Religion and Academia

[drcuriosity]

Two friends of mine, a Catholic and a Baha'i, have interesting things to say about this most recent papal controversy. I was considering writing something myself, but between the two they've covered all I could and more:

http://muerk.livejournal.com/88083.html
http://isaacfreeman.livejournal.com/218969.html

I'm happy to have friends who can discuss these things in a friendly, rational and constructive manner - if only those attitudes were more common around the world...

---

In other news, I've spent the last few days convalescing with the step-mother of all head colds. I'm well sick of the random loss of hearing and strange yellow things coming out of my nose and/or throat. The antibiotics are starting to kick in, so I may be able to work and socialise properly next week. Yay!

Academically/professionally speaking, I'm getting good feedback. My lecture on Monday didn't cause the class to glaze over in boredom or turn funny colours in incomprehension. There was a little light topical humour to keep the attention span going, but most of the work went into packing in as much appropriate content as I could meaningfully talk about in 50 minutes. I went five minutes over time, but only because we'd forgotten to account for a 5-minute survey the class needed to do partway through. I got a "thanks man, great lecture!" from one student on his way out the door, and the lecturers running the course seemed well impressed, too.

We also had tutor assessments done by the class, and I got 4.1 out of 5 - definitely a bit more room for improvement, but enough to show that I'm generally competent at the job, despite my lack of formal experience at it.

As soon as I'm feeling well again, I can start playing working with the shiny 17" Wacom DTF-510 pen display that's sitting on my desk, and try to get some stuff done for a teacher over in the modern languages department.

Comments

[wolfwitch.livejournal.com]

*random all positive purpose squish*

[drcuriosity]

The very best kind! *squishes back*

*looks at your userpic* I'm sure your soul is too, love. ;-)

[ex-xn667.livejournal.com]

I'm afraid I must apologize for not being one of the positive voices, but can only proffer my own feeble excuse for such virulent negativity. I'm not a huge fan of radical fundamentalist anythings, whether Muslim or Protestant Christian or Devotees of St. Jeebus. But, for all my non-catholicism, I miss JPII. For all his entrenched Pauline views, he was as progressive as an infidel such as myself could hope for, and I must hope because like it or not, the Catholic world lies at our doorstep as much as the Muslim, Protestant, Buddhist or any other and has a huge bearing on the turn our world will take.

My special vitriol for the current papacy goes to my pagan roots. I've no love lost on the Office of the Holy Inquisition by any name, and for this man to have headed that office with a reputation as a "tough theologian" tells me he's no slouch when it comes to language and intellect, however disagreeable I may find them both in his case. I trust he knew full well the impact his words would have, and that those words would not be limited to the particular venue in which he spoke. I cannot but find his alleged appeal to open dialogue with the Muslim world anything but spurious, in much the same way as I trust absolutely nothing that comes out of President Bush's mouth when he speaks of unity, bipartanship or coalitions of the willing (or really, anything for that matter).

Thank you for the link to the pdf. I believe I took it in the spirit in which it was intended, a gentle indication that perhaps I should read the speech in its entirely rather than accepting the scandalous bit completely out of context and run through the mill of mainstream punditry. Having made it through the first 3 of 7 pages with the increasingly bitter taste of gall in my mouth, I resolved that I would go back to the beginning and approach it as rationally, if not as politely, as possible. Thus far, only 2 pages into my screed-in-progress, I'm at 2000 words.

His is an office historically responsible for the deaths of untold millions of my brothers and sisters in spirit, however different our lineages and traditions may make us. I'm a self-avowed heretic and recovering blasphemer after my own fashion, and I take the lessons of history seriously, however impotent I may be to make use of them as an individual. His words were, to my reading, deceitful through and through, and as used in the guise of peace, treacherous to that very cause. Perhaps this incident won't cause any cataclysmic revolts, but in an age where we do seriously face a war of civilizations, his fanning of the flames in utter dismissal of the fact that Catholicism is by no means the sole face of Christianity as attested by any number of Coptic Christians or Eastern, Russian, Greek, or Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, and with no regard for the easily anticipated reaction in the streets and mosques, can certainly have been in aid of no good as I reckon it.

When I finally do finish my reading and response, I'll be sure to post it, though I expect if it goes much closer to 5k words or far more, I'll have an audience of one, me :) But I owed it to you to give it a close read, and to my own integrity, however crass, to give it better treatment than I did the issue itself initially.

[drcuriosity]

However much he may be used to using words, I think it's important that he realises that, as pontiff, any of his words fall with that much more weight behind them than they did as "Joseph Ratzinger, theologian".

Though it may be a blasphemy to say so, I don't believe that the Pope is infallible by any stretch of the imagination. From the context of the quote, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in saying that offense was not intended - but if I were in the highest position in any organisation with that much sway in the world, I'd want to be very, very careful indeed about avoiding unintentional offense. A lot of people around the world take the office that claims to pronounce "in imago Dei" very seriously indeed, whether they are Catholic Christians or not.

We don't live in a history book, however often theologians and historians may refer to them. Careless or dismissive words spoken from the Holy See can crush real, living people today.

[ex-xn667.livejournal.com]

And that's what worries me. in the news today were reports of angry Muslims attacking non-Catholic churches because they don't necessarily distinguish between those churches the Pope speaks for and those he does. And our media aren't any better about it for failing to mention the many different aspects of Orthodoxy that are prominent in that region. Then again, given the general ignorance of us Americans, if more of them knew more about the Orthodox churches, they'd care less when they hear of a a "Christian" church attacked.

Ugh.

And my strident tones, I'm sure, are largely due to knowing that no matter how reasoned and polite I can be, I'm just another me in sea of 6 billion of us. Who's gonna listen? So I get the poison out by making the most forceful case I know how.

[shoei-mike.livejournal.com]

I think you're in the clear on the blasphemy thing:
"In Roman Catholic theology, Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals."
- from Wikipedia on Papal infallibility
i.e. The pope is only guaranteