The Pope and his comments

[beautifulrock]

Interested to know the views here. Should Pope Benedicy apologise for his comments or is this an over reaction. The pope has again expressed the fact they were not his words but the words, he quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

As per the BBC website:
The emperor's words were, he 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."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5351324.stm

[BohsPartisan]

Just sounds like how Christianity delt with the competition during the early years.

[Condex]

Rent a mob religion, offended again....
We seem to be seeing a lot of this in the last few years!!!

[Dodge]

Had a feeling you'd post on this...

[BohsPartisan]

Rent a mob religion, offended again....
We seem to be seeing a lot of this in the last few years!!!

digress.

[Condex]

Had a feeling you'd post on this...

Yip, its been a while...:D

Heres a blog that I read quite often, which has some views on the matter.
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

[Condex]

digress.

Who's straying off topic :confused:

[Condex]

Even thought I think the BBC is biased, its still my home page...

Here's a post from 'Have Your Say'

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=3822&&&edition=1&ttl=20060917113520

Were the Pope's remarks 'anti-Islamic'?

Added: Sunday, 17 September, 2006, 07:18 GMT 08:18 UK

why should the pope apologise for the ignorance of muslims? yet again we have another example of those who offend being offended.they were
offended by cartoons last year and yet the highest
rated and longest running soap in syria has a rabbi character who only drinks blood for sustenance.

alan ronan, london

Recommended by 73 people

[Saint Tom]

i dont think he had the need to apologise but he did anyway to ease tensions. I dont think we would leap on any leading muslims similar comments about our religion with quite the same zeal, another example of how the rest of the world is conspiring to ensure that muslims worldwide are being victomised:rolleyes:

[DmanDmythDledge]

I don't see anything wrong with what he said and was ridiculous that he was pressurised into apologising.

[jebus]

Didn't see the point in what he was quoting in the first place to be honest, but afterwards he shouldn't have bothered apologising. Again just like the infamous cartoon incident this gets blown all out of proportion, not by the Islamic world, but the by the left wing western media, who seem to just wait for any old PC bandwagon to roll by these days. They spend half the time saying that no one cares what the Catholic church has to say about the world anymore, and the other half outraged by what such and such Bishop said

[BohsPartisan]

Who's straying off topic :confused:

Not saying you are off topic was looking for you to digress a little on what you were saying in the previous post, expand upon if you will.

[BohsPartisan]

Didn't see the point in what he was quoting in the first place to be honest, but afterwards he shouldn't have bothered apologising. Again just like the infamous cartoon incident this gets blown all out of proportion, not by the Islamic world, but the by the left wing western media, who seem to just wait for any old PC bandwagon to roll by these days. They spend half the time saying that no one cares what the Catholic church has to say about the world anymore, and the other half outraged by what such and such Bishop said

Can't resist having a pop at the left can you Jebus? :rolleyes:

My problem with what he said was that it is even more true of christianity that it was spread by the sword than it is of islam. More people have died as a result of Holy Wars involving christian religions than any others. Who do you think coined the phrase, "kill them all, God will know his own"?

[pete]

Clearly the Pope was just quoting someone elses comments but I don't understand what the point of the speech was in the first place. Its a bit like saying "i am not racist but heres some comments from a racist..."

:confused:

[Poor Student]

I don't believe that Pope Benedict meant to reiterate the quote as exactly thoughts of his own. Whatever people think of the pope I couldn't see him delibarately setting out to insult the Islamic world, particularly given he actually went out and apologised. Yet like Pete I can't see what he was doing exactly. Of course like usual media hype it's lifted out of a context I'll never get to see properly. I understand it was a general speech on the incompatibility of violence and the way of God but I still don't see how it fits in a non-antagonistic way (if at all).

[BohsPartisan]

The truth is out there! (http://popepalpatine.ytmnd.com/)
Look no further!

[Condex]

The truth is out there! (http://popepalpatine.ytmnd.com/)
Look no further!

Right, do the same thing with Mohammed and you'll be looking over your shoulder!!

[BohsPartisan]

Its not long since you would have been looking over your shoulder for criticising the Catholic church. Benedict I'm sure is jealous of the power the Iranian clerics wield. He'd love a return to the "good old days" of theocracy and the inquisition.

