This was not a crude anti-Islamic polemic; nor was it so at the end of the 14th century. It was a quest for peace and amity, then as now.By turning the story back-to-front, so that what’s promised in the lead -- a crude attack on Islam -- is quietly withdrawn much later in the text, the BBC journalists were having a little mischief. The kind of mischief that is likely to end with Catholic priests and faithful butchered around the Muslim world. Either the writers were so jaw-droppingly ignorant, they did not realize this is what they were abetting (always a possibility with the postmodern journalist), or the malice was intended. There is no third possibility.
From the start, the BBC’s reports said the Pope would “face criticism from Muslim leaders” -- in the present tense. This is a form of dishonesty that has become common in journalism today. The flagrantly biased reporter, feigning objectivity, spices his story by just guessing what a man’s enemies will say, even before they have spoken.
[...]
From now on, the reporting will be about the Muslim rage, and whether the Vatican has apologized yet. That is the “drama” the media will seek to capture -- the drama of the cockfight -- because they know no better kind. That the Pope said nothing intrinsically objectionable will be overlooked, in deference to the Muslim rage, just as the media hid the Danish cartoons from their viewers -- preventing them from discovering how mild they were.
Looks like the project was a success. Though I doubt this will make it to the front pages of the New York Times.
The script in red calls for his beheading.
The artwork obviously from one who has carefully read the text of the speech.
Now, if the Islamic world can rise in rage and murder because of political cartoons critiquing the Islamic religion, then how can they justify this same attack on the Christian Pope?
The pope should not apologize; what he was saying is, how can a religion, which is based on the concept of god, which in the Christian mind is an aspect of reason - how can a religion justify violence and irrational acts?
Benedict is assuming that the god of Islam and the god of Christians is the same god; I don't think he's into a polytheistic world. Therefore, he is asking why they are interpreting god, the essence of the capacity for Mind or Reason, as violence?
This question has to be asked, because Islamic fascism is rooted in a religious, ie, faith-driven base of violence against any and all who do not submit to their social and political rule.
Hiding a social and political infrastructure behind the 'no-go zone' of religion is a basic tactic of the Islamic fascists; it is being used to prevent debate and dissent - and enabling Islamic fascism to conquer reason, civilization and the West.
Nicely put ET. Now, can you translate that into Toronto-ese? You know, so the latte crowd can understand it?
This just makes me shake my head.
Islam: a religion of "fire and blood", aka Death.
There is neither questioning nor answering in Islam. That was ended around 740 AD.
There is only submission to Islam or death by Islam.
There can be only one response to Islam; Islam understands only one fact: Force, overwhelming force. ...-
ARAB LEADER: MUSLIMS WILL RULE JERUSALEM
Salah "With fire and blood we shall liberate al-Aqsa." Arab Islamic leader Sheikh Raed Salah told a rally in Jerusalem the "Israeli occupation" of the city will soon vanish...
national newswatch
Thanks, Shaken, but the latte-crowd won't understand it. They view religion as a cultural construct. I'm an atheist; I don't believe in 'god' but I do believe in a universal Mind or Reason, which could be a synonym for god. I won't go into the analysis of Mind, other than to say that its acts of reason underpin the organized evolution of the universe - (and this is not a pre-determined evolution).
But the latte crowd defines beliefs and behaviour as only cultural. That means that the beliefs and behaviour are constructed by a specific group; they are 'intellectually and morally owned' by the group. As private property, no-one outside the group may comment, critique, question these constructs, either in their intellectual validity or their morality. That's the 'modus operandus' of multiculturalism.
The pope is rejecting this; he is rejecting multiculturalism which is why the BBC and Europe and NYT, all the latte crowd, are against him.
He is saying that we are all members of one species, we are all human beings. The Greek definition of man was his capacity for reason. The Christian definition of God is as 'the font of reason'.
Benedict asks - whether "acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true"? (From Benedict's speech). He considers that reason, and acting reasonably, is 'intrinsically true' and is universal, and his concern is when some ideologies reject reason as a guide within their religious and ethical practices.
To use reason only in a mechanical way (eg arithmetic) and not also use it as a guide to behaviour to other peoples and a guide to 'the good society' - is wrong.
