Benedict the Bombthrower:Why the pope's speech really was outrageous (Liberal view alert)

American Prospect ^ | 09/25/2006 | Adele Stan

[SirLinksalot]

Benedict the Bombthrower

Why the pope's speech in Germany really was outrageous.

By Adele M. Stan

When I heard of Pope Benedict XVI's unfortunate comments about Islam, uttered via the voice of an ancient Byzantine emperor, my initial supposition was that the pontiff had simply been a bit ham-fisted, making an ill-advised choice of source material to illustrate a point about the nature of God. Then I actually read the speech that has set the Islamic world aflame.

At best, the address delivered by the pontiff to what the Vatican calls “representatives of science” at Germany's University of Regensburg is an act of mischief rooted in chauvinism. I cannot see how any Catholic of good will -- one who values peace over war, or favors compassion over condemnation -- can accept the pope's actions in delivering such remarks as in any way divinely inspired, especially if one applies to Benedict the very standard he sought to illustrate with his once-removed insult of Islam as evil, inhuman, and unoriginal.

The point His Holiness was trying to make -- and I can't imagine how this was overlooked by Muslims and the media -- is that God abhors violence, even violence done in His name, because it is an unreasonable way to behave, and God represents the essence of reason. But to throw a rhetorical bomb such as that the pope tossed into the teeming cities of the Muslim world is to commit an act tantamount to violence. It appears to be a taunt designed to provoke a response, and provoke one it did. In the ensuing uproar, the pope has issued a string of explanations for his comments, as well as what can only be viewed as a non-apology apology (I'm sorry you're so upset).

In examining the pope's speech to the scientists, I initially set aside the inflammatory anecdote recounted early in the speech, about an exchange between Manuel II, the Christian emperor of Byzantium and "an educated Persian," in which the emperor is quoted as 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." Continuing with the story, the pope said, "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 is contrary to God's nature...'"

News reports indicated that the anecdote was a mere aside, a virtual throwaway shtick, to the main thrust of the address, which was an examination of the role of reason in faith, and vice versa. But encoded throughout the speech in his exultation of Greek philosophy as the underpinning of Christian thought is a comparison with the unknowable and transcendent God of Islam (and, by implication, the scary and unknowable God of Judaism, as well) that is designed to be less than flattering to those who embrace that concept of the Almighty.

Greek philosophy, Benedict told the scientists, had already matured as a body of thought even as the Hebrew bible “developed.” Christianity, he explained, represented a "rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry." By Benedict's telling, however, the contest between faith and philosophy appears to have resulted less in rapprochement than the triumph of the Greek philosophers over the faith of a desert people. In fact, Jesus the Jew seems barely present, if at all, in the pontiff's version of the Christian faith. But Plato is everywhere.

Developing in our own time has been the idea of a current clash of civilizations between the West and the Islamic world. Conservatives Samuel Huntington and Robert W. Merry define this clash as it exists today as the result of the fundamental irreconcilability of such Greek concepts as individualism and the distinction between the secular and sacred realms (Give unto Caesar, etc...) on the one hand with the Islamic ideal of the unity of all things in the divine, and the primacy of community before the individual, on the other.

Add to these profound differences a recent history of Western colonial domination, the resulting economic domination by the West, as well as America's present assertion -- via bombs and occupation -- of Western ideals as universal and superior to all others, and the recipe for worldwide Muslim rage is complete. Surely Pope Benedict, a learned theologian himself, is aware of these conditions. With that awareness, the pope must have taken into account that, in the Islamic worldview, there is no separate, "secular" realm; it's a worldview that offers no distinction between the bombs of Bush and Blair, and the pope's assertion of the God of the Greek philosophers as superior to the mysterious but "most merciful" God of the desert peoples. The bombs and moral condemnation all serve a common end: the shaming of Islamic civilization, with the assertion, by the sword, of Western culture as superior.

The irony of the pope's anecdote, of course, is its focus on the spread of Islam through violence, and the omission of the spread of Christianity by the same means. (Note the campaigns of King Charlemagne, and the Crusades against Islam -- not to mention the Inquisition.)

