Is Pope Benedict XVI going too far with the apologies? I think a moral argument could be made for that, at least as far as Thomas Aquinas is concerned:
St. Thomas teaches (Summa theol., II-II, Q. x, a. 11): "Ritus infidelium tolerari possunt vel propter aliquod bonum, quod ex eis provenit, vel propter aliquod maum, quod vitatur" (Heathen worships can be tolerated either because of some good that results from them or because of some evil that is avoided).
He was talking about whether a Catholic state should tolerate other religions within its borders (he says they should be tolerated, and other Catholic philosophers have expanded on this), but the principle applies more widely. Tolerance is a good thing because it generates a good result.
Are apologies, which implicitly signal tolerance of the violence shown by Muslim mobs, leading to a good result? So far, it has only led to further violence. Moreover, it signals to the mob that future violence on other issues will be rewarded. I think there is an argument to be made that the Church must take an intolerant stand. She must make it clear that no further apologies or explanations are forthcoming, that the violence shown over the spoken word is intolerable, and that the Church will demand tolerance of Muslims in the future. That too, will lead to violence, but then it's likely unavoidable. But taking such a stand will mean that the Church will have drawn a line in the moral sand, and in doing so taken sides with such others as Salman Rushdie and Naguib Mahfouz who themselves were victims of those who tolerated extremism, and who themselves represent the marriage of Islam and reason which was the point of the Pope's speech in the first place.
[See the expanded post at Angry in the Great White North. Hopefully this expanded precis addresses some of the criticism from Kate's readers. I'll try to get the balance right in the future.]
I come to SDA to read articles at SDA, not shameless teasers for articles at SteveJanke.com. How lame of you.
Thanks Kathy for continuing the long and proud SDA tradition of hooking us up with intelligent discourse on the net, wherever it may be found.
Sorry to hear about the lameness. And I'm surprised to hear that you are shameless. Would that we all could be Bobless.
I agree with Bob, but I usually enjoy SDA, so I won't go as far as to use 'lame'. I'm certainly not immune to that kind of posting myself. You're on my blogroll and there you will stay.
The Pope obviously made a very large and mindless error in judgement when he made the comments he made. To not have the foresight on this only speaks of his apathy for anything not existing within his self-righteous, delusional universe. He may not need to apologize again, but if he wants his religion to improve its image, then he needs to refrain from such statements in the first place, regardless of his intent.
Why do so many demand apologies these days? It's not enough to point out or punish allegedly bad behaviour - the transgressors must publically admit to their sins and beg forgiveness. We get bizarre situations where politicians apologize on behalf of governments for acts carried out decades before the politicians were even born, and where no living person could possibly be culpable.
Does it stem from an infantile need to humiliate one's opponents, or control their thinking? Is it because so many these days walk around with a permanent attitude of victimhood?
I don't do blurb blogging very well. My posts are rather long, so I struggle to find the right way to summarize it in SDA-form. Let me expand on this post and I'll try to be better in the future. Deal?
As an atheist I don't know the Pope too well, but it is my sincerest hope that the so-called apologies are merely feints along the way to more criticism of barbaric violence in the name of Islam, and that he continues the call for reason.
OK, I've extracted what I hope to be the best bits. Hopefully that addresses Bob's concerns and makes for a better posting. Cheers!
Why must the Pope apologise for this speech. It was not a call to arms, it was factual and it is relevant.
It is truly amazing how ironic the islamic calls for violence are. I watched CTV news speaking with some muslim organization talking head. Once again the softball questions and no mention of islamic calls for violence.
Steve, great blog but always trouble connectiong to you. You need different hosting.
All you lefty wankers keep up the bleating. If the islamofascists were to take over, you guys would surely be at the front of the line. Everything you stand for is what they hate most. Add that to the list of irony.
enough
Not to put too fine a point on it Fred, but Benedict and his followers aren't flying planes into skyscrapers filled with thousands of innocent people, strapping bombs to their children so they can blow-up other innocent children, cutting the heads off of innocent schoolgirls to make a point, demanding the extermination of the only democratic country the middle-east has ever known or bombing public transit in order to kill hundreds of other innocent people.
As Aubrey said " One should always chose the lesser of two weevils".
One should also try to bring something resembling intellectual rigour to one's argument, unless one is in a mad rush to Dhimmitude.
Gussie the Agnostic
Steve, great blog but always trouble connectiong to you. You need different hosting.
Actually a new host is on the way. Stay tuned. Changes in the works over the next few weeks.
Make sure you put a Bob filter in it.
Steve- and Kate?
Ignore the ankle-biters.
I like what you do, and link to it frequently.
Keep on keepin' on...
"Just an Old Keyboard Cowboy... and you know the rest..."
Steve, sorry about your lameness too. I wouldn't go too far trying to appease bob though. It is kind of like appeasing an imam, nothing is good enough.
BTW: Why is the Catholic church refered to as "she"?
300:1 taliban kill ratio. In how long of time could we mop up the whole middleeast.
Even talibanjack could do his duty, put on a target and become one of ours , then we go get 300 of theirs. deal?
Taliban Jack is also known as Jack bin Layton.
http://www.diafrica.org/nigeriaop/kenny/Rationes.htm
Steve,
I think you are looking at the wrong document. You should be focusing on Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles and his Polemical On Reasons For Our Faith Against the Muslims.
Aquinas' distinguishes between defending and proving the faith to non-believers.
As well, in the ST, you really want to focus on STS I-II Q.96 A.2
As a final comment, let me note that the offences occurred in countries not ruled by either Catholic governments or professing Catholic legislators. Aquinas was writing his works from within a professedly Catholic monarchy. For the specific Thomist developments vis a vis Western Democracy, you should look at the 20th century Thomist political philosophy of Maritain, Yves Simon or Heinrich Rommen.
BTW: Why is the Catholic church refered to as "she"?
The Church is the Bride of Christ. It's a bit of esoteric symbolism, but the pronoun is always the feminine as a result.
And to Plato, thanks for the references. I'll look them up later. As for the other philosophers, I'll have to make some time to read more. A lot more.
The Pope doesn't need to apologize for the comments that are attributed to him. The quote he used was from a medieval Emperor, these words were not his opinion, but illustrative that there are those who use religion or ideology as justification for political/ideological/sectarian based violence.
His point was simple, it is against REASON to use one's religion or ideology as justification to engage in PATHOLOGIES against all reason.
In short, one's faith or ideology, to be a legitimate human undertaking, should be bounded by natural human reason.
It is quite one thing to be engaged in a 'war of ideas' is is quite another to translate that 'war of ideas' to a war on other modalities of human organization simply for the fact that they are different or unlike oneself.
If B16 issues a clarification on the misrepresentation by the press, and the resulting reaction in Muslim lands on the misrepresentation; that would be fine. The press are hardly paragons of accuracy.
Secondly, obviously if he suggested in his opening speech at Regensburg that he wanted to foster an intercultural dialogue; presumably he hasn't said all he wants to say on the subject in a short speech. A dialogue obviously entertains an interplay of questions, answers and discussion.
That has hardly happened, given that Al Qaeda/Taliban has suggested that Pope Benedict XVI
needs his head cut off. Obviously, there is not going to be much dialogue with such 'open minds'.
"Benny" is attempting to reach open rather than simple and closed minds. It is folly to suggest that there are no reasonable Muslims; or that they are all 'beyond reason'.
By inspection Muslims can be reasonable, one only need examine the text Al-Jabr by Abu Abdullah Mohammad Ibn Musa al-Khawarizmi.
His book on algebra, Al-Maqala fi Hisab-al Jabr wa-al- Muqabilah, was also translated into Latin in the 12th century, and it was this translation which introduced this new science to the West "completely unknown till then". He astronomical tables were also translated into European languages and, later, into Chinese.
The proposition that Muslims are incapable of reason is false as we in the West teach all of our children algebra in high school.
The subject of debate is whether there is a rational connection between the Muslim faith and reason or are we merely handed over to all the violent types who have a patently political purpose, not necessarily connected to their religion, though thinly disguised, as justification for violent eruptions?
We already have the answer from the "jihadists of the sword". We have not however heard, from the cooler heads within Islam. But then I gather if they aren't buring the Pope in effigy, or calling for his beheading it doesn't sell as many newspapers.
Quiet calm reflection isn't a big seller; when one can print out such lurid and twisted proposals.
So I gather now Stephen Harper is now joined by Pope Benedict XVI for those slated for beheading.
A rather novel and gruesome way to keep a 'score card' on who is 'winning' hearts and minds; not to mention 'turning heads'.
On that note: May God Bless.
Hard to dialogue with someone who wants you dead, deader and deader than dead.
Ignore the ankle-biters. I like what you do, and link to it frequently.
I think Bob's criticism had merit. Kate invited me to post here, and if I lose any of her readers for something as easily fixed as providing a bit more information in a post, then I've done her (and the readers) a disservice. I need to be particularly careful that I try to provide the same level of quality blogging (though not the same opnions) in a style her readers are accustomed too. I'll strike the right balance.