[Poor Student]

Benedict I'm sure is jealous of the power the Iranian clerics wield. He'd love a return to the "good old days" of theocracy and the inquisition.

That's just silly and adds little to the discussion. It's as if I saw the Partisan in
your name and said "I bet you want to return to the days of Marxist doctrine and the purges".*

*Knowing my luck you'll probably say you do.:p

[crc]

As I understand it, the Pope was giving an academic lecture about the relationships between Islam and Christianity in the past and present. He was giving the 'offending quote' of an example of attitudes in the past.

Its a very sad thing that (some) muslims haven't actually looked at the rest of the speech, or even thought about the context in which it was made. It would be like if I said "Hitler thought the Jews were evil and that they should be exterminated, and also that it was fair game to go around Europe invading other countries". Apparently a some muslims would interpret that sentence as being my view. Are we not allowed to debate what happenned in the past (using quotes from undesirable characters)? They need to grow up.

[BohsPartisan]

That's just silly and adds little to the discussion. It's as if I saw the Partisan in
your name and said "I bet you want to return to the days of Marxist docterine and the purges".*

*Knowing my luck you'll probably say you do.:p

If you are refering to Stalin, nothing to do with Marxism. In fact the first victims of the purges were Marxists/Trotskyists like myself so a return to the purges would not be something I'd relish.

I disagree with your evaluation of my comment though. Benedict and his predescessor are both known for their extreme right wing theocratic views.

[Poor Student]

I got this off another football messageboard, there's no source but I doubt it was invented. Here's the wider context of the speech:


"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue. In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry."

Doesn't appear to be inflammatory really. It's as if I quoted a conversation between two people I don't agree with for the main (note his use of the words forcefully and brusqueness) and drew from the discourse what I saw to be valid and make sense. Aristotle said a lot of dody things in his Politics but you won't see people stop using his "man is a political animal" quote.

Partisan, if you have quotes that suggest either of them favour the Inquisition then by all means pull it out. Stalin and the Soviet Union weren't the only ones to include heavy indoctrination and punishments for dissenters.

[BohsPartisan]

Stalin and the Soviet Union weren't the only ones to include heavy indoctrination and punishments for dissenters.
Care to expannd upon this comment?

[Poor Student]

Care to expannd upon this comment?

We'd be going well off the mark if we did, Partisan.

[tetsujin1979]

Gerry Ryan gave the full speech this morning, as you say it's just a small part of a larger talk on how the pope wants religion in general (not just the Catholic Church, or Islam) to speak out on how war and religion are getting intermingled and how there is historical precedence for this that we have yet to learn from.
I had never heard the whole speech until then, only the remarks relating to Islam, so I was quite surprised at how little of the speech actually mentioned it, and more surprised at how the media at large has chosen to fixate on that one small part, until it looked like it was the opinions of the Pope himself.

[BohsPartisan]

We'd be going well off the mark if we did, Partisan.

Then PM me, just curious as to what you mean.

[Poor Student]

Anyone who deals with classical texts and old philosophical texts would know that you come across a lot of dodgy things in your search of the pertinent information and you can end up with some weird quotes surrounding it. Now that I've read a bit more of the context of the speech I'm very disappointed to see the reaction. I don't blame the whole muslim world as I am sure it's a bit like Chinese whispers in that the small snippet has probably been presented in total isolation and out of context to the masses. I would say the fact he made several attempts to apologise and clarify at least highlights that he wants to appeal to some sort of cooperation between the faiths.

[jebus]

Can't resist having a pop at the left can you Jebus? :rolleyes:

My problem with what he said was that it is even more true of christianity that it was spread by the sword than it is of islam. More people have died as a result of Holy Wars involving christian religions than any others. Who do you think coined the phrase, "kill them all, God will know his own"?

Don't think I ever have had a pop at the left (of which I count myself among), more a pop at left wing media and left wing extremists. Having read the full transcription of the Pope's speech I think you can see where I'm coming from by constantly having a pop at them. The Guardian have resorted to tabloid practices in pursuing this fraction of a story if you ask me

[Marked Man]

Doesn't appear to be inflammatory really. It's as if I quoted a conversation between two people I don't agree with for the main (note his use of the words forcefully and brusqueness) and drew from the discourse what I saw to be valid and make sense.


