The Pope and freedom of academic discourse

[attaboy]

First of all he didn't apologize. He said he was sorry if they were offended meaning he is sorry if they don't like what they hear.
Dan rather and Clinton did the same thing. They didn't apoligize they just said they were sorry if some people got upset with their behavior.


I knew there was something that didn't jibe about this story, especially, when the Pope said he was sorry and that the words were not his. it sounds like he's saying, I didn't say it he did. So obviously what he originaly said was taken out of the setting in which it was spoken. He gave a lecture, in an academic enviornment, which conveyed a theological debate between two other people. He didn't link the historical debate to a discourse of contemporary politics.

The minutae of academic arguments don't always translate well in the outside world. Academic debate should be recognized for what it is. Sometimes it is just a bunch of eggheads sitting around shooting what they consider to be the shit. The fact that the Pope's lecture was given in an academic setting means the ideas discussed should be protected as free thought for open debate


Here is a portion of the Pope's lecture. If anyone wishes I can post the entire thing. Otherwise here is a link.

Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg

APOSTOLIC JOURNEY OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI
TO MÜNCHEN, ALTÖTTING AND REGENSBURG
(SEPTEMBER 9-14, 2006)

MEETING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENCE

LECTURE OF THE HOLY FATHER
Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg
Tuesday, 12 September 2006

Faith, Reason and the University
Memories and Reflections

...I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. 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.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις - controversy) 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, a brusqueness which leaves us astounded, 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 (σὺν λόγω) 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...

[KID]

By all means let's not upset the Muslim population, lets not say one bad word about them or the religion they worship.( but they can say and do as they please or blow the shit out of any one else)

watch what you say or they will jihad your ass !!!!!!

threating the pope really is not the smartest thing to do---It might piss the Catholics off and they will declare CHRISTIAN CRUSADES 2006-- THE LET'S GET IT ON VERSION

I think the mussies are wayyyy out numbered---just food for thought

[RDN]

Can we burn an effigy of the prophet? Is that OK by them?

[Whiteshiva]

Again a bunch of fanatical muslims takes the issue completely out of context, makes no attmept to understand what was being said, and goes completely bananas trying to outdo each other in being holier than their next brainless idiot.

A bit like some of the rightwing posters on TD

My hope is you all meet in some secluded spot one day and sort of the issue once and far all. Hopefully it will be a draw, if you get my drift.....

[keda]

555555, I think we'd be arrested by our own 'free' governments.

[attaboy]

^^If we met in a seculded spot we might be accused of attempting to form a cabal.

[friscofrankie]

A bit like some of the rightwing posters on TD

Rightwing, Leftwing Fundamentalist Muslims, Christians and radical Jews; all over the top in spouting off their own dogma; neither addressing the issues nor attempting to build a reasonable dialog between disparate ideals. Extermists to the core, they seem to simply wish to preach their own brand of right or wrong, not giving one iota for the planet or he people that populate it..

like spoiled children they all want some ont to listen, without opening their own damn ears. Like spoiled children, they want things to be their way. Reading or listening to them all reminds me of some hospital nursery where the nurse if five minutes late with feeding time.

The planet would be better with out any of 'em. Fuck 'em all.

[barbaro]

Can we burn an effigy of the prophet? Is that OK by them?

This goes back to the hypocristy of Muslims, again.

Muslims can burn effigies, but they kill each other and threaten violence over cartoons.

[raycarey]

First of all he didn't apologize. He said he was sorry if they were offended meaning he is sorry if they don't like what they hear. Dan rather and Clinton did the same thing. They didn't apoligize they just said they were sorry if some people got upset with their behavior.

so, journalists, politicians, and god's representative on earth are held to the same standards?

is the pope allowed to get blowjobs from fat chicks too?

[stroller]

Most of the official Muslim leaders were contend with the pope's explanation after his comment was quoted out of context, it's a few very verbal and militant fanatics who are unable to reflect on what was said, - yet again.

Having said that, it was a rather odd quote the pope dug out from history for his speech, and the catholic church is in no position to point fingers at others concerning intolerance and aggressiveness.

