Nice article.

I'm quite consistently worried by the posts on this site which indicate a widespread belief that the muslim world in general is to blame.

Sure, you can pick out unpleasant bits of the Qu'ran, and yeah, you can highlight nasty historical deeds.

But bear in mind the history of western civilisation has been rarely purely altruistic. To use a well worn phrase "let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

I've always thought there was a tinge of irony in that statement - once the stone is cast, is he still without sin?

Good article,

Good article,

I think many figures in the church have fallen for the anti-dialogue attitude which evolves around ‘them & us’ or ‘my religion is better than yours’ type of comments.

The Islamic history and civilisation peaked in the 13 and 14 century and yet the Pope can only dig out war material when a time was war was the norm unless you have a peace treaty with your neighbour. Why ignore the very Catholics (Ferdinand and Isabella) in Spain, the Crusades and last but not least Hitler. Why not take responsibility of Christianity fighting science and delaying European enlightment for centuries?

Mass violence has been committed in the name of a number of ideologies and beliefs. The basis for a dialogue should evolve around present and future not the past. How can we bridge today’s divide and how can we live better in the future.

Neither the Pope or Cardinal Pell‘s comments to date come close to an intent for a dialogue. The Pope still does the multi million dollar rock star tours in gold and there is half a billion starving catholics in latin america.

Practising what we preach is a good thing.

Any dialogue requires honesty and confession from both parties. How are we to have a dialogue with Islam when any statement about the history of Islam is met with violence?

You are, unfortunaltely, right.

Use of the quote was a big mistake and a betrayal of John Paul II legacy.

For those who do not know or remember - JP II initiated and championed inter-faith dialoque, with joint Christian, Jewish and Muslim prayer.
(I would prefer to forget the anti- non-belivers angle of it).

Indeed, whenever we see an mote in somebody's eye we need to check if we do not have a plank in our own.

No human being, no tribe is perfect.

If we want to progress in the dialogue, we need to appreciate positives of the other side, instead of exchanging insults.

Paul

www.creativewinwin.com

I think that all you apologists for Islam should go back and try and understand what the Pope and Cardinal Pell had to say. I am no particular fan of either gentleman, but I feel that both have made very reasoned arguments. His Holiness made the point that he was quoting, not that he was endorsing the comments. As it subsequently happened, the quote turned out to be true, judging from the completely intemperate reaction from a large section of the Muslim world.

Note that Cardinal Pell is still waiting for an honest reply to his queries re the use of the sword to make people convert to Islam. It is this failure of Muslim leaders to publicly eschew violence and murder that causes the population at large to regard them with suspicion.

My reading of both is that each one would welcome reasoned dialogue with their Muslim counterparts.

Out Muslim friends really only have themselves to blame for the situation in which they find themselves. The reluctance of their spiritual leaders to tell us that their aim is not world dominance makes us very wary.

Did the Pope actually apologise? Or, did he say that he was sorry that some Muslim extremists were offended by what he said? There is a great difference. Why is repeating what someone else said ‘incredibly inflammatory’, and what can a non-Muslim say that will not inflame some Muslims?

As is usual for people who totally ignore the gross overreactions of Muslim fanatics to any criticism at all in their haste to either condemn a non-Muslim or defend Islam, this author comes up with the old one about how Islam has not been the only religion to use violence and do all sorts of dreadful things to others. As with all other apologists, he also totally ignores the fact that we are now living in the 21st Century, not in the days of the Crusades and Inquisitors. Christians have put aside nastiness. Many Muslims have not; and those who are not nasty, don’t seem to be contributing very much to bringing their religion into the 21st Century.

There is nothing to be gained in the understanding of Islam by simple and naively saying, ‘What about the other side?’ Particularly when the excesses of religious fervour causing so much pain and suffering to the world now are not coming from the ‘other side’, but from fundamentalist Islam.

Another point is this: why the hell are non-Muslims answering for Muslims? This author, like so many of his kind, is tied up with religion’s version of far left socialism, the Uniting Church. Let him defend that organization. It should be Muslims are commenting on their religion, not some sanctimonious meddler in other peoples’ business. The problems of Islam are for Muslims to attend to. They should stop sitting on their hands and do something about it.

Muslims who claim to be moderate and peacful are doing themselves and their faith great harm by remaining silent. Why do they let others speak for them, and why do they not attempt to counteract the lunatics we see burning effigies and foaming at the mouth?

ONYA Leigh

Sells,

You said:

“Any dialogue requires honesty and confession from both parties. How are we to have a dialogue with Islam when any statement about the history of Islam is met with violence?”

Sounds like the perfect excuse not to dialogue. There will always be a reaction by a bunch of idiots somewhere in the universe.
Confessions of the past is your religious paradigm and to-date the church is in denial about Hitler’s version of Christianity and the crusades were a faithful bunch!
Discussing the present and the future is a more constructive dialogue.

Leigh,

I am an Australian Muslim and there is an number of posters of the Muslim faith and we do express our opinions freely.

doesn't anyone find all of this a bit surreal?

What we have are various groups of believers in the supernatural, arguing about the merits of an obscure 500 year old text, which was about a discussion about the relative merits of supernatural beliefs, between two believers in different supernatural beings.

Lets see. Charlemagne was not the first to convert by the sword. Mohammed himself was. If you can't get basic history right, then perhaps you should consider a different hobby.

That you can't distinguish between the fact that the founding and spread of Islam was primarily by the sword (I.e. The founder of Islam spread it by violence) is different to Christianity which was spread under the sword (with early christians being persecuted and killed for their faith). There is a big difference in doing something that is consistent with and praised by your beliefs (e.g. Islam and communism using violence), and doing something that is not consistent with your beliefs (e.g. trying to spread Christianity by violence).

Considering how many atheists and secular humanists have commented that all religion is evil, this is a rather self-serving and pathetic polemic.