Fair enough--but why even include the bit about Islam bringing only evil (insofar as it brought anything new)? Why not skip straight to the following lines about how violence being incompatible with religion? Was the pope not paying attention to the Danish cartoon incident?

[Condex]

Why not skip straight to the following lines about how violence being incompatible with religion? Was the pope not paying attention to the Danish cartoon incident?

Violence seems to be very compatible with Islam, go straight to the point..

So everyone has to worry about Islam's reaction, else they run the risk of a fatwa issued against them or note pinned to their chest with a knife.

A quote from a blog...
"the reason for the vehemence of Muslim anger is simple: manipulative politicians use undereducated mobs to bolster their credentials as defenders of Islam."

[Condex]

If you are refering to Stalin, nothing to do with Marxism. In fact the first victims of the purges were Marxists/Trotskyists like myself so a return to the purges would not be something I'd relish.


A student Marxists thats all we need:rolleyes: , most likely lives in a nice big house in the suburbs and with a lifestyle funded by his parents...Don't worry it will wear off by the time you've got a job and mortage.

[BohsPartisan]

A student Marxists thats all we need:rolleyes: , most likely lives in a nice big house in the suburbs and with a lifestyle funded by his parents...Don't worry it will wear off by the time you've got a job and mortage.
Eh, where did you get the idea I'm a student?
I'm 30, have a job a mortgage and I'm married. :p

Oh and I never had a "lifestyle funded by my parents". Condescending jerk.

[Poor Student]

I wrongly dragged a debate on the merits of Marxism into this debate. It's been sorted in PM, can we keep this back to the topic, Condex?

[pete]

Violence and religion go hand in hand. Sure most wars are in the name of religion.

[BohsPartisan]

Violence and religion go hand in hand. Sure most wars are in the name of religion.

Usually in the name of religion with some underlying econnomic reason. Even the crusades were as much about land and plunder as they were about religion. On the way to Jerusalem, crusaders sacked and looted christian cities and took over christian owned lands.
From the time of constantine the christian church was the religious wing of Rome and later of the Holy Roman Empire that Charlemagne forged. Later they were allied to the kings of France and Spain in the wars against the protestant dutch and scandinavian countries. These wars of religion had major spoils for the victors. Religious hegemony for the church ment increased revenue. For the armies and kingdoms that supported it, the reward was land and loot.

[Poor Student]

Violence and religion go hand in hand. Sure most wars are in the name of religion.

Very minimalist comment there. I'd be more inclined to agree with BohsPartisan, there's usually some other pretext when a war happens under the guise of a religious banner or at least a multitude of causes and reasons.

[Dr.Nightdub]

Considering that most of us come from a country where various strands of Christianity have been at each others' throats since the time of the reformation, it never fails to astonish me how easily people manage to lump all Muslims under the one heading of "crazy fundamentalists."

I'd suggest that people read up a bit more on Muslim history. For one thing, the start of the Renaissance would probably have at least been delayed if not put off altogether were it not for the learning - and willingness to share that learning - of the "Moors" of mediaeval Spain while our Christian forefathers were trailing their knuckles around the Dark Ages.

"The Ornament of the World" by Maria Rosa Menocal is a good starting point.

[BohsPartisan]

Considering that most of us come from a country where various strands of Christianity have been at each others' throats since the time of the reformation, it never fails to astonish me how easily people manage to lump all Muslims under the one heading of "crazy fundamentalists."

I'd suggest that people read up a bit more on Muslim history. For one thing, the start of the Renaissance would probably have at least been delayed if not put off altogether were it not for the learning - and willingness to share that learning - of the "Moors" of mediaeval Spain while our Christian forefathers were trailing their knuckles around the Dark Ages.

"The Ornament of the World" by Maria Rosa Menocal is a good starting point.

Great point this. Europe was a sewer in the middle ages (litterally) while the Arabs were advancing the fields of mathematics, science and art.

