Becuase Everything Else Sucks

Pope on a Rope

By Manila Ryce
Published Monday, September 18th, 2006, 5:10 am
Filed under: Society/Culture: Religion, Personal Posts, US Politics

I felt the urge to write briefly on Pope Benedict. To be honest, I never really liked the new pope. Catholics and non-Catholics alike had profound respect and admiration for John Paul II. He set a rather large shadow for his predecessor to step out of. In this regard, I do feel sorry for Pope Benedict XVI because the world inherently hates him like a stepfather. We compare him to Pope John Paul II and pre-judge his actions and statements constantly. And so after cursing the pope for turning Muslims against Catholics, I began to read up on his actual speech rather than rely on the horrible game of telephone going around. The following excerpt is from one of the most comprehensive articles I’ve read about the situation, taken from Antiwar.com.

link: In Defense of Pope Benedict

“In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself – which, in the context of the issue of ‘faith and reason,’ I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

“In the seventh conversation (’diálesis’ – controversy) edited by professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that sura 2:256 reads: ‘There is no compulsion in religion.’ It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under [threat]. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Koran, concerning holy war.”

Much is being made of the pope’s alleged error in citing this particular sura as being of “the early period,” but, contra Andrew Sullivan, it is not central to his point – which is that Islam lacks a moderating Hellenistic influence, and therefore doesn’t rule out the vision of a capricious and irrational deity presiding over a universe based on reason. Nature, says the pope, reflects its Creator, yet some deny this:

In context, the pope was actually speaking out against the irrational nature of Protestantism and Islam in their fundamentalist forms. The pope suggested that such “evil and inhuman” ideology is a distortion. In the pope’s speech, forced conversions were the prime example of this religiously inspired and irrational distortion. The failure however, was not in using a Muslim example of fanaticism, but in failing to use a Catholic example as well. Quoted out of context, it does seem as though the pope is singling out Islam instead of fundamentalism as a whole.

The irony of the pope’s statement is not lost as violence from Muslims has resulted from the mere criticism of that violence. An Italian nun has been shot to death in Somalia, two churches (one not even Catholic) were torched in the West Bank, extremist Muslim clerics have called for the pope’s assassination, and thousands continue to direct their anger and hatred at Benedict XVI as they burn his effigy. These are the actions of fanatics doing more damage to Islam than they accuse the pope of doing. A smooth diplomat, Pope Benedict XVI is not, but his blunt statement against irrationality in religion should be the key focus to those genuinely interested in a dialogue. While meeting with an Islamic delegation in Germany one year ago, Pope Benedict XVI said, “If together we can succeed in eliminating from hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence, we will turn back the wave of cruel fanaticism.” I think that’s something religious peoples and atheists alike would enjoy seeing.

Related Posts

10 Responses to “Pope on a Rope”

  1. Speaking as someone who isn’t Catholic and has not been a fan of this pope from the beginning, I must also defend him in this circumstance. As I understand it his comments have been presented out of context to flocks of Muslims as those who would seek to manipulate them use this as another lightening rod to turn this politically and financially motivated “War on Terror” into a religious war.

    From personal experience I can share with you that a good friend of mine who handles ecumenical and inter-faith relations for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles has received physical threats via email and phone from terribly confused and mislead Muslims presumably from the Los Angeles area. This particular priest is well know in the religious community of Los Angeles as being tolerant and open to dialogue (hence his position), so it is that much more distressing that this is happening. Furthermore, its telling that a man who is so distantly connected with the statements of the pope could find himself in such a position. Clearly as is shown in the post above and in this example, the Catholic church through its billion plus faithful represent a large and undeserving target for fundamentalist agitators.

    The last point that I will make is that ironically the Pope has made a few clear statements against the United States position in this farcical War on Terror. Particularly I recall statements that have been made against torture, reference (perhaps indirectly) the US’s activities in Iraq.

    matt
    09/18/06 at 10:05 am

  2. A triangle is an interesting shape because all sides have a relationship to all sides. Whereas, with a square, for example, two sides do not have a relationship with each other… in the sense that they do not touch or intersect as with a triangle.

