- A = Activating Event
- B = Beliefs
- C = Consequences (Emotional/Behavioral)
"Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday to Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war, proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."[Source: Jerusalem Post]
- The Activating Event: "Pope Benedict XVI's remarks on Islam and holy war"
- Consequences: "Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies responded on Monday ... proclaiming that jihad would continue until Islam takes over the world."
Ellis would categorize the above Belief as irrational because it leads to the following unhealthy Consequences:
"[Al-Qaida:] ... we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism ..."[Source: Jerusalem Post]
A rational Belief that Ellis would suggest would be: "It is strongly preferable for everyone to say things about Islam which we agree with, but it is not awful if they don't, just very unfortunate and sad."
After which Ellis would go further into D = Disputing and challenge Al-Qaida's thoughts with the following question: "Where does it say that everyone MUST say nice things about Islam?"
---
We see that it is our Beliefs not the Activating Event which caused the Consequences, therefore Ellis concludes that people are primarily responsible for how they feel and the behaviors which result from it.
Therefore, the Pope cannot be held responsible for the feelings of "outrage" / "tensions" and the acts of violence which results.
Besides the Pope Benedict XVI has already made a personal PUBLIC apology. What else should he do?
After which Ellis would go further into D = Disputing and challenge Al-Qaida's thoughts with the following question: "Where does it say that everyone MUST say nice things about Islam?"
---
We see that it is our Beliefs not the Activating Event which caused the Consequences, therefore Ellis concludes that people are primarily responsible for how they feel and the behaviors which result from it.
Therefore, the Pope cannot be held responsible for the feelings of "outrage" / "tensions" and the acts of violence which results.
Besides the Pope Benedict XVI has already made a personal PUBLIC apology. What else should he do?
Don't use the Pope's "remarks" as an excuse - don't be a coward; take responsibility for your actions.
12 comments:
The want His Holiness to retract His Statement and perhaps at the same time convert to Islam? HAHAHAHA They wish!!
Anyway, I think The Pope has proved the point of his speech has he not? With the violent reactions, threats, riots that the speech has created? Don't you think so?
I beg to differ. The Pope DOES have some responsibility in the tensions created from his insensitive remarks. He quoted from a medieval text that the teachings of the Islam founder are "evil and inhuman". Prophet Muhammad never taught Muslims to use violence to spread their faith, just like how Christ never taught His disciples to use violence. Prophet Muhammad only told his disciples to DEFEND their faith at all costs. So, the reactions of the Muslims are not irrational. They only believe that it is not right for people to attack their faith with such remarks, which is perfectly rational. If someone were to call Christ's teachings as "evil and inhuman", I would get offended too. Personally, I don't agree by reacting with violence. But, I do expect that the Pope, of all people, should display some sensitivity towards other religions.
RK Boo: Take this scenario: A woman who gets gangraped by a group of men. Who is to blame?
Are you sure of what you said? QuaVadis too begs to differ: http://theos-1.livejournal.com/64718.html
QuaVadis: ;)
RK Boo: I was refering to Al-Qaida's reaction - can they be considered rational when they react with threats and violence?
My bad. As I said earlier, I don't agree with Al-Qaeda's violent reactions. I've read QuaVadis' blog entry about violence in the Quran. I've not yet done enough research about Islam, so I shall not say anything at the moment. :-) My only concern is how easily holy scriptures can be taken out of context. As we know, the Bible itself is replete with violence--especially in the Old Testament. Even Paul said that there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood (Heb. 9:22). It's so easy to take the biblical violent instances out of context and condemn the Christian God for endorsing violence. But we know that God does not do that.
RK Boo: Heb 9:22 is talking about non-human sacrifices and the only human sacrifice (i.e. Jesus) for the wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23).
The truth is anything can be taken "out of context" depends on whose context we are talking about. An authoritative voice is needed. That is why with regards to the interpretation of Scriptures, St. Thomas Aquinas left it to the Catholic Church as the official voice.
