You believe CNN!
HA HA
Posted on 09/17/2006 5:36:34 AM PDT by dennisw
In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial speech, the day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief in a God not bound by anything—including his own words. Benedict further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists who see reason as being completely unbound of God.
In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the Pope apologize. He must not. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened genius. He has clearly laid out the differences between Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance between the western left and the Islamofascist right. It should be studied carefully by all who seek to defend western civilization.
Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech. Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel II: “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.”
Four days later, according to AP: “Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.
“Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.”
Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope’s safety and even fear of an attack on Vatican City.
The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force the Pope into submission to Islam. Since Islam need not be internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any ‘offense’ to their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only ‘morality’ they have—the will to power.
“Will to Power” is a key element of Nietzsche ’s philosophy—hence the root of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western “left’ is today guided far more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than by Marxist thought—hence the alliance between the Western “left” and the Islamofascist ‘right’.
Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what Manuel II said they would: “Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of New Delhi's historic Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque, extolled Muslims to ‘respond in a manner which forces the Pope to apologize.’” Note they intend to use “force” not reason.
Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was, “calling a spade a spade”.
The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, “Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims….” This is false. The Pope’s description of the Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not an insult, it is an Islamic article of faith. What Muslims and secularists fear is the Pope’s decision to choose to enter dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare he not “apologize” for being a Christian? That is the so-called “insult.”
One might “reasonably” ask when will Muslims “apologize” for being Muslim? But they are not bound by reason to the point is lost on them.
Amazingly the Times continues: “Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies… For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence.” In saying this, the Times implicitly recognizes the Islamists are waging a propaganda jihad against the Pope and by extension against Christianity—and they explicitly endorse and join this jihad. The Times is saying to Islamists, ‘we can join your ‘spiritual’ jihad, but not your violent jihad.
The Times editors are living in a fool’s paradise. The “spiritual” non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip side of the violent jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in the Islamist reaction to the Pope.
With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists are rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand to hear from the Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of semi-literate Islamist thugs in the position of forcing the leader of Christendom to bow before them.
In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist mouthpiece. In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes: “He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology…” The secularists too seek the Pope’s submission. Like the Islamists, the secularists are driven only by their will to power. While the Islamists represent their demented version of God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their demented version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united by their self-worshipping world view.
It should be noted that the carefully staged “anger’ from the Islamic world does not condemn Benedict’s characterization of Islam as a religion where God’s “will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality…. (The Islamic) God is not bound even by his own word….” This is not seen as an insult. Islam embraces this description. In offering this description of Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern French Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor Theodore Khoury of Munster.
Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope’s characterization of a secularist as: “(A) subject (who) then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective ‘conscience’ becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.”
Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can be no modern system of morality. He explains, “In this way…ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become (instead) a completely personal matter.”
Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart. Each claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe absolute moral license makes them powerful. As globalization carries the Western tradition of reason throughout the world, both are in decline.
Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist will meet in combat, just as Hitler’s fascists broke their pact with the Soviet Union, invading in June, 1941 after the collapse of the allied forces on the western front.
What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to reply to the Pope’s key point, borrowed from the Byzantine Emperor: “‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos (word or reason) is contrary to the nature of God,’.… It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.”
Their fear of reason can only lead t
"Isn't that a slippery way of saying the islamic allah is a "liar."
"And who is the "Father of Lies?"
That pretty much says it all. I would add this verse:
""You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8:44)
Personally, I think this is the thing the Muzzies should be looking at. Their history of violence and coercion is undeniable - but perhaps they should take up the philosophical challenge and discuss whether or not they accept reason. Of course, as this author points out, they don't, and they even make a virtue of their rejection of reason. But this is the serious point of the Pope's words that Muslims should examine and think long and hard upon.
But I guess they're too busy jumping up and down and killing 70 yr old nuns.
Islam was based on someone who was NOT God, but since Christians believe that all men are born with a hunger for the truth (God) within them, we believe there are probably some Muslims of good will who manage to get beyond their cult's idea of God (wholly evil, in my mind).
Sufis, btw, are regarded as heretical by other Muslims and have often been put to death by them. They are an ecstatic cult that seeks to use various practices (such as the famous whirling) to seek God non-verbally and outside of the constraints of Islam. Sufism was popular in the US for awhile, and I knew a man who was involved in it; he said that the only problem was that when you were not engaged in the dancing or other practices, you were surrounded by the restricted world-view of Islam, and he found it so suffocating he eventually left it.