You talk of 'the vast majority of reasonable Muslims', but as recent polls in indonesia show, this is a fiction. Take your propaganda elsewhere.

Fellow Human,

Perhaps more time spent on your fellow Muslims would be more productive. If you cannot convince other Muslims that terror and violence is not acceptable, there is very little chance of convincing non-Muslims. And, with respect, I cannot recall a post of yours in which you actually condemn Islamic extremists, but I do remember you coming up with all sorts of ripostes about other religions, just as the author of the article we are commenting on has. We should be dealing with the here and now. Not with the past which, sadly, is where your faith seems to be entrenched.

I must say that I would not like to be a Muslim trying to convince others that Islam is peace and light when people are murdering in the name of Allah all over the world.

I see that you refer to Adolf Hitler's 'version of Christianity' as you have some of your previous posts.

Only yesterday, Archbishop Pell referred to Hitler's 'anti-Christianity'. I have called into question your use of Hitler before. I have no religion of my own, but surely Pell would know at least as much as you do about Christianity and where Hilter fitted in?

From what I can gather, the Pope was attempting to talk about a fundamental underlying difference between Islamic and Christian philosophy, with one explicitly advocating in its sacred text the use of violence both to expand the religion, to eliminate unbelievers (especially apostates), and to avenge any effrontery, real or imagined, while the other spells out in its sacred text the ideas of forgiveness and of loving ones enemies as ones friends etc.

Whether these two ideologies are reflected in their practice by their respective followers is another debate, and, while extremely important, shouldn't be raised here to confuse the issue.

Perhaps, such a debate is too much to be hoped for in this era.

This raise the question as to whether Muslims are prepared to acknowledge some of the more unpleasant passages and messages contained in the Koran.

Alan,

I didn't say that Charlemagne was the first to practise anything. If you are going to quote, please don't misquote. It's offensive.

Have a look at the way Christianity spread throughout the Early to Middle Ages, from 300 through to the bloody Crusades and then throughout the Reformation. It was common for religion to spread through territories acquired by Armies. Constantine's famous Edict of Milan in 313 made Christianity the official religion. After the Edict, it would have been politically advisable to 'convert' to Christianity.

So it's important to make a distinction between the Spread of Islam throughout the 7th Century and beyond, and the spread of Islam at the Sword.

Who started the practise of 'conversion by the sword' is somewhat irrelevant. The point I was making was that the Pope had a rich tapestry from which to pluck a quote, and he picked a rotten one.

I am not an apologist for anyone. I just don't believe that people who live in glass houses should start throwing stones. You have got to question Pope Benedict's purpose. What good does his opinion do if the only thing people want to talk about is his ill-advised quote?

It's a funny world. The pope hits Islam with a bit of truth and the twisted acidulent face of Islam is on show for all the world to see. Calls for the pope to be hanged etc.

At Auburn books go on sale which call on muslims to fight those in the West and carry the message of hate and muslims say 'oh, that is not a nice book to sell or they are struck mute'. Another muslim says women wearing short dresses are asking to be raped. Not a word in defence of women from the muslim community.

And they wonder why Islam is on the nose.

Last word,

Good comment. Yes, there's definitely some irony there. However, what would happen if God of which we are talking is one and the same. Is that too frightening a prospect to consider? Are we monotheists or polytheists?

I guess it all depends on whether we think that there is one truth, or one revelation of the truth that is legitimate and all others are fallacy. Such an opinion leads to justification of 'conversion' as a stated objective above all others.

But can we imagine a time when all will have converted to one religion? I think not. So unless we believe in a unique revelation of truth, which renders all else as fallacy, then by implication, God allows so many people to be deceived by these fallacies.

It's not what I think. We live in a pluralistic world, and should accept that God speaks to us in ways that God chooses. The proof of the revelation is in the action it inspires in the followers.

If someone suggested to me that God compels us to go out and slaughter people in God's name, I'd have to seriously question that particular revelation of God's word.

Even before the Pope's address was translated into Arabic, in the Arabic world protests and demonstrations had begun. Even before most commentators had read the Pope's speech, and most still have not, the criticism began.

What did His Holiness actually say?

1) Firstly, that Christians should act according to reason (logos), and that violence is inherantly ungodly. Therefore, he raised the question about Islam, that if Allah is so transcendent (that is, the Koran is purported to be God's word verbatim (unlike the Judeo-Christian texts) and covers all things from government to science, to laws and wars), that he does not allow for exercising of reason, could it be that Islam is inherantly flawed? That's a fair theological question to be asked, and no Muslim leader has yet asked it.

2) He noted that interfaith dialogue has a long history, but that it is only worthwhile if it deals with the most pressing and deep questions. Paleologos, the man he quoted, was in Constantinople, and the quotation comes from a conversation he had with a Persian Muslim... at the same time as the seige of Constantinople. The quotation was from a dispairing man who did not understand how such violence could be perpetrated with direct command from God. It's a question which most Muslims and Jews still want answered 600 years later.

The answer to the Pope's reasonable, theological question showed what he was concerned about, that Islam and violence are closely linked theologically, rather than just socially as in Christianity.

Nobody doubts that in certain moments in Christian history, that the sword was used to defend or extend Christendom. Whilst men like George Pell can call the Crusades evil, Islamic scholars do not call the expansion of Islam by the sword as far as France, Austria, India, and Russia, and the millions slaughtered and enslaved by this as evil. Violence in Christianity (barring self-defence) is a result of being unable to "turn the other cheek" when one comes into power, resorting to the actions of one's old oppressors. Without aggressive violence, Islam would not have lasted Muhommad's lifetime.

Nahum, to quote you
"Pope Benedict would no doubt be aware that Muslims were not the first to practice “conversion” at the sword. Charlemagne was the first to make widespread the practice of “conversion” by the sword in spreading his mediaeval Christianity among Saxon armies."

