Pressure on Pope to apologize to Muslims

[J77]

The trouble that I see is that the Pope is usually taken to speak for the so-called "Western world".

There's too much bloody inferrence between Catholic/Muslim and Western/Middle Eastern.

I'd like to get the loudest set of speakers evre built and shout across the Middle East that a lot of us don't give a toss what the Pope spouts from his pedestal.

He should've never have said something that could be taken out of a speech and used by the media to fuel more tension.

 

[Yonoz]

But the pope's comment was seen as being critical or insulting of Islam, not violence in the name of religion. The context was missing - or was it omitted intentionally? That would be a cynical view.

Why did the pope single out Islam? Why not address the Crusades, the Inquisition, the periodic pogroms in Europe, forced conversions by torture or death, and many other violent events in the name of the Christian religion?

History is full of examples of groups of people waging war on other peoples who do not share the same 'beliefs', or clan, tribal, ethnic or national background.

I think he wanted to start a debate specifically on this aspect of modern Islamic cultures. IMO to think any different is to disrespect him.

 

[Anttech]

But the pope's comment was seen as being critical or insulting of Islam, not violence in the name of religion. The context was missing - or was it omitted intentionally? That would be a cynical view.

Have you read the whole speech? I interpreted it differently than you, he was being critical of violence, it was actually a well balanced speech IMHO.

Whatever you say, nobody can deny there is a massive contradiction in the actions and words of some extreme islamists

 

[Yonoz]

The trouble that I see is that the Pope is usually taken to speak for the so-called "Western world".

There's too much bloody inferrence between Catholic/Muslim and Western/Middle Eastern.

I'd like to get the loudest set of speakers evre built and shout across the Middle East that a lot of us don't give a toss what the Pope spouts from his pedestal.

He should've never have said something that could be taken out of a speech and used by the media to fuel more tension.

Are you not commiting the same sin right now? He is not speaking for the Western world, you said so yourself. He is speaking for the Catholic Church - it's his duty, as well as his right.

 

[J77]

Are you not commiting the same sin right now? He is not speaking for the Western world, you said so yourself. He is speaking for the Catholic Church - it's his duty, as well as his right.

I don't think I am.

Maybe if I got my speakers, I would be speaking only for a group of people.

The trouble is, the Pope's already got his podium and, when I listen to the radio, the distinction between where you live and religion is increasingly blurred.

Anyway, thanks to old Henry, I can be thankful that no religion was thrown at me when younger.

 

[Yonoz]

The trouble is, the Pope's already got his podium and, when I listen to the radio, the distinction between where you live and religion is increasingly blurred.

So what did you mean when you said:

He should've never have said something that could be taken out of a speech and used by the media to fuel more tension.

Did you mean you think he is acting against the interests of the Catholic Church, or that as a spiritual leader and Head of State he should not be allowed to say certain things?

 

[Anttech]

Anyway, thanks to old Henry, I can be thankful that no religion was thrown at me when younger.

You mean Henry VIII?

Lucky you don't have those speakers yet, or you would have just pissed off a few million Scots Irish and English

 

[Astronuc]

Are you not commiting the same sin right now? He is not speaking for the Western world, you said so yourself. He is speaking for the Catholic Church - it's his duty, as well as his right.

While that is true that the Pope speaks for the Catholic Church, it may not be perceived by non-Christian populations, hence the attacks on non-Catholic, but Christian Churches.

Unfortunately, some people see other religions as monolithic entities. For example, there were fundamentalist evangelical religious leaders in the US which condemned Islam. They did not distinguish between religious fanatics or militants, and the vast majority who are peaceful.

As for "massive contradictions in the actions and words", look at sectarian violence between sects of the nominally 'same' religion, e.g. Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland and other European countries, or Protestants vs Protestants, . . . .

People who are given or assume leadership roles in the world MUST be mindful of unintended consequences, and must be careful about what is said and what is not. Maybe its just a problem with inherent fallibility.

 

[J77]

Did you mean you think he is acting against the interests of the Catholic Church, or that as a spiritual leader and Head of State he should not be allowed to say certain things?

Personally, I don't think religious leaders should have any say in the mass media.

Can't they make a Vatican TV or something? They've probably got this already tho'...

I think Astronuc summed my feelings up nicely - in a clearer manner

 

[Yonoz]

While that is true that the Pope speaks for the Catholic Church, it may not be perceived by non-Christian populations, hence the attacks on non-Catholic, but Christian Churches.

Unfortunately, some people see other religions as monolithic entities. For example, there were fundamentalist evangelical religious leaders in the US which condemned Islam. They did not distinguish between religious fanatics or militants, and the vast majority who are peaceful.

