderers and thugs. And atheist murderers and thugs, Etc. No book, no god, no Church, no theocracy (Iran, Israel, Saudi, etc.) has a monopoly. But religious leaders enable and provoke the worst tendencies in their flocks and followers while rarely doing the same for the best tendencies. Just like George Bush.
Let's face it, they aren't all right about matters of faith. Either they are all wrong or all but one is wrong. I'll put my "faith" in the first possibility.
Library Lady,
Would you like my copy of the Koran? I ordered it online at Amazon.com a couple of years ago. Not that I'm Muslim, or anything else. Actually I have books of all of the major world religions, as I find them interesting. But what spurred me to order the Koran on this occasion was to check out a forwarded message sent online, which claimed to quote the koran. It referred to a "prophesy" about the 9-11 attack, indicating that its purpose was to provoke God to smite the muslim world through the hand of a great western leader. It was circulating through the web via the christian fundamentalists like fire through a wheat field in the days leading up to our "shock and awe" on Iraq. So I ordered the Koran and looked up the cited verse. No such verse where it was supposed to be, no such verse anywhere in the book. Just lies put out by the fundamentalists to promote the idea that "even the Muslim bible says GW is God's servant, so it's okay with them for us to attack Iraq."
My point to you, Library Lady (who of all people should know how to look up books online) is where did you get the idea you couldn't get a copy of the Koran to read when it's readily available? In English!
To Carl: It is absolutely laughable (and revealing) to have you refer to my posts as equivalent to hate filled liberal feminist material. Why, because I think? Every example you gave of "the bigotry that drips with anti-Catholic hatred" were directly and explicitly about the Pope, not the religion. And I for one do not believe they are one in the same. In the history of the Roman Catholic church there have been many schisms, disputes about the papal authority, periods where there were two popes, each warring with the other about who was really pope. So the Pope is not the church, despite the dogma that claims the Pope is selected by divine intervention.
As for what I said (which you used post facto as an example to back your claims) about bigotry ( "On the other hand perhaps you need to be a bigot to be head of the Catholic church: I would guess zealotry and fanaticism would be prerequisite for the job.... just as they would be for the heads of any religion, including Islam...") Per the definition of bigot (already given) that is simply a true observation, not a condemnation. If you were not a zealous, enthusiastic true believer in your own religion, what kind of a religious leader would you be? Goes with the job. Try a little logic, and lighten up.
Number 1:there is nothing holy about the pope. He is neither holy nor a father. He is just a man and he just screwed up. Those defending him should admit as such and move on.
No to be fair your trying to live the version of the message that you believe he gave you. Big difference. The catholics today have everything to do with pedophile priests and the ridiculous dogma proliferating the churches teaching which causes more pain that many of their wars.
It's not bigotry to call a spade a spade. You don't get a free pass because you thinka guy in a pointy hat has more access to an invisible God than anyone else.
Well seeing how this is America and not an Islamic state got get a Koran and read it. No one is stopping you or are you afraid someone in Iran may have found out you read it?
And did not Jesus say he will come with a sword? Doesn't all the references to swords seem, oh, medieval in it's thinking. Is it worse to do the killing oneself or command it?
Forgot one other thing, Carl: You misrepresented what I said was inflammatory, leaving out the truly important part...which was not about "spreading the faith by the sword." but that Pope Benedict said: "...Muhammad brought...things only evil and inhuman." He went on to say "such as spreading the faith by the sword," as his example. His one example.
By this quote, he summarized the whole of Muhammad's teaching and worth as "only things that were evil and inhuman." ONLY. How much more derogatory, degrading and inflammatory can you get, than to condemn the entire tenets of a religion and the prophet of that religion as evil and inhuman?
I don't think it's possible to have an opinion on the use of the quotation without having read the Pope's speech. I've read it and I thought it was masterful. The quotation introduces the Pope's theme, which is a defense of theology by showing that it is an intrinsic and essential component of what I will call Western liberal thought.
The Pope argues that there are two major threats to the study of theology. The first is a rejection of rationality in favor of an ecstatic communion with God. I don't think this blog is likely to have many supporters of that position. The second threat is a belief that only things based on mathematical or empirical are scientific. This leads to a conclusion that any ethic ("what should be done?") is merely subjective. The problem with this is that subjective ethics are not capable of creating communities. When science rejects questions of religion and ethics you get "pathologies of reason and religion", which I take to mean inhuman behavior in the name of science and irrational behavior in the name of religion. On the other hand, he says, science itself does not give adequate answers to ethical questions.
