I would look for it at Crooks and Liars. If they don't have it up, they will.

Frist twice in two days!

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml

Click on "watch" under "Papa Don't Preach." I use Firefox, and usually these crappy streaming players don't work for me, so you want to open it in IE.

I found this in five seconds of searching on You Tube, considerably less time than it took you to write a post asking us to look for it for you, Kevin.

Here you go:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sduc1HQpNoI

You were right it was good.

I don't understand how you could have read Benedict's remarks and been "appalled" unless you were trying to be appalled. If you read it in context it is quite obvious that Benedict is highlighting how interfaith dialogue was far more tolerant in that the 14th century than it is today. He says that Manuel was speaking to the Persian with a "brusqueness" that is shocking to us today. It is not insulting, it provides a context for Manuel's remark and attitude.

And what if the remarks were seen as by Muslims as insulting? So what? Why does the Pope have to be sensitive to Muslims' or Protestants' or Buddhists' feelings on matters of doctrine? Remember, he is the leader of the Catholic Church - his main job is really marketing if you think about it. It is hardly surprising the Pope would tell us Catholic doctrine is superior to Islamic doctrine - otherwise what is the point of the Church? Do you get offended if the CEO of Daimler Chrysler makes a negative remark about Ford?

He was just quoting the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said it. So why are people so upset? What's wrong with quoting someone?

This is the reasoning of a ten-year old.

What a hypocrite you are for saying that. You quote people all the time even though you might not agree with them. In the post titled Traditional Values you just recently wrote you made the following quote.

"This very definitely is going to put a chilling effect on the tremendous strides he has made in the conservative evangelical community," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition, one of several conservative activists who support Bush's proposal on interrogation techniques.

But because you're a liberal, you didn't agree with him. This is no different than what his holiness Pope Benedict did. He just quoted Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus without necessarily agreeing with him just as you quoted Rev. Louis P. Sheldon without necessarily agreeing with him. There is no difference between what he did and what you did.

Someone tell Prof. Bainbridge what a ponce he is being, since he seems to approve of the Pope's non-apology.

Ten year old logic from a law Prof..

"Pope Benedict's recent remarks on reason and faith, and I was appalled. The reference to Islam near the beginning of the speech was entirely gratuitous and disingenuous, as were Benedict's subsequent crocodile tears over the idea that anyone could have taken offense at his remarks. For the record, here's the nickel version of what he said:

Mohammed was a violent man. Violence is unreasonable. God loves reason. Draw your own conclusions.

Benedict's supporters are mostly defending him by insisting that Benedict didn't actually say that. He was just quoting the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said it. So why are people so upset? What's wrong with quoting someone?

This is the reasoning of a ten-year old."

Christians and Muslims are both “people of the book.” But there’s a difference: Christianity started out as a religion of the weak, held by the lowliest in society and advanced by conversion and example, independent of the state. A distinction between religion and temporal power is embedded in its founding narratives. Compare the final words of Jesus to his disciples, on the day of his ascension: … “Ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” … with the final words of Mohammed to his disciples: “I was ordered to fight all men until they say, ‘There is no god but Allah.’”

One further point - it is appalling that Drum would refer to the vandalism of churches and the killing of a nun as "a staged media circus." What low standards you have for Muslims, Kevin, if you truly think that killing and vandalism are nothing more than circus.

Drum:

Did you read the remarks you linked to? The mention of Islam is incidental. You seem like you're just trying to jump on the bandwagon.

That was a very sloppy and dishonest post.

Why are the incoherent rage and too-often lethal actions of Islamic reactionaries considered any more representative of Muslim faith than the killing of doctors and bombing of abortion clinics by so-called Christians?

Someone can throw gasoline on a fire and say he's a firefighter. That doesn't make it so.

Why all the violence in the response. Fire bombing 4 churches? Come on. If the Muslims want to advance their cause surely they don't need violence.

As to the Pope's quotation, when taken in context it is clear the Pope was using the quote to advance his argument. He clearly thought Manuel II Paleologus made a point worth repeating.

Why, in the context of the topic at hand he thought the quote was necessary, I don't know. Maybe somebody can tell me.

Benedict was basically saying Islam supports violence towards non-Muslims.

And that's right. Any religion whose adherents kill defenseless elderly nuns in response to an academic speech is a religion that encourages violence. Any religion whose (non-terrorist) people attack people and embassies because of cartoons is a religion that encourages violence. Any religion whose devotees sympathize with terrorists (and that's most of the Muslim world) is a religion that supports violence.

Pope Benedict ought to shut up about Muslims and start making sure that his priests aren't buggering their altar boys.

People who live in glass churches....

Any religion whose adherents kill defenseless elderly nuns in response to an academic speech is a religion that encourages violence.

Any right wing nut job who doesn't know the history of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War before criticizing a faith going through a very similar type of upheaval is a goddamn fool.

well, Vanya, let's substitute the word "christian" for "muslim" and "christianity" for "Islam" and we'll see who gets upset.

Maybe we should rename our soon to be anti-christian theocracy "Dumbfuckistan"

"Does anyone know if that segment is available somewhere? Maybe on YouTube or something?"

How quaint!

Whew! The Papistenesel and similar trolls are out in full force on this thread.

Thanks to Kevin for pointing out that segment, and to the readers for finding it.

On Monday I was listening to one of our local LA conservative radio hosts (Ed Rantel) and he was talking about this subject, along with a local story about Dr. Maher Hathout, the head of the L.A. Mosque getting a public relations award.

In one breath he was whining about how Muslims can't protest without being violent. They wanna cut off our heads, blah blah blah. In the next breath, he's condemning Hathout and the award he's going to receive, because he said some unkind words about Israel. In my young, rambunctious days, I used to scoff at Hathout because he said Israel had a right to exist and he didn't wear a beard for example. This guy is the epitome of a Muslim moderate, someone that puts out statements against Muslim extremists all the time. But it is never enough. If you're a Muslim, you either have to disown your religion or burn something to get anyone to pay attention.

Hey brendan, having read the remarks he linked to, Kevin's nickel version of the thrust of Ratzinger's use of the quote is more or less on the mark.

That he or his speechwriter's would deliberately chose to use this story, knowing full well the inflammatory nature of his remarks, is appalling. Equally so if they can sincerely say they did not foresee any potential for a negative reaction to such comments.

Don't get me wrong, I could give a shit about the fragile religious sensitivities of catholics, muslims, "evangelicals" or whoever. But then again i'm not the infallible representative of god on earth. Vanya, your comments reflect all the political sense of a rock.

oh, and the "Mea Kinda" was brilliant.

If the Pope had one honest bone in his body (aside from the one he likes to stick into altar boys), he would come out and speak truth:

"Islam spread by violence.
I stand by this statement, because it is historical FACT.
Catholocism also spread by violence.
This is also, an undisputed historical FACT.

Both of these religions, of the children of God, can survive, and thrive, on reason alone.

It's high time both these religions put a stop to this bullshit."

Al :: "There is no difference between what he did and what you did."

The difference is in the context. The Pope is a Dope and Kevin isn't.

Benedict is a brilliant man. A nickel version of his ideas ain't gonna cut it, so don't bother with any reductionism. Read the speech as is.

He does have an agenda. A while ago, he went into a synagogue and said Nazism was more about neo-paganism than about traditional anti-Semitism. That was something indeed. Then he said to Turkey, in effect in another address, that the idea of a "clash of civilizations" was wrong and he was for dialogue between Europe and the Middle East. He is clearly staking out an interesting intellectual position.

In political terms, you have to realize he was up against some serious lefties at University of Tubingen in 1968, so he is well tempered and knows what to expect from opposition. He knows they are not going to calmly discuss faith and reason.

He is a brilliant man, one of the best minds to come to public life in ages. Ignore him at your loss is my opinion, and I am not religious.

Religon: Responsable for over 200 million deaths.

"with the final words of Mohammed to his disciples..."

Muhammad's Last Sermon

Fitz, that's pretty disingenuous. Muhammad's last sermon can be found above. I don't know what his last words were to his disciples, but his last sermon was his final message to mankind. It's very short, and I think quite beautiful. It sums up Islam in just a few sentences.

Vanya:

If Benedict's purpose there was PR as you say -- then he couldn't have failed more abysmally.

The response was entirely predictable. And the reference entirely gratuitous; there were any number of other ways to have prefaced his remark save by citing the history of the bloody rivalry between Christendom and Islam that ended with the Ottoman conquest of the Levant. Sheesh!

The great irony is that in the rest of Benedict's speech, he was making points that any Islamic cleric would have understood and applauded. He even said that the West has so exorcised faith through an overreliance on reason that the Muslim world no longer understands it. Music to bin Laden's ears!

But of course he also wove a *counter*narrative through it, which is an attempt to justify faith *through* reason that's been a Catholic game since Aquinas. Well guess what -- tell it to Gallileo.

The fact of the matter is that the Western world has supplanted faith by reason because of faith's insufficiencies. The Pope's trying for a flying buttress of illogical rhetoric to shore that up.

Because in truth, if Benedict were right -- that faith is justified by and compatible with reason -- then the Western world wouldn't have fallen away from faith to begin with.

Pope Benedict -- doctrinal enforcer.

And BTW, can anybody even *imagine* John Paul II ever being that remotely insensitive -- despite the doctrinal agreement he doubtless would have felt with his former Grand Inquisitor?

Bob

Actually, you know, the Islamic Revolution in Iran tagged the US with the moniker "Great Satan," and the Protestants in Europe during the 16th and 17th Centuries routinely referred to the Pope as the "Antichrist." There may be more to this Thirty Years' War analogy than I realized.

By the way, then as now, the atrocities are perpetrated by both sides.

Also, no one really won the Thirty Years' War. I guess that's what took thirty years--to wear everyone down to the point that they just couldn't fucking pick themselves up to kill any more. On the bright side, maybe we only have 25 more years of this before the same can be said for the idiot antagonists in this conflict.

If you're a Muslim, you either have to disown your religion or burn something to get anyone to pay attention.
Posted by: enozinho on September 20, 2006 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

My question is;
Why is getting anyone to pay attention so damn important?

The story has 2 parts - the Pope's use of the quote, and Muslim reaction to his use of the quote. I side with Kevin: both players behaved badly.

But the violent reaction of Muslims protesting accusations of being violent takes the cake.

Mann Coulter: Religon: Responsable for over 200 million deaths.

Not a reason, just an excuse. Besides religion, people can choose sides based on the color of their skin (or for that matter any aspect of their ancestry), their language, whether they're left or right handed. You name it. If you want to kill people, you can always find an excuse.

After watching the segement, I feel that I am not missing much by not watching the Daily Show at all. Anything funny that appears there will be shown at the end of Special Report. Besides Steven Cobear is much funnier than Jon Stewart. Anyway, I would be interested in hearing why Kevin believes this segement teaches us more about this issue than "reams of op-ed commentary."

We seem to be at cross channels – relating to two separate impulses of our respective faiths (dogmas)

#1) The Theist ( Myself, the Pope) seeks to differentiate two separate religious traditions and the underlying philosophical/theological predispositions to violence.

#2.) The Secularist (others) falls upon his multiculturalists dogmas and (a) refuses any marked contrast between the two (b) falls upon his anti-religious bigotry and strives to NOT-differentiate the two because it satiates his impulse to paint ALL religion as archaic & barbaric.

from Osama_Been_Forgotten's proposed papal statements: It's high time both these religions put a stop to this bullshit.

Ok, but in keeping with Catholic practice, we need a canonical translation. Is "fimus bovis" Latin for bullshit?

