Pope's speech stirs Muslim anger

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
61
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟18,467.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

I just read the Pope's entire spech: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748.

In his scholarly discourse, the Pope merely cited Manuel Palaeologus's views; he did not say that he endorsed those views or that they were also his own. I don't see how anyone who reads the Pontiff's entire speech and sees the context in which he cited the Emperor, could possibly be offended. German Chancellor Merkel was quite right when she said that, "Whoever criticizes the pope misunderstood the aim of his speech." But, of course, folks who believe that, "Allah used Muslim scientists to expose the Western plot of using polio vaccines to reduce our population," :doh: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_he_me/vaccine_rumors_1), and/or who set fire to churches and YMCA centers (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913638028&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull & http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302162,00.html) will believe, and take offense at, just about anything.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rochir
Upvote 0

cavymom

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2005
1,082
85
54
✟16,675.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Tell that to American Indians on the reservations who had thier children taken away and sent to Christian boarding schools.


How very Ironic... the "American Indians" who were forced into Roman Catholic/ Protestant/ Anglican etc etc residential schools that were highly offended by this horrible treatment (seperation, abuse, etc) ... they chose to take it to court and have it resolved. And yet with all the horrible treatment inflicted upon them the "American Indians" did NOT riot, burn things down, call for people's deaths or insist on jihad!
 
Upvote 0

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
Hi all!

I just read the Pope's entire spech: http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748.

In his scholarly discourse, the Pope merely cited Manuel Palaeologus's views; he did not say that he endorsed those views or that they were also his own. I don't see how anyone who reads the Pontiff's entire speech and sees the context in which he cited the Emperor, could possibly be offended. German Chancellor Merkel was quite right when she said that, "Whoever criticizes the pope misunderstood the aim of his speech." But, of course, folks who believe that, "Allah used Muslim scientists to expose the Western plot of using polio vaccines to reduce our population," :doh: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060913/ap_on_he_me/vaccine_rumors_1), and/or who set fire to churches and YMCA centers (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913638028&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull & http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3302162,00.html) will believe, and take offense at, just about anything.

Be well!

ssv :wave:
:wave:
What do you think of Manuel Palaeologus's statement? Is it true? If for the sake of argument this is what Mohummed brought (evil inhumane treatment, and forced conversions) with his religion, was it really something new? Is it worth the Pope quoting it?
 
Upvote 0

Yusuf Evans

Well-Known Member
Aug 17, 2005
10,057
610
Iraq
✟13,433.00
Faith
Muslim
Marital Status
Married
Tell that to American Indians on the reservations who had thier children taken away and sent to Christian boarding schools.


And what did those Native Americans do with that education they recieved? I think they let the world know the horrors of what happened to them, but using the same education that the "Christian" forced upon them. Took a bad situation and turned it into something to help their people. :wave:
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
61
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟18,467.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

JoyJuice said:
What do you think of Manuel Palaeologus's statement? Is it true?

You mean this?

"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."

No, I don't think that the Emperor's statement is true.

Whether it was the woth the pope's while to cite Manuel Paleologus here is a non-issue. One should be able to understand someone citing a remark & using it to illustrate a point without adopting it as his/her own.

The Times (London's, not New York's) hits the nail on the head in its lead editorial today:

The Pope and the Prophet

Rationalists should be roused but Muslims reassured by the Pontiff's words


It seems almost medieval when even a discussion today of Middle Ages theology can provoke a global storm of protest and denunciation. The Pope, however, can hardly have expected that his scholarly lecture on faith and reason to the University of Regensburg would have led to the uproar that has broken out in sections of the Muslim world, to demands for an apology and to comparisons with Hitler and Mussolini. Yet a close reading of the speech shows that if any group was openly criticised or “insulted”, it was Western materialists.

At issue is a single sentence in a lengthy survey of theologians and their understanding of reason: the Pope quoted a discussion between one of the last emperors of Byzantium, the erudite Manuel II Paleologus, and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and noted the emperor’s “startling brusqueness” in saying: “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and in-human, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.” The Pope did not endorse the sentiment. He made it clear that he was quoting from the historical record. And he went on to compare the Byzantine belief in reason with the Muslim teaching on God’s transcendence.

