The Pope and the Farce

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:18 am

5 days ago Benedict XVI gave a speech at university of Regensburg, including the following quote from Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "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."

This did not sit very well with many muslims, as can be expected.

BBC story is [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm"]here[/url].
Full speech is [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf"]here[/url].

Was it an attack on islam? Was it intentional? Are the resulting anger an overreaction? Other thoughts?

---

Imo, the speech in it's entirety is not an attack on islam, but rather an attack on science, or more specifically the view that science and religion should be separated.

However, it is more than suspicious that he should have to take islam as an example when there is plenty and more of similar cases in christianity. Even more so considering his earlier relationship with islam, And unlike Bush Ratzinger doesn't usually sound like a babbling moron, so it is also hard for me to imagine that he didn't understand or intended the insult.

Regardless of this I believe the muslim reaction to be overblown, and as usual fueled by a few figures who believe they have some loyalty to gain by making a fuss.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 1:41 am

Dottie wrote:<snip>
Regardless of this I believe the muslim reaction to be overblown, and as usual fueled by a few figures who believe they have some loyalty to gain by making a fuss.

Yah - I argee with pretty much what you are saying.
I do not see the speech as an attack on Islam at all, and I do think the vocal islamic communities tend to over exaggerate the responses to the point where if anybody says anything anymore, they'll be labled anti-islamic. Proberly because Islam is fighting a battle with many terrorists using the religon as foudnation for their terrorisme and thus even more alianating the religon in the eyes of the non-islamic world

I do however think it funny and hypocritical that one leader of what I see as a dogmatic religon speaks about another dogmatic religon. In my view Chatolisisme, or christianity as a whole is no worse nor better the Islam as a religous belief, and certainly have its skeletons to deal with, huge skeletons as well - both present day and historical.
Instead if the Pope was so worried about the world, he should see what he could improve within his own religon to make it more humane.

Religon is in my "book" (pun intended) one of the most dangerous inventions of mankind. It is rare to see humans do so much evil against other humans then in the name of, and "justified" by, religon.
I have no issue with people wanting to, or feeling the need to, or thinkning it prooven, that God(s) exists. My problem is when they want to control and decide for others.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 2:40 am

I don't know - I can't believe BXVI (or the people who help write and proofread his texts) is numb enough to say those things and not seeing there'd be consequences. If Benedictus didn't want to offend muslims, why give that speech, in this day and age, with tensions running this high? And if it was intentional, what would be the purpose?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 3:01 am

Coot wrote:<snip> And if it was intentional, what would be the purpose?

Well - I don't know this guy well enought, but being cynical I could see a few reasons for this.
One would be to attempt to polarise matters even more, thus perhaps attracting people to the religon as a "reaction" against Islam. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend-type of argument)
Otherwise it could be to draw focus away from the areas where Chatolisme is having a bad rep.
Or perhaps he's just doesn't know better.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:42 am

I don't know whether it was intentional or not - but it was certainly accurate to say that Muhammad told them to spread the faith by the sword. He did. And for Muslims to deny it is stupid.

But then, you know, although Jesus did NOT instruct HIS followers to spread the faith by the sword (quite the reverse in fact) that is what HAPPENED!

So Christianity doesn't have the moral high ground on the issue.

The only thing Christians can claim is that their leader didn't command the violent spreading of their faith; so, in spreading it violently, they were going against the express wishes of their leader.

Muslims, on the other hand, by trying to spread their faith by violence, are following the instructions of their leader...

Me: I'm an atheist and very glad to be!

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:44 am

The polarizing thing might actually work, but with things being the way they are this polarizing might actually cost lives. Then again, Benedictus might not care about that. The last pope wasn't particularly concerned about lives either, with his encouraging people in HIV infested areas not to use condoms.

Maybe Benedictus doesn't know any better - but I always figured a pope would have popettes, like, assistants who assist him in preparing speeches and stuff.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 4:47 am

Dottie wrote:5 days ago Benedict XVI gave a speech at university of Regensburg, including the following quote from Emperor Manuel II Paleologus: "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."

I could say the same about Christianity. The man shows his contempt for the intelligence of the people following the faith he controls there. A spin off of Judaism first of all. Second, hello? Did the Catholics forget the Crusades?

He was trying to drive more of a wedge between Catholics and Muslims there I think. Knowing full well what the results could be too.

Fiberfar · Post by **Fiberfar** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 7:51 am

Magrus wrote: I could say the same about Christianity. The man shows his contempt for the intelligence of the people following the faith he controls there. A spin off of Judaism first of all. Second, hello? Did the Catholics forget the Crusades? He was trying to drive more of a wedge between Catholics and Muslims there I think. Knowing full well what the results could be too.

