Friday, September 15, 2006
Benedictine controversy misses the point
The reaction to Pope Benedict XVI’s supposedly offensive speech hasn’t, yet, reached the level of the cultivated hysteria meted out to the Danish cartoons, but Muslim representatives, both elected and self appointed, are in full outrage mode. Personally I agree with Andrew Brown, at The First Post, that context, both historical and textual, is key… and with Stephen Bates, at CiF, “if you cannot, as part of a lengthy and profound academic lecture, cite a 600 year-old text for fear of stirring the aggravation of noisy politicians half way around the world, what CAN you do?”. Although I’m less enamoured with Benedict’s attempt to equate, or entwine, religion and science.. which seems to be the actual objective of the speech, Meeting with the Representatives of Science Updated
For the record here’s the offensive paragraph from the speech
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “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”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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”, he says, “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...”.
As Andrew Brown pointed out Constantinople fell 50 years later
But the later paragraphs, including Benedict’s conclusion, have been all but overshadowed in the controversy
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 from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”. The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.
Updated A spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI has clarified his comments
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.
Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervour of Muslim believers, warned secularised Western culture to guard against “the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom”.
Perhaps scientists should burn a couple of effigies..?
And it wasn’t secular society that interpreted his address in that manner..
And Pope Benedict XVI has added
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words.
I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
Pete Baker @ 02:30 PM
While the focus of the speech is, indeed, elsewhere, that particular point is more subtle, Little Eva.
He’s challenging the literalists [within Islam and elsewhere] who advocate violence.. in light of the quotation from the Qur’an - “There is no compulsion in religion”.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:10 PMPete
When you quote from the Qur’an to make a point against violent fundamentalist religionists, and use another centuries-old quote about mohamed bringing nothing but violence in the name of his religion, it is Islamism you are directing your remarks at.
Also your piece is contradictory:"He’s challenging the literalists [within Islam and elsewhere] who advocate violence.. in light of the quotation from the Qur’an - “There is no compulsion in religion”.
If they were truely literalist then they would be bound to abide literally by: “There is no compulsion in religion”.
These people are actually selectivists who carefully select what suits their purpose and ignore what doesn’t.Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:20 PMLittle Eva
“If they were truely literalist then they would be bound to abide literally by: “There is no compulsion in religion”.
These people are actually selectivists who carefully select what suits their purpose and ignore what doesn’t.”That’s why he chose the quote.
And the rest of the speech expands the point to relate to other religions and, more importantly, to the relationship, as he sees it, between reason and religion.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:24 PMPete
“That’s why he chose the quote.”
Of course, but it was you, not he, who wrongly described them as literalists.
Also you avoid the major point I make in refuting your contention that this was not specifically aimed at Islamists: “When you quote from the Qur’an to make a point against violent fundamentalist religionists, and use another centuries-old quote about mohamed bringing nothing but violence in the name of his religion, it is Islamism you are directing your remarks at.”
I say two things:
1)He was directing his remarks at Islam.
2)He was right to do so.Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:32 PMEva
“Of course, but it was you, not he, who wrongly described them as literalists.”
Wrongly? You don’t substantiate that claim. And it’s the ongoing argument between the literalists and those who seek to intrepret historical texts that lies at the root of the current discussion.
“I say two things:
1)He was directing his remarks at Islam.
2)He was right to do so. “You can say what you like.. it doesn’t make you right.
You need an argument to back that up beofre you can class it as a refutation.
Posted by on Sep 15, 2006 @ 11:40 PMPete:
In his concluding paragraph, Pope Benedict invites the West and the East to engage in a dialogue based on reason. He says:
“ It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.”
As you know, Oriana Fallaci passed away today. I found posted on the net a translation of a column she wrote in July 2005. She addresses Pope Benedict:
“Oh, neither have we been, nor are we, angels. Agreed. Inquisitions, defenestrations, executions, wars, infamies of every kind; as well as Guelphs and Ghibellines without end. And if we want to judge ourselves severely, it’s enough to think about what we did sixty years ago with the Holocaust. But afterwards, we applied a little wisdom, of course. We thought about what we had done and if for no other reason than in the name of decency, we bettered ourselves a little. They have not. The Catholic Church experienced epochal changes, Your Holiness. And again, you know this better than I. At a certain point, it is remembered that the Church was preaching reason; thus choice; thus the Good, thus Liberty, and she ceased to tyrannize. To kill people. Or constrain them to paint only Christs and Madonnas. She understood laicism. Thanks to men of the first order, a long list of which You are a part, she leant a hand to democracy. And today, she speaks to people like me. She accepts them and, far from burning them alive (I never forget that up until four hundred years ago the Holy Office would have sent me to the stake), she respects their ideas. They do not. Therefore, there can be no dialogue with them.”
In his speech, the Pope seems to be answering Oriana, challenging her conclusions, appealing to dialogue based on reason. Perhaps hoping to pave the way for reformation in the Islamic world.
Coming after the Pope’speech we see scenes of angry mobs, burning effigies, and angry placards in block print English. It is Friday and not coincidentally the “unrest” occurs after prayers.
