Pope: 'Mohammed evil and inhuman, says Byzantine emperor' (updated)

The Pope now appears to have conceded it was not a good idea to quote a Byzantine emperor in the middle of the siege of Constantinople saying that Mohammed brought nothing but evil to the world. His apology comes after protests from Muslims around the world, including a call by a Somali cleric for his death. His trip to Turkey in November could now be in jeopardy, not least because it could possibly place his own life at risk. He has in the past indicated that he does not in any event believe Turkey should be in the EU, and many have read his Regensberg speech in that light, as he intended. As his apology was merely for causing offence and not for the content of his speech itself, one can only conclude that has some sympathy with Manuel II Paleologus, as reported by the top Lebanon-born Munster university scholar Theodore Khoury. I've written a commentary for TimesOnline today. I also like the joke going round: 'Don't blame me, I'm not infallible you know!'

The Pope's speech was intended by him to promote the compatibility of faith with reason, or the 'logos'. He was arguing from an intellectual, academic standpoint for an end to the type of irrational fundamentalism espoused by the Byzantine emperor he quoted. And without wanting to get myself a fatwa of my own, or in any way signal that I agree with the sentiments he quoted, I do have some sympathy for the Pope's predicament. It is indeed a tragic irony, as many have noted, that a speech intended to further interfaith dialogue and understanding has had precisely the opposite effect, actually provoking outbreaks of extremism of the very kind he was warning against. And the general population is with the Pope. In a Sky poll of viewers, nearly everyone, more than 98 per cent, said he should not apologise.

After all, we in the West have truly suffered at the hands of the Salafi Jihadists, as the Archbishop of York suggests we call them. We've had 9/11, 7/7 and narrowly escaped another. There is Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, and I am among those who firmly resist placing responsibility for the ills committed in these wars solely at the feet of the West. It does seem bizarre that we do keep having to apologise to Muslims. "Turn the other cheek" says the Christian religion of the West and we do seem to keep doing just that. In spite of the fact that those responsible for the terrorist atrocities would themselves confess to being of the Islamic faith, and of committing their crimes in the name of Islam, even to write about Islam and terrorism in the same sentence is fast becoming surefire way to end up on Islamophobia Watch at the very least. (Pictured: protests by Palestinians.)

But it nevertheless remains extraordinary that he did not put in some caveat distancing himself from personally owning the sentiments expressed by the Emperor, who was speaking at a time when Constantinople itself was under siege. (In referring to his forthcoming trip to Turkey, incidentally, the Pope has spoken of Constantinople rather than Istanbul.) It is also extraordinary that he did not cite any precedents from the numerous examples available of Christian violence through the ages - Crusades, witch hunts, the burnings in our own Reformation and counter-Reformation.

Quite apart from the fact that he said the sura which contains the indictment against enforced conversion was an early sura, when Muslim and other scholars say that it is from the middle period, quoting others who attack Mohammed in this way without distancing yourself from them is a more than risky business in this era and in the present climate. Have the Salman Rushdie affair, the cartoon episode and countless other episodes taught him nothing? Yes, freedom of speech is a hard-won right. But I am reminded of an old couplet my mother made me learn: 'Hear the story of Jonathan Gray, who died defending his right of way. He was right, dead right, all along, but just as dead as if he were wrong.'

Whether he believes what he implied to be the case or not is beside the point, although precedent suggests he probably does. The sad fact is that a provocative statement such as this from a man such as he has the power to inflame Muslim sentiment to the most extreme levels of protest. Bin Laden has enough excuses as it is to attack us as it is without handing him another on a plate. Already churches in the West Bank have been firebombed, demonstrations have been staged, effigies of the Pope have been burned.

And then, equally, there is the vast majority of Muslims in this country and elsewhere, who live normal, peaceable lives. I have Muslim friends who hardly dare leave the house, who have suffered verbal and occasional physical abuse at airport passport controls and elsewhere when venturing abroad. At times when the kind of protest this will provoke is in the air, life in Britain, where my friends were born and brought up, becomes harsh. 'We were just preparing for Ramadan and this happens,' one told me today. 'Why did he do it? I don't understand.'

And then there is the incalculable damage this will do to interfaith dialogue. It is not good enough for the Vatican to argue that the Pope has been taken out of context. There would have been no problem at had he not himself taken a Byzantine emperor out of context and placed views uttered 'in extremis' in the new extremities of the modern era.

An initial sceptic, I came round fast to Benedict XVI after seeing the way his honesty and spirituality shone through in much that he did, in a way different though equal to that of his predecessor. Recently, many have expressed regrets to me that he hasn't been getting out more, doing and saying more, at a time when the world needs a strong, Christian voice to help it through these dark times. Everyone is missing that steady stream of encyclicals, telling us what to think on everything from capitalism to contraception. We might not have agreed with JPII, but we did like to argue about it.

