Vance: who will defend the Pope?
David Vance is angered by the lack of any defence from anyone on last night’s Let’s Talk panel of the Pope Benedict’s controversial lecture.
Advertise
-
Books
-
A Political History of the Two Irelands competition…
It’s not often we get free things to give away to our readers, but courtesy of Palgrave Macmillan we have a nice paperback copy of Brian M Walker’s excellent history of partition of the island and how identities shifted in both the north east and the south and west: as most of the territory that [...] read our review »
-
Round up of Tuesday’s Political Studies Association conference
If you want to get a flavour of the proceedings at the Political Studies Association conference on its opening day, then the Storify collation below will bring you some of the images, tweets and sounds of the day. Particular highlights included: the Opening Plenary with David Blunkett, Peter Riddell and Matthew Flinders; and the late [...] read our review »
-
Voices from the Grave
Coming up to the Halloween holiday, some people might be frightened of the idea of Voices from the Grave – but for others, the chance to hear an oral history of the Troubles from the mouths of two (in)famous protagonists, PUP leader and former UVF member David Ervine, and Brendan “The Dark” Hughes, is not [...] read our review »
-
I’m sure some Moslems have been watching Northern Ireland because their reaction is exactly some people here when you say ANYTHING at all that they can twist to make it sound like they are somehow persecuted.
Those Moslems are as useless as those people are here.
I think the Cathlic church have concluded that they are not going to keep on saying sorry on this one and rightly so.
–I think the Cathlic church have concluded that they are not going to keep on saying sorry on this one and rightly so.–
Any further apologies will be interpreted as weakness, as were the apologies issued before.
And it is duly noted that the Pope said nothing that merited an apology.
The Phantom,
Firstly it doesn’t really matter whether I agree or disagree with what the Pope had to say. It doesn’t matter in the wider scheme of things.
I will however point out something that became glaringly obvious to me. If the Reverend Doctor Ian Kyle Paisley had quoted a similar passage about the Islamic Prophet Muhammed, liberals and Roman Catholics, particularly in Ulster and the Irish Free State/Banana Republic, would have been quick to use the adjectives “intolerant”, “bigoted”, “narrow-minded”, “misguided” and “parochial”, to describe Papa Doc and his religious convictions. These same people are now saying the ex-Nazi Pope Benedict’s words were “taken out of context” – anyone else notice the blatant lack of consistency?
Muslims are now, officially, the most oppressed people ever! LOL
The panel were gutless, the audience dhimmified, and I did feel Pope Benedict’s words were misrepresented. No need to say sorry, but Let’s Talk producers should be sorry for only allowing one view.
Word censored is “b1goted”…FREEDOM OF SPEECH!
David,
Do you agree I have a point though? Perhaps Pope Benedict’s words were taken out of context – nobody knows the thinking behind the speech other than himself, but do you honestly believe the same people who leapt to the Pontiff’s defence would have given Paisley or a Protestant clergyman the benefit of the doubt, in the same way as they have done for the Pope?
If anyone needs to have another example of wacky Moslem “thinking”, try listening to the following broadcast this morning:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_abu_20060922.ram
CL
One, the reference to “ex-Nazi” is a bit ludicrous, as are a number of the other things said.
But putting those comments aside, the larger message was one of tolerance between and among religions, a rejection of violence.
But as for the passage that was quoted? Its 100% true, and the recent reactions prove it to be true.
Criticize the Catholic Church all you like my friend. Noone is coming after you if you do. But say any little thing about Islam, and people have a way of ending up dead.
If Catholics or other Christians reacted in any similar fashion to the blood-curdling threats and insults issued from Muslim clerics every week, there would be nonstop violence everywhere. Now there’s a lack of consistency.
And I’d hardly compare Paisley’s rantings, esp of years past, with the Pope’s talk.
Paisley would personally insult the Pope, and conducted parodies of the Mass, was totally in opposition to any interfaith dialogue with the “Whore of Bablylon” and all that.
He’s become less bad with age, but he’s hardly been mistreated by anyone at any time.
