European religious, political leaders back Benedict

[ECH1969]

European religious and political leaders have backed Pope Benedict XVI in the wake of Muslim protests over his academic lecture at Regensburg University Tuesday, saying the pope's words had been misinterpreted.

While European Muslims were quick to attack the pope's words, the continent's political leaders declined to follow. "Whoever criticizes the pope misunderstood the aim of his speech," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with the German newspaper, Bild.

"Rather than criticizing Islam, the pope is actually offering it a helping hand by suggesting that it do away with the cycle of violence," Fr. Samir K. Samir, SJ one of the Vatican's leading experts on Islam wrote in the Catholic newspaper AsiaNews.

"Muslims, as well as Christians, must learn to enter into dialogue without crying 'foul'," Lord Carey said. "We live in perilous times, and we must not only separate religion from violence but also not give religious legitimacy to violence in any shape or form." Italian European parliament vice president Mario Mauro condemned as "monstrous" the manipulation of the pope's remarks by Islamic leaders which he claimed were used to "hit out at Christians and the West."

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913641658&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[GuillermoX71]

1. Glad someone's standing up for Free Speech

Reacting the way the fundamentalist Muslims react when anyone says anything negative about their religion, or draws a picture of their "prophet" is a sign of tremendous immaturity (at the very least).

Hopefully not too many people will get killed due to their reactions.

[tocqueville]

2. see my post here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=88480&mesg_id=88480

btw a leading Muslim cleric in Marseille gave the Pope "right" today.

[rodeodance]

10. yes. I have been reading lost today on this issue. The Pope did not

deserve to be dissed (lots of things he can be dissed for but not this one).

[LeighAnn]

3. Imagine if a world leader said those things about Jesus

If any world leader described Jesus Christ as being "evil and inhuman" the outrage would be immediate. O'Reilly and Hannity and all of their idiot followers would be boycotting that country's products and picketing their embassy, etc.

Yet Jesus's Father believed in spreading faith by the sword, too.

[Hav]

4. .

Maybe but I don't think that this is what the Pope said or intended to express.


Tocqueville's thread was interesting, too.

[screembloodymurder]

7. The Pope didn't mean it.

Then why doesn't he clarify his speech. Muslims are dying because of the Pope's choice of words.

[Hav]

14. .

I think he made very clear what he meant in his speech and it was clarified as well after this criticism. He probably could have chosen a better way and a better quote, I won't argue that.

And why are Muslims dying? The last I heard was that churches were under attack because of this incident.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2514627

[tocqueville]

6. it's NOT what the Pope said

he quoted (with plenty of reservations) an old text where those words were used in a special historic context. What was discussed was the question of transcendence.

The Pope meant that spreading faith through violence is going against the essence of God because it's not rational (immmanence). The Muslims don't recognize this (transcendence) which means that the actions of God don't have to be "humane" or rational according to our common standards. The fact the Church broke against the Pope's statement is irrelevant, since he denounces it.

[atreides1]

8. Then maybe....

...he should have used the Catholic church as an example on how spreading faith with the point of a sword didn't work.

There's more then enough history to back that up.


And by the way while the Christian common standards have changed, they were not the common standard in the 14th Century when this was first quoted.

[Malikshah]

9. Bingo-- all those crying for Free Speech, being misunderstood, etc

are COMPLETELY missing the point as to why Benny's words were offensive and beneath his office...

He needs to apologize and show that he understands the import of his bigotry.


He won't, though.

[tocqueville]

12. He apologized for the fact that he expressed himself in a way that

could be misunderstood and created grievance that way. But you cannot apologize for quoting somebody and for presenting a statement that goes against violence.

And you obviously haven't understood anything about what the discussion was about. Most of the Pope bashers don't have a clue of what he was talking about, but they prefer to act EXACTLY the way they condemn themselves.

[Malikshah]

13. I understand completely what the discussion was about and yes

he can apologize for quoting someone.

It is akin to quoting the most virulent pro-slavery writers when discussing issues of work ethics with African Americans

It's quoting Mein Kampf when discussing lifestyles with Jewish people

Both are are examples of vile behavior that exemplifies insensitivity to the issues at hand.

As a born and bred Catholic, I'm more than happy to condemn Benny's actions. He exemplifies the worst in the papacy in its long history and should be rebuked for doing so.

Does he have the freedom to say what he did? Yup. Do they have a right to protest and demand and apology? Yup. Who bears responsibility for the mess to begin with and what may come? Benny.

It's called accountability. Some folks may wish to look up the definition.

[tocqueville]

19. Jesus Fucking Christ !

so according to you

I have to apologize if I quote Bush when talking to a Democrat ? (whatever party I belong to)
If I meet a Jew and quote Hitler because I want to understand the Jewish perception of what Hitler said, I have to apologize ?
And apologize for quoting the Virgin Mary when talking to a Protestant ?
So Salman Rushdie was wrong because he wrote about Satan pretending being Allah trying to seduce Mohammed in a pure fictive novel (even if Mohammed in the story of course is'nt tricked by the devil)

this is nothing but BIGOTRY. And if discussing secular matters, HYPOCRICY.

So much for the academic free discussion. It has nothing to do with accountability.

If you read what the story was all about Benny was discussing transcendence. And he makes a completely valid theological point. Not being able to quote some older theologian discussing the same thing (even if the statement is controversial), is nothing than pure medieval thinking, even by secular standards.

Phew, and I still believed that the Era of Enlightment wasn't over...

[Malikshah]

21. Uh-- it has everything to do with accountability--

Wow.