I beg to differ. It is organized statist/authoritarian groups that impose "external enemies" on their constituents (loosely used here) in order to maintain control over populations. It is their way of demonstrating to the people "why they need us"

The Church would have folded centuries ago had people been left to their own free reason and will. But by keeping people IGNORANT, POOR and AFRAID, the Church thrived, even inculcated children to be "christian soldiers" (an oxymoron if ever there was one). Kinda like they are doing now....imagine, our own fuehrer has his own Hitler youth: http://www.jesuscampthemovie.com/

But none more Religon,It far outpaces any other reasons for killing.But your point is well taken Alex.

Why is getting anyone to pay attention so damn important?

Because lies and distortions about Islam and Muslims are used as justification for invading their countries, propping up their dictators, and leaving them to languish in poverty indefinitely.

Fitz:

I don't paint either religion as archaic or barbaric.

I just think that justifying faith by reason is a sucker's game whether you're a Muslim *or* a Catholic.

We're an enlightened civilization now.

The Caliphate was an enlightened civilization when we were burning each other at the stake and dying of communicable diseases in the Dark Ages.

Benedict's point?

Bob

Last night Jon Stewart pegged all this perfectly.

Yeah. And just think how on the money he'd be if he had, you know, some writers and stuff!

In reference to my earlier post, I think Anne Applebaum's op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post was much better commentary than the Daily Show segement. The following excerpt should suffice for those who haven't read it.

"All of which is simply beside the point, since nothing the pope has ever said comes even close to matching the vitriol, extremism and hatred that pour out of the mouths of radical imams and fanatical clerics every day, all across Europe and the Muslim world, almost none of which ever provokes any Western response at all. And maybe it's time that it should: When Saudi Arabia publishes textbooks commanding good Wahhabi Muslims to "hate" Christians, Jews and non-Wahhabi Muslims, for example, why shouldn't the Vatican, the Southern Baptists, Britain's chief rabbi and the Council on American-Islamic Relations all condemn them -- simultaneously?
. . .
But if stray comments by Western leaders -- not to mention Western films, books, cartoons, traditions and values -- are going to inspire regular violence, I don't feel that it's asking too much for the West to quit saying sorry and unite, occasionally, in its own defense. The fanatics attacking the pope already limit the right to free speech among their own followers. I don't see why we should allow them to limit our right to free speech, too."

#2.) The Secularist (others) falls upon his multiculturalists dogmas and (a) refuses any marked contrast between the two (b) falls upon his anti-religious bigotry and strives to NOT-differentiate the two because it satiates his impulse to paint ALL religion as archaic & barbaric.
Posted by: Fitz on September 20, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

Yep. That's about right.

Although I personally strive to NOT-differentiate betwen the two, because THEY ARE THE SAME. Both are wrong, both are based on fallacious scripture, and both are used as excuses for murder, rape, mayhem, and genocide.
That goes for totalitarian communism as well. Ideologically different than Catholocism and Islam. Functionally the same.

That's because - it's all a form of barbaric tribalism. The rest of us are just patiently waiting for y'all to kill eachother off, and we're hoping you leave us out of your petty squabbles over angelic pinhead dancing.

In the name of religon,Whole cultures of people where wiped out.There trees cut down there villages torn down and hauled off,There land was salted.Experts think there may have been up to Forty culters of people wiped off the face of the earth,every man womman and chid of that decent just wiped away.All in the name of religon.Go figure!!

Look! Another post that thinks Jon Stewart is funny! Or is it so say Jon Stewart is right?

So if religion killed 200 million people does that mean that anti-religion killed all the rest?

How can you possibly be appalled? The pope was raising a basic theological point: "God is His own Word, which is Reason (Logos), Who is His co-essential Son and eternally One with Him from before the ages, whereas Allah's word is the eternal Qur'an, which has no obvious or necessary relationship to reason, and which he could nonetheless repudiate at any time if he so chose." (this is a direct quote-- check my blog for more). After all, any serious Muslim would call a Christian a blasphemer (multiplicity into the one God) and an idolator (worship as God a man named Jesus). Should Christians be offended by this? Of course not.

I'm sick to death of the tip-toeing and kid gloves treatment accorded to any major theological difference. By all means, we need mutual respect (and the pope acknowledges that). But brushing this under the carpet means we cannot address the core issue at the heart of Benedict's talk: violence in the service of religion. His point is that it is irrational, no matter who does it. He shows how Christianity works it out (despite the fact that Christians, to put in mildly, did not always take this to heart!). How does islamic theology work this out? For it should work it out, and the pope is right to condemn all violence in the service of religion.

No, the real story here is the Muslim reaction: we respond with violence to protest you calling us violent! Where's the irony? When Pope Benedict looks out from the Vatican, he can see a big Saudi-funded mosque on the hills. In the meantime, Christianity is illegal in Saudi Arabia, and Islam applies the death penalty for conversion. Are we to keep burying our heads in the sand, as the great South Park carton implied? Or are we to address the elephant in the room? If the answer to this question is yes, then we need to have an honest theological debate, and not shy away from key differences. Go Benedict!

(from a serious Catholic who is a staunch supporter of the Democratic party-- for reasons you all can understand, I'm sure. I try to expose some of the Repunblican hypocrisy in this area on my blog).

Baldrick--so you're saying because the West has matured beyond religiously-inspired violence that we should just excuse it in Islam? Is this the "I was a teenager too" excuse?

Islam, as currently practiced and believed, supports violence.

For the record, here's the nickel version of what he said:

Mohammed was a violent man. Violence is unreasonable. God loves reason. Draw your own conclusions.

That's not at all what he said.

Benedict's supporters are mostly defending him by insisting that Benedict didn't actually say that.

Which, since he didn't say that, is a perfectly reasonable response.

He was just quoting the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who said it.

More specifically, he was quoting Manuel II Paleologus comments in the context of a broader argument about faith and reason, and endorsing the view of the relation between faith, reason, and violence that Manuel II Paleologus put forth, not endorsing the particular characterization of Islam that formed the context for that characterization.

In fact, Benedict is, though its not the central point of his remarks, making an attack on Islam: making a far deeper, far more serious, and far more basic attack on Islam (or at least a strain of theology found within Islam, though not exclusively sothan the simplistic focus on the reference to Manuel II Paleologus' comment on Muhammed as, as you characterize it, a "violent man" would have it seem.

Rather, his endorsement of Manuel II Paleologus comments on faith, reason, and violence followed by his later reference to Khoury's characterization of Ibn Hasan's articulation of the Islamic view of God makes clear that, insofar as he is commenting on Islam per se, he is attacking the Islamic view of God "absolutely transcendent", unbounded even by reason; he extends this attack to not only against Islam, but against strains of thought within Christianity that adopt similar or related positions, as well.

So why has there been all this focus on a distortion of a minor point? Because lots of people, on both the right and the left, really don't want any serious discussion of Benedict's actual point in the speech: that of the role of philosophy and theology vis-a-vis natural sciences, where Benedict argues that theology must be considered a "within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences" (an unspeakable affront to doctrinaire liberalism), and that, yet, its subject matter is outside the bounds of the natural sciences (an equally unspeakable affront to those who would sell their theological indoctrination as natural science).

This isn't to say I agree with Benedict's argument—I don't think I do, at least as it presented. But I do think lots of people have sacred cows that are threatened by serious consideration of it, and would much rather distract from it by recasting it as "Pope calls Islam violent".

Talk about missing the entire point.

Christianity in America, as currently practiced and believed, supports violence.

The Pope is a Dope and Kevin isn't.

Without commenting on the broader characterization of either party, in the context of the Pope's remarks and Kevin's remarks about them, I'd say Kevin is the dope (and a dupe, as well), not Benedict.

So if religion killed 200 million people does that mean that anti-religion killed all the rest?

No.

Benedict's point?

Well, you could just click through and read it. Benedict is pretty clear what his point is (and it has nothing to do with "Islam = bad"; that's just a deliberate distortion of a minor piece of the argument in an effort to (1) take any excuse to advance the al-Qaeda/neocon "clash of civilizations" meme, and (2) distract from Benedicts actual points):

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: We are all grateful for the marvelous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which reflects one of the basic tenets of Christianity.

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them.

We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions.

A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based.

Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought -- to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being -- but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss."

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur -- this is the program with which a theology grounded in biblical faith enters into the debates of our time.

"Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God," said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Agree or disagree with it, that's his point.

After all, any serious Muslim would call a Christian a blasphemer (multiplicity into the one God). and an idolator (worship as God a man named Jesus). Should Christians be offended by this? Of course not.

I don't understand why this is so.
I have been a Christian all my life, and I understand implicitly that I pray to God, and I worship God, and the whole point of God sending his Son was not so we worship His Son, but so that we can be forgiven.

Who is worshipping Christ? Nobody who understands the message of the New Testament is worshipping Christ.
Recognizing the Divine origin of Christ doesn't mean Christ is God.

I just don't get the difference between Islam's view of Christ, and Christianity's view of Christ.

I also don't get the difference between the Sunnis and Shiites, though I understand it's actually cultural, and not necessarily doctrinal or ideological.

the Muslim reaction: we respond with violence to protest you calling us violent!

This is where Benedict is totally failing, as a leader. He has backed down from what he said, and is now parsing his words. He doesn't have the courage to stand by what he said, and he doesn't have the courage to retract what he said fully. He's trying to weasel in between the two views.

Westerners can see the irony of "If you insult Islam by calling it violent, we will kill you!" - The Pope should have the balls to stand up and say this. I think he'd win a lot of moderate Muslim hearts and minds this way. Maybe he'll get himself assassinated, but Popes have been killed for worse causes.

Because lots of people, on both the right and the left, really don't want any serious discussion of Benedict's actual point in the speech

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the idea that there is a conspiracy to not talk about his larger point. Muslims are angry because the Pope passively quoted a 14 century king, implying that Islam is inherently violent.

It's like quote someone 20 years after the crucifixion claiming, "Jesus grabbed my ass."

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the idea that there is a conspiracy to not talk about his larger point.

I didn't say there was a conspiracy. Lots of people having related motives for similar actions and taking them independently is not a "conspiracy".

Muslims are angry because the Pope passively quoted a 14 century king, implying that Islam is inherently violent.

Sure, lots of Muslims are angry about it. Why do they even know about it? Because people—for, I would argue, the motives I suggested—have focussed on that minor part of Benedict's speech, and publicized that spin on it.

Islam does not consider Jesus to be divine. He is considered a prophet. Islam says that God has no partners, so attributing divinity to Jesus is understood as implying that without Jesus, God is deficient.

On the day that Muhammad died, one of his companions (Umr Bin Khattab, I believe) said, "He who worshiped Muhammad, let them know that he is dead. He who worships God, let him know that he is alive and never dies."

Because in truth, if Benedict were right -- that faith is justified by and compatible with reason -- then the Western world wouldn't have fallen away from faith to begin with.

This argument relies on equivocation: Benedict clearly does not argue that faith is justified by the conception of reason modernly popular in the West, and indeed criticizes that as a misconception and improper narrowing of the concept of "reason".

So I finally got around to reading the pope's speech. Even though I'm a church-going Catholic (depending on the week), my sense of theology and faith is far different than the church's. But I rather liked the pope's ideas about the importance of reason in practicing religion. I would agree that there is a difference between Catholicism and Islam, and I agree that the practice of jihad (war in the service of God) is not justified.

But that's not all that that pope said. He quoted the Byzantine emperor who said: "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 quote does not just condemn jihad. It says that all Mohammed has added is "evil and inhuman." In other words, it condemns all Islam.

That might not be the pope's belief, but then why say it? If the pope was looking for a way to condemn jihad, surely there is a better way to do it then finding a quote that condemns all Islam.

