2008 Woodie Awards
The importance of context
Geoffrey Meadows
Issue date: 10/3/06 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
Pope Benedict XVI recently made a scholarly speech at his alma mater regarding the loss of right reason in the West. This speech has surprisingly drawn the ire of many Islamic communities. In the introduction of his academic address the Pope made reference to a dialogue between the 14th century dialogue between the then Byzantine Emperor Manuel II and a learned Persian:
"He turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words 'Show me just what Mohammed has 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 goes on to explain in detail the reasons that spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," said the Vatican Radio Provisional Text.
Notice that the Pope does not expressly endorse the veracity of the emperor's assessment of Mohammed and even mentions the "brusqueness" of the comment. The reasons are obvious: the Pope is not making a speech about Islam, he is making a point about the necessity of right reason, not, as some have referred to it, as a call to go back to the crusader mentality of the middle ages.
Yet the reaction by various Muslim countries and certain religious leaders has been unreasonable. They apparently equated the emperor's comments to the Pope's own opinion which is clearly due to their inability to take things contextually or their refusal to actually read the speech. Instead seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and a nun was murdered in Somalia. Further, Indonesia, Turkey, and Pakistan have demanded that the Pope apologize personally. Not quite the way to convince people that the Pope was in error.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Pope Benedict and Manuel II shared the same view. What exactly about these countries' responses would have cured him of that prejudice? They decided to prove the emperor's point by showing that they lack reason.
It seems that many people are eager to bandy out the inflammatory language of the crusades. But more often than not the same people are almost wholly ignorant of what incited the crusades. As politically incorrect as it is to point out, the crusades were a direct response to the incessant Ottoman/Muslim invasions threatening to collapse Christendom.
Thankfully the Holy Father was the model of diplomacy in this ordeal and actually invited a Muslim delegation to the Vatican to explain that those views were not his own and that he had a "deep respect for Islam."
"He turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words 'Show me just what Mohammed has 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 goes on to explain in detail the reasons that spreading faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," said the Vatican Radio Provisional Text.
Notice that the Pope does not expressly endorse the veracity of the emperor's assessment of Mohammed and even mentions the "brusqueness" of the comment. The reasons are obvious: the Pope is not making a speech about Islam, he is making a point about the necessity of right reason, not, as some have referred to it, as a call to go back to the crusader mentality of the middle ages.
Yet the reaction by various Muslim countries and certain religious leaders has been unreasonable. They apparently equated the emperor's comments to the Pope's own opinion which is clearly due to their inability to take things contextually or their refusal to actually read the speech. Instead seven churches were attacked in the West Bank and a nun was murdered in Somalia. Further, Indonesia, Turkey, and Pakistan have demanded that the Pope apologize personally. Not quite the way to convince people that the Pope was in error.
Let's say, hypothetically, that Pope Benedict and Manuel II shared the same view. What exactly about these countries' responses would have cured him of that prejudice? They decided to prove the emperor's point by showing that they lack reason.
It seems that many people are eager to bandy out the inflammatory language of the crusades. But more often than not the same people are almost wholly ignorant of what incited the crusades. As politically incorrect as it is to point out, the crusades were a direct response to the incessant Ottoman/Muslim invasions threatening to collapse Christendom.
Thankfully the Holy Father was the model of diplomacy in this ordeal and actually invited a Muslim delegation to the Vatican to explain that those views were not his own and that he had a "deep respect for Islam."