The Pope used his quotation to show the antiquity of his position. He says that the Byzantine emperor's point was something like this.
"Mohammed's command to spread Islam through jihad was an attempt to accomplish through force that which cannot be accomplished by reason. God is rational and relates to us through our reason and faith, and therefore violence cannot bring someone closer to God." The rest of the essay has nothing to do with Islam; the quotation was only used as an example of a debate between someone who believed in a marriage between rationality and religion, and someone who thought that such an idea was blasphemous or idolatrous. It's a very appropriate quotation for the theme of the speech. Incidentally, one point the Pope made was that marginalising theology can make us incapable of dialogue with those cultures for which religion is a fundamental part of their lives.
Finally, I would consider one of the Pope's remarks to be genuinely inflammatory in some circles. He invited other cultures - and I really think he meant Islamic cultures here - to engage in religious dialogue. If you fundamentally reject the role of reason in a search for religious truth then dialogue is nothing more than an invitation to engage in a heretical act. I suspect that for some people the real insult in the Pope's message is the suggestion that they can and should think critically about their religion.
This would be irrevelent to any athiest,but is it possible in the last several decades that some religions,for example Catholisism have at least appeared to have grown in humanitarian approach more than others? You know,like the right of free speech etc. Maybee the press just isn't that good at covering those Christian or Buddist riots, threats, or violence triggered by offensive remarks or cartoons for that matter.
Library Lady: Here's a scholarly resource to answer your questions about Islam being a "religion of the sword". don't worry, it's from USC...pretty sure they have a Christian background. (just googled Koran, and there it was!)
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html
arkle: Your question is as relevant to an atheist as to anyone. None of the major religions are monoliths and there are many curents and cross-currents. We are concerned mainly with the leaderships, and across the board there has been considerable (IMO) regression in the last couple of decades. Vatican II was a true opening of the windows. JPII closed them, just as Reagan closed the open windows of the 60s. Both of them were adroit at putting a human face on their closing of the mind, the community and the spirit. Now we have their successors, Ratzinger and Bush, who seem intent on restricting things to the True Believers. Ratzinger seems to have little interest in dialog, no matter what he says, if it involves any compromises on his theological purity. The rest is lip service. The same with Bush. Which was the real point of the post.
MiH: Library Lady is a librarian. I'm guessing she has multiple copies of the Koran in her library.
SLC: "How about considering whether what Mr. Ratzinger said was correct and accurate. It is evident from the violent behavior of Muslim communicants that his comments were both."
Or maybe that the behavior of Jack Abramoff and his network shows that the Jews rule the world? Come on. Give me a break. Take a good look at yourelf and what you just said.
as an atheistic skeptic, i wonder, are the flames of different temperatures for different denominations? or are Jews prepared differently than Mormon? perhaps their skin is pretreated with flammable materials to heighten the pain. and how do their power these ovens? natural gas? petroleum?
Then I would suggest the pope look in his own mirror for he is not using reason or rationality in his religous practice. His position and that which is said about it is the very antithesis of what he is espousing.
Joe in Australia - "I suspect that for some people the real insult in the Pope's message is the suggestion that they can and should think critically about their religion."
GH - "Then I would suggest the pope look in his own mirror for he is not using reason or rationality in his religous practice."
In his former life he was a professor of theology at a number of major German universities. It's quite evident that he has great intellectual gifts. Possibly even gifts exceeding your own. As a non-Catholic student of philosophy I can tell you that the speech was a bold and brilliant piece of work that could be usefully expanded into a treatise of its own. It's certainly possible to argue with it, but it's the sort of thing that requires argunment and not just snide remarks about how religion is dumb, like.
Oh yeah Revere, I read your post and on this one I stood back. I knew the paintbrush was going to swing both ways and boy has it.
Joe: Since you haven't given any intellectual argument (I'm not blaming you; this is a blog thread, not a philosophy journal) we can't judge what you see in this lecture, which I have also read. When you say you are a "student of philosophy" and therefore "can tell us" the speech was bold (actually it is turgid and incoherent, in my view, but each to his own) are you saying you are a graduate student in philosophy or a professional philosopher, or just like a lot of educated people, interested in it? If the former, are you a moral philosopher?
