DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 19, 2006, 12:36:34 AM
-
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474
I have been talking about it for two days , and only now I read it?
I hang my head .
Now that I have read it I understand that it is not a criticism of Islam , it is an examination of Rationality , Religion , revilation and Logos. The Pope Quotes a Bysintene Emporer who was being questioned by a Muslim , but he also quotes Socraties .
There is no political use in actually understanding what te Pope was saying so I expect the debates and the riots will continue to be about selected quotes in isolation from the theme of the speech.
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060918/lester.jpg)
-
The speech was not bad in and of itself. The Pope is a scholar and made a scholarly speech, but he made the mistake of looking at it as somehow separated from the political sphere, which is interesting as Ratzinger was a Bishop who rarely missed the politics of a given situation.
Why shouldn't he have used those quotes?
Simple. Because lives hang in the balance. It is the same reason President Bush should never have said "bring them on."
In Britain, during the Troubles and for years afterwards the cabinet officials had to be very mindful of what they said regarding Northern Ireland. It wasn't a lack of courage or ignoring the issue, it was simple common sense. You don't stand next to an open drum of gasoline and smoke a cigarette or play with your lighter.
In this case Pope Benedict did just that. Words can be deadly and a sister has already been killed. Sometimes silence kills, sometimes choosing your words poorly or without thinking can lead to killing.
-
Words can be deadly and a sister has already been killed. Sometimes silence kills, sometimes choosing your words poorly or without thinking can lead to killing.
And in this case, radical Islamists killed her. Not the Pope. Ironically the 14th century Byzantine, that the Pope was quoting, was apparently quite prophetic
-
Yet, she would still be alive if it were not for the Pope's words. World figures must be wise enough to understand that their words can ignite a tinderbox if they aren't careful.
If you're the Prime Minister of Britain you don't go to Falls Road and give a speech on what a great man and hero to the United Kingdom Ian Paisley has been. You don't tell them that Bobby Sands was an evil traitor hell bent on destroying the peaceful lives of the good Protestants in Shankill. Even if you believe that is true or you are using it as a quote to make another point, it is simply something you do not do.
Why? Because the blood that follows is on your hands.
-
Yet, she would still be alive if it were not for the Pope's words.
And you know this how? Point being, words or no words, the pope didn't tell anyone to go murder a nun. Islamic radicals, representing the supposed "religion of Peace', put 2 bullets to the back of her head
-
No, but he might as well have. It is an inflamed situation involving militants, just as Northern Ireland was (and could be again). His words lit the tinderbox.
Does that take responsibility away from those who pulled the trigger? No. But it doesn't negate the responsibility of a world leader to be mindful of his words.
I go back to my Falls Road example. If you ignite the violence in an area known for violent outbursts, then the blood that follows is on your hands.
-
His words (or more accurately, the Byzantine's quote) were ironically prophetic
-
Not really. They were a foreseen outcome by agitating an already violent subset of Islam.
Manuel II Palaiologos, the quoted Byzantine Emperor was basically holding on to the scraps of the Byzantine Empire for which the Ottoman Turks would eventually conquer. He barely had any land remaining in Asia Minor and would leave his son with an even less than tenable position to fight the Turks.
The debate itself (which was an imaginary one) is whether or not one can spread faith by the sword and violence more readily than by reason and speech.
The only irony here is that the same debate applies to all ideas. Can one win a "war" on ideas through massive violence and warfare, or through reason and speech? Right now the radical Islamists and the United States seem to opt for the former.
-
Yea, really. as they expressed the potential violence within a particular religion, now manifesting for all to see, acute violence in response to anything that dares criticize the "religion of peace" as anything but
-
Yet, that was not the point of Manuel II Palaiologos' fictional debate with a Persian prince, from which Benedict XVI was quoting.
There's no irony in the outcome as it was foreseeable given the ill-chosen words of the Holy Father.
Basically you are suggesting there is irony in an explosion when you light the fuse on a stick of dynamite. I'd call it an anticipated reaction.
-
Actually, that was pretty much the jist of the point. I realize it was a staggering quote, analogus to claiming Jesus was the root of all evil, but you don't see hordes of Christians going around violently protesting everytime Christ is demeaned, demagogued, or portrayed in such a way as applying cow dung on the Virgin Mary, or placing a cross in a vat of urine, calling it "art", and U.S. tax payers actually paying for its presentation. No, the jist if the point being made was that Islam could be considered a violent religion, with that point now being validated on a daily basis, by so many followers of the Religion of Peace
-
I heard Zbignew Brezhenski (sp) say that if we had spoken about Ireland as "the Catholic terrorists" and "the Papists" it would have just made things worse. Same with always mentioning Islam.
That is, if we are trying to help and not just ignite.
-
Benedict XVI, on this account, has proven himself singularly inept. His admirable goal apparently was to provoke a dialogue among vying religions and especially with Muslims. he effect his words had was just the opposite. A retrenching resentment has banished all hope of dialogue for as long as the current "crisis" persists. This is a screw-up. We should take no solace (we Westerners) that the popular Muslim reaction to the Pope's speech provides ironic proof of the merit of its superficial interpretation. Indeed, by drawing the line at Islam's putative violent nature, we actually cede the debate that rages within Islam to the radicals. That's not a good strategy; in fact it's stupid and counter-productive. Apparently this pope's long experience as "talking tough" to Catholics in his former position of "enforcer of the faith" is a singularly inadequate training to be a world-political figure and an effective shepherd of hearts and souls. Let me repeat: he has performed in a scandalously inept manner.
-
The issue, as I see it, is that you should be able to live your life, public leader or not, without having to always be concerned about being politically correct. At this rate ,we will soon be like most of Europe, a bunch of emasculated leaders. If I were to say that your mother is a lesbian, oops, that is now "acceptalbe", isn't it? "Alternative lifestyle" and all that perversity. Hmm, let's say that I said your mother is a slut. If you then go out and kill me or just out of a 20-story building, the blame is NOT on me. It is upon YOU and the decisoons you make. Does no one accept personal responsibility for their actions anymore?
-
The Pope did not direct his speech twards Muslims nor was he in a forum where many Muslims could be expected to be listening, the theme of his speech was not Islam or thge violence of Islam .
But someone translated the most choice snippet of the speech into Arabic , someone who saw a use for the contraversy , perhaps someone who was peruseing everything that the Pope has ever said looking for something usefull in riot generation.
Remember the Danish Cartoons? They were not sent to Egypt or Packistan untill they were months old and were spotted by someone who thought that they should be sent .
I don't think that the Pope was out of line or was picking a fight , he seemed to be discussing the nature of his religion frankly with Doctors and students of religion, the blame for rthe violence might ought to rest on the guys that want it.
Is it really a reasonable alternative for us to remain totally PC in all speech eschewing all offence on all occasions ?
Even when it is the truth that is objectionable?
I bet that If I wanted to prove anyone was anti semitic or anti Islamic I could find some quote that I could carve out of its context and present in part to make the "proof" all I would need was someone who spoke a lot and plenty of time to parce his speeches.
-
This is not about being politically correct. That has nothing to do with it.
This is about personal responsibility Professor, and Pope Benedict XVI needs to realize that he has a responsibility to discourage violence and promote peace. This is the same man who opposed the Iraq War and questioned the justifiability of all modern warfare. I know this is not the outcome he wanted, but that responsibility lies with him. As I said earlier, it doesn't mean that the individuals who fired the shots are no longer culpable - they most certainly are. Yet, that does not mean that the Pope is free of his own responsibility.
You all want to make this about causing offense or being PC. It isn't. This is about igniting the tinderbox. You aren't an "emasculated" leader because you don't travel to Belfast and threaten the RIRA. That makes you an intelligent leader.
I agree with Domer that your celebration of violence as irony (which it is not) only lends more credence to the radical side of Islam. Moreover, the argument celebrates violence and death of individuals as a means to an end.
-
Damning "political correctness" is the last refuge, apparently, of libertarian-leaning scoundrels. The issue is not anyone's right to do as he feels, an irresponsible quest, but everyone's right to do what needs to be done. This latter concept ("what needs to be done") is a composite of personal drives and surrounding social and political context that forms those drives. The great poet said, "No man is an island." He was right. All social and political norms and mores, the very stuff of our human intercourse, would be ruined by a free-for-all of offensive verbiage tethered to nothing but anj individual's whims. Social cohesion and order, the fundamentals of civilization, require more. If it is beyond you to approach your public comments as a person-to-person conversation with a host of discrete individuals, where insult and injury would matter according to conventional norms, then view it as a political exercise: a communication with a purpose. That concerns not only the freedom to think and speak, but also th responsibility to effectuate your purpose, and defend that purpose. That's free speech unfettered by small-minded backwaters like the idea of political correctness presented as impulse run rampant.
-
Should President Bush ever be criticised ?
His followers are nuts you know.
If you can criticise President Bush in harsh tones with confidence that the result will not be riots and killing then you are by inference giveing the people who support president Bush credit for some couth.
If you cannot give some such credit to some other such group are you by implying something negative about the civility of that Group?
Do you remember the "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" of France and the renameing of French fries ? As I recall the French laughed it off and returned the verbage with tipical Gaullic brio.
I think that there are some Muslims who are mature and calm , how many are childish in your estimation?
-
(http://cagle.msnbc.com/working/060919/lester.jpg)
-
Plane,
It is a violent situation and you know it. The Holy Father knew it as well.
Should he make a speech in Belfast condemning Protestantism or quoting a centuries old Catholic ruler who did? By your logic, there is no reason why he should not.
I wonder what prevents him from doing so? If he apologized after making such a speech, would you, Sirs, or the Professor question his character?
-
The Pope has a RIGHT to say anything.
But because he is the Pope, he should take into account that what he says could result in riots, murders and other unseemly consequences.
-
The Pope said something to a group of Catholic educators.
No one is claiming that he was addressing the Muslim world.
The Pope used a quote he thought apt to his theme , no one is claiming that the Pope composed the offensive remark himself , but why is the theme of his speech inconsequential in comparison to the quote?
I beleive that it is within the responsibility of the Popes job to speak his thoughts to other Catholics and to speak as he thinks true .
Who dug this obscure speech out of the ocean of speeches being spoiken in the world , who excised the quote and empasised it above the theme of the speech?
It is someones job to stir up discord , whoever this is , he seems very competant.