Now we have heard the quieter, more studied voice of Benedict, speaking indeed in a strong, compelling-them-to-come-in, Dominus-Iesus-type of way that some thought they wanted of him. "Be careful what you pray for," the saying goes, and perhaps we can begin to understand why. My favourite headline today comes from The Sun: 'Pope on the Ropes'. We are all surely praying harder than ever for him today as he balances still on the highwire that it is his daily vocation to walk, praying that his apology can save him, that he does not tumble off into the abyss, and take the rest of us with him when he falls.

Comments

[alistair mcbay]

"The question is - how were those laws chosen?"

And the next question is "Who says these laws were chosen, or needed to be chosen, and if they were, who chose them and why, and who or what chose him, her or it to make that choice?"

I am still waiting James, for you to tell me what the probability is for the universe coming into existence in accordance with any one of the countless creation myths in existence through time and cultures, including one of the two that exist in Genesis. I suspect the answer is similar to the odds on fairies existing at the bottom of your garden...

[James]

"Carl Sagan put it like this "..if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the laws of gravity".

- -

Carl Sagan (God bless his soul.) was deeply confused about this.

God DOESN'T mean only that one set of laws govern the universe. We know that one set of laws governs the universe already (without God).

The question is - how were those laws chosen - and why do they work so beautifully and perfectly to give us the universe we have, and why is it that the odds of their existing the way they do is infinitely small?

The other great part the Carl Sagan missed was everything about the soul of a man. He was an atheist scientist - convinced to his dying day that he was just a random occurrence in a random universe - and that he had no eternal soul whatsoever.

James

[Christopher]

"You just don't want to face up to the logical conclusion of your beliefs.....If there is no God, and Darwinism is true - then you are a freak random mutational accident..."

You said you have a degree in physics, James. In which case you will know something about Einstein. He famously said "God does not play dice", which should be translated, according to Richard Dawkins, as "Randomness does NOT lie at the heart of all things". Einstein, contrary to Pascal, didn't mean "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob", the God of his Jewish ancestors, but DID mean something like the "god of the philosophers".

Carl Sagan put it like this "..if by 'God' one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying...it does not make much sense to pray to the laws of gravity".

Einstein's question "Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?" Dawkins says, means "Could the universe have begun in any other way?" As Dawkins says, Einstein was using "God" in a purely metaphorical way. Now since randomness does not lie behind physics which is the foundational science of the laws of matter, the laws of biology must be consequent upon these; so these also are not "random". Evolution is a PROCESS governed by the laws of natural selection, not a random freak anything. You, as a scientist, must surely understand that? The pope seems to...

If you don't want to read Dawkins - though I assure you it is an excellent read - one you won't want to put down, then try Paul Davies's The Goldilocks Enigma: Why Is the Universe Just Right for Life? which argues against life being a "random mutational accident", without resorting to a supernaturalist argument.

[Christopher]

"Laws in a Christian society can't force you personally to lead a loving life - but they encourage you to do so"

We had all that under Oliver Cromwell. What a miserable period that was, especially for the Irish who were massacred in the name of the puritan deity!

[Christopher]

"The difference being, of course, JP, that the Christian knows such is intrinsically wrong, and that he needs to work on himself, whereas the atheist does not need to agree that there is anything wrong with him at all."

But in the end, James, the religionist acts not because it is morally right in itself to act accordingly but because he hopes for a reward in heaven or, more abjectly, because he fears divine displeasure with the sentence to eternal damnation. Sartre pointed out that the existentialist who has no hope of heaven or fear of hell, when she acts morally is motivated by a purer altruism and nobility of character than her religionist husband who, however you slice it, must ultimately act through self interest/preservation.

[James]

"And what of your Christian alternative? Its all very easy to discredit our "utilitarian" moral values but how is "Christian love" going to make things work?"

---

Sure, JPearce.

That's a good question. Here's how it would work.

In a Christian society, laws encourage love and virtue. As but one of many examples, pornography would be banned, for instance, because people recognize that it is not truly good for them and that it is a very, very destructive force in society. People disseminating porn would be punished, because such is bad for society (and in particular, harms many children). (And indeed, that's how our Western societies were, for many years, actually.)

Laws in a Christian society can't force you personally to lead a loving life - but they encourage you to do so (again, with our example, by not pushing porn at you wherever you go) - and they prohibit your doing unloving things to others (such as distributing pornography).

Further, laws would encourage help to those engaged in self-destructive behaviors (rather than glamorizing and encouraging those behaviors).

And so on.

James

[James]

"How true, James! Consider also the parallel truism: 'Some christians may have love in their hearts, but many do not'. "

---

The difference being, of course, JP, that the Christian knows such is intrinsically wrong, and that he needs to work on himself, whereas the atheist does not need to agree that there is anything wrong with him at all.

James

[Christopher]

'Most people of any sort want laws against murder, because they don't want to be murdered. In return, they agree to not murder. "I agree to not to harm your children, if you agree not to harm mine." "I agree to not rape your wife, if you do not rape mine." Etc. etc. etc.'

Certainly, James, there may be a level of morality based on that kind of agreement; it is a procrustean (thank you Alan for the adjective - I hope I am using it correctly) pact that makes mutual restraint based on mutual fear of reprisal a means of maintaining social harmony. Don't those nations with the nuclear deterent use it like this, yet consider themselves moral?