The Pope screwed up. Even the Pope thinks he screwed up. You want to blame millions of people for the mistake (it sounds like the Pope does, too, but that's another story). They didn't get it or were misled by the news, or, maybe in your version, they belong to a violent religion and were proving it by reacting violently to the charge of violence. If the latter, then the Pope should have foreseen it. His lectures are certainly carefully crafted and each word is thought about, as is the custom for public pronouncements from the Pope.
I would observe that on an organized, policy basis the most warlike religiously affiliated state at the moment is Israel (I know, I know; they have no choice, etc. But it is a fact) and the most warlike non-state religiously affiliated group are fundamentalist Muslims. They are each warlike because the other guy gives them no choice. Then there are the warlike state actors like the US who use religion to justify their acts (in a strictly non-sectarian, way, of course). In the middle of this toxic stew steps Pope Ratzinger to pull out a quote from 750 years ago that singles out Islam for the proposition you shouldn't spread Faith with the sword, although Christianity has been in the forefront of Faith-spreading-by-sword for a good part of its history. And you, Joe in Australia, think that's a brilliant lecture?
Revere - I must confess I somewhat look forward to these Sunday Semonettes. In the absence of a HtoH cluster that has the potential to kill us all it is great fun for a Sunday morning.
All, please go back and read my post. Yes, there are dozens of Koran in my library, you don't need to lend me one. Yes, I know how to read an English translation. Obviously you people read, but have no comprehension. I will try to " 'splain it to you, Lucy."
RADICAL Islamists do not want me, an infidel, to touch their Koran. It is forbidden.
The English translations of the Koran in the library are forbidden to be read by Muslims, according to RADICAL Islam.
It is a Catch 22. To learn about Islam, I would want to read the Koran first. But it is forbidden by RADICAL Islamists, so I would be commiting a grave offense. To read the Koran I must be able to read Arabic, because translations of the Koran are forbidden. If I read an English translation I have offended.
To have dialog, you must have information. If the information is FORBIDDEN, then there is no dialog.
Joe in Australia is correct about what really is upsetting Muslims. RADICAL Islamists are incapable of thinking critically about their religion, so it makes perfect sense to murder a nun in a hospital. Critical thinking is forbidden, but murdering the infidel is not. No dialog is possible with people like these.
As I stated before, the Washington Post has a wonderful series of articles about MODERATE Muslims in America, and their struggle to stay true to their core beliefs in a pluralistic society like the U.S. Worth a look.
Love you all,
Library Lady
Tymp: My Sunday porn? That's an icky concept!
Our daughter sent my husband a quote that might be appropriate here:
"If the essayist is wrong, presumptious, and offensive? What of it? Even a bad idea can prompt a good one."--Christina Nehring, Harper's Magazine, 2003.
So I come back to Sunday Sermonette out of intellectual curiosity, but I do have trouble distancing myself from the emotion and rhetoric with which you are all so free.
Still love you all,
Library Lady
In my earlier comment about Ratzinger's preference for a "smaller" church, I relied upon the views of EJ Dionne, Jr., self-professed Catholic, Washington Post columnist, former Vatican correspondent for the NY Times, and professor at Georgetown University (an important Catholic institution). He writes:
>>Pope Benedict's vision of the Church is that it should comprise a tough band of orthodox believers who confront modernity and uphold the truths the Church teaches, without any hesitations. If that means a smaller Church, with squishy doubters or dissenters left by the wayside, so be it. He is skeptical of feminists and any changes in the nature of the priesthood. He used his power as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a Vatican office charged with safeguarding Church teaching, to condemn dissenters, such as the Reverend Charles Curran, a theologian who just happened to agree with the vast majority of American Catholic married couples that "artificial" birth control was morally acceptable.<<
http://tinyurl.com/frxvu
The characterization of these views as "fascist" is, however, my own opinion, and not that of Prof. Dionne, as far as I know.
Library Lady: Here is a direct quote copied from your post above:
" Will someone who is ALLOWED to read the Koran please tell me if the Prophet DID say that Islam must be spread by the sword? True or not? In the Koran or not?"
Please tell me how this addlepated "Lucy" is supposed to interpret that? Would I infer that you have multiple copies of the Koran in your library and that you have read them or know you can?
Sam Harris has a disheartening (the Democrats will make no improvement on the progress of our holy war) and relevant piece, Head-in-the-Sand Liberals, in the LA Times today. He opens:
More "good news" at the link.
