The Corner

To Alykhan Velshi:

Have you actually read the Pope’s speech?  I ask because you say he recounts a 15th century conversation, when actually it’s dated 1391.  I also ask because the speech is a reasoned critique of blind activism on behalf of religion, and a call on behalf of human reason.  The main subject is the Greek roots–as in Socrates, who he quotes–of Catholic thought.  Reason is the basis of human understanding and behavior, it is not just a matter of faith.  The dialogue between the Emperor and the Persian highlights this theme.   God is comprehensible to us, and God rejects violence as a basis for spreading religion.  Benedict quotes the Koran to the effect that compulsion in the service of religion is not legitimate, even as he insists that Mohammed later endorsed the use of jihad.

He also quotes two scholars of Islam who say that Allah is entirely transcendent, his words cannot be modified or challenged, He requires absolute faith from his followeres.  Benedict insists on the role of reason, and declares that it is the only legitimate basis for the much-needed dialogue among the different faiths.

So what, exactly, is his transgression here?  To have observed that Islam’s domain was spread violently?  But that is quite true.  Are we no longer even permitted to state the obvious?

If you actually read the text, you’ll find some his strongest words are reserved for positivists and scientists, a lot tougher than the brief, albeit clearly significant, reference to the, uh fourteenth-century dialogue between the Persian and the Emperor.

Michael Ledeen — Michael Ledeen is an American historian, philosopher, foreign-policy analyst, and writer. He is a former consultant to the National Security Council, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense. ...

Most Popular

U.S.

The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More