[endure]

First of all he didn't apologize. He said he was sorry if they were offended meaning he is sorry if they don't like what they hear. Dan rather and Clinton did the same thing. They didn't apoligize they just said they were sorry if some people got upset with their behavior.

so, journalists, politicians, and god's representative on earth are held to the same standards?

is the pope allowed to get blowjobs from fat chicks too?

He's got a very small woman stashed under his robe. Whenever he pulls that rope round his waist she gets down to business.

[attaboy]

Most of the official Muslim leaders were contend with the pope's explanation after his comment was quoted out of context, it's a few very verbal and militant fanatics who are unable to reflect on what was said, - yet again.

Having said that, it was a rather odd quote the pope dug out from history for his speech, and the catholic church is in no position to point fingers at others concerning intolerance and aggressiveness.

I agree with you stroll. It was peculiar given the times. I think in a university setting though the hats we all wear come off and the insititution we represent or answer to are to be set aside so that ideas may flow feeely.

If he were representing the Catholic Church while standing on his Vatican apartment balcony then I'd say once again he can say as he wishes but he had better weigh the political consequences.

[attaboy]

First of all he didn't apologize. He said he was sorry if they were offended meaning he is sorry if they don't like what they hear. Dan rather and Clinton did the same thing. They didn't apoligize they just said they were sorry if some people got upset with their behavior.

so, journalists, politicians, and god's representative on earth are held to the same standards?

is the pope allowed to get blowjobs from fat chicks too?

He's got a very small woman stashed under his robe. Whenever he pulls that rope round his waist she gets down to business.

I've heard the rumors. Got any pics?

[Boon Mee]

[KID]

First of all he didn't apologize. He said he was sorry if they were offended meaning he is sorry if they don't like what they hear. Dan rather and Clinton did the same thing. They didn't apoligize they just said they were sorry if some people got upset with their behavior.

so, journalists, politicians, and god's representative on earth are held to the same standards?

is the pope allowed to get blowjobs from fat chicks too?

naaaaa, he lets you keep all the fat chicks for yourself

[Storekeeper]

Can we burn an effigy of the prophet? Is that OK by them?

This goes back to the hypocristy of Muslims, again.

Muslims can burn effigies, but they kill each other and threaten violence over cartoons.

[Storekeeper]

My faith has been restored that England isn't really full of dummies:

"The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to "violent" Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope's "extraordinarily effective and lucid" speech. Lord Carey said that Muslims must address "with great urgency" their religion's association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the "clash of civilisations" endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole. "We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times," he said. "There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths."

Carey backs Pope and issues warning on 'violent' Islam - Britain - Times Online

[man with no head]

[RDN]

...The former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to "violent" Islam ...

Well said Carey!!

(Now THAT's something I never thought I'd write in this forum.)

[stroller]

Research the Pope (specially this one)and the Bishop of Canterbury...bigots alike in spirit!

[KID]

LAHORE, Pakistan - About 1,000 Muslim clerics and religious scholars meeting Thursday in eastern Pakistan demanded the removal of Pope Benedict XVI for making what they called "insulting remarks" against Islam.
Benedict "should be removed from his position immediately for encouraging war and fanning hostility between various faiths" and "making insulting remarks" against Islam, said a joint statement issued by the clerics and scholars at the end of their one-day convention.
The "pope, and all infidels, should know that no Muslim, under any circumstances, can tolerate an insult to the Prophet (Muhammad). ... If the West does not change its stance regarding Islam, it will face severe consequences," it said.


More threats against other religions from our peace loving nonviolent Islamic religion

[stroller]

Well, like it or not, the pope's comment was somewhat controversial.
Looking into the guy's past may reveal a bit more, a VERY conservative Catholic, controversial within the church and certainly not someone Germans like myself would see any reason to be proud of.

But yeah, what business is it of Pakistani Muslims to point fingers?
The pot calling the kettle black?

[Storekeeper]

But yeah, what business is it of Pakistani Muslims to point fingers? pot calling the kettle black?

This isn't the only set of double standards they display.