Pope Benedict's comments regarding Islam

[Fruitloop]

Indeed. He does have some weird ideas with respect to science and Platonism, though, that aren't really developed in any detail.

Personally my views are more or less the exact inverse of the Pope's - I reckon we should junk both faith and Hellenic Idealism as equally noxious.

 

[Jonti]

There's another, more disturbing subtxt here as well...basically, the concluding paragraph of that speech is saying 'All religions share a common problem etc.' could be read to mean 'The real clash of civilisations won't be the continuation of the crudsades against Islam, but between religious and rational models of looking at the universe'.

I admit, it's pretty far fetched, but since the Muslim world managed to turn one simple example into an attack on the Umma I reckon that material rationalists like myself should be allowed to take equal offence at his remarks...

Especially as he's right. We're solidly in the age of post-modern conviction politics where reason is subordinate to feeling. Mad Tony and King George felt there were WMDs in Iraq, one presumes, having no other evidence.

The exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason can be taken as having poetic meaning. I'd say there's no urgent need for the Vatican to scrap with Islam, or to pick a fight with rationalists. What's needed is a faith system -- a way of imbuing the world with meaning -- that is material-rationalist compatible.

The free market will provide, eventually, if the Pope's not up for it. My guess is that a strain of Islam or Buddhism is likely to make the grade. Or, I dunno, some mad scientist type might just cook something up. Like Scientology, only decent.

 

[Fruitloop]

Yeah, a totally transcendent being could end up a bit like the 'Church of God Who Makes No Difference' in Greg Egan's books.

 

[phildwyer]

The free market will provide, eventually

It already has. The free market gives all power in the world to *money.* Money is of course a purely spiritual force with no material existence whatsoever. Belief in the power of money is thus the rankest superstition imaginable. And yet we see that money does indeed have power. This power derives from *idolatry,* the very opposite of monotheism, and only monotheism can counter it.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

It already has. The free market gives all power in the world to *money.* Money is of course a purely spiritual force with no material existence whatsoever. Belief in the power of money is thus the rankest superstition imaginable. And yet we see that money does indeed have power. This power derives from *idolatry,* the very opposite of monotheism, and only monotheism can counter it.

All socialists now worship the one true god then.

Is that Lenin or Marx?

 

[Jonti]

Yeah, a totally transcendent being could end up a bit like the 'Church of God Who Makes No Difference' in Greg Egan's books.

That sounds good. Does anything happen in the books, or are they just funny?

 

[Aldebaran]

Not much of an argument Alderban.

My arguments are in my previous posts.
Anyone who read the text of the lecture *in full* should be able to agree with me.

salaam.

 

[phildwyer]

My arguments are in my previous posts.
Anyone who read the text of the lecture *in full* should be able to agree with me.

I have, and I do agree with you. But there is a small but important point on which I've been meaning to pick you up. You described the Pope as "the leader of Christianity." Of course you know that he is very far from being that. Not only does he not speak for all Christians, many Christians regard him as an agent of Satan on earth. And so do I.

 

[Aldebaran]

I've got to say tho, reading it for the 3rd time makes me even more angry about the utterly ridiculous reaction to what he said - the quote about Islam is UTTERLY relevant to what he goes on to say in a broader sense

I didn't have to read the text to be enraged, but after reading it I should be shocked. The only reason I'm not shocked is because I know the underlying causes. We seem to be now in a stage where anything that is said by a prominent Westerner that could remotely be twisted as "an attack" gets milked out endlessly. Yet if I ask you why that can happen, or why it could come that far, what is your reply?

and given that Ayatollah Khamani said he 'needs to learn about Islam' I think the Ayatollah should maybe have read the whole lecture text.

I'm absolutely sure Khamenei read it in full. (You come across as thinking he is some sort of backwards idiot.)
He is correct in stating that the Pope is not placed to comment on Islam, let alone on Jihad, which is sometimes even for Muslims an issue that is largely misunderstood.
Nevertheless the quotation served clearly an other goal then what is suggested. The only remark I have is that maybe it wasn't such a wise choice in the current sensitive climate.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

I have, and I do agree with you. But there is a small but important point on which I've been meaning to pick you up. You described the Pope as "the leader of Christianity." Of course you know that he is very far from being that. Not only does he not speak for all Christians, many Christians regard him as an agent of Satan on earth. And so do I.