True, but that is not the Pope's fault. He is obviously aware of his stature. IMO he's using his power justly. Everyone is distressed these days, and he's no different. Don't we all want to solve the issue of violence in the name of Islam? Naturally he's using whatever tools he has to promote his agenda.

As for "massive contradictions in the actions and words", look at sectarian violence between sects of the nominally 'same' religion, e.g. Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland and other European countries, or Protestants vs Protestants, . . . .

My friend you are preaching to the choir. Let us stay in the Matrix - you know my views on tribalisms. It is our primal sin.

People who are given or assume leadership roles in the world MUST be mindful of unintended consequences, and must be careful about what is said and what is not. Maybe its just a problem with inherent fallibility.

I seriously believe the Pope knew exactly what he was doing.

 

[Yonoz]

Personally, I don't think religious leaders should have any say in the mass media.

He did not make that speech to the mass media.

Can't they make a Vatican TV or something? They've probably got this already tho'...

Mass media... hehe

 

[Astronuc]

RE: religious leaders . . . the mass media.

The mass media look for stories with mass appeal, and the more controversial the better.

The mass media have a stake in controversy - because it means more 'money'.

I think the old days where the mass media felt the primary obligation is to inform the public are long gone.

 

[Anttech]

People who are given or assume leadership roles in the world MUST be mindful of unintended consequences, and must be careful about what is said and what is not. Maybe its just a problem with inherent fallibility.

More like, inherent ignorance

As for "massive contradictions in the actions and words", look at sectarian violence between sects of the nominally 'same' religion, e.g. Protestants vs Catholics in Ireland and other European countries, or Protestants vs Protestants

You haven't made your stance clear, did you read the speech, and do you thus believe that the pope within the context of that speech, single out *only* Islam? (Speech not 1 highlighted quote within a whole speech)

 

[kyleb]

He later clarrified the point by expressly saying that he doesn't agree with the quote, and it in no way mirrors his own belief Surely this would be enough, and the protesting Muslims could simply admit that it was all a misunderstanding. Any reasonable person would assume that, and walk away from the entire affair.

I'm quite certain you misunderstood the Pope's "clarification" as if he said anything of the sort then things would be settled. The problem is, as far as the Pope is concerned he is The Holy See, and hence isn't willing to admit fallibility in anything he says. Instead he only apologizes for the offense people take to what he believes is 'The Message of God', further rubbing the ignorant bigotry by which he dismissed all of Islam as Godless. The Pope isn't being reasonable here either; and while he obviously doesn't mind bbing and weaving a little, he most certianly is not walking away.

 

[Anttech]

Its unfortunate that the only answer to "the slur", has been aggression. I have yet to hear any intellectual rebut to the Popes words.

 

[kyleb]

The lack of intellectual rebuttal is an unfortunately yet predictable result of founding and slanderous argument on a flagrant strawman; people often have trouble responding intellectually to such verbal assault.

 

[Astronuc]

You haven't made your stance clear, did you read the speech, and do you thus believe that the pope within the context of that speech, single out *only* Islam? (Speech not 1 highlighted quote within a whole speech)

Let me make my stance clear - I think the Pope was less than cautious, apparently talking to one audience and not thinking about others.

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 probably 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 the responses of the learned Persian.

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 of the three Laws: the Old Testament, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point-- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself-- 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 edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion. It 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 turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

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 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 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.

A translation of the Pope's speech - http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

God 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 Pope did not bother to mention that the Catholic Church and some Protestant denominations did use violence and threats against Jews and others non-traditional Christians.

Refer to John Calvin (Protestant/Calvinist) who had Michael Servetus (Miguel Serveto) (Unitarian) burned at the stake. Serveto was the first European to describe the human ciruclatory system.
See also - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Servetus

[side note - the first human to describe the human circulatory system was ibn Al-Nafis in 1242]

Plenty examples of forced conversion or execution for refusing in -
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0375706054/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by David I. Kertzer - very good bibliography from the archives of the Catholic Church, and other sources.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0618219080/?tag=pfamazon01-20 by James Carroll - also a good bibliography from the archives of the Catholic Church and other sources.

Pope Benedict did single out Islam! He did not mention any of the violent history of the Christian Church, nor any other religion.

Christianity became a state religion under Emperor Constantine, with the support of the then Church officials. The Christian Church became very much a political instrument. In the early centuries, Christianity was imposed by conquest.

The vast majority of the European population were illiterate peasants who were controlled by noble classes with the assistance of the various religious institutions.

Those who disagreed with church and state, e.g. heretics, were dealt with very harshly - certainly not with reason.

