BNN provides English-language US and world news, analysis and opinion from all over the Internet. We strive for high standards, ethical behavior, and the presentation of multiple responsible points of view.
|
Get More Traffic For Your Blog! Blog Explosion brings hundreds of interested visitors to your blog - without costing you a cent. BNN News Archive Page |
Sunday, September 17, 2006
The Pope and Ahmad Khatami Oh, that Pope. Benedict really stepped in it recently when he quoted "the erudite Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus" (he went on to say: [he is] an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both). Please note Benedict's use of erudite as a descriptor, I will revisit that choice shortly. I am sure we all know the quote by now: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Yikes. That seems quite harsh? Well, yes. However that comment was made in oh, c. 1391-ish several years before political correctness came into fashion. It's not the comment by some long dead Emperor that is bothersome, it is the Pope's drawing a quote from him - one that cannot be mistaken for uncontroversial - to make some point. I went to the BBC website to look at the quote in context (www.bbc.com). Certainly, that would put into perspective such a divisive statement made by the leader of the Catholic Church. Here is the quote in context: "In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats." Okay, that is a lot of information. Let me break it down as I see it: 1. Pope quotes Emperor regarding violence and it's use to spread faith (Islam) critisising their most holy prophet in one swoop 2. Pope goes on to say spreading faith through violence = bad news 3. Context doesn't clear anything up in this case. Here's my problem: perhaps in order to promote understanding, accountability and good will, the pope should have looked to an example of the use of violence to spread "faith" closer to his own back yard. Say, the Crusades maybe, as an example of "God [not being] pleased by bloodshed". That seems reasonable to me. I think the Pope was trying to do the right thing with (bloodshed = bad) but with faulty tools. Unless...Take a look at Benedict's use of "erudite" to describe Paleologus. Perhaps he meant "erudite" as in it's less well known meaning "rude" (a). Okay, now to Mr. Khatami. In his reaction (one of loads by Islamic leaders around the world) to Pope Benedict's statement, Ahmad Khatami, Iranian Cleric, says: "It is unfortunate to see that the leader of the world's Christians is so ill-informed about Islam and speaks so shamelessly....". (www.bbc.com) (info on Khatami: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Khatami) Okay, while I agree that someone in a position of power (Pope) shouldn't speak about anyone else's religion "shamelessly", Mr. Khatami is sorely mistaken when he gives the title "Leader of the World's Christians" to Pope Benedict. He is not. I am sure there would be Baptists, Evangelicals, Methodists, etc., hopping mad at that statement. Misunderstandings abound. National, religious, political leaders mess up. They are human. But, when someone is empowered to speak on the world stage they should take more care in the comments they make. (a) Word History: One might like to be erudite but hesitate to be rude. This preference is supported by the etymological relationship between erudite and rude. Erudite comes from the Latin adjective rudtus, “well-instructed, learned,” from the past participle of the verb rudre, “to educate, train.” The verb is in turn formed from the prefix ex-, “out, out of,” and the adjective rudis, “untaught, untrained,” the source of our word rude. The English word erudite is first recorded in a work possibly written before 1425 with the senses “instructed, learned.” Erudite meaning “learned” is supposed to have become rare except in sarcastic use during the latter part of the 19th century, but the word now seems to have been restored to favor from: www.dictionary.com Blogger News Network is advertiser-supported, and your visits to our advertisers help BNN to meet its expenses. Help keep us afloat! posted by andykopsa at 9:38 AM |
Subscribe to BNN and get a daily bulletin of all our news postings. Interested in writing for BNN? Want information on our news service? Contact The Editor Writing for BNN BNN Editorial Policies Previous Posts
|
2 Comments:
As I wrote in an article back on July 25th of this year, the Crusades were a really, really, bad idea. Christianity, for the most part, has seemed to learn from its mistakes. Apparently a large number of Muslim clerics, to date, have not.
The first Crusade began as a response to Eastern Christendom's desperate call for help against the hordes of Allah.
By the middle of the fifteenth century, Constantinople was gone.
Regards,
Amillennialist
Amillennialist Contra Mundum
http://amillennialist.blogspot.com
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home