Interesting:Pope/Islam

[Guest guest]

Date: Sun Sep 24, 2006 6:48 am (PDT)A wonderful article .... Gush Shalom ad in Haaretz, Sept. 22 eve of the Jewish New Year עברית / Hebrew _http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he_ (http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he) The essence of peace is to connect two opposites. If you see somebody whose opinion is the very opposite of yours, don't believe that it is impossible to be at peace with him. Also, if you see two people (peoples) that are two opposites - don't say it is impossible to make peace between them. On the contrary, that is the essence of the completeness of peace - to make peace prevail between two opposites. Rabbi Nachman of Bratislav Rabbi Nachman , 1772-1811, a mystic and ascetic, was one of the most celebrated Ukrainian Hassidic rabbis. He has many followers in Israel and elsewhere *** Uri Avnery23.9.06 Muhammad's Swordעברית / Hebrew attached Since the days when Roman Emperors threw Christians to the lions, the relations between the emperors and the heads of the church have undergone many changes.Constantine the Great, who became Emperor in the year 306 - exactly 1700 years ago - encouraged the practice of Christianity in the empire, which included Palestine. Centuries later, the church split into an Eastern (Orthodox) and a Western (Catholic) part. In the West, the Bishop of Rome, who acquired the title of Pope, demanded that the Emperor accept his superiority.The struggle between the Emperors and the Popes played a central role in European history and divided the peoples. It knew ups and downs. Some Emperors dismissed or expelled a Pope, some Popes dismissed or excommunicated an Emperor. One of the Emperors, Henry IV, "walked to Canossa", standing for three days barefoot in the snow in front of the Pope's castle, until the Pope deigned to annul his excommunication.But there were times when Emperors and Popes lived in peace with each other. We are witnessing such a period today. Between the present Pope, Benedict XVI, and the present Emperor, Bush II, there exists a wonderful harmony. Last week's speech by the Pope, which aroused a world-wide storm, went well with Bush's crusade against "Islamofascism", in the context of the "Clash of Civilizations".IN HIS lecture at a German university, the 265th Pope described what he sees as a huge difference between Christianity and Islam: while Christianity is based on reason, Islam denies it. While Christians see the logic of God's actions, Muslims deny that there is any such logic in the actions of Allah.As a Jewish atheist, I do not intend to enter the fray of this debate. It is much beyond my humble abilities to understand the logic of the Pope. But I cannot overlook one passage, which concerns me too, as an Israeli living near the fault-line of this "war of civilizations".In order to prove the lack of reason in Islam, the Pope asserts that the prophet Muhammad ordered his followers to spread their religion by the sword. According to the Pope, that is unreasonable, because faith is born of the soul, not of the body. How can the sword influence the soul?To support his case, the Pope quoted - of all people - a Byzantine Emperor, who belonged, of course, to the competing Eastern Church. At the end of the 14th century, the Emperor II Palaeologus told of a debate he had - or so he said (its occurrence is in doubt) - with an unnamed Persian Muslim scholar. In the heat of the argument, the Emperor (according to himself) flung the following words at his adversary:"Show me just what Mohammed 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". These words give rise to three questions: (a) Why did the Emperor say them? ( Are they true? © Why did the present Pope quote them?WHEN MANUEL II wrote his treatise, he was the head of a dying empire. He assumed power in 1391, when only a few provinces of the once illustrious empire remained. These, too, were already under Turkish threat. At that point in time, the Ottoman Turks had reached the banks of the Danube. They had conquered Bulgaria and the north of Greece, and had twice defeated relieving armies sent by Europe to save the Eastern Empire. On May 29, 1453, only a few years after 's death, his capital, Constantinople (the present Istanbul) fell to the Turks, putting an end to the Empire that had lasted for more than a thousand years.During his reign, made the rounds of the capitals of Europe in an attempt to drum up support. He promised to reunite the church. There is no doubt that he wrote his religious treatise in order to incite the Christian countries against the Turks and convince them to start a new crusade. The aim was practical, theology was serving politics.In this sense, the quote serves exactly the requirements of the present Emperor, Bush II. He, too, wants to unite the Christian world against the mainly Muslim "Axis of Evil". Moreover, the Turks are again knocking on the doors of Europe, this time peacefully. It is well known that the Pope supports the forces that object to the entry of Turkey into the European Union. IS THERE any truth in 's argument?The pope himself threw in a word of caution. As a serious and renowned theologian, he could not afford to falsify written texts. Therefore, he admitted that the Qur'an specifically forbade the spreading of the faith by force. He quoted the second Sura, verse 256 (strangely fallible, for a pope, he meant verse 257) which says: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith". How can one ignore