Friday, September 15, 2006
Benedictine controversy misses the point
The reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s supposedly offensive speech hasn’t, yet, reached the level of the cultivated hysteria meted out to the Danish cartoons, but Muslim representatives, both elected and self appointed, are in full outrage mode. Personally I agree with Andrew Brown, at The First Post, that context, both historical and textual, is key… and with Stephen Bates, at CiF, “if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do?”. Although I’m less enamoured with Benedict’s attempt to equate, or entwine, religion and science.. which seems to be the actual objective of the speech, Meeting with the Representatives of Science Updated
For the record here’s the offensive paragraph from the speech
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this 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 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...”.
As Andrew Brown pointed out Constantinople fell 50 years later
But the later paragraphs, including Benedict’s conclusion, have been all but overshadowed in the controversy
In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet 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. 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. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. 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.
Updated A spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI has clarified his comments
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.
Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervour of Muslim believers, warned secularised Western culture to guard against “the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom”.
Perhaps scientists should burn a couple of effigies..?
And it wasn’t secular society that interpreted his address in that manner..
And Pope Benedict XVI has added
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
Pete Baker @ 03:30 PM
And they are getting all bent out of shape over that? Like the cartoons, Salman Rushdie when are these guys going to get real. Will they burn more effigies threaten more lives or worse? The emperors words are getting prophetic. Watch out those who dare to speak about muslims- if they don’t like what you say you’re in for it.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 04:35 PMPete,
You’re a nervous breakdown waitng to happen.You belive in Religion associated with fictionalised accounts of an alcoholic masochistic repressed homosexual story telling magician that lived 2,000 years ago, but refuse to worsip the Sun that heats this planet makes the crops grow that feed us, and provides the light for the production of oxygen in order that we breath and live.
You believe that the good old USA landed on the moon in 1969 but ignore the medical, photographic, technological, and mathematical evidence that proves otherwise.
I am only trying to warn you Pete because believe it or not there are one or two of us that like you, you do put up varied and different posts from the usual horse-shit that we are asked to post replies to on Slugger, you’re not as arrogant as Mick (you might be the Devil but i’m God) Fealty, and you’re prettier than Miss Fitz (have you seen her dog jeezusss)
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 04:48 PM‘’In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter’’
With the above extract, I think his pontifness has hit the nail rather squarely on the head.
What he, and other religious leaders seem to fear most is the heinous crime of ordinary people being able to keep their religious faith between themselves and their God, without the stormtroopers of organised religion poking their nose in.
‘We know how you should be doing it’ is a concept every bit as daft as having an organisation decide your music taste or direct your TV viewing.
In any just society, religious belief should be entirely a matter for the individual and their chosen deity, not some bloke in a frock or a turban. To suggest otherwise is merely to sanction dictatorship and repression.Benedict’s broadside on Islam is of course a classic example of pots calling kettles black. The RC church has been adept over the centuries at human rights abuses par excellence and even today continue to trample on the most basic rights of women and children, often with breath-taking arrogance.
That’s not to say that the guy doesn’t have a point as regards Islam. Dragging up a 600 year old quote may make the Orange Order look hip and happening, but it IS difficult to see exactly what Islam has contributed to the planet other than a grim determination to remain in the stone age, trample on women and spit on non-believers. The new jihad may be startling to many in the west, but is par for the course to most in the Islamic world, where the suicide bomber is merely the logical end point of extreme fundamentalism.
To non-believers, Islam is a deeply unattractive religion. Intolerant, backward, devout to the point of parody, grotesquely discriminatory and riven by often hideous in-fighting amongst it’s various branches, it ditches whatever sympathy it elicits in the west by behaving like a spoilt bullying child over the most insignificant slights.
This latest major news story concerning the clash of the delusions promises to be an interesting one. Who will blink first?Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 04:59 PMAt last an alliance could be formed between the loyalist/protestant/unionist people of ulster and the muslim world against the anti-christ (copyright ian paisley) himself. Prods and Muslims against popery, I guess they must be in whirling dervish mode over in ATW, all their dreams have come true.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 05:07 PMGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood.
