Pope apologizes for anti-Islamic remarks

Revere has an excellent post on Ratz's anti-Islamic remarks:

The Pope is embroiled in a nasty mess over remarks he made in Regensburg, Germany, containing a quote from fifteenth century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus, made to a Persian (Muslim) emissary. It concerned violence as a way to spread one's faith:

"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, from an allegedly renowned theologian? An allegedly renowned theologian who leads the Catholic Church? Now?

Ratz says his remarks were taken out of context. In what context could those remarks possibly be cogent or appropriate? Maybe if Ratz actually said, "My friend said the stupidest thing about Muhammed the other day, and I was like, dude, I can't believe you just said [remarks attributed to Ratz viz Muhammad]."

Revere's right when he says that Ratz is the Catholic Church's George W. Bush.

Comments

[John Lucid]

And he's critical of evolution too. It's like the White House finally got their man in the Vatican. I hope they bought him a lifetime membership in the NRA. Maybe the Rovester dropped something extra in the collection plate last Sunday for the Holy Padre as a show of "respect", capisce? Pope BeneNazi XVI has defintely made John Paul II look moderate in comparison. Can't wait until he re-institutes the Inquisition. Convert now, Lindsay, before the Torquemada of Hell's Kitchen pays you a visit. Tape down your breasts too, lest ye be accused of slatternly witchcraft.

[1984 Was Not a Shopping List]

_Cannot_ understand what he could have been getting at with the comment, other than muslim-baiting.

Love the term "slatternly."

[RickD]

Actually, the Pope's comments at the same time were much more inflammatory to atheists and no whiff of apology at all has been in the air. At least he has the presence of mind to have his people back off a bit from the implications of the quote he cites. But he is dead serious in that the main thrust of his theology is that atheism is a major evil in the world. There's no mistaking his writings on that topic. I suppose it's a bit much to hope for a Pope who is tolerant of atheism, but you would think somebody in the major media would notice that aspect of his writing.

[julia]

If you look at his personal history, the evolution of his politics, his purges of church organizations to reflect rigid ideological focus on his views and his influence on the thinking of the (marian, mystic) previous pope, I think he's more the church's Karl Rove or Dick Cheney.

[The Phantom]

--"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."--

First, the quoted remark was taken out of context.

But, more importantly--the above quote, by Emperor Paleologos--was and is true.

Mohammad, supposedly speaking for "Allah", did command that this religion be spread by the sword, by the shedding of the blood of nonbelievers. Which, most assuredly it was. Look at the flag of Saudi Arabia. It's not exactly a big secret

The Old Testament brought the Law.

The New Testament brought the command to "love thy neighbor".

The Koran brought the command to "kill the unbeliever".

The only thing that the Pope did wrong this week as to apologize ( though his entire statement was intentionally misunderstood, read it in its entirety if you wish to be informed ) .

The only good thing to come out of all of this is that Emperor Paleologos' wise words have come to light to another age.

[perianwyr]

The only comfort of atheism in this regard is that you can be pretty sure that you'll never kill someone else for your God.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

I have read the Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections in full.

The pope quotes the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus approvingly. The pope's talk is primarily about how reason and faith go together because Christian God is reasonable and never expects the faithful to act against reason. The pope uses the emperor's quote to illustrate the alleged contrast reasonable, rational Christianity with irrational Islam. According to the pope, Muslims believe that God sometimes wills people to do things that are fundamentally irrational-and irrationality leads to violence, which fundamentally differentiates Christian faith from Islam, because rational Christians know that Holy Wars are unreasonable and therefore necessarily contrary to God's will. So, according to the emperor/pope/sockpuppet Islam is completely derivative, except the parts where God asks people to do violent crazy things.

[T. Bailey]

...rational Christians know that Holy Wars are unreasonable and therefore necessarily contrary to God's will...

Popes. Nine Crusades. 'Nuff said.

[The Phantom]

--Islam is completely derivative, except the parts where God asks people to do violent crazy things.--

Read the Koran, and tell me that this isn't true! OK to skip past the section where it says to beat your wife up if she is not obedient...go to the really bad stuff!

The Koran is to religion as Mein Kampf is to politics. Read it, if you think that I exaggerate in any way.

Christians have done bad things, but they'll never find jusfification for them in the New Testament.

Muslims have done bad things, but many of them are --completely-- backed up by the Koran. Read it and then tell me I am wrong.

[Rad Geek]

Lindsay,

Benedict doesn't contradict or take issue with Manuel's polemic against Islam (at least not in the text he read; the footnotes are supposedly forthcoming), but he does state explicitly that the relationship between Christianity rightly understood and Islam rightly understood is actually not a topic that he intends to address in the lecture.

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 between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - 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.

The idea that Islam demands a faith spread at sword-point, or even a faith that transcends and overwhelms the categories of reason, is not put forward in propia voce at any point, as far as I can tell, and plays no significant role in his argument (which is about faith and reason in Christianity, and mainly takes issue with certain tendencies in modern Christian theology). The quotation from Manuel is scholarly scene-setting for a discussion of the relationship between faith and reason. It's not uncommon for philosophers and theologians to use quotations, epigrams, stories, myths, etc. as spring-boards for reflection without fully endorsing the content.

For all I know, it may very well be true that Benedict's views about Islam are false, narrow, ignorant, or any number of other things. It is certainly true that, given his public position as Pope, it was jaw-droppingly impolitic to use this polemic as his spring-board. But I don't think that it's charitable to treat the use of the quotation, in context, as straightforward evidence that he believes the contents of it to be true. Maybe he does, but we'd have to look elsewhere for reasons to conclude that.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Rad Geek, the pope says he doesn't want to talk about Holy War specifically or the details of the Emperor's dialogue with the Persians.

He's there to talk to scientists about the importance of reason in Christian faith. The point of the quotation is to illustrate how Christianity is all about reason. The irrationality of Islam isn't the main thrust of his speech, but he certainly uses an unfavorable comparison to Islam to highlight what's so great about Christianity.

The pope was quoting the emperor approvingly. He chose to quote him as saying that there's nothing new and good about Islam. I think it's fair to say that a smart guy like the pope doesn't throw in quotes like that accidentally. You can't tell me he never anticipated that anyone might infer that, he, the pope thought badly of Islam just because he used a seemingly gratuitous but vehemently anti-Islamic quotation to make his larger point about the greatness of Christianity.

[Doctor Slack]

The Phantom: I've read it, and I'm telling you you're wrong. But then, I've also read the Bible; many Westerners who like to spout off about how supposedly nutty the Koran is are comparing it to sepia-toned expurgated versions of the Bible rather than to the actual text. The Koran is no more (or less) crazy than any other Abrahamic scripture.

As for this: The Koran is to religion as Mein Kampf is to politics.

This has got to be the stupidest possible rhetorical gambit people can attempt in talking about the Koran. Pop quiz: which continent did the Holocaust take place on again?

[Pithlord]

Lindsay,

I find it hard to believe you read the whole text and think George W. Bush could have come up with it.

As I read it, what Ratzinger was trying to criticize was the Islamic/Protestant concept of revelation and faith, as things opposed to and outside of reason. He was arguing that the Greek influence on classical Christianity (and post-exilic Judaism) creates the space for thinking of faith and reason as two sides of the same coin. Medieval Islamic thought (and, to be fair, some scholastic thought as Ratzinger notes) thought that saying God must be reasonable would be a limit on God's power. Moreover, Islam (like fundamentalist Protestantism) reads its scriptures as divine dictation -- Ratzinger clearly sees the scriptures as historically located.

There are things to criticize in this speech, but it clearly wasn't crude sloganeering.

And the idea that Ratzinger is opposed to evolution is pure urban myth.

[cfrost]

The Koran is to religion as Mein Kampf is to politics.

Whatever. Could even be true. I’m not going to live long enough to spend time reading religious texts. Even if the Koran is the companion volume to Mein Kampf, the Turner Diaries, and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, isn’t it just a little intemperate at this time for the Pontiff to be letting this fly out of the infallible pie hole?

Let us now pray that if the pope is going to be the Catholic Church’s George Bush, that he sticks to running around in medieval garb and never, never dons a flight suit with a pair of socks stuffed in the crotch.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

Ratz is a lot more erudite than GW. As Julia said above, for most of his career his role was more like that of Karl Rove than that of George Bush.

Pithlord, I agree with you about the overall message of the speech. However, if that's true, the quotation seems all the more gratuitous. He really doesn't need that nasty little anecdote to make his larger point. If so, what's it doing in there? Except alienating Muslims, of course. You notice that he singles out Muslim theology as a source of irrational violence when, as you noted, many Protestant theologians have similar beliefs about the relationship between God and reason. Can you imagine if the Pope had an anecdote about how Protestantism is just a derivative and violent religion that incites people to religious wars?