Yet his quotation has now been wrenched out of context, denounced as “derogatory” and held up as an example of Western Islamophobia. Islamic websites are calling for mass protests. The pontiff has been accused of falling into the trap of “bigots and racists”.

The Vatican insists that no offence was intended but those who are looking for offence will never be easily appeased. Already links are being made with supposed Western hostility to Islam. Like the Danish cartoons, the Pope’s words provide a golden opportunity for Islamist militants to inflame the millions who have no access to his full speech with a distorted interpretation of his words and his intentions.

Given current sensitivities, however, all this is scarcely surprising. Too many extremists are ready to over-interpret any comment or perceived slight and that reaction is magnified by the technological wonder that is the internet. The Vatican should know this. It might have been wiser if the Pope has excised from his speech any remark, especially a quotation about the Prophet Muhammad, that could be taken out of context by those for whom ecumenism is anathema.

Yet it would be wrong to censor a pope who has pondered the future of faith and reserves disdain for rationalists whom he confronts in his conclusion: “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 as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion to the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”

Both Christianity and Islam aspire to the divine and they share a theology that is contemptuous of mindless materialism and crass consumerism. This Pope is not “relegating religion” and he is tweaking the tail of the rationalists, which provides no excuse, no justification, no cause for the spiritual to be irrational. Christianity and Islam have rarely sat easily together; but tolerance must not be deliberately destroyed by the intolerant.

Link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2360622,00.html

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Quijote
Upvote 0

JoyJuice

Senior Veteran
Aug 8, 2006
10,838
483
✟20,965.00
Faith
Agnostic
Politics
US-Others
Hi all!

You mean this?
:wave: Yes, sir/ma'am, that.

No, I don't think that the Emperor's statement is true.
Agreed, I don't think it true either.

I'm just a little curious why the Pope choose this quote, when he could have just as easily made the same sentiment by quoting the history of his own faith? Why Islam?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
Why is that?

Did you actually read the Pope's speech or at least, the part of it that contains the quote to get the proper context?
yes, actually I did. While there can be no doubt his words were decontextualised, the wise thing would have been to not utter them in the first place.
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
61
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟18,467.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

Kiwimac said:
While there can be no doubt his words were decontextualised, the wise thing would have been to not utter them in the first place.

This reminds of 1999's David Howard incident in Washington DC (where I went to university back in the early 1980's):

Niggardly is a word synonymous with stingy and miserly, and a niggard (noun) is a miser. They are both derived from the Old Norse verb nigla, meaning "to fuss about small matters". (The English word "niggle" retains the original Norse meaning.) The word is not related to the word "n*gger" though someone unfamiliar with the word "niggardly" might take offense due to the phonetic similarity between the words.
[edit]

David Howard incident

On January 15, 1999, David Howard, a white aide to Anthony A. Williams, the black mayor of Washington, D.C., United States, used the word in reference to a budget. This apparently upset one of his black colleagues (identified by Howard as Marshall Brown), who incorrectly interpreted it as a racial slur and lodged a complaint. As a result, on January 25 Williams forced Howard to resign.

However, after an internal review into the matter and pressure from the gay community (of which Howard was a member), the mayor offered Howard the chance to return to his position as Office of the Public Advocate on February 4. Howard refused but accepted another position with the mayor instead.

The Howard incident led to a national debate in the U.S., in the context of racial sensitivity and political correctness, on whether use of the word niggardly should be avoided because of its potential association with the extremely pejorative racial slur "n*gger", despite the entirely separate and unrelated etymologies of the two words ("n*gger" derives from niger, the Latin for "black")..

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niggardly

The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/williams/williams020499.htm) noted:

NAACP Chairman Julian Bond, who in criticizing Williams last week said that people should not have to "censor" their language to meet other "people's lack of understanding," praised Howard's reinstatement.

What wisdom is it that would require scholars and educated people to kowtow to the ignorant, the immature and the uneducated and, in effect, to give the latter a veto? :eek: :confused:

I detect a whiff of PC here! :sick:

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rochir
Upvote 0

kiwimac

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian
Site Supporter
May 14, 2002
14,986
1,519
63
New Zealand
Visit site
✟592,518.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Utrecht
Marital Status
Married
Politics
AU-Greens
There is a world of difference between misunderstanding a word and using a quote which others interpret (quite correctly) as being offensively insulting to a group of people.