One of the many contemporary prophecies I'm currently watching for is the assassination of the pope and a possible cover-up of the method/motive of his death by the Vatican. As tymp alluded to earlier, the pope has just thrown down the gauntlet and created a motive. Was this intentional? Many of you believe he knew exactly what he was doing by including this particular quote regarding Muhammad and the violent spread of faith. So do I. Is he intentionally making himself a target for a radical Muslim assassin? I dunno, but I'm betting Vatican security will be on the lookout, even more than usual. Hell of an olive branch, Pope Benedict.
zzzzzzzzzzz-----zzzzzz----zzzzzzzzz
the hornets' net of humanity .....> religion.
You could substitute any religion for radical Islamists.
And? A professor of theology? Big woop.
Possibly. Or not. Either way he isn't using reason or rationality to maintain his catholic dogmas.
No one said religion is dumb. I think my post made reference to it being irrational. I don't think one need type a book on a blog post to explain what should be obvious. Religion serves a purpose for many but that doesn't change the fact that at it's core is superstition and irrational.
Whether you are a student of philosophy or not simply doesn't matter. Thats an argument from authority and is simply superflous.
Regarding
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/notislam/misconceptions.html
AFAIK USC (University of Southern California) is a private secular university. No doubt with many Christians, as anywhere else in the USA, but not specifically so. The webpage itself reads very much like it was written by a Muslim. It skimps on some of its own evidence (mentions Muslim women not being able to marry non-Muslims but doesn't try to justify it), and states that pornography is more evidence of societal exploitation of women than the veil is. Not a neutral academic document. Which doesn't mean that what it says is false, but caveat lector.
I will agree with my professional colleague here on this point: stop wasting time condemning the Catholic Church for its sins of centuries ago. The Church has plenty of sins to answer for in the here and now:
-sheltering of child-rapists
-excommunication of young girls (9, 11, etc.) who procure an abortion but not the relatives who raped them
-automatic excommunication of abortionists but not advocates of war or the death penalty, which the Church also claims to oppose
-using its influence to suppress birth control and condom distribution in Africa, contributing to the spread of HIV
-its chief exorcist blaming the atrocities of Hitler and Stalin on Satan, not human agency
Oh, False Prophet, your name is so apt. I will ignore 4 of your untrue points, except #2: "excommunication of young girls...". This is SO inaccurate. You are ignorant of the teachings of the Church. I would prefer you source your information, and if you cannot then show some restraint.
MiH: I don't know how to get through to you. I will try again. If I am to be sensitive to the needs of Muslims, I must respect their tenants of their faith. To start from a position of respect in dialog with a Muslim, I would have to know ahead of time what Islam requires of the faithful. I would want to prepare for my dialog by reading the Koran and important ancient writers.
In RADICAL Islam, I am not permitted to read the Koran in my native language. I must learn Arabic. I, as an "infidel" (a sentence put upon me by RADICAL Islam, because of my Christian heritage and Western values) am not allowed to TOUCH the Koran. It is forbidden.
Can you not understand that this whole scenario is a non-starter for dialog? I again must stress that MODERATE Muslims have a different view of the West, but still struggle daily with the requirements of Islam.
As a Catholic, the above posts are starting to wear on me, so I will retire from posting for a while. As a cancer survivor, I have to take care of myself and don't need the extra aggravation of 50 people ganging up on me.
Tymp: You were right. "You have had this experience in here before." Were you being a friend and trying to warn me off, just as MRK knew to stand back because "the paintbrush was going to swing both ways"? Or were you warning me that this was no place for anyone with less than the thickest of skins and Catholics "need not apply"?
You all, I don't want to develop a thick skin, I don't want to write hurtful posts. I am the way I am--a nice, gentle Library Lady. That's the way I was raised and that's what my religion requires. I also don't like to give up on people.
Revere, will you weigh-in on this, as you started it all? Do you really think you can write the way you do and not incite the invective found in this echo chamber? Do you want me here? Be honest. Do you think your fellow posters want me here? Again be honest. I won't stay where I'm not wanted, life is too hard as it is.
Revere said: "are you saying you are a graduate student in philosophy or a professional philosopher, or just like a lot of educated people, interested in it?"
I was an undergrad in it, and a pretty good one. I did my graduate $tudie$ in a different di$cipline for per$onal rea$on$. I think more people would benefit from studying philosophy, but I also found that the main ability it gave me is to become instantly bored in a professional ethics seminar. Other students took an entire semester to achieve this. I called myself a student because I don't teach it, and I thought that it would be pretentious to claim to be an expert. But I do like reading philosophy journals occasionally.
