Poor picked-upon Pope

Mr. Ratzingers' comment was absolutely correct and accurate.

Mr. Ratzingers' comment was absolutely correct and accurate.

Which comment? "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul?" Are we talking about the same God here? I'm talking about Mister "dash little children against the stone," "put to death your rebelious child," "OK, I'm going to wipe out two towns for having the wrong kind of sex," "if thine eye offends thee, pluck it out," "there's no figs on this fig tree even though it isn't fig season, so let's KILL it," "toe the line or be tormented for eternity in Hell" God here. How is that NOT violent?

And as far as violence being incompatible with the human soul, simply pick up a newspaper or look around you, unless you have your head so far up your digestive system that all you can see is your own excrement.

Angry? Who, ME? sighh.....

I've already done my fair share of pope-bashing, so I won't kick him any more over this latest episode. Instead, I'll just tell everyone to go read my homies in the science community, Revere and Sean

Right. But they are bashing Joe Ratzi for the stupid things he *did* say rather than random stupid things merely attributed to him. Bashing is ever so more effective that way.

So, the ex-Nazi leader of a religious death cult made rude remarks about a drk ages religion that openly advocates the subjugation of women, and the spreading of war to promote itself.......

Yes, islam is a violent and horrible creed.
Christianity .... erm, err .....

Actually they're (that is, the Muslim protesters) bashing him for things someone else said, that he quoted, and that he has now said do not represent his own opinion. He used these quotes to open up a discussion of the relationship between faith and reason. The media coverage which insists on calling his talk "the Pope's Islam speech," and offered headlines like "Pope slams Islam," though in fact it was more of a critique of modern secular rationality, hasn't helped things.

Poor little Pope, so misunderstood.

I think we all just have to face the facts: the pope never says anything. Those "words" are just empty noises, conveying no meaning, so any criticism of God's earthly representative is always baseless.

Mr. Ratzingers' comment was absolutely correct and accurate.

Assuming that you're talking about his comments toward Muslims, I have to say I disagree. I would say that he is only partially correct and accurate, in that he is right about the violent and martyrdom-legitimizing nature of the religion. The problem is his exoneratory nonsense in trying to say that the Christian religion has spread only through voluntary persuasion, instead of having a similarly sordid past of violence to Islam now.

I think we all just have to face the facts: the pope never says anything. Those "words" are just empty noises, conveying no meaning, so any criticism of God's earthly representative is always baseless.

Who is this addressed to? No-one has said anything to merit that response.

Groundhog - there's no such thing as holy - that term's just religious nonsense that has no meaning in the world according to rational interpretation.

As for Submission (aka Islam), it is manifest in many forms. Unfortunately, the more extreme Submissionists use violence to spread their barbaric superstition so that fear permeates much of Submissionist society. Even we in the West are afraid of offending very violent people who pretend outrage when their prophet Muhammad is described as the psychotic that he evidently was.

Submissionists want us in the West to submit to their system of misogynistic social control. Finally, we are catching on to the danger that this particularly vile religion poses for the world and our Enlightenment values

If you read the text of Pope Ratz's speech, he quotes one line, but paraphrases the rest of the argument heavily over a couple of lengthy paragraphs.

I would argue that the structure of the paraphrasing suggests that in fact the Pope was adopting the argument. (Regardless of what apologies/retractions come out later)

(and certainly, could easily be read that way, especially when you factor in the effect of crossing linguistic and cultural boundaries)

And the yahoo-nature deep within us all leads to another round of deaf-ication fighting.
What dumb comments!

Tebbit, that's Jonathan Badger's argument, just clarified.

Re Tingey

Your accusation that Mr. Ratzinger is an ex-Nazi has no foundation whatever. There is no evidence that he, or any member of his family ever belonged to the Nazi party. He was drafted into the German army at age 16 (as was everybody else) in the last year of the war. It is my understanding that he and his brother both deserted shortly before the war ended.

Re Speedwell

There is no question that the Christian Church (and its' Hebrew antecedents) had a very bloody history. However, the Christian Churches have progressed since the 17th century, while Islam has regressed into backwardness and violence. For instance, where are the Christian (or Jewish) homicide bombers?