Of course, this is getting close to a discussion on religion, although it is about history of religion.

I strongly recommend one read the books by Kertzer and Carrol.

 

[Hurkyl]

The lack of intellectual rebuttal is an unfortunately yet predictable result of founding and slanderous argument on a flagrant strawman; people often have trouble responding intellectually to such verbal assault.

You miss the point -- of course we expect some people to have trouble responding intellectually to such "verbal assault". The problem that Anttech states is that, apparently, everybody is having trouble responding intellectually.

 

[Lisa!]

Its unfortunate that the only answer to "the slur", has been aggression. I have yet to hear any intellectual rebut to the Popes words.

Huh perhaps that's because your media are ignoring the intellectual 1s and have only focused on violent 1s! I heard that they(those who're studying at religion schools) invited Pope to study more about Islamand its history. what other sort of respond do you expect? Discussions? sounds ok but I think 1st historical facts need to prove Pope wrong!
The problem is that you just see fanatic and they're the only 1s who're always heard. You never care about those tolerant muslims who just keep quite or protest peacefuly. we have over 1 billion muslims in the world just imagine if all of them wanted to show a bit of violence towards such events...OUCH!

 

[ron damon]

The Pope's words were harmless. What we have here is unmoderated hatred taking advantage of the slightest, most innocuous pretence to burst out into open violence. Apologizing only feeds its sense of self-righteousness. Either we stand up to these fascists NOW, or soon our very breathing will be the object of apology.

 

[kyleb]

You miss the point -- of course we expect some people to have trouble responding intellectually to such "verbal assault". The problem that Anttech states is that, apparently, everybody is having trouble responding intellectually.

You seem to be missing my point; the Pope's argument has no intellectual foundation to dispute, it was based on a putrid red herring. In such a state of disgust, it is hard for the vast majority of people muster up anything but a request for an apology.

Perhaps you could understand the situation better if you image Herr Holy Father built his argument off a quote which reads “Show me just what Moses brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to engage in blood libel.” Surely you can see how most people people wouldn't even think to dignify such an absurd slander with an intellectual retort, but rather jump straight to suggesting an apology is in order?

 

[Anttech]

Huh perhaps that's because your media are ignoring the intellectual 1s and have only focused on violent 1s! I heard that they(those who're studying at religion schools) invited Pope to study more about Islamand its history. what other sort of respond do you expect? Discussions? sounds ok but I think 1st historical facts need to prove Pope wrong!
The problem is that you just see fanatic and they're the only 1s who're always heard. You never care about those tolerant Muslims who just keep quite or protest peacefully. we have over 1 billion muslims in the world just imagine if all of them wanted to show a bit of violence towards such events...OUCH!

Well there are over 1.1 Billion Catholics the same could be said, and Christianity is actually the largest Religion in the world with over 2.2 Billion followers

Anyway Lisa! The popes "historical" facts are sound, he is quoting a Byzantine Emperor who actually did say those things. If you understood the context of why they said this you would understand the speech better. Manuel II Paleologus at the time was being violently besieged by Ottoman Muslims. Constantinpoli was part of a Christian land since the inception of Christianity until the Ottoman's finally besieged the city. In Istanbul now are still many of the most important Christian Churches, including Agia Sophia, which oddly enough is what the Muslim mosques shape is based on.

If an Islamist declares a jihad to remove all Christians from "Muslim" land, then a Christian could using the same argument claim his own "Jihad" and claim back Istanbul.

Anyway the pope was using Manuel II Paleologus Quote as an example, that violence does not work. Islam has spread through violence, the same as Christianity has. He may have made the mistake to not include some of the nasty things that Christianity has been capable of over the years. BUT unfortunately whether it is to do with Politics, Poverty, unjust systems of power, right now, at this point in time, the people who are causing the most violence in the name of religion are people of the Muslim faith. Yes Christians are also at war, and the US is in Iraq and Afghanistan, but not in the name of religion, in the name of something else (which doesn't excuse it), but this not within the scope of the Popes speech. He was calling on the Religious leaders of the world to engage intellectually like Manuel II Paleologus did with the unnamed Lebonese Theologist. Perhaps it was Naive of him to believe this would be possible in the climate we have right now. However through his fault or political manuvering he has highlighted a massive contradiction, which needs to be addressed peaceful.

 

[kyleb]

The popes "historical" facts are sound, he is quoting a Byzantine Emperor who actually did say those things.

That Emperor had his facts wrong, and the Pope built an argument against Islam off the quote anyway.

 

[Lisa!]

