The Future of the Humankind The Dictatorship of Conscience or the Tyranny of Bible Owners

1. Is the conscience free within the traditional confessions?

On the September 18, 2006 in the Russian newspaper “Izvestia” there was published an article with the title “We swear to destroy your cross in the center of Rome” with the following subtitle “Islamists threaten to revenge the Pope Benedict”. The newspaper informs:

«The speech of Benedict XVI in front of the students and professors of the Regensburg University[1] (where he taught theology, being a professor Joseph Ratzinger in 1969-1977) has caused a wave of indignation in the whole Islamic world. This flood of anger can be compared with the reaction on the caricature of the prophet Muhammad, published in the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” last year in September. It seems that the Roman pontific has caused by accident a new loop of “civilizations wars”.

He stressed in his statement the philosophic differences of Christianity and Islam and drew attention to the relation between religion and violence. The speech starts with a rather long quotation taken from the letter of Manuel II Palaiologos to the unknown Muslim divine of the 14th century. The governor of Byzantium, “the theorist of the war against Jihad, fighting against Ottomans, writes:

“Show me just what Muhammad 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 Pope had emphasized twice that he cited the words of Palaiologos and didn’t share them on his own. Benedict XVI has criticized the Western society and said that its moral crisis is the reason of Islamic extremism distribution. “A reason which is deaf to the divine is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.”[2], – the Pontific says. Then he enumerates the points, uniting the two religions: Muslims as well as Christians believe in a single God, honour Jesus Christ, although not as a God but as a prophet.

Almost all the leaders of Islamic states demanded apologies from Benedict XVI, including the President of Iran – Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the prime minister of Turkey – Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Morocco has called away its ambassador from Vatican. “The Pope used the words, that we reject and that remind us the historical hostility of the Catholic Church towards Islam”, Ahmed Fathi Sorour, the Speaker of the Egyptian parliament, said.

The mass protests took place in the streets of the Turkish cities[3], Palestinian autonomy, Indonesia, Iran, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria. In Nablus, Palestine, the buildings of Latin and Anglican Churches were attacked by vandals who threw firebombs at the walls. In Mogadishu, the capital of Somali was shot an Italian nun, working as a volunteer in the children’s hospital.

It turned out to be a great sudde

The whole Europe was up to protect the pontific. “The critics have interpreted his words by contraries”, – said Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany. “We can’t leave the Pope on lonesome. And I’m waiting for solidarity from the Muslim world – both religious and political, that mustn’t use this incident for the sake of violence”, – said Franco Frattini, vice-president of the European Commission.

Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia, hasn’t stayed apart either, calling for “responsibility and tolerance”. “I am sure that the leaders of the main confessions have enough wisdom to avoid any excesses in relationships between religions, – said the Russian President at the meeting with the members of “parliamentary 8” in Sochi. – We realize how delicate this sphere is. And do our best to set the dialogue between civilizations» ().

On the next day the newspaper “Izvestia” once again turned to the statement of Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg and to the reaction of the world on it. On the 19th of September, 2006 Maxim Sokolov published an article with the title “the Pope and the Emperor”.

Here is the full version of this article:

«The speech of Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg where the Pope quoted the words of Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaiologos, who lived in the 14th century made a great flutter far beyond the catholic circles. The quotation taken from the theological dispute of the emperor with the Persian interlocutor reads: “Show me just what Muhammad 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 pontific said that the emperor’s words were “rude” and “brusque”, but nevertheless this didn’t save him from blame. Most of Muhammad followers reacted on the Pope’s speech with official protests (the authorities of Iran and Pakistan), some of them with a threat to “wipe off the Vatican from the map” and “to destroy the cross in the center of Europe” (“The Army of mujahidins” of Iraq), some reacted with the pogroms of the churches in Jerusalem (Palestinian patriots, supported by HAMAS leaders).

The only thing that united all these different reactions on the Pope’s speech was incapacity to give a substantial answer for the next quotation of the emperor’s words given by Benedict XVI: “Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… 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…” (marked with bold by us when citing). We won’t talk about bombers, but the official documents of Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Pakistan (“Why to make an insulting cite from some emperor who lived centuries ago? What does it mean today, when we try to overcome antagonisms dividing us?”) and Iran (which suddenly started conjuring the Pope for tolerance – may be they mean that he should follow Ahmadinejad’s example in tolerance?) don’t fully prove the ability to “speak well” and to give strong arguments.

But the worst thing is – that even now, we don’t have any persuasive answer for the question of emperor who lived many centuries ago, – “Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new etc…” Looking back at recent events we can see how Mohammedans answer this question and it seems that they try to do their best to prove rightness of Manuel’s II point of view. If we ask the followers of other religions or atheists and agnostics we will find out that they won’t name something new of what Mohamed had brought, besides those things that the emperor had already mentioned and that each of us observes today.

In the Pope’s speech context, where the main idea was the harmony of mind and faith but not the blame of Muhammad, an overall incapability to answer the question represents weak points of gentile opponents of Benedict XVI. It is obvious that an appeal to reason and an inclination to spread the faith by sword are in inverse proportion. The one whose faith is truly good and reasonable, doesn’t need the sword and on the contrary.

Mr. Putin hinted on the incautious words of Benedict XVI saying that an excessive sensibility of Mohammedans should make everyone dealing with this subject extremely delicate in his words. But if we do agree that it’s not the business of Christians to interfere in the Muslim countries and at the same time admit that Mohammedans can thrust themselves in whatever they want happening in Christian states – including the speech of the pontiff, we dumbly admit who the owner in the house is. Who, if not the Pope, can say things unpleasant for Mohammedans?