"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."

Oh, yeah, that'll help. Wasn't Ratz talking about a Medieval manuscript? 'Cause if we could start pulling stuff out on Christianity from the same period to give everyone a little perspective.

I hate that because it seems to me he can say what he wants and be protected from the consequences.

Bon voyage, Jess!

So, this is late because I didn't have time to read here yesterday, but my cousin's ex-husband was 14-15 pounds when born, and his brother was 17. That seems even more impressive not that I see how huge the CT is!

Wasn't Ratz talking about a Medieval manuscript?

Yes, he was quoting a Byzantine emperor. That was an extraordinarily stupid line to quote, but the speech wasn't really attacking Islam. It was attacking secularism, which I find much more troubling.

The whole thing is here: [link]

In his speech, the pope quoted 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus who said: "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."

Shame on CNN for omitting context such that their reporting is only going to exacerbate the situation. TIME magazine's coverage is better: [link]

This transcript from Zenit.org is (for me, anyhow) a little easier on the eyes than the one at cggl.org: [link]

Ratzinger is a theology wonk (even for a pope) and his context was complicated and long winded, but CNN didn't even try to get his point.

It was attacking secularism, which I find much more troubling.

I read it as more attacking the tendency to treat reason and faith as two subjects that must remain apart, particularly given the context he established at the beginning of the speech (about his time at the University of Bonn).

I did not find the speech all that accessible though, and my house wasn't giving me the silence I needed in order to let it sink in, so I may have failed to understand. Where did you see the attacks on secularism, Strega?

(eta)

I do see where he is critiquing secularism. I just didn't see attacks, or didn't view what he did say as attacks, given he was also critiquing faith divorced from reason. I wasn't trying to be obtuse, here.

Two amazing videos on Google of model airplanes doing indoor acrobatic routines :

[link] 17.3Mb

and

[link] 16.9Mb

at the airport...line for security v v long!

Ok, this is an unusual position to find myself in, but I think that the Pope’s lecture was clear, coherent, and showed a broad knowledge of history, culture, and philosophy.

I think that the Muslim response has been childish, ill-informed and hypocritical. The idea that people should commit violent acts to further their religion is widespread in the Muslim world. And the Pope is supposed to apologize for quoting a historical comment on this issue, in the context of a lecture about the struggle between reason and faith in all three of the religions worshiping the same God? He didn’t endorse the statement any more than he endorsed the criticisms of Christianity that he discussed.

So now we have Muslims burning down churches to protest the fact that someone quoted someone who suggested that they are prone to violence in the service of their faith. Great insight people! I particularly enjoyed the comments of the spokesman from the Pakistani foreign ministry who criticized the Pope, saying “Suggesting that Islam is intolerant invites violence.” You can get lost in the circularity of statement as stupid as that one.

Hmmm, the shopping center where I got dinner apparently had a Fine Arts show today. I got there as the artists were starting to pack up. Saw some pretty shineys, but was able to control myself.(especially in the case of one of the artists that worked with colored glass. Lovely stuff, but I can't justify $40 and up for a pair of earrings I'd probably wear at work and/or at cons)