are difficult to quote. In this case, for example, the item complained about in the Pope's speech is a quote of letter written almost 600 hundred years ago by a Byzentine Emperor leader in a letter to a Persian about the Koran. Your post puts those words approvingly in the present Pope's mouth, which, as I read it is further propagating a misreading.

Sorry to flood your comment section with this drawn out quote.

I don't know your disposition towards Catholics or the pope, but this issue deserves a fair hearing.

Here's the "offending" quote.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature.

This dialogue occurred during the siege of Constantanople, which may have made the Christian emperor a little edgy.

But the more important point is the context. The pope is speaking on two topic, dialogue between the faiths and the condemnation of religous violence.

It shows how f'd up everything has become to see the world latch onto the quote and use it to completely disregard everything the pope was saying.

BTW, I am Jewish and don't really have a dog in this fight. But man, this really bothers me.

I see the context but it still is not clear to me that the context adequately takes away the insult. I have skimmed the whole speech (and I don't at all mind you quoting it). I agree that people are focusing only on the one part...but I don't really see how the sum total adds to a healthy dialogue between faiths. The quote never seems to be negated by the pope.

As to my feelings about Catholicism and the pope they probably are similar to yours since I, too, am Jewish.

Hey Mole,

"The quote never seems to be negated by the pope"

I just don't think that he needed to negate or affirm that statement. In the context of a very bookish speech to a Catholic university he quoted an historical dialogue between Muslims and Christians.

Imagine if an intense conversation occurred in a synogague regarding whether or not Germans should be forgiven for the Holocaust. Further, some (hypothetical) historic texts are cited for not trusting them.

I'm sure some of what was said would not be flattering to the German people.

Now what if this transcript was leaked to the media and used for the sole intention to defame Jews?

I dunno, just something to think about.

Thanks.

Anthony Trollope wrote passages that are hostile to Jews and women. Do you suggest we should discard his writing? How about Shakespeare? Jefferson owned slaves. Out with his work? Newton was not as progressive as he could have been. Down with calc & physics?

The Pope quotes, not with approval, the words of an ancient Byzantine Emperor's letter. Someone who lived hundreds of years ago, had a dim view of Islam and the Koran. So? (By the way, how is this defending the Pope? I think I'm opposed to the critics.)

Rattzinger, has been a very reactionary force in the world and the Catholic Church, but this is not an example of that.