such an unequivocal statement? The Pope simply argues that this commandment was laid down by the prophet when he was at the beginning of his career, still weak and powerless, but that later on he ordered the use of the sword in the service of the faith. Such an order does not exist in the Qur'an. True, Muhammad called for the use of the sword in his war against opposing tribes - Christian, Jewish and others - in Arabia, when he was building his state. But that was a political act, not a religious one; basically a fight for territory, not for the spreading of the faith.Jesus said: "You will recognize them by their fruits." The treatment of other religions by Islam must be judged by a simple test: How did the Muslim rulers behave for more than a thousand years, when they had the power to "spread the faith by the sword"? Well, they just did not.For many centuries, the Muslims ruled Greece. Did the Greeks become Muslims? Did anyone even try to Islamize them? On the contrary, Christian Greeks held the highest positions in the Ottoman administration. The Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians, Hungarians and other European nations lived at one time or another under Ottoman rule and clung to their Christian faith. Nobody compelled them to become Muslims and all of them remained devoutly Christian.True, the Albanians did convert to Islam, and so did the Bosniaks. But nobody argues that they did this under duress. They adopted Islam in order to become favorites of the government and enjoy the fruits.In 1099, the Crusaders conquered Jerusalem and massacred its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants indiscriminately, in the name of the gentle Jesus. At that time, 400 years into the occupation of Palestine by the Muslims, Christians were still the majority in the country. Throughout this long period, no effort was made to impose Islam on them. Only after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the country, did the majority of the inhabitants start to adopt the Arabic language and the Muslim faith - and they were the forefathers of most of today's Palestinians.THERE IS no evidence whatsoever of any attempt to impose Islam on the Jews. As is well known, under Muslim rule the Jews of Spain enjoyed a bloom the like of which the Jews did not enjoy anywhere else until almost our time. Poets like Yehuda Halevy wrote in Arabic, as did the great Maimonides. In Muslim Spain, Jews were ministers, poets, scientists. In Muslim Toledo, Christian, Jewish and Muslim scholars worked together and translated the ancient Greek philosophical and scientific texts. That was, indeed, the Golden Age. How would this have been possible, had the Prophet decreed the "spreading of the faith by the sword"?What happened afterwards is even more telling. When the Catholics re-conquered Spain from the Muslims, they instituted a reign of religious terror. The Jews and the Muslims were presented with a cruel choice: to become Christians, to be massacred or to leave. And where did the hundreds of thousand of Jews, who refused to abandon their faith, escape? Almost all of them were received with open arms in the Muslim countries. The Sephardi ("Spanish") Jews settled all over the Muslim world, from Morocco in the west to Iraq in the east, from Bulgaria (then part of the Ottoman Empire) in the north to Sudan in the south. Nowhere were they persecuted. They knew nothing like the tortures of the Inquisition, the flames of the auto-da-fe, the pogroms, the terrible mass-expulsions that took place in almost all Christian countries, up to the Holocaust.WHY? Because Islam expressly prohibited any persecution of the "peoples of the book". In Islamic society, a special place was reserved for Jews and Christians. They did not enjoy completely equal rights, but almost. They had to pay a special poll-tax, but were exempted from military service - a trade-off that was quite welcome to many Jews. It has been said that Muslim rulers frowned upon any attempt to convert Jews to Islam even by gentle persuasion - because it entailed the loss of taxes. Every honest Jew who knows the history of his people cannot but feel a deep sense of gratitude to Islam, which has protected the Jews for fifty generations, while the Christian world persecuted the Jews and tried many times "by the sword" to get them to abandon their faith. THE STORY about "spreading the faith by the sword" is an evil legend, one of the myths that grew up in Europe during the great wars against the Muslims - the reconquista of Spain by the Christians, the Crusades and the repulsion of the Turks, who almost conquered Vienna. I suspect that the German Pope, too, honestly believes in these fables. That means that the leader of the Catholic world, who is a Christian theologian in his own right, did not make the effort to study the history of other religions.Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?There is no escape from viewing them against the background of the new Crusade of Bush and his evangelist supporters, with his slogans of "Islamofascism" and the "Global War on Terrorism" - when "terrorism" has become a synonym for Muslims. For Bush's handlers, this is a cynical attempt to justify the domination of the world's oil resources. Not for the first time in history, a religious robe is spread to cover the nakedness of economic interests; not for the first time, a robbers' expedition becomes a Crusade.The speech of the Pope blends into this effort. Who can foretell the dire consequences?

