Yo Momma
There is nothing that irritates a pig more than not being able to have an opinion about something, so I was pleased that the Times eventually published the actual text of the Pope's speech, the one that has caused so much offence, thereby allowing me to make up my own mind about what it was he had said. I do increasingly find that the 'news', as presented in the media, tends only to report on the effects of an event, rather than on the original event itself, and thereby leaves one completely in the dark as to what conclusions to reach about it. It is all very well to be shown pictures of people burning effigies of the Pope, and to be told, in passing, that this was because he had 'offended' them, but it leaves you none the wiser, really. Unless of course you are the Pope, in which case you might find it useful in terms of identifying places to avoid for a while.
Having now read the lecture he gave, I must confess myself somewhat intrigued. I have not in the past paid much attention to the pronouncements of Popes, since they seem invariably to be unhealthily obsessed with sex, and with babies. I am also suspicious in general of people whose sole purpose in life appears to be to interpose themselves between the general public, and the thing the general public are actually after, in this case God, I assume. For the same reason, I find receptionists and call centres irritating, although I can see some sort of logic behind why they exist. God, however, being omnipotent, is unlikely to have time-management issues, or to require spam-filters and firewalls to be installed between himself and the public at large, so I see no need for priests, or for Popes.
The first thing that intrigued me about what the Pope said was that he did, very definitely, point out a distinction between Western and Eastern religious tradition, one which hadn't actually occurred to me before. What he was saying, as I understood it, was that Western religion (I guess he would have been thinking about Catholicism here, but it probably applies equally well to all of the various Christian beliefs) is based, in effect, on a historical accident, namely the coincidental rapprochement between faith and reason that happened two thousand years ago, in which the classical Greek worldview, based on philosophical inquiry, was merged with pure traditional biblical faith to produce a hybrid in which 'what is reasonable' stands on an equal footing with 'what is divine'. What is reasonable can be deduced, by man himself, by introspection, and by observation and analysis of the physical world. What is divine can only be revealed, and accepted.
By contrast, he argued, Eastern religions, in particular Islam, make no such compromise, and assert the pre-eminence of revealed truth. Reason, and logic, and even common sense, have no part to play, they are, at best, just practical tools for navigating in the physical world. In particular, they have no right to pass judgement, or even to make comment, on the divine. And it is this fundamental difference which is the cause of so much misunderstanding in the world, here in the West we are used to being able to have arguments about religious belief, because our religions have built into them this acceptance that reason has a board-level role, and gets to express an opinion. Islam doesn't work like that, reason is irrelevant, and to question or criticise divine truth, based on some rational argument, is inherently blasphemous, and deserving of punishment.
Well, I think that is what he was saying, anyway, I hope I have not misconstrued his words. The second thing that intrigued me was that instead of trotting out the standard line about how people of all faiths should learn to live together, and respect each other's beliefs, he more or less came right out at the end and said that in his view it was time Islam moved on, and started accepting common sense as part of God's design, like what we Christians had been doing for ages. "Not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God" he said. "It is to this great logos, this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures".
Now this is a quite provocative thing to come out with, in my mind. It is certainly far more provocative than the 'quote', about Islam having produced things only evil and inhuman, which has caused all the fuss. One you can pass off as just an insult, the other is actually a major attack on your whole religion as being old-fashioned, and crude, and generally not fit for purpose. "We over here have a high-performance Dual Core Religion" is what he is saying. "You single-processor stick in the muds need to upgrade". He did, of course, also suggest that perhaps we in the West could benefit from paying a bit more attention to the 'divine' aspects of life, rather than the rational ones, but he gave the impression he was just saying this so as to appear even-handed.
So, we now not only have Mr Bush ostentatiously taking 'Killing An Arab' with him as holiday reading, we also have the head of the Catholic church saying that Islam needs to get with the program, and sort its life out. I am very glad that I live in a stubbornly secular country, very far away from all of this, I just have a bad feeling about the way things are going.
Having now read the lecture he gave, I must confess myself somewhat intrigued. I have not in the past paid much attention to the pronouncements of Popes, since they seem invariably to be unhealthily obsessed with sex, and with babies. I am also suspicious in general of people whose sole purpose in life appears to be to interpose themselves between the general public, and the thing the general public are actually after, in this case God, I assume. For the same reason, I find receptionists and call centres irritating, although I can see some sort of logic behind why they exist. God, however, being omnipotent, is unlikely to have time-management issues, or to require spam-filters and firewalls to be installed between himself and the public at large, so I see no need for priests, or for Popes.
The first thing that intrigued me about what the Pope said was that he did, very definitely, point out a distinction between Western and Eastern religious tradition, one which hadn't actually occurred to me before. What he was saying, as I understood it, was that Western religion (I guess he would have been thinking about Catholicism here, but it probably applies equally well to all of the various Christian beliefs) is based, in effect, on a historical accident, namely the coincidental rapprochement between faith and reason that happened two thousand years ago, in which the classical Greek worldview, based on philosophical inquiry, was merged with pure traditional biblical faith to produce a hybrid in which 'what is reasonable' stands on an equal footing with 'what is divine'. What is reasonable can be deduced, by man himself, by introspection, and by observation and analysis of the physical world. What is divine can only be revealed, and accepted.
By contrast, he argued, Eastern religions, in particular Islam, make no such compromise, and assert the pre-eminence of revealed truth. Reason, and logic, and even common sense, have no part to play, they are, at best, just practical tools for navigating in the physical world. In particular, they have no right to pass judgement, or even to make comment, on the divine. And it is this fundamental difference which is the cause of so much misunderstanding in the world, here in the West we are used to being able to have arguments about religious belief, because our religions have built into them this acceptance that reason has a board-level role, and gets to express an opinion. Islam doesn't work like that, reason is irrelevant, and to question or criticise divine truth, based on some rational argument, is inherently blasphemous, and deserving of punishment.
Well, I think that is what he was saying, anyway, I hope I have not misconstrued his words. The second thing that intrigued me was that instead of trotting out the standard line about how people of all faiths should learn to live together, and respect each other's beliefs, he more or less came right out at the end and said that in his view it was time Islam moved on, and started accepting common sense as part of God's design, like what we Christians had been doing for ages. "Not to act reasonably is contrary to the nature of God" he said. "It is to this great logos, this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures".
Now this is a quite provocative thing to come out with, in my mind. It is certainly far more provocative than the 'quote', about Islam having produced things only evil and inhuman, which has caused all the fuss. One you can pass off as just an insult, the other is actually a major attack on your whole religion as being old-fashioned, and crude, and generally not fit for purpose. "We over here have a high-performance Dual Core Religion" is what he is saying. "You single-processor stick in the muds need to upgrade". He did, of course, also suggest that perhaps we in the West could benefit from paying a bit more attention to the 'divine' aspects of life, rather than the rational ones, but he gave the impression he was just saying this so as to appear even-handed.
So, we now not only have Mr Bush ostentatiously taking 'Killing An Arab' with him as holiday reading, we also have the head of the Catholic church saying that Islam needs to get with the program, and sort its life out. I am very glad that I live in a stubbornly secular country, very far away from all of this, I just have a bad feeling about the way things are going.