I gave a bit of analysis of the Pope's argument in my first comment, but basically what the Pope is doing is trying to reposition theology as an essential element of intellectual study. He approaches it from two directions. First, he argues that God is reasonable and therefore his relationship with us can be studied through reason. If your knowledge of paleontology makes you reasonably doubt the literal truth of the Bible then it is quite OK to say that the Bible's meaning is not literal. As you know, there are lots of people whose religious beliefs make them say otherwise.
The Pope's second approach is from the other direction. He says that scientific culture places too much stress on empirical evidence and mathematical logic. Some disciplines (he mentions things like history, psychology, and sociology) are distorted by a feeling among their practitioners that the truths of their disciplines are confined to those things which can be empirically proven or mathematically deduced. So, these fields of study that are about human life and its meaning are being artificially constrained by the use of tools that are more appropriate for the study of physics.
There's a lot of truth in this charge. It's notorious that sociology students spend a lot of time studying statistical methods. This is partly because these students tend to be bad at math, but I think it's mostly because the faculty want to prove that sociology is! too! a science! On the other hand, I suspect most sociology students enter the field because they are in love with human cultures. They don't care about measuring the variance of the chi-squared whoosis.
Anyway, the Pope's point is that theology is intrinsically incompatible with empiricism, so it's the first of the human disciplines to be eliminated. Some people think that this incompatibility means that they should reject reason, so they become crazy mystics or suicide bombers or whatever. Other people think that this means they should reject religion as a foundation for ethics, so they invent ethical systems founded on things like evolution or economics. The pope has empirically good reasons for saying that this does not work well.
Anyway, what he wants is for us to accept that non-empirical certainties are important. It is empirically true that there are adult pigs that seem smarter than some disabled children, but I think it's better for our society that we disregard this (my example). This argument is not original with the Pope, but it's cool because it trips up a lot of consequentialist theories. The whole point of consequentialism is that you consider the alternatives to your actions. What if the act of considering the alternatives means that you get a worse result than you would have otherwise? It would mean that the only practicing consequentialist is one who does not practice consequentilism.
If this were all he had said then it would just be another "Scientists are godless and bad, OK?" messages and everybody would be bored. The flip side of what he said was that both science and a religious life requires "obedience to the truth". He wants to add non-empirical truths to the scope of science, but to do so it means that religion must accomodate empirical truths. So, this speech was a big deal.
If I were to boil his message down into a couple of sentences it would be these: don't let God's immensity scare you away from using your mind and the evidence of your eyes. But don't let the power of empiricism blind you to the importance of things that can't be measured.
Finally, this website has a whole lot of statistics about countries:
http://www.geographyiq.com
According to this site the religiously affiliated state with the biggest military expenditure by dollars is Saudi Arabia at #8. Israel comes in at #16, preceded by Spain and Turkey which are probably comparably religious to Israel. If you do the test by percentage of GDP then North Korea comes first, followed by Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Israel comes in at #7. Actually, every one of the top ten military spending countries by GDP either has an official religion (Islam), or is Eritrea, or is Israel.
As for fundamentalist Moslems having no choice but to be warlike, I guess this is true for some definitions of "no choice". On the other hand, nobody is forcing people in Britain to be fundamentalist Moslems, but I've seen pictures of marchers who seemed pretty darn warlike.
LL: You are most welcome here, as are others, whether they agree with me or not (as long as the dialog is kept within some reasonable bounds of substance; I'm flexible about this but my flexibility isn't without limit). Regarding sourcing, I'd like your source for radical Islam forbidding infidels to read the Koran. I'm not saying you don't have one. I'm just saying I've never heard this before and if it is the case how much of fundamentlaist Islam (restricting it just to that) it represents.
Joe: Need to do my day job. Will digest as I am able. Thanks for taking the time to spell out your views. My interests in philosophy are at your level. I still read it a great deal but am not a philosopher (although have published a tiny bit on the philosophy of science).
