Benedict's speech
Wednesday September 13, 2006
Finally, a transcript of Pope Benedict's so-called "Islam-bashing" speech! How very different the speech was from what you'd expect if you'd read an MSM account of the thing. There was the untoppably atrocious, biased and inaccurate headline atop the Agence...
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Advertisement
Advertisement
Search This Blog
Recent Posts
About Crunchy Con
Rod Dreher is an editorial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, and author of "Crunchy Cons" (Crown Forum), a nonfiction book about conservatives, most of them religious, whose faith and political convictions sometimes put them at odds with mainstream conservatives. The views expressed in this blog are his own.
Subscribe
Archives
Blogs Worth Reading
- Front Porch Republic
- The American Conservative
- Patrick Deneen
- Conventional Folly
- The American Scene
- First Things
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Plank
- Eunomia
- Get Religion
- Postmodern Conservative
- Alex Massie
- The Corner
- Contentions
- Sharon Astyk
- Barry Ritholtz
- The Oil Drum
- Mere Comments
- First Principles (ISI)
- Brian Kaller
Well, at least when Maledict is busy bashing Muslims, he ain't busy bashing gay people.
And thank God for that!>
I actually thought the Times piece wasn't bad and will blog on it tomorrow at GetReligion (I'm headed to the feast day Divine Liturgy of the Holy Cross in a matter of minutes)....
I thought it hinted (all we can expect, I guess) at two crucial things:
1. The question of whether Allah and the God of the Christian Trinity can be called "the same" is really loaded. This is why a statement attacking the divinity of Jesus is carved in stone in the Dome of the Rock. Ask traditional MUSLIMS if the Christian God is their God. Then listen to the debates and the logic. That'd make a great Times piece.
2. It is clear that Benedict's views on INTERFAITH worship -- as opposed to ecumenical -- are different than John Paul II's were. It sounds, well, like Big Ben might get along with the Eastern Orthodox on that topic.
Worship and formal prayers are, for traditional Christians, radically different than dialogue and seminars.>
Thanks for the transcript. As to the overlooked aspect of reason, I especially liked the statement "the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions." This encapsulates why there is such a divide between secular and religious worldviews. Where do we find truth? Is it in the material, empirical world (e.g., science)? Is is revealed in the Torah? New Testament? Koran? Do I find truth via my personal experiences? Answering the question of where we find truth will often lead directly to the diverse conclusions we reach.>
Thanks for posting this, esp. the translation. We over at the Spengler Forum are very interested in this sort of thing (as you might imagine).>
Curioser and Curioser, let me explain something to you: homosexuality is not the be-all and end-all of the universe, and the natural focus of all human endeavor. I suspect this will be hard for you to accept, but please, try to confront this truth. You remind me of the gay writer who sat at a press roundtable with me and some others on the "Lord of the Rings" junket, and used his question to ask Peter Jackson, the director, about the homoerotic elements in the relationships between the hobbits.>
The late Canadian writer Robertson Davies once commented that what used to be the "love that dare not speak its name" has now become the "love that doesn't know when to shut up.">
The scholarly acumen of this pope is very appealing. For him to fetch up a delicious and revealing debate from the 14th century, and to discuss it with obvious comfort and familiarity, was a treat quite separate from the point he was making, which I also thought well-taken. I've been a fan of Cardinal Ratzinger as a theologian (yes, I'm a protestant!) and now to see his incisive intellect brought to bear on the large questions of Christendom is heartening.>
Mr. Dreher, let ME explain something to you: homosexuality is part of the universe. I suspect this will be hard for you to accept, but please, try to confront this truth. You remind me of the 'str8' writer who addressed the Parliamentary Justice Committee and said that my love, my relationship "would lead to men having sex with BABIES!!!"
Just because your pope hates us is no reason to exclude us from the world. We ARE part of it. I know that you don't happen to like it, but tough.>
Curiouser, do you realize how much damage you do to your own credibility and relevance when you spout off nonsensical rantings with no thought or regard to the actual topics of the posts you re supposedly commenting on? Attacking Rod as a homophobe (which I must say, I don t believe he is) and peppering your posts with totally off-topic screeds doesn t prove any points, it just causes people to stop listening to you. If you feel so strongly about these issues, take the time to formulate intelligent and persuasive comments /on relevant posts/. Now, I must admit that, though I read these boards every day, I ve only ever commented a few times, usually with some sarcastic remark or tiny factual correction, so I may be a bit hypocritical here. But really, you re not helping your own case, and you reinforce the stereotype of the hysterical, raving homo that makes it harder for the rest of us to get a fair hearing when we do have something relevant to say. You clearly feel passionately about the issues facing our community. That s good. But try tempering that passion with thought and reason. It goes a lot further.
Be Well,
techgnostic
PS -- My apologies for dwelling on an off-topic subject.>
curiouser the drama queer wrote:
Mr. Dreher, let ME explain something to you: homosexuality is part of the universe.