Actually, this whole kerfluffle could be useful. We need to get liberal politicians on the record on how they feel about the pope and his statements here. Could come in useful in November.
"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." -Manuel II Paleologus
You believe CNN!
HA HA
Thank you dennisw.Great read.
MarineDad, as one ex-Catholic to another, hold your fire.....you know the Catholic Church. They think in centuries, and 10-year intervals are adequate, by their metrics and parameters, for brisk volley fire.
After each volley, there ain't much left.
You know this Pope is a disciplined theologian, and he has to know he's grappling with Lucifer himself, for all the marbles. At his pay grade, entire continents are the stakes. Win, lose, or draw, he's going to give it his best shot.
This guy saw the Third Reich up close and personal. Think he's going to be afraid of those other people and their "leaders"?
Maybe even Man of the Year -- which would be pretty good for someone who's been pushing up daisies for 600 years.
If there is to be a true clash of civilizations, this has to happen. I suggest it started maybe as early as 1948. This is a fine a time as any to bring it to a climax.
I'm by no means an expert on Papal history. Yet everything I have read about this guy suggests to me he has always had "a pair."
I'm not sure I understand where he lost them.
NYer,
These two comments were left on the Catholic World News page that indicated that the Pope was dismayed at the incredibly hostile reaction his comments had received. I think they are worth noting:
Posted by: ratzinger - Today 7:52 AM ET USA
And talk about support for the Pope! It's all coming from people like us. I haven't heard ONE WORD from any bishop or cardinal in support of the Holy Father. No one is talking about freedom of thought or expression (from universities, the so-called bastions of same). They're letting him hang out there on his own. Pope Benedict, when you look around for your friends, you'll see a lot of lay people, but none of the clerics. Makes you think.
Posted by: tony neyrot - Today 3:10 AM ET USA
The really interesting thing about the quote is that the "medieval emporer" wasn't of the Ming dynasty. He was an Orthodox, Byzantine (*Roman*) Emporer, one who died a mere 27 years before the fall of Constantinople. This resonates on a lot of levels, and I haven't seen anyone in the press pick up on it. The Pope is sending messages here, methinks. To the Turks, to the Orthodox. He's anti-Turk entry to the EU, and he's philo- Orthodox theologically and liturgically. Vive le pape, je dis.
Also, there was another comment made by someone who noted that "Our Lady of Fatima's" intercession should be sought for the Holy Father for obvious reasons. I commend a series of rosaries made to her for her intercession by RC Freepers. I am in!
F
Ignatius Insight....
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Pope's Comments on his Regensburg Lecture
Here is Pope Benedict's comments regarding the uproar many Muslims have created by their angry and violent responses to his lecture in Regensburg:
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.
I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this pastoral visit. As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.
At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.
These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.
Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.
That is a reasonable statement. We'll see how many Islamic critics that satisfies. The problem is not with the pope's remarks but with the people who reacted so violently to them. Those people claim Islam has been insulted as a violent, intolerant religion, and then proceed to demonstrate their violent and intolerant interpretation of it by their reactions.
Shall we hear apologies from the Islamic world for some of its people's violent reactions?
I would rephrase that to “I’ve met some pretty good people, in spite of the fact that they were Muslims” to go along with “I’ve met some pretty bad people, in spite of the fact that they were Christians”
Islam teaches all that is against reason, though there are some reasonable Moslems.
Christianity teaches reason, though there are some unreasonable Christians.
The real kicker here is that the fanatic Moslems are the ones that are taking their prophet’s word seriously, by rioting, terrorizing and murdering.
The fanatic Christians are the ones that are taking the word of God seriously, who dedicate their lives to God in prayer, studying the scriptures and service to the poor, the sick and disenfranchised.
What I don’t understand is why The Qu’ran is not quoted so that the West can see the evil in its pages.
Although you may be an expert on "pairs", I would certainly describe you as one of the lesser authorities on theology.
Perhaps if you read what the pope said another twenty or thirty times, you might begin to understand what he said.
Also, there was another comment made by someone who noted that "Our Lady of Fatima's" intercession should be sought for the Holy Father for obvious reasons. I commend a series of rosaries made to her for her intercession by RC Freepers. I am in!
I believe Carolina is in the process of organizing a rosary thread. Pinging Carolina!
Pope Benedict XVI "sincerely regrets" offending Muslims with his reference to an obscure medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman"
He has NOT apologized. They have misread his words. Like so many today, people do not bother to read through an entire address to grasp how words are used to convey meaning. They grab a few lines to use as 'sound bites'. Papal speeches are not written in that manner.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.