Whilst I might not have given an exact quotation, my comment still remains that your comment shows an ignorance of history.

This ignorance continues when you say "Constantine's famous Edict of Milan in 313 made Christianity the official religion. After the Edict, it would have been politically advisable to 'convert' to Christianity."

Constantine's edict did no such thing, as the continuing and wide pagan presence proves. The edict in fact legalized Christianity and so stopped it from being so badly persecuted.

Your history is as bad as your polemic against polemics.

Part One

One can feel disgusted with the new Pope over his recent Proclamation, or rather his slip of reasoning, especially as it is rumoured that he is also a trained social philosopher. Also the editor of our only public newspaper in WA, the West Australian only deserves a journalist’s dunce’s cap when he publishes four letters praising the Pope for his effort, with only one letter criticising him.

Pity our Pope could not use his earlier training to work up something like we have attempted in another section of OLO. See below:

It does not even need a mini-thesis to explain that the UN is a failed concern because America never ever did want it as a democratic mediator as proven by her 85 uses of the UN veto - mostly her way, incidently. Right now, of course it is only a tool to be manipulated by an even stronger US, her imperialist unipolar global position, making her far more arrogant than was Pax Britannica, and has even been termed by some historians as a modern Pax Romana.

Part Two

Some political philosophers are even discussing the need for a Bismarckian-style grouping of our nuclear nations into a bipolar arrangement. Rather easy to work out, as with France reluctant to join the US, and possibly thinking about joining Russia and China in a nuclear power balance. Very likely India would join as well.

Such would also make Iran far more happier, and in fact, further sensible arrangements could allow Iran to go atomic in order to match Israel, which at present with its nuclear arsenal with penetrative warheads, virtually has the Middle East over a barrel as well as the rest of the pro-Islamic world.

If anything ever manufactured terrorist hatred in the Middle East and possibly the world, it was the US letting little Israel go atomic.

How does the global hegemon (the USA) react to violence from Muslims?

By perpetrating violence on Muslims.

Who started it?

Chicken/egg. And probably irrelevant after so many centuries.

How do we deal with this?

Who knows? But jumping up and down and blaming Islam for all the violence in the world helps no-one.

And have we stopped to consider that if papal pontificators ceased to pump out their prejudiced polemical poop perhaps the pressure might plummet?

;-)

"The Pope is in a tricky situation. He can either say that he believes Muslims picked the wrong religion, thereby triggering massive violence. Or he can be a liar with a funny hat. He thought he found a clever middle ground that involves attributing any bad thoughts about Islam to a dead guy and employing weasel words that sound like compliments."

Here we go again, using the long-ago past to justify repeating the same mistakes today.

If everyone could just bring their minds into the present - we, the people of today, could quite simply say "hello - hope everything is well with you, have a really fun day" - to each other - no matter what colour skin we have, or religious beliefs we may or may not hold? Yes/no?

I realised long ago I can only ever truly be responsible for my own words and actions. I try to choose them wisely - even though I am just an ordinary, everyday, kinda guy.

May everyone, in peace, live happily ever after - sustainably of course!

Leigh,

Visit the official German government archives website and see Hitler speeches and Biography (start with his April 1922 speech). Cardinal Pell denial was exactly my point to Sells: terror and violence was committed in the name of different religions and not only Islam.

“Perhaps more time spent on your fellow Muslims would be more productive. If you cannot convince other Muslims that terror and violence is not acceptable”

Above comment is quiet naïve for 2 reasons: a) there is 100 to 200 thousand fundies around the world in a 1.492 Billion Muslims which works out 0.01%. b) Fundies don’t change by talking. After Islamic Jihad assassinated the Egyptian President in Egypt in 1980, the Sheikh of Alazhar Mosque (highest Islamic religious authority) issued a fatwa against violence in the name of Islam. He simply became their target and they bombed an Islamic school killing a 9 y.o. girl.

Islamofacism primarily targeted other Muslims and it was in action at least two decades before 11 September 2001. If Islam and Muslims is what wakes you up in the morning then at least researches the topic and be objective.

Noddy,

Unpleasant passages in the Quran existed for a reason of that time and within constraints. There is a number of references (19 to be exact) to ‘fight those who fight you and shall not transgress’. Which is a clear no brainer: self and land defence when and if attacked by an enemy. No transgression, no terrorism, no murder of innocents. Its clear and simple to all Muslims (99% of Muslims to be more accurate).

The ideology of violence is not based on the Quranic passages as such but rather on interpretations written in the 10th and 11th century AD by a number of scholars unfortunately. Although these scholars wrote what they wrote under the influence of the crusades wars, their books and ideologies are still in circulation.

Kevin,

Spot on comment. Focus on today issues is what we need.

Nahum,

"I guess it all depends on whether we think that there is one truth, or one revelation of the truth that is legitimate and all others are fallacy"

Note: you are assuming religious pluralism is true which is the acceptance of one truth to the exclusion of all others.

Given both islam and Christianity claim to be historical religions perhaps you should look at the historical veracity of both.

http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-Vinci-Other-Speculations/dp/082542982X

The doctrine of religious pluralism rests on the premise that God would not act the way we find in the Bible. The way God revealed Himself in the New Testament is wrong and that he would not be so selective.

A quick glance around the universe reveals selectivity right the way through. Solar system has only one planet with life, only one species is rational, only women give birth, some to loving parents some to abusive, some are born into poverty and violent societies some into wealth and privilege. The principle of selectivity is ubiquitous in the universe though some of us with our democratic sentiments would have everyone start at the same place on their journey.

This principle operates in the Bible with the singling out of the Jews for a special honour, but looking at history we see how this has also been a great burden. With superiority comes responsibility. Humans are superior to animals but it doesn't mean we have carte blanche to exploit them; on the contrary we have more responsibility to treat them well because we know better.