Ratzy vs Osama mano a mano! Let's settle the Clash of Civilizations the good 'ol boy way. But give Osama the slingshot.

where are the Christian (or Jewish) homicide bombers?

Oklahoma City. Various abortion clinics; the Atlanta Olympics. And there have been several caught in the last couple years in the States (Texas, Florida) -- none of who were caught because of astute police work, just accidentally -- with massive amounts of explosives and arms.

Islam was not his target. WE were his target. He aimed for us, missed and hit Islam, and his foot.

I sure wish we'd see stories about Atheists taking offense. Islam was an accident. He attacked US on purpose. He should expect a scathing rebuttal every time he does that. Maybe it is happening, but it sure doesn't get any press.

You know, when I use a quote in a talk, it's because I think either (a) people will more easily or readily accept my point from someone 'higher' up in authority than I, or (b) someone else said it better - more eloquently or more concisely or more memorably - than I could.

So, sorry, I'm not buying it when the Pope says he "had absolutely no intention" of presenting Manuel II Palaeologus's words as reflecting his own ideas. If he hadn't, he wouldn't have used them in the first place.

Tebbit, that's Jonathan Badger's argument, just clarified.

No, it isn't. I'm not saying it is baseless to attack the pope. Joe's a vile little man who deserves the condemnation he's getting for his hypocritical attacks on Islam (and arguing that he was merely quoting someone doesn't cut it; presumably he agreed with the quote or he wouldn't have used it). That doesn't change the fact that there is nothing in that speech (or any other speech) which suggests that he's a creationist (as PZ suggested in an earlier posting) unless you want to weaken the meaning of "creationist" to mean simply "belief in a creator deity". Misrepresentation of a religious leader by one of us is every bit as dishonest as misreprentation of us by them. Worse, actually, because you'd think we wouldn't need to resort to such tricks.

Razib has some interesting and wide-ranging comments over on Gene Expression

Creationism:

-noun
1.the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2.(sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3.the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

I thought you were great in Gladiator but you are full of **** when it comes to religion and rationality. Perhaps the miasma that attends Pharyngula has gotten to you.

What exactly did you disagree with in Harris's post? Explaining that might be more constructive than a little drive-by telling him he's full of asterisk-asterisk-asterisk-asterisk.

Creationism:
-noun
1. the doctrine that matter and all things were created, substantially as they now exist, by an omnipotent Creator, and not gradually evolved or developed.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the doctrine that the true story of the creation of the universe is as it is recounted in the Bible, esp. in the first chapter of Genesis.
3. the doctrine that God immediately creates out of nothing a new human soul for each individual born.

Well, definition 3) is pretty obscure -- but if that's all that PZ meant then I'd agree that pope Joe (and theists in general) probably believes that. But I rather suspect PZ was referring to 1) and 2).

The Ridger:

That is an absolutely fascinating argument.

I notice that PZ Myers has been quoting the Pope on this blog quite a bit lately. May I infer that PZ means to assert his agreement with the Pope?

Seriously, just because those are the only reasons you might use a quote, does it follow that those are the only reasons the Pope might use a quote?

where are the Christian (or Jewish) homicide bombers?

In very recent history:

The Provisional Irish Republican Army
The Real Irish Republican Army
The Continuity Irish Republican Army
The Irish National Liberation Army
The Loyalist Volunteer Force
The Ulster Freedom Fighters
The Ulster Volunteer Force

there's probably a few others in that particular cesspool that I missed. Suffice to say that pretty much every one of my immediate family and close friends has had an uncomfortably close encounter with the handiwork of one of these groups (specifically the ones near the top of the list) sometime in the last 10 or 15 years.

where are the Christian (or Jewish) homicide bombers?

Setting aside the wingnut catchphrase 'homicide bomber', if you don't insist upon bombers per se, here's another example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Also check out what Yugoslavia was going through through most of the 1990's.

So no, Christians have not all been sweetness and light the last 100 years. Duh.

Ratzo Ratzinger:

"We are not building Christianity out of our own ideas. The Church is given out of the will of God, and the will of God is in turn a gift to the Church and it determines our will."

How convenient! The Pope and his cardinals are just passive receptacles for God's nasty ideas about women, gays, young boys, nonbelievers, and everything Islamic.

Spong rocks. Thanks for posting that, PZ.

I'm sorry, but for the Pope to quote a Byzantine source is just stupid. So, that raises the point, is the Pope stupid or Byzantine?

I'd say both and when it comes right down to it who gives a Rat's Ass what the Pope says anyway?

I swear, one group of loud-mouthed, superstitious chuckledheads gets all a-twitter over what the leader of another bunch of loud-mouthed, superstitious chuckleheads said, and the rest of us are supposed to drop what we're doing and pretend it means something. And as someone above pointed out, most of the pope's main criticism was against us evil, vile and totally disgusting non-believers. Guy thinks I deserve to be tortured for eternity because I think different than he does. Nuts to that guy.

Man. I watched Deep Blue tonight, and it just boggles my mind that with all the natural wonder in the world, all the amazing stuff about our little blue orb yet to be discovered, and we're still, still wetting ourselves because some dingbat that's the beneficiary of one of the world's greatest PR campaign gets his britches in a twist. What foolishness.

Pope Ratzi is VERY cagey about when he joined the Hilerjugend....

I was NOT referring to his drafting into the armed services, from whihc, in wartime Nazi Germany, there was no living escape - which is why I refuse to criticise Gunther Grass, because he was drafted, also.

Generally speaking, xtianity has moved on since the religious wars of the 17th Century, though, as others have pointed out, there are still quite a few xtian murderers out there, especially in Ireland and the USA.

Islam is, however worse - it actually sanctions the killing of unbeleivers and apostates, and since the Kpran is supposed to be the dictated word of "god", there is no way out of it.

As a secularist I get worried when I see different religious groups becoming pally with each other. Therefore I'm rather pleased to see the muslims and catholics at each other's throats this week, at least so long as nobody gets hurt.

Anyone who thinks Islam is worse than Christianity has not bothered to read much history. The only difference today is that Christians have lost much of their political power, and so are not able to put people to the sword and torture them if they refuse to believe. Islamists still have enough political power to at least be able to do this in some legal codes, though usually when they threaten to put someone to death because they converted to Christianity, it causes so much uproar that it does not get done.
So the pope says aspects of Islam are evil and inhumane, so what do the Muslims do? Burn a few churches and go into a mass outrage that just exactly proves his point, as if they had not done it already with 9/11 and beheadings.
What a lot of to do about whose imaginary friend is holier!

There is no question that the Christian Church (and its' Hebrew antecedents) had a very bloody history. However, the Christian Churches have progressed since the 17th century, while Islam has regressed into backwardness and violence.

Well, terrific. Then they'd better get busy updating their Bible to reflect their new definition of God as being antithetical to violence, hadn't they?

Anyone got a link for the full text of Ratzinger's speech? It would be quite nice to see the offending sections in their full context.

I second my appreciation for the Spong-props. I'm a Spong Episcopalian (he uses the phrase "believer in exile"), so some in my own denomination would cheerfully throw me under a bus for my non-magical Christian beliefs.

I like checking in here at Pharyngula to get my Daily Science, and I take no offense from the "all Christians are superstitious hillbilly twits" rhetoric, since I like to believe that those words don't necessarily apply to me. It's nice to get some support for this happy assumption.

coracle:

The official vatican version of the Pope's address:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/…

And the vatican statement issues Saturday, for good measure:

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94991

Nice one, thanks Michael.

Having read the text now, it does seem hard to understand JR's intended opinion wrt Islam. The lack of comment on his quote makes things very ambiguous.

I think we all just have to face the facts: the pope never says anything. Those "words" are just empty noises, conveying no meaning, so any criticism of God's earthly representative is always baseless.

It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury;
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, act 5, scene 5.

ndbtdly, ll ths cn b blmd n th Jws, s sl.

ftr ll, thy wrt th ld Tstmnt.

nd th Nw, fr tht mttr.

Qt mn t ll y wnt nd prv ts mssv Jwsh cnprcy!!!

Th nt-smtsm s rmpnt hr!