So this, then, is the Islamic answer to the Pope’s appeal. It is an emotional answer, not one based in reason. I conclude that a reformation of Islam, based on logos is a long way off.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:49 AMIf it is felt necessary, in order to illustrate the error of His Holiness in alluding to the acceptability of using violence to promote Islam, to declare a fatwa against the pontiff, it should at least provide an excellent basis for a new paper on rhe subject.
The author of any such paper would be forgiven if he wished to publish under a pseudonym.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:50 AMCan i say there was nothing wrong with the Crusades we saved Jerusalem. And if Christians don’t stand firm again the Muslims we be on the march again just like in 1071.
The Pope should call on the Teutonic Knights once again for help.
Mark my words the time is near for the Final Crusade !!!
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:40 AMDear God, that’s all Slugger needs: a Muslim troll.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 06:50 AM‘’So this, then, is the Islamic answer to the Pope’s appeal. It is an emotional answer, not one based in reason.’’
Patty—since when has anything religious been concerned with reason?
The whole notion of a deity and spirit world is by necessity an emotional one—it is impossible to ‘reason’ about something which is unproveable and effectively a product of the human imagination.Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 08:02 AMPete
Sorry for disappearing I just had to get to bed.“Wrongly? You don’t substantiate that claim.”
I believe I already did by drawing your attention to the inherent contradiction in calling them literalists by saying this: “If they were truely literalist then they would be bound to abide literally by: “There is no compulsion in religion”.
These people are actually selectivists who carefully select what suits their purpose and ignore what doesn’t.”You again ignore my first point by saying that I haven’t backed up my statement - “I say two things:
1)He was directing his remarks at Islam.
2)He was right to do so.“But, again, I have already pointed out why any reasonable person could only conclude - given this man’s position, his intellect, his background in theology and the current antics of Islamism - he must surely have been aware that this would be taken as being directed at Islam. He delivered it anyway, so that must have been where it was intended to go.
What I said was this: “When you quote from the Qur’an to make a point against violent fundamentalist religionists, and use another centuries-old quote about mohamed bringing nothing but violence in the name of his religion, it is Islamism you are directing your remarks at.”
As to whether he was right to do so, that is a subjective point I am entitled to make.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 08:58 AMPete
I should also have included this earlier post from you to “prove” that it was you not the Pope who described them as literalists. Unless it had been removed from the copy of his speech I have read.“He’s challenging the literalists [within Islam and elsewhere] who advocate violence.. in light of the quotation from the Qur’an - “There is no compulsion in religion”.
Posted by Pete Baker on Sep 16, 2006 @ 12:10 AMPosted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:04 AMI think it’s about time religion was scrapped altogether. It has caused problems throughout the world for generations and is set to get worse. The question we need to ask IS THIS WHAT GOD INTENDED? I think not.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:09 AMEva
I think that we actually agree on the point being made by Benedict… whose speech I have interpreted in my description.
But the speech is much wider in scope than the narrow focus of the outrage and the media coverage.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:36 AMsapi,
Non-religious people are just as likely to hold strong opinions which they refuse to or are unable to defend through reasonable dialogue. If religion went away we would have much the same problems.Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:37 AMI’m curious as to Tony Blair’s response to this. Will he, like Angela Merkel, stand firm with the pope?
Something tells me he won’t....
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 09:57 AMPete
I agree with what you say. I’m a bit of a pedant - in this day and age I think it takes you to be.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 10:30 AMThe Muslims need to chill out.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 02:09 PMWe’ve been here before of course. Learned man of peace makes innocuous (and factual) statement, bully takes it thick, jumps up and down, hits out and all about him, demands apology or else.
Over on Michelle Malkin’s blog http://www.michellemalkin.com/ you can get some idea of how things stand in the bully’s warped universe. A photo of the pope crayoned on to turn him into a devil, festooned with charming sentiments to appeal to the Muslim sensibilities. I quote:
“The script in red calls for the Pope’s beheading. The rest of the translation: ‘Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire.’”
No apologies necessary there of course.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:03 PMPope ‘sorry’ for offence to Islam - waste of space !!!
The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers
Tarcisio Bertone
Vatican secretary of stateNot such a big lad now is he - the thought of a wee suicide bomber in the Vatican sorted him out.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:21 PMI’m confused, is the Turkish visit on or off?
He’d be wise not to go, always remembering that it was a Turk who had a go at John Paul.
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 04:44 PMPope in ‘missing balls’ shock.
It’s OK to have a pop at adversaries who aren’t likely to fight back—women, children and scientists, but if somebody looks like they might cause serious trouble—apologise now. Nice one Ratzy.Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:28 PMA spokesman for Pope Benedict XVI has clarified his comments
The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions.
Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervour of Muslim believers, warned secularised Western culture to guard against “the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom”.
Perhaps scientists should burn a couple of effigies..?
And it wasn’t secular society that interpreted his address in that manner..
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:40 PMMe, I sincerely regret that a bunch of mad Muslim fucks flew planes containing real live people into towers containing more of the same.
Does that sound as though I’m personally apologizing for the 9/11 deeds of Al-Qaeda? Course not.
Ratzo is one smart cookie, and he’ll say he’s sorry for something shabby that he’s guilty of. Until then…
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:48 PMFanny
Indeed, that’s why I used the italicised emphasis on clarified
Posted by on Sep 16, 2006 @ 07:51 PM
