Did Benedict XVI bury the lead?

I think, what happened is that there was no "lede". The Holy Father did a lengthy talk and the remark was in the middle of it. It was not intended as a battlecry it is now perceived to be.

I agree. It was just an aside from his main topic of "Faith and Reason."

[I]it is correct to condemn all aggressive use of force. The pope, however, never condemned "all use of force".

I never meant to imply that His Holiness was attempting to make a formal pronouncement. I simply meant that within that speech on Tuesday he made a blanket pacifistic statement when he said, "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul" without elaborating and making any distinctions between aggressive violence and defensive or punitive violence.

To say "their goal in the current jihad is the death of every infidel" is to say "their goal in the current jihad is forcible conversion of non-Muslims to Islam". That is because the only way to achieve the former goal is to convert a part of the present day infidels and kill the rest.

No, not quite. In the classic medieval jihad of "spreading the faith through violence," when a Muslim soldier approached a non-Muslim, the person had the option of throwing his hands up and surrendering, and converting or paying the zakat tax. No one on the airplanes or in the World Trade Center was given the option of converting or paying the zakat. The goal of this jihad is simply the elimination of all non-Muslims. If a few (or even if many) convert, that might be acceptable to them as a side benefit, but it is not their goal.

Dangus, thanks for the lesson!

web] Every now and then, you get to see a reporter gently suggest that a major religious leader - take Pope Benedict XVI, example - has tried to pull a fast one. That may be what's happening in this story earlier this week by New York Times reporter Ian Fisher about the pope's complicated address on faith and reason, which included a highly significant illustration linked to Islam.
Actually, I think that Fisher did a good job of getting at the heart of this one.

Let's face it: Popes are not sound-bite-friendly speakers. They have been known to float a policy balloon or two in the midst of a doctrinal tidal wave (how's that for a mixed metaphor). I have seen bishops, in a debate here in America, lapse into Italian or Latin during public remarks so that journalists cannot quote them. It's a nice trick.

***

Isn't it the Dems and media always preaching it is not right to assume or tried to read anothers mind.

These reporters are playing with others lives with their OPINIONS their carelessness could continue this rif and even get the POPE killed and the Vatican bombed!

It was my pleasure. I wonder how many will read the full text, regardless of how long this controversy lives. As livius said "he is obviously setting the stage for serious debate on the matter.". I believe this is very likely true, so there will be more to read from our Pope. Perhaps at some point, his words will be read before the outrage and riots.

"Perhaps at some point, his words will be read before the outrage and riots."

I had just posted this on another thread so, I cheated and duplicated it below in respnse to your comment.

I think your right to search for deeper meaning in what he was saying. The idea that he was slamming all Islam as a violent religion is silly. At most he was saying that the passion of faith needs to be tempered by reason. Clearly he was not trying to establish that Islam in general and the Islam of terrorism are synonymous.

If Benedict had not used the Manuel II quote, the headline of this story might have been along the lines that Benedict believes the West has become so dependent on reason and so secularized it is incapable of being understood by Islam. Effectively, Benedict may be conceding he understands why Islam may see us as Godless.

If I were to go way out on a limb my assessment is that Benedict believes that we in the West have become too dependent on reason and the secular. The secular and reason is squeezing faith out of our lives and institutions. On the other hand, Islam is at risk because they do not allow reason or secular mechanisms (democracy) to inform their reliance on faith. I think he is asking the West to come back to faith and Islam to consider reason. A courageous lecture.

A courageous lecture.

**************

Yes. I am concerned for his safety, I confess.

A very thoughtful and excellent response, btw.

[Isn't it the Dems and media always preaching it is not right to assume or tried to read anothers mind.

These reporters are playing with others lives with their OPINIONS their carelessness could continue this rif and even get the POPE killed and the Vatican bombed!]

Oh, but the NY Times is a friendly paper, don't you know.

NYT reporter to GWB: We're a friendly paper.

GWB: Yeah. Right.

GWB: I'd hate to see an unfriendly paper. (Much laughter)

(See POTUS press conference on Fri for full context).

No one on the airplanes or in the World Trade Center was given the option of converting or paying the zakat.

True, but that attack was also condemned by mainstream Muslims, even those who symapthized with the jihadist ideas otherwise, precisely for that reason.