Please FReepmail me if you'd like to be added to or removed from the KofC ping list.
Posted on 09/16/2006 3:56:54 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
September 16, 2006 - 06:46
In a surreal clash of the sacred and the profane, the New York Times - that citadel of secularism - has declared in its editorial of this morning that Pope Benedict "needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology," for having quoted a 14th century Christian emperor who 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.”
The Times is only being fair and balanced, I suppose. After all, hardly a week goes by that you can't pick up the paper and read an editorial condemning this or that mullah, imam or ayatollah for the latest fatwa ordering the death of such-and-such infidel or the destruction of entire countries found to be an annoyance. Or not.
But the Times suddenly gets religion, if they'll excuse the expresssion, when it comes to the Pope. Oh well. At least there's one hopeful sign in all this. It was of course Stalin who dismissively asked how many divisions the Pope had. By its editorial according great weight to the words of the Pontiff, the Times would appear to be breaking with Uncle Joe. Might this be the start of a hopeful trend?
So if I said I heard you were a scumbag, that wouldnt be insulting, even though I was quoting?
You wrote:
"So if I said I heard you were a scumbag, that wouldnt be insulting, even though I was quoting?"
If you told me that some guy in the 13th century thought I was a scumbag, no, that would not be an insult FROM YOU PRECISELY BECAUSE YOU'RE QUOTING SOMEONE ELSE. This would be especially true if we were not even talking about me, but about universities or faith and reason -- which is what Benedict XVI was doing.
This is not hard to understand. It seems, however, that some people in the west are almost as poorly equipted in their ability to think clearly as those Muslims nutjobs demanding that the pope apologize.
Are you saying that man would not have had war if not for religion? That is a childish fantasy shared by many liberals.
Man makes war and the organizations (whatever they are)take the blame.
If Europe and the ME had been/were completely devoid of religion the fight would be over territories or mistreatment of woman or human rights or resources or...blah, blah, blah.
And by the way...stay away from those lunatics of any type, they are all dangerous.
see post# 200
PS - see the Spanish Inquisition for the Christian version of today's abomination.
I would like to apologize to everyone for ever considering the New York Times to be a reputable newspaper.
I'm with you on this one. It's almost surprising that the NY Times would chose to side with those who literally call for the assassination of the pope given the clear proof he was accurate. AND, of course, that is to ignore the fact that he was essentially calling for a dialog on Islamic theology...something muslims are clearly unable to accept.
If the atheists of the world united they would kill if threatened with extinction. To blame religion for mans inherent nature is simply false.
Why is his opinion even worth considering? Jesse commenting on what the Pope should do, LOL! That's like interviewing the mayor of Keokuk, Iowa about how President Bush should handle international affairs. (No offence to Iowans, just an example.)
”The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”-- Benedict XVI
The Pope's intention was to engage in dialogue, and as he pointed out, “as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God.”
He was quoting the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus:
“I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) 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 Pope also made sure to emphasize why this statement is decisive.“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.
“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 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 practice idolatry.”
The Pope doesn't need to offer a deep and persuasive apology for having quoted a 14th century emperor. Are we going to start apologizing for quoting individuals certain groups of people don't like? When is this one-sided fanaticism going to stop?
Nothing the Pope said in his lecture merits an apology, though perhaps he is sorry that Muslims and Leftists are twisting his words for ulterior motives. On the other hand, the Byzantine emperor of 1400 was right to point out that “spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable.” I should add that seven centuries later, Islam remains as unreasonable as ever.
Personally I think the Pope's tone was out of line. If you are leader of a "country" you should be smart enough to know that what you say matters and that its not going to be played in the media the way you meant it. Are you telling me the Pope is not ready for prime time yet? If I were him I would very careful when he goes to Turkey. Recall this isnt his first anti-Islamic comment. He also made some comment that Turkey shouldnt be part of Europe because it isnt a Christian nation.
Seems that the Pope is also ill equipped to speak. Wonder how many people he is going to get killed this week because of his "academic" comments. Words of leaders have consequences. What do you think would happen if Bush went around suggesting that Charles Murray was right and that Blacks were inferior to Whites?
Kind of like some nut jobs around here fly off the handle when someone suggests that clumps of cells frozen in a fertility clinic are not human beings.
Would you mind telling me why you're mad at the Pope for mentioning the indisputable fact that Muhammad was an islamofasict of the first order?
Dave,
You wrote:
"Seems that the Pope is also ill equipped to speak. Wonder how many people he is going to get killed this week because of his "academic" comments."
Exactly ZERO. His comments will kill exactly no one -- ever. Nutjob Muslims, however, have already shown that they will kill people over cartoons. You seem to be siding with them in the "outrage" at everything department. Get a grip, Dave.
"Words of leaders have consequences."
Yep, and that's why he said "I quote". If he has done anything wrong it is in not realizing just how stupid Muslims (and libs like you?) would react because they only FEEL and can't be rational.
"What do you think would happen if Bush went around suggesting that Charles Murray was right and that Blacks were inferior to Whites?"
What would it matter since Bush wouldn't say it and Benedict XVI didn't either. Wouldn't make more sense for to actually deal with the fact that you have no idea of what you're talking about (or maybe you could deal with the fact that Pope Benedict did nothing wrong in the first).
I think the Muslim reaction is as instructive as are your posts. They are showing they are irrational, emotional, unthinking morons. You're siding with them.
Enough said.
Please tell me that's a photoshopped image. Otherwise LOL. morans...
Please FReepmail me if you'd like to be added to or removed from the KofC ping list.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.