As a career academic, I have been trained to strive for accuracy. Seeking the "truth" as can best be expressed, and to back up my statements with evidence and analysis with cogent analysis. At the end, I am held accountable for what I state, write, and discuss and must be able to defend my statments and their ramifications.

It's called an enlightened voice.

BTW-- Benny's little quotation and non-apology is sophistry and dilletantism at its worst.

He takes a clearly fabricated account, and then goes off and takes from it what he wants, making false aspersions and connections. His goal? To lable Islam as violent and irrational. He hides behind the "academic discussion" like a coward. What makes it worse is that is was a calculated move on his part--his knowledge of the issues makes it clear that he knew exactly how to couch his statements in such a way that he could hide, coward-like, behind the "scholarly discourse" curtain.

He is no different than the "free-speech" types who defended the Danish cartoons. Did the editors have the right to publish them? Yup. Do they bear the lion's share of responsibility for what took place? Yes. Were they will to accept said responsibility? Nope. They were clearly folks who could dish it out but couldn't take it.

The same holds true for the Vatican and Benny.

Casting aspersions about Era of Enlightenment, etc. doesn't wash. It's a tiresome red herring.

Enjoy the oblivion.

BTW-- Here's an article to provides some key analysis of the situation. This "benign" statement by Benny is anything but.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5352404.stm

[fedsron2us]

22. Give it a rest

Are you seriously suggesting that Manuel II Paleologus was in any way comparable to Hitler ? Perhaps as a 'career academic' you can cite some evidence from the 14 th Century to back your argument.

[Malikshah]

25. Uh--no-- you may interpret that as such, and I am sorry if it offends

you ;)

Love that old non-apology apology.

No where did I equate Hitler with Manuel II

Citing offensive words authored by bigoted folks to groups who have been the victim of such bigotry...

That's the analogy being made. If one cannot decipher the difference... Well then, get thee to a university.

[tocqueville]

11. there is a big difference

the Catholic Church (based on the New Testament) have no CONCEPT of jihad. Jesus converted with miracles and his own sacrifice, not with the sword. For Islam, it's a different story, it stands in the "books".

That the original Christian teachings were perverted, that's one thing. But the Coran is literally the word of God for Muslims. And it hasn't been reformed. And if jihad stands there, let jihad be.

"And had it not been that Allah checks one set of people with another, the monasteries and churches, the synagogues and the mosques, in which His praise is abundantly celebrated would have been utterly destroyed. 22:40"

In the 14th century Christianity was under attack and had been under attack under 700 years by the Muslims, specially the Eastern part. The Crusades were a reaction to Islamisation.

[Igel]

17. Because the Christian God isn't transcendant in the

same way that the Muslim God is, and the difference was a large part of the point being made. Compare and contrast.

The Catholic Church was already an example. Comparing and contrasting it with itself makes little sense. However, the kernel of the comparison was there in this dispute, real or imaginary, with a learned Persian.

Interesting little speech. But not to the imams who, like clockwork, spout little pre-prepared snippets intended to make sure their backwards xenophobes are ever more safely in their pockets.

[tocqueville]

20. Besides Manuel II (the quoted guy) wasn't even a Catholic

but an Orthodox by today's standards, since the Great Schism had already happened. The Byzantine Empire at that time was the paramount of intelligence, philosophy and knowledge in that part of the world.

And regarding your comment, the bottom line is that the Muslim approach of transcendency leads to idolatry.

"The emperor 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 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....
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: "For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practice idolatry."

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

[crossroads]

18. Well Said! nt

[ananda]

15. To be fair..

.. the pope could have spoken against the xtian crusade currently being
waged by BushInc and his theocratic base.

They're doing far more violence and damage than the Muslims.

Sue

[Finder]

5. We really need a Saladin in the world today...n/t

[Zynx]

16. ...?

[Evoman]

23. This whole Pope thing has frayed my last religious nerve

Whenever I think people can't do anything stupider, I'm proven horribly, horribly wrong.

1) The pope said the stuff about Islam in a certain context. They were not his own words, and he did not mean them. I hate the fucking pope, but its quite clear to me he didn't mean to insult another religion.

2) Who the fuck cares what the pope says! IF your an Muslem male or female, in a country completely unaffected by the pope, why the hell would you bloody care what an increasingly powerless old religious nut has to say? Its like these muslems are dying to have something to rail against. You know what the violent muslems need...more sex. Yeah, I said it. More sex. When you don't get enough sex, you start getting violent and hypersensitive. They need sex, weed, and a bag of chips.

3) The best way to show others that your aren't violent or evil, like they call you, is probably not BURNING DOWN BUILDINGS AND THREATENING TO KILL THOSE WHO OFFEND YOU.

4) Apologizing after the fact is not gonna do anything, if people react like this, because they WANT to be mad.

5) If anybody, like the pope or a cleric, insulted Atheism, I wouldn't get mad at all. I may write them a letter informing them how stupid they are, but I can't imagine getting so mad that I'm burning down my city. But I get laid frequently. So yeah.....

[neebob]

24. Like it would kill the pope to apologize.

He should have known better, his advisors should have known better, and the people who are defending him now should know better. Offering them a helping hand my ass. There's no prejudice going on there.

I learned a long time ago in my career - and I only had to learn it in my career because my parents never taught me - that others' perceptions are valid and must be acknowledged to resolve a disagreement. I guess that's how one gets to be a world leader, by continually avoiding and refusing to learn this lesson.

The Muslims aren't freaking out for no reason, and they aren't just going to go, "Oh, okay - my bad!"

And then there's Jesus. You'd think the leader of the church that he supposedly started wouldn't have to be told what Jesus would want him to do. Some holy father.