“It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary,” she said Friday. “What Benedict XVI makes clear is a decisive and uncompromising rejection of any use of violence in the name of religion.”
Islam is not in listening mood . When the day dawns on a Christian Church in Riyadh that might be a sign that Islam has moved into the 16th century . Now that could have the Free P’s worried . Just imagine one shower of mad mullahs catching up on another :(
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 07:12 PMYour.. ermm.. concern is duly noted, Mr Satan.
Oh and thanks.. I think..
GLC and GF
I think it’s worth remembering that, as with the Danish cartoons, this current outrage also has an air of being carefully cultivated and promoted.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 07:40 PMIts about time the Pope called for another Crusade so we can teach these muslims a lesson !!!
Time to dust off my Knights Amour !!!
I think the BIG Ian should lead us into Battle !!
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 08:11 PMPB,
No question -Par for the course
HG ,
‘I think the BIG Ian should lead us into Battle !! ‘
I agree . Send him in in the first wave with a bible in one hand and a tablet of stone in the other . I promise not to notify the Turkish Air Force where the first wave of Crusaders will land .
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 09:12 PMTry to keep to the topic, guys, rather than finagling our very local difficulties into what is a much wider conversation.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 09:18 PMIs this reaction (and previous reactions) from the Muslim community truly genuine? Are their sensibilities that easily affronted? I dont think so. Which leads onto more difficult questions like, are they just hell bent on trouble looking for the simplest thing to get them off? Or do they have some kind of legitimate grievance?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 09:37 PMMcGrath
I’d suggest that this reaction (and previous reactions) is from certain elements within a, much larger, Muslim community who have not, as a whole, reacted in the manner highlighted in the media.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 09:47 PMMcGrath,
Muslims don’t care about this. Muslim politicians make a scene out of things like to distract their people from the awful governance in the Middle East.Nothing in the speech could be taken, in even the smallest way, as any sort of negative comment on Islam. He’s making a general lecture on a few subjects including violence and the methods of debating various topics. He could have quoted any number of people, and being an educated person he knows crazy sh*t people said centuries ago. And he has easier access to what old popes said, what with being a pope himself and having a great bureaucracy to look stuff up for him in his archives. Maybe he could have thought ahead and found a Muslim quote about the crusades instead - but he wasn’t playing off one religion against the other so he didn’t think of it.
Put simply, quoting somebody doesn’t mean you agree with them. We often see people deliberating quoting their enemies to discredit them.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 09:57 PMThe speech does appear to be offensive.
The Pope quotes that emperor and then doesn’t say anything about whether or not he agrees with the emperors views.
It’s all much the same as giving a speech about the Jewish faith, and then quoting someone like Hitler during it, and not clarifying whether you agree with Hitler or disagree with him.
In this case the Pope quoted some emperor who stated that with Islam comes violence. The Pope doesn’t say if he agrees or disagrees with it. So why bring it up at all?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:06 PMharpo,
He uses it as a route to a discussion condemning all violence. He doesn’t qualify it in any way, thereby condemning the Crusades too.Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:18 PMHarpo
You’ll have to provide a more compelling argument than that. Benedict clearly describes the emperor as “[addressing] his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness” and “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.”
In other words, the quote was an opening gambit in an ongoing conversation from a besieged position.
NOT an analysis of Islam.
And, once again, the quote itself is an aside in a speech that seeks to equate and entwine religion and science.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:23 PM‘He uses it as a route to a discussion condemning all violence.’
Occasional Commentator:
Fair enough, but that’s not the point. If you go quoting someone who says that with Islam comes violence, and that someone goes on to say that religion should not be spread via violence, then you are putting forward the argument that with Islam violence does indeed come, and that you don’t agree with it.
His point may have been a universal one, but the specific group that he chose to illustrate the problem of belief being spread through violence was Islam.
What do you expect Muslims to think? Why didn’t the Pope use an example closer to himself - his very own church for example, and their use of violence in the past?
Why pick on the muslims?
It’s much the same as the Irish President and her comments about hate in NI. She picked on one side, using those people as an example of folks who raise children to hate. And unionists rightly complained.
