Published on September 16, 2006 By O G San In International
On BBC 2 last night a Catholic archbishop and a Muslim Council of Britain spokesman slugged it out over Pope Benedict’s speech at Regensburg in Germany on Tuesday which some believe insulted Islam.

Seeing the pair offer their competing truths was like watching two five-year-olds argue over who would win in a fight between Batman and Spiderman. For all the articulate discourse, they were essentially debating the validity of two fictional characters.

In the Indian city of Allahabad the discussion about who has the best fairytale was less high-brow, with an effigy of the Pope being burnt during an angry protest. The first attack on a Catholic church can not be long off. What a sad state of affairs that in 2006, we can still have violent disputes over which absurd, unproveable explanation for our existence is the best.

I would venture that few of those protesting against the Pope’s words have actually read them. Having just ploughed through the Pontiff’s speech, my abiding thought is not anger or support but rather that I could do with a gin and tonic.

In his address, the Pope attempts to explain how Christianity and reason have always been linked because of the religion’s early contact with Greek civilisation. He traces the development of faith and rationality over the past two millennia, explaining how, far from being foes, they are actually friends.

It is true that there have always been Christians who have tried to reconcile science with religion through increasing metaphorisation of the Bible. But the Pope fails to mention the elephant in the room: the many Christians from the first day to this who have insisted on the literal interpretation of their holy book even as science has proved it ever more absurd.

The Pontiff’s argument is fatally flawed by a reading of history which is so selective as to lack any validity. To say that reason and Christian belief are natural bed-fellows is rather like saying Reggie Kray was a fine human being because he loved his Mum.

Early on in the speech Benedict quotes the 14th century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus to support the case that Christianity has always used reason: "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."

But by contrast, according to the emperor, Islam considers the good old scimitar to be the best way of winning hearts and minds: "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."

Reading the whole speech, it is noticeable how out of place this section seems. The rest of the Pontiff’s pontification deals exclusively with the relationship between Christianity and reason. The Paleologus portion is the only part to mention another religion. It should also be noted that nowhere in his speech does the Pope refute the emperor’s characterisation of Islam. At my most generous I might describe this is as strange behaviour for a man whose spokesman later assured us he meant no offence to Muslims.

But the key point here is not whether Muslims are right to be offended but rather how they choose to express their offence. If Islamic scholars wish to retort by arguing that Mohammad is better than Jesus then great, let the Batman versus Spiderman debate begin.

However, if last year’s Danish cartoon furore is anything to go by, I fear that some people may express their objections violently. Given that offence was caused in the first place by the characterisation of Islam as inherently violent, this would be the height of irony.

Comments
No one has commented on this article. Be the first!