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

Race and Religon, they have dominated the ME for decades. I have one question; according to many pundits, the people of the area or the children of Shem, are Semites, so in one sense muslims and jews are brothers, so why do they fight.

ronrob: Just consider the American Civil War. There is no accounting for recourse to violence except ideas.

All depends, in the long run, on which ideas are:

a) right, and;
b) successfully defended.

Mark
Ottawa

There's nothing else to add, except, isn't it instructive to see what an Islamofascist "artist" (I use this term extremely loosely) has done with the Pope?

At least the cartoons about the Islamofascists were well drawn. This is just a crude hatchet job. Doesn't THAT say something--a lot--about their "culture"?

'Thanks for the comment on Scotus (I'm a Peircean, who was a fan of Scotus, so, I'm loyal in that area0."

Go to www.morec.com -- you would enjoy the work on Semiotics, John of Poinsot. I assume as a fan of Duns Scotus you read Gerard Manley Hopkins, SJ?

These morons from the 7th century stick their asses in the air all day long with their prayin to this devil, time we started nukin them

I think that the Pope knew that they would go apeshit: he did this for a reason, maybe as a warning to the world. JPII helped end communism: B16 has entered the fight against the world's next great evil.
A Canadian died in Thailand today: killed by a bomb placed by "Mulim seperatists". RIP.

I just realized that it's been at least 20 years since a muslim has shot a pope: get over it already.

Not only are we seeing that reason is absent in Islam but we are also seeing that the MSM will go to any length to create chaos and violence. As innocent people are killed, more "news" is released, in that tried and true fashion that CREATES the problem.

It's not the Islamic press that is the problem, it's the western press, specifically the BBC and it's clones.

Pat

Why do we presume that all Christians and all Muslims worship or apprehend the same God? Both are to some extent the children of Judaeism which in turn is a step-child of Zoroastriaism ( post the Babylonian captivity of 6th Century BC when Cyrus the Mede liberated them and the Judaens in turn developed a huge admiration for Persian civilization and theology. MohammAd was influenced more directly still in +6/7C).
Among other things, Zoroastrianism probably originated such religious memes as Free Will, the last Day of Judgement, a Messiah, Heaven and Hell, redemption, ecumenalism, equality (across class, sex, and ethnic lines) of the individual soul, Angels and eternal time. Centally located Zoroastrians not only influenced the early western and Abrahamic religious traditions ( after all the Magi in the manager were Zoroastrians) but also the Indic ones of Hindus and Buddhists.
Oh, and another thing; Ahura Mazda ( the uncreated creator) the principle impelling structure, order, reason, right action, tolerance ( or should I say acceptance i.e. that what is, is ... physically/scientific speaking) etc., in short, virtue/good or God. And, Ahriman the opposite tendency; entropy, chaos, unreason, coersion, inequity, formless aconsciousness (not unconsciousness, which implies latent spirit not its negation) and rejection of our universe and all things in it (including techne and science). These (twin/mirror) concepts also heavily influenced our world.
Am I out of line in thinking that almost any major or minor religion you care to cite (even when not practised by its own best lights) reveres ( by any name or rite) Ahura Mazda and that one significiant strand of one significiant faith tends more today to Ahriman and is giving its other adherents a bad name?
Sincerely,
;but, I'm no expert

Do most Muslims that migrate to the west come here for freedom, democracy and tolerance? Could it be for colonization? They have effectively colonized, not just the ME, but much of North Africa and South Asia, and frankly much of Europe and Detroit. Americans hardy notice the influx of Muxlims due to the saturation of legal and illegal Hispanics. I wonder what's really up.

Depressing Times

Oriana Fallaci, RIP, the Pope, and a Sad Age

Rarely has the death of a public intellectual affected me as much as the passing of Oriana Fallaci. I never met her, and only received a brief note once from her accompanying a copy of The Rage and the Pride. The story of her career is well known, but her death, at this pivotal time, was full of paradoxes and yet instruction as well.

Radical Islam is, among other things, a patriarchal movement, embedded particularly in the cult of the Middle-Eastern male, who occupies a privileged position in a society that can be fairly described as one of abject gender apartheid. Islamism is also at war with the religious infidel, not just the atheist—and, in its envy and victimhood, fueled by a renewal of the age-old hatred of the Christian.
.........