I too disagree that the Pope is not responsible for his actions. Before anything I do not agree with any violent course of actions chosen by Al-Qaeda. However, the Pope, being observed by the whole world should have been more careful about his choice of words given the hostile political climate regarding religious issues. And regarding the apology, I believe it doesn't discount the veracity of our beliefs if the Pope apologizes. Besides, Christians should always have a generous and humble attitude. Jesus was wrongly put to death, what then is an apology? I believe the reluctance to apologize signifies the belief that what matters is the right and the wrongs, which should be at all.
Regarding QuaVadis blog entry, taking bits and pieces of verses from the Quran to highlight the point of violence is not a very effective measure as context is very important. If we would want our words to be in context, we should therefore extend the same hand to other religions. As Su Lyn said, the bible is replete with words of violence which when taken out of context, would lead people to believe that Christianity profess to violence.
In final analysis, I strongly disagree with QuaVadis's conclusion; his defensive position rather amplifies the need for a religious dialogue where one is not clouded by previous biases but instead engage in a generous dialogue whereby one would evaluate what is said in context in slow speech. If anything the Pope apologizing is the right course of action, his humbleness (without regarding whether he is right or wrong) in doing so in front of the world is something that should be followed. Let us work together to foster a peaceful understanding and respect for our respective religions.
Doulos:
"I too disagree that the Pope is not responsible for his actions."
Definitely the Pope is responsible for all that he does and intends, however he is not responsible for the actions of others (i.e. how others react towards him). Why not? Consider this: A rich man gets kidnapped, would you blame the rich man for being "rich"?
"However, the Pope, being observed by the whole world should have been more careful about his choice of words given the hostile political climate regarding religious issues."
I would suggest that you read the entire text of his speech before commenting on the Pope's "choice of words"
"Regarding QuaVadis blog entry, taking bits and pieces of verses from the Quran to highlight the point of violence is not a very effective measure as context is very important."
How do you know if it's in context or not? Again whose context are we talking about the "extremists" or the "liberals"?
Just so you know, the Pope did not apologize for saying the things he said. He is sorry because there are those who took offence.
Cel: "Definitely the Pope is responsible for all that he does and intends, however he is not responsible for the actions of others (i.e. how others react towards him)."
How can you say the Pope is not responsible for the actions of others? He may not have FULL responsibility over other people's actions, but, as I said earlier, he does have SOME responsiblity. In the case of your rich man analogy, it is true that the rich man is not responsible for being kidnapped for being 'rich'. This is because him being 'rich' is a CHARACTERISTIC, not an action. Note the difference. The Pope issuing his insensitive remarks on Islam is an action.
All our actions have some impact on people--big or small, depends on how we act, and who we are. Ultimately, people have the freedom to choose how to react to our actions. But, note that our actions are a stimulus to their reactions. True, people's perceptions and culture all influence how they react. But, our actions are the starting point of their reactions. So, how can you say that the Pope is not, at least, PARTLY responsible for the violent reactions? I'm not excusing Al-Qaeda for choosing to react violently. But if the Pope had been a little more sensitive, could he have motivated the Muslims to react with more peace and understanding, instead of turning to violence?
I have read the Pope's exact speech, and I know that his comments "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." were quoted from a Byzantine emperor. And he goes on to quote Khoury that "But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality." The Pope makes no more comments about Islam in the rest of his speech.
Thus, we are left with the impression of Islam being a religion that is both violent and irrational.
The comments he made may merely have been quotes. But, that doesn't discount the Pope from choosing quotes that better describe Islam's true teachings, or at the very least, clarifying the untruth of those quotes.
Regarding QuaVadis' blog entry, he did not place those verses in context. Placing verses in context means reading the verses before and after the particular quoted verse so as to gain better understanding.
In QuaVadis' blog, he quoted Sura 9:5
"Kill those who join other gods with God (Allah) wherever you find them.", ignoring verses 4 and 6. The whole text from verses 3 to 6 is this:
"(3)Allah is free from all obligations to those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen); and so is His Messenger. If you repent, it shall be for your own good; but if you turn away, then know well that you will not be able to frustrate Allah. So give glad tidings of a painful chastisement to those who disbelieve (those who reject this call). (4) In exception to those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) are those with whom you have made treaties and who have not violated their treaties nor have backed up anyone against you. Fulfill your treaties with them till the end of their term. Surely Allah loves the pious (muttaqeen). (5) But when the sacred months (Al-Ashhar ul-Hurum) expire, slay those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) wherever you find them; seize them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them. But if they repent and establish the Prayer (As-Salat) and pay Zakah, leave them alone. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Ever Merciful. (6) And if any of those who associate others with Allah in His divinity (mushrikeen) seeks asylum, grant him asylum that he may hear the Word of Allah, and then escort him to safety for they are people bereft of all understanding."
