The Pope and his comments

[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.

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?

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 , 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 , 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.

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

[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.