So we really are left with very little in these pivotal times—the will of George Bush, of course, the Old Breed unchanged since Okinawa and the Bulge that still anchors the US military, the courage and skill of a very few brave writers like a Hitchens, Krauthammer, and the tireless and brilliant Mark Stein, but very, very few others. No, this is an age in which we in the West make smug snuff movies about killing an American President, while the Taliban and the Islamists boast of assassinating the Pope.

So long may you run, Ms. Fallaci, you who by now have learned that, yes, there is a soul, and, yes, yours was indeed saved for eternity if only for its singular courage and honesty alone. And dear Pope: clarify, contextualize, express sorrow over the wrong interpretation of your remarks, but please don’t apologize for the Truth—not now, not ever. ...-
http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/2006/09/16/a_depressing_age.php

Excellent article by Victor Davis Hanson. And that's just it - the pope should clarify, contextualize and explain, but not apologize for telling the truth. His comments on the lack of reason within the Islamic religion are vitally important. An ideology that rejects life, which is the expression of reason, in favour of death, which is the lack of reason, is disastrous.

Plato's Stepchild - sorry, I'm not a fan of John Deely, prolific though he is. He has, of late, moved into a pansemiotics with which I agree(seeing reason or Mind in every aspect of the world) but...
Go to www.library.utoronto.ca/see and click on seed. That might explain.

Can the Islamic world keep reason out of their ideology forever? When they were isolate, they were able to do so. But now in the global world, can they continue to isolate their people from reason? Can they maintain anger, used as a Wall against Reason, forever against Reason?

http://www.bbcgovernors.co.uk/

It's time to check out who these people are.

Mark Thompson, Director-General of the BBC, in a speech to the International Press Institute:

We also aspire to take a common sense view of the challenge of reflecting reality so that when people ask us 'which side are you on?', we can answer honestly that we're on the side of the facts.

MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: POPE'S APOLOGY IS 'SUFFICIENT'
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood announced Sunday afternoon that it accepted Pope Benedict XVI's apology, issued earlier in the day.

"We see the Pope's latest statement as a retraction of his previous statements," Mohammed Habib, the group's second in command, said. "We see it as a sufficient apology, even though we would like the Pope to give a picture of his position on and vision of Islam." ...-
http://www.paulding.net/bin/url.cgi/13408.10
Comments?

Benedict didn't apologize for his words; he said he was " deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims. "

Note- he's concerned about THEIR reactions; he's sorry for THEIR reactions.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. " But the quotation, which was about 'evil and inhuman' was not the same as his personal thought, which was the analysis of the rejection of reason within a religion. That's his personal thought.

Perhaps I'm 'too nuanced' but I don't think he apologized for HIS words; he was sorry about their reaction. His focus, to my understanding, is quite different from that of the previous pope, which was conciliatory. His focus is on a confrontative questioning, on reciprocity (if you want us to accept you, then do something acceptable).

And his personal thought, which the Muslims are refusing, at this moment, to consider, was that their rejection of reason and insistence on violence, is antithetical to religion. And, that confining reason to positivistic actions (measurement), and rejecting it within social life, as is done by the postmodernists, is antithetical to life.

It was a speech against Islam and against postmodernism. He didn't apologize.

I'm totally with you, ET, on your understanding of what Pope Benedict XVI's apology was about: He apologized for the offence that the Muslims took at his remarks. He was sorry that they were offended. He did not apologize for making the remarks.

As I commented somewhere else about the Islamofascist males--something maz2 also points out when he says about them that they are part of "a patriarchal movement...[and] occup[y] a privileged position in a society that can be fairly described as one of abject gender apartheid"--they are bullies, mama's boys, and crybabies, not endearing qualities in adult men.

I don't know how the West gets around this, except to stand up to them. Bullies don't respond to "negotiations" or "appeasement." The only way to deal with bullies is to challenge them and, ultimately, defeat them.

All that we learn from the Warren quote is that he is an absolute idiot who probably intones his remarks while facing a mirror. He sees no further. If only it was a mirror that told the truth as in the Fairy story.

Who is so bereft of common sense to believe that remarks in this setting are not reviewed with exquisite care, and fashioned as carefully as plains Indians once made arrows for their bows.

I was really saddened to see that the Holy Father has taken one more step on a path diverging from that set by the previous Pope who sought to build a bridge to the Moslems. This one has burned down that bridge with several decisive moves. If we are going to have a new crusade, it seems the current administration of the Church is determined to be out front.

