Pope vs. Islam - pot calling kettle black?

[R. U. Serious]

A few days ago, the pope gave te following speech in the University of Regensburg in Germany:
Link

The main topic was "faith and reason", which by itself promised to be "creative" writing in reconciling the cognitive dissonance. (Basically: science is good and helpful, it's really based on the christian spirit; oh, and by the way, we need to extend the basis for science so that it the idea of a christian God doesn't become unscientific, that's the one thing those scientists didn't get right).

Though I guess that's not really newsworthy, so what made the news is how he went out of his way to include a critique of (a strawman of) Islam:

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.[...]

[...] [the emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness 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 (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature.

Of course, due to the fact that in the whole history of the catholic church you cannot find any occurence or support of violence or acting unreasonably, the Pope had to choose (a caricature of) Islam as a starting point for his discussion.

Quick somebody tell him, that just like the catholic church, Islam has never been spread by sword, in fact:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/sword.html

Did Muslims really force others to convert to Islam? Is there any evidence for consistent forcible conversion throughout the Islamic history? As a matter of fact, there is no such evidence anywhere in the history of Islam.[...] In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary. We have already seen in a previous *khutbah* that Muslims were often seen as liberators of the oppressed people everywhere.

See, I am sure they were in fact greeted with flowers in the streets of Baghdad...

But seriously, is the Pope trying to stir up some controversy by playing to his base and getting more PR in the news? Or is it that he really manages to blend out and bend his knowledge of history as to believe what he's saying?

[Rye]

[...] [the emperor] addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness 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".

Mohammed revered cats. The catholic church burned them because they were the familiars of witches, and ensured the spread of the black plague across Europe, killing millions.

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 (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature.

Hmm, so what, exactly, did sin need to be redeemed by? How many times did God exterminate or command others to exterminate or plan the extermination of the infidels?

But seriously, is the Pope trying to stir up some controversy by playing to his base and getting more PR in the news? Or is it that he really manages to blend out and bend his knowledge of history as to believe what he's saying?

I think he's a sincere conservative catholic hypocrite.

[Eleas]

If I read my Daily Herald aright, he also took the opportunity to do the usual spiel about Atheists "hating and fearing God," and wrapped it up by vague notions of the worship of a divine tormentor being somehow vital to all human beings. He didn't actually say why, but I suppose that, given who we're dealing with, we're to take it on faith.

[Darth Wong]

The main topic was "faith and reason" ...

This Pope has a record of using the word "Reason" in a manner which is totally contradictory to the actual meaning of the word.

As for the bit about Islam, Christian hypocrisy about other religions is nothing new. Just look at the way Christians try to "prove" that Scientology is "a cult, not a religion" using arguments that could just as easily be applied to the history of their own faith.

[Eleas]

Ah, here it was. It was the "Herald Tribune" (honestly, these names...) that had an article on the subject.

In discussing faith and reason, Benedict in his sermon scoffed at the idea of a "mathematically ordered cosmos" without any hand of God. He said this would mean "nothing more than a chance result of evolition."
"We believe in God," he said. "This is a fundamental desicion on our part."
"Today, when we have learned to recognize the pathologies and life-threatening diseases associated with religion and reason, and the ways that God's image can be destroyed by hatred and fanaticism, it is important to state clearly the God in whom we believe," Benedict said.
"Only this can free us from being afraid of God - which is ultimately at the root of modern atheism. Only this God saves us from being afraid of the world and from anxiety before the emptiness of life."
The pope also said science, from the age of the Enlightenment onward, had failed to "prove God unnecessary."
"When God is subtracted, something doesn't add up for man, the world, the whole vast universe."

Reading that makes it painfully clear to me now. This man is afraid. He's frightened of what he can't comprehend, and worse, he's terrified of answers. A life based on something other than soulless obedience is abhorrent to him, and he is probably so tightly shackled to his prejudices that he can't even see this.

[Darth Wong]

I like the way this imbecile claims that science has failed to prove God unnecessary, even though any atheist who is happy with his life is walking disproof of that claim. And let's not even get into his idiotic belief that scientific models of the universe would be improved by adding God into them.

[mr friendly guy]

I would like to ask the Pope, if they are so sure God exists, then why do Catholics have to make a "fundamental decision" to believe in him? Surely if its so self evident, only those who don't believe will be the ones consciously making a decision.

[Darth Wong]

Ultimately, the world would be much better off if IslamoChristianity could get over its expansionary phase and learn to coexist with the rest of humanity. Pope Ratzinger's constant diatribes against The Evils of Not Being Christian are not just tiresome but indicative of the same fundamentally disruptive mindset which drives all of the IslamoChristian religious problems. They simply can't abide the existence of non-believers. Seeking to badger or brainwash non-believers out of existence is not as objectionable as bombing them, but it's still vastly inferior to letting them live their lives free of interference.

[Eleas]

Edit: I must have made a dozen spelling errors here, fairly embarrassing things too. His statements made me a bit too pissed off to think straight.

Anyway, the following excerpt may be useful in spotting the predominant methodology used by the Pope in his pursuit of reason... or maybe it should properly be called "reasoniness."

The 79-year-old pope avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thought to Protestant theology and modern atheism.
In his lecture, the pope quoted, among others, the 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologos, who wrote that the Prophet Muhammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
The pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added in his own words: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
Benedict several times quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence was unreasonable and that acting without reason - "logos" in the original Greek - was against God's nature.
At the end of his lecture, the pope again quoted Manuel and said: "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

I'm tempted to a few idle musings here.