That's what his speech is about, and he should NOT apologize. He wasn't insulting Islam; he was questioning Islamic fascism with its open rejection of reason, and questioning multiculturalism, with their relegation of reason "into the realm of subcultures' rather than a universal property.
Have I muddied things further?
RACISM. What really causes Racism ?? Race or Culture ??
B hoax- I think you'll have to clarify your question further; you haven't defined your two 'causal terms' of 'race' and 'culture'.
Muslims prove once again that they really are a bunch of savages.
Muslims prove once again that they really are a bunch of savages.
Muslims can't be all dumb though - they totally agree that Western culture is superior to theirs because if any of them have the chance to move away from their backward countries and live in the West they'll take it.
One minute Muslims tell us that they revere Jesus, but according to Malkin's source, that "cartoon" includes the words "He worships a monkey on a cross". Meaning Jesus, so...?
What's up with Muslim/vampire obsession? Is this a new thing?
The muslims are going too far now, they are forever protesting. They don't respect other religions which are for peace.DEFINITELY THE POPE SHOULD NOT APOLOGIZE TO THEM, NOR OTHER PEACE LOVING PEOPLE.
The muslims are going too far now, they are forever protesting. They don't respect other religions which are for peace.DEFINITELY THE POPE SHOULD NOT APOLOGIZE TO THEM, NOR OTHER PEACE LOVING PEOPLE.
Race or Culture, which causes the antagonism, the so called "racism" ??
One could sit in the bar all day with people of vastly different races. All just chatting, having a drink, ect.
Along comes a person of ANY race and conducts themself in such a way as to cause conflict. Boisterious or religious preacher or male dominance or economic dominance or stabs you and says his god made him do it or trying to settle centuries old wars in an innocent country or anything that causes hard feelimgs. Tolerant, yes, but there is a limit.
ET asks "Now, if the Islamic world can rise in rage and murder because of political cartoons critiquing the Islamic religion, then how can they justify this same attack on the Christian Pope?"
I think it's very simple; the Christian Pope, indeed all of Christianity, is not on a level even approaching equality with Islam. He, and we, are Dhimmi and our faith of no value.
Never mind that no insult was actually offered. Let's not cloud the issue with facts.
God bless B16. I thank God for his faith, his towering intellect, his integrity, and his humility. And I pray for his safety.
bhoax - it certainly isn't 'race' (I don't believe in race anyway; we are all one species), because to claim 'race' as causal implies a genetic causality. They have yet to find the gene that makes X hate Y.
Culture - that's a different story, for when an individual is raised, steeped, stewed and well-cooked in an ideology, it becomes a habitual mode of thought. What can undermine habitual modes of thought? Reason - the universal capacity of our species to stop the propaganda and ask questions, analyze, compare, think.
The cartoon-burning Muslims rejected reason; they just just a morass of stewed and boiled over drones. The rabid screams of 'we are insulted' by the Pope, are the same. Most of them, I'll bet, never bothered to read his speech. But that's not the point really; it doesn't matter whether you have read it or not. The real issue, I feel, is whether or not you are willing to question your beliefs and have your own beliefs questioned.
Islamism refuses questions, which means, as Benedict queried, it refuses reason. It refuses the very essence of what it means to be human, that capacity for reason, which no other species has. Islamism reduces human beings to animals because it specifically and openly rejects their right to reason.
That's what it's all about. And the dimwit multiculturalists also reject reason (remember our very own His Excellency, John Ralston Saul, the Husband of Her Excellency, our high-spending ex-G-G, ex-CBC leftist...and his book rejecting reason??)..The relativist left reject reason and opt instead for cultural artifacts, 'things' of belief and behaviour, created by a group, and set in stone and sealing wax. These artifacts of belief and behaviour are beyond the bounds of reason, of accountability, of causality, of critique...and reason is reduced to thinking about the mechanical steps of starting a car.
Benedicts speech was very important. Yes, it's going to be rejected. But, it has to be said, and more and more people have to be saying these things. Beliefs and behaviour are subject to evaluation, evaluation by reason.
