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.