[Guest guest]

>Why did he utter these words in public? And why now?

Interesting article, Alice. Thanks.

I haven't been a practicing Catholic for many, many years now so maybe I have no position from which to make the next statement but here goes anyway. No matter how much the pope insisted that what he said was not his own feelings and thoughts and that it was all an old quote, etc, it was stupid and inflammatory to make such a statement at this time, IMO. Since I must assume the pope is not stupid, it seems to me that his deliberate intent was to inflame touchy emotions, which is precisely what happened and those who took the bait did so in such a way as to "prove" his statement. More moderate voices cannot make as much noise as bombs and attacks on churches, etc.

How many generations does it take for "young" souls to grow up? Sigh?

Blissings,

Sam

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself. ~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuNo single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc.Let us clothe ourselves in a mutual tolerance of one another’s views. ~ St. Clement of RomeI support the separation of Church and Hate. ~ Bumper Sticker

[Guest guest]

Alice, all,

Hi. It's such a curious thing to see a scholary Pope reduce Islam so he

can whack it as a straw man. This really doesn't make sense to me--that

the Pope take this approach.

There's plenty of problems with religion, any religion, to go around.

Certainly highly selective criticism is easy to accomplish. You take the

most historically situated, primitive, magical, morally offensive, and

contradictory features and reduce whatever religion to just those and then

whack away.

Forget that religious behavior is a subset of human behavior and is also:

complicated, variable, and always-apparently-a matter of a person's

" picking and choosing " what they believe, choose to do, and what they will

subject people who pick and choose differently to.

Neither Christianity or Islam is some monolithic single thing. The clash

of belief at the extreme of Christian fundamentalism, for example, is

diverse just at the level of eschatology.

As for Islam, it can't be plucked out of its contexts. It's dumb to

suggest there isn't an elaborate systematic view of the soul. See

al-Arabi, Ghazzali, etc.

BUT, nevertheless, the deepest heart and highest mind of any believer or

seeker or teacherstudent selects for what it is sympathetic to, and, so,

against the high ideals are set all the *other* picking and choosing we

associate with religious behavior people are in sympathy with. At the

common extreme this seems to be a big contest of king of the earthly hill.

But, we note the roots in psychological thus human factors, fear, sadness,

anger, and the dis-ease of being charmed by the " complex " .

The abject varieties should not be let off the hook. Religious behavior is

mightily entangled with social behaviors and there are many such behavior

" in the name of " which are heinous and should be rejected by all soul-full

and loving women and men.

***

" Islam is a way to consciousness that conditions the soul against this

disease of the heart. "

....one of the Ways leading down to spoke to the hub of home. Alas, few

hear the call to this. And, it's hard to answer, and, it's heart wrending

to even begin.

regards,

---

http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~qsc/docs/TerrorOfIslam.pdf

Dear Friends,

Recent tragedies have prompted questions and uncertainties about Islam. I

would like to share with you the meaning I have gained from practicing

Islam during the last 12 years. I hope that my view will further your

perspective and understanding.

Peace be upon you,

Amir

Terror of Islam

Holy war, suicide bombings, fighting for faith, and killing in the name of

God - from Crusaders to terrorists, from sacred shrines to New York City,

history is tainted by a grave disease afflicting humankind. This cancer of

the heart ravages reason and emotion, breeding numb and blind souls who

claw to their belief in desperate defense for meaning.

Only infected fanatics are capable of twisting the sacred guidance common

to all faiths into a weapon against the faithful. They leave their marks

on time but they can not change the ideals shared by all religions; wisdom

that can help heal and instill a peace that consoles us from inflicting

more suffering.