Revere, LL is right (to a degree) on the Qur'an issue - and we don't have to go all that radical, either. My own copy of the Qur'an is the Majid Fahkry, a bilingual version called 'An Interpretation of the Qur'an: English Translation of the Meanings'. This 'translation' explicitly denies the veracity of the Enmglish language version, claiming that only the Arabic version is 'really' the Qur'an. This qualification is one of the main reasons that this is (according to the book jacket) the ONLY translation apprived by Al-Azhar University - one of the leading centres of Sunni scholarship, and thus hardly marginal. So far as I know, we're not forbidden to read the Qur'an in English - just that not all Muslims would agree that this counts:)
outeast: Ah, but this seems a far different thing to me. Muslims complain constantly about the bad translations of the Koran from Arabic (their prime example seems to be "jihad"). In most religions the original language version (e.g., the Torah in Hebrew) is the gold standard and translations often differ (I think Kugel has written quite a bit about this).
So this isn't a "Muslim" issue or even a "radical Muslim" issue. It is part of the constant back and forth that occurs in interpreting "holy books." Since people tend to see what they want to in these books, this kind of argument (and claims that there is only one version which "you" don't have access to) are common in all religions.
Revere, here you go.
--from "Mother Jones", Sept/Oct 2006, interview with Muhiballo Abdelkarim Unarov by McKenzie Funk--
Quote from story about Guantanamo prisoners who believed that American soldiers had defaced the Koran:
"He did not see the soldiers write slurs in the prisoner's Koran, but believed that it happened--an Arab told him about it. 'People did not mind when translators or those who believed in God touched the holy book,' he says, 'but they were angry with the faithless and godless soldiers who wrote ugly words inside it. Kafirs--godless people-- are not allowed to touch the Koran.' Rumors of a desecration swept throught the prison. The next day 10 prisoners attempted suicide; by weeks end, there were 23 'hanging or strangulation attempts.' "
--from Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2005, "Dozens have alleged Koran's mishandling", Richard A. Serrano and John Daniszewski.
"Muslims revere the Koran as the word of God and have rules for handling it. It is always kept in a high place with nothing on top of it. A ritual ablution is required before touching a copy, which must be held above the waist. Some Muslims hold that non beleivers must not touch the holy book."
and for us ladies--
see www.islamfortoday.com, "Islam, Culture and Women", by Ruquyyah Waris Maqsood.
"During menstruation or postpartum bleeding she may not pray the ritual salah or touch the Koran..."
I could not find my original source, but I remember it was a Wall Street Journal article on the handling of prisoners at Guantanamo. Google "allowed to touch the Koran" if you need further information.
You soon will learn, as my children have, not to mess with Mom when she is in librarian mode.
LL: "Tymp: You were right. "You have had this experience in here before." Were you being a friend and trying to warn me off, just as MRK knew to stand back because "the paintbrush was going to swing both ways"? Or were you warning me that this was no place for anyone with less than the thickest of skins and Catholics "need not apply"?"
I was astounded and probably a little annoyed that you would be back to whine about the abuse you feel in reading this topic and the comments. I regret taking a cheap shot by calling it self abuse. If, in fact, it is a manifestation of a mild masochistic streak, that would be consistent with the long standing Christian tendency for each member of the faith to wear their collective persecution complex on their sleeves. But that is not an acceptable excuse for my getting ugly about it.
Just as there is no opportunity for real dialog between Islam and Christianity, whatever the combination of flavors of each, there is no opportunity for anyone of faith to have a meaningful dialog in this topic. Points of view can be polished and faith strengthened but theological POVs are unlikely to be changed or any real tolerance created.
On the tolerance front, I've lately come around to the perspective that it has been tolerance for "pestilential theologies" that has brought us to an evolutionary precipice as we await the acquisition of WMD by the religious terrorist. I suppose the impending H5N1 pandemic could provide a "breathing" spell - it's difficult to find an upside in this generally dismal outlook.
The Muslim (including those who are otherwise decent people that have been swept along), in honoring his divinely revealed theology and the history of how the prophet lived his own life, has made it abundantly clear that he (no need to be gender conscious in this case) is not going to be tolerant.
OTOH, I wouldn't count out the other followers of the god of Abraham in this scrap, particularly those anxious for the rapture. Over the last 3500 years all these followers have demonstrated a similarly repugnant aptitude for intolerance while they promoted their own pestilential theologies. The Pope's recent invitation to dialog appears to be out of this tradition.
Terence McKenna once observed that a good start at reframing this issue would be to publicly host the Pope on a burning pyre of bibles and invite the Dali Lama to witness the cleansing moment. Perhaps the unholy trinity of Don, Dick and George could be persuaded to pitch the Constitution and Bill of Rights onto the pyre as well.