Nevertheless, the precept "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is more moral than you suggest if it instils the principles of empathy and sympathy with, and altruism towards, one's fellow humans. Many people take it further and do not believe it is right to be cruel to animals - they may be christian or they may not. Buddhists will not even recklessly kill insects - not because they make a mutual pact with animals but because they think it is fully human to act so and for no lesser self-interested 'deal', such as 'don't do it to me so I won't do it to you', put otherwise 'Do it to me and sure as hell I'll do it to you'.

'Some atheists may have love in their hearts, but many do not.'

How true, James! Consider also the parallel truism: 'Some christians may have love in their hearts, but many do not'.

[J Pearce]

"That's precisely the sort of statement which belongs in a stalinist museum of religion."

Alan, do you, or do you not, believe in God (aforementioned portly bearded bloke)? I presume the answer is yes? And is it not written in the Bible that He created everything in 7 days?

I don't see the problem. Its a statement of fact. Just because I happened to phrase it in a slightly sarcastic way, its hardly worthy of the epithet "stalinist"!

Anybody would think you didn't have a sense of humour...

[Frank Schnittger]

"Finally - we have nothing at all like a society with shared morals and values. We once did (when we had a more or less Christian society). Those days are long gone.

Hence, the culture wars." -James

Was that when we were burning witches at the stake? Or torturing dissidents during the inquistion? Or any number of religious wars throughut history? Give me a culture war anytime. Attempts to build utopian Christian societies have generally ended up being incredibly intolerant and repressive.

James - you keep arguing that there is no right not to be offended, and complain that Europeans are being dhimmitised by political correctness and a fear of giving offense. But you then complain about pornography, loose morals, gay relationships, etc. Christian Fundamentalists typically want to outlaw these. Isn't this a case of different groups of people trying to impose their particular moral values on others? Different morals, same old, same old?

Finally you speak of atheistic societies being built on utility, Christian societies based on Love. Is there any evidence that atheists are less loving? There is certainly plenty of evidence of Christians seeking legislative and political power over those who disagree with them - for their own good of course, e.g. outlawing Sodomy to reduce the incidence of Aids - but is that not the same old tyranny - you do what I say because I know what's best for you?

I'm not arguing that Christianity isn't a very noble tradition in many ways, just that Christians themselves don't have a monopoly of virtue and wisdom. Indeed, all to often, they seem to have less than their suppossedly unsaved brethren.

[J Pearce]

"That's as far as you get with atheism and utility. It's basically 'don't do to others as you don't want them to do to you' - codified into law for practical purposes only."

But what are the alternatives? If we were to capitulate to Islam, perhaps we would have Sharia law? Is that the kind of society you would like to see? Where all the freedoms we take for granted now are curtailed by threat and implementation of barbaric violence? No freedom of thought? A patriarchal quasi-fascist hegemony? I don't think so.

And what of your Christian alternative? Its all very easy to discredit our "utilitarian" moral values but how is "Christian love" going to make things work? How, for example, are you going to punish transgressors in a society imbued with a wholly Christian value system? Do you pat them on the head and say "sorry, but its Hell for you, matey" and leave them free to sin again? Or do you become more intolerant? How far does that intolerance go before you start to contradict this ethos of "love thy neighbour"? History shows that this "golden era" of Christian values that you fondly reminisce - if it ever actually existed! - was just as riven with immoral behaviour as the era we live in now; in fact, probably more so. Its not that long ago that Christians were lynching blacks, remember.

Yes, we do have the freedom to decide what is right and wrong, but our "utilitarian" laws are (in general) defined by consensus (and often based on psuedo-Christian values anyway). So people have the freedom to behave "outside" of societally defined moral boundaries, but - if they get caught - they usually receive appropriate punishment for those transgressions. Granted, it’s a system which is flawed and open to abuse, but I cannot see how a wholly Christian moral value system is ever going to find a way of providing a "better" alternative. Unless you propose a totalitarian society based on strict adherence to Christian doctrine?

To me, that would be no different to living under Sharia law!

Our current western societies are deeply flawed, yes, but to me they are infinitely better than any society based wholly on dogmatic adherence to religious ideology. Your view of society as "semi-civilised" is similar to the anachronistic Marxist view of society, where "the masses" need to be shown the right way to behave, if only they weren't so stupid. Its patronising, historically ignorant and par for the course for those with strong religious beliefs.

The problem we have today is that we have a "liberal left" elite in power (who have the same view of the "masses" as you seem to), who have skewed our value system towards what you might call "PC tyranny". If its any consolation James, I think you can consider yourself in the vanguard of those trying to correct that imbalance.

[James]

"The Church is a living creature"

---

Alan is right. The Church IS like a living creature.

It is composed of a great many components having free will, yet devoted to trying to live for the good (rather than for the self) in this world, and which act on the world.

James

[James]

"but if it is the latter then you are breaking one of Christianity's commandments i.e. not to bear false witness"

---

I'm not lying, Christopher.

You just don't want to face up to the logical conclusion of your beliefs.