The problem is that if you illustrate a universal problem by using only one set of people as a example, some are going to take it that you mean that those people are the ‘best’ example of it. That they are the main problem in the world.
In both cases, the speaker would have been better off using their own tribe to illustrate the point, and not pick on one single other tribe, especially when there are current tensions.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:40 PM‘NOT an analysis of Islam.’
Pete:
I disagree.
The Pope used a specific example to illustrate a point and picked on Islam.
He quoted that emperor - with Islam comes violence. Neither the emperor or the Pope is then quoted as saying anything like ‘of course that isn’t true about Islam’.
Instead the Pope goes on to do a follow up quote from the emperor where the emperor says that using violence to spread religion is wrong.
Summary:
With Islam comes violence.
Using violence to spread religion is wrong.Where is there any statement that the emperor’s opening brusque statement is actually wrong? Where did the Pope indicate that he disagreed with the emperor’s opening statement?
And if this was all about religion and science, then why the hell did the Pope even go near the topic of holy war? In the full speech he even says something like ‘here’s a marginal issue’, so why is it in there?
This is a large own goal.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:49 PMharpo
He’s implicitly criticising, in a much wider speech - see previous comments - all religious leaders, or would be leaders, who advocate violence.. using an historical quote in relation to a current issue to illustrate that point.
The reaction confirms that those elements, who also prefer literal interpretation over contextual, remain in control in some areas.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:55 PMGood on Ratzo that he didn’t apologize.
I’ve just watched Newsnight and it was cringemaking to see the presenter toadying up to a rep from the British Islamic Front or whatever it was.
He cited the “West’s” invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq as examples of Christian bellicosity, casually glossing over 9/11, Bali and other outrages as--if not casus belli--prime examples of what the pope meant by religiously inspired violence.
I’m more than ever convinced that the Beeb fears targeting by Muslim madmen. Why else would they be so partisan?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 10:56 PMPerhaps Benedict could have mentioned the part that Christianty played in the Crusades, or indeed the part the Vatican played in the inquisition.
Solely referring to the violent history of Islam is naturally very selective and revisionist.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:03 PMHis predecessor apologized for the Crusades. How about a Muslim leader apologizing for the sacking of Medina and the thousands of Jews who were murdered along the way.
Let’s not hold our breaths. To Islam, apology is a one-way street.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:07 PMThe whole thing that really sticks in the craw about all this is the idea that somehow Islam should be above criticism and ridicule. All religions are equally ridiculous and are therefore equal targets. There is no ‘holier than thou’ hierarchy. It’s fair do’s to take the piss out of big Ian’s line-dance pronouncements, and we’ll all had a chuckle at choirboy jokes, so what the hell is the problem with having a pop at Islam?
It’s the usual story—if you’ve got a ‘military wing’ who are happy to kill for ‘the cause’, you’ll get a lot more respect, as Fanny noted above regarding the BBC arse licking episode.As regards Ratzy’s comments being offensive, so what if they were? If Muslims can’t take criticism, they shouldn’t be on the planet in the first place. The sooner everyone stops pussy-footing round the elephant in the room, the sooner we can put all this fundamentalist nonsense back in the cupboard marked ‘delusional nonsense’ and get on with living in the real world.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:32 PMPete:
I’d suggest that this reaction (and previous reactions) is from certain elements within a, much larger, Muslim community who have not, as a whole, reacted in the manner highlighted in the media.
You think the media are hyping it, or they are afraid to be critical of Islam?
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:55 PMMcGrath
They’re reporting the reaction without analysis.
So it goes.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:57 PM“If you go quoting someone who says that with Islam comes violence ... then you are putting forward the argument that with Islam violence does indeed come ...”
Yes, of course, that is right. The Pope is a Professor of theology for goodness sake. This was not accidental.
His main theme was the separation of religion and science, and he argued that this is a bad thing. But he was also making the point about God and violence being mutually exclusive and he was directing this at Islam.
And do you know what folks, he was dead right on two counts: in the point that he made, and on where he directed it.I’m glad he had the guts to say what he did (because someone of his stature needed to say it) and ensured that there was no confusion about who he meant. Let’s hope he doesn’t apologise.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 12:02 AM