So Dreher is denying your existence by saying that everything does not relate to your anomalous libido? Ok then. It's self-contradictory, but whatever your ego needs.
I suspect this will be hard for you to accept, but please, try to confront this truth.
I guess that's why he wrote that even handed review of Brokeback Mountain, right? Because he needs to pretend gays don't exist.
You remind me of the 'str8' writer who addressed the Parliamentary Justice Committee and said that my love, my relationship "would lead to men having sex with BABIES!!!"
You remind me of every stereotype of the hysterical homo I've ever encountered.
Bad news for Rod Dreher, though - the gay troll doesn't like him! It really is all about you!
Just because your pope hates us is no reason to exclude us from the world.
I missed the part of the Pope's comments where he said he wanted you all deported to Mars.
Oh - telling people that they "hated" me when they criticised my behavior stopped working for me when I was about three years old.
We ARE part of it. I know that you don't happen to like it, but tough.
Homophobes (as well as those you libel as homophobes) are also part of the world. Will you extend your broad-mindedness to them because they exist? I'd bet they are one social fact you won't be eager to deal with.
also: Hey tuor!>
Curioser and Curioser, let me explain something to you: homosexuality is not the be-all and end-all of the universe, and the natural focus of all human endeavor.
We all have our hobby horses, Dreher, and we all ride them, ad nauseum.
Everything you see in teh world is colored by your worldview. For any person, all politics and religion will be viewed through a particular lens. How is that any different for curiouser or anyone else? So long as you and others like you view gay people purely as a function of their behavior as opposed to their identity, you'll continue to be stymied by folks like curiouser.
You identity is Catholic. it is impossible for you to view the world except as a Catholic, and every stand you take is colored by that Catholicism.
So it is for any identity. I do wish you wouldn't go out of your way to point fingers at the gay people. it doesn't reflect well on your own stand.>
Mr. Lawson,
I too am a fan of Pope Benedict as a theologian and have been for years. It's always a pleasure to see him dissect a topic and explain it and his address at the University of Regensburg was no exception. I am only sorry I was never one of his students.>
It's one thing for something to form part, even the greater part, of one's identity. It's quite another to be so obsessed with it that you judge everything else through that lens. It's the substitution of ideology for life. And it's dehumanizing, first of all to the ideologue who holds that kind of pinched, narrow, airless view. You end up being the kind of person who stubs his toe and immediately looks around for the homophobe/capitalist/racist/anti-Catholic/conservative/liberal/whatever who placed the stumbling block in your way.>
Janice
I can only imagine what a brilliant professor he must have been. JP2 was also a brilliant and learned man, but we will always remember him for his heart, I think, though he was not lacking in the intellect at all. Benedict, though, I suspect will go down in history as the theologian pope, and I'm very happy about that. I was rooting for him from the start but just didn't believe the college would have the guts to do it.
Maybe we'll hear more learned reflection on medieval interactions among muslim, Christians, and Jews, such as happened in Paris in the 13th century or in Cordoba in the high middle ages.>
After 9/11, the object of focus was moved to a ficticious organization called "Al Qaeda" when the real enemy was the doctrines of a dogmatic religion. Instead of going after a non-existent organization which was given shape and form by the government and the media, the world should have been made aware of the danger posed by the outdated faith and its blind believers.
Freedom of practising religion, should not mean that a hateful cult can be allowed full freedom to operate. Religion is a personal thing for guidance and spiritual enlightment, not something to cause a fight with your neighbour who does not share the same beliefs - not a way to form a group so as to exclude and make enemies of the outsiders. Any so-called religions that goes beyond that should be banned unless it is purged of its hateful idealogy. Only then we would be targeting the real enemy.>
birdseye:
And the mechanism for banning these dogmatic religions that refuse to yield on their beliefs would, I assume, be the state and the military?
What are you planning to do to the US Constitution?>
"Religion is a personal thing for guidance and spiritual enlightment,"
But not guidance with respect to how we should act in community, or spiritual enlightenment that says things birdseye doesn't want to hear.>
curiouser and curiouser because of you the topic shifted!>
tmatt and Tom Harmon:
do some reading on islam - especially its holy book before you debate on it.>
"Religion is a personal thing for guidance and spiritual enlightment, not something to cause a fight with your neighbour who does not share the same beliefs"
Well, and how is that news? There are laws against fighting with your neighbour, regardless of the reasons. That should be enough.
"Any so-called religions that goes beyond that should be banned unless it is purged of its hateful idealogy."
What is a "so-called religion"?
And yes, when a group starts to actually harrass others (and by harrass I mean actually harrass them, not just saying "oh, we disagree with you"), the state will intervene. But there's nothing new about this. But that doesn't give you the right to ban certain beliefs. That also seems to be a "real enemy".
Oh, and BTW, Al Kaida certainly was not fictiuous ... whether it was much of an organisation is another matter.>
curiouser and curiouser because of you the topic shifted!
oh noes!!!>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.