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)

Rick, there are roughly a billion Muslims who didn't immediately run out and burn the nearest Christian church in outrage over the pope's speech. To paint them and their religion, on the whole, as violent because a relatively small number of extemists are is a horrible disservice.

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.

Well, and take for example the five churches in the West Bank and Gaza that were attacked. Only one of them was Roman Catholic, which brings my little mind back to the whole point about reason.

Meanwhile, the Anglicans and Greek Orthodox are all, "What the hell did we do? We haven't been speaking to him for centuries."

Rick, there are roughly a billion Muslims who didn't immediately run out and burn the nearest Christian church in outrage over the pope's speech. To paint them and their religion, on the whole, as violent because a relatively small number of extemists are is a horrible disservice.

I didn't take Rick's comments be painting all of anyone that way. And to be clear, I wasn't, and only meant my statement about those who would use violence. I know that's not the case.

To paint them and their religion, on the whole, as violent because a relatively small number of extemists are is a horrible disservice.

Could you point out where I did this? I mentioned some ideas that you will find expressed in much of the Muslim world. And I mentioned a few examples that illustrate the irrationality of those ideas. Where is the disservice in speaking the truth?

Cindy, it's the whole conclusion:

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons.

That whole pfft to empirical verification is just abhorrent to me.

Also:

This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.

Could you point out where I did this?

This passage reads to me as if you're implying that the Islamic response has been only the violent acts, rather than mostly being verbal expressions of offense:

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.

Though perhaps your intent was merely to say that Muslims are childish and hypocritical for daring to be offended when the nominal religious leader of a billion people chose to illustrate his criticisms of their religion with a quote that uses "evil" when describing the founding of that religion?

Meanwhile, the Anglicans and Greek Orthodox are all, "What the hell did we do? We haven't been speaking to him for centuries."

But it's clearly all the fault of the Jews: [link]

"We call on the pope to carry out a scientific and fastidious reading of Islam. We do not want him to succumb to the propaganda of the enemy led by Judaism and imperialism against Islam," Fadlallah said.

Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics
And the Catholics hate the Protestants
And the Hindus hate the Muslims
And everybody hates the Jews.