And for those readers who follow the links back to visit Angry in the Great White North for the first time, I hope you like what you see there. It's different style of blog, that's for sure. I hope you keep coming back for more.
When was the last time that a Muslim leader apologized for the atrocities being committed against Christians in Muslim counties?
Aquinas, were he alive today, would make mincemeant of this illogical and clumsy attempt to map this piece of the summa onto the Pope's apology and the various reactions to it.
Why, the Pope himself would instantly recognize as nonsense the claim advanced here that issuing an apology, as he has done, is 'tolerating' violence.
"Hard to dialogue with someone who wants you dead, deader and deader than dead."
As Socrates found out in the Athenian Court in The Apology.
The pope hasn't apologized and shouldn't apologize. He merely said that he was sorry that some people were angry (that's not an apology for his words) and that he was sorry that his words were misinterpreted.
Vitruvius and I have been discussing the situation, pro-Benedict, in Kate's Benedict on Islam thread.
And go to Vitruvius for a few reads
tinyurl.com/pxb9a
The point is, Benedict knew exactly what he was doing, and it was a brilliant speech and a correct action. He was confronting Islamic fascism and its western ally, leftist postmodernism.
To the Islamists, he asked - if we define God (and your god and the Christian god have to be the same; I'm not into polytheism)..if we define God as the expression and operation of UNIVERSAL Reason, then, violence is an unreasonable act.
So, how can you carry out your many acts of violence, in the name of your religion? That seems the antithesis of Reason, which is universal.
To the postmodernist lefties who also reject the universality of Reason, he chastized them for marginalizing Reason, and redefining it as only a type of arithmetic measurement, confined to the tape measure. Postmodernist lefties, after all, define beliefs and behaviour as strictly cultural constructs, pertinent only to each group's whims and whimsies and beyond any critical and ethical evaluations. He rjects this.
His speech, a brilliant speech, was akin to throwing down the gauntlet to both sides. The Muslims reacted in their normal manner, with that magnificent, irrational statement that "Anyone who describes Islam, as a religion, as intolerant, encourages violence". Ahh, I haven't heard such irony in a decade. And then, they went out to murder, burn, and be their own intolerant normal selves.
The postmodernists, whose brains long ago atrophied to dust, have merely repeated their normal victimized blather and are screeching for 'an apology'.
Apologize for what? That, my dears, was a gauntlet. And one never, ever, apologizes for that.
The Jihadists have put a crimp in world freedom of speech.
Tolerance is not the solution!
For the sake of innocent lives, a temorary easing off is called for.
The problem must be delt with. This is the thin edge of our loss of freedoms.
Tolerance is the proven practice one uses to fan the popularity of bloodthirsty Jihadists into a full holocaust.
In 1983 Secretary Wineberger *tolerated* the bombing of 241 marines in their Lebanon barricks. This was in direct opposition to Reagan*s orders to do a smack-down on Hezbollah. Terrorism flames fanned vigorously.
No long detailed list here. Suffice to mention there were countless attacks tolerated during the eight year Clinton stint, and thereafter.
Tolerance worked. Now look at the mess we have to deal with. Putin and Russia full backing for Iran.
Pakistan signing agreements with the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
h..p:./w.w.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI02Df02.html
Things are moving so quickly now!
Is it too late to bring Liberals, NDP, and Democrats up to speed and on-side?
Nat. Dipstick Pty. leader Jack is asking that we abandon the children and teachers in Afghanistan to the Taliban.
Jack is OK with another Darfur.
The MSM can be proud. They have shielded the North American public from any clear picture or concept of our current emergency.
= TG
If I where Salman Rushdie. I bet that I would be thinking about now. That I picked the wrong horse to win.
Is there no one too stand up to these Bullies without caving in?
I'm not an apologist for the Pope but I have to wonder about these folks who wring their hands and whine that Benedict was "foolish" or "careless" in what he said and what message he intended to convey. I would counsel them to go read exactly what he said before they imply his homily was mindless and/or mistaken. He was 100 percent correct and he had every right to say it but it surely should have been anticipated the Muslim loonies would go into their well-orchestrated demonstrations, threats and calls for beheading.
Although I am an atheist who bursts out laughing reading the Monty-Python-esque logic in Aquinas's writings, the recent criticisms of the Pope seem lame. Essentially they are that the Pope should have anticipated that he would be deliberately or stupidly misquoted and mischaracterized and that the proponents of the religion of peace would react violently.
Well another Catholic thinker might put it like this:
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
Gilbert K. Chesterton
Who says the West needs to be 'tolerant' of randomized violence?