Is a re run of the 12th Century really necessary?

"Is a re run of the 12th Century really necessary?"

Excellent question. But it's one for Muslims to answer - they're the ones trapped in that century.

garhane? Doesn't that sound a bit like "hateboy" in another language?

WE'RE supposed to build bridges to the Muslims? Would that be, garhane, because, even though millions of them have been welcomed, to share the freedoms of the West, they've flown planes into the bridges and destroyed them?

It's written somewhere, "Let he who has ears, hear. Let he who has eyes, see." I think, garhane, those words may have been written with you in mind.

Remove your head from the sand, my boy or girl, and take off the rose coloured glasses.

But it would be untrue to say the recent controversy over the Islamic world's reaction to the Pope's remarks have no effect.

Just as the public will probably read the Pope's sorrow for the reaction to his remarks as being sorry for his remarks -- that is, as an apology-- much of the simple public will probably regard the apology as as the product of a bullying Islamic world as abetted by the liberal establishment, of which the nun's recent death is an example.

And while such sentiments are unlikely to manifest themselves in any large shift in the political proportions of Western countries, it will have the effect of hardening the attitudes of those who suspect they are being sold down the river by the liberals and the left.

Not by any great measure, but by some small increment.

Added on to the context of train bombings, airline scares and the ceaseless belligerence of militant Islamic preachers in the West, it will make unctuous remarks at how carelessly and insensitively the Pope has treated Islam just that much more nauseating.

The New York Times for example says "Because the world listens carefully to the words of any pope, Benedict XVI needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology for his hurtful speech."

The NYT may be playing to an audience, but not since the phrase "let them eat cake" has there been such an unwitting example of contempt for those outside the charmed circle.
We have learned less from Pope Benedict's words then we have discovered from the reaction to them. ...-
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2006/09/near-irreparable-breach.html

Benedict XVI will prevail; I expect that "a large shift in the political proportions of Western countries" is coming, and Benedict will be a large part of that.

Isn't this pope scheduled to visit Turkey next month? This pope lived through the nazi horrors; he will not allow a repeat.

By the way, I haven't noticed any Islamic imams apologizing for their hate-filled remarks against the West.

I haven't noticed any Islamics apologizing for their hijacking of planes, for murdering thousands of people.

I haven't noticed any Islamics apologizing for their blowing up subway trains, restaurants, hotels, for their beheading of journalists, murdering of young girls going to school, stoning women to death.

I haven't noticed any Islamics apologizing for anything.

Instead, they inform us that if we even suggest, with a breath of speech, that they are violent; that they are intolerant of others, then, they will be very angry. That statement of "anyone who describes Islam as a religion, as intolerant, encourages violence' is so astonishing that it deserves to be on a poster somewhere.

From the Vatican via AP: Pope Benedict XVI says:

BEGIN QUOTE ***

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

The pastoral visit which I recently made to Bavaria was a deep spiritual experience, bringing together personal memories linked to places well known to me and pastoral initiatives towards an effective proclamation of the Gospel for today.

I thank God for the interior joy which he made possible, and I am also grateful to all those who worked hard for the success of this pastoral
visit. As is the custom, I will speak more of this during next Wednesday's general audience.

At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the university of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

These in fact were a quotation from a Medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

Yesterday, the Cardinal Secretary of State published a statement in this regard in which he explained the true meaning of my words. I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect.

END QUOTE ***

As ET points out what, in G*d's name, have the Muslims apologized for? Their confreres have been responsible for thousands of violent deaths, clashes, and altercations and not one word of apology.

They, then, ask the Pope to apologize for a reference he has made to Islam in a quotation from a Medieval text in what was a very long speech? And we have the MSM useful idiots making a big to-do about it, screaming about the Pope's insensitivity and his lack of media savvy?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE? HAS THE WORLD GONE TOTALLY MAD?

Nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide...

...except under the shadow of G*d's wing...

ET: Thanks for your "I haven't noticed any Islamics apologizing" post. Just finished making exactly that point to a liberal friend.

And also for your cogent analysis of the Pope's address, which I've now read. Not only was it NOT an insult, it was in fact a call for western secularists to expand their notion of reason in order to have a successful dialogue with other cultures with profound religious beliefs.