If there is no God, and Darwinism is true - then you are a freak random mutational accident - the result (so Darwinists tell us) of some chemicals mixing randomly together and later totally random mutations. Same with the Boeing 747 and Hamlet and the 23rd Psalm.

You don't like that. I don't blame you.

I for one don't believe such is true - for a whole host of scientific reasons.

And if such is not true - then one needs to think about alternatives.

James

[Alan Marsh]

OK, JPearce, let's be very specific: you wrote "They believe in a portly, bearded, Father Christmas impersonator, who apparently created all known and recorded existence in the space of 7 days."

That's precisely the sort of statement which belongs in a stalinist museum of religion.

[Christopher]

"The Church is a living creature"

What a fascinating idea, Alan! I had not thought of the Church like that even though catholics - not your lot of anglo-catholics, of course, since they couldn't really see the CofE in terms of such affection - always talk about Holy Mother Church as if it was a "she" and a d"mother", but I had put it down as a figure of speech for the laity, encouraged by the magisterium, to show their devotion to and dependence on the Church.

Anyway I looked up "creature" on the Dashboard Dictionary that comes with OS X and it gave this list of definitions:

"creature |ˈkrē ch ər| noun an animal, as distinct from a human being : night sounds of birds and other creatures.

• an animal or person : as fellow creatures on this planet, animals deserve respect.

• a fictional or imaginary being, typically a frightening one : a creature from outer space.

• archaic anything living or existing : dress, jewels, and other transitory creatures.

• a person of a specified kind, typically one viewed with pity, contempt, or desire : you heartless creature!

• a person or organization considered to be under the complete control of another : the village teacher was expected to be the creature of his employer.

Take your pick; I think every one of them, one way or another, could fit in with your concept.

[Christopher]

"I know, I know; it's tough being a freak random mutational accident.."

James, your argument shows either invincible ignorance or it is a deliberate and culpable misrepresentation of what Natural Selection is about. Many people on this thread have given you the benefit of the doubt that you are just misguided but genuinely so - but if it is the latter then you are breaking one of Christianity's commandments i.e. not to bear false witness. Lying for the Lord, maybe justifiable in the combative ideology of American fundamentalism, is not an option for any kind of christian who really follows the precepts of Jesus and hopes for heaven thereby, I'd have thought.

[James]

"To wit, if the atheists amongst us supposedly live by their "personal whims" and nothing else, how is it that our societies continue to function in the way that they so obviously do?

Our societies themselves are proof that humans can create a working, large scale culture with shared values and morals, without recourse to unilateral religious moral oversight."

---

Sure, JPearce. Most people of any sort want laws against murder, because they don't want to be murdered. In return, they agree to not murder. "I agree to not to harm your children, if you agree not to harm mine." "I agree to not rape your wife, if you do not rape mine." Etc. etc. etc.

That's as far as you get with atheism and utility. It's basically 'don't do to others as you don't want them to do to you' - codified into law for practical purposes only.

You can get a semi-civilized society that way - out of utility. PC comes out of that too. If everyone agrees not to offend because they don't want to be offended - you get laws about that - and freedoms of speech and religion and assembly and of the press can be quickly denied. (Check out an university to see the future PC tyranny...)

But such has nothing to do with love. In such a society, people might be allowed to murder their fully formed children as they are born, or allow 16 yr. olds to be porn stars, or put degraded stuff on the TV all the time (which all the kids watch), etc. etc. Oh wait - that's what we have! That's not a loving society; that's a society of what we selfishly want (with the utility laws in the background).

Some atheists may have love in their hearts, but many do not. The civil society arises out of utilitianistic laws, but the atheist can follow whatever personal morality (or none) he wants. He has the freedom, man! to decide what is right and what is wrong.

(By the way - how are you going to teach your little one what is right and what is wrong? - On your say so? He might just disagree when he gets older and tell you: Well, Dad, I have my own definition of right and wrong... I think yours is crocked...)

Finally - we have nothing at all like a society with shared morals and values. We once did (when we had a more or less Christian society). Those days are long gone.

Hence, the culture wars.

Our Western societies are somewhat civil - but there is a war going on in them.

James

[J Pearce]

"But a whole lot of atheists sure as hell don't - because they don't happen to concur with you."

If that were true, James, then most of what we call the western world (indeed, the entire world) would be nothing but a large group of lawless anarchies.

Your presupposition that atheists have no moral codes to live by and exist on a day-to-day basis based on little more than selfish desire, founders somewhat on the rather obvious fact that you and I are able to enter into this debate in the first place.

To wit, if the atheists amongst us supposedly live by their "personal whims" and nothing else, how is it that our societies continue to function in the way that they so obviously do?

Our societies themselves are proof that humans can create a working, large scale culture with shared values and morals, without recourse to unilateral religious moral oversight.

So the accusations you keep throwing at atheists are pretty hollow, really, aren't they?

[J Pearce]

"Oh dear, JPearce, it seems you believe that some people believe in Santa Claus."

There are! They just happen to be aged generally between 3 and 7!