The pope's I-really-didn't-mean-that defense is ridiculous.

The Muslim protests also are ridiculous, to the extent that they are violently protesting the assertion that they are violent.

But as Stewart pointed out, rioting at soccer matches doesn't exactly demonstrate that the West is superior. People can react violently about things they care about. With some people, it's sports, and with others, it's religion.

The pope did have another quote near the end of his speech that is worth remembering. Here's Socrates to Phaedo: "It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being -- but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss."

There is a lot of wisdom in that.

Baldrick--so you're saying because the West has matured beyond religiously-inspired violence that we should just excuse it in Islam? Is this the "I was a teenager too" excuse?

No, not really. I am saying that Christianity has at times been a violent religion also, and that people frequently kill and maim other people due to abstract ideas that possess them. I am saying that Islam is not substantially different from any other man-made belief system in this regard, including Christianity. I am also saying that, your supreme confidence that the West does not kill in the service of its religion (or other ideology) is badly misguided. On the contrary, you only have to look back at the history of the twentieth century (and, now, sadly, the twenty first) to see it. And the right wing nut jobs who are leading this charge and their enabling useful idiots in their basements with the cheetos are very good examples of the kind of demented, blind rage at the other that I am talking about.

What would a rational human do if attacked by a group of thugs and madmen? Well, he might go after the thugs and mad men and try to "bring them to justice." He would not, if behaving rationally, go after some other thugs and mad men who are incapable of doing him harm, and he most certainly would not go up the street of the thugs and madmen and provoke all of their innocent neighbors by attacking them as well.

What I am saying is that the West, as represented currently by the Bush Administration, kills just as much in service of its ideology do Muslims. Our wealth helps us to present it in a little more palatable way, of course.

Fitz, if there were any difference in the predisposition to violence between these religions of the God of Abraham, I'm hard pressed to find them. Both have a history of going to war against others, both have a history of going against themselves, both have shown themselves willing to kill to enforce orthodoxy. Christianity, in general, and Catholicism, in particular, are peaceful now because revolutions destroyed their secular power. When the Catholic Church was running its shadow-theocracy before the Reformation Era and even after, say in France before the Revolution, it was every bit as bloodthirsty and every bit as willing to manipulate the peasants for their own benefit. That was a major reason that the Church was a target of the revolutions, not merely something standing on the side, like the King of Thailand during a military coup.

Bob M -

He does have an agenda. A while ago, he went into a synagogue and said Nazism was more about neo-paganism than about traditional anti-Semitism. That was something indeed.

The something is dishonesty. Paganism has had little real resonance in Europe for a long time. Sure there are many symbolic gestures to paganism in various areas, but I'm willing to bet that the Roman Catholics have borrowed more pagan symbolism than the Nazis ever did. Blaming the other works, whether in Germany after WWI or Iran today. Sorry, but Europe's history of anti-semitism is inextricably bound up in Europe's history of Christianity.

Then he said to Turkey, in effect in another address, that the idea of a "clash of civilizations" was wrong and he was for dialogue between Europe and the Middle East. He is clearly staking out an interesting intellectual position.

What dialogue does he want? Europeans want Turkey to be the bulwark against the "really crazy Moslems" that they fear, but they don't want to pay the price by admitting Turkey to the EU. Ataturk's vision of secular countries that are overwhelmingly Islamic cannot survive in one or two places without support. The battle, however, is not between Christian and Moslem, it is between religiously controlled and secular. The power and appeal of secular life, not Christianity, is why the West, which has pretty well and wisely given up on proselytizing in Islamic countries, is a threat in Islamic countries. Secularism can destroy the power of the clergy without destroying the religion. That is the fear. That is the fact. That is the battle.

"I occasionally get tired of suggestions that Jon Stewart is the only guy in America who "really gets it."

YOU HAVE GRAVELY OFFENDED PIOUS DAILY SHOW VIEWERS! APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY - AND NOT JUST SOME HALF-APOLOGY - WE WANT, LIKE, A REAL SELF-FLAGELLATION "I HAVE OFFENDED THEE" HAIRSHIRT THING - OR WE WILL ISSUE A FATWA AGAINST YOU AND TORCH ALL KINDS OF CHURCHES AND CAT GROOMING PARLORS AND STUFF. WE TRIED TO BURN YOU IN EFFIGY BUT DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH HAY TO MAKE ONE BIG ENOUGH. (HIYO!)

Benedict was basically saying Islam supports violence towards non-Muslims.

No, Benedict was basically saying that a wide range of religious thought, including a strand found within historical Islam and within historical Christianity, improperly considers Divine Will unknowable and beyond reason, and in doing so and yet calling for absolute submission, engenders all sorts of problems, including violence.

Note specifically his reference to Ibn Hasan's description of the Islamic concept of God, and his later references to trends within historical Christianity that led the same direction.

This is where Benedict is totally failing, as a leader. He has backed down from what he said, and is now parsing his words.

Except that he didn't back off what he actually said. He "backed off" a distorted characterization others made of remarks taken, deliberately, out of context.

He doesn't have the courage to stand by what he said, and he doesn't have the courage to retract what he said fully.

Yes, he does. He is standing by what he said. There is no lack of courage in not agreeing with whatever self-serving distortions other people come up with of your statements in order to stir controversy.

For the record, Pope Benedict opposed both Bush's invasion of Iraq and the Israeli assault on Lebanon. He is consistent in his views on peace.

Sure, the Pope was dumb to try to take on this issue with 13th century references, given just how violent the Catholic Church and the papacy was in that same time period. Its just dumb to draw on references from a time when religeous problems were being solved on the battlefield.

That being said, you, Kevin, have always bristled at the criticism that the left "doesn't acknowlege" or "is soft on" the violent intent of radical Islam and the illiberalism of Islam in general. Good, because I think there is a need for smart voices who are both against the Iraq war but acknowlege what's awful in certain sects of Islam. Heck, their women are treated worse than blacks were in apartheid South Africa, just to pick a random example.

However, after such past protesting, here you go drawing a moral equivilence between a speech and actual violence. On one side is a guy speaking. On the other side are people who out-and-out say that they will use violence to stop that speech. And you consider theys guys equally bad? What if Bush or Rumsfield were threatening a violent response to Hugo Chavez's over-the-top speech in the UN today? Would you declare moral equivilence there as well between the speaker and those threatening violence?

Sure, I don't like Benedict and kind of enjoy seeing him embrarassed, but I would never equate a few lines in his speech to the actions of the Islamic world in response. And I would have that position even without the unbelieveable irony of Muslims responding to a statement that they are violent by... threatening lots of violence.

Islam does not consider Jesus to be divine.

A Muslim also said that the Bible is accurate when it says that Jesus is the Son of God. Because we are all Sons of God.

Frankly, I don't see an important (worth fighting over) difference here.

He is considered a prophet. Islam says that God has no partners, so attributing divinity to Jesus is understood as implying that without Jesus, God is deficient.

That makes no fucking sense.
The fact that I have a son means that I'm somehow deficient?

This amounts to a parsing of words and meanings to the extent that I think we should just chalk it up to linguistic and cultural differences, and call it a day. Personally, I don't think God/Allah gives a crap about this stuff - in fact, according to Genesis, he scattered our languages and cultures for a reason (to keep us from getting too arrogant).

This barely merits a heated discussion over beers in a pub, let alone a holy war, bombings, torture, beheadings, invasions, etc.

The Muslim protests also are ridiculous, to the extent that they are violently protesting the assertion that they are violent.

Well, yeah, but then that's not what they are protesting. They are violently protesting the idea that what the Koran teaches regarding jihad is "contrary to God's nature."

Baldrick--so you're saying because the West has matured beyond religiously-inspired violence that we should just excuse it in Islam? Is this the "I was a teenager too" excuse?
Islam, as currently practiced and believed, supports violence.
Posted by: polthereal

the west hasn't matured beyond religiously inspired violence ... we've just sublimated these impulses into (arguably more sophisticated) nation-state or a racial ideologies.

today american, and in their day spanish and british, violence reaches proportions unmatchable by muslims of any age. the body count and atrocities committed by westerners, particularly whites, surpasses muslim extremism even today. the fact that it isn't identified as christian, except subconsciously and accidentally, is irrelevant.

... and the ONLY thing, I submit, preventing the wholesale return of apeshit, violent, racist, genocidal, bible-thumping christianity in this country, are liberals.

Some decades back, the KKK sometimes lynched an African American for "being uppity". In those days, liberals didn't sit around and debate whether he really was uppity. All their anger was directed at the KKK and the lynch mob.

Now Islamic rabble-rousers used the Pope's words to promote the burning of churches and the murder of a nun. Liberals want to debate whether or not the Pope's words were truly provacative. I don't care what the Pope said. All my anger is directed against the rabble-rousers, the arsonists and the killers.

"...a strand found within historical Islam and within historical Christianity, improperly considers Divine Will unknowable and beyond reason"

I haven't read Ibn Hasan, but I have seen examples of this type of thought among Muslims. A lot of Muslims misunderstand the word "Taqwah" to mean fear of God, when in fact in means understanding, or knowledge of God.

On the subject of reason, all I can say is that what brought me to Islam were the Quran's calls for man to look the world around him for answers to the meaning of life. That's not to say there aren't ideas and rules in it that don't make me cringe, there are. But, in general, my impression when reading the Quran for the first time was that it could have been written by Aristotle.

hmmm, "uppity nigger" vs the Pope.

I sense a small disparity in power, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

I agree with most of your posts, KD, when it comes to bread-and-butter political and economic issues (including foreign policy). But here it is you who sound like a child. I'll concede this point: it was clumsy and probably careless for the pope to have used that quote. That criticism is perfectly fair. But for you to be "appalled" by the speech as a whole requires not reading it carefully. The entire speech is about the incompatibility of genuine faith with violence, and the important role of reason, that must not be limited only to questions that can be answered with demonstrable certitude (thus in effect excluding all the fundamental human questions about love, human purpose, God, meaning, etc.). It calls for people of diverse faiths and none to converse with one another honestly. And while the quote was indeed ill-chosen, it was included precisely because this notion of conversation about basic human questions is under threat in part via a violent interpretation of Islam, the Koranic validity of which continues to be debated within Islam. Yet that was not the central focus of the lecture: the pope also discussed at length the problem of a positivist secularism that denies that these ultimate questions can be discussed rationally at all (the latter problem received far more attention in the speech).
I like The Daily Show too, but it is-- if not a ten year old's response-- at least an adolescent response to limit one's self to giggling at someone trying to raise these questions, as if the problem of nihilism has not been an important question in the West for at least the last 100 years, and violent Islamic fundamentalism is not a danger to peace and to reason alike. There is a place for jokes and for anticlericalism-- The Daily Show took some good shots there-- but that you think this is the truth-telling last word on the pope's speech is not a recommendation for your thinking on these questions.

Someone who needs to go to a Mindless Religious Zealotry Re-education camp wrote:

Frankly, I don't see an important (worth fighting over) difference here.

Well, there's the execution of thousands of heretics wasted.

From Baldrick: I am saying that Christianity has at times been a violent religion also...I am saying that Islam is not substantially different from any other man-made belief system in this regard, including Christianity.

Except that the Pope wasn't calling for people to go out and kill elderly Islamic priests.

History is clear, no doubt. But Islam is violent now, while Christianity, on the whole, is not.

I'm not saying Western nations aren't militarisitic and violent, but they (1) have a set of rules for not attacking innocents through terrorism or other random violence (notwithstanding Bush's lamentable attempts to gut parts of the Geneva Conventions); and (2) are capable of discussion where Muslims seem predisposed towards horrific personal violence.

By the way, I'm a solid Democratic who believes the Iraq war was stupid and that we should get out now. I just don't believe we ought to excuse Islam from its violent tendencies.

Sure, the Pope was dumb to try to take on this issue with 13th century references, given just how violent the Catholic Church and the papacy was in that same time period.

First, it was a 14th Century reference. Second, Manuel II Paleologus was, as a Byzantine Emporer, certainly neither a Catholic nor a representative of the Papacy. Third, the Pope also criticized theological trends within Christianity in the Middle Ages for the exact same reasons that Islamic theology was criticized.

Perhaps I didn't word that especially well, what the Muslims were protesting. But it's really hard to know exactly what they are protesting, because acts of violence -- attacking churches, burning the pope in effigy -- are not speeches that can be parsed but are acts that are so dramatic they blur whatever the protesters may have been trying to say.

Violence gets attention, but it's a hard way to persuade.

This barely merits a heated discussion over beers in a pub, let alone a holy war, bombings, torture, beheadings, invasions, etc.

On this, we are in total agreement. The fact is that the Quran and Muhammad both said that Christians and Jews will be in heaven. Muhammad married Christians and Jews, some of whom never converted. Heck, my wife is a Catholic.

But we also know that the broader support for extremists in Muslim lands has little to do with theology. That's why discussions of 14th century kings used to explain the world we see today are so fruitless and insulting.

I'm not saying Western nations aren't militarisitic and violent, but they (1) have a set of rules for not attacking innocents through terrorism or other random violence (notwithstanding Bush's lamentable attempts to gut parts of the Geneva Conventions); and (2) are capable of discussion where Muslims seem predisposed towards horrific personal violence.
Posted by: polthereal

these are the first steps towards 1) self-justification of our own atrocities, and 2) de-humanization of the enemy.

for instance, we may have set rules but we STILL (somehow?) kill large numbers of civilians; I'm not sure if the distinction of our supposedly good intentions matters to either the corpses or to their relatives.

if muslim countries interfere in our affairs, install our dictators, and rape our natural resources, we'll see how courteously we respond.

forgive me but....does anyone care that our congress is poised to dispose of habeus corpus and pass the American version of the enabling act?

Or is this little diversion from the very real constitutional crisis building here at home, really that significant in the overall?

Better discuss how after DIEBOLD steals another one for the fringe lunatics, there will be no stopping whatsoever, the snowballing hellish rendezvous with the 11th century here as constitutional rule is finally disposed of and replaced by an anti-christian theocracy?

Then perhaps it will be apparent that this Pope like his neo-"con" supporters, is instigating, fomentng and feuling Muslim fear of yet another Crusade.

Violence gets attention, but it's a hard way to persuade.

The people promoting violence aren't trying to persuade anyone of anything except that people not like them are there enemies.

Its all part of selling the clash of civilizations.

History is clear, no doubt. But Islam is violent now, while Christianity, on the whole, is not.

That's because the West has destroyed the power of the Church. How many governments in countries that are primarily Islamic are in the position to arrest and convict an Islamic religious leader who claims to be "doing God's Will"? When Islam's power over the state is broken, it loses its ability to be violent just as happened with Christianity.

While I buy what cmdicely is saying - essentially, that the Pope was not attacking Islam but was making a broader statement about Divine Will - there should have been some mechanism that kicked in and prevented the Pope from giving out what is essentially 'red meat' to people who are looking for a justification to incite violence and hatred.

Anything can be used as red meat to someone who is skilled in casting the world into a preconceived framework; getting outside of the current Islamist/neocon efforts to sell a clash of civilizations, I think the history of radical Marxist and feminist "analysis" (among many other examples) has demonstrated that rather effectively. If you never said anything that other people could distort to sell their pre-packaged ideas, you'd never say anything at all.

This is especially true when you've got factions on "opposing" sides trying to sell the same struggle as the fundamental defining theme of the times.

Has the Pope said anything about the killing of innocents in the Iraq war? Even if someone professes to have compunctions on and even well defined rules against killing someone, if he engages in behaviour that is pre-ordained to kill innocents, he is as guilty of violence as anyone else.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I am an atheist, but I don't think that the Pope is a credible source for lectures on non-violence and rationality.

But Islam is violent now, while Christianity, on the whole, is not.

How do you figure? I see a lot more Christians going half way around the world to kill Muslims than vice versa.

What Benedict ignored was that, at the time of the Byzantine emperor, the Islamic world was far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian minority than the Christian world was of non-Christians. The Ottomans did not forcibly convert those that they conquered (though they did discriminate, charging higher taxes to non-Muslims, many high-ranking officials in the Ottoman empire were Christians). The Spanish expelled or killed Muslims and Jews, and large numbers of Jews fled Spain for the Islamic world during the 14th and 15th centuries.

That John Oliver guy is hilarious too!
I hope we get lucky enough to have him covering the Rapture.

Sure, lots of Muslims are angry about it.

Spare us. The immams have rent-a-crowds.

What Benedict ignored was that, at the time of the Byzantine emperor, the Islamic world was far more tolerant of their Jewish and Christian minority than the Christian world was of non-Christians.

Since that has no relevance to the comment he was making, I can see why he "ignored" it.

Freelunch, good points, but the neo-paganism relationship to Nazism will be developed more by Ph.D students, I am sure. Benedict was pointing out a new area of research. He was a prof, remember. I think the research will find interesting things and change our view of Nazism, for I wondered about it when I looked into the area myself. I don't have the German to go further so I let it drop.

As for his idea of dialogue with Turkey/Islam, we will see. I regard his political savvy as more sound than mine, so I will wait and watch, rather than opinionate.

I agree that secularism is more a threat to the Islamic clery than Christianity. Good point.

"Christians" are not going around the world killing in the name of Christianity.

So? Is a religion any less violent if the morality it engenders, in practice, encourages its adherents to kill for excuses other than religion?

Is it really a ringing endorsement of Christianity that it apparently produces large crops of people who are willing to kill because someone might speculatively threaten them in the future?

YOU HAVE GRAVELY OFFENDED PIOUS DAILY SHOW VIEWERS! APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY

Cazarto-bin-Laden, you made my day!

Nads--I haven't said anything about Muslims being less than human. Many of them are simply convinced that it's ok to burn down churches when they're angry. That's violent.

Many of them are convinced that killing innocent civilians in towers or road-side cafes is justified by Islam. That's violent.

Of course the U.S. can be and is violent. We are in love with power and with money and use military violence to defend and expand our way of life--just like any culture will. But Americans don't burn down mosques and don't kill elderly imams because of words or pictures.

Now can you see a difference? Or are property destruction and out-of-the-way elderly nuns too little to care about?

I occasionally get tired of suggestions that Jon Stewart is the only guy in America who "really gets it."

Well of course you do, Kevin. That's because you're a Sensible Liberal. Sensible Liberals often get tired of hearing things that they agree with, and they also get tired of saying things that they believe in, because they begin to feel nagging sensations that they're not being Sensible enough, and that somewhere, some rightwinger might start to think that you have real opinions that you're willing to stand up for. Thus, you always have to qualify your remarks and detach yourself from what you assert, in order to appear nice and Sensible.

Really, we understand.

So if religion killed 200 million people does that mean that anti-religion killed all the rest?

We already know logic isn't your strong suit, Orwell. No further reminders are necessary, thank you.

Of course the U.S. can be and is violent. We are in love with power and with money and use military violence to defend and expand our way of life

Or because someone attacked us, but doesn't present "good targets", so we need to use another country as an outlet for our anger.

Yeah, there are violent radical Muslims and the world would be a better place if they weren't around.

But the US has violent radical Muslims beat hands down for irrational violence right now.

"Christians" are not going around the world killing in the name of Christianity.

Yes, they are. And the American taxpayer is footing the bill. Anyone that believes this is a Christian country, while supporting a war for our way of life, is endorsing a religious war.

Osama_Been_Forgotten: Who is worshipping Christ? Nobody who understands the message of the New Testament is worshipping Christ.

There were times and places where such a statement could have gotten you burned at the stake, or started a war.

People have been debating the exact nature of the Trinity for almost two thousand years now.

Full disclosure: I'm a Unitarian, but I didn't go to Harvard.

I think JJF above pretty well nails it.

The defenses of Benedict's remarks simply refuse to come to terms with the generality and vehemence of the condemnation of Islam in the quote Benedict offered up.

How hard is it to see how pernicious such a quote would seem to Muslims, coming from the mouth of the leader of a Christian religion? Do you imagine Benedict would gladly quote someone saying that everything new in Catholicism was nothing but "evil and inhuman", without immediately rebutting it? How hard would it have been for him to make the point he supposedly was making without this quote?

Please, what Benedict said was indefensible, given who he is and how it would predictably be understood.

Some people here are assigning blame to all "Christians" for the suspect theology of the American evangelical cadre. These are the people whose Calvinist deterministic theology has no problem dividing up the world between "good" and "bad" and obliterating the latter. They also believe the United States is somehow exceptional, and that Israel should be victorious at all costs. Oh yes, and they believe in nonsense like the "rapture" that says God will zap good white American fundies into heaven while leaving everybody else to death and destruction. Yes, Bush believes this too.

Catholicism is different. We don't believe in predestination, the rapture, collective guilt, vengeance, the death penalty, torture, and Bush's wars.

Just look at Pope Benedict's call for Israeli restraint in Lebanon. And when he was Cardinal Ratzinger, he was quite clear where he stood on the Iraq war:

"the United Nations is the [institution] that should make the final decision."

"It is necessary that the community of nations makes the decision, not a particular power,"

"The fact that the United Nations is seeking the way to avoid war, seems to me to demonstrate with enough evidence that the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save,"

"The concept of a 'preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church,"

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war.'"

"Islam does not consider Jesus to be divine. He is considered a prophet. Islam says that God has no partners, so attributing divinity to Jesus is understood as implying that without Jesus, God is deficient."

Muslims consider Jesus to have divine origins, they just trip up on what that means a lot. They believe in the Virgin Birth, which means they believe that Jesus' birth was an act of God.

They get really hung up on the divinity/non-divinity of Jesus, just like Christians do, because it is one of the few major theological differences between the faiths.

Jesus is the most important prophet of them all, as supported by both Christianity and Islam. Islamic doctrine says that Christ, not Muhammed, will return to defeat the anti-Christ, al-dajjal, just as Christian doctrine does.

According to Islam and Christianity, Jesus is, to borrow some business speak, the "top-down" prophet, while Muhammed, Moses, Abraham, and the others are "bottom-up" prophets. Jesus is the only one with divine origins, and he was put on earth by God to serve a pre-defined divine purpose. The other prophets were people, who due to their piety and quality, God found worthy of using as tools.

Muslims have a hard time reconciling the clear language of their text with their actual views of Jesus and Muhammed, mostly due to the history of antagonism between the two faiths, not due to any genuine basis for that belief.

That being said, as a Catholic, I find it laughable to suggest that Christ WAS/IS God on Earth...but I know a great deal of Christians that could never believe otherwise.f

I also find the Muslim story of the crucifixion protrays a far more loving God, and it is that story (which says that Jesus was saved from the crucifixion and brought to heaven leaving an empty shell to be crucified), which I have internalized as part of my faith. The fact that this view jives a lot more with the story of God's test of Abraham - that he had to demonstrate that he was willing to sacrifice his son for God, but not required to do so having shown his devotion, also lends credibility to the Muslim version of the crucifixion, in my mind at least.

The shorter statement of my point is that we, Muslims and Christians, allow our political problems to obscure overwhelming agreement between the New Testament and the Qu'ran, a