That's a new one. If you ridicule the Pope you're an anti-semite.

So if I ridicule the bible does that make me a muslim too?

Np. t jst mks y nthr bgt.

Fd th ht, mn!

Fd th ht! Thts wht thsm s ll bt!

I love you man. You make me smile. You complete me.

Feed the hate! Thats what atheism is all about!

Was that good for you, 'Emanual'?

(Is it not possible to block this jerkoff's ISP number?)

Nah. Disemvoweling is enough. He's amusing.

Y knw y gt ndr thr skn whn thy rtnzs nd cll y msng, lk fr yr SP nmbr (g hd, ht ths plc nywy, bt t lst gt t s th cmptrs)nd dsmvwl y.

Hy, f Mslms s th ld Tstmnt, nd JWS wrt th ld tstmnt...thn,...

C'mon man. Let's hug it out. Jesus would want that. As would Allah.

If we're what 'atheism is all about', is Goldsteinian what religion is all about?

I like the disemvowelling of Legion. It makes him sound saner than he actually is.

where are the Christian (or Jewish) homicide bombers?

Getting their brains washed at Jesus Camp.

"I want to see them as radically laying down their lives for the gospel as they are in Palestine, Pakistan and all those different places," Fisher said. "Because, excuse me, we have the truth."

http://www.rawstory.com/showoutarticle.php?src=http%3A%2F%2Fabcnews.go…

PZ is right, the Pope said nothing, as he always does. But the immediate, vicious, worldwide reaction to his almost imperceptible quotation in an academic environment, requires consideration. First Rushdie was condemned to death because a small book, then the Danish had to beg pardon for a caricature, and now the Pope is being attacked for a scholarly comment. In my opinion Rushdie as writer is worthless, the caricature is ugly and the Pope's quotation, meaningless. But this is terrorism, a violent minority is imposing its fear on us. Hope we are not getting used to this servitude.

Pope Benedict XVI's Orwellian Address has provoked, amongst other things, a storm of gullibility.

In an address purporting to invite dialogue between cultures is embedded a cynical guarantee that there will be no dialogue.

In an address purporting to be about the evils of 'religious violence' is embedded a pricking goad towards more 'religious violence'.

In an address purporting to promote harmony between faith and reason are embedded words specifically intended to incite faith without reason.

It is naive as to believe that the Pope, as beneficiary of the millenial experience of the finest statesmen and strategists the earth will ever see, did not know exactly what he was doing.

Every word is meticulously weighed and measured for short and long-term efficacy before issuing from the mouth of the 'Vicar of Christ' on earth.

In the full knowledge of the Vatican's own long and less-than-salubrious history, the Pope guilelessly draws attention to Islamic religious violence and pretends not to have realised that this self-righteous arrogance and hypocrisy would cause Muslim outrage.

Of course, one can always 'apologise' later, knowing full well that nothing can erase a single word from the minds of those to whom it was directed.

What is the strategy being employed here - the endgame?

Just as JPII was appointed to defeat Communism, are we about to find out just why Cardinal Ratzinger was chosen?

We shall see...

I agree with vynette. After reading the speech closely, I think the reference to Islamic religious violence was calculated. I think this because the reference was gratuitous--it didn't fit the immediate theme very well.

The talk was about the relative importance of faith and reason. The thesis was that "not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature." The pope brought up the 14th Century dialoge ostensibly to show that an early Christian emporer agreed that faith must be reasonable. The emporer made this observation in the context of disputing Islamic theology, which posits a god so exalted that he is not bound even by the rules of reason, truth, consistency or goodness.

The connection between irrationality and violence and faith was this: The goal of violence is to compel something against reason. Therefore, violence is irrational. The Islamic religion thinks violence can be worshipful. However, a 1312 emporer disagrees, positing that because faith must be rational, it is incompatible with violence.

The pope thinks we should go with reason.

But his point could have been made entirely without reference to violence. Of all the theologians and philosophers who have discussed the issue, we need a 1312 emporer's condemnation of Islmic violence to make the point that faith should be reasonable? No.

Whether there are clinics where it is possible to receive free-of-charge health services, whether there are programs on transplantation of bodies for poor? WBR LeoP