In all the media coverage of Pope Benedict XVI's recent speech at his old university-amid the almost endless calls for apologies, for putting words in context, countless effigies burning, murders for honor-no one actually published the speech, or even the full paragraph of the offending language so we could put it into context. I, your tireless reporter, spent half an hour digging around the Vatican site and reward you with this chance to see for yourself what the Pontiff was driving at.
It is clear that the point of this highly intellectual exercise was not even related, except tangentially, to Islam. The offending statement was itself actually a quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor in the midst of an eight year long siege by Islamic armies. As a result, the emperor was apparently not in the mood for mincing words about his Muslim contemporaries' propensity for spreading Islam by the sword. The emperor, complete with an insult to Mohammed, points out that conversion by the sword is "unreasonable" - in the philosophical sense. That is, it is contrary to reason to use compulsion to bind humans to a system of belief. In quoting this source Benedict was not even addressing Islam in his larger point about misguided attempts to divorce God from reason, though the point clearly applies with at least as great force to Islam as it does to science and Western sectarianism. I won't say you will enjoy the Pope's speech, but it should, as most close studies do, warn you about relying exclusively on the media for anything more complex than the body count. Speech.ÂÂ
John
Can you believe that in a Republican blog I had to create the religion category for this article?
you can create categories? how cool :-)
I try to keep an open mind until a series of idiocy closes it.
This is one of those times.
I have known Muslims my entire adult life. I sense no hatred or animosity in the religious realm from those people. But I also sense no outward hatred from those people for those who hijack Islam for terrorist ends.
I see Catholic (my upbringing) priests apologizing for acts they did not do upon children they did not know, but that's my perspective.
The bad priests hurt only the individuals - not the collective. There's a time to write a statement, as the priests did, and there's a time to start a movement. When will the Islamic world start a movement? The actions of the few, despite the fact that most Muslims reject them, have dominated the world's attention, because of their attacks on the collective. Those actions deserve AT LEAST the attention that the "million man march" achieved by the civil rights supporters. When someone has hijacked (no pun intended) your religion, when do you say: "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!"?
As non-Muslims, how long do we endure the "religion of peace" before it kills us? Should the next world-wide genocide be based on religion...again?
How long will it be before non-violent Muslims take over Capitol Hill and scream in unison: "Not in our name!!!" Will they just continue to sit by, and watch as fanatics take over their religion in the name of their God?
I see that some folks condemn acts of violence in the name of Muhammed, but why haven't I seen a burning of an Al Qiada effigee? Why isn't Bin Laden's caricature burning in the streets of LA, Chi-town, and NYC?
Complacence is the same as compliance, in the eyes of the media...
GreenGuy, it's not "their God", it's God, known as Allah, the same God of Abraham.
Jewish, Christian, Muslim, same God.
Though I generally agree the media dumbs down most issues to the point where no intelligent person can depend on most media outlets as a source of information for reasonable decision making, the Chicago Tribune did publish enough of the Pope's remarks to make it clear he was not attacking any one's religious beliefs. I'm pleased he had the courage not to apologize for something that merited no apology.
Is there anything more important that needs to be discussed or do we just want to rant about performers? While rome burned, Nero played his fiddle...
I agree that the flap about the pope's remarks is largely much ado about nothing. What does it have to do with Madonna?
Good title to this post, it really piqued my interest. I was expecting to read about Madonna (the performer) being crucified on stage somewhere. (I think I heard about that.)
It's very important to know the full context of the Pope's statements, because even though it seems much ado about nothing, the Muslim jihadists killed over it.
"Can you believe that in a Republican blog I had to create the religion category for this article?"
Maybe Andrew Sullivan is wrong (maybe?) and we're not all theocrats.
Someone posted recently and pointed out that the Pope was trying show there was compatibility between reason and religion and the two did not need to be mutually exclusive. Some Muslims found the Pope's speech very insulting and demonstrating that displeasure with violent and deadly acts of protest.
Madonna, on the other hand, is intentionally trying to anger Christians with a mock crucifixition of herself. You'll probably get protests at some of her venues and that's about it.
The whole theocrat issue has me perplexed. Why is that when Christians protest an action on the part of liberals to remove or eliminate something of a Christian nature on the prextext of some vague offense somehow the accusation is thrown about that Christians want to establish a theocracy? When did standing up for what you believe in all of a sudden get you labeled in such a false and derogatory way?
Is this a political blog or a 'white middle class anglosaxon (christian) blog?