Christians believe Jesus was God incarnate, muslims do not. Both cannot be correct. If Christians are correct then we simply know more about reality than anyone else, we have seen God in a unique and definitive way.

Our Lord commanded us to spread the Good News, not with the sword, but by extinguishing hatred in ourselves and following his example. We're still the early Christians there is much work to do.

We have our apostolic responsibility, adopting silly anti Christian philosophies is not what Our Lord asks of us.

A further example of ‘moderate’ Muslims making excuses for Islamic lunatics was heard on radio this morning. When asked by a BBC interviewer for their reaction to the UK government’s call for British Muslims to watch their children for signs of radicalism, their reaction was that the government should be concentrating, rather, on the REASONS for young Muslims becoming involved in violence: UK foreign policy. The recent London tube bombings were carried out because of British foreign policy!

If non-Muslims made such a suggestion – that it is reasonable to show objection to foreign policy by murdering innocent people as though this was a perfectly logical thing to do, instead of through the normal democratic process – most non-Muslims would express outrage immediately.

Not so with too many Muslims.

Alan: Right on.

Nahum: I can't help but notice the irony of picking Charlemagne as "the first to make widespread the practice of “conversion” by the sword" when it was his grandfather, Charles Martel, who stopped Islam spreading over the Pyrenees at the Battle of Tours in 732. No doubt the Muslims in Spain converted of their own accord or were welcomed into the land with open arms...

Anyhow, as far as offending the Islamic world goes, who honestly cares? Does anyone care about offending Christians? I mean, they're completely irrelevant to the modern world. After 1683, it was all downhill for Islam in the west anyway until we all became so dependent upon oil. Within a century (when we get off the black gold), the Islamic world will largely return to the irrelevant economic and cultural backwater that it has always been destined to be (as unlike Catholic Latin America, most of the Islamic world doesn't even grow anything), unless it embraces modernism, which would entail being relegated to something of a cultural relic much akin to Christianity in the west. Either way, I figure we probably have a couple of generations of ratbags to put up with before the whole circus of radical Islam (and organised religion in general -- with the exception of much of the U.S., does any modern, advanced society actually take religion seriously?) becomes a footnote in history.

AAAAARGH!

Sometimes all I want to do is just cry out! Our culture is overrun with systems which institutionalize injustice. Poverty is symptomatic of a system that falls short. And yet we all worship the system. We gotta have our colour tv's. And then people who aren't like us get a shellacking, and are demonized. Enter: the poor "bludgers" and the muslim "terrorists" of the world.

At least Hitler made people wear something that would stand out so everyone could be aware that it was ok to give them a serve or persecute them.

If you're an Australian, you had better start speaking English. What about the great bridge-buiders, or some of the construction companies that built our cities on the backs of hardworking migrants.

Alan, history matters and history doesn't matter. I quoted Charlemagne and John of Leiden but I could have just as easily quoted something from the 12th Century. The Crusades and the Ottoman conquests were disgraceful, and incredibly violent.

But the article is about respect. We have got to start respecting people. People who visit my website and email me abuse have no respect for me, and neither of us learn anything. Is that the kind of world we want to live in?

There are always going to be small pockets of extremists, but why do we have to take the standard of extremists in our means of engagement. Why can't we be rational, and believe that essentially, most people have largely good intentions, and are not innately bad? WHY!

I'll go wring my hands some more. :)

BTW thanks for alliteration stickman, it was a classic.

Thanks fellow-human - do you know what?

lets try an experiment, rather than looking at the past - and leaving the present for just a short time - lets cast our minds 20 or so years into the future? what can we see in 20 years time? -

ah... people still populate the planet - some call themselves 'this' and some call themselves 'that' and ah some still delude themselves into believing that God likes their particular group most - some of these [the latter] as always belong to the 'thises' and some as always belong to the 'thats'. mmm.....

I also guarantee that in 20 years time, most people will go to work/school, come home, spend time with family and friends, go to the theatre/cinema/pub, read a book, watch TV, post on a blog, go to bed - get up and do the same things all over again the next day.

I just hope we are all doing all of these things in a much cleaner and more co-operative/friendly way than we seem to be at the moment. And, do you know what, somehow, I think we will.

To add to my earlier post.

The absurdity of the arguments on this topic has inspired me to write a new Monty Python sketch, Viz:

Christian God and Allah in debate about which it the most peaceful religion.

End up in a mighty fight,(a la Black Knight)where both contestants end up limbless, but both still manage to hurl abuse and claim theirs is the most peaceful religion.

(For those not familiar see Black Knight sketch : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leEsz9ci5XE )

Thank god for atheists!!

Kevin,

the problem with your argument is threefold:

1. If we forget history, we learn nothing from it. It's akin to sticking one's head in the sand, and we're better than that. If we learn nothing, we repeat our past mistakes, and some of these have been dire. Perhaps, given your last point about the environment, you also realize this.

2. You suggest that people like myself will continue to delude ourselves that our God likes us more than others. I've never actually made such a claim. I don't believe God likes Christians any more than Muslims, Buddhists or atheists.

3. Your argument suggests and criticizes religious people for a perceived sense of superiority, whilst ignoring the same sense of superiority you want to claim through what I presume is your atheism. Irony or hypocrisy?

My point is that we are all hypocrites, not just Christians...

You misunderstand me I think Nahum - I agree with much of what you say. This topic has been quite ‘madly’ debated on The Guardian's website several times and with more than 500 postings on some:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_bates/2006/09/post_390.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/madeleine_bunting/2006/09/post_393.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/anas_altikriti/2006/09/an_insufficient_apology.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2006/09/benedict_and_the_jihad.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/brian_whitaker/2006/09/gods_reactionaries.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1876422,00.html

I have cross referenced your article on one of these (the second or last I think) – believing yours to be better framed. Unfortunately, wrongly of me, I’ve more or less started my contribution here with my conclusion there – after reading more than 1,000 posts – unfair of me really.

