Emperor's Words Cause Controversy

[M. Porcius Cato]

Calm down GO. I read your Holiness' speech, and it's not me who asked the fellow to apologize for it. The old man himself decided to express his regrets. Personally, I rather liked the speech as a very nice application of Aquinas' views to contemporary politics.

 

HOWEVER, I should note that of the three groups who were the subjects of the Pontiff's talk--violent Islamicists (whom Ratz would describe as following 'faith WITHOUT reason'), secular Europeans (whom Ratz would describe as following 'reason WITHOUT faith'), and proper followers of Aquinas (whom Ratz believes to find some permissible and admirable mixture of reason and faith)--two groups had reason to disagree (violent Islamicists and secularists), yet only one received an apology (violent Islamicists).

 

To me, this shows the whole rottenness of the Thomist compromise between reason and faith--in a compromise of this sort, there is absolutely no principled way to decide when and whether to use reason, and so in the end it amounts to complete capitulation to those who would follow faith without reason. Your Holiness' apology to the Islamicists is simply the logical outcome of an impossible compromise.

 

In my view, there is no co-operation possible between those who follow faith without reason and those who follow reason without faith. Normally, this is no problem whatever (live and let live), but when when the former group decides to pick up their ancient sword against the secular cities of the West (as the Islamicists have done), these violent faithful should be prepared for the vastly more powerful arsenal that science and reason brings to the battlefield. And, frankly, those who would mix their faith and reason should either choose sides or get the hell out of the way--NOT try to be peacemakers and NOT apologize.

 

(Now, my apolgies if this rhetoric gets us moved to the Arena--but I find the Pontiff's apology to be reprehensible.)

[Gaius Octavius]

Gaius rarely becomes exercised, therefor he needs no calming. He merely attempted to explain the term 'papal infallibility'. Of course, he....

 

Thomist theology uses reason to advance faith.

 

I too feel that the papacy had absolutely no reason to apologize for historical facts. Those who twisted with malice and/or ignorance the essence of the Pope's speech, which in reality spoke for the Moslem religion, owe apologies.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Thomist theology uses reason to advance faith.

And for that I admire Thomas Aquinas over all other theologians. Philosophically, he's my favorite medievalist and Catholic (though I find his arguments on the existence of God utterly unconvincing).

 

I too feel that the papacy had absolutely no reason to apologize for historical facts. Those who twisted with malice and/or ignorance the essence of the Pope's speech, which in reality spoke for the Moslem religion, owe apologies.

 

So why do you think he apologized? And why do you think he apologized specifically to people like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt yet not to the secularists whom he also criticized?

[Viggen]

Two Churches Hit

 

"NABLUS, West Bank - Two churches in the West Bank were hit by firebombs early Saturday, witnesses and clergy said, and a group claiming responsiblity said the attacks were meant as a protest against comments by Pope Benedict XVI about Islam." AP

 

Well, Islam is about 600 years younger then Christianity, so were was christianity around the 15th century? Yup, see the similarities?

 

Maybe there will be something like a "Renaissance" for the Muslim too, who knows, till then they will keep beeing outraged if someone dares to says somthing against them and will shrug their shoulders if another church, plane, building, person goes up in flame in the name of their religion...

 

cheers

viggen

[Gaius Octavius]

So why do you think he apologized? And why do you think he apologized specifically to people like the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt yet not to the secularists whom he also criticized?

 

Perhaps in an attempt to prevent the already occurring attacks on churches and Christians. As for the secularists, perhaps they are intelligent enough to understand an argument and don't go around murdering people because they have a different view.

 

In re the 'Brotherhood", perhaps the security of the Copts.

 

As far as St. Thomas is concerned, it is not only ones privilege but his right to reject, in whole or in part, with or without cause, his theology.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Perhaps in an attempt to prevent the already occurring attacks on churches and Christians. As for the secularists, perhaps they are intelligent enough to understand an argument and don't go around murdering people because they have a different view.

In re the 'Brotherhood", perhaps the security of the Copts.

But then he's using words to manipulate behavior with no regard their truth? Is that consistent with the commandment not to bear false witness? I don't think so. It's the sort of behavior we expect from politicians, not men of ideas. If he has no cause for regret, shouldn't he say so? To my mind, apologizing to these Islamic fanatics is the worst thing to do--if the pope was sincere, he should show as much courage on behalf of peace as do the fanatics on behalf of war.

 

As far as St. Thomas is concerned, it is not only ones privilege but his right to reject, in whole or in part, with or without cause, his theology.

Of course it is one's legal right to reject any ideology with or without cause, but is it right to reject a doctrine without reason? I think not. To turn Dostoeyevski's phrase on its head, without reason, all things are permissable.