Lookout to garhane: He's right. I urge everybody to read Bat Ye'or's mind-blowing book "Eurabia: The Euro Arab Axis", which exhaustively documents the semi-secret Euro Arab Dialogue (EAD) begun back in 1973. Three decades of "dialogue" [read: empty euro monologue of elites] ending in the diaster of euro dhimmitude, zero reciprocity from Muslims, and collusion with jihadi terrorism.

Any "bridge" you try to build to Muslims you'll be killed trying to cross (no pun intended :).

Muslims just don't do dialogue and, as ET reminds us, they certainly don't do apology, as we reflect on 1400 years of jihad which continues to this very hour.

Muslims, of course, referring to the dominant jihadi branch and not to moderate Muslims who are as victimized as we are.

Well it wasn't an insult in the first place; in fact the exact opposite. And now the "regret over the reactions" will be spun as an apology. Well, the Pope had a few moments of non-dhimmitude anyway. I'm bitterly disappointed but not at all surprised.

Read Bat Ye'or and you'll see that world Christianity is now deep in dhimmitude and have signed onto the anti-Jew, anti-American jihad and the Cult of Palestinianism. And of course the myth of Andalusian Utopia, which, alas, never was.

Hey Mark, thanks for the post, unfortunately most of the west does not even know the history behind Islam, if they did they would be very worried!

Until Muslims reconcile their faith with the facts of history, there will be problems.

In their view, Mohammad was a prophet sent by the Judeo/Christian God, and his is the last revelation - which in essence is the denial of the divinity of Christ and the rewritting of long established Biblical accounts, such as the Abraham and Isaac story. This doesn't make sense.

In any written account of his life, Mad Moe was not a good or spiritual man by anybody's standards (Aisha - his 9 year old child bride. His order for the beheading of more than 600 Jewish men after the battle of the Trench. The selling of their Jewish wives and daughters into slavery, etc.).

Neither was he a prophet. For example, what did he prophesy?

In fact, at the time that Mohammad was devising his religion, Allah was one of a pantheon of 365 Arab gods, who was fittingly a god of war, amongst other titles.

In all historical accounts imperial Islam conquered and was spread by war. Therefore it is an occupying force having taken all lands from the original people and forcing their conversion by the sword and by outright bigotry in the form of taxes and unbearable social constraints.

Given that Muslims reject the truth about the criminal behaviour of their prophet and his armies, it's little wonder that they believe so many lies (like 911 conspiracy theories) and act like savages when confronted with the truth.

Islam cannot survive the truth.

While the Muslims gear themselves up for confrontation after misunderstanding the Pope, with help from the MSM, the nuts (dangerous nuts)in the Palestine Authority have attacked least 5 churches and one Islamic terrorist group threatened to blow up all churches in Gaza.

I prefer reading this as it was written, and not as it was interpreted; i.e. that the Pope sincerely regrets that certain passages could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful. I know the Muslim psyche prefers to have us grovel, but this is not in that category.

And if there are people who don't believe the following is planned, they live with their heads in the sand. Bethlehem was 75%-80% Christian and is now 95% Muslim. While the Christians did not fight for Bethlehem, we know the Jews won't leave Jerusalem. Since intimidation isn't going to work, what have the militant Muslim groups planned for the take-over?

Israeli Islamist Leader: JERUSALEM TO BE A MUSLIM CAPITAL SOON!
02:09 Sep 17, ‘06 / 24 Elul 5766
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, Arutz Sheva

Reiterating a position he has expressed in the past, the leader of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement declared that a new Caliphate will soon arise, with its capital in Jerusalem.

The Islamist leader, Sheikh Raed Salah, made the prediction Friday night, at the 11th annual conference of the Israeli Islamic Movement, in the northern city of Umm El-Fahm.

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.

Lucky us whereas i think we should not let them immigrate.

This guy: The Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul in the 14th century.

Was absolutely right! Has anyone seen any changes in the last 700 years?

The Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul in the 14th century.

Is absolutely right both then and now!

Nothing changes..............

The leader of a church that launched both the crusades and inquisition obviously knows a few tricks about religious violence but hardly holds any 'moral' high ground. Poachers turned gamekeeper are always suspect and mostly hypocrites. But the greatest threat to the pope is not Islam. The origins and claims of his own church are coming under question by a new interpretation of the moral teachings of Jesus the Christ recently posted on the web. Check these links: http://www.energon.uklinux.net
http://thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com