ROTFLMFAO! did you really mean(?): too intolerant - religion!

:~)

No Name, you need to go back to your high school reading comprehension class.

I made a joke about your post but made no assumptions or statements about you personally, because I don't know you. I did not try to paint you as a racist, first of all. I won't bother explaining the joke to you, but trust me, it was funny. I share your distaste for religion, actually, so I have far from a "religious ass". But I also know that in a world in which religion is unavoidable, and religious people are the majority, I'll stick with the group that is least likely to saw off my head or hands if I blaspheme. The worst thing that Christians will do to you around here is bore you to death. Maybe a wicked paper cut from an "are you saved?" pamphlet.

PS The best way to prove that a response is "predictable" is to prophesize it in your letter. Something along the lines of "I'll wait for the inevitable North Korea" responses". Now THAT would have been impressive. Alas.

Despite having read several accounts of the pope's remarks as well as Bunting's commentary, I have no clue as to the pope's use of the Manuel II Paleologos quotation. Did he just use the quote out of the blue or was he illustrating some larger point? Everyone, including Salon, has repeated the quote but no one has given a synopsis of the speech in which it was used. How can we decide on the pope's intent if we don't know the context in which he used the citation?

What seems not to occur to Ms. Bunting in her excellent article is that a "third" line of thought emerges.

That is the global repudiation of "religion" entirely.

Religionists' bases for their "beliefs" rest entirely on myths and irrational (and ancient) tribal hatreds perpetuated in the name of their "God."

To engage in false conflicts ("Your relgion is more violent than mine!") distracts from the fundamental psychosis religion represents for the human race.

It is probably too late to speak out against religionists, now that their fanatical myths and WMDs are as ubiquitous as iPods.

They seem adamant on provoking Armageddon, WWIII, the elimination of Israel, extermination of Infidels, execution of women and gays and lesbians and anybody else who disagrees with their Theocracy -- at any cost.

All we can do is speak the truth about them.

And, perhaps, pray.

It is plain and simple prejudice baiting, But it is not a random slip of speach. It is planned to speak to a certain audience. - cbryanclark

Hm. So should we now refer to him as Pope Macaca?

I'm still waiting for various prominent Muslims to apologize for the 12,678 anti-Semitic remarks they've made (this month).

It seems to fit right in with a lot of 21st century Islam and "heartland" American fundie protestantism. I agree that all of them SHOULD be out of place in the 21st century

Actually, a transcription of what the Benny 16 said is available at another online publication beginning with S and ending with late.com.

If anyone ever bothers to read the full transcription the discussion is a little more muddled.

Essentially, the line in question is only the first half of the quote, the second half I doubt would have angered any one. The second half of the quote is to state that anything that opposes reason is against God, as violence is against reason, you can not make war in God's name. The irony of the statement not withstanding, Benny 16 does acknowledge the brusqueness of the quote, and acknowledges that as modern readers we are shocked at this brusqueness.

The pope then uses this as a jumping off point to discuss the Hellenistic ideal of reason as it relates to divinity, and the modern understanding of reason as it relates to science, and whether or not reason precludes religion.

It's a fairly strait forward speech, and aside from the half of the quote in question really presents nothing that is that offensive. There is a discussion about God's existence that may be beyond reason, and quote a prominent Islamic scholar in this assertion, but in the end Benny 16 brings the discussion back to the Hellenistic ideal of reasoned spirituality.

He is also stressing the importance of the Hellenistic roots of Christianity, and how emphasizing how Socratic philosophy influenced early Christians.

There are culturelist views expressed in his argument, and it would be foolish to deny this, it would be hard for any designated representative of a culture not to be at least a little culturelist. Likewise I think we can all agree that culturelism is just fine so long as (as each of us do) we belong to the best culture there is. Honestly, any religion claiming to have revealed truth does hold its truth as separate and in some ways better than other truths from which wisdom may spring. But the core of the Pope's argument is not an indictment of Islam; it is an indictment of the urge to separate reason from faith, to mark them as separate things. To Benny 16 unreasoned faith is unreasonable, and that faith taken of faith alone is no faith at all.

But of course, no one is going to take the time to read an argument and engage in a reasoned debate on the issues of faith and reason. They would rather find one point upon which to build a disagreement, and shame any they see with it.

In truth I doubt Benny 16 even thought the speech was about Islam, he was going after what he saw as the real enemy oppressive secularism (secularism that seeks to abolish religious thought), which is rampant in many universities throughout Europe. Many of course believe the universities are correct to separate faith and reason, and Benny 16 does not deny the good reasoned science has done for the world, but to supplant faith and reason for reason alone is not a world that offers much comfort.

And in the end that is the job of any religion and its leaders to offer comfort, and to comfort someone they must have faith in a reasoned order to the universe, and a reasoned God controlling it.