First, I don't think the Pope has anything to apologize for. He was engaged in a theological dissertation in an academic setting and his remarks were taken completely out of context by sensationalist reporters. If there's blame to be laid on this side of the aisle it's with the MSM which should start taking some responsibility for its juvenile behaviour.
Second, The Pope shouldn't apologize because muslims also have to start taking responsibility as adults for their own emotional state and their own behaviour. Words only incite those who choose to be incited. People frequently say nasty things about causes near and dear to me but I don't use those remarks as excuses for violent rampages. The reason is simple. I'm an adult.
Apologies from the Pope send entirely the wrong message to muslims -- that you're not responsible for your own behaviour, and that your belief system is so fragile as to be unable to withstand any criticism whatsoever. It's as though Islam is the religion with the built in personality disorder. Grow up. From here on in apologizing simply becomes enabling for dysfunctional behaviour.
Personally, I don't believe the Pope has anything to apologize for. Any fool who can read a history book can find more than one reference to the Koranic rule of lopping off the heads of anyone who won't convert. It's written in the Koran, too, I believe. So, what's the problem? The Pope has to apologize for telling the truth. Sounds like something the NDP dreamt up.
Jean jumps on the bandwagon-lit. Moi, aussi. ...-
CHAREST DEMANDS APOLOGY FROM GLOBE AND MAIL
CharestPremier Jean Charest wants an apology from the Globe and Mail over an article he labelled a "disgrace'' for suggesting the Dawson College killer was marginalized in a Quebec society the story said values pure francophone culture.
Yesterday, Strategic Forecasting Inc published an essay by George Friedman, which I have captured at tinyurl.com/pxb9a - here's a short excerpt...
"Consider the fact that the pope is not only a scholar but a politician -- and a good one, or he wouldn't have become the pope. He is not only a head of state, but the head of a global church with a billion members. [...] Popes know how to play power politics.
[...] "From an intellectual and political standpoint, therefore, Benedict's statement was an elegant move. He has strengthened his political base and perhaps legitimized a stronger response to anti- Catholic rhetoric in the Muslim world. And he has done it with superb misdirection. His options are open: He now can move away from the statement and let nature take its course, repudiate it and challenge Muslim leaders to do the same with regard to anti- Catholic statements or extend and expand the criticism of Islam that was implicit in the dialogue.
"The pope has thrown a hand grenade and is now observing the response. We are assuming that he knew what he was doing; in fact, we find it impossible to imagine that he did not. He is too careful not to have known. Therefore, he must have anticipated the response and planned his partial retreat.
"It will be interesting to see if he has a next move. The answer to that may be something he doesn't know himself yet."
Here's a quote from an article by Tarek Fatah and R. Reeza in www.muslimcanadiancongress dot org
"we too felt deep anguish as once more our faith had been ridiculed by no less a figure than the leader of the world's 1 billion Catholics."
And, " we now expect our Catholic brothers and sisters to step forward and condemn the ill-timed, irrational and ill-informed remarks of the Holy Father."
And "That dialogue will become meaningful only when all of us learn, not just to respect each other, but also to be willing to stand up and hold our own clergy to account, and take them to task for making offensive remarks that are hurtful and set back peacemaking efforts worldwide."
By the way - how many Muslims take their imams to account for their offensive hate-filled remarks against peoples and religions of the world? Hmmm?
And "the nature of the Pope's remarks and their dangerous consequences must be understood in the context of our times. This was best explained by Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney and a lecturer in philosophy at Wadham College, Oxford. He wrote:
"... it's born-again Christians who have been at the forefront of support for the invasion of Iraq, the occupation of Palestinian lands by Israel, and the whole `reorganization' of the Middle East — a catastrophe in which many thousands of Muslims have lost their lives."
Now- this is a Moderate Muslim. Note that he says not a word about the basic causes of the invasion of Iraq - namely, Islamic fascism. Not a word about that. Nothing.
He totally and completely ignored the content of Benedict's speech, which was a question asking whether Islam rejected universal reason, because its violent actions, carried out 'in the name of god', were antithetical to the nature of god.
Fatah completely ignored the content. Not a word, not a whisper.
Instead, he asserted that Muslims were insulted. I've asked before - have any Muslims apologized for the vicious, violent murders committed in the name of their religion?
Remember, this is a moderate Muslim, who recently stepped down as head of that congress because he said he'd been threatened by extremists.
Armchair psychology only...
Constantly demanding apologies is probably associated with 'false pride' which in original concept of jihad (overcoming personal transgressions against neighbour and self)
Judeo-Christian concept and advisability of examining one's conscience to discern where we personally lack and transgress against our neighbour in order to rectify same.
