Sad
Pope Benedict XVI drew ire from Muslim leaders, Islamic communities, and others for remarks at Regensburg University in Germany. Stop for a minute.
Did you bother to follow the link? If you did, did you actually read the speech? If so, did you read more than one or two paragraphs? If you did, good for you, you and I are, apparently, in the extreme minority in this world. If not, I am not going to paraphrase it, quote it or summarize it for you. Go and read it.
However, before I come across as too harsh, if you answered "no" to any of the above questions, I am not sure you are entirely to blame. First and foremost, do you know how hard it was to find a link to the actual text of the speech? So hard that I actually had to go to the Vatican website to get a copy of it. Every news source in the world is covering this story and, yet, not one provides a link to the actual text of the speech. How can this be?
I refuse to put a tin foil hat on. However, I think this "debate" is evidence that the modern news media does not afford the opportunity for an informed, intelligent and rational discussion on topics. Rather, it tends to make the easy play for "gotcha" journalism, emphasizing the "sexy" aspects of a story in the hopes of getting a story that people want to read. This really does a disservice to us all. However, I read a story this morning which was truly saddening and a grave result of this type of journalism.
Apparently, someone shot a nun to death and there is reason to believe that it might be in "retaliation" for the Pope's speech. Read the article. Whoever did it shot a nun three (or four) times in the back while she was at a children's hospital. You know, I'm trying to think of a less manly and heroic act than shooting a nun in the back three times in a children hospital. Help me out here, there must be something? You know what? I am coming up blank.
Look people, the Pope quoted Manuel II, the Emperor of the Byzantine Empire. While STILL refusing to quote or paraphrase what Manual II was saying, or what the Pope's speech was about (go and read it!) let me say this, Manuel II said what he said when Constantinople was under siege by the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I from 1394 to 1402. So, the Pope quotes a guy who made a statement when that guy's city was under siege by Muslims and people get so outraged that a leader of Turkey's ruling party said Benedict is "going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini" and someone shoots a nun in the back three times while she is at a children's hospital?
Have we all gone mad?
I am still pondering this...let me get this straight. The Pope says something that Muslims believe states that Muslims are violent. Muslims, angered by this, riot, destroy property, injure, and kill people.
Huh?
OK, I am going to go back on my word a TINY little bit. Hey, if you are reading this far, you deserve a bone. The Pope was talking about how, under the Christian way of thinking, even God himself is subject to the laws of reason. Thus, God can not command one day that "thou shalt not worship idols" and, the next day command that "thou shall worship idols". The bit about Manual II was put in because, from that particular conversation Manuel II had with a Persian scholar, the widely held Muslim belief that the Will of Allah is transcendent of "ration" and, as a result, can change from day to day was articulated. And, for this, the Pope gets to be called "Hitler" and a nun gets shot in the back while she was at a children's hospital. This is truly sad.
posted by John S. at 9:14 AM
4 Comments:
Two initial thoughts, the first is that you can no longer talk to limited audiences in the modern world. In the past, this address would not have been heard outside its intended audience. I truly believe this Pope is seriously concenrned that the Church is having a reduced role in Europe, especially in Germany and France. This talk was to address one of the perceived causes of this decline, rational thought and faith in a Christian God. Hence the following passage,
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.
For what it is worth, I believe the lecture was well thought out and supported by the Pope. However, when he specifically identifies “The West” in the following passage, he risks the backlash he has received from this talk. He is promoting his religion, a key part of his job, and it has provoked a reaction, again, I think properly calculated.
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.
He knew that he was referencing a potential controversial figure in history when he crafted this lecture and I believe he knew it would create a reaction. It also brought more people to the table for him to spread the message of the lecture. All in all, quite an impressive use of the pulpit.
http://www.rssboard.org/
See if you can link this blog to RSS so I know when it is updated on my home page.
I really did think that I might be doing a discredit to the Pope's intellect by asserting that it was a loose mind that chose those particular passages when I wrote this post.
I think that the Pope was trying articulate the fact that we really should hold that rational thought must guide our actions. In a back handed, suggestive kind of way, he was pointing to the 800 pink elephant in the room and saying "if ration does not guide your beliefs, look what can happen."
I understand how somone who truly believes that God's will is not bound by logic can disagree with the Pope, but, that is simply not a call to shoot a nun in the back.
The problem is that, since ration and logic do not guide the muslim world, annything anyone says at any time, so long as people will agree with it, can have the mantle of the so-called Will of Allah. The Pope knows this and was calling people out on it. It is an invitation to debate and learned discussion, not a causis belli for the Muslim world.
Oh, and the Turkish leader who called him a Hitler has single handedly earned the Blue Ribbon in the Godwin Hall of Fame, but, has officially made it impossible for anyone to say that anyone is acting like Hitler ever again. It has lost all meaning.
Godwin Hall of Fame
Sounds like another article.
On to the Pope
It is more then just ration guiding beliefs, it is a key problem with modern times and religious faith, i.e can you have faith not supported by scientific evidence. Clearly, this is an attempt to address the modern Univiersity role in education and the need to allow faith to provide a moral compass. That is my point about the audience he is addressing, the students and faculty of the University that he used to be part of as a young man. It is possible the Pope did not believe his comments would go beyond that limited audience but that would be naive.
This is a long way to the point that I agree, he was tweaking Islam and its violence, adn he knew what he was doing.
Post a Comment
<< Home