What did Benedict say?

Rod wrote: "And what a shame that by choosing to introduce it with a provocative quote from the Emperor, that the Pope assured the profundity and delicacy of his main point would be obscured."

Of course, by including the provocative quote, the Pope ensures that his speech actually gets heard outside Regensburg. Not a bad tradeoff, eh?>

Rod -- notice that the translation of how Benedict framed that quote isn't fully accurate:
">http://gypsyscholarship.blogspot.com/2006/09/what-pope-really-actually-said-in.html>

Maybe this is a question I should address to Terry Mattingly, but since you invoked your identity as a newspaper editor, I'll ask it here. To what extent are American journalists afraid of reporting on differences between Islam and Christianity? They regularly report on differences between Republicans and Democrats, or between New Yorkers and Southerners, even (sometimes) between men and women. But are journalists (unlike most Christians and Muslims) committed to the assumption that all religions are essentially the same?

I've known journalists willing to compare Buddhism with Catholicism (most of these were ex-Catholics with bad memories of the sisters), but I've yet to see a journalist raise questions about the different understandings of who God is and who man is (a pretty basic question) that divide those who believe that God assumed a human nature (which he still has) and those who believe that such an assertion is blasphemy.>

The Pope's remarks have sparked an interest in reading the emperor's dialogs--does anyone know whether they're available? I found nothing on Amazon. Something tells me that good ole Manuel may have some trenchant things to say to our age.>

Let us get back to the substance of this profound post from our host.

One evening, immediately following 9/11/2001, Franklin Graham was interviewed on 'Larry King Live'.

He said, (of the Muslim fanatics),
"Their God is not my God."

It was as gutsy then as it is now.>

Curioser, in the last general election in the US, the issue arose as to whether Catholic politicians could support legal abortion rights -- even if they personally oppose abortion -- and still be Catholics in good standing. The Catholic bishops (generally a feckless bunch, IMHO) mostly said "no", and some even threatened to deny Communion to John Kerry should he ever come to Mass at a Church their diocese. It was pretty well understood that the Vatican was in agreement with the bishops on that matter; but since this was in the waning days of JPII, and he was too ill to speak or act very forcefully, he was less of a personal presence on that issue than Benedict has been in Canada. But I would submit that even though the specifics differ between the gay-marriage issue in Canada and the abortion rights issue in the US, the basic situation is the same. So I don't think Canada has been singled out.

It was quite a scene in late 2004: the Catholic bishops were mostly opposed to the candidate who was Catholic. In that regard, it was the 1960 election turned on its head. (When Catholics all supported JFK because he was Catholic, even though it was a pretty ill-kept secret that he was a philanderer.)

BTW, I can understand that you dislike the pope. But calling him "Maladict" isn't a way to invite Catholics to have a conversation with you about these things.>

It seems like Islam is in itself an inherently violent religion that is driven to kill all it's foes no matter what the truth of the matter may be.

Reality becomes unreality.
Truth becomes lie.
Big Brother reigns supreme!
War is Peace
Ignorance is Strength
Slavery is Freedom!>

Gee, I don't suppose any Catholics or Protestants could be violent...especially not in Ireland.

Having lived in a Muslim country for many years, I have the right to say that most Muslims are very peaceful, loving people. What you see on TV is the media's narrow view. Most Muslims are not rioting in the streets or burning the Pope in effigy. However, showing footage of them would be boring. I would hate for the rest of the world to judge me by what they see on TV. They would think I am someone who loots stores after hurricanes, vandalizes and torches things during postgame celebrations, and dresses like Paris Hilton. That's an image I don't want!!!>

To Pope Benedict's considerable credit, he found it within himself to apologize to Muslims for quoting portions of a medieval text that described the spreading of Islam "by the sword."
As one who respects all faiths, I welcome his apology. I do so despite my enduring belief that when it comes to the spreading of religion by the sword, Pope Benedict's own church was not entirely innocent nearly five centuries ago. And there's plenty of blame to go around to other faiths.
After reading Pope Benedict's apology, I then thought of the predominantly Catholic conquistadores who forcefully invaded the Americas five centuries ago. On horseback, subjugating and plundering the great cultures of the time by means of swords, guns, and perhaps unintentionally- germs as well.
That's Francisco Pizarro, conqueror of the Incas, at the top of this post.
After the conquests of the Mayas, Incas, Aztecs and so many other wonderous cultures, the priests did the conversions to the church of the time. And while the priests did not carry swords, their actions were facilitated by those who did.
Sadly, a similar process was repeated in North America. Primarily Protestant Europeans came here, stole the land from the Native Americans, subjugated and in some cases destroyed their cultures. And while the missionaries did not carry swords, the ones who paved the way carried swords, guns, and germs. Don't even get me started on the slave dealers, and slave owners.
Pope Benedict's apology is a good start. But wouldn't it be an even grander uplifting of humanity if all conquerors who imposed their faith apologized to the descendants of those who were victimized by their imperialistic violence and forced to change their beliefs to conform?
To put it another way, shouldn't one's decision of faith- or even lack thereof- be a choice, not a compulsion set up by the power of invading armies?
A common falsehood about Islam that continues to be promoted is that Islam exhorts its followers to be violent against non-Muslims. There are many prominent voices in the West that are part of a rising cacophony of vicious criticism of the Qur'an. One can read and hear a whole range of negative opinions about this issue in the media. Few have taken an in depth look at the issue. What does the Qur'an actually say about violence against non-Muslims? Does it say that it is the religious duty of Muslims to kill infidels? But first some basic principles about reading and understanding the Qur'an. After all, studying the Qur'an is not exactly like reading Harry Potter. Like any other scripture there are rules that may be followed for a proper understanding of the text.>

I'm still waiting for the so-called moderate Muslims to wake up and speak loudly against "radical" Islam terrorism. What the Koran says is to kill non-believers. That's pretty violent. I saw the moderates dancing in the streets as the Twin Towers came down, killing absolutely innocent people. We can't find Bin Laden because he is so well hidden by who? Hasn't it already gotten to the point of Us and Them? Is it too late to stop Al Quada and this insanity that goes unpunished while riots break out over cartoons or statements by the Pope? It seems the line has been drawn already. This is what is seen through my eyes. And I don't like it.>

Thanks much, Rick, for the point toward Bishop Spong's ideas. Very provocative upon first blush. I was startled by how little of what I know Chrisitianity to be would seem to remain if Spong's Reformation were to take hold, but I suppose that is his point, after all.

David Holmes: I don't like it either, and I think the time has come to seriously ask the questions you and many other pose about Islam and the other great monotheistic faiths, Christianity and Judaism. These mass religions, incredible world powers based on "wisdom" derived from startlingly primitive and irrational thinking, seek nothing less I'm convinced than the subjugation of all people, be it by "rebirth", Jizya or Halakha, and desire greatly to arrest or otherwise control the full dimensions of the human spirit in what appears to be a futile attempt to escape that which they don't like; a contingent universe, change in all things, decay and ultimately death.>

Our Pope was called to be Christ's
voice on earth.
He spoke the truth in love...

In Love for all of God's children.

Had he not carefully chosen each word,
how many of us would have been exposed
to his lessons that day?

(To the terrorists, he cousels)
Spreading by the sword the faith Mohammed preached IS evil and inhuman.

(To the core truths residing in the hearts of most Americans).....
to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm,
weapons of any kind,
or threat of death.

The above is as good a demonstration of the problem the world is now in as a result of the cover so-called religious "moderates" give to the exceedingly irrational (and increasingly dangerous) expressions of their faiths. If this sort of thinking is imagined to be an adequate, well-reasoned response to the challenge posed by 21st-Century Islam, then we had all best have our guns ready by the door!

Also, dear Kathryn, you and other righteous Christians would do well to study the tenets of your own faith and the history of its defense more closely before making pronouncements about the "truths" of other religions. You perhaps remain blissfully unaware of all-too-recent Christian acts of violence against the innocent, and the equally violent injunctions of the bible try, say, Deuteronomy 13:7-11 as so many moderate (or is it moderately faithful?) Christians seem to be.>

Speaking as an agnostic who nevertheless comes from a Muslim (and Catholic) background, let me say this: the Pope does have quite a bit to apologize for, and that is disregarding the highly volatile situation between Islam and the West right now, what with the aftermath of the Danish cartoons, Iraq and Afghanistan. I can't and won't make any axcuse for the violent Muslim riots around the world by a bunch of misinformed fanatics who probably don't even know what the Pope actually said, but heard from their friend's brother's cousin that "Islam was insulted" ('so lets take to the streets and smash a few shop windows'.) The Pope should have known better than to touch on such a sensitive and fragile nerve at just this particular point in time instead of fanning th fire even further with careless remarks.>

Dan Kallam
What exactly did I write that creates such great issue and emotion for you??...

The Pope reminded us through His quotation that spreading faith by the sword is evil.
I know you are not suggesting that spreading faith through violence is holy and humane?

Most Americans are Christian.
At the core of their heart, they have seated Christ.
Their hearts affirm that we can convince human beings of Basic Truths without force or bloodshed?

You were quick to label
....Me....a "righteous" Christian?
What makes me a righteous one?>

The world, the Pope and I are well aware of the history of The Church.
The place and time that I affect is today, and tomorrow.>