What is the ideal of Islam? Islam is not a name that defines you as better

than your neighbor or rewards you a special status with God. The name

itself is an Arabic word derived from the meaning to surrender or submit.

Islam is a way of life that guides your actions and forms your character.

You embark on an inner journey to purge your soul, the true Self, from ego

and vice by reverencing the One who created you from dust. Surrender is a

state of unceasing awareness and appreciation of God’s boundless

attributes (Quran 7:205). As your soul submits, you are able to practice

the meaning of peace, compassion, love, forgiveness, and charity that

originate from one Source. You feel a gradual separation from the body

that adorns the soul and all the attachments that nourish the ego. The

shades of superiority, prejudice and judgment fade as the world comes into

focus with the eyes of your soul. In

Islam, the best among us in the sight of God is not the wealthy Christian,

erudite Jew, or fanatic Muslim, but rather, the one who is the most

righteous (Quran 49:13). Islam is a way of life encouraged from the time

of Abraham by Jesus, Muhammad and all messengers who have followed. The

one who is able to surrender the soul is called a Muslim in Arabic, or

Submitter. There are Submitters in every faith; a Buddhist Submitter, a

Christian Submitter, or a Muslim Submitter. They are those who place no

limits on

their belief in the Unseen and impose no judgements on the different forms

of striving that grow the soul closer to that which can never be touched

(Quran 2:3). This common striving towards an Innermost and Outermost that

has no definition encourages unity within a diverse group of people who

advance their personal strides by learning from one another. It is only

when the strokes of absolute and physical conditions are painted over

God’s light that a menacing blindness begins to fester (Quran 9:32).

Individual faith is resigned to the interpretation of others and the soul

becomes confined with complacency. The personal, open passage to the

Divine becomes layered with uncertainties each being imposes on their own

God-given potential. Fear begets fear in this darkness and the desperate

defense of a conditioned

reality consumes what little remains of the soul. The hurtful consequences

are experienced unconsciously within relationships and brought to a rude

awaking by incomprehensible events (Quran 23:71).

Islam is a way to consciousness that conditions the soul against this

disease of the heart. The history of messengers and scriptures has been

nothing more than a source of direction for each generation to surrender

the soul. The nature of this recurring system is a testament to

humankind’s forgetful and unappreciative disposition (Quran 48:23). The

Quran is a

confirmation of the Torah and New Testament intended to serve as such a

reminder for us today. There is no compulsion to read or follow, only an

invitation to reflect. The intention of the stories, allegories, and

teachings is to free the soul through the reverence of God (Quran 7:201).

Practices such as daily contact prayers “salat” and prostration are simply

an exercise of submission, an opportunity to appreciate God throughout the

day, and a break in the rhythm of preoccupation that gradually numbs the

soul (Quran 29:45). The emphasis is on feeling words of veneration move

through your soul rather than what has become a fixation with the ritual

form itself (Quran 107:4-5).

The contact prayer is not an end but rather a first step to maintaining a

steady connection with God, even for the spiritual minded who may feel

waning cycles in their own practice. Prayer is not limited to this form or

frequency. The Quran instills a sensitivity in the soul that inspires

steady reflection on the grandeur of creation, the Creator, and beyond.

Descriptions for such beliefs as “heaven,” “hell,” or the “hereafter” are

merely allegorical representations of what our minds can not fathom. How

else can one describe the sensation of being in God’s presence? The Quran

cultivates the meaning of service, respect and tolerance in individuals

who, together, can build what God deems as the best community; one that

advocates righteousness (Quran 3:110). There are the rare souls who need

no reminders, who are able to live and breathe a steady flow of

submission. The ones who feel the challenge for this awareness are invited

to reflect on the Quran’s guidance.