ET, you are bang-on, AGAIN.
And if people of a so-called "race", consistently cause trouble by their cultural activities, the once-burnt-twice-shy thing comes into play. NO ??
Agree entirely with David Warren - excellent comments on a loopy editorial by the NYT. I wrote a letter to the NYT editors to tell them so.
Father Raymond De Souza also has an excellent column on this in today's National Post.
How does one have a rational conversation with the Muslim world?
"Dishonesty" is certainly an apt word to describe BBC's behaviour in this case, but it doesn't begin to cover the untouchable, almost criminal nature of their behaviour. In effect, the BBC inflamed the populations of Pakistan, Malaysia, Iran and elsewhere by misinforming them -- in their own languages, no less -- about the nature of the Pope's words, and then they idly speculated about the results of such inflammatory actions as their own. All the while, they pretend they're just covering news.
This is happening more and more frequently, this positioning of a reporter's speculations as "news". The Star wrote on Friday that the RCMP are "bracing" (an assertion based on what, exactly?) for "what's expected to be a stinging indictment of its conduct" in the Maher Arar case, and that the Justice's report -- scheduled for release just three days after the story went to print -- "will likely criticize the Mounties." Well, the report will be news; speculations about it aren't.
CBC is also a constant offender. On last Tuesday's National, for example, Peter Mansbridge, introducing the top stories, refered to the deployment of 120 troops from Quebec, and then, getting to the real meat, asked rhetorically "could this deployment have serious political repercussions?" Gee, you mean like constant, prurient mis-coverage, followed by polls?
(BTW the actual report was peppered with such phrases as "the U.S. adminstration" and "the Bush administration"; so-called experts in her story refered to Harper "incessantly following Bush's lead"; one said "the way he speaks, the way he acts", he's George Bush Jr." -- all this in a story about a few Canadian troops going where they're needed to help out their fellow Canadian soldiers.)
The CBC is merely doing their job of campaigning and meddling, wherever possible, with the federal political scene in this country, but in the case of the BBC, their world-wide inflamatory misinformation results in violence and death. This sort of blithe, buck-passing incitement-journalism is not just contemptible but borderline evil. It's a bit like "Rumours are flying that Annie Smith has been putting the hex on her neighbours, causing miscarriages. Could this cause an angry crowd of townspeople to gather outside the Smith home at seven this evening?"
Gee, you're such an expert. Why, it's as if you have a crystal ball...
Islam is the Religion of... Perpetual Outrage.
I wonder who MSM will blame when Iran unleashes a nuclear genie from it's bottle? With certainty the barbed points of their prose will be aimed far away from the violent poison of Islamic extremism and focus yet again on attacking the existence of Israel and American foreign policy.
They'll use chop-logic much like the media sales pitch on how the latest Montreal shooting spree shows that we really need the gun registry and vigorously downplay the importance that the wacked out kid used legally registered weapons.
I can hardly wait to read the Headlies...extra! extra! Bush Doctrine Grows Iranian Mushrooms!
I sent my complaint in to the BBC regarding their shoddy broadcast which is deliberate in it's inflaming the Muslim world. Causing death and chaos by such actions is bordering on criminal.
This is an MSM crisis, pure and simple.
Pat
Meanwhile, in ArafatLand, Muslim Islamist terrorists are doing what they do best:
Killing each other and paging rams. ...-
Tsk, tsk. ...-
Fatah gunmen rampage in Gaza | September 16th, 2006
Fatah gunmen went on a rampage in Gaza City on Saturday, raiding several schools and firing into the air in protest against the assassination of Gen. Jad Tayeh, a senior officer belonging to the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Force.
jacks newswatch
Come on folks. A lot of you are straining your brains cogitating about whether or not this is a racism issue or whatever. Give it up!!
The Good Pope said what he thought. Just like you and I can do in a free society. The Muzzies don't ascribe to a free society so the Pope is a dumb ass and should be beheaded or some such nonesense.
Ignore the protestations of the Muzzie hired gangs of protesters. We have better things to do than listen to a bunch of state-paid purveyors of hate.
The MSM should ignore them, and so should we.
We're just feeding the hate machine by getting all worked up about this.