1. Didn't Jesus say something, frequently quoted by christians, about the beam in one's eye? Why is it so damn hard for prejudiced fucks to see their own prejudice?
2. Who are these "partners" that Manuel speaks of? In striving to elevate yourself above your peers, you're effectively denying them the status of partners - unless, of course, you have formed a meaningful partnership, which I do believe wasn't the case in Manuel's days.
3. Finally, the most damning thing of all: the fact that the Pope, when praising reason, actually does not reason. Instead, he follows established doctrine with constant appeals to a higher authority, the words of whom are to be taken as immutable fact. And if that fact is presented in as obscure a way as possible, with references no average listeners could hope to be thoroughly familiar with, and dressed up in superfluous terminology... well, so much the better.

[Ritterin Sophia]

I miss JP2... so far the only good decision I've seen Benedict make is to hurry along the sanctification process for John Paul. Unfortunately it seems we are forced to put up with Hitler Youth Pope.

[Brain_Caster]

He's starting to get on my nerves. And I'm only about 20 km from his birthplace away. It's really depressing to see my normally quite reasonable neighbours and class mates become overly defensive behind their wall of ignorance every time you criticise him (at least some of them).

Ratzinger was annoying enough when he was still a lowly cardinal. Now he's even worse. It might be time for me to leave the club officially, not merely in practice.

Is there anyplace where I can get a transcript of the whole speech?

[Brain_Caster]

Forget the last sentece. I overlooked the link.

[Perseid]

Lets think about this for a moment, yes in medival times christians and muslims did spread word of their religion by the sword. However the christian community is no where near as bad as the muslim community, yes there are exceptions to the rule (I know some muslims who think the extremists should get over themselves or just fuck off). But the comments that the Pope made are no more anti-muslim than those of the famous leaders of extremist Islamic groups. I mean for fucks sake Bin Laden declared a Jihad against all Westerners and declared that the West had declared a Crusade against Islam when they came looking for him. Given half a chance any of the radical leaders in the Islamic states will go bat shit insane about christians and jews.

Now look at the reactions of the muslim community to the popes speach, all those pictures in the news papers and on the net just go to show that there is still enough stupid muslims out there who want to spread word of their religion through violence, whether that be burning a flag, or an image of a western leader, or blowing themselves up in a suicide attack.
Yes chrisitanity still gets spread by violence but it by no means affects the population of the victim country, look at Afghanistan (sp?) and Iraq no churchs or anything else christian they still retained their religious beliefs, whereas the extremeists in the Islamic community want nothing more than to convert or kill everyone.

Yes the Pope should have to applogise but he has shown that even after 6-7 hundred years there is still enough muslims willing to prove the statement is right.

[R. U. Serious]

Lets think about this for a moment, yes in medival times christians and muslims did spread word of their religion by the sword. However the christian community is no where near as bad as the muslim community,

I wasn't aware that there was ever any study done to count the deaths that count towards each Religion. Are you asserting your conclusion as the premise?

It wuld be interesting though, to see though, how you decide which muslim and christian sects would be ok to include and which wouldn't when making that list. And which wars and violence you count it. Of course the Ottomans, for example, fought wars and conquered - but do you count that towards Islam? Do you also count 6 Million Jews slaughtered in WWII towards Christianity, because Germany was a christian country? Do you then count the victims of Stalin towards atheism? Pretty stupid approach I would think...

I mean for fucks sake Bin Laden declared a Jihad against all Westerners and declared that the West had declared a Crusade against Islam when they came looking for him.

And that proves the quote about what Mohammed supposedly said "a couple centuries" earlier how...? Bin Laden represents how many people? A few dozen or hundred?

Now look at the reactions of the muslim community to the popes speach,

Mostly criticism and requests for an apology. The majority is - as always - silence. Is it possible that you are generalizing from a small sample? Like say, I would do if I said that "All Chrisitans want to kill all democratically elected leaders", in repsonse to what Robertson said?

Yes chrisitanity still gets spread by violence but it by no means affects the population of the victim country, look at Afghanistan (sp?) and Iraq

What?

whereas the extremeists in the Islamic community want nothing more than to convert or kill everyone.

Andy they are called "Extremists" for a reason, no? (Though AFAIK most extremists are first and foremost concerned about their own country or other muslim countries, and not the world at large, but whatever.)

Yes the Pope should have to applogise but he has shown that even after 6-7 hundred years there is still enough muslims willing to prove the statement is right.

How many muslims are you talking about? Looks like your only talking abut the impression you have, not about the reality out there in the world. Also the quote was about what Mohammed supposedly commanded (btw: he didn't command to spread the religion by sword), and I don't see how the accuracy of that statement could be affected by whatever is happening today.

[NecronLord]

Quick somebody tell him, that just like the catholic church, Islam has never been spread by sword, in fact:
http://www.themodernreligion.com/convert/sword.html

Both have been. And while Islam has injunctions against 'forced conversion' their most holy, dictated by God the most high, involate in every way, book says to kill the unbelievers, and not kill them if they 'desist in their unbelief'

Skeptics Annotated Qu'ran. A brief search will show you that Mohammed (the 'actual' author of the Qu'ran) most certainly said that all who do not convert are to be killed. While Emperor Manuel was not correct in his sentiment, this specific is indeed correct, the Qu'ran justifies killing all unbelievers who do not turn.

The site you linked to is pure apologism, and no different to a Christian saying that 'no Christian has ever killed anyone in the name of faith.'

[R. U. Serious]

The site you linked to is pure apologism, and no different to a Christian saying that 'no Christian has ever killed anyone in the name of faith.'

Yes, I do not disagree with that. I was looking for something to juxtapose the self-image of both religions.

As for forced conversion, see my statement on the same topic in News.

I guess it would make more sense to close one of the topics and continue discussion in only one place.