"You would it seems like to define the Church according to your own rather uninformed prejudices, but what you describe is not the Church. Your version belongs to a stalinist museum of religion - if you can still find one."

C'mon Alan, I can replace the word "Church" in the above sentence with the word "atheism" and throw exactly the same accusation back at you. Lets get a little more specific, shall we?

[Alan Marsh]

Oh dear, JPearce, it seems you believe that some people believe in Santa Claus.

The Church is a living creature, since it is composed of living people who reflect on their faith and express it in myriad languages, cultures and idioms, and set out to communicate what they believe in contemporary terms in their own context.

You would it seems like to define the Church according to your own rather uninformed prejudices, but what you describe is not the Church. Your version belongs to a stalinist museum of religion - if you can still find one.

[James]

"Atheists are not accountable to nothing, rather they make themselves accountable to their fellow humans through the consensual establishment of values, morals, ethics, laws etc etc."

---

Well you might personally, JPearce, because you happen to think that good (for whatever reason).

But a whole lot of atheists sure as hell don't - because they don't happen to concur with you.

It's just your personal whim to make yourself accountable that way.

James

[James]

"And who said they did James? Natural selection is not chance even though you keep saying the alternative to believing in a creation myth is to believe it is all accidental, which it is not."

---

You're wrong, as usual, Christopher.

The whole Darwinical line of thought says this:

Some chemicals came together by accident, at random, in the sea - and were able somehow to replicate themselves. From there, those forms of chemicals mutated (completely 100% randomly) and whatever new sets of chemicals survived survived (a tautology, by the way). The end result? Us. And satellites over the earth. And Hamlet.

The Boeing 747 and the Christophers of the world, say Dawkins types, can be traced back to those chemicals having mixed together accidentally.

I mixed some chemicals together by accident and I got a Boeing 747!

I mixed some chemicals together by accident and I got Christopher!

I know, I know; it's tough being a freak random mutational accident..

James

[Christopher]

"and that Christophers and Boeing 747s and Hamlet didn't pop into existence through mere serenedipity." And who said they did James? Natural selection is not chance even though you keep saying the alternative to believing in a creation myth is to believe it is all accidental, which it is not. You should read read Dawkins's new book The God Delusion. In fact, I challenge you to....if you dare.

[J Pearce]

"(In fact - that is a very unreasonable belief...)"

Of course it is. But no one with even a glimmer of intelligence puports that Christopher, Boeings and Hamlet just "popped" into existence. They all came about through a process known as "evolution", a concept which it appears that Christians are very much frightened of. Possibly because it allows for a rational, empirically verifiable explanation of reality without resorting to untestable and unprovable concepts such as "God".

"Religious faith is based on many forms of evidence…"

No. It is based on fear. Fear of the unknown. Fear of the unexplainable. Fear of that which is different, or alien. And religion uses fear to subjugate its adherents. Same old, same old…

"The atheist has deep faith that there is no God, and that he is accountable to nothing."

Atheists are not accountable to nothing, rather they make themselves accountable to their fellow humans through the consensual establishment of values, morals, ethics, laws etc etc. In other words, the establishment of a society and cultural system which is based on something a little less primitive than fear.

[J Pearce]

"Alistair, there are some 1.8 billion Christians in the world, and none of them, so far as I have heard, believe either in garden fairies, the god Thor, or Richard Dawkins. They can't all be wrong!"

That’s right, Alan. They believe in a portly, bearded, Father Christmas impersonator, who apparently created all known and recorded existence in the space of 7 days.

That sounds rational, doesn't it?

Oh, hang on, I forgot - you Christians like to selectively revise the Bible, don't you? Judiciously censoring or denying all the akward bits, whilst simultaneously endorsing all the pompous moral sermons which happen to serve whatever agenda you happen to be haranguing people with at the time...

[James]

"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals."

---

Faith is not surrender of the mind, Christopher. There is nothing unreasonable about believing that there is something good and powerful which created our universe and us (directly or indirectly) - and that Christophers and Boeing 747s and Hamlet didn't pop into existence through mere serenedipity. (In fact - that is a very unreasonable belief...)

Religious faith is based on many forms of evidence - most of it indirect - but very powerful - just as Hebrews speaks to.

Finally, atheism is just as much faith as is belief in God. The atheist has deep faith that there is no God, and that he is accountable to nothing. As Chesterton said: "Without God, there would be no atheists."

James

[Alan Marsh]

Alistair, there are some 1.8 billion Christians in the world, and none of them, so far as I have heard, believe either in garden fairies, the god Thor, or Richard Dawkins. They can't all be wrong!

[Christopher]

"And it will also be proven that the Book of Mormon was delivered on gold plates by the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and he translated it from "Reformed Egyptian" into perfect King James English with the help of special spectacles (thanks, Christopher, I'd forgotten that tosh!)"

Here's an anecdote Alistair (so wait for some scolding from our stern school ma'am!). I used to discuss religion with a couple of young American mormons who were serving their time as elders cruising the streets and parks of Cambridge looking for a kindly word from the generally uninterested populace. On one occasion I suggested that it was a great pity that the Angel Moroni took those golden plates back up to heaven after Prophet Joseph Smith had completed his translation - it would have been a great witness to the truth of their faith if these plates had been left on Earth and I wondered why. One of the boys thought for a moment and then said "I guess they would have got stole".