Hi folks, it's Vitruvius here, pardon the length of this comment. It is on topic. I've been thinking about the developing story of Pope Benedict's lecture for these last 48 hours; here's my take if you're interested.
I think that one of the big historical differences between the biblical and the quranic perspectives is that the former has, initially since the new testament, and certainly since the reformation and the enlightenment, realized that they needed to get out of the business of politics and administration, and be masters of the business of spirituality, else they be trampled by the politics and administration of the state. Render unto Caesar, &c.
It is my understanding that they were able to do this, in part, because the biblical canon did not require that the historic words were the literal words of god, rather, they were the recordings of man, and therefore subject to interpretation. This made it relatively easy for the biblically inclined folks to assimilate the results of Copernicus, Galileo, &c. It has allowed the biblical perspective to be modified, when overruled by reality, because it could accept that reality was unlikely to be wrong, so we humans must have misinterpreted something in the canon. This allowed room for the creation of modern civilization as we know it, and some pretty fine technology along the way.
On the other hand, it is my understanding that the quranic canon does mandate that the historic word is literally the word of god, which means that when reality disagrees, it must be the case that reality is wrong. Moreover, the quranic canon also prescribes on all matters, notably political, administrative, military, and scientific, in addition to those spiritual. Thus, whenever political, administrative, military, or scientific issues are overruled by reality, the quranically inclined folks suffer a cumulative loss to the force of reality, and to the forces of the technology that is enabled when reality is not proscribed.
I mention the above because it provides the context for my opinion that Pope Benedict's lecture was, indeed, brilliant. It is not so long ago that a man with a brain wired like mine would likely have been a monk -- now we are scientists. It is in that sense that I say that I would be delighted to spend a week at a seminary discussing the Pope's lecture with him (as you might imagine, from my words above). I agree with, say, 80% of it. And I think that, say, 10% of it is some pretty serious spinning. Though he'd probably say the same thing about me, and I suspect that he is actually smarter than I am. But, after all, the apostle Thomas, the Doubting Thomas, was not kicked out of the last supper just because he was a skeptic ;-)
Here's an excerpt that, I think, gives the sense of Pope Benedict's lecture:
"This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology, and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.
"We shall return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science” and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter.
"This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.
[...]
"Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought: to philosophy and theology.
[...]
"'Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God', said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university."
[ End Excerpts ]
Which brings me to a closing remark. In the time since the enemies of man have latched on to this story in an attempt to further their mission to destroy civilization (not that same hasn't always been going on), I have read probably a couple dozen articles on the matter, and hundreds of comments at blogs. None of them, without exception, have been as interesting as Pope Benedict's lecture: tinyurl.com/nmnkf
Considering the press's antipathy towards Christianity & Catholics in particular. Its no wonder this spiteful misinformation is being spun in the worst light.
After all truth is a malleable commodity these days, in Journalism.
As for the jihadists, mullahs or others of “The Religion of Peace” who make threats. Its become ludicrous, every time one of these murders opens there mouth. They just confirm our nastiest dreams of their intentions.
I have said for a good while that Religious reporting is completely alien to Journalists. So it becomes impossible for them to take anything ones says creditably or accurately. To them its irrelevant superstition.
They totally eschew any anthological , historical or even personnel experience. So how can they relate to it? As to putting others in danger. Why Religion is silly, so why worry. Some may even rejoice in seeing Christians suffer.
Evil loves company if only to boast to an audience of there foul deeds.
We are fighting two wars after all. Our own elite are asleep or hypnotized by inaction or self delusion. The truth is unbearable to there dogmas of cotton candy utopias. Of supermen & the Will of Man. For if Good & Evil exist than they must act. There is no other option. No middle road.
The daydream is over. It the age to act, not sleep.
Just my opinion.
Thanks, Vitruvius.
Didn't I say that B16 is a man--a holy one at that--to be reckoned with?
It is more than a pity that a person of Pope Benedict's stature is reduced by the MSM and many others, who should know better, to a mere--and blasphemous--caricature, while, in places like Canada, a clown like Jack Layton is exalted.