As if that wasn't enough, Huntington, in his iconoclastic 1995 book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, points out:

During the 15 years between 1980 and 1995..., the United States engaged in 17 military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed against Muslims. No comparable pattern of U.S. military operations occurred against the people of any other civilization. Like Eris, the Greek goddess of strife who had a snit when not invited to an important wedding, Pope Benedict XVI seems a bit miffed to have been left out of the party being thrown by the 21st century crusaders, so he has tossed an apple of discord -- one ingeniously designed to give the appearance of merely proving his point. Violence in the name of the Most High is the predictable result of the pope's sophistic ordinance. Concluding his speech in Germany, the pope quoted Manuel II:

"Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. "It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures." A more disingenuous call for dialogue can scarcely be imagined.

----------------------------------------------

Adele M. Stan is the author of the weblog, AddieStan.com, and the book, Debating Sexual Correctness.

[sageb1]

"the Islamic ideal of the unity of all things in the divine, and the primacy of community before the individual,"

This is where Islam and Marxism combine forces and explains why they engage in their unholy alliance.

[mondonico]

But to throw a rhetorical bomb such as that the pope tossed into the teeming cities of the Muslim world is to commit an act tantamount to violence. This typifies the idiocy, and fundamental unseriousness, of the PC, multi-culturalist, "useful idiot" brand of liberal, for a number of reasons. 1. It is ridiculous on its face. Only people who have been insulated from even the threat of physical violence can believe that words are "tantamount" to violence. Children used to be taught, "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me." Now they are taught that "insensitive" language "violates," and "oppresses" protected classes (e.g., minorities, women). This, of course, is because the philosophy of today's Western Left, really a sort of "Marxism-lite," requires a group of "victims" who must "overcome." 2. It is racist because it sets up the "teeming cities of the muslim world" as cities of unthinking, impulsive, barbarians. 3. It is hypocritical because it is yet another example of the Left's readiness to suppress some kinds of speech, while crying "fascism" every time someone criticizes crucifixes in urine, public school sodomy classes, etc. 4. It is craven because it is, in the end, a reaction driven by fear, just as the thugs intended.

[mondonico]

And another thing: the crusades were a response to the bloody subjugation of much of Christendom by islamic murderers and tyrants.

[OK]

True enough. The Vatican was attacked and looted by Muslims in the 9th century. The First Crusade started in 1095.

[monday]

"Add to these profound differences a recent history of Western colonial domination, the resulting economic domination by the West, as well as America's present assertion -- via bombs and occupation -- of Western ideals as universal and superior to all others"

She thinks the west is more successful than the middle east because of colonialism, a practice that has cost it's practitioners billions, and she thinks that the Islamic values of slavery, forced conversions, and bombing innocent people, are just as valid as western values of freedom of speech and religion and democracy.

Since this is the reality of her warped world view, it makes sense that she would be on the Muslims side in every argument. She is either mentally ill or has the reasoning abilities of a worm.

She should to be shot as a traitor to civilization.

[SirLinksalot]

I personally have a slight disagremeent with Benedict, no disrespect to him personally. I take issue with his statement --- I RESPECT ISLAM.

I agree with this statement from James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries :

"Please keep this in mind: we must respect the truth by accurately representing, to the best of our abilities, the views of those with whom we disagree. I seek to portray truthfully the views of Muslims, Mormons, Roman Catholics, etc., because of my commitment to truth as it is embodied in Christ, not because of some post-modern, feel-good "respect" for false religions. I see little evidence that the Old Testament prophets "respected" Baal or Molech, let alone the religions that prompted their worship.

So I would not join the Pope in saying "I respect Islam." That is a far cry from saying I do not respect certain Muslims, and, equally far from saying I cannot or will not treat a Muslim with respect. Sadly, people muddle these categories. Modern shallow thinkers assume that if you wish to show respect for a Muslim you must respect Islam. That is untrue. A Muslim is made in the image of God, and though he follows a false religion, he is still due respect due to the fact that he bears the image of God. Of course, some men are worthy of more respect than others. The wild-eyed terrorist who knows nothing but the hope of seventy virgins in heaven but who cannot give evidence of the slightest knowledge of the views of others does not deserve respect. The reasoned Muslim who seeks to portray accurately my beliefs and engage them in dialogue and debate is another case altogether. And of course, there is an entire spectrum between these two extremes."