[Christopher]

James said "Faith is, as the Bible tells us (Hebrews) "the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen."

In other words, wishful thinking?

Mark Twain more succinctly put it: "Faith is believing in what you know not to be true"

Or perhaps you will prefer Christopher Hitchens's more serious and trenchant analysis:

"Faith is the surrender of the mind, it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals. It's our need to believe, and to surrender our skepticism and our reason. Our yearning to discard that, and put all our trust or faith in someone or something - that is the sinister thing to me. Of all the virtues, or all the supposed virtues, faith must be the most overrated."

[Alistair McBay]

So, James, as you say, there is no proof that God exists (thank you for your confirmation), but you say there is evidence. This is the same as saying there is no proof fairies exist at the bottom of your garden, but you have evidence, eg, because when the fairies cry, that's when it rains!

But you misunderstand the Pope on faith and reason. For there to be proof of God's existence, then there would have to be evidence that is, to use the Pope’s own words, empirically verifiable, as you suggest. However, the Pope says that this restriction on evidence being “empirically verifiable” needs to be removed (although he has no problem considering 60 alleged miracles at Llourdes, apparently, as "empirically verified" - perhaps he's forgotten those?).

Clearly, with no empirically verifiable evidence, there can be no 'proof' as we currently know and define it. His chosen ‘solution’ then is change the rules to let in conviction, belief, faith, superstition, call it what you will, to the rules of evidence. Change the nature of admissable evidence, and hey presto! you have changed the nature of proof as well, to 'all in the mind of the beholder'.

So, James, rejoice! If the Rat in the Vat gets his way, on that basis there will indeed be 'proof' that your personal god exists after all! Alas, it will mean that Allah exists too, and Ganesh, and Thor, and Horus, and even the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And it will also be proven that the Book of Mormon was delivered on gold plates by the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and he translated it from "Reformed Egyptian" into perfect King James English with the help of special spectacles (thanks, Christopher, I'd forgotten that tosh!)

James, you keep telling me that an atheist's morality is whatever he wants it to be. Well, it looks like a theist's proof is about to be officially sanctioned as whatever he wants it to be (and if the Vatican agrees, of course.)

Soon it will be proof enough of God's existence that the face of Jesus turns up on a slice of pizza at Denino's on Staten Island. (Coming on E-Bay any time soon, I guess)

[Alitair McBay]

You are a cad, James!

Your opinions and attitudes remind me of good old Mahatma Ghandi's famous remark to a Christian missionary who asked him why he rejected Jesus.

"Oh, I don't reject your Christ," said the world's most famous Hindu. "I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."

[J Pearce]

"The same is true for Iraq. If the Islamofanatics are defeated there (as they will be) - Iraq will blossom economically."

James, it pains me to have to even commit the following to cyber paper, being so bleedin' obvious as it is, but prior to the US led invasion, Iraq was governed by a secular regime (or at least, a regime which maltreated its populace equally, regardless of denomination). The only reason that Iraq now harbours every Muslim nutter within a thousand miles with a grudge, is precisely because the US invasion has given them an excuse to go there and wage jihad!

Heavens above man, can you not see the obvious cause and effect here?! The US invasion has created more problems than it solved!

And how exactly is the US proposing to solve the problem? By pouring more troops in, a military tactic commonly referred to as "red rag to a bull".

If that isn't short-term thinking, I don't know what is. You never learned anything from Vietnam, did you?

[Christopher]

James said: "You have to have some faith to believe in God (though there is manifold direct and indirect evidence that God truly is there) - but once having decided to do so - you would be a dunce not to believe what He tells you"

What evidence? Examples please. And how does he tell you? Do you believe the Book of Mormon was delivered on gold plates by the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and he translated it from "Reformed Egyptian" into perfect King James English with the help of special spectacles? No? Then why should the books of the Bible be any different? How can you prove they did not have a human originator whose only inspiration was to tell a rattling good yarn?

[Christopher]

James said: "You have to have some faith to believe in God (though there is manifold direct and indirect evidence that God truly is there) - but once having decided to do so - you would be a dunce not to believe what He tells you"

What evidence? Examples please. And how does he tell you? Do you believe the Book of Mormon was delivered on gold plates by the Angel Moroni to Joseph Smith and he translated it from "Reformed Egyptian" into perfect King James English with the help of special spectacles? No? Then why should the books of the Bible be any different? How can you prove they did not have a human originator whose only inspiration was to tell a rattling good yarn?

[James]

"Do we do what James advocates and fight fire with fire? Well, as a short term solution, showing resolve and belief in our core values would help show the Muslim world that the west is not wholly decadent and weak. But it shows limited thinking if you believe that constant standoff is the key to a long term solution. Rather, it would be more prodcutive to co-opt Muslims into our economic system, where whole swathes of people benefit from increased living standards and education."

---

Of course, JPearce! That is and always has been the policy of the United States.