The Bible has lots of healing antidotes to this kind of travesty. Isn't it too bad that this book, full of wisdom and light for these--and all other--dark times, has been banished to the corner, including the dunce's cap? I try not to let my blood boil.
Kyrie eleison.
Religion deserves religion, whatever the brand.
I hope the Pope is on a path to crucify multiculturalism and its weapon of mass disinformation – political correctness.
It is, indeed, more than a pity, Lookout, that a person of Pope Benedict's stature is reduced by the MSM and many others, who should know better, to a mere caricature. The man was discussing the nature of modern civilization, dressed up in his theological perspective. His take on the nature of modern civilization is, I think, correct, and his discussion of the dehellinization issues are, I think, very interesting.
It is the behaviour of the MSM and the others that you have noted, Lookout, that is, I think, responsible for the decline and fall of civilization alarm calls being raised by the pessimists. Meanwhile the optimists carry on, over hill, over dale. It is, I think, in the latter context that Pope Benedict lectured on the historic traditions of the successes of modern civilization, and the remaining open questions.
The seminal quote is below:
"This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing PATHOLOGIES of RELIGION and REASON which necessarily ERUPT when REASON is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it."
This is how the National Socialists, Stalinist and we might add violent Jihadists depart the ethical plane when REASON is so REDUCED that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it.
This is exactly how the Nazis indoctrinated their followers, by departing reason. Eichmann at his trial used the defence he was "only following orders." The Stalinists were only subjugating opponents of the regime to the all supreme peoples proletariat. While the jidhadist use the obedience to Allah's inferred and explicit commands to wreak violence upon the 'infidel'.
To the Nazis, the Jews were not humans.
To the Stalinists, the individual is disposable to the collective proletariat.
To the 'jihadist of the sword' other lives and concerns are not important.
The common thread as Benedict notes is the reduction of reason so that no question of religion or ethics may arise.
That is the fundamental rub, at what point has an ideology or religion departed natural God given reason where real questions of ethics are systematically subverted or subordinated to the ever present 'greater cause' of that same ideology or religion.
In short, where has the ideology or religion become a corruption of its authentic face?
Benedict has rightly suggested when REASON is so REDUCED that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it.
The English have phrase that describes this type of pathology of reason and religion known as:
Bloodymindedness
Meaning 1: stubbornly obstructive and unwilling to cooperate
Meaning 2: marked by eagerness to resort to violence and bloodshed
Benedict has deftly brought this out to debate; as the just as bloodyminded were the "Crusaders" in days of old, so too are the "jihadists of the sword" bloodyminded.
Neither portray the authentic face of religion nor the advancement of reason. While the Crusades took place before the advent of the reformation, enlightenment, and modern science the no doubt devout, but misguided jihadists of the sword behave as if these had never taken place.
Benedict rightly calls for reasoned dialogue to flesh out these ideas.
tobyb: "How does one have a rational conversation with the Muslim world?" You can't have a rational conversation; the only good radical muslim, is a dead radical muslim.
Anyone who is offended by the QUOTE (which was actually being used to discuss the Dehellinization of European thought) should read the whole speech and stop making themselves look stupid. Also, I might ask, what exactly historically incorrect in saying that Islam was spread by force?
If anyone should be offended, it should be Catholics: Muslims are calling for the beheading of the Pope (not to mention encouraging other anti-Christian or firebombing churches). Nor am I impessed by the comment by Pakistan's foreign minister "anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant is inciting " which seems to be crux of the whole problem: we can make valid comments and acknowledge facts about most religions the one exception being Islam.
Agreed, Vitruvius - it's a remarkable speech. I agree with a lot of it - except for his rejection of Duns Scotus. But his description of the reduction of reason to the laboratory, ie., to mathematical and empirical elements - and the definition of reason as Platonic/Cartesian, i.e., as alienated from reality..is excellent.
As he said 'modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter...' Ah yes, indeed. Perfect.
And, as Hans points out, that key analysis of the rejection of the use of reason outside of the laboratory, ..'denying it (reason) access to reality as a whole'...is dangerous.