    What we are seeing here and have been seeing as this has been a build up for some time is triangular religious warfare. The long term goal being to fufill the “prophecy” of revalations and create armageddon so that Jesus will return to save the day. This belief is also called, Millenialism. (forgive my spelling)

    This is the open belief of the Souther Baptist Belt, The Neo-Cons and the State of Israel. The State of Israel’s close relationship with these groups intersects in the idea that, as the bible states, the final war will between the Jews and the Christian’s for the right to Jeruselum.

    What does this have to do with the Pope? Well, this last Pope was pretty outspoken in regards to peace and it’s safe to say that the Catholic Church as a whole doesn’t necessarily adhere to the wants, dogmas of the Southern Baptist Belt and their Millenialist ideals.

    By throwing a stick in the spokes and creating anamosity between the Catholics and the Muslims, on both sides (The Old Divide And Conquor Paradigm), the “Christian Collalition” is strengthened and as we hear the “Religious war for Jesus,” drum beat louder and louder, conflict such as this would possibly align the Catholics with their “Christian Brothers” the Baptists and would then open the floodgates for even further escalations of violence.

    Don’t be surprised if there’s some ‘Terrorism’ against a Catholic XYZ to further propigate such a mentality.

    But shit, nothing should surprise any of us anymore.

    yazo
    09/18/06 at 12:50 pm

  3. @matt
    Thanks. That’s another point I should have addressed. Some people have hastily linked the pope with the current US administration as being partners in a new “crusade”. This is beyond ridiculous to those familiar with the position of the Vatican on the war in Iraq. The Vatican is also one of only six nations which have petitioned the UN to declare cluster bombs as illegal weapons. This pope has also openly condemned Israel’s collective punishment against Lebanon, and constantly spoken for the rights of the Palestinian people. It seems as though differences in theology are being blown up (no pun intended) to overshadow the fact that the Vatican is one of the few western friends Muslims have. I hope this is all resolved before the pope’s trip to Turkey.

    Administrator
    09/18/06 at 1:00 pm

  4. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/subtle-scholar-but-what-an-inept-politician/2006/09/17/1158431582819.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

    Administrator
    09/18/06 at 9:53 pm

  5. Yet another problem with Fundamentalism; taking shit WAY outta context. It’s very similar to the reaction to the Dutch Cartoon situation, where Islamic extremists were actually calling for the deaths of the cartoonists. I’m afraid that this sort of misunderstanding will only serve to add fuel to both sides; the Islamic extremists who are already clearly upset, and the NeoCon Christ-Thumpers who’ll in turn use any Muslim violence as a justification for their “War on Terror.”
    For me, it only reaffirms my position that, while faith and spirituality must be encouraged, Institutionalized Religion should be eradicated.

    PapaFigue
    09/19/06 at 7:30 am

  6. Here Here PAPA!!!

    RIGHT ON!

    yazo
    09/19/06 at 1:22 pm

  7. @papa and yazo
    the problem with that is that social structure is part of human nature. just like it’d be nice to do away with all government, it’s not going to happen. i don’t think institutionalized religion is the real problem since even buddhism is institutionalized. the difference is that they don’t really have fanatical versions of their religion claiming to be the only truth.

    lets also remember that fanaticism is prevelant amongst small fringe groups lead by a single nut job, rather than large institutions like the vatican. in fact, if you look at the fanatical christians in america they outright despise the catholic institution. the worlds religious institutions can either encourage these fanatical groups or work to defeat them. the church, in this case, was speaking for the latter. hopefully, we will see more muslim leaders denounce the same fanaticism coming from their part of the world. currently they seem to be encouraging it and using it as a political tool.

    Administrator
    09/19/06 at 2:42 pm

  8. @ administrater RE: previous comments

    I would have to firmly disagree my friend. Using government as an example, granted, “No government” would be ideal, with a society opperating as a cohesive, peaceful, unit and no government controlling them. However, we may agree, that it’s not so much that the GOVERNMENT in question that would never dissolve, but rather, eventually we would see (hopefully) smaller governments that opperate with less intrusion on the people.