What did the Norwegian kings say?

"convert to Christianity or I'll chop your head off. Your choice"

DesR85 · Post by **DesR85** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:28 am

Dottie wrote: Was it an attack on islam? Was it intentional? Are the resulting anger an overreaction? Other thoughts?

I highly doubt that what Pope Benedict XVI had said was meant to attack Islam. If he had said with an intent to insult a particular religion, it would destroy the very effort his predecessor, Pope John Paul II, have done to foster a close relationship between the different religions. And in my opinion, I don't think the head of any religion will be that dumb to publicly or privately insult another religion.

Dottie wrote: Regardless of this I believe the muslim reaction to be overblown, and as usual fueled by a few figures who believe they have some loyalty to gain by making a fuss.

I agree. They should have sent a delegation or maybe get the head of the Islamic religion (don't know what the title is) to contact the Pope himself to clarify the misunderstanding. At least it's much better than holding street protests and public outcries that just makes the current situation worse. Anyway, I'm glad that the Pope apologised for his statements.

P.S. Hmm. First post in a serious discussion topic. I'd still adhere to the limited engagement policy as I'm still very wary about posting in threads like these. I'll see how this turns out.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 8:40 am

There are factual truths, and there are emotional truths. The Pope's transcription does not attack Muslims, but European Christian society and nations attacked Islamic and Arabic (not the same thing) nations since the late Middle Ages. What the Pope said should not have been said, since it exacerbated a bad situation at a time when Islam appears under attack from Fundies in the West. It would have been far better for the Pope to refrain from any mention of Islam, and to seek reproachment in various trips he has planned. Just my point of view.

Damn Bush. Topping off the cup of Islam's bitterness at the West once more, until it runneth over, and anything said becomes another provocation.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 9:36 am

fable wrote:
Damn Bush. Topping off the cup of Islam's bitterness at the West once more, until it runneth over, and anything said becomes another provocation.

Ah! Another Bushophobe!

Hello, friend!

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 10:26 am

If the Vatican were to actually answer for their innumerable crimes against humanity stemming from the Dark Ages onward, I might listen to a few words their Pope utters now and then. However, considering the Vatican's wonderful human rights record, I think I'll abstain from lending any weight to their positions, comments, and edicts. That Pope has no right to paint Mohammed (or anyone else, for that matter) in a negative light, as he is part of a theocratic dynasty that sought to strangle absolute obedience from Europe by controlling its kings and queens, by sponsoring Crusades to claim territory that rightfully belonged to others (all in the name of God, mind you), by implementing ghastly Inquisitions which resulted in the death of thousands of innocents (Mohammed used the sword, the Vactican used burning at the stake, the Rack, Iron Maidens, etc)...and so on. I personally hold the Vactican responsible for the Dark Ages that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Roman church moved right into the spot left vacant by the Roman Emperor.

So, with all of that in mind, should Muslims be offended by that individual's comments? I think not: consider the source, my friends.

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:09 am

That's the coffee calling the kettle black, I suppose. Anyway, isn't Deuteronomy a book of the Christian Bible, part of their Old Testament? Chapter 13 is definitely an interesting bit of reading. I'm looking at three different versions, and they basically say the same thing in such a... graphic way.

BibleGateway.com - Passage*Lookup: Deuteronomy 13

12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you to live in 13 that wicked men have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, "Let us go and worship other gods" (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. Destroy it completely, [a] both its people and its livestock. 16 Gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the LORD your God. It is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

And who decides what cities their God is giving them? [sigh] I can imagine Christians using this justification for wanting to invade others. Of course, have we ever seen them invade so-called heathens and destroy all the plunder as a burnt offering to their God? [shakes head]

Ashen · Post by **Ashen** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:48 am

It's not that surprising really, considering who is Pope these days. The situation that we live in makes it more explosive of course, and there are plenty of people who will take advantage of it from both sides. I think it's a tad naive to think he didn't know what his statement would cause.

But in general this happens all the time between religions. Take Orthodox and Catholics for example, they've been at it for ages - the Catholics keep talking about re-unification of Christianity then they go and issue their proposals which would pretty much mean assimilation of Orthodox into Catholicism, that being the superior part of course and then boast about how they want to unify all Christians again, and how they are the ones working towards unity etc. Then the Orthodox respond and it goes on and on. Old news really, this kind of talk only it's more explosive due to the political situation in the world in general.