We give tons of aid (monetary and informational) to moderate Muslim countries - like Morocco and Jordan and Indonesia, etc. etc. to help them grow in a good way their economies - and to help provide their populaces with a decent life.

The same is true for Iraq. If the Islamofanatics are defeated there (as they will be) - Iraq will blossom economically.

I am ALL for helping with such (and have never said I was not). However, while doing that - you cannot become a dhimmi slave, and you must protect your children and other innocents from fanatics.

That's just common sense.

James

[James]

"There is nothing ambiguous about John 8:7, and one wonders why the Holy Spirit didn't tap Benedict on the shoulder when writing-in the infamous anti-Islam quote,"

---

The Pope, obviously, Alistair, wasn't stoning anyone. He was making a statement.

James

P.S. It's not worth my time to reply to most of your posts, so idiotic are they.

Calm yourself, man.

You probably won't believe this, but your life will have caused more people to walk toward Christ than away.

[James]

"No, James. Pope Rat confirmed in his "theology" speech that there is no evidence for God, only a variety of beliefs."

---

No, Alistair. You are confusing proof with evidence. One cannot prove God, but there is tons of evidence for His existence.

James

[Alan Marsh]

Try starting off with an A-level in biblical studies, Alistair.

The context of the quotation you provide, like any fundy, simply does not fit the circumstances to which you would like to apply it in Procrustean fashion.

[J Pearce]

Before this thread goes totally off into a parallel universe again (as they normally do), I'd like to offer this humble epistle - if I were a Marxist, I'd be casting an interested eye over this whole Pope-slags-Muslims-then-bottles-it furore. For a start, having read the (minimal) Muslim opinions voiced on this blog, it appears that, not enitrely unreasonably, they object to this whole take on Islam being a religion of violent oppression. But the inference I got from their posts was that they are part of our educated, capitalist system and have benefitted from it. The rent-a-fanatic Muslim crowds we see in the news and in Nigeria are from a very different social cachet - they are the poor, the disposessed, the underclass of their society. The only outlet they have, the only succour, is their religion.

So we have a situation ripe for the privileged, powerful members of that society (the Imams, the ideologues) to exploit for their own political ends. Without wishing to sound too superior (which I inevitably will do), the majority of underclass Muslims are ignorant (in educational terms that we understand, at least) and probably rely almost entirely on the lead taken by their appointed leaders. Hence the whipping up of the crowd, the supposed "eruption of anger" from "the Muslim world". In reality, this is just another case of the majority being blindly led by a powerful and corrupt minority, and as long as a large amount of Muslims remain as an underclass, any kind of criticism of Islam (implied or direct) will inevitably be seized upon by those in power as a means of controlling their population and manipulating them into directing their anger at a common "enemy" (the West, Christianity, Jews, the Pope) rather than concentrating on the everyday injustices that are visited upon them (which are directly attributable to the corruption endemic within the hierarchies which govern them).

So how do we deal with the preceived threat from Islam? Do we do what James advocates and fight fire with fire? Well, as a short term solution, showing resolve and belief in our core values would help show the Muslim world that the west is not wholly decadent and weak. But it shows limited thinking if you believe that constant standoff is the key to a long term solution. Rather, it would be more prodcutive to co-opt Muslims into our economic system, where whole swathes of people benefit from increased living standards and education. This would neuter the Islamic threat at source, in much the same way that Christianity has been neutered and has been forced to adapt to secular capitalist economic systems where the majority of people benefit from economic co-operation, trading, wealth generation etc.

The problem is, we (the West) have gone about this completely the wrong way. Instead of allowing Africa to economically develop, we have disincentivised trade development by closing markets to competition (that'll be Jaques Chirac leading the way on that one, then). With no money flowing into Africa (apart from aid, which is syphoned off at source by the corrupt elite anyway), Africans of all religious persuasions are prevented from developing as a people. Admittedly, Arabs are a different kettle of fish, but given time, I would have wagered that eventually, the cultural and economic influence of the West (and the rapidly economically developing East) would have fermented enough unrest amongst the majority of downtrodden Muslims to trigger revolts against their own corrupt regimes. However, having pointlessly invaded Iraq, we have given the radicals more than enough ammunition to keep the Arab masses in a state of religious frenzy for years to come. Thank the US for that strategic gaffe, then.

In short, Muslims would most likely be much more compliant and less threatening if they had a full belly and a PS2.

[alistair mcbay]

"there is manifold direct and indirect evidence that God truly is there"

No, James. Pope Rat confirmed in his "theology" speech that there is no evidence for God, only a variety of beliefs.

The relevant passage concerns his wanting faith and reason to come together in a new way to benefit humanity, “if we overcome the self-imposed limitation on reason to the empirically verifiable”.

This is Pope-speak for "there is no evidence (empirically verifiable) for God, so let's redefine reason (overcome the self-imposed limitation on reason) to include superstition"

Nice try, though, James, but the Holy See says there is no evidence - you can try to explain it away as usual by metaphor, context or "allusion" if you want, but it ain't washin'.