And, his rejection of knowledge as a cultural artifact, rather than as a universal. Reason is universal, something that multiculturalism denies, for it focuses only on cultural beliefs and behaviour, and ignores the reasoning behind these.
So- an excellent and powerful speech. What does it say about Islam? The truth - that their use of violence is 'unreasonable' and therefore, incompatible with the notion of God. And the fact that the Islam god has no intrinsic nature (ie, reason) and is instead operative only within a written set of rules, which cannot be changed or interpreted. A written text is a cultural artifact - not an act of reason.
The fallacy of the canon in the face of reason, perhaps?
"Madness shames the Muslim World", Father Raymond J. De Souza's column in today's National Post whacks a few nails solidly on the head.
"The eruption of rage in some quarters of the Islamic world against Pope Benedict XVI requires that several tough things be said."
[...]
"It does a disservice to children to call the wild-eyed statements and deranged behaviour of the past days childish."
[...]
"Whether private harassment or state-sanctioned torture, Christians the world over know all too well that the sword of Islam has not been sheathed."
Read the whole thing at http://tinyurl.com/z4vuk
Note the web version's title, "Rioters' madness shames Muslim world" is slightly modified from the print version. The web version also includes a detailed discussion of the Pope's lecture.
Once again, something innocently said or done has been blown out of proportion by the Religion of Peace. Something tells me we have not heard the end of this, but I hope I'm wrong.
From the land of Oz.
Oz is Ozesome; Oz speaks plain English.
Oz is Australia. ...-
Quarantined from extremists
The Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) ^ | 17th September 2006 | Piers Akerman
The Howard government yesterday challenged the spiritual leaders of the nation's Muslim community to reject terrorism.
In a firm address, Andrew Robb, the Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs told a conference of Australian imams in Sydney that they had a responsibility to "quarantine Australia from the extremist elements who are tormenting the world, masquerading in the name of Islam''.
He pointedly referred to similar conferences held in Europe and quoted approvingly from a communique issued by a conference of Austrian imams in April, 2005, which read: "In this situation, Muslims themselves have the responsibility, even the obligation, to bring the focus again on the overwhelming majority of Muslims who, in living up to the teachings of their religion, stand for mutual respect and understanding and reject terrorism...''
He was unapologetic as he told the imams: "Each one of you not only provides that essential spiritual dimension to the lives of so many Australian Muslims, but you also have the opportunity to assist in efforts to protect the Australian community by denouncing, with authority, any link between terrorism and the teachings of your religion.'' ...-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1702820/posts
I have come to the sad conclusion that not until the next big unhinged Muslim atrocity, that next Big Thing we all know is coming, that event that kills us in the tens or hundreds of thousands, the stupidity and denial that so infects the left and the media will continue unabated.
We are somewhere in one of those pre-catastrophic years of the 1930's when denial and stupidity wasn't slapped down hard and put to rest forever.
Islam is the rabid dog in the playground. No cure. No treatment. It gets killed when the neighbors have had misery from it.
Penny, if Iran were to detonate a nuclear weapon over Tel Aviv, or in Chicago, the left would just say it was a natural consequence of American/Israeli policy in the ME, just as they did after 9/11.
Penny said: "Islam is the rabid dog in the playground."
Islam is the "rabid dog" in Darfur, Sudan. The rabid dogs of Islam are killing each other; Dead.
In this report from CNN/MSM, one word only hints, vaguely, at Islam. No mention that this Muslim atrocity is being carried out by Muslims.
Darfur: Brown Arab Muslims killing black African Muslims; CNN does not mention this fact.
Political correctness is deadly/rabid to all peoples. ...-
Darfur free falls as the world dithers and Sudan balks | September 16th, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) —
via jack's newswatch
I think there’s another papal shoe that’s dropped but isn’t getting attention.
The Pope’s speech is 9 pages long on Word. The title is “Faith, Reason and the University”. Only a small part is about Islam. It’s the kind of speech Christians as well as other utopian-fighters need in their hip pocket to go on the offensive against the left wing MSM and academics.
The Pope has now helped arm us with some new verbal weapons when discussing the 2 battles – the battle against Islamic Fascism and our battle “within”; against the MSM and academia.
