Hitch tears into the Pontiff’s recent thoughtless remarks on Islam, and finds him guilty of a multitude of sins, from hypocrisy to dogmatic closed-mindedness to old-fashioned stupidity. When he is in form, there is no one like Hitchens. Sample:
To read the bulk of the speech, however, is to realize that, if he had chanced to be born in Turkey or Syria instead of Germany, the bishop of Rome could have become a perfectly orthodox Muslim. He may well distrust Islam because it claims that its own revelation is the absolute and final one, but he describes John, one of the apostles, as having spoken “the final word on the biblical concept of God,” and where Muslims believe that Mohammed went into a trance and took dictation from an archangel, Ratzinger accepts as true the equally preposterous legend that St. Paul was commanded to evangelize for Christ during the course of a vision experienced in a dream. He happens to get Mohammed wrong when he says that the prophet only forbade “compulsion in religion” when Islam was weak. (The relevant sura comes from a period of relatively high confidence.) But he could just as easily have cited the many suras that flatly contradict this apparently benign message. The familiar problem is that, if you question another religion’s “revelation” and dogma too closely, you invite a tu quoque in respect of your own. Which is just what has happened in the present case.
Much more; the final paragraph is a showstopper. I found the masterpiece via this blogger, who glibly remarks,
Of course, what Benedict has said about Muslims is positively benign compared to what he has said about homosexuals. But somehow, I don’t think we’ll get an apology. After all, we don’t threaten to kill people.
“Heh.” “Indeed.”
1
By JD
… and Christopher Hitchens once again indulges his tendency to selectively misquote.
Par for the course but still rather disappointing.
September 19, 2006 @ 3:41 am | Comment
2
By richard
What was misquoted? You may be right, but could you be specific?
September 19, 2006 @ 4:23 am | Comment
3
By shulan
It’s really fascinating how in Razinger’s narrative the roman church becomes the hoard of pure reason, how in it reason is a core element of the Christian believe, something that was there latently from the beginning and only had to be awoken by the kiss of Greek philosophy. Only a real believer can talk such nonsense.
September 19, 2006 @ 5:23 am | Comment
4
By Raj
1. It isn’t “Ratzinger” or “Razinger”. He’s Benedict (XVI). Address him properly, please – it’s extremely offensive to over a billion people worldwide to do otherwise.
2. His attitudes towards homosexality are immaterial to what he said recently. It is true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. But then again, North American/European men don’t get dragged off the street on suspicion of being homosexual – unlike “Muslim-looking” guys.
3. I personally think that the Pope is on the right track. There is still something fundamentally wrong with Islam. It hasn’t evolved like other religions have – it’s still stuck in the Medieval ages in many ways, which is why it’s right to criticise it. Mr Hitchens was blathering on in part about things that happened centuries ago concerning Christianity – Islam is still a “problem”.
It isn’t hypocritical for the Pope to talk about Islam undergoing a Reformation. Has the Catholic Church stood still for half a millenia? Hell no! Just because the leadership maintains some attitudes that makes liberals blush doesn’t mean the Church hasn’t made significant changes. Are sermons still made in Latin? Well maybe people like the jerk that wrote the first article think that’s still the case…..
There was a good article about it in the papers yesterday.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,2713-2362630,00.html
September 19, 2006 @ 11:04 am | Comment
5
By Raj
As a side-note, it’s interesting that not a single Christian leader has actually condemned what he said. Generally they’ve said people have been taking the quotations out of context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI_Islam_controversy#Christian
September 19, 2006 @ 1:55 pm | Comment
6
By Don
I can’t figure out what context the Pope was speaking that makes his comments ok. I read the text of the speech and while I agree that there are interpretations of Islam that promote violence, as the Pope of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, it is offensive to use another religion as the example of using violence to convert non-believers when your own church has countless examples of it’s own. If I were Muslim, I would be pretty offended myself.
That said, I think the radical Islamists have pushed the I’m offended so I’m going to riot button too many times. Why the hell would you care what leader of the infidel church thinks of your religion.
Everyone needs to grow up.
September 19, 2006 @ 5:54 pm | Comment
7
By Don
I can’t figure out what context the Pope was speaking that makes his comments ok. I read the text of the speech and while I agree that there are interpretations of Islam that promote violence, as the Pope of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, it is offensive to use another religion as the example of using violence to convert non-believers when your own church has countless examples of it’s own. If I were Muslim, I would be pretty offended myself.
That said, I think the radical Islamists have pushed the I’m offended so I’m going to riot button too many times. Why the hell would you care what leader of the infidel church thinks of your religion.
Everyone needs to grow up.
September 19, 2006 @ 5:55 pm | Comment
8
By richard
The idiocy of the rioting Muslims who took such offense at Ratzinger’s words (and Raj, forgive me,I call him Ratzinger for the same reasons Hitch does) is a given, and HItch isn’t giving them a free pass. (He’s a strong supporter of the war in Iraq and he’s in the Bush camp on the subject of “Islamofacism.” His entire point is about the ineptitude and hypocrisy of our new pope, and his fears that men like Ratzinger threaten to drag all of us backward with their faith above reason doctrine.
September 19, 2006 @ 6:20 pm | Comment
9
By Sonagi
from the Pope’s speech:
“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
I can see why Muslims are offended by the inclusion of this little sentence buried in a long speech about the development of Christian theology. The Pope was quoting the words of a distant ancestor, but those words appeared seamlessly in the context of the speech, very much giving the impression that the Pope agreed with those words. Condemning religious coercion and violence is fine, but appearing to call Islam, a religion of more than one billion people, “evil and inhuman” by including that quote without disagreeing or even qualifying it was reckless.
Raj said:
But then again, North American/European men don’t get dragged off the street on suspicion of being homosexual – unlike “Muslim-looking” guys.
No, they get tied to fence posts and beaten to death. Intimidation and violence against gays and lesbians is not uncommon in the US. I googled “gay death beating” to get the name of Matthew Shepard, who was tortured to death in Wyoming several years ago, and the search returned a slew of gay murder victims in English-speaking countries.
It isn’t “Ratzinger” or “Razinger”. He’s Benedict (XVI). Address him properly, please – it’s extremely offensive to over a billion people worldwide to do otherwise.
I agree with you, but doesn’t this apply to other world religious leaders past and present? More than one billion Muslims address the founder of Islam as the “Prophet Muhammad.” I do believe in avoiding unnecessary offense, so I have referred to Pope Benedict by his title and likewise, use the term “Prophet Muhammad” when talking about him to Muslims. If I ever visit Pyongyang, I’d even bow at Great Leader’s tomb, but I’d cross my fingers behind my back while doing it.
It hasn’t evolved like other religions have – it’s still stuck in the Medieval ages in many ways, which is why it’s right to criticise it. Mr Hitchens was blathering on in part about things that happened centuries ago concerning Christianity – Islam is still a “problem”.
I agree with you there. Governments of Muslim-majority countries use controversies like this to redirect anger away from domestic failures and towards foreign infidel enemies. Pope Benedict did not send Crusader armies to Jerusalem, and he has a right to renounce religious violence. His speech was fine, except for the inflammatory quote. Organizations and peoples have a responsibility to reflect honestly on their past, but they are not culpable for the sins of their ancestors. Muslims, however, take a different view, teaching their children bitter lessons about the Christian West’s conquests of Muslim lands.
From Hitchen’s essay:
To read the bulk of the speech, however, is to realize that, if he had chanced to be born in Turkey or Syria instead of Germany, the bishop of Rome could have become a perfectly orthodox Muslim.
That reasoning, more than Catholic prohibitions against birth control and divorce and restrictions on women’s participation in the Church, caused me to doubt Catholicism enough to leave and in my quest for faith, exclude other religions that preach an exclusive path to salvation.
September 19, 2006 @ 7:01 pm | Comment
10
By Raj
Sonagi, gays do not get beaten up by the US government. Although anti-homosexual violence is unpleasant, the people that target them also attack ethnic minorities. Also plenty of straight people are the victims of random violence.
We’re talking about the State, not random thugs who will attack just about anyone.
Also, although the Pope’s official title is Benedict XVI, there’s nothing wrong with calling him “Benedict”, “Pope Benedict”, etc. It’s like calling the “Prophet Mohammed” “Mohammed”, “Muhammed”, etc. To call him Ratzinger is to deny the fact he is the Pope.
Besides, I have never shown disrespect towards other religious leaders, so maybe you guys should show the same respect towards mine.
September 20, 2006 @ 1:26 pm | Comment
11
By sonagi
Besides, I have never shown disrespect towards other religious leaders, so maybe you guys should show the same respect towards mine.
I wasn’t suggesting you had. I just wanted to make clear that all religious leaders deserve the same respect regardless of how we feel about them.
We’re talking about the State, not random thugs who will attack just about anyone.
Please clarify. Which State? The men who lured Matthew Shepard out of a bar weren’t government agents, bu they didn’t attack just anyone. They preplanned the murder and viciously killed him simply because he was gay. Heterosexuals and homosexuals are equally likely to be randomly robbed, but they are not equally likely to be harassed, threatened, or assaulted because of their sexual orientation.
While the Catholic Church condemns homosexuality, it does not promote hatred like Fred “God hates fags” Phelps. “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” I was taught as a child. My deceased brother was gay and an active Catholic. He did not share his sexual orientation with fellow parishoners. I disagree with the Church’s stance on homosexuality, but I do consider them more tolerant than other conservative Christian churches.
September 20, 2006 @ 6:28 pm | Comment