[monday]

"If we riot and kill based on her words, does that make her words violent?"

True enough. If we offed her because of this article, I guess she would say she had it coming.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[OK]

I have wondered about the respect statement also. It could be that he said it in a different language with a slightly different meaning, or is using Islamic logic that it is permissible to deceive in order to prevail in the long run.

This Pope is pretty sharp, and has managed to start a converstion on the moral and logical justifications for using violence to promote one's religion.

It is something that must be done for civilization to muddle through this challenge of one major religion that was charged by its founder to spread the faith by the sword.

[Fred Nerks]

see #22...LOL!

[oh8eleven]

During the 15 years between 1980 and 1995..., the United States engaged in 17
military operations in the Middle East, all of them directed against Muslims.
Boo-freakin'-hoo. Islam the religion of peace my @ss.

[dominic flandry]

I guess the "recent history of Western colonial domination" includes the following:

France leaves Syria in 1946 (50% of population under 42 years);
Great Britain leaves Jordan 1946 (50% of population under 24 years);
Great Britain leaves Iraq 1932;
Great Britain leaves Egypt 1947 (50% of population under 36 years);
Great Britain leaves Sudan 1946;
Arabia never colonized or occupied by the West;
Great Britain leaves Yemen 1967 (48% of population under 15 years);
Great Britain leaves Oman 1951;
Great Britain leaves Kuwait 1961;
Soviet Union and Great Britain leave Iran 1945;
Great Britain leaves Afghanistan 1920s (45% of population under 15 years);
Great Britain leaves Pakistan 1948 (50% of population under 20 years);
Great Britain leaves India 1948; and
Dutch leave Indonesia 1949.

The point being that the majority of Muslims have no personal experience living under a European colonial power.

So the theory of European colonization causing Muslim rage is false. Neither the Canadians nor the Americans had colonies in North Africa, the Middle East or the Indian subcontinent. The closest colony for the US would be the Phillipines who won their independence in 1948.

[RedStateRocker]

" The point being that the majority of Muslims have no personal experience living under a European colonial power.

So the theory of European colonization causing Muslim rage is false."

I respectfully suggest that the latter does not necessarily follow from the former. IMHO *part* of the problem with Iran is the blowback from when we got rid of Prime Minster Mohammad Mosadeq in 1953. I mean in the context of the cold war we needed to do it, as Dulles stated but to a degree I can't blame the Iranians for being a bit pissed that we tossed out their elected leader and put a mean, if modern SOB in his place; I'd be irked if that had happened to my grandfathers' generation. Only stating that a DIRECT experience of colonialism is not required.

[highlander_UW]

If I were a writer I'd hope that my editor would be kind enough to not publish anything I wrote that made me look this dimwitted.

[ducdriver]

I've developed a rather nostalgic fondness for the Crusades since 9.11!

[CWW]

Another bedwetting liberal who fancies himself to be an intellectual.

If you want a serious treatment and analsyis of Pope Benedict's speech at Regensberg entitled "Faith, Reason, and the University entitled, see Joe Harris' recent analysis at The Weekly Standard online edition:

You can find it here:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/736fyrpi.asp

[AmericanArchConservative]

...And 'MS.', a woman's monthly monster...publication

A "Paleo-progressive fag-hag-mag"

A.A.C.

[AmericanArchConservative]

Wherever Western-style civilization and culture have conquered and dominated -

the results have created prosperity for thousands, tens or hundreds of thousands of people.

Wherever the ostensibly arabic "strain" of the mohammadan virus has conquered and dominated -


the results have driven prosperity, stability, and personal freedom into the dirt for hundreds, thousands, or tens of thousands of people.

Just a random thought...

A.A.C.

[MEGoody]

Did this chick not take logic?

If she did, she must have flunked.