It is clear that the Pope messed up with his cite for which there was a thread on this site about. He could have easily choosen from hundreds of documents that justified the crusades through violence but he did not. Clearly, he is paying for that mistake.
Most of the governments in the world are tied to a specific religious sect. It was with great forsight that our government is not and I believe has contributed to the greatness that we have achived since inseption.
I admit that I am an old conservative. I believe in fiscal restraint, small, unobtrusive government, federalism, a more isolationist foreign policy and clear separation between church and state.
I see you new conservatives, including the current federal administration as having an aggressive imperialist foreign policy, believe in big, intrusive government (for ex. the Shiavo case & swelling of the federal work force) don't mind spending the country into enourmous debt, are generally theocrats, mix unregulated industry with cronyism and conflicts of interest with the government and mixing of church and state responsibilities.
It was with great forsight that our government is not [tied to a religious sect]
Congress printed 40,000 Bibles for use in schools between 1777 and 1782. Those must have been new conservatives.
What does a theocrat look like? Or do? I'm curious.
Good point Adam. Some of what the early government did would turn some people on their heads.
Dear Local Voter,
So you are suggesting that the Pope needs to apologize for the crusades? Perhaps there can be a cease fire in the current hostilities long enough to apologize for the preceding half dozen centuries or so, and then current hostilities can resume. Let the healing begin.
You said: "I see you new conservatives, including the current federal administration as having an aggressive imperialist foreign policy, believe in big, intrusive government (for ex. the Shiavo case & swelling of the federal work force) don't mind spending the country into enourmous debt, are generally theocrats, mix unregulated industry with cronyism and conflicts of interest with the government and mixing of church and state responsibilities."
I imagine that I am as troubled as you about some of this stuff, Schiavo and the imperialism nonsense aside. Remember that Schiavo's estranged husband got the state involved first. I think some of us would like the state involved in saving lives, not just ending them. Most conservatives would agree with most of what you said. Ask yourself why you are continually so angry on this site. Conservatives are supposed to be gentle, peace-loving creatures.
John
"Most conservatives would agree with most of what you said."
Agreed, "Schiavo and the imperialism nonsense aside."
There are a lot of posters on this site that agree with this administration and their new definintion of conservatism and its implementation.
If my posts convey anger, that is not my intent. I try to convey my frustration with the current administration and what the GOP is calling conservatism being one in the same. As I said before, I tend to be a AuH20 Republican, which puts me on left of the currrent GOP or maybe they want me and those that think like me out. Yes, I am old enough to have voted and champaigned for Berry.
I am frustrated by the continued 'dirty' politics here in Illinois, my birth state. Both the State GOP and DEM parties seem filled with selfserving money and power hungry croonies. I have served on local Boards only to see local partisan politics prevent good people from serving so the communities suffer with second best or worse due to politics. I see townships within cities doing nothing but sucking at the taxpayers wallets. I see the county Board as having way to many members to effeciently conduct business. I see Urbana's government as being so far into the trees they cannot see the forest and Champaign's so far away from the forest, they cannot see any trees. Both cities milking their citizens with redundency on sum services but reluctent to provide new services. So I have no room for local croony politics either. If you have read my posts you know this.
As for specifics, data and cites, I try to give them when I have them otherwise it is my opinion. I appreciate others who do the same.
I appreciate your statement LV. I agree with quite a bit of what you state, but I think we approach it from different directions. Thanks.
Dialogue is always good vvl as are differences of opinion.
As for the Bible printing Adam, you may be right as I am not a historian, however, there are probably many examples of what Congress authorized yet was good for the people they represent.
One example of my generation is the congressional development and authorized use of agent 'orange' in the Vietnam 'conflict'.
Congress printed 40,000 Bibles for use in schools between 1777 and 1782
Well yes, but not the Congress of the United States, since the Constitution wasn't ratified until 1789.
Details, details.
In 1803, well after 1789, Congress voted and President Jefferson, of separation fame, signed a bill to salary a minister and build a church with federal money.
If that happened today could anyone imagine the howls of protest from the ACLU or Americans United?
Hey vvl, I believe that is how we ended up with a 'National Cathedral'. It started in 1792 according to their website as part of the "Plan of the Federal City set aside land for a great church for national purposes." It goes on to say "in 1893 the Protestant Episcopal Cathedral Foundation of the District of Columbia was granted a charter from Congress to establish the cathedral and the site on Mount Saint Albans was chosen."
It goes to show they even had 'pork' spending back then.