My point is: of course it is OK and indeed correct to look at the past to learn lessons, but only so we can improve how we do things in the future (and when doing so we contextualise the process appropriately) and of course the only place we can really do this (actually change behaviour) is in the present. I also recognise, people get stuck in the past and some never change.

Group signifiers are violently defended these days (on all sides) with little depth of understanding of what lies behind. For some, blind faith and ‘Chinese whispers’ about the past seem to be enough. Just because I don’t elect to wear a lapel-pin to signify my affiliation with such and such a ‘gang’, doesn’t mean to say I have no understanding of either life or God. Christ attempted to liberate the minds of people, not get them to sign up to a different club and give their personal power away to be misused by some self-interested other.

If we are to use ‘identity’ labels, other than each others names, especially for groups, my personal preference is “people”.

Have you read "Four Quartets" by T.S. Elliot?

Shorbe,

It is a risky thing betting on the end of Christianity, those who have done it in the past often have an axe to grind or some heresy to put in its place. What's yours?

"People have fallen into a foolish habit of speaking of orthodoxy as something heavy, humdrum, and safe. There never was anything so perilous or so exciting as orthodoxy. It was sanity: and to be sane is more dramatic than to be mad . . . The orthodox Church never took the tame course or accepted the conventions; the orthodox Church was never respectable . . . It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic. It is always easy to let the age have its head; the difficult thing is to keep one's own. It is always easy to be a modernist; as it is easy to be a snob . . . It is always simple to fall; there are an infinity of angles at which one falls, only one at which one stands. To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to avoid them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect." GK Chesterton Orthodoxy

Shorbe its not the end of Christianity its just the end of you.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FI08Aa01.html

Christianity is undergoing a worldwide resurgence
http://www.amazon.com/Next-Christendom-Coming-Global-Christianity/dp/0195146166
http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Beijing-Christianity-Transforming-Changing/dp/0895261286/sr=1-1/qid=1158889392/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-4383835-3540954?ie=UTF8&s=books

I agree with what you write re i slam. All religions are not the same.
The modern opium of the people is not religion but the very opposite the belief in ultimate nothingness.

Cheslav Milosh wrote

"it is a belief in the nothingness after death the huge solace of thinking that after all betrayals our greed our cowardice and our murders that we are not going to be judged"

I guess most haven’t as yet understood the precise nature or context of the polemic the Pope gave at the University of Regensburg. I’m not particularly a Pope fan or his apologist, but if one were to actually read his speech, reasonable minded people would suggest his words warrant no apology. It would appear, those who have expressed the greatest moral outrage in various editorials etc. have been the least reasonable and the most emotional.

Here’s some of what all the fuss is about (part may even seem at odds with early church thinking, a la, the last paragraph.):

“…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.

… we find ourselves faced with a dilemma which nowadays challenges us directly. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God….

John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: In the beginning was the logos. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts with logos…

Logos means both reason and word…

The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude, which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.” - Pope Benedict

Reida,

I think you'll find that is what I argue in my piece. The pope is arguing a fairly consistent, conservative argument. He is worried about the de-hellenization of Christianity, and wants Christians to become more orthodox, whilst advocating the place of reason within this orthodoxy.

But it is no secret that contrary to his predecessor, this Pope is no pluralist: For him, Christ is the only way. All others are heresy. He has made similar comments before, in that he believes it impossible for Islam to correspond adequately with contemporary culture. The same criticism might be leveled at parts of Catholicism.

But my point was that he has a very public and political position (regardless of whether he wants to acknowledge this or not), and with that comes responsibility. If he uses his pulpit to say 'stupid things,' to incite hatred or outrage, when he could articulate his points without doing so, he is being very foolish indeed. Lives are at stake here, and the world is already divided along some fairly tense lines.

Times like these call for understanding, and diplomacy, measured words of wisdom, not foolish firebrands. What does it matter if his speech is articulate if he chooses to quote something so offensive to many if not all Muslims as he has chosen to do. Did he really have to use THAT particular quote?

Kevin,

A more measured response to you. I have looked at some of the links you provided, and I think I may have misunderstood you somewhat.

I think I was projecting a response to triumphal atheists, who belittle me because of my particular religion. I don't assume to be any better than anyone else (at least i try not to), because I think that considering humans in heirarchical terms is pompous and not reasonable.

We must all reject this type of reasoning, and live our lives in every moment as if we are all equal. This is the only way toward peace. Of course we're not perfect, but you gotta try...

Nahum,
The degree of understanding required here is to appreciate the measure and nature of why there are those who seek to attack. There is always a time and a place for diplomacy and measured words – the greatest men and women in history, however, have never shied away from causing offence through language. It would seem the least violent but most ‘offensive’ men in history (Jesus included) have suffered death at the hands or at the instigation of those they offended.

The argument or polemic put forward by the Pope appears not to be what we so much believe but the abhorrence to be felt at the violence in forcing others to a similar belief. Secondary to this, is his obviously personal belief in the idea of the universality of “Christ”. Christendom, with its earthly ‘kingdom’ and crusades, was an aberration to a ‘gospel truth’ and it was abandoned through the process of Reformation and Enlightenment. The West certainly bears a mantle of guilt because of what has been done in the name of “Christ”; it cowers, semi-paralysed, unable to fully act for fear of the accusation of hypocrisy.

What is now being done in the name of “Allah” is in need of similar reformation - a restoration that will entirely change the current face of Islam. The world perhaps slumbers, sick to death of another religious war and the religious bigotry surrounding it. But the issue runs deep, beneath what is superficial to religion. Our ‘globalisation’ will ensure the current ‘terror’ will in some way strike us all – our words need to ‘offend’, critically, those who permeate such terror. Our strong demur, in response this terror, is far more reaching than any respectful silence.

Well said relda,

Caroline Glick puts it this way.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0906/glick092206.php3

To Martin and Relda - there is something to be said about putting one's own house in order first. I have not yet seen the Pope extend any such similar critisism towards the fanaticism and downright violence displayed by the extreme rightwing christians in America - if he has - then I appologise but would ask you to point me in the direction of any such public statement.

Martin, I have just read Glick's piece - so you believe, like she, that the reaction against the Jewish Faith and Christendom is due to differences in religious opinion? Well I beg to differ - like most people, I would suggest it is because of how both (they choose to use the religious banner not me) treat others - in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan and of course, more recently in Lebanon.

Placing a religious veil over these atrocities will not be accepted by the vast majority of 'reasonable’ people. To me, the accusers here have displayed far greater disrespect for the sacredness of human blood - and I am talking about in today’s world. These people are alive today and it increasingly seems they are prepared to sink to any depth to hide the blood on their hands. As I said in my previous post, redemption will only be real when they demonstrate they are putting their own houses in order. Until then, much of what they have to say will fall on deaf ears - except to the usual card carriers of course.

K£vin,
No religion, institution, nation or country, for that matter, is beyond criticism or reproach for “disorderly housekeeping”. Pope Benedict may well prove to be shown as an “actor” (Gk = hypokrite) for his statements on “truth”.

Early Catholic Counter-Reformation thinking has a strong parallel to what Benedict appears to be critising in Islam - i.e. the emphasis placed on God as an unknowable absolute ruler was a God to be feared, which coincided well with the aggressive absolutism of the anti-Semetic Pope, Paul IV (1476 – 1559).

Perhaps Benedict is in over his depth, but merely an invition towards dialouge and debate should not in turn invite rancor from honest or open minded people.

Reida,

Some of what you say makes sense, but I'm afraid that you just don't get it. Dialogue is not possible if you start by calling the other side evil.

If the Pope were interested in dialogue, he would not have used the Byzantine quote.

It's not about freedom of speech. He has a right to deny the holocaust if he wished. But in doing so, his offence would outweigh his effect, and the outcome would be the assumption that the Pope does not respect Jews.

Regardless of what he actually was saying (and i've talked about the speech at length), the quote can be interpreted to mean Muslims bring nothing new, and anything that is new is evil. It was in choosing this particular quote from any number of alternatives that he has chosen to "deny the holocaust," allegorically speaking. It's a spit in the face.

Lives are at stake. There is tension in the world. Muslims are racially profiled, and the world is alive with fear and distrust. Muslims are 'the Jews' of the current era. They are stereotyped, and persecuted. And it is in this climate that some Muslims are given cause to find solace among radical subversion of a society which seems not to value them. (And some are just nuts, but there are nutters from every religion/country.)

In using an ill-advised quote, the Pope has reinforced the stereotypes, and encouraged the persecution. He used a quote whose ambiguity gives succour to extremists on both sides.

IF we are really interested in dialogue, IF we really have respect for Muslims, then we do not start our dialogue by insulting their holy prophet.

Freedom of speech is one thing. But there is also a responsibility NOT to use our freedom of speech in a way that unnecessarily offends people, that is IF we respect them.

For a frivolous example, I wouldn't tell my girlfriend that her bum looks big in a pair of pants because the offence would outweigh any virtues found in being honest, or in motivating her towards changing her clothing preference or dietary attitudes.

Relda I don't disagree with what you say, but you, like he, have rather too conveniently for my liking, chosen to stop short in your appraisal of reality. Does it really not seem strange to you that he has very pointedly chosen to single out Islam?

An intention to display honesty and openness would also have required him to look at the current levels of violence displayed by countries that, when all is said and done, believe themselves to be Christian - such as the US and UK. This is why he has the appearance of being disingenuous. To point a finger at the USA's (where it is claimed 70ish% of people attend Christian churches) brutal foreign policy would, no doubt, have been (politically speaking) suicide. The 'universality' of faith should be able to rise above such short-term temporal concerns.

Much greater respect if he had taken the trouble to look to the proverbial log before examining the splinter...

A wider frame of reference is required by such a man (and one which includes an honest appraisal of the actions of his own "flock") if his intention was indeed to initiate genuine, open and honest dialogue.

Nahum, K£vin:

I find it rather curious my second paragraph drew little comment (or intellectual rigour). I’ve noted a 15th century Pope as having committed the deadly ‘sins’ of religious dogmatism, cruel absolutism and anti-Semitism – three of the worst ‘isms’ of a secular 21st century. As with the Pope’s statement, there is an historical veracity in the indictment against a medieval Pope whose position of ‘infallibility’ implicates and slurs, considerably, Roman Catholicism. Would one expect, at the public airing of such ‘defamatory’ material, a militant Catholic wing (of similar ilk to the IRA) to rise up to defend its honour?

Here, there is a very important distinction to be made. The IRA is (was) a political (Marxist) movement with a Catholic front that was repudiated by a clear and unequivocal majority of Catholic leadership. A protestant counterpart (Democratic Unionists), led by equally militant extremist, Ian Paisley, was equally condemned by a majority of moderate Protestants, through a clear leadership hierarchy.

I believe a majority of moderate Muslims seek nothing other than peace and can effectively merge within a pluralistic society. Pluralism is at a fledging level – it’s vital we understand what it is exactly that underpins its survival. Neither fear nor intimidation will present a part of its aspect.

Reida,

You are actually on the money, and your example is spot on. However, what you're implying is what every Conservative commentator/politician/etc wants to imply. Namely that we have some Muslim extremists. And then there are moderates, and the moderates have a responsibility to reign in the extremists, to repudiate them, etc.

The problem with this argument is threefold. First, in today's world, it's simply not possible for 'moderate Muslims' to communicate effectively to the extremists in such a way as might have been possible with Ian Paisley. Wherever extremism manifests, it is informed by the local social and political climate in each location. And there is a tremendous diversity across the regions where extremists exist: Take Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, London, USA. We just can't fit 'extremists' into neat boxes, just as we can't categorize 'All Muslims' or 'All Christians' in certain ways.