And Alan says "Context, dear boy, context". Yeah, that old argument. You get to use context when it fits your theology, but no-one else gets to use it, because they haven't done a doctorate in biblical studies.

But context does apply here, Alan, as does metaphor, no matter how much it might make you squirm to admit it.

[Alan Marsh]

Context, dear boy, context.

[Frank Schnittger]

Please tell us James, where Christ unambiguously condemns homosexuality, or endorses the right (or the Right) of nations such as America to invade and make war on other peoples (such as Iraq) which did not pose a threat to the USA.

P.S. And please do not repeat the guff about mistaken intelligence - the Neo-cons were looking for an oportunity to invade Iraq even before 9/11. Presumeably if the Right had been divinely inspired, such mistakes would not have occurred.

[alistair mcbay]

"Well, Julie, I start by trusting God on what He tells us unambiguously through the Bible and through Christ"

Well, James, you are better at it than the Pope, I suppose. There is nothing ambiguous about John 8:7, and one wonders why the Holy Spirit didn't tap Benedict on the shoulder when writing-in the infamous anti-Islam quote, to remind His representative here on earth that the first to cast a stone should be the one who has never sinned.

I thought it was fashionable for Christians to preface every action these days by asking the question "What would Jesus do?" But maybe you are just better at interpreting the bible's metaphors than the Vicar of Christ. Maybe Benedict should go on one of Alan's theology courses?

[Julie]

James wrote "Further, in the US, we don't have Constitutional separation of Church and state. We have a guarantee that the US Congress will not establish a national religion, and a guarantee that people may worship freely."

In a purely legal interpretation, those garantees (absence of national religion and freedom of worship) exist because of the Separation of Church and State. Not finding it expressly in the text of the Constitution never stopped the Supreme Court to deal with it. You will also find, if you read the proceeding of its writing, that the Founding Fathers clearly talked about a strict separation of the two (Most of them were freemasons by the way).

What is confusing these days is that the expression "Separation of Church and State" did not appear in legal vocabulary before the 19th century, and it's quite unusual to find this principle expressly written in any constitution of this century. For exemple, even France in its latest Constitution (1958) doesn't have this principle as a constitutionnal principle.

Another exemple of how "Separation of Church and State" may have a different meaning is Belgium, where churches (catholic, protestant, anglican, orthodox churches, judaism and islam) receive financial interventions from the State, but where you will never see a politician wearing God on his sleave like some american politicians. The country does not have a constitutionnal separation of church and state, but it does exist through the principle of Neutrality.

If you want to push your reflexion further, you'll fing those very interesting books by highly respected lawyers on this subject:

"God vs. The Gavel" by Marci A. Hamilton and
"The separation of Church and State" by Philip Hamburger

(I must say that Hamburger's book is highly controversed among the legal community).

What I encourage you to read is the recently published "Conservatives Without Conscience" by John Dean (former aid of Pr. Nixon)who examins how many so-called Christians serving in Congress are on a mission to destroy the separation of church and state. ("They want to legislate morality and have no objection to interfering in private lives"). Be careful, you might find he wrote about you.

[James]

"In fact James would make a very good deputy for God since he seems to second guess him every inch of the way."

---

And finally, Christopher - I would note that it's always sinners of different sorts (who are addicted to their sins) - who second guess God the most.

Bad move. Same old, same old.

James

[James]

"Unfortunately the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty..."

---

No, Christopher, that is not true.

Faith is, as the Bible tells us (Hebrews) "the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen."

Christopher, no one in his right mind would worship a God Who he did not believe (what some 'liberal' Christians do). Indeed, the world is chock full of people who believe 'in God,' but choose to not believe God.

You have to have some faith to believe in God (though there is manifold direct and indirect evidence that God truly is there) - but once having decided to do so - you would be a dunce not to believe what He tells you.

To believe in God, and then not believe what He says is the ultimate (and I mean that) in foolishness.

Of course, it's your soul.

God gives you the choice of its final destination.

James

[James]

"Dear James, eyes full of planks as usual."

---

For instance, following Christian sexual morality would save millions of homosexuals from horrible disease and early death (not destroy them) - and allow them the chance to be healed sexually.

James

[Christopher]

"Well, Julie, I start by trusting God on what He tells us unambiguously through the Bible and through Christ"

Unambiguously! If only that were true. Unfortunately the opposite of faith is not doubt but certainty, which James has in Spades. In fact James would make a very good deputy for God since he seems to second guess him every inch of the way.

[Christopher]

"Sorry, Frank. This is ridiculous.The Christian right (code for serious Christians) is not trying to 'destroy' anyone."

Dear James, eyes full of planks as usual.

[James]

"that only God knows which one of us is right on those teachings"

---

Well, Julie, I start by trusting God on what He tells us unambiguously through the Bible and through Christ (rather than on what I might personally want - or on what my emotions tend me to - or on what someone mired in sin and degradation wants me desperately to believe).

Then I seek to understand why we're told what we are.

Seriously, I've always come to see that God is quite right and truly loving on things - even when I didn't understand them to begin with - and even when I don't personally like what God proposes.

James