[Rameses the Great]

The Muslim Brotherhood now has 30% of the government positions in Egypt and gaining more seats. They encouraged a 'halal' or right to kill on the Pope of Alexandria. If they take office Christians like the Copts will be second class citizens paying taxes and losing rights. Don't think this is true, look to Iran.

 

I have been telling you guys the truth and yet it is not beeing scolded anymore. I hate to tell you I told you so but...I told you so. :sadwalk:

Edited September 16, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Ursus]

Oh, don't worry, RtG, you'll get no argument from me there is an increasingly militant faction of Islam waiting to take over the Arab world - and from there establish a global jihad. Whether they actually succeed is another matter, but certainly there are those would try if given half the chance.

 

I remember sitting in my senior year seminar of political science back in college in 1999 discussing global trends. We had read Samuel Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" written a few years before then in which he pretty much predicted the coming tensions between the West and an increasingly belligerent Islamic world. He was of course roundly criticized by those who felt his predictions were maligning the Muslim world - and by those who were hoping the end of the Cold War would usher in some new age of global peace.

 

Pope Benedict's views on Christianity as a Greco-Roman cultural experience which helps define Western Civilization, and which places it in conflict with cultures defined by other religions, is priceless. And something that Samuel Huntington would say is the stuff of 21st century politics!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clash_of_Civilizations

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Pope shouldn't apologize, it's foolishness to apologize to fools.

 

Global jihad? Hm... don't they realize that if they launch a single nuclear weapon the whole region will be wiped off the map?

 

Fools.

[Rameses the Great]

The thing is Islam was spread by the sword and it is political correctness. The reason why the Muslims get angry when you say something correct about their religion is because their religion teaches war. So when you talk about them they are sensitive because they know that they are beeing incorrect. This leads to them the thinking of invincibility that they are never wrong in the name of their religion.

 

And as pointed out that leads to ignorance, and this will let more people around the world to know what the true meaning of Islam is.

Edited September 16, 2006 by Rameses the Great

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I think everyone knows what they stand for, no matter what they say now.

[Ursus]

Global jihad? Hm... don't they realize that if they launch a single nuclear weapon the whole region will be wiped off the map?

 

 

Do you really think any Western government has the balls to use nuclear weapons these days? The Israelis would have to do it for us.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Do you really think any Western government has the balls to use nuclear weapons these days? The Israelis would have to do it for us.

 

Not that I think we need to nuke anyone in the Mideast, but if we did, we should be ashamed to hide behind the petticoats of Israel.

[Gaius Octavius]

But then he's using words to manipulate behavior with no regard their truth? Is that consistent with the commandment not to bear false witness? I don't think so. It's the sort of behavior we expect from politicians, not men of ideas. If he has no cause for regret, shouldn't he say so? To my mind, apologizing to these Islamic fanatics is the worst thing to do--if the pope was sincere, he should show as much courage on behalf of peace as do the fanatics on behalf of war.

 

No question but that he is using words to manipulate behavior. Nuance. He is contending with ignoranuses and not reasonable people. The papacy did not apologize for what the Pope said but rather for the alleged 'hurt' feelings of the ignoratti.

 

Of course it is one's legal right to reject any ideology with or without cause, but is it right to reject a doctrine without reason? I think not. To turn Dostoeyevski's phrase on its head, without reason, all things are permissable.

 

Not all men (free or otherwise) act with reason. That is a privilege (rather than a right) of freemen. Not to be nihilistic, but who will define 'reason'? What is reasonable to A may be unreasonable to B. This is seen everyday in this world and indeed on this Forum.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Not all men (free or otherwise) act with reason. That is a privilege (rather than a right) of freemen. Not to be nihilistic, but who will define 'reason'? What is reasonable to A may be unreasonable to B. This is seen everyday in this world and indeed on this Forum.

 

Acting with reason is not only a right of free men-- acting with reason is a moral duty. Moreover, your question "who will define reason" is irrelevant. Why not ask, "who will define 'proof' in mathematics"? It doesn't matter if people have different definitions or not--no matter what definition people choose, if I can reduce a theorem to the level of an identity statement (A is A) or direct perception, I can always use that theorem to solve new problems (and since higher level theorems allow problems to solved quickly and even estimated, these theorems are enormously practical).

 

Your comparison of the irrationality of the terrorists and the debates on this forum is invalid. What we see on this forum are disagreements, which are a natural part of reasoning, that arise from uncertain premises and incomplete evidence (which is in the nature of ancient history). Yet, there is no rational uncertainty about wheter the use of physical force is a valid argument--yet, this is what the injunction to spread Islam by the sword amounts to, and this is what the pope was arguing against. Are you seriously arguing that physical force is a valid argument? If not, then you must abandon the polylogism that you've endorsed. Or, if you do think that physical force is a valid argument, I'm sure that someone will be happy to engage you in "debate."