CL,
Actually opinion down here is 50:50. And most liberals would be pretty critical of the popes comments. Personally I thought the pope was an idiot for not realising what would happen if he used that quotation. As for the paisley comparisson I agree with phantom. Paisley has gone WAY further than the pope in the past. Anyway gotta get back to work… These bananas don’t get packed by themselves…..
You can’t defend the indefensible. Yes, the pope’s quotes were taken out of context, but if he didn’t understand that they would be, then he’s either devious or an imbecile.
Concerned Loyalist,
Why do you insist on referring to the Republic of Ireland as the Irish Free State/Banana Republic?
You just make yourself look infantile.
Churches burned in the West Bank, a nun murdered in Somalia, Papal effiges being burned in the street, and plackards saying “Islam is a peaceful religion, those who say otherwise will be killed” or “The Pope must die” etc etc…. now whatever gave the Holy Father the idea that there was a relationship between Islam and violence?
Personally, I dont think the Pope has anything to apologise for, if he did then he would only show weakness in the eyes of these heretics. It has been quite depressing that for so long there was only a weak meow from the Vatican, it’s nice to hear a somewhat mutted roar now and again.
Get used to hearing the ‘angery’ Muslim voice, for it will only get louder, partly due to media agenda (ie Barbarian at the gates). Now, I wonder how many generations it will be before the UK is governed by Sharia Law, 2, may be 3 at most…
Mohamed was a degenerate (of whom Chuck claims to be a descendent), the Q’uran an abomination, Muslims are heretics, and even the ‘mainstream’ Islamists haven’t hidden the fact they want to convert the west to Islam and Sharia Law. As for inter-faith dialogue, we can worry about that when we are looking over our shields at them…
Cornered Loyalist:
Paisley IS “intolerant”, “####### [bígoted]”, “narrow-minded”, “misguided” and “parochial”– also in matters pertaining to religion. We hardly need to hear a fresh tirade from him to remind us of this.
Let’s Talk seemed to me like a show rehearsed beforehand to avoid giving offence to anybody, Muslims especially.
Bob McCartney was good though, if only on the rates issue.
Sorry, for “Cornered” read “Concerned.”
What WAS I thinking?
Having read the whole lecture, and much analysis of it (including flawed analysis by some journalists who didn’t obviously bother reading) I have no doubt he had nothing to apologise for.
Anyway, we shouldn’t pretend this is a Christianity versus Islam issue. Quite the opposite in fact. There are a small number of ignorant fools on various faiths and none who like stirring up trouble for their own agenda. And then there probably are genuine protestors who perhaps didn’t know English (or German) well enough to be able to understand the original speech. But there are many sensible people, Islamic and Christian and atheist (like me), who familiarised themselves with the facts first and see there is no problem – I’m not talking about forgiving and forgetting, but a complete realisation that there wasn’t even a problem.
So we need to forget about the violence by some Muslims. It is in fact irrelevant, or at most a side issue. The Pope’s speech is the main issue, and everything else flows from that. We need to consider it first and on its own merits before considering the violence of some people.
He made one passing reference to Islam in the whole lecture. The rest of the lecture was not directed in any way, subliminally or not, towards Islam. He made many references to other topics like evolution and modern science. For example, the success and utility was based on it being reasoned about and discussed in an open way – he’s saying Christian theology should continue to be open to analysis in every aspect.
The subject of the speech was about faith and reason. That might seem like a pretty boring and waffly topic, but it’s not. He’s just trying to show that it is possible to argue through reason for a belief in religion. I’m reminded of my own parents thinking they would achieve something by dragging me to Mass every Sunday – I think the Pope is saying that’s a stupid idea. He’s calling on Catholics to actually engage in sensible discussion. Many religions and religious factions don’t see any point in using reason. They will convert by force, if not violence then simply by drowning out other ideas and dragging people to ceremonies. Now I must emphasise at this point that I’m not trying to argue about whether these are “nice” ways to spread religion. This is about a much more important question, it’s about the (morally neutral) question of why to believe in God – is it because you can put together a reasonable argument? And also it’s about the idea that your religion can’t be very correct if you fail to win converts through reason.