    To say, “institutionalization is part of human nature” is to ignore the 90% of our brain that we don’t use. In fact, science has proven that the reptilian brain is the oldest part of the brain that opperates in ritual and institution. As we evolve, it is only natural that this old brain changes and grows useless. We are already seeing this today. People are waking up and our evolution is continuing at rapid paces.

    Meanwhile…

    Is it that there would always be religious institution or religious organization? I’d be curious as to hear if Budhism is institutionalized or Organized. There is a difference. I’ve experienced a big difference between an organized meditation group and a Sunday afternoon at Church.

    Furthermore, it is my experience that there are fanatics of/in everything. There are fanatic Budhists as well. But they don’t get on T.V. because they’re not violent. We seem to couple fanatics with violence and that simply isn’t true or fair.

    My point being, is that something, like Papa said, as internal and personal as a connection to Source and Source energy shouldn’t not be institutionalized, with rhetoric, dogma, creeds, bi-laws, rules, regulations, rituals, etc.

    My personal thoughts are that the issue isn’t “institutionalization” or “organization,” It’s religion itself. Without RELIGION, which has proven over the centuries to opperate at the benefit of the state and her military powers rather than for the benefit of the people, none of this would even be an issue. Religion prays off of people’s natural instinct and willingness to believe. We know there’s more out there than this illusion. Once people put a bar code on “God” and say it’s this way or that way… the entire point is molested.

    I assume, this is what Papa and I mean when we say, “Do away with the institution.” In fact, religion is an institution.

    I say, do away with religion altogether and then listen to John Lennon’s “Imagine.”

    Enough outta me… I’ve said to much… I haven’t said enough… :-)

    yazo
    09/19/06 at 5:27 pm

  9. Well, I really can’t respond to all thats been said but let me touch a few points. Firstly, yazo…, the 90% of your brain thing… come one. Thats what they tell you in lame discovery channel shows about ESP (http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm).

    Okay so here is the quote: “Institutionalized Religion should be eradicated.” Okay… I disagree, but let me brake down my argument. Firstly, what is uninstitutionalized religion? I don’t believe there is such a thing. If a faith is codified it becomes institutionalized. Buddhists are institutionalized, because you have to believe and do certain things to be considered a Buddhist. If you don’t do them you are not. Any faith system that conforms to any sort of generally agreed upon set of rules becomes, eventually, a religion, and all religions are institutions by there definition. If I’m wrong than point out an uninstitutionalized “religion”.

    So then what is the alternative. Well I guess there are two: atheism, and individual/personal beliefs. The latter of the two necessarily being completely separate and devoid of concepts deriving from known religions. I say that becomes it would be contradictory to your argument to use religions for the basis of your faith if you would like them eradicated. If you are an advocate of atheism, then what can I say? Clearly you haven’t experienced anything in this world that would lead you to have faith in a power greater then our own, and that is another discussion for another time. If you are an advocate that people should believe in whatever they want to believe in, and that applying rules and definitions to faith is detrimental to society and the believer, then I wholeheartedly and completely disagree. Let me break this down on two levels, first the societal level, and secondly the spiritual level.

