Finally, a reporter gets it right!

[Topher]

If only both sides could lose
We should spend less time practicing 'tolerance' of some religions and more time questioning all of them.

It's not often that I find myself thinking warm thoughts about Henry Kissinger.

But as the row between the Papacy and elements within Islam rumbles on into its second week, I can only echo the old rogue's famous comment on the Iran-Iraq war: It's a pity both sides can't lose.

Ever since Joseph Ratzinger put the ecclesiastical cat among the pigeons with his speech in Regensburg, Germany, much has been said about the lack of tact he displayed. A broader point - that it is vital to avoid causing offence to religious people if at all possible - has also been emphasized by pundits across the spectrum.

But is that really true? Do events since September 11 illustrate the need for a softer, more "inclusive" approach? Or do they, instead, suggest that it is high time secularists confronted the lunacy that lurks at the heart of all organised religion head-on?

A recent issue of the American satirical newspaper The Onion carried the headline "War-Torn Middle East Seeks Solace In Religion." But the row about Ratzinger's speech is beyond parody.

In the first place, we had an implicit attack - via a 14th century quotation - upon the intolerance and aggressiveness of one religion, delivered by the capo di tutti capi of the Roman Catholic church.

Did Ratzinger not envisage that many people might clear their throats and raise the rather obvious issue of the crusades by way of response? Should the head of an institution responsible for the death of several million people in religious wars not be reluctant to cast the first stone, so to speak, where intolerance is concerned? Apparently not.

The leaders of the One True Faith are not burdened by excessive humility. Lest we forget, the church remained quiescent regarding the persecution of Jews for much of the Holocaust, systematically covered up the involvement of its members in the most appalling abuse of children, and is led by a one-time member of the Hitler Youth.

Yet not one of those things has had any impact on the Vatican's confidence that it can and should assert its moral authority worldwide, and that its followers should bow unquestioningly to its diktats.

There is one good thing that can be said about Ratzinger's speech, however: it served to flush out a few more Islamic zealots.

Pakistani foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam proffered the view - perfect in its circular absurdity - that "anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence."

Somali cleric Sheik Abubakar Hassan Malin told his followers that Ratzinger's remarks were "barbaric." The sullen sheik evidently knows something about barbarism, since he followed this description up with the recommendation that, "Whoever offends our Prophet Muhammad should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim."

Responses to the flap have generally fallen into three categories.

First, there are those who believe that the Pope's remarks are just another example of anti-Muslim bigotry, and that the reactions of Islamic extremists must be understood in that context. These people tend to belong to that particularly spineless school of liberalism that will excuse even the vilest and most illiberal behaviour so long as it is practiced by those whom they have anointed as victims of the west.

Second, there are those, largely on the right, who take the contrary view. They argue that the controversy over Ratzinger's remarks proves that Islam is indeed more prone to extremism than, say, Christianity. But there are plenty of exemplars of Christian extremism - American broadcaster Pat Robertson springs immediately to mind. Many voices on the right condemn Muslim bigots but fail to display the same vigour in criticising their Christian counterparts.

The third camp is comprised of those who do not hide their dismay at recent events, but who argue that religious moderates should assert themselves more forcefully and that interfaith initiatives should be promoted more vigorously. They suggest that such moves would help shift intolerant voices to the margins.

This school of thought is superficially the most persuasive. But it misunderstands the nature of religious faith and observance.

Most major religions, including Islam and Christianity, derive their power from their claims to channel, articulate or otherwise illuminate God's will. The Bible and the Qur'an are, self-evidently, not considered by the faithful to be mere books. They are, instead, the word of God.

In a sense, then, the likes of Pat Robertson and the Somali sheik are merely following the precepts of their respective faiths.

After all, the Bible frequently promises that the wrath of God will be visited upon those who displease Him. So far as unbelievers are concerned, Deuteronomy 13 asserts that if one finds a town where men "have led their fellow citizens astray" then "you must put the inhabitants of that town to the sword; you must lay it under the curse of destruction - the town and everything in it."

The Qur'an, for its part, includes such injunctions as "Therefore when ye meet those who disbelieve, strike their necks" and a promise that "Those that deny our revelation, we will burn in fire."

If any of these are truly the words of God - and why would Believers contend that they are not? - the Big Man doesn't sound like much of an enthusiast for interfaith initiatives.

It's time to face up to an unpalatable fact: extremism among religious people is not an aberration. It is the logical extension of their faith. And religious moderates all too often provide cover for their fundamentalist brethren rather than meaningful opposition to them.

All the talk in recent days about the importance of inclusiveness, respect and sensitivity is well-intentioned but misguided.

We should spend less time practicing "tolerance" of some religions and more time questioning all of them.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/...ould_lose.html

I can't agree more with this piece. He's absolutely correct.

[Apotheosis]

Religion taken to the extreme is almost always a danger to the general population with a few exceptions- One that immediately springs to mind is Buddhism, if they take it to the extreme they simply won't ever hurt anyone.

However I don't think we should treat all religons the same- Islam is the biggest threat today to the U.S, no Catholics have attacked us or speak about us being the great satan.

[tekkengod]

hes right. its just that simple.
It's time to face up to an unpalatable fact: extremism among religious people is not an aberration. It is the logical extension of their faith

[Apotheosis]

No it isn't.

Extremism is not the logical extension of faith, it is an extension of human belief.

Whether that belief is in themselves, in their country, in their religion, in a paper basket, etc...

[tekkengod]

Originally Posted by Apotheosis

No it isn't.

Extremism is not the logical extension of faith, it is an extension of human belief.

Whether that belief is in themselves, in their country, in their religion, in a paper basket, etc...

yes it is, absolutely. Faith is by definition illogical, to hold something in an unshakeable sense, unquestionable, will lead to extremist behavior towards its antithesis eventually. belief, is inherintly based on faith. that applies to any belief, not just religion, religion is simply the most volitle.

[Thelistmaker]

There is a difference between the extremist monolog ‘I am right you are wrong’ and the violet extremist monolog ‘I am right, now I will kill you’

The latter almost always owes a substantial part of its existence to personal issues fanned by socio economic circumstances.

Religion just happens to be the perfect vehicle for all the subconscious bubblings of certain individuals to be fanned and legitimized in a twisted way.

Secular cults of personality and ideologies have been used to the same effects.

[Apotheosis]

Originally Posted by tekkengod

yes it is, absolutely. Faith is by definition illogical, to hold something in an unshakeable sense, unquestionable, will lead to extremist behavior towards its antithesis eventually. belief, is inherintly based on faith. that applies to any belief, not just religion, religion is simply the most volitle.

So all belief, faith, confidence etc.. are illogical?


You believe that all belief is illogical, so is your belief that faith is illogical, illogical itself?

In other words, you believe religion is illogica, thus your belief is illogical itself.

Are you able to eliminate all emotion, if not then your argument is fruitless.

[Thelistmaker]

Religion is not illogical is you suppose that it is logical for a person to want to be happy and clinging to religious belief in many cases dose facilitate some measure of life long happiness.

Especially if the person in question does not have the mental faculties to deal with the ‘big’ questions or ponder the ultimate truths.

In many Buddhist doctrines you will find tolerance of other religions if they are deemed to be in general a positive influence on people who don’t have the karma or circomstances to understand or be properly taught Buddhist teachings in this life.

Ignorance is bliss for many individuals if you pick a tolerant set of beliefs, at lest in the short term.

[Moosey]

Originally Posted by Guardian bloke

Did Ratzinger not envisage that many people might clear their throats and raise the rather obvious issue of the crusades by way of response? Should the head of an institution responsible for the death of several million people in religious wars not be reluctant to cast the first stone, so to speak, where intolerance is concerned? Apparently not.

Anyone who brings up the crusades in a debate on modern religion is an idiot and undermines their own credibility.

[hillbilly79]

This is a great article. Religious tolerance will be the message of the antichrist. The Pope's apology for his comments was sickening. Why do we care if the bad guys are offended?

Homer, are you politically conservative? When I saw you started the thread I was very surprised you agreed with an anti-liberalism article.

[Strafio]

Hillbilly, the article attacks all religions... Christianity included.
I Homer's mostly liberal. I think religious fundamentalism keeps pushing him out the wrong side of bed.

My personal opinion is that if the problem with religious beliefs is that they're irrational, don't you want people to come to that conclusion rationally? So waging a war of intolerance against rational beliefs... it'd be trying to make people irrationally accept (i.e. accept through social pressure rather than critical thinking) beliefs you believe to be rational.
Also, I don't think there's a rational reason for disliking all irrational beliefs.
Some irrational beliefs can be harmful but not all.
What reason can there be for disliking a belief that isn't harmful?

[PASmith]

"Anyone who brings up the crusades in a debate on modern religion is an idiot and undermines their own credibility."

No more so than someone quoting a 14th century emperor to make a point about modern religious conflict.
The point is is that if Ratzinger wanted to make a point about violence and religion he had plenty of homegrown examples to quote. He didn't need to criticise islam.
In fact he would have maintained FAR more credibility if he had done so.
As the once head of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith (what used to be the Inquisition) I'm sure he could lay his hands on MANY documents illustrating Catholic violence.

The Pope is in a cleft stick though...as someone that is INFALLIBLE as a point of catholic doctrine he can't very well admit to making a mistake and heaven forbid actually apologise for being a doofus.
That would somehow imply that the whole catholic belief system might be a load old rubbish.

[tekkengod]

Originally Posted by hillbilly79

This is a great article. Religious tolerance will be the message of the antichrist. The Pope's apology for his comments was sickening. Why do we care if the bad guys are offended?

Homer, are you politically conservative? When I saw you started the thread I was very surprised you agreed with an anti-liberalism article.

wow, you're being even more decisive than i am. "tolerance will be the message of the anti-christ"???!??!! do you know how that makes you sound? I don't think we should tolerate religious belief either. but you're drawing unnessecary lines. christianity and islam operate on the same level of rationality, but its important to acknowladge that the do promote diffrent things, which accounts for the lack of christian suicide bombers, but i'm not defending them by a long shot. define "bad guys" if you will, and how you are any diffrent than your fundementalist muslim counterpart.

[hillbilly79]

Originally Posted by Strafio

Hillbilly, the article attacks all religions... Christianity included.
I Homer's mostly liberal. I think religious fundamentalism keeps pushing him out the wrong side of bed.

My personal opinion is that if the problem with religious beliefs is that they're irrational, don't you want people to come to that conclusion rationally? So waging a war of intolerance against rational beliefs... it'd be trying to make people irrationally accept (i.e. accept through social pressure rather than critical thinking) beliefs you believe to be rational.
Also, I don't think there's a rational reason for disliking all irrational beliefs.
Some irrational beliefs can be harmful but not all.
What reason can there be for disliking a belief that isn't harmful?

Actually, I don't see it attacking Christianity. But there are some teachings being endorsed by supposedly Christian churches that other Christians need to speak out against. Society wants the church to accept legal statutes as the moral code regardless of what the Bible actually teaches. This is where I agree with the question all religions part. Questioning the underlying teachings and interpretations of any religion is a good thing. I have stated several times that I believe the Bible is the perfect word of God, but I also have to study the scriptures for myself and read and discuss what it says with other people.

[hillbilly79]

Originally Posted by tekkengod

wow, you're being even more decisive than i am. "tolerance will be the message of the anti-christ"???!??!! do you know how that makes you sound? I don't think we should tolerate religious belief either. but you're drawing unnessecary lines. christianity and islam operate on the same level of rationality, but its important to acknowladge that the do promote diffrent things, which accounts for the lack of christian suicide bombers, but i'm not defending them by a long shot. define "bad guys" if you will, and how you are any diffrent than your fundementalist muslim counterpart.

Yes--I do know how it sounds!! Like I'm at a rally! Actually, I knew you would be all over it when you saw it. But believe it or not I would get the same reaction from a lot of Christians--it always happens when I mention the antichrist and apocolypse. To tell you the truth I find their reactions rather humerous because I know they think I'm a nut but I don't really care.

"Bad guys" are those extremeists who want the whole world to convert to Islam (or other religion for that matter) or die. How am I/Christians different from them? They are the ones who have attacked first. When it comes down to me dying or them, I chose me being alive. They are the ones who decided this world should operate on a kill or be killed basis.