What does the way of Islam teach about violence and intolerance? Among the

many beautiful attributes that stimulate our reverence, the Quran

describes God at as the Most Gracious and Most Merciful, “rahmaan eh

raheem”. Nearly all 114 chapters of the Quran begin by introducing God

with these qualities; an expression for a Creator who regards life as

sacred. There is no justification in the killing of innocent souls. (Quran

17:33). A murder or horrendous crime against one person is considered an

assault on humanity while the sparing of one life is sparing the lives of

all people (Quran 5:32). The notion of “jihad,” or holy war, is a

misinterpreted oxymoron that represents the battle the soul must wage to

surrender and serve God (Quran 22.78). Capital punishment is discouraged

and even suicide is admonished

(Quran 2:178 & 4:29). Oppression is deemed to be worse than murder (Quran

2:217). God encourages kindness, tolerance and equitable reconciliation

between the faithful who are fighting (24:22, 49:9). The way of Islam is

resorting to pardon, forgetting, and forgiving; striving to emulate the

attributes of the Most Compassionate (Quran 7:199 & 64:14). Even in the

course of justice, patience is advocated instead of revenge: “…if you

resort to patience (instead of revenge), it would be better for the

patient ones. You shall resort to patience - and your patience is

attainable only with

God’s help” (Quran 16:126-7 & 42:43). The genuine strength of character

that yields patience is encouraged in response to every interaction: “Not

equal is the good response and the bad response. You shall resort to the

nicest

possible response. Thus, the one who used to be your enemy, may become

your best friend” (Quran 41:34). This conduct is a true test of the

unconditional surrender of the soul, the abstention of ego, and the

recognition that all

dignity belongs to God (Quran 4:139).

Those who claim superiority in the name of their religion or abuse the way

of Islam to hurt other faiths are blinded to the light of unity and

equality in the Quran: “Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish,

the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God, and believes

in the Last Day, and leads a righteous life, will receive their

recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they

grieve” (Quran 2:62). The love of God is not reserved for names such as

the Protestant, Shi’ite, or Orthodox who remain divided by clinging to an

exclusive belief of guaranteed “salvation.” God’s infinite love flows to

the charitable, righteous, benevolent, equitable, and just; those who

submit a complete submission (Quran 3:134, 3:76, 5:13, 5:42, 49:9 &

2:208).

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

You wrote:

>

> Hi. It's such a curious thing to see a scholary Pope reduce Islam so he

> can whack it as a straw man. This really doesn't make sense to me--that

> the Pope take this approach.

Why, I wonder, would you assume that the pope's purpose was scholarly and not

rhetorical (political)? Or are you being ironic?

This was a public speech - the pope wasn't just kickin' it with his homies. It's

true that " Enlightenment man " might think that if we just earnestly and publicly

get down to the truth and share it with the people - nay, make them finally see

it for themselves - then all will be well. But this pope is not a man of the

" Enlightenment " .

Best regards,

Dan Watkins

>

[Guest guest]

Sam says: >>Since I must assume the pope is not stupid, it seems to me that his deliberate intent was to inflame touchy emotions, which is precisely what happened and those who took the bait did so in such a way as to "prove" his statement. More moderate voices cannot make as much noise as bombs and attacks on churches, etc.<< --The Pope is attempting to create a rift between moderate Muslims and extremists, most likely. Not inflaming emotions for its own sake, but for the sake of pulling into the foreground a debate which can't be effective if it remains background. Unless he's into some messianic "final battle" thingy, which is always possible. But I don't think people have to be religious to fall into that one, it's a fractal pattern that affects just about everybody. We divide the world into compartments, us and them, and as long as that's the background to our lives, we're

feeding a dragon that will eventually consume us.

All-new Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

>--The Pope is attempting to create a rift between moderate Muslims and extremists, most >likely.

This is a kind way of looking at it but for once my cynic is in the foreground and I think he was being just plain disingenuous. And if he wasn't, well, his ploy seems to have backfired.

Blissings,

Sam

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself. ~ Wayne DyerIdeologies separate us. Dreams and anguish bring us together. ~ Eugene IonescuNo single raindrop believes it is to blame for the flood. ~ Despair, Inc.Let us clothe ourselves in a mutual tolerance of one another’s views. ~ St. Clement of RomeI support the separation of Church and Hate. ~ Bumper Sticker

[Guest guest]

Sam says: >>This is a kind way of looking at it but for once my cynic is in the foreground and I think he was being just plain disingenuous. And if he wasn't, well, his ploy seems to have backfired.<< --The cynical view of anything is always partly realistic and partly occluded by resentment, and is almost always dislocated, a view through an imaginary observer's eyes rather than one's own... cynicism is a subclass of objectification, a way of minimizing the impact of object on subject by making it (him) less and less real, less human, simpler to handle and easier to dismiss in conversation. The Pope seems closer to Lucifer through that lens than to a flawed and fragile human being, given more power than human beings can safely hang onto for any length of time. Don't too much that cynical view, in yourself or in others. It's a defense mechanism, separate from the

realism that enables positive and negative possibilities to coexist in the same mind (possibly an attempt at reducing dissonance by dismissing the good with the bad). The actual Pope is not the Pope of our imaginations, he's just a guy, as good or as evil as we are, but more famous and more exposed to the backlash of mass criticism and judgment. What Muslims feel about him says something about perceptions of Christianity in the Islamic world, and that has to be addressed by both Christians and Muslims, regardless of what the Pope does or how much he has to do for damage control. As for mind-reading his motives, I suspect his speech was partly sincere and partly political. Most likely, he believes the debate must come to the foreground (he's right, if that's the case) and he's probably well aware that his Christian and Muslim audiences will respond differently to what he says. Apparently he's meeting with Muslim community

figures now, which is more than I'm doing, and worth applauding, regardless of whether it's an attempt at saving his reputation or an attempt at healing the rifts between communities. Too often, we play the game of "Is he good or evil?" rather than, "how do we respond to good and bad moves by people who represent millions of other people?" The end result is a system in which two populations feel entirely differently about who is good and who is evil. Liberals and conservatives have been living in different worlds. Progressive and regressive Catholics and Muslims have been isolating from one another, allowing the most arrogant and complex-ridden individuals to represent the mass on the world stage. At some point the silent majority must become real to its counterparts on the other side of the Culture War and the Clash of Civilizations. That's not going to happen if we are passive audiences, giving the thumbs up or down to celebrity Popes or

Presidents. How do Americans view Iranians, and vice-versa? They worry we don't know anything about them, that we'll associate them with cowboy Mullahs who talk about Israel as if Jews were the Antichrist. And we Americans worry that our cowboy President or a cowboy Pope will set off wildfires of rage in the world that will spill over onto the rest of us. What we miss is that the cowboys are at least in the saddle, while we're in the lounge chair, watching the cowboys, talking about what they should and shouldn't do. What are some ways for Americans, Muslims and others to actively cross the lines between communities, rather than pushing neurotic cowboys to the front to speak and fight for the mass? The Pope is in the position of an entertainer or politician who must do what the audience will respond to. The real question is, is the Islamic audience real to him, or is it a prop? Is the Pope real to Muslims, or is he a prop, a symbol?

Granted, he's made himself a symbol by accepting the position. But once a person is a symbol, what is his responsibility to make one community real to another? Ultimately, wars are a kind of viral infection that erupts in the silence between communities, harnessing the demonizing stereotypes and assumptions each side has about the other into a hurricane of paranoid violence. Preventing wars cannot be done if two populations remain separate and uninvolved, not if they are forced into relationship by resource exploitation, geopolitical intrigue or terrorism. Most human beings see the rest of the world in partly real and partly unreal terms. Americans tend not to know many Arabs or Muslims in person. Whether that is due to Arabs being a smallish minority here, or to a more sinister wall of stereotypes or bigotry (I wonder what an honest portrayal of the American image of Muslims and Arabs would look like?), the effect is more or less the same.

We end up blaming the Pope for his gaffes with Muslims, rather than engaging the Islamic world as individual human beings, not responsible to an audience but to conscience. Of course, Popes make excellent shadow containers. That's why the role exists, to be played by anyone willing to take on hero/villain projections. If God really works through authority figures, she'll use the Pope as a lightning rod, creating a wedge between the Islamic world and terrorists who target civilians. God may have a sense of humor, though. It would be funny if we condemned the Pope, Bush or Chavez for setting fires, rather than forming a bucket brigade to put them out. The world's on fire, and we're still pretending it's entertainment, with only a thumbs up or thumbs down critical response required rather than organized mass action.

Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

> This was a public speech - the pope wasn't just kickin' it with his homies.

It's true that " Enlightenment man " might think that if we just earnestly and

publicly get down to the truth and share it with the people - nay, make them

finally see it for themselves - then all will be well.

