Go to Stalking The Beast
- Add a comment
- Go to And You Were Expecting Exactly What From A Former Member Of Hitler Youth?
Coercion has long been a favored tool for various religions to control
others and to bring nonbelievers into their ranks. The Pope may have been referring to the Muslim propensity to issue a convert or die ultimatum to those they overrun. However, this is a relatively recent tactic by extremist Muslims.
posted by
saul_relative
on September 18, 2006 at 9:32 PM
| link to this | reply
i read writersjouney's comment
hmmm
the comment there is not compatible with the Church's history. coercion has to have been a large part of it for about a millenium and a half.
and then there is the statement that the Pope challenges an "unknowable god". that same unknowable god has given the Church its power, if you know what I mean.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 18, 2006 at 4:48 PM
| link to this | reply
Each pope must combat the memory and legacy of his predecessor(s), kingmi.
Benedict is a hardliner that cannot help himself but be extremely conservative.
posted by
saul_relative
on September 17, 2006 at 10:31 PM
| link to this | reply
The title may be a bit much, Nautikos, but I am of the opinion that our
good German pope is a product of his raising, that his Christian zeal is/was tempered by an air of superiority, that Muslims are second-rate believers in god. And I share your concern with the Muslim reaction to these words. However, they took to the streets after the Danish caricatures were published, so why not an attack on their religion?
posted by
saul_relative
on September 17, 2006 at 10:16 PM
| link to this | reply
saul, this new pope may be competing with the legacy of his predecessor
Who can forget that meeting between Polish General Jarewselski and John Paul2? It was a day in which East met West, Good met Bad, and Good prevailed.
However, I agree with his thinking that someone had better take the air out of this Islamic Rising, before someone really gets hurt. All these fascists are looking for is an excuse to riot. Think brownshirts.
posted by
kingmi
on September 17, 2006 at 10:23 AM
| link to this | reply
saul relatiive,
I must confess that I am a bit dispappointed at the heading to this post.
Beyond that, I agree with writer's journey. The Pope's remarks were not politically circumspect, and he might even be accused of naivete in assuming they would be understood in the way he intended. But I am certain that the Pope's aim was not to vilify Islam, but to remind Muslims that they need to do their part to curb the emergence of a radical and violent Islamic fascism.
My problem is partly with the reaction of Muslim mobs, but even more so with that of leaders of the Muslim world. That is why I speak of Muslim hypocrisy, as I do in my blog.
posted by
Nautikos
on September 17, 2006 at 10:18 AM
| link to this | reply
Very true, Rarmcwa, on all counts. As long as there are two individuals in
a room, there will never be complete agreement on any one topic. And the topic that underscores man's chief insecurity, that of faith and his existence in the universe, lends itself to myriad interpretations, even along same-faith lines. Which leads to further insecurities...
posted by
saul_relative
on September 17, 2006 at 8:32 AM
| link to this | reply
Irony aplenty
First, it is useful to remember that during the Golden Age of Islam, nearly all sword-point conversions were done upon infidel pagans, which by Mohammud's definition means non-Muslims other than fellow "People of the Book," specifically, Jews and Christians. Today's violent contempt for those People of the Book whom Mohammud himself refused to condemn is the rough equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan's rejection of Roman Catholic fellow Christians - and its hatred of Christ's own co-religionists, the Jews.
Secondly, as already pointed out, the sects of Islam seem to be even more contemptuous of, and willing to employ violent jihad against, each other. So much for the notion that "there is one God and his name is Allah," and that all his followers are immune from the depredations of jihad. Killing fellow Muslims (from the World Trade Center attacks to the Iran-Iraq War to Iraq today) is a direct and specific violation of the tenets of Islam, as articulated by the founder of the faith.
Lest we forget, Christians are rather fond of killing Christians too, as any student of European history is well aware.
And the beat goes on ...
posted by
Rarmcwa
on September 17, 2006 at 8:21 AM
| link to this | reply
There will be no intercultural dialogue between the sons of Abraham,
writersjourney, simply because the twain shall never meet, agree, and unconditionally tolerate. Overall context aside, the Pope's words were terribly chosen and reflects the basic western viewpoint of the Islamic faith. The fact that the ideologues and the extremists are using his words as rallying points on either side of the faith question glaringly highlights how opposed the two faiths are and how far they would have to go to actually achieve a complimentary and conciliatory dialogue.
posted by
saul_relative
on September 17, 2006 at 8:15 AM
| link to this | reply
The Irony in the responses from the anti-Pope and the anti-Islamic factions
On the one hand I find the posts in many blogs on this subject disturbing because they take the current controversy as an opportunity to bash Islam and this was not the Pope's intent at all, nor was it the substance of his lecture.
The Text of Pope Benedict’s Speech:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html
On the other hand I think the Pope himself is being unfairly criticized. His comments will go over the heads of those who hate Islam, to be sure, but they will also go over the heads of those who hate the Pope.
There is a certain irony as one reads the text; the Pope invites all faiths to a "dialogue of cultures" but says that in order for such a dialogue to take place it will be necessary for the participants in the dialogue to agree that rational dialogue and rational understanding of Truth is possible. If Truth is beyond reason, on the hand -- or if it is only encountered empirically and through quantitative methods, on the other hand -- then, by definition, such dialogue and overcoming superficial cultural differences will not be possible.
The irony is that (a) the example he used to illustrate the consequences of rejecting reason is itself being rejected without any indication that the critics of this example appreciate the point, which is that one is not persuaded through assaults on the body (they may be coerced, but not persuaded). One can only be persuaded by acknowledging rational capacities and appealing to those rational capacities along with appealing to the capacity for faith. Pope Benedict challenges the notion of a God who makes himself unknowable and incompatible with reason. The second irony is (b) that the Pope's call for an interfaith dialogue appears to be in jeopardy because of the reaction to his comments in making the call.
It would seem that the response to the Pope's message illustrates perfectly precisely why such a dialogue is necessary and why a common agreement that reason that transcends cultural differences must be central precondition to such dialogue.
There is lots of irony in all of this, but I'm afraid the irony is lost on both haters of Islam and haters of the Pope.
posted by
writersjourney
on September 17, 2006 at 7:13 AM
| link to this | reply
The Words Were Not Well Chosen
I wish Pope Benedict had found other ways to make his point about using religion to justify the use of violence. There are plenty of Western examples of this, to be sure.
posted by
writersjourney
on September 17, 2006 at 12:31 AM
| link to this | reply
Thank you, katray. We really do seem to have far too much religious
intolerance and religious motivated violence in this Golden Age of Information...
posted by
saul_relative
on September 15, 2006 at 11:47 PM
| link to this | reply
Your last sentence sums it up perfectly Saul
Excellent post.
posted by
Katray2
on September 15, 2006 at 10:16 PM
| link to this | reply