Organized religion - world's worst institution ever.

Fljotsdale · Post by **Fljotsdale** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 6:15 pm

Chanak wrote:If the Vatican were to actually answer for their innumerable crimes against humanity stemming from the Dark Ages onward, I might listen to a few words their Pope utters now and then. However, considering the Vatican's wonderful human rights record, I think I'll abstain from lending any weight to their positions, comments, and edicts. That Pope has no right to paint Mohammed (or anyone else, for that matter) in a negative light, as he is part of a theocratic dynasty that sought to strangle absolute obedience from Europe by controlling its kings and queens, by sponsoring Crusades to claim territory that rightfully belonged to others (all in the name of God, mind you), by implementing ghastly Inquisitions which resulted in the death of thousands of innocents (Mohammed used the sword, the Vactican used burning at the stake, the Rack, Iron Maidens, etc)...and so on. I personally hold the Vactican responsible for the Dark Ages that followed the fall of the Western Roman Empire. The Roman church moved right into the spot left vacant by the Roman Emperor.

So, with all of that in mind, should Muslims be offended by that individual's comments? I think not: consider the source, my friends.

Heheheheheheheh! I think maybe I like you, Chanak!

And You, Chimaera,

and you, Ashen

Amergin · Post by **Amergin** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:06 pm

While the Pope was quoting Mohammed, perhaps he should also have quoted Jesus Christ:

Source: ESV Bible online

Not Peace, but a Sword

Matthew Chapter 10
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Not Peace, but Division

Luke Chapter 12
49 I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Hardly the words of someone who is totally against violence.

Me? I'm a pagan

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Sep 16, 2006 11:49 pm

Amergin wrote:Me? I'm a pagan

You're not the only one, here. I'm a witch; Luis Antonio's a Wiccan. There are at least a few pagan-friendly up here, and nobody has been burnt because of their religious preferences on this board in, well, ages.

Ah! Another Bushophobe! Hello, friend!

Oh, I'm an officer in the field.

I knew what we were getting back in 2001, having studied long before his record as a governor, and the remarkable way he flat out lied endlessly about it when running for the presidency.

And much as I dislike JP2, I have a far worse attitude towards this man whose election was made by judicial appointment the first time, and who has overturned the rule of law repeatedly since then. Had he been a very good president, I think this would still condemn him. As it is, he is the very probably the worst US president in history. Quite a distinction.

Woozaii · Post by **Woozaii** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:40 am

Amergin wrote:While the Pope was quoting Mohammed, perhaps he should also have quoted Jesus Christ:

Source: ESV Bible online

Not Peace, but a Sword

Matthew Chapter 10
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household.

Not Peace, but Division

Luke Chapter 12
49 I came to cast fire on the earth, and would that it were already kindled! 50 I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how great is my distress until it is accomplished! 51 Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. 52 For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three. 53 They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.

Hardly the words of someone who is totally against violence.

Me? I'm a pagan

Don't you think blaming the modern church for what the old books say is getting a bit old?

As far as the crusades goes, i think some of you here have a bit coloured way of seeing it. While the 'church' profitted greatly, they were not alone to do so. Do you really belive that the kings and nobles of the great countries belived that they were doing it for god? The crusades were also a massive source of income for them, so blaming the popes of old times and the church for the crusades doesn't really seem fair to me.

Apart from that, the crusades are OVER, and they have been so for a long time now.

Get over it...

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 1:45 am

Woozaii wrote:Don't you think blaming the modern church for what the old books say is getting a bit old?
<snip>

Not when the modern church uses the same methods of quoting ancient texts from other religons.

Coot · Post by **Coot** » Sun Sep 17, 2006 2:13 am

Fljotsdale wrote:Heheheheheheheh! I think maybe I like you, Chanak! And You, Chimaera, and you, Ashen

Hey! What about me?!

Already there has been some violence and a lot of death threats. As usual, the media are playing their part by showing mostly the overly violent, over-the-top reactions from Muslim side. That's understandable because there's no news value in showing sensible reactions.

You'd think President Erdogan of Turkey is the only Muslim who is able to resist shouting "Orf with his head".

My wife is a Muslim. She merely shrugged and pointed out that Benedicty doesn't have a speechwriters staff or proofreaders staff. Of course there are going to be mistakes like the one he made.
The fact that this man, who is such an important and influential person on the world stage, doesn't have the good sense to have somebody proofread the speeches that the whole wide world is going to hear... well, that says it all. Chanak is right, Muslims should consider the source. Then shake their heads in pity.