    Would society benefit from the absence of religion? If you want to focus on the negative you would say that this would break down barriers that exist between peoples of different faiths, and subsequently allow them to coexist peacefully. Furthermore you might say that with out religion the people that seek to manipulate that masses would without a forum to do so, thereby allow people to make there own decisions. With regard to first objection, do we stop to consider how religion has unified people throughout the past and built communities so that people can gather together and build-up society. How many examples do we have of this. The Arab peoples were scattered and backwards nomads on the Arabian peninsula until the faith of Mohammad united them all, and civilized them. It provided them with hope and guidance, and for over a thousand of years they flourished as a society and invented many of the foundations of culture and science that we rely upon today. Clearly Christianity has done the same thing throughout history. At its best it has been the source of social reform throughout the ages, and objectively speaking more rights for all human beings have been defended in the name of the Christian Faith than have been compromised. The Abolishment of slavery, equal rights between the sexes, the rule of law… all these things were established in the name of God. What can we say in contradiction of these things, the crusades, or American slavery. Firstly, the most quoted and the most lame of all examples of the evils of Christianity is the Crusades. These wars were waged by greedy men who wanted money and power. Is it the fault of the faith that these wars occurred. How many more times that amount have died for the cause of greed and power overtly, as opposed to masking there intentions through religious fervor. Many people say that Christianity became a reinforcing power that prolonged slavery in America. Bullshit. People were freeing their slaves in the Roman era after receiving the sacrament of baptism. If some retards didn’t understand the message until 1900 years later, than is it Christianities fault? Those are just two examples, but ultimately the common thread is this: The evil here is the capacity for greed in some people, not the faith. If we want to solve the problem we should be thinking how to deal with greedy people, not eradicating religion.

    So then we come to issue of the effectiveness or validity of exclusively individualistic beliefs. Personally I have something against agnosticism, in many ways I would prefer someone be atheist than be agnostic. Now I’m not saying that every organized religion is better than someones personal beliefs, because there are a lot of nutty organized religions out there, but frankly as an orthodox christian I believe that concept of traditional faith is important. I’m not a Buddhist or a Muslim or a Jew, but these are ancient faiths themselves, so until I’m told otherwise I’ll project my understanding of these things on them. When I align myself with this ancient faith I can look to hundreds and thousands of years of established teachings and consistent faith. I know that the Church I am a part of was established by Christ. Likewise should other established religions believe that they are members of faiths that carry the tenants that were passed down to them from the originators of that belief system, and that has the weight of tradition as well as the legitimacy that it takes to stand the test of time. Are these things meaningless? If I decide that today I want to believe X, since without religion I must need to come up with something to believe in, what power does anything that I believe in have. Sure it has value to me, because I’m the one who decided to believe in it, but what happens when I begin to falter in my faith, or when times are difficult and I need to rely on something? Were do I turn for guidance and help? I can’t go anywhere, my faith is my own and I can’t rely on anyone to reinforce it for me. What kind of faith would only be as strong as my own spirit? If you can’t rely on your faith in times of trouble, than what good is it? Ultimately, there are reasons why religions exist. They aren’t propped up or kept in existence by evil forces that seek to control the masses, its the masses that ensure their existence. Often they do it at great personal expense. They know they need it, and that they always always have. There was never a time in human civilization that religions didn’t exist.

    I’ve probably over-responded on this topic, but frankly it is the position of some in this world (John Lennon among them) that the source of evil is religion. In fact evil is the source of evil in this world. Clearly this is an issue close to my heart, but whats more it pains me to see the matter so over-simplified by people. A world with out religion would ugly, dark, and hopeless. When you talk about eradicating it, you might as well be talking about nuclear holocaust for me. Both would be equally pleasurable.

    matt
    09/19/06 at 10:49 pm

  10. Matthew, you spoke well as always. And as with all things we must take into consideration something the Jouge always tells me: perspective.

    You said, “I know that the Church I am a part of was established by Christ.”

    How do you KNOW that? Is it faith or fact? To play both sides of the coin, didn’t King Dirtad establish the Church? Splitting hairs, OK.

    Larger picture, historically speaking: Did Jesus start the Church or did the Church start Jesus?

    Can we explore “Christ myths” in this forum or is it way too off topic?

    And for the record: I don’t believe in Religion and I don’t believe in evil. I just believe in me :-)

    (((I have notes at home on my BIG THREE PROBLEMS with RELIGION (Christianity Specifically) so, I’ll probably post that if this conversation continues.)))

    yazo
    09/20/06 at 3:14 pm

Leave a Reply

Tired of filing this information out everytime you leave a comment at the Largest Minority? Why not register as a user? You also get full access to our forum!

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>