09.15.2006
My Manifesto
Speaking of gods, here’s a good one for you. The pope—yes, the Catholic pope—has given a speech criticizing the religion of Islam for being too violent, having been "spread by the sword." He went on to say that spreading faith through violence is unreasonable, adding that violence is incompatible with the nature of both god and the human soul.
Did you ever notice that the word irony contains the word iron? As in red-hot irons stabbing stabbing stabbing into my brain?
First, let me go on record as agreeing with the pope on this one. Spreading faith through violence is ridiculous. Spreading faith via the techniques of handing out pamphlets door-to-door or screaming incoherently on street corners is only slightly less ridiculous in my book.
But, hello? The Catholic pope? As in, the head of the most violent religion that ever existed, which has tortured and killed millions upon millions upon millions of people throughout history via crusades, inquisitions, reformations, counter-reformations, witch hunts, and missionary colonization?
Now yes, at some point relatively recently, the Catholic church ostensibly changed its ways, and now, instead of organizing crusades, they organize right to life marches. There is even a very liberal wing of the Catholic church that actually tries to help people, although the current pope has no doubt spent his priestly career trying to stamp them out for good.
But instead of denouncing the violent tendencies of religion as a whole, he focused repeatedly on Islam, according to the New York Times. This at a time when George W. Fucking Lunatic Bush has just framed his entire “War on Terror” as a religious awakening in the United States that is bent on “a confrontation between good and evil.” (Here’s a hint: the one that started a pointless war in Iraq and is threatening to use nuclear weapons against Iran is supposed to be the good side.)
Now it’s true that Osama bin Laden, a raving nutjob living in the mountains somewhere, has fashioned his offensive as a religious war. He did not attack America because he “hates our freedom,” or whatever other nonsense Dick Cheney and Rush Limbo have spouted, but because he wants to restore Muslim theocracy in Saudi Arabia and throughout the Middle East, where the U.S. has installed and props up secular dictators in order to guarantee a steady supply of oil.
The president of the United States, who is the representative of three hundred million people and whose finger is on the button of enough missiles to blow up the world ten thousand times over, really should not be playing into the hands of, nor validating the sentiments of, a crazy hermit living in a cave. And the pope, as the most visible religious authority in the world, should be calling out both sides on their shit, not just one. If he were not an utter hypocrite, he would go on television and announce that the American president, who has been trying his damndest for five years to start a modern religious crusade to satisfy the blood thirst of the End Times cultists who put him into power, should stop using religion as an excuse to kill and steal from and exploit the poor.
But that’s just me, the liberal, gay, athiest terrorist sympathizer.
Mothers, lock up your sons.
posted by
David at 9:49 AM
Ah bugger! I was all primed to make a witty comment along the lines of 'The entry so angry they had to publish it twice' and now you've gone and corrected it. RATS!
I agree there is a certain apparent irony in the Pope's remarks but I think he was referring to the dialogue to make a more interesting point about the role and effect of Reason in Christianity and Islam.
His point seems to be that in Christianity unReasonable actions can never be pleasing to God because Reason is what God is. You know, all that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God..." or however it exactly goes. In Islam God is so absolutly transcendent that should he will it, unReasonable acts can be worthy, and this was the point being made by the Islamic scholar in the original dialogue.
Abstruse or what; but the practical effect as I see it is that in Christianity there is an inbuilt mechanism allowing for criticism, dissent and reform because Reason lives right at the heart of the faith. So it is that JPII can apologise for the Crusades - Reason has come to show us that the Crusades were unreasonable and so unpleasing to God and so, wrong.
In Islam there would seem to be no such corrective. No inbuilt critical mechanism, no objective/subjective standard of rationality against which to judge actions; only what is written.
Believing Christians can criticse the Crusades and do. They were bloody, violent, unReasonable so not Godly. On what grounds could a Muslim criticise the great jihad that took Islam from Mecca to Toledo and beyond? In Islamic terms whatever else they were they were undoubtedly Godly. And that has to be wrong no matter who is pointing it out. Doesn't it?
posted by: campbell on 09.15.2006 at 11:31 AM
Will the Chupacabra be back next week? ;)
Campbell: Ah, thoughtfulness. :) The New York Times, of course, did not provide the entire context of the pope's words, and again, I don't necessarily disagree with them, but I think that this could have been an occasion of reflection on the blood that all religions have on their hands to this day, and perhaps a path that sincere religious people can take to thwart the agenda of religious hysterics. For most of the Catholic church's history, and even today to a large degree, Reason did not and does not prevail. It's nice that the mechanism is supposedly there, but the irony of the pope calling the imam black is what spurred my ranting.