[John83]

Always very tongue in cheek, Scott Adams (the Dilbert cartoonist) has written about this:

My favorite story of the week is about Pope Benedict inadvertently insulting Islam in a speech. He quoted a Byzantine emperor who called Islam “evil and inhuman” but made it clear that it wasn’t his own opinion.
In response to being labeled evil and inhuman by a dead Byzantine emperor, a group of Muslims did what anyone would do in that situation: They firebombed two churches in the West Bank.
This is funny on so many levels that I hardly know where to start. But let me begin by saying WHAT THE HELL ARE CHURCHES DOING IN THE WEST BANK?????????
full article (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/09/pope_stirs_up_p.html)

[Marked Man]

Violence seems to be very compatible with Islam, go straight to the point..

So everyone has to worry about Islam's reaction, else they run the risk of a fatwa issued against them or note pinned to their chest with a knife.

."

I can see why you might want to say the first line of the quote used by the pope (all that Islam brought that was new was also evil); I was just wondering why the pope would want to say it.

[Poor Student]

I can see why you might want to say the first line of the quote used by the pope (all that Islam brought that was new was also evil); I was just wondering why the pope would want to say it.

You have to ask yourself if there's something very wrong when you have to ask why might a person have said something that could be taken totally out of context and look bad. He made it fairly clear that he didn't agree with it using adjectives that described it as forceful and brusque. Is it not a form of bullying if someone kicks up such a fuss everytime you do something that isn't even wrong until you're forced to second guess what may be taken offensively at a stretch?

[Marked Man]

You have to ask yourself if there's something very wrong when you have to ask why might a person have said something that could be taken totally out of context and look bad. He made it fairly clear that he didn't agree with it using adjectives that described it as forceful and brusque. Is it not a form of bullying if someone kicks up such a fuss everytime you do something that isn't even wrong until you're forced to second guess what may be taken offensively at a stretch?

But the initial speech didn't explicitly state whether the pope agreed or not with the quote. Given that and recent history, it was fairly predictable that this speech would lead to violence. The pope, being a world leader, has a duty to be aware of this, and to act so as to avoid needless provocation.

If all the pope wanted to say was that violence and religion are incompatible, surely there was a whole wealth of quotes he could have used that didn't begin by slagging off Islam as being evil and violent? Surely he could have chosen an example from the history of his own religion if he really needed an example?

[Poor Student]

Marked Man, to be honest I sincerely doubt those who perpetrated the violence saw anything but the quote in isolation. If anyone read the speech at all (it looks like your fairly bog standard philosophical discourse) they wouldn't have drawn the conclusion that he agreed with it. I'd agree with you to a certain extent in that obvious inflammatory stuff (even if considered relatively reasonable) should not be said but I don't even count this as obvious in its context. If you're unable to partially quote someone you don't agree with for fear of violence then I'd call that bullying.

[Marked Man]

I'd agree that in general freedom of speech should be protected, and I agree that certainly for people acting in their capacities as private citizens, curtailing what one says for fear of reprisals would be giving in to bullying. But there are plenty of times when leaders have to watch what they say, because not doing so would give offence (perhaps, as in this case, to the very people one is supposedly reaching out to). This strikes me as one of those cases. All the pope wanted to say could have been said without the inflammatory remarks prefacing the quote. The inflammatory part of the quote seems quite inessential to the point of the speech, so why take a needless risk?

[liam88]

I haven't read through the full 3 pages here (haven't been online for a bit) but here's my view on it:

1. The quotes were made in an academic setting, and the Holy Father stated twice that they were quotes. Anyone who reads/listens to that whole speech can see it is not offensive to Muslims (and actually very interesting)

2. Whatever happend to freedom of speech? Some of the most prominent critics of the Holy Father's speech are the same people who have called for destruction of Israel, jihard against the 'infidel' and glorifying terrorism

3. Let's look around the world whilst this goes on- Muslim militia carry out a genocide of Catholics and other non-Muslims in Sudan, the Pope makes a speech. A group of Muslims protest against the speech on the international day of action against the genocide -priorities?

4. It was a speech. Just like the cartoons were cartoons and Satanic Verses was an (extremly enlightening) book. Catholic's have companied against the De Vinci Code, other Christians have condemed 'Madona's' crucifix stunt, a lot of people protested peacefully against the Jerry Springer Opera. But that was it- no efigy burnings, no diplomatic relations cut, no churches attacked.