Of course, but seen my personal background (and my years at a Catholic university adding to that) I have no other "Christianity" in mind then Rome's when I talk about it .
In fact one should also not overlook that the Pope is also a State leader, but I would say that in context of this subject that is of no direct influence or importance.

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

I'm absolutely sure Khamenei read it in full. (You come across as thinking he is some sort of backwards idiot.)

It's good to see you have absolute faith that a religious or political leader would necessarily read or watch something they then decide to say is a 'bad thing' - personally I find such a belief naive in the extreme (and I don't think he's a backwards idiot, just a deeply conservative one).

Do I think that anyone who called for Salman Rushdie's death over the Satanic Verses (inclusing Khameni's predecessor) read the whole book? No I don't - in fact I don't believe they even read the passage in question, because that's how conservative, paternialistic organisations work - we will tell you what not to read and how to think.

So no, I don't necessarily think that Khameni read it, because I don't think he's any different from the Xtians who never watched 'The Last Temptation of Christ' and called for it to be banned, and blasphemous. Nor do I think him any different from a poltician who, upon hearing of a TV programme they haven't watched but have seen there is grest umbrage being taken by many others, joins in the chorus.

Conservatives, especially those who are of an authoritarian bent, might believe in different gods, but their instincts and reactions are the same the world over.

I have no other "Christianity" in mind then Rome's when I talk about it .

And you accuse US of being ignorant of Islam...

 

[zion]

found a great quote here:

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence"
- Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.

Indeed.

 

[nino_savatte]

Not entirely sure about the syntax...it looks buggered.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's good to see you have absolute faith that a religious or political leader would necessarily read or watch something they then decide to say is a 'bad thing' - personally I find such a belief naive in the extreme (and I don't think he's a backwards idiot, just a deeply conservative one).

I don't have any such absolute faith, nor did I imply I have.
(I don't see what the Rushdie affair has to do with this either).

And you accuse US of being ignorant of Islam...

1.Who is "US"? I suggest those who demonstrate to be ignorant that they are indeed ignorant.
2. I answered a remakr of phildwyer and agreed with his comment, adding that, considering my personal background, I approach Christianity from a Catholic angle. My mother was Catholic, all her relatives are Catholic, among my personal friends is a Cardinal of the Catholic Church, I did a fair amount of my studies at a Catholic university in Europe, where among others I studied comparative religious study on Islam/Christianity at the Faculty of Theology.
It seems to me absolutely normal that I approach Christianity from a Catholic angle. You seem to see that as something highly abnormal and even proof of complete ignorance about Christianity?

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

Must be a language thing that, because this comment:

I have no other "Christianity" in mind then Rome's when I talk about it .

reads as tho you view Catholicism as the only form of Xtianity! And as someone who lost their faith some time ago I actually find it abnormal that you would only approach Xtianity from a Catholic angle - I found that not being restricted by sectarian considerations made it far easier to look at the questions I then had about my faith etc, but horses for courses I guess...

On Khameni, you said:

I'm absolutely sure Khamenei read it in full.

and then said in response to my comment about conservatives:

I don't have any such absolute faith, nor did I imply I have.

So which is it? You can't categorically know that Khameni read the whole text, and yet you are 'absolutely sure' that he did, which only leaves faith.

And the Rushdie affair is completely relevant - IIRC even reading the book was considered blasphemous, meaning that not a single one of those who called for, or attempted to answer, the fathwah was able to read the context in which the passage appeared and therefore to make a considered judgement over whether or not it was worth threatening someone with death for writing it.

I can find an equal number of examples in the secular world of the same thing - conservatives criticising something without having seen/read/listened to the thing being criticised in it's entirety - so this isn't having a go at Islam specifically.

 

[Aldebaran]

reads as tho you view Catholicism as the only form of Xtianity!

Really? How would you write it? (And do you really expect an Islamic scholar to be also fully educated on all of Christianity? Do you expect that from Christian scholars?)

Do you think islamic scholars of such rank and fame as we speak of (or any scholar with some reputation) drop a fatwa here and there just to make fun and without presenting any legal justification on the case?
You think such justification can be reached without even touching, let alone studying the subject ... I would like to live in your uptopia.

salaam.

 

[kyser_soze]

As I said - I know how Conservatives THINK - and yes, I do believe that a conservative like Khomeni/Khameni would make such a pronouncement without having read a whole book, or complete lecture text or anything else, because conservatism doens't require it to be read, only condemned.