Now there's a universally shared concept and talking point of agreement.
Simply put -- refrain from 'stabbing your neighbour in back.'
Discussion has revolved around the incompatability of three mono-theistic religions in terms of tenets of their faith. Catholic Church's position, I believe, is that there is much to share in terms of 'cultural exchanges.'
What's glaringly obvious missing from the dialogue is the shared tenet of DIVINE MERCY as subscribed to by all three and most, if not all, other faiths.
i.e., Christ remarking on generosity and mercy of Samaritan toward injured traveller. Christ confirming 'acts of mercy' as demonstrated by non-believers of the day. Whereas the 'believer' passed on by.
Also, the violent act of one of his own chopping off ear of Roman centurion come to arrest hime. Christ's hand replaced the ear to his head. And he asked that the sword be laid aside.
Christ's silent submission to the ultimate act of violence, the Roman cross (historical fact) which Islam faith does not recognize the historicity of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ of Nazareth -- only that He was a Holy Prophet.
Can we hear from any Imam or moderate Islamist on why Islam's ancient records deny the Crucifixion of the Holy Nazarene?
and this:
One sword is worth
ten thousand words.
-- THE KORAN
Anyone, anyone?
A friend of 35 years died last night and I spoke that health would be restored to him through the power of Jesus Christ Our Lord. That I expected him to get better and visit us in Canada. He died Sept. 19th, same day the Blessed Mother of God appeared to shepherd children in France close to where my friends ancestors came from Alsace Loraine. My daughter spoke to him just prior to me and his eyes opened in recognition as they had been closed all day. Sept. 19th -- coincidence? Also the lay minister tending to him for few days before death was born in exact town in States he was born in. Coincidence? Too many coincidences, for me anyway, add up to signs from our Fathers who hand down our faith.
SHARED TENET OF THREE FAITHS - MERCY. A forgotten element in spiralling-out-of-control chaos. But mercy came from the democratic base at 9/ll atrocity, Katrina disaster -- neighbour helping neighbour. Mercy at grass roots alive and well, however corrupt political regimes/gov'ts are oblivious.
Thomas Aquinas references priceless.
Steve Janke confirming your covering the gamut. And the breaking events in immediate future will be overwhelming, indeed, to stay on top of.
Intelligence services and gov't personnel apprizing internet discourse can discern public opinion and policy suggestions for expedient implementation.
Quote by Tarek Fatah and R. Reeza in www.muslimcanadiancongress dot org:
"we too felt deep anguish as once more our faith had been ridiculed by no less a figure than the leader of the world's 1 billion Catholics."
The fact that these Muslims have characterized Pope Benedict XVI's speech as ridicule of their faith is below contempt.
They "felt deep anguish." I wonder if they either heard it or read it. Ridicule it definitley was not, though Pope Benedict certainly challenged Muslims to THINK, to REASON, to EXAMINE THEIR FAITH.
Maybe his request IS ridiculous if you're an extremist radical Muslim.
Ah, that's their 'reasoning': We radical Muslims never think, reason, or examine our faith, so it's absolutely ridiculous for the Pope to ask us to do these things. How dare he. He ought to know better.
Now, we're going to get really angry, kill a few people, burn a few churches, loudly demonstrate, and scream bloody murder that we're misunderstood, just to let him know how unacceptable it is of him to ask us to be reasonable.
I think I understand the radical Muslims' reaction now. What I really can't undertand is the attitude of the dummies in the West who think that the Pope is in the wrong, and not the extremist Muslims who are going off the deep end about a very reasonable remark, made in the context of a much larger appeal to Muslims to enter into a reasonable dialogue with others.
The Muslims can go on ad nauseum about "deep anguish" over no slight at all, because it seems that too many of us in the West have lost our faculties of reasoning.
Expecting people to have rational relgious discourse is itself not rational. As religions are merely sets of superstitions approved by a majority and then written in stone, you must realize religions are inheriently not rational. Is it rational to believe there is a green monster under my bed? Of course not. How then is it any more rational to believe there is a Satan lurking in a metaphorical hell?
It is'nt. The whole thing is for the uneducated masses.
Now, that being said, I would prefer if the leader of a popular faith - such as the Pope - refraining from speaking on subjects he clearly has little understanding of. Speaking to past Muslim atrocities while neglecting to mention the abuses commited in the name of the Pope over the intervening centuries would be remiss - why? Because the vast majority of religious violence during the Byzantine era was initiated by Christians. To suggest otherwise is revisionist.
Personally I'd just like to see a grudge match of the top rabbis, the Pope & some cardinals and some mullahs. No matter who lost, we'd all be better off.