The Pope isn't a man of the enlightenment in these terms? In other

words, he lies to his intended audience, doesn't care about the

enlightened peanut gallery, and kicks back with his homies and tells

them something like,

" You guys get the unvarnished truth, Islam is complicated and variously

inclined. "

Of course the Pope's ill-chosen example was deployed to demonstrate what

can be characterized as an enlightened argument, whether one agrees with

it or not. See for yourself.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

Meanwhile Catholic doctrine remains ambivalent--at best--about the

equivalence of competing theisms.

regards,

[Guest guest]

S Calhoun wrote:

Dan, all,

> This was a public speech - the pope wasn't just kickin' it with

his homies. It's true that "Enlightenment man" might think that if we

just earnestly and publicly get down to the truth and share it with the

people - nay, make them finally see it for themselves - then all will

be well.

>The Pope isn't a man of the enlightenment in these terms?

I'd say no, esp. not this one. The RCC is one of the last holdouts

against the fantasy of universal Enlightenment, or so it seems to me.

>In other

>words, he lies to his intended audience,

I shouldn't wonder. Do you believe that people are burning in hell for

eternity because they ate meat on Friday? But that was what the people

were taught. Do you think the top men of the Vatican, some of the most

learned men on earth, believed that? But if they didn't, and they

taught it anyway, they were lying, weren't they?

doesn't care about the

enlightened peanut gallery,

No - because he *does* care. You can't enlighten the peanut gallery.

That's the point.

and kicks back with his homies and tells

them something like,

"You guys get the unvarnished truth, Islam is complicated and variously

inclined."

I don't know what the pope's true opinion of Islam is.

Of course the Pope's ill-chosen example was deployed to

demonstrate what

can be characterized as an enlightened argument, whether one agrees

with

it or not. See for yourself.

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

I don't see it. When he speaks of "genuine enlightenment," he means

classical rationalism - not "the Enlightenment" of the sixteenth

century and following. He's not thinking of Francis Bacon.

Meanwhile Catholic doctrine remains ambivalent--at best--about the

equivalence of competing theisms

I don't think they are ambivalent. The RCC is the "one true Church" -

period. Can't want it plainer than that.

Best,

Dan

..

regards,

[Guest guest]



Re: Interesting:Pope/IslamS Calhoun wrote:Dan, all,> This was a public speech - the pope wasn't just kickin' it with his homies. It's true that "Enlightenment man" might think that if we just earnestly and publicly get down to the truth and share it with the people - nay, make them finally see it for themselves - then all will be well.>The Pope isn't a man of the enlightenment in these terms?I'd say no, esp. not this one. The RCC is one of the last holdouts against the fantasy of universal Enlightenment, or so it seems to me.>In other >words, he lies to his intended audience,I shouldn't wonder. Do you believe that people are burning in hell for eternity because they ate meat on Friday? But that was what the people were taught. Do you think the top men of the Vatican, some of the most learned men on earth, believed that? But if they didn't, and they taught it anyway, they were lying, weren't they?doesn't care about the enlightened peanut gallery,No - because he *does* care. You can't enlighten the peanut gallery. That's the point.N: I thought the incident was very curious. My understanding has always been that, like Dan, the higher eschellon of the RC has in fact a good bit of contempt for the 'masses' whom it considers unable to understand the 'straight scoop' and views itself as needing to shepard these poor dumb souls for their own good. Dunno how many would put it quite that bluntly.

I tend to assume that this Pope knew exactly what he was doing. But that still leaves me without a clear understanding of his motives.

~ N

and kicks back with his homies and tells them something like,"You guys get the unvarnished truth, Islam is complicated and variously inclined."I don't know what the pope's true opinion of Islam is.Of course the Pope's ill-chosen example was deployed to demonstrate what can be characterized as an enlightened argument, whether one agrees with it or not. See for yourself.http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474I don't see it. When he speaks of "genuine enlightenment," he means classical rationalism - not "the Enlightenment" of the sixteenth century and following. He's not thinking of Francis Bacon.Meanwhile Catholic doctrine remains ambivalent--at best--about the equivalence of competing theismsI don't think they are ambivalent. The RCC is the "one true Church" - period. Can't want it plainer than that.Best,Dan.regards,

[Guest guest]

Dan, all,

The Pope wouldn't be my first choice for a simulcra of Leo Strauss. But,

inasmuch as one could pose a " classical rationalism " as a (the?)

bullwork against the conceit of all things self-created and thereby

stood up against the epicurian (etc.) and all things modern, methinks

the RCC can't due this duty.