[zhongliu]

中国康网 中国癌症网 肝癌特征 肝癌的症状 晚期肝癌症状 肝癌晚期治疗 肝癌治疗的新药 治疗肝癌新药 治疗肝癌药物 肝癌治疗药物 治疗肝癌 肝癌治疗 胃癌新药 胃癌护理 胃癌的预防 晚期胃癌症状 胃癌治疗新药 治疗胃癌新药 治疗胃癌 胃癌治疗 胃癌治疗药物 胃癌治疗药物 肺癌的症状 治疗肺癌 肺癌治疗 治疗肺癌药物 肺癌治疗药物 肺癌药物 肺癌 肺癌 肺癌治疗 肺癌 中国康网 中国癌症网 治疗牛皮癣治疗 牛皮癣的治疗 治疗牛皮癣 斑秃的治疗方法 斑秃的治疗 治疗斑秃 疱疹治疗 单纯疱疹治疗方法 带状疱疹治疗 脂溢性皮炎的治疗方法 脂溢性皮炎的治疗 治疗脂溢性皮炎 如何治疗脂溢性脱发 治疗脂溢性脱发 脂溢性脱发的治疗 阴囊湿疹的治疗 湿疹的治疗 婴儿湿疹治疗 白癜风的治疗方法 白癜风的症状 白癜风治疗 阴虱的治疗方法 阴虱治疗 阴虱病的治疗 鱼鳞病的治疗方法 鱼鳞病的症状 鱼鳞病的治疗 如何治疗狐臭 狐臭的治疗 何氏狐臭净 怎么治疗腋臭 腋臭的治疗方法 腋臭的治疗

[John Lucid]

And the idea that Ratzinger is opposed to evolution is pure urban myth.

Allow me to point you to this, Pithlord:

Pope prepares to embrace theory of intelligent design (skip down a little)

Last December, a US court sparked controversy when it ruled that intelligent design should not be taught alongside evolution theory. Cardinal Schönborn said: "The debate of recent months has undoubtedly motivated the Holy Father's choice." But he added that in the 1960s the then Joseph Ratzinger had "underlined emphatically the need to return to the topic of creation".

The Pope also raised the issue in the inaugural sermon of his pontificate, saying: "We are not the accidental product, without meaning, of evolution."

Doesn't seem purely mythological to me that this pope is opposed to evolution.

[John Lucid]

Posted by: zhongliu | September 17, 2006 at 11:54 PM

Amen, brother.

[cfrost]

Ratz is a lot more erudite than GW.

Well yes, but then Scott 'Carrot Top' Thompson is more erudite than Emperor George The Decider.

. . . for most of his career his role was more like that of Karl Rove than that of George Bush.

Lord, let's hope not! Cynical, glass-half-empty, atheist that I am, I’m still clinging to the notion that, as a man of the cloth, he has a little more humanity than that. Of course I was not raised Catholic, so I don’t reflexively recoil at the sight of a shepard’s crook.

[Alon Levy]

The comparison is actually very apt. Just like Wojtyla is like Clinton, so is Ratzinger like Bush. In neither case did the new leader change the substance of the organization/government's practice; the only thing that changed was the militancy of the rhetoric.

[Michael Kremer]

John Lucid:

The article you cited from the Guardian proved to be entirely misguided. Nothing like they predicted happened at the meeting they were talking about. See:

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-03T164629Z_01_L0398191_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-EVOLUTION.xml&archived=False

[386sx]

Doesn't seem purely mythological to me that this pope is opposed to evolution.

That's hard to say because he always frames it as his being opposed to the idea of man being a result of just evolution. But what theist isn't? Example: "Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate." From that, are we to conclude that he is opposed to psychology and sociology? Who freakin' knows, but I'll bet he was making some magic "pope gestures" while he was saying that. Oooooooooo he has special "popeness" abilities and he can wave his arms around like he magical "blessing" powers. Ooooooooooooooooo....

[Joe]

> Christians have done bad things, but they'll never find
> jusfification for them in the New Testament.

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Jesus - Luke 19:27, New Testament

[focus]

Did he apologize for the remarks? Or did he just say he was sorry about the reaction they got -- the fact that some people found them offensive? Check the official statement.

[RickD]

Christians who wish to portray their own religion as a force for benevolence, in contrast to the violence of Islam, really need to take a long, hard look at the history of imperialism, especially in the Americas. What "the Phantom" accuses Islam of doing is exactly what the Spanish did in Mexico and Peru. The Europeans, however, had the advantages of several highly infectious diseases that the natives had never built up any immunities to.

And that doesn't even begin to address the activities in Africa or Asia...