Secondly, it abbrogates us of any responsibility, and creates a neat scapegoat in blaming all Muslims for the actions of just a few. We haven't done anything wrong. Capitalism isn't responsible for any systemic injustices, or social alienation, or exploitation. We're the good guys, and THEY want to attack our way of life, etc. It's their problem and THEY should deal with it. Sorry, it's everyone's problem and we have all got to do whatever we can to engage with the problems in our world.

Thirdly, it's trite and poor logic to believe that a problem which articulates itself in such a destructive and complex manner can be solved by such a simple solution as 'Moderate Muslims' cleaning up their own backyard. Terrorism and extremism predates the current era. And we solve nothing by pointing at each other suggesting everybody else is responsible. That is Pauline Hanson 101.

The solution is complex, and it involves a recognition of our own faults when we come to the table. And the proocess is lubricated by respect for the other. We should start by developing this, leaders and citizens alike.

Relda,

Your last argument is interesting.
There are many reasons why Muslims could be annoyed with the Pope’s views on Islam and I believe you are mixing tribalism with religious practice. The media portrays the reaction of the minority for the obvious purposed. There are many good Muslim examples but they never make it to the media because Kaiser Trad is more interesting.

Anyway, I would probably call myself an average but here is what I find interesting in the pope comments:

- On Reason: Islam is younger than Christianity by 570 years, yet the Islamic enlightenment superseded the Christian one by 3 centuries. Muslims invented the cheque, the first concept of hospital and their research and findings in math, algebra, anatomy and optics were the corner stone for European enlightenment. Probably this is why Catholic writers at the time referred to them as evil (evil = associated with science). Historians of the era told of Charlemagne escaping his palace when the Muslim emperor (Haroon Al Rashid) sent him a large water powered clock. Science and knowledge were the evil of those days. I would have hoped the pope can at least explained why? (Although I ask myself what happened to us, muslims ,since then)

- Theology: Islam & Christianity are perhaps the two closest religions and they share a lot: the commandments and the belief in Jesus and his message (Lets park the debate of whether he is a prophet or God at the side for now).
One would expect the pope to at least work on the divide. Muslims writers in the 11,13 centurty AD called Crusaders ‘Trinitarians’, French Gangs, Polytheist,etc.. If a top Muslim imam will go publicly and quote one of those writers today I think I will be annoyed. Leadership means responsibility to bridge gaps and create a good environment for dialogue.

Promoting comments like the pope's implies a cheap way of outsourcing the ignorance and its associated problems to Muslims. What if the world said to the vatican in "Hitler's one of yours, deal with him!"

A couple of points Nahum,
Firstly, no extremist whether Ian Paisly, the IRA or an Islamist are likely to be “reigned in” or assuaged either by that our own ‘lubrication’ or their peers. Moderate Muslims are as much hated by these ideologues for compromising their ‘faith’ as we ‘infidels’ are hated for our secularism and ‘moderninity’. The repudiation of their violent so-called Muslim counterparts is so they (the moderates) consolidate themselves into our own peaceful ethos (an ‘Aussie’ value) and are not left isolated in some sort of void.

Secondly, I entirely agree, this issue is complex. Capitalism, as a part of our social democracy is often often exploitative but it is no scapegoat. Those with a serious grievance will often, through reflex, tear down the nearest perceived agent of their ills. The resulting anarchy only bodes well for those wanting to fill a vacuum. Extremism can indeed be put into a little neat box – but its discernment is usually difficult and unrecognisable. The ‘terrorist’ is not only amongst but often one of us. You are quite right Nahum; Muslims, generally, are not the problem

Relda,

I have just read your intelligent understanding of the Pope’s speech. It is always refreshing to find an objective assessment of it rather than a long winded rationalization of media misrepresentation.

I do not envy your self assigned burden of not only attempting to respectfully reason with your adversaries but to try to respond to the large number of posts some comical (such as a call for a respect and condoning the Pope’s pontificator’s poop comment in one breath) but others requiring more attention.

I do envy your restraint in letting many unimportant but incorrect comments slide by. Examples include the Pope calling the other side evil, that the Pope used his pulpit to say ‘stupid things’ that incite hatred or rage, and that none of the Pope’s comments to date come close to seeking dialogue. Keep up the good work

A lot of these posts sound as though the discussion has turned into a competition between Islam and Christianity.

Which religion has killed he most people?
Does it feel any different having your family or friends killed by a muslim or a christian?

It may be that if we do not learn to live together then we will all die together.

OK Relda – your second paragraph – is Bush a self-proclaimed Christian? Is Bush the self-proclaimed leader of the ‘Free World’? Is Blair a self-proclaimed Christian? Is Howard a self-proclaimed Christian? Did the latter 2 join the former on an escapade to spread democracy throughout the Middle East…. firstly by bombing Afghanistan and then (inexplicably) Iraq to smithereens and subsequently supported Israeli attacks on the Lebanon? So tell me again, Christians do not ‘convert’ through violent means? I say again, the pope has much to discover by looking closer to home and we really aren’t talking splinters here but great, big, giant redwoods.

It is also interesting that the Queen – herself a Christian, ‘spiritual’ leader – has had nothing to say?

Having said all that, I agree with Peace. Personally, I would be delighted, joyous even, to see both (all) faiths sit side by side in peace, rather than one or the other come out on top. As Jesus himself said: "in my Father's house there are many mansions" - demonstrating his understanding that God speaks to all cultures in different ways and at different times and yet …. ALL, remain within the one house of God. ALL indeed, are brothers.

I can think of no better demonstration of a will-to-peace between faiths than all the various spiritual leaders engaging in a public display of washing each others feet. Whilst | am aware of the Christian symbolism of such an act – it is also symbolic of hospitality. The world is so much nicer when people act hospitably towards one another. An unequivocal demonstration of hospitality towards ‘others’ from the pope… now that would be a good example to set his flock?