Many theologists not only reason about religion but even about the mind of God, and try to speculate on what God might be thinking.
On the other hand, many religions don’t consider any aspect of religion, or even God’s state of mind, to be open to any sort of analysis. They simply believe in blind faith. But that is not a desirable opinion, from my point of view. Whether it leads to violence, or simply to wilful ignorance, it’s something that should be challenged through dialogue. In fact, even if people were all happy believing something, and weren’t violent, but without good reasons for their faith it should be challenged.
So, all in all, it was an interesting and well written lecture on the fact that Christian faiths are quite likely to involve analysis and debate not just of texts but of the fundamentals of faith and even the mind of God. He never said anything about violence per se, it was simply an example about the lack of thought and analysis from some religious people. My parents should have tried to find good reasons for me to believe in God, and violence is similarly lacking in intellectual foundation.
A fair analysis, Occasional Commentator.
The pope’s reading was timely. We’re on the cusp of extraordinary breakthroughs in science (some might argue that we always are). Benedict was positing that belief can be subject to reasoned analysis in much the same way as can science.
To the atheist and agnostic this may seem ludicrous. Yet the current scientific models of the universe must seem equally ludicrous to the layperson.
I won’t bore you with the details. Which is my shrewd way of saying that I don’t understand them either.
“Personally I thought the pope was an idiot”
Hurler on the Ditch
“he’s either devious or an imbecile.”
joeCanuck
The above comments relate to measured and well researched and debated comments, referring to a 14th century discourse between a Muslim scholar and a Christian emperor, made by the leading Christian theologian of our time to a conference of scientists, as an example of historical thinking on the contradiction between faith in a unitary deity and the use of violence to promote such faith.
rory. well said, i think????
Rory, thank you for putting some of the more intemperate commentary in its proper perspective.
Everyone is falling over themselves about whether Islam has been offended or not.
However this is not a passive reaction by these people but a proactive aggressive one.
The fanatics have an intolerant and arrogant mindset that uses violence and oppression to exert control – they should be told to get lost.
They neither value the ability of others to think differently nor even voice an alternative opinion.
So what if they believe Mophammed spoke from God and others do not – we are now in a situation in our own country where you cannot publicly voice the latter.
It is a well accepted Christian & Islamic teaching that both are opposing doctrines. Are we not allowed to voice what those differences are now ?
Pandering to them will only encourage them.
There needs to be a collective approach by everyone who values freedom of speech and thought to tell these people that their right to believe and practice what they believe is valued but equally valued is the right of others to tell them to their face that they believe it to be wrong.
If we give that up what kind of world are we passing onto our children ?
OC,
I actually feel I know what this is really all about after reading your post.
Rory,
even if I do feel I know what this is about, I’m saying any more after reading yours.
‘So we need to forget about the violence by some muslums, it is in fact irrelevant’- OC
Sure, just forget about it. I’m sure the dead nun could forget about it dead easy! After all she’s only a woman – so as the wise guys always say, forget about it.
“So what if they believe Mophammed spoke from God and others do not – we are now in a situation in our own country where you cannot publicly voice the latter.
It is a well accepted Christian & Islamic teaching that both are opposing doctrines. Are we not allowed to voice what those differences are now ?”
Is Slugger public? If so, let me hereby publicly voice my opinion that Islam differs enormously from Christianity. For starters, Christ always performed his ministry in the presence of others, and thereby convinced most around him that he was somebody very special indeed.
Muhammad on the other hand claimed to be God’s prophet. His evidence? His own word. Nobody else seems to have been present when he was having his one-to-ones with Allah.
And what did God “reveal” through Muhammad? Well, not a lot really if the Koran is anything to go by. There nothing new there, as that 14th century chap remarked to the Emperor, bar the violence and intolerance. It’s a manual for desert-dwelling men that confirms their own opinions of themselves and gives their prejudices the thumbs-up.
Is this blasphemous enough? I can do more if you wish.
barcas thanks for the link, pretty much said it all. So we all are going to live under sharia law!1 If they want to live like that, then saudi is a nice place.
BYE
And if Big Ian tooled up beside the German fella
There could be one hell of a showdown at the ok corral
Concerned Loyalist
The Pope’s speech was over 1 hour long attacked the use of any or all religious beliefs to justify violence.
He used 1 QUOTATION about Islam and, of course, the Muslims are the only people who were criticised in the speech to react violently. The Pope had nothing to apologise for.
Islam is as fair a target for rational criticism as any other religion – it’s time that the media in the UK stopped walking on egg shells around them – it’s just giving in to the threat of violence.
“Doctor” (An honourary doctorate purchased for money in an unaccredited US “university”)Paisley has rightly been condemned in the past for making remarks that are specifically offensive to Catholics and other groups (homosexuals).
Fair criticism is not a problem. However, I think shouting anti-Christ at the Pope during his speech in the European assembly shows religious intolerance if not b-i-g-o-t-r-y.
As I recall Paisley was charged with inciting violence in the late 60′s.
I disgree with David Vance on many things but he was correct about Let’s Talk. The Pope had nothing to apologise and the Let’s Talk Panel/Audience were only interested in apologising to Muslim’s for the “offence” that was supposedly caused.
As for the “ex-Nazi” Crap – yet again you just show yourself up. This was the subject of a Channel 4 documentary and a large number of newspaper stories. It is common knowledge that, at that time in Germany, teenage German boys were forced into the Hitler Youth or were sent to Prison. German Catholics in particular were always suspected of being less than loyal to the Nazi state and Nazi ideals.
The record shows that Pope Benedict joined when he was forced to – played no active role in the Hitler youth – and left a soon as he was able to do so.
If you are worried about Nazism, I suggest you should be concerned about the links with Neo Nazi groups (Combat 18 etc) with your own community.
Fanny,
Indeed Islam and Christinaity are very different religions. Islam emphasises orthopraxy while Christianity places its emphasis on orthodoxy, one is centered on correct practice and the other on correct belief. Therefore in this sense, Islam is much more similar to Judaism than Christianity, which is closer to Buddhism in this regard.
There is not much particularly “new” in the ethical content of the Gospels either as most of it paralells Rabbinical thought found in the Hillel tradition, which predates the life of Jesus.
Islam has produced masterpieces of philosophy, poetry, architechure offered by its faithful in the service of God, as well as the devotional literature and practices of its saints and the Sufis. Furthermore, the Koran in terms of poetry is an absolute masterpiece. Whether or not a person has the heart to admit it, the Holy Spirit is in Islam too.
“Furthermore, the Koran in terms of poetry is an absolute masterpiece.”
Yes, I’ve heard this one before. Care to give us a sample, let us judge for ourselves?
Occassional Commentator,
sounds like a good description of what the Pope was getting at. We needed you on Lets Talk !
I’m sure you would have been diplomatic enough to stay out of hot water.
P.S. I’m sure your parents would have been very happy to see you defending the Pope.
)
Some Australian comments :
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460113-601,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20460114-601,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20462454-601,00.html
Fanny
1
“It’s a manual for desert-dwelling men that confirms their own opinions of themselves and gives their prejudices the thumbs-up.”
I lived in one of those desert cities on the Arabian Peninsula for a year, and I initially pitied the black-clad female population. When the weekend rolled around on a Wednesday and the men ‘went out to the desert’ (which, curiously, involved bars in international hotels, fine liquor, and the company of delightful Eastern European girls) I imagined the insufferable indignity their wives must be experiencing.
That pity was lessened I learned that the women went ‘shopping’ at the weekends, where a wander through a sparkling mall might include Italian bags, South African diamonds, and perhaps the odd Jordanian or Syrian fella.
And, at the end of the weekend, the husband could, indeed, say that he had enjoyed himself in the desert, and the wives could say they had enjoyed themselves shopping.
Perhaps they need to write a new manual ;0)
2.”Furthermore, the Koran in terms of poetry is an absolute masterpiece.”
‘Yes, I’ve heard this one before. Care to give us a sample, let us judge for ourselves?’
The Koran’s poetic structure can only be appreciated aloud, in Arabic, and that structure would be lost in any translation.
Wilde Rover
I won’t comment on your trite “shopping for diamonds” story except to say that it’s an insult to millions of poverty-stricken Muslim women.
“The Koran’s poetic structure can only be appreciated aloud, in Arabic, and that structure would be lost in any translation.”
Oh, please. Here’s Wiki on Shakespeare’s sonnets:
“To date in the German-speaking countries alone, there have been 68 complete translations since 1784. There is no major written language into which the sonnets have not been translated, including Latin, Turkish, Japanese, Kiswahili, Esperanto, and even Klingon.”
They might have mentioned sign language as well. Bearing in mind that the sonnets were the work of a mere man, as opposed to the words of God, they seem to have done jolly well in translation, Arabic included.
But… the real thrust of my earlier post was that Muhammad had no witnesses to support his claim that God spoke to him; Jesus had many. Jesus performed many miracles. As far as I’m aware, Muhammad’s sole miracle was attracting so many adherents to his death cult.
abucs,
I would have liked to have been on Let’s Talk, but in the audience, not the panel. It’s difficult enough to do justice to his lecture (theology isn’t something I’m great at) but with the pressure of the TV lights and the need for quick responses I’d be better off in the audience throwing in the odd fact to throw the panelists off gaurd.
I might read more about this lecture – I was just taking away from the speech what made sense to me and probably didn’t do the lecture justice. But if I’ve helped some of you get an idea of the gist of his lecture, then I’m glad to have helped a bit.
Hypocrisy and irony (page 4) seem mainly to have been overlooked. Perhaps BBC’s Sunday Sequence will take a second look?
[i]Now, I wonder how many generations it will be before the UK is governed by Sharia Law, 2, may be 3 at most…[/i]
I suspect that the age-old Irish Catholic Ulster Protestant conflict will finally come to an end when they are forced to jointly confront the invasive Muslim hordes.
Hey Dave
Wasn’t Black Bob your party leader once? You must be so proud.
“I suspect that the age-old Irish Catholic Ulster Protestant conflict will finally come to an end when they are forced to jointly confront the invasive Muslim hordes.”
Yes indeed, Southern Observer.
BTW, you probably didn’t realize this but your post reads as poetry when translated into koranic Arabic.
I have to say I’m disappointed with McKelvey and Wilde Rover for their failure to provide samples from the poetic Koran: “Furthermore, the Koran in terms of poetry is an absolute masterpiece.”
Well, I guess I’ll just have to do it myself. I flipped quickly through my well-thumbed copy and came up with this:
Prophet, rouse the faithful to arms. If there are twenty steadfast men among them, they shall vanquish two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they shall rout a thousand unbelievers, for they are devoid of understanding. Allah is with those that are steadfast.” — Sura 8:64
“That’s not very poetic, Fanny,” I hear you say. OK, you’re right; Heaney it ain’t. So I thought I’d versify it abit, while at the same time giving those pious and peace-bestowing lines a more modern and relevant resonance. See what you think:
Mo’mad, recruit some brainwashed cretins;
Twenty with bombs strapped to the torso
Are enough to waste two hundred
Poor sods queueing for a gratis morceau.
A hundred Muslims with feeding bottles,
Wherein is bangy-bangy stored
Can down three planes with, say, a thousand
Christian fucks and Jews aboard.
For they won’t even know what hit ‘em
Those mongrel sons of Abel-Shittim.
Allah is rooting for those sans pity.
‘Ows about that* for a lovely ditty?
*With apologies to Sir James Savile
There’s a great deal of prejudice being expressed against muslims as usual in this thread. I think all religion is ridiculous and that includes Catholicism/Christianity as well as Islam, but from the outside looking in I can see very little difference between the reactions (in the West) to the Pope’s speech, and the reaction by Christianity to The Da Vinci Code.
The way people describing themselves as Muslim have reacted in foreign countries, most visibly in the middle east, is obviously over the top but should we be so quick to believe that this is anything to do with the religion itself rather than the circumstances and cultural backgrounds in which those people live ? It is a bit like saying that the “God and Ulster” UDA are representative of Christianity.
Do I take it, Comrade, that you didn’t like my poem?
Fanny,
Numbers 51:1-34. Joshua 6:21. I can do this all day. What’s your point ?
[mine ? All religions have sick and evil shit in them, and the world would be better off without them. However people who go after one religion alone on this basis are themselves part of the hypocrisy that religion engenders.]
“What’s your point ?”
Perhaps, dear Comrade, my point is that if the men of NI acquired a sense of humour and learned to laugh at themselves, this place might begin to show signs of improvement.
For “NI” substitute “Islam” and for “this place” substitute “the world,” and voilà an equally valid message.
You didn’t tell me if you liked my poem or not.
Fanny:
There has been academic research that indicates the Koran is practically based upon the written works of a small Jewish sect and is not words revealed unto Mohammad by an angel.
Shall try and find my reference to this…
Moslems acknowledge that Mohammed could not read or write and that the Koran was written by others.
As for the violent reaction to the Pope’s lecture by some Moslems, all of us can say to them “Errm, as this obscure-medieval-emperor was saying…”
Benedict did not provide the Islamic scholar’s response to the emperor’s “brusque” query. Maybe he was asking for clarification from contemporary Moslems: “OK Osama, what is your response… OK Nasruddin… OK Shia Ayatollah and Iranian PM. Have you anything to say other than “Kaboom!““
By quoting the obscure Byzantine emperor, the lecture also was a subtle reminder to the Turks, whom Benedict will be visiting soon, that they were once Christians too before they were forcibly converted to Islam by the sword.
In short, I think that the Pope intended his lecture to be a message to Moslems and probably expected the usual outrage which of course he would “regret” but not his words which I think were perfectly fine and I am glad he did not apologise for them.
It is difficult for secular people to debate in the same terms that Benedict does and this has been something that has been missing from the Western response to militant Islam until Benedict’s lecture. He is defending our civilisation in a context to which some Moslems can respond by debate rather than by violence.
Some Islamic scholars have already responded to Benedict’s comment that to Moslems God is absolutely transcendent (as stated by an Islamic medieval scholar Ibn Hazm) – this is only one Islamic view of God.
Thus the debate has commenced.
I have been most interested in the varying reactions to the Pope’s speech from various commentators, including those who despise religion and/or the Catholic hierarchy.
I wonder if Osama can reply to Benedict in a non-violent way? It would be good to see if he can.
“I wonder if Osama can reply to Benedict in a non-violent way?”
I wonder if Osama can reply to my poem, merrie. Nobody else seems to want to. Never a literary critic when a girl wants one.
Judging by Osama’s previous form, he’ll sicc some kabooming brainwashed cretins onto you.
Very predictable – like our Ian Kyle Paisley’s “No!”
(PS I like your free translation of sura 8:64)
Ah, recognition at last. Thank you, merrie.
To take you up on that transcendent God bit. Do you feel, as I do, that there’s something paradoxical about the Islamic notion of divine transcendence? I mean: the Koran can’t very well say on the one hand…
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the others and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you take no further action against them. Allah is high, supreme. Sura 4:34”
… and then tell us that Allah transcends shite like this. A truly transcendent being would surely have better things to occupy his time than the wishful thinking of desert-dwelling misogynists.
And if not, then the universe is in serious trouble.
Off now on a well-earned holiday. I promise to be extra nice to any Muslim sitting near me on the plane.
Well, what would Jesus do?
Rory.
If you’re going to quote me quote me in full. There’s a big difference between your quote.
“Personally I thought the pope was an idiot”
and my full sentence which was
“Personally I thought the pope was an idiot for not realising what would happen if he used that quotation”
I still stand by that. The pope may be a great academic and may even be “the leading Christian theologian of our time”. Who knows. My point was however that anybody, including Ratzinger himself who thought that with the present situation in the middle East a few quotations like that, coming from the pope, wouldn’t be taken out of context is an idiot. I don’t condone the reaction. I have no problem in saying that fundamentalists are warping the context. But this should have been expected.
Fanny,
Hope that has put my “intemperate commentary in its proper perspective.”