It's rather self-created even it does delineate a pseudo, a priori,

natural order.

As Crispin Sartwell points out this week about legislating the end of limbo,

" how low can you go? it's funny to think about the pope " abolishing "

limbo: it seems that he and others may actually be confused about who is

god. either unbaptized babies go to limbo - and play hilarious party

games - or not. i'm not sure the pope gets to establish or abolish

realms of being, though of course anyone can write and re-write fiction. "

***

Of course a universal enlightenment ordinated by a real natural order

would suppose that to know one's rightful place would be enlightenment

enough. If this is just the way it was and didn't need a " retail "

component we could lump all those off the reservation of this order as

being short of the sale and they'd be the outlyers. Alas, it's the

undemonstrable " wisdom " that seems marginalized; after all, modernity

has happened and despite your protestations, Strauss's reading out into

the posits of said original natural order seems (to me) a

phenomenological turn, thus is a self-report, and comes up at a point in

time. Well, he doesn't offer any real self-evident posits, does he?

Meanwhile the Pope doesn't realize that beyond preaching to the

converted (if not gullible,) his noble baloney reaches the wider

audience...you know, the one that cannot presume his authority, let

alone his absolute authority about what is the 'one true religion', or

much else.

regards,

in Clepheland

[Guest guest]

Dear ,

S Calhoun wrote:

Dan, all,

The Pope wouldn't be my first choice for a simulcra of Leo Strauss.

Of course not. But LS is hardly the only person to teach of classical

rationalism. Unitl recently, almost everybody did.

I presume that the pope knows much of what LS knew.

But,

inasmuch as one could pose a "classical rationalism" as a (the?)

bullwork against the conceit of all things self-created and thereby

stood up against the epicurian (etc.) and all things modern, methinks

the RCC can't due this duty.

Possibly not - if the RCC were doing it, LS and Jung wouldn't have had

to wiegh in. Of course, there is always the new caliphate, but I'm

doubting that they can do it either.

It's rather self-created even it does delineate a pseudo, a priori,

natural order.

As Crispin Sartwell points out this week about legislating the end of

limbo,

"how low can you go? it's funny to think about the pope "abolishing"

limbo: it seems that he and others may actually be confused about who

is

god. either unbaptized babies go to limbo - and play hilarious party

games - or not. i'm not sure the pope gets to establish or abolish

realms of being, though of course anyone can write and re-write

fiction."

Can't argue with that.

***

Of course a universal enlightenment ordinated by a real natural order

would suppose that to know one's rightful place would be enlightenment

enough. If this is just the way it was and didn't need a "retail"

component we could lump all those off the reservation of this order as

being short of the sale and they'd be the outlyers.

Mmmm.... that was never the idea (well, you did have your Greeks and

barbaraians, I suppose).

Alas, it's the

undemonstrable "wisdom" that seems marginalized;

Undemonstrable to whom? Wisdom is presumably demonstrable to the wise.

That which is self-evident is not necessarily self-evident to everyone.

after all, modernity

has happened and despite your protestations, Strauss's reading out into

the posits of said original natural order seems (to me) a

phenomenological turn, thus is a self-report, and comes up at a point

in

time. Well, he doesn't offer any real self-evident posits, does he?

You are not the first to say so. I'm not sure you're wrong. If you are

right, then we need to think, it seems to me, about a possible

philanthropic component. Can there be a philanthropic Nietzscheanism?

That would be a question of mine. I presume that Strauss, even if no

one else, has an esoteric teaching. There is a good deal of arguing

about what it is. As a good student of Strauss pointed out to me, there

is no opinion you can attribute to LS and back up with textual evidence

that is not contradicted by other textual evidence (hope that bad

sentence is clear - it is too early to do better). It seems to me that

the only "self-evident posit" is that there is something rather than

nothing.

Meanwhile the Pope doesn't realize that beyond preaching to the

converted (if not gullible,) his noble baloney reaches the wider

audience...you know, the one that cannot presume his authority, let

alone his absolute authority about what is the 'one true religion', or

much else.

I am wary about misunderestimating the RCC, which has after all been in

business for about 1700 years.

Best,

Dan

regards,

in Clepheland