I really don't get it.....
OK, I have been keeping up with this whole snafu about the Pope and remarks he made about Islam during a speech at a university. This whole situation was confusing, so I decided to read the speech before I made anymore judgements on the matter than I already had....
Here's the link to the whole document. I've pasted a portion of it into my entry. the bold is my emphasis
I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature
OK, so first off..........the person who made the statment about Mohammed was not the Pope. It was an emperor from way back along time ago. His point was spreading faith through violence is unreasonable. That is the point the Pope tried to make. "one does not need...means of threatening a person with death..." for religious spread and conversion. Religion and violence need not be and should not be linked.
I agree wholeheartedly with this. Aside from the loss of innocent human lives......I have always gone by the fact that you can not honestly FORCE true faith. Violence might get you compliance, but not faith. And that's not what we want. It certainly can't be what God wants.
So given what I read and given my own convictions........I wonder how it is the Muslims could be offended. I have no clue. If things were taken out of context, I might could see it. OK, say they're still offended even if they honestly understood his point. That's their perogative. I think it's wrong, but I cannot take that from them.
Now I have seen two reactions to this. There are those Muslims that are offended and demanding an apology and an explanation. While I think the underlying reason is wrong, I see this as a reasonable response. It is not violent. It does not hurt those not involved. It gives the person a chance to explain something that maybe was missed. I *personally* don't think the Pope should have to apologize, but the fact that some ask for an apology is not an unreasonable request.
Then you have the stupid people. The people bombing churches (the ones getting bombed aren't even Catholic), burning likenesses of the pope, and Muslim clerics (check this out ) calling for the Pope's death. Other extremists are calling for the death of the West and the Pope. This is just wrong in so many ways.
What I find so interesting about this whole situation is that these extremists are making true the very statement that have taken offense to. They are insulted that Islam is associated and linked with violence. So what do they do? They do violent things. If this is not hypocrisy, I do not know what is.
Does anyone here reading this have thoughts on the matter?