5. Look at some of the things that have been done in the name of Islam (n.b. I am not attributing these things to Islam nor saying all Muslims support them I am simply stating that the people who did them claimed to do them in the name of Islam) -9/11, 7/7, genocide in Sudan, systematic genocide of a quater of the population of East Timor. Surley there things give a worse name to Islam than what the Pope quotes.

6. The people protesting (n.b. not all Muslims) are looking for a fight. They have burnt American flags and Israeli flags alongside effigies of the Holy Father and have attacked Greek Orthodox churches (maybe they should read a history book on the schism). What has Israel, America, or the Greek Ortodox Church got to do with the Pope (I know the Greek Orthodox connection e.g. priests at John Paul II funeral but look at the reason for the split...). Answer: nothing, but of course it is an excuse to burn things and be anti-sematic, anti-Western.

7. The Vatican clarified it was not meant to cause offence. Burnings, protests and attacks continues. The Holy Father clarified it was not meant to cause offence. Burnings, protests and attacks continues. Further evidence that this section of the international Muslim community is just looking for a fight/excuse to protest.

It's not all Muslims -it is a proportion of zealous bigots. But the moderate Muslim community should do more to stand out against the actions of the few just like I would stand out against the actions of Catholic's who tried to blow up the Iranian embassy, burn down Mosques or kill Dan Brown......just likes most Jews would stand out against people who burnt effigys of Mohammad.

[liam88]

Breaking news -1000 Muslim clerics and scholars have demanded the Pope's removal over the comments. It's insane.

I demand the removal of:

The Indonesian Muslim government for genocide in East Timor and the impending murder of three innocent Catholics (schedueled for tomorrow)

The Muslim leaders in Pakistan for subverting justice (ref. Mirza Tahir Hussain) and propegating hate and violence

The Ayotollahs in Iran simply because they are murdering f**ks ("crimes against chastity" executions, 16 year old girls hanged from cranes, sectarian violence against Christians, torture)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he is a genocidal, anti-sematic, holocaust denying maniac

How's that for starters???

The removal the Pope for a few comments? Take a look at the genocidal nutters in your own religion first.

N.b again this is directed towards the 1000 idiots asking for the Pope's removal, I fully accept that the majority of Muslims are not bigots, idiots or genocidal lunatics........it's just these ones giving the rest a bad name.

[dahamsta]

Keep it calm please. I don't want any rants.

[pete]

N.b again this is directed towards the 1000 idiots asking for the Pope's removal, I fully accept that the majority of Muslims are not bigots, idiots or genocidal lunatics........it's just these ones giving the rest a bad name.

I think you are giving Catholics a bad name by your rant. Just because they are wrong doesn't give licence to similar inflamatory comments.

[Leeza]

Can't resist having a pop at the left can you Jebus? :rolleyes:

My problem with what he said was that it is even more true of christianity that it was spread by the sword than it is of islam. More people have died as a result of Holy Wars involving christian religions than any others. Who do you think coined the phrase, "kill them all, God will know his own"?

Lets not go ahead and get intellectually dishonest shall we?

It is impossible to deny, whatever your biased political persuasion (And I'm guessing you are 'a big rebel' who listens to 'Rage against the Machine' and has a T shirt of 'Che Guevara') that the Islamic religion had expanded immeasurably more than the Christian one within 110 years of its existence. Christianity was largely a non violent sect until Constantine and Romans killed it in the 4th century and replaced it was something disgusting and which has been used to justify several wars right up until this day.

P.S- I think the pope was asking for trouble, but he has no need to apologise.

[BohsPartisan]

Lets not go ahead and get intellectually dishonest shall we?

It is impossible to deny, whatever your biased political persuasion (And I'm guessing you are 'a big rebel' who listens to 'Rage against the Machine' and has a T shirt of 'Che Guevara') .

Everyone is biased towards their own opinion. To deny this is to deny you have an opinion.
As for the rest of your statement, no, I hate RATM and I don't own or never have owned a Ché T Shirt.
I am currently wearing a Hawain shirt!