See Anttech, I know the number of christians are more than muslims.
I just wanted to say that you shouldn't accuse all muslims of being violent because of the violent reaction of some fanatic. Some people here speak like all muslims are reacting violent and none of us want to rspond the speech with speech or discussion! I pointed out the number of muslims to prove that those viloent protests couldn't be from 1 billion people.

 

[kyleb]

Here is a fine example of Muslim leaders who have no interest in the sectarian conflict the Pope is pushing:

Palestinian Islamic Justice criticizes Pope's speech; says attacks on churches counter to Islam

Chief Islamic Justice for Palestine, Sheikh Taysir Al Tamimi, said Monday that attacks on churches in Palestine and anywhere in the Islamic world contravene the teachings of Islam, and that people should not allow themselves to be provoked by the inflammatory speech made by Pope Benedict XVI last week.

Tamimi stated that the principles of Islam include tolerance for all religions, including Christianity, and that Islam's teachings provide equal citizenship and religious freedom for all.

Particularly in Palestine, the Sheikh said today, Christians and Muslims are bonded by a common tragedy, as all Palestinians live under occupation. Sheikh Al Tamimi reiterated his point by saying that “attacks on Islamic and Christian holy places only serve the interests of our shared enemies.”

He emphasized the strength of the relationship between Muslims and Christians in the Islamic world, which is based in mutual respect and coexistence, and respect for the doctrines of each.

http://www.imemc.org/content/view/21509/1/

 

[Anttech]

Yes I agree Lisa! Its a very small fraction of lunatics. But there are still violent protests, a cleric, a supposed religious leader in London has been quoted in saying publicly that the Pope should be killed, in response to be a quote from a 600 year old Byzantine Leader, which was taken out of context. Do you see the problem there? Even if the pope was stating that Islam is a violent religion how can one rebuke it now? Without denouncing the Islamist viewpoint!

Imagine someone comes to me and says you are violent, and I smash him in the face and say, "No I am not, and if you say that again I will kick you" Anyone watching that scenario from the sidelines would think, what a hypocrite.

By saying that the 'pope must die' if there was a problem with violence in the name of relgion within catholism surely by now, there would be massive protests in Italy with people burning pictures of that Cleric, Mosques being firebombed etc etc.

There isnt, and the Islamic faith with all its culture needs to look at itself and understand why are these fantics able to take such positions in the Islamic Religion.

Even if the pope was wrong in what he said, the contradiction is too big to be ignored now

 

[kyleb]

The idiot in London calling blood is not the voice of Islam, but even he is apparently bright enough to comprehend the derogatory context in which the Pope referenced the quote.

 

[Anttech]

That idiot is however an influential voice in Islam. There lies the problem.

Not for one minute am I trying to make a sweeping statement that all Muslims are evil, or there religion is evil. What I am saying tho is that they need to look at the reason as to why these people are able to get to the public podiums and speak like they do.

Sheikh Taysir Al Tamimi may or may not be voice of Islam, but sometimes the logos of these people who actually speak sense is being drowned out by the violence and calls for violence of the lunatics.

 

[kyleb]

Defending an argument that is founded on blatantly false Crusade propaganda is drowning out the logos too.

 

[Anttech]

blatantly false Crusade propaganda

So in the 1400 the Byzantiums were crusading were they? Rather the Turlics were 'crusading!'

I am not defending an argument, I am highlighting a contradiction, which you don't seem to want to acknowledge.

 

[kyleb]

I didn't say they were crusading, just like if me saying 'Rush Limbaugh is preaching war propaganda' doesn't mean his is warring. Regardless, the Pope built his argument off blatantly false propaganda.

 

[Yonoz]

Check this out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135353&ft=1&f=1004"

Recent events have revealed problems that Muslims have in their relationship with secular western culture. In Europe, millions of first- and second-generation Muslims are struggling to define their identity. Some Muslim intellectuals are charting a new course, presenting an alternative that isn't often heard.

 

[Astronuc]

Check this out: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6135353&ft=1&f=1004"

Hah! You beat me to it. That was going to be my next post. I heard this tonight, and hope there will me more reports like it. This needs to happen, in addition to dialog.

People need to discuss differences in thought, especially in politics and religion, without coming to blows, verbally or otherwise. It is inherent that people have different and sometimes conflicting viewpoints, ideas, etc. That's just the way the world is and we need to be able to accept that.

 

[Yonoz]

That's just the way the world is and we need to be able to accept that.

This Taoist approach to history is slowly growing on me.

 

[Yonoz]

Listening to that report again I must comment I think this is one of the wisest Popes in history.

Many analysts believe that despite the Muslim uproar the Pope-Islam controversy may actually open the way to a more productive and down-to-earth debate on Islam and its relationship with western culture and democracy.

Impressive journalism on NPR's part too.