Hanuman: Look for a Very Special Chupacabra coming soon!
posted by:
David on 09.15.2006 at 12:49 PM
I think you may be expecting too much from a Pope that was in the Hitler Youth...
posted by:
jwer on 09.15.2006 at 3:43 PM
While I appreciate the rationalization that Campbell has thoughtfully tried to apply in this situation, I have to agree with David. The fact that the POPE said this, is beyond the pale of hypocrisy. Dear Pot - meet Kettle. You know?
jwer: Sorry tiger, I am no friend to Benedict ahtahll but as the son of a father who resigned his government post (he was a policeman I think) because he detested the Nazis and as a boy living when membership of the Nazi Youth was compulsory (if you didn't join your parents were punished) I don't think he has anything to apologise for on that score at least.
David and Linda: Point taken, but how is anything ever going to get said if every remark has to be prefaced by an apology about how unworthy the speaker is?
It cannot be denied that very many of the things the Catholic Church has got up to over the last 2000 years have been laughable at best,Galileo anyone?, or downright repugnant, how about 'the best 'cure' for AIDS is abstinence'. At the same time a lot of vileness has been abandoned, a lot of reform has gone on, minds in the Vatican have been changed. And all because, as Benedict pointed out, for Christians, Reason is not just a Greek notion but something that is intrisically true.
What he doubts is that the same is true for Islam. The Bible is the the revealed Word of God, the Christians say, but a person who acts contrary to Reason is doing an ungodly thing EVEN IF they can cite the unadorned letter of the Law. The believer is required to think about what they do, they have been gifted with mind for that very purpose and cannot abrogate their responsibilities in that regard. Is the same true in Islam? With its stress on the literal truth of the Koran, its attitude that Reason is only contigently true, i.e. God can set it aside if He should so choose, and the importance it places on correct practice rather than correct thinking; I am saying not. And I VERY MUCH would like someone to correct that impression
Yes, the world is full of pots jeering at kettles but that does not mean that the pot may not have something to say.
posted by: campbell on 09.16.2006 at 6:55 AM
Sadly, we can argue the merits of the speaker all we want, but the sad fact is that the reaction to his remarks is proving his point.
Campbell: I think all organized religious are ridiculous, so I don't want to get into the minutae of why one is ultimately better than the other. As I initially said, I don't disagree with the pope's premise, and I think your further description is just jim-dandy. But to put it in a political context, rather than a theological one, we have a head of a religion that took literally a thousand years to acknowledge some wrongdoing in the crusades lecturing about the unReasonability of Islam at the same time he is taking steps to dismantle the church's outreach to other religions, at the same time Muslims the world over have just demonstrated their tetchiness when it comes to infidels' portrayal of their religion (the Cartoons, anyone?), at the same time that GWB is essentially threatening holy war. The pope has to know that his words are going to be endlessly parsed, no matter what they are, and if he's going to essentially argue that his religion is better than Islam for the reasons you state, a bit of humility would be nice. With infallibility comes responsibility, as Spiderman always says. Because this just comes off like Dubya saying that he wants bipartisanship while simultaneously calling the opposing party traitors: that is, being essentially unReasonable himself, Benedict does not appear to have any credibility on the issue he is speaking of.
posted by:
David on 09.16.2006 at 9:17 AM
Campbell: I know, I was just being glib (and also lazy). However, my problem with what you're saying is not that you're wrong, but that I have never heard the Pope say anything like:
"A person who acts contrary to Reason is doing an ungodly thing EVEN IF they can cite the unadorned letter of the Law."
And by "like" I mean, in such a way that people who listen carefully to the Pope would actually value making choices based on reason. Part of the problem is that American Protestants obviously don't listen to the Pope, and they are the ones who are the worst offenders as far as reasonable action goes, citing gospel all the way.
So yeah, I agree with David.
posted by:
jwer on 09.17.2006 at 9:22 AM
<-- Back to Main Page