Kiwimac
 
Upvote 0

Rochir

By Grabthar's hammer ... YES.WEEK.END!
Sep 27, 2004
13,756
1,930
In your lap
Visit site
✟31,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Rochir, perhaps for the first time in our lives, we are in complete agreement.... :)

I think I hear the trumpets sounding!!!! ^_^

Oh? Really? I wonder if you still say this when I tell you that the reference to all religions included Christianity!;) It's right tehre in Benedict's lecture!:)

So ... shall we still open the champagn bottle?:p
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Rochir

By Grabthar's hammer ... YES.WEEK.END!
Sep 27, 2004
13,756
1,930
In your lap
Visit site
✟31,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Frankly the pope, for a smart man, is sometimes awfully silly.,

That is the irony of this whole episode. Benedict is such an intelligent and scholarly leader - how could he possibly underestimate what a remark/quote as he has included in his lecture could lead to with those not on the same intellectual level as he is?

Where were his advisors in this?:confused:
 
Upvote 0

stillsmallvoice

The Narn rule!
May 8, 2002
2,053
181
61
Maaleh Adumim, Israel
Visit site
✟18,467.00
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
Hi all!

kiwimac said:
There is a world of difference between misunderstanding a word and using a quote which others interpret...as being offensively insulting to a group of people.

The point is, as Julian Bond said:
people should not have to "censor" their language to meet other "people's lack of understanding," praised Howard's reinstatement.

This applies in both cases.

Kiwimac said:
...(quite correctly!)...

Excuse me??!! Sez who?

The Pope meant no insult and his remarks were not insulting (as is obvious to anybody who read the whole speech); he cannot be deemed culpable because people who didn't read the whole speech and who (quoth The Times) received only a (most likely deliberately), "distorted interpretation of his words and his intention." Those who are looking for offense, and/or who are easily offended/manipulated, will always be able to find offense in anything. The Pope cannot be held responsible for, and need not answer to, people who have a propensity to invent and see insults anywhere & everywhere due to cultural factors (i.e. they're uneducated, ignorant and easily misled/manipulated) beyond his control!

neverstop said:
How do you think some would react if the leader of Hamas quoted some historical person who said "Christianity has only brought evil and inhumanity to the world."

Other than the fringe loonies, most would probably ignore the remark as being beneath their notice. By-the-by, Islamic extremists say such things about Judaism & Christianity all the time. :sleep:

Be well!

ssv :wave:
 
Upvote 0

Heiroglyph

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2005
6,797
105
✟7,492.00
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Koran calls for disbelievers in Allah to be killed.
[4.89] They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.
[4.91] You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given.you a clear authority.
[4.92] And it does not behoove a believer to kill a believer except by mistake, and whoever kills a believer by mistake, he should free a believing slave, and blood-money should be paid to his people unless they remit it as alms; but if he be from a tribe hostile to you and he is a believer, the freeing of a believing slave (suffices), and if he is from a tribe between whom and you there is a convenant, the blood-money should be paid to his people along with the freeing of a believing slave; but he who cannot find (a slave) should fast for two months successively: a penance from Allah, and Allah is Knowing, Wise.
[4.93] And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell; he shall abide in it, and Allah will send His wrath on him and curse him and prepare for him a painful chastisement.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

cyberfugue

Contributor
Jul 10, 2005
5,702
355
52
Richmond, Virginia
Visit site
✟15,146.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
How do you think some would react if the leader of Hamas quoted some historical person who said "Christianity has only brought evil and inhumanity to the world."

They say such things all the time - and not in historical context, but in present-day rants.

But that's nothing compared to what they say about Jewish people. Ever read some of the diatribes they've launched against them? Ever seen some of the cartoons published in popular newspapers over there depicting Jews as hook-nosed and drinkers of babies' blood?

This, of course, is to whip their young up into such a frenzy that they won't mind killing themselves as long as they take out a few Jews or Christians with them.

How they can expect us to see Islam as a religion of peace after all this, I'll never know. And then those of us who call it for what it is are depicted as the bigots and the sowers of hatred, of course.

It's not a sane world we live in.
 
Upvote 0