The 2 battles converge. It is the academics, the relativists, Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Said’s, that have armed the Rosie O’Donnells who then state on the MSM “Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America”. Rosie and her Gender Studies flock have managed to convince some Americans and certainly campuses that the Social “Sciences” are empirical and that they deserve to be able to push off campus the lesser unscientific areas of philosophy, ethics and theology, which, because they are not scientific, have in recent years been deemed to not be serious subjects for a university. There have always been campus wars on these matters but suddenly the rules may have changed.
So I think that while the Pope has initially inflamed Islam; once the thick, tenured heads on campus start to digest where the Pope’s mission is going, they are going to get inflamed too. Dante get your extinguishers, it’s going to get hot.
nomdenet - I wonder how many postmodern academics will even read his speech.
As I said, I thought it was excellent - just a slight twinge on his rejection of Duns Scotus - which is rather strange, for Benedict's rejection of the Platonic/Cartesian separation of mind and matter, and his insertion of reason within matter is an Aristotelian analysis, and Scotus was, to my understanding, an Aristotelian. Oh well.
But it is his insistence on the use of reason rather than cultural habit in the development of beliefs and behaviour that is so important. First, since reason is universal, then the validation of multiple and contradictory beliefs and behaviour within cultural relativism is empty. And since reason is universal, then 'unreasonable' actions, such as the Islamic use of violence, are unethical and in violation of religion.
And, reason is not a simple quantitative tool in the lab, but a deep analytic process requiring moral and ethical clarity and a consideration of accountability and justice. Incredible speech - how people could condemn rather than praise him - ...
Now for the underlying facts:
Since the death of Mohammed in 632 there has been much greater Islamic expansion into what were Christian lands than vice-versa.
How did the Muslims come to be in what are now Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria? These were the Christian heartland of the Eastern Roman Empire until conquered by Arab Muslims between 632 and 641 AD. To this day this area remains largely Muslim and under Muslim rule.
What about Christian Spain, which was conquered by Muslims in the early eighth century (after conquering Christian North Africa) and not completely reconquered by Christians until 1492--a much longer period of Muslim rule than the Christian Crusaders' rule (1098 to 1291) in a very small geographic area of the middle east. So much for the Crusades as a big deal.
And what about the Christian Balkans? These were conquered by the Muslim Ottoman Turks from the fourteenth to the sixteenth centuries and mostly remained under their rule until the nineteenth century. Does no one remember that the Turks besieged Vienna as late as 1683?
It may be that in the conquered lands there was not much forcible conversion to Islam, but the inhabitants generally came to see which way the wind blew--non-Muslims suffered real discrimination--and most did convert, except in the Balkans and, perhaps, Spain.
The same pattern is true in Iran, Sindh, and northern India. The sword.
So the spread of Islam without the sword is a-historical, except in the case of Malaysia and Indonesia.
Mark
Ottawa
"Agreed, Vitruvius - it's a remarkable speech. I agree with a lot of it - except for his rejection of Duns Scotus. But his description of the reduction of reason to the laboratory, ie., to mathematical and empirical elements - and the definition of reason as Platonic/Cartesian, i.e., as alienated from reality..is excellent."
He is rejecting a doctrine of Duns Scotus, not Scotus's entire corpus of work.
He has also been quoted in his earlier works as saying Descartes "I think, therefore I am" is a mistake and should read:
"I am, therefore I think."
plato's stepchild. Nice - that "I am, therefore I think'. Exactly.
Thanks for the comment on Scotus (I'm a Peircean, who was a fan of Scotus, so, I'm loyal in that area0.
Mark Collins says, “but the inhabitants generally came to see which way the wind blew”
Bingo!
That’s why we need to end multiculti and change the way the wind is blowing.
ET, well we know some that don’t need to read it, have read it … :>)
It occurs to me that we freeminded peoples of the free world protest annoying statements from figureheads with stormy letters to the editor. And maybe some mud-slinging.
The modern Islamic Jihadist, on the other hand, has adopted a knee-jerk reaction that calls for a prompt beheading.
Shows a phobic fear of reason and debate.
Not easy to dialogue with opponents if they are missing from the neck up. = TG