Hard to believe the fuss everyone is making. What the hell would you expect after a Nazi is chosen to be Pope? Something different?
Ahhh, Terence McKenna. Exactly the kind of guy I'd want my grandchildren to emulate! Better the bonfire be fueled by the junk he put into his body over the years. But I would never suggest that HE be placed on a pyre.
Tymp, you are very masterful at appearing to apologize while at the same time dishing out more of the same. You are very good with words, very articulate, very smart. But this little whiner doesn't sense much empathy.
A writer of similar circumstance to Mr. McKenna was Jack Kerouak. He had the luck to live long enough to find wisdom. Find some of his final writings and you'll see what I mean.
Love,
Library Lady
So, what about Ken Kesey, LL?
Tymp, I didn't know I signed up for the SATs when I got involved in talking to you. Never read him. None of his books in my home library. Saw "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" because my husband and I liked the (young) Jack Nicholson.
Did Mr. Kesey say something nice about the Holy Father?
Gotta go, real life awaits.
Library Lady
LL, I was wondering if you were really well enough informed about the subcultures delimited by Kerouac and McKenna to warrant a debate about your prejudices concerning those lads.
Kesey (who was not a cancer survivor) was the bridge between them. Neal Cassady (hero of On the Road) drove Kesey's bus, Further, for The Merry Pranksters. Kesey's other great story, Sometimes a Great Notion, was made into another solid movie featuring the elder Fonda and Newman.
Extrapolating from your comments about Terence, I suspect you were (are) disappointed to learn that his demise from brain cancer had nothing to do with anything he may have regularly ingested.
My wife and I spent a week with Terence and others of his ilk at Palenque 10 years ago. I found him a bit more fond of tequilla than his writing would lead one to believe he might be but generally very true in person to his style as a lecturer and writer of social commentary. The best recommendation he had for us was the ethic of "One woman - one child." The Chinese have proved this doesn't work by imposition but it offers a way out of our environmental and resource predicaments, if adopted by 1st world women.
Salon's lead story today explores many themes near and dear to Terence: Divining the Brain.
I'd be delighted if my grandchildren were able to emulate Terence. He chose a difficult path but seemed happy to listen to the Logos and be a victim of the aphorism: Talent does what it can - genius does what it must.
Hi Tymp and LL. This post was a little different in that we have a prima facie case of the Pope sticking his foot in it. Muslims had a reasonable right to call him on it. But in Muslim worlds that means off with his head. They may get their opportunity shortly because he is heading to Turkey soon.
Tymp as always brings up very good points, but its (and its not a slam-Tymp) way over the head of most because of the number of things you have read, and others havent. I have read some of what you quote but the real world is a little different.
Info for all and Revere the military puts out a handbook on handling of the Koran and yes that real world thing is that LL is fairly much right. Some sects will cap you in a heartbeat if you are a gringo and touch the good book. Nothing is allowed to be placed above it, no non believer may touch it and above all no non believer may speak the words in it.
But the people of which I speak are the nutcase Muslims Revere. Most of them have to have the book read to them too. Cant read it. So if an Imam tells them that its in the book to kill them damned heretics and non believers-they go with it. I can only say that if the Pope was dumb enough to put that into a speech or even if he winged it, it was ill advised. I dont think he did it with malice in mind, just trying to make a point. I hope he doesnt pay for it with his life because then the stage will be set for a massive religious war. Arguably the first Christian sect going heads up with the Muslims. You kill a Pope and you will have a war. Maybe not immediately, but within a year of that. Not so much because he was the titular head of the Christian faith as it is and would be the final straw. It would confirm the beliefs of most that the Muslims are out to kill us all. Jihad against Crusade...Again.
You already have a Christian beachead not far from the first fortifications ever built to hold the middle east. Again, it will be intersting to watch what comes.
MRK, I so appreciate your clear thinking. I delayed posting a reply to Tymp, because so often I don't know where he is going and I want to be respectful. I don't fault anyone with getting cancer, dangerous lifestyles or not. Cancer doesn't care if you're naughty or nice. Just like bird flu.
Tymp, I really don't know anything about the subcultures you refer to. I don't want to debate you, I want to participate in a lively, respectful conversation and try to explain my position, sourcing it as necessary.
Love you all,
Library Lady
LL: "lively, respectful conversation"
Aye, Madam. Carry on.