The call to violence was meant for those idolators "mushrikeen" who broke the peace treaty with Prophet Muhammad, and killed his allies. Muslims are allowed to respond defensively with violence, but never to initiate violence against others, as verse 2:190 states "Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loves not aggressors."
So, instead of simply picking verses to prove your stand, do take the time to examine the whole text. It's very easy to pick verses from the Bible and claim it endorses violence and gender inequality. But, we know that it doesn't.
RK Boo:
"This is because him being 'rich' is a CHARACTERISTIC, not an action."
So don't I have to work hard to be rich? Isn't "working" an action?
The Pope used that quote as a prelude to Manuel II's statement: "To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death" - which he then goes on further to explain the relationship between faith and reason. It was not his intention to be misunderstood, therefore he should not be held responsible for the perceptions of others.
The Pope also goes on to say that Manuel believes that faith and reason come hand-in-hand because of his background in Greek philosophy, so does in Islam although according to Muslim teaching God is "absolutely transcendent". And he goes on to say: is faith and reason a Greek thing or something intrinsic? The Pope does not need to explain further with regards to Manuel II's comment simply because he made clear earlier that in Islam "there is no compulsion in religion" - thus qualifying Islam to be rational.
---
In truth, the speech was never meant for just any audience, it was meant for those at the University - this is evident in the speech as the Pope uses much quotes from scholars/philosophers and "big words". The people at the University understood clearly what he said, but unfortunately not many outside the University did.
---
With regards to the Quran, why don't Al-Qaida see things the way you do? The last time I heard they said: "the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." (LINK: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/18/ap/world/mainD8K7A45O0.shtml)
Again, as I said it's up to individual's intepretation. And whose interpretation are we talking about? Yours?
;)
If I accidentally stepped on someone's foot, shouldn't I be obliged to offer an apology? Now notice here, I did not intend to hurt that person. And your analogy is not applicable because a rich man like su said, is rich due to a characteristic he has, if applied in this context, you would say that they take offence with the pope because he is the pope. And besides, working hard does not induce any consequences on the kidnappers because they do not kidnap a rich person by default of him working but by him being rich. The issue here is not the Pope's intention to hurt or offend others but rather the implications of what he was saying and what are we doing now.
By the way, I read his speech THRICE and I would say that his quotation about the Prophet was left hanging and vague.
And regarding context, I would not choose not to delineate between liberals, extremist or conservative but I would refer to the context held by good natured Muslims who I do not believe profess to violence. Also, if you would dispute the context that I'm referring to, your "context" could be easily disputed as well.
Again, I would like to reiterate that I believe the Pope's intention as I would believe that he genuinely did not want to insult Islam. However, I also believe that he should offer an apology because he is partially responsible for what has unfolded. One has to be sensitive in choosing words to articulate especially when one is in a position of power and influence.
About Al-Qaida, it is not useful to use them as an example because they are labeled the 'extremist'. Again with the Da Vinci Code furore, the Catholic Church had been depicted in a rather unfair light. Would you take what they say seriously regarding the doctrines of the Catholic Church? I presume not.
Doulos:
1) Notice the repercussions of your statement. Now is God responsible for the evils in the world? I.e. is God responsible for sin? Surely God created everyone - those we see who are good and bad.
2) Good on you for reading the speech three times. As I said the speech has it's own context and it's target audience should be the good people at the University of Regensburg. ;)
3) He did offer an apology to calm the situation. Never did I say that he shouldn't. By the way, by whose standards are you using to qualify the Pope's speech as insensitive?
4) Enlighten me on your Davinci example. I don't get it, how is it link to our discussion?
Post a Comment