I agree with your views regarding what might be ultimately viewed as hypocrisy. One point, however. Israel, not "Jews", attacked Hezbollah. Israel is a secular, albeit Jewish state, in which both Christians and Arabs are citizens. You have stated that, historicaly, Christians, Muslims, and Jews have attacked other nations for religious reasons. Yet, Israel did not attack Hezbollah for religious reasons. It is all too easy to equate Israel with Jew. Yes, most Israelis are Jews, BUT most Jews are NOT Israelis. Just as most Muslims are not Arabs, and most Christians are not North Americans. The way you have written this makes it sound as if all Jews attacked Hezbollah. Just as if all Muslims had a part to play in 9/11 or the Bali bombings, etc., or all Christians sanctioned the Crusades (btw: anything more recent about what Christians have done to attack others in the name of religion?)
So please make the correction and separate the religion from the nation. This completely throws a hole in your otherwise very fine argument.

You’ve defined a part of the argument well agnostic,

Let’s apply a little critical thinking here. The same can be applied to Blair, Bush and Howard. Whilst all three are self-professed Christians, they have acted in the name ‘State’. We can certainly question their motives as ideologically based – but for an Islamist or any extremist, there is no question nor debate. There is the basis on which we can question all Western leaders; it is also our right to politically disempower or equally, call them also ‘actors’ and hypocrites – without fear or prejudice I might add.

Can there be any other motive apart from hospitality for this, “..Pope Benedict XVI met with representatives from Muslim-majority countries that maintain diplomatic links with the Vatican “in order to strengthen the bonds of friendship and solidarity between the Holy See and Muslim communities throughout the world.” Benedict said he hoped “to reiterate today all the esteem and the profound respect that I have for Muslim believers.”
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1743

In so many ways Relda I suspect we are not that far apart. Again I do not disagree that Bush, Blair and Howard have acted in the name of 'state', but there is often a rather deliberate and confusing interchange between the two [state and faith] - especially from Bush (who seems as little able to make distinction between the two as any Islamist you refer to). Most of the world seems just as nervous of Rightwing Christian Fundamentalism in America, as it is of Islamic Fundamentilism.

For him [Bush] this is convenient (and I'm sure why, though out of 'usual' character for him to do so [emphasise his Christianity], Blair mimics in-step) as it seeks to garner support from both the patriot and the religious for his policies. Hand on heart; is there therefore really any difference? When we look in the mirror, do we fail to see ourselves? Are his actions any more compatible with his faith than those who would do likewise in the name of Islam? When abused by extremists, of all stripes, religion is a powerful, emotional trigger.

Either way, is it not then beholden to the pope to make the distinction and clarify the 'Christian' (or at least the Catholic) position in such matters?

As violence is not compatible with Christianity, is it not beholden to all Christians to say "not in my name" and especially not, in the name of Christ? Do actions belie words?

I am pleased to see the pope extend hospitality to Muslim representatives. It is indeed a positive step and perhaps, in doing so, he is making that distinction. We will see, I am sure, soon enough.

“Either way, is it not then beholden to the pope to make the distinction and clarify the 'Christian' (or at least the Catholic) position in such matters? … I am pleased to see the pope extend hospitality to Muslim representatives. It is indeed a positive step and perhaps, in doing so, he is making that distinction. We will see, I am sure, soon enough.”

Kevin it should of course be noted that the Pope has (I believe) made that distinction more directly in relation to the Iraq conflict. As a Cardinal he reportedly condemned the war ab initio.

“As for “preventive war,” Ratzinger flatly stated in September 2002, the “concept of a ‘preventive war’ does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

If you are correct and it is an ambiguous but hopefully developing way of making the distinction it needs to be pointed out (in fairness to the Pope) that it is preceded by his history of being less ambiguous in condemning violence.

“As violence is not compatible with Christianity, is it not beholden to all Christians to say "not in my name" and especially not, in the name of Christ? Do actions belie words?”

A very pertinent comment K£vin – because in one sense it unequivocally separates Christianity from any act of violence. What you, I or the ‘State’ might do in the name of self-defence or justice is perhaps a little more contentious. To illustrate, during WWII, a well known theologian, with pacifistic belief, was a part of the German resistance movement to assassinate Hitler – he considered his action, ‘the lesser of two evils’ and stood up to an 'evil' State.

It needs to be remembered, non-violence can, moreover, breed it own ideology. The many who prefer non-violence, however, will often need the full protection of the State in order to practise this very admirable principle.

Did Christ look to the protection of the state in order to live up to his principals/beliefs? This raises the question, was Christ the ultimate fundamentalist, and/or was there logic to his choices? Is the state relevant if a person's ultimate belief is that Christ is "The Life, The Truth and The Way"?

Personally, I still like the idea of a very public display of feet washing. The energy behind such a symbolic ritual, in my view, could have very far reaching potential. In today's world, humility as part of hospitality, is a quality rarely (if ever) held up by meaningful example.

Many displaced Christians in the West are often people in search of a more plausible philosophy than Christian supernaturalism. They need to carry on the essentially Christian search for the miraculous. The same “I am the Truth, the Life and the Way” has its parallel in zen Budhism.

Although not a Buddhist, I find the following strangely re-assuring, “In Buddhism there is no place for using effort. Just be ordinary and nothing special. Eat your food, move your bowels, pass water, and when you're tired go and lie down. The ignorant will laugh at me, but the wise will understand.”

I think the danger is, we can over intellectualise, craving a raison d'être – the ‘West’ seems to forget, the ‘East’ as an equal part of our hemisphere, puts intuition, perception and instinct ahead of reason. Politics, as a separate entity, needs to be ‘informed’ and influenced by this.

Relda - now you're really talking!