Posted on 09/16/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by neverdem
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “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.”
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”
--snip--
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
" “And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.”
Let me know when the Slimes apologize to President Bush.
Why do Muslims (or the NYT for that matter) care what the Pope says if they don't believe he in Christ ? isn't he just another infidel to both ?
There's an old Chinese proverb that it is as bad to take offence as it is to give offence.
You should credit the author of this quotation.
I wish the NYSlimes could hire some reporters with a brain.
I WISH PEOPLE WOULD READ WHAT THE POPE ACTUALLY SAID AND MAKE SOME ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND IT!!!
http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748
He WAS NOT DISCUSSING THE USE OF VIOLENCE FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES!!! He was not discussing Islam at all!!! He was discussing: "FAITH, REASON AND THE UNIVERSITY" ... and stated as part of his conclusion that "...theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences..." and that "... the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions."
His final statement was, "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." The "cultures" he was referring to had little or nothing to do with Islam - he was talking about the clash of "empirically verifiable" vs. "theology" cultures, as he earlier had said, "A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures."
He is being excoriated for using a quote from over 600 years ago "-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.": "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 Pope made clear he was quoting an ancient conversation. He made clear that this is NOT HIS words, but that of the Byzantine emperor, and that emperor then went on to make a "... decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature."
The last sentence was the whole point that the Pope was making during his whole presentation: Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. It was one of his many starting points for his theological discussion of "Faith, Reason and the University", part of his conclusion being, "...We will succeed in [broadening our concept of reason and its application] only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith. Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today..."
The reaction to the very profound things the Pope said illustrates several things. One of them is that the people are completely incapable of understanding the profound, and that Western universities have fallen short in their education responsibilities, including in their education of the NYSlimes' reporters and their readers who can't bring themselves to acknowledge that they don't know everything. Another is this illustration that people should not be given access to specialized knowledge and discussion, whether that be theological, political, or scientific, without thorough and accurate filtering. Yet another, but by no means the final, is that biased people always misunderstand what even the finest communications expert says.
The Pope's major point is that ALL of the profoundly religious cultures whether they be Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Hindu, etc., should not be marginalized by being snootily looked at as a "subculture" not worthy of inclusion in the university environment, and that the university "culture" must engage in reason with the religious "culture".
Not even the NYSlimes listens carefully.
They didn't even get the TITLE of his academic address right!
That is a very good summation of the address. Thank you.
The NYTs boogie man is gonna get you, unless of course you are a Muslim terrorist at which point they give their sincerest apologies for being anti-religious and bigoted.
Maybe, the only way we'll win this war is if it becomes a religious war. If the Muslim world wants to misinterpret even the Holy Father, they are simply going farther out on a rotten limb, and antagonizing more people than ever.
But for a 79-year-old theologian he sure has gotten folks worked up, hasn't he? ;)
I agree. I'm somewhat irritated that the media, after not understanding the Pope's speech to begin with, have also misinterpreted him again. You are correct. He did not apologize. But the headlines are phrasing it to appear that he did. That is the worst thing thay could do.
I believe he is speaking tomorrow. His words will be microanalyzed. They want their apology and they will not get it.
You're EXACTLY right and I'm glad you brought it up. The Pope was discussing the importance of reason in the exploration of religions and cultures.
Yep! ;)
The NYSlimes not only couldn't figure out what the Pope said, they can't even figure out what the SUBJECT of what he said was. The subject was NOT "faith and reason", it was "Faith, Reason and the University".
The Pope's address had nothing to do with Islam at all! It was meant to encourage ACADEMIA to be more inclusive in their definition of what is considered "rational"!
If he was invoking Islam at all, it was merely to say that even that a radical "God doesn't have to be rational or consistent" viewpoint should be given consideration in academic thought, a view that radical Islamists should approve.
He was also stating that religion deserved a place at the table of academic thought, and must not be dismissed by definition of the academics.
I gather the BBC started the ball rolling by putting out their own spin in all the languages used in Moslem countries before translations of the speech into those languages were even available (and I'm not sure they are yet).
It was easier for Muslim missionaries to gain converts when they could murder any who dissented. That way, you get to preach and teach, and your opposition must remain silent.
Kind of like being a non-mormon in Utah...
There is a link to the editorial editor. I just put in my $0.02 worth. Suggest everyone here do the same.
Naaa... I understood you. Mine was more a general comment on the NYSlimes' article than it was on what you said. Sorry you misunderstood.
+
If you want on (or off) this Catholic and Pro-Life ping list, let me know!
It's too bad that the editors of the New York Times didn't bother to read the pope's entire speech (which is available at http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474). If they had, they would have realized that his remarks have been taken out of context and that the Muslims are using his statements as an excuse to rampage and to bully the West. Although Benedict XVI has expressed "regret" that Muslims were offended by his remarks, he has apparently stopped short of apologizing and I don't think that the Muslims should hold their breath waiting for an apology. It's time for the Islamic cry babies and their whining apologists at the NYT to grow up.
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.