The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Regensburg address: reason amid certainty > Comments

The Regensburg address: reason amid certainty : Comments

By Michael Walsh, published 10/10/2006

The key themes of Pope Benedict's recent speech will outlast the furore provoked by his comments on Islam.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
logic,

Whilst I am in general agreement with what you say I suspect that you might be reading too much into the reaction.

The illiterate Muslims who protested had been exposed to BBC reports indicating that the quotes from the Emperor were in fact quotes from the Pope. They live in a culture that expresses outrage quite freely. People from other religions in their culture also act in a similar way.

The fact that they cling to the idea that the Pope did something offensive is an understandable rationalisation of their initial reaction. People don't like to admit that they got tricked. At least one person in this discussion seems to have taken a similar approach looking for new angles to find something wrong with what the Pope said so what chance did the poor illiterate peasants have? The other factor besides illiteracy, and consequent inability to read the speech, handicapping the mobs is that some of their leaders would use the emotion as a tool to gain personal power and obscure the fact that the Pope was quoting someone else in a speech or attempt to persuade them that that doesn't matter. It may be a case of culture, human nature and politics rather than a powerful lobby.

Great article Michael.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 9:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps on agreeing, the pope owes no apology, lets reflect a little on his argument. The Latin west owes its rediscovery of Greek philosophy, including the writings of Aristotle, partly to the work of medieval Muslim scholars, so arguably the pope is setting up a false dichotomy. In the context of this medieval dialogue, the pope cannot avoid the implicit suggestion that Catholic Christianity has traditionally been reasoned, philosophical and peace-loving, while Islam has been irrational, fideistic and violent.

The challenge Benedict issues to Islam is if God is above reason, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

Catholicism, like Islam, has thinkers whose mystical theology has sought to negate any possible knowledge of God, including the claims which reason puts upon us. There are also other forms of Christianity which place certain ‘authority’ beyond reason (e.g. creationism and biblical literalism ). The divide, therefore, isn't so great.

The pope criticises the separation of faith and reason brought about by the Reformation with its rejection of reason and the Enlightenment with its rejection of faith. Implicitly, the Pope is rejecting all forms of Protestantism – so his argument is far more complex and far reaching than we might imagine.

Bear this in mind also, the Vatican appoints as bishops only those who are safe and have never expressed any disagreement with papal teaching or policy. It is also intersting to note, despite his stardom status, John Paul II's papacy left the Catholic Church with a legacy that has become more centralized and authoritarian. The concept of collegiality (all the bishops together with the pope forming a college to govern the church) articulated by Vatican II has not materialized. Benedict, may not have the charisma, but he does represent more of the same. His conservatism on issues of gender, reproduction and sexual orientation staunchly remain, in line with continued traditional Catholic reasoning.
Posted by relda, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:00:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
BOAZ_David. If you think you can start a meaningful dialogue on that basis, then you might as well forget it. What you may earnestly believe through faith, is complete anathema to someone of some other religious pursuasion. Just remember that your interpretation of the scriptures is not universal. Not everyone believes that the Old Testament is the Word of God, to be taken literally. From where I stand, most of what it contains is a lot of what is currently refered to as "spin", designed to justify the place of the Jews as God's chosen people.
Posted by VK3AUU, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 10:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contd…

“Interestingly Bible editors have now excised as interpolation the word “begotten” from the oft-quoted verse John 3:16 which described Jesus as the “only begotten Son.” Not just that, the only reference in the entire Bible on Trinity in 1 John 5:7 has also been removed with the unceremonious explanation that the words “the Father, the Word and the Holy spirit, and these three are one” are “not found in any Greek manuscripts before the sixteenth century” (The N I V Quiet Time Bible, InterVarsity Press, Illinois, p.1557).

“It is common knowledge that the edifice of present day Christianity is based on Trinity and the begotten sonship of Christ and, with the removal of these foundational doctrines from the Bible, Christianity has come closer to the monotheism of Islam.
But how did these verses not preached by Jesus get interpolated into the Bible? Theologians such as Adolf Von Harnack believe that it was because of the strong influence of Greek Philosophy. But the Pope disagrees with Harnack’s thesis. In his Regensburg speech he disapprovingly declares, “Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ's divinity and the triune God.”

“Such an attempt to de-Hellenize Christianity and “to return to the simple message of the New Testament” says the Pope, “is not only false; it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed.” Therefore, the reluctance of the Pope to see “reason”, and with Biblical scholars of the caliber of Harnack coming to the same conclusion as the Quranic view of Christianity it has to be asked whether the Pope is really interested in a dialogue with Islam.”


THANK YOU Paul_of_Melb for the post. The Pope had made, in fact, grossly factual inaccuracies in his assertion. He should have done some research prior to the Regensburg address.

To be contd...
Posted by Green_Grin, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:10:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contd...

The Pope “notes that the text he discusses, a polemic against Islam by a Byzantine emperor, cites Qur'an 2:256: "There is no compulsion in religion." Benedict maintains that this is an early verse, when Muhammad was without power.

“His allegation is incorrect. Surah 2 is a Medinan surah revealed when Muhammad was already established as the leader of the city of Yathrib (later known as Medina or "the city" of the Prophet). The pope imagines that a young Muhammad in Mecca before 622 (lacking power) permitted freedom of conscience, but later in life ordered that his religion be spread by the sword. But since Surah 2 is in fact from the Medina period when Muhammad was in power, that theory does not hold water.”

"In fact, the Qur'an at no point urges that religious faith be imposed on anyone by force. This is what it says about the religions:

' [2:62] Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians-- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. '

"The idea of holy war or jihad (which is about defending the community or at most about establishing rule by Muslims, not about imposing the faith on individuals by force) is also not a Quranic doctrine. The doctrine was elaborated much later, on the Umayyad-Byzantine frontier, long after the Prophet's death. In fact, in early Islam it was hard to join, and Christians who asked to become Muslim were routinely turned away. The tyrannical governor of Iraq, al-Hajjaj, was notorious for this rejection of applicants, because he got higher taxes on non-Muslims. Arab Muslims had conquered Iraq, which was then largely pagan, Zoroastrian, Christian and Jewish. But they weren't seeking converts and certainly weren't imposing their religion.

"The pope was trying to make the point that coercion of conscience is incompatible with genuine, reasoned faith."

2 B contd 2morrow...
Posted by Green_Grin, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 11:13:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GreenGrin & Relda,

Interesting postings. I guess my earlier comment was to try and address the question: “Does the pope want a dialogue with Islam?”

I read the whole article quoting his address and the massive inaccuracies is the least of my concerns. I will address the non-religious part of his speech:

1. The pope referred to which faith relates to truth as if truth is absolute and can be monopolised.

2. The second point is his reference to Israel as “an Israel deprived from its land and worship”. This comment I find interestingly political and contradicts his call for reason in a sense. To a Muslim, this comment implies support to ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians (land) and the destruction of building the temple (which I have no problem with except the for the propaganda that it was in the place of AlAqsa mosque).

Now, reason have to use a reference that both parties can agree on. The pope using the Biblical reference for the land of Israel will immediately prompt an Islamic scholar to say “hold on, the Qu’ran confirms their right in the land, but also confirms they lost this status by monopolising monotheism, rejection and murder of Jesus, rejection of Muhammed”.
A nobody wins scenario.

So far I think the pope is seeking debate and not dialogue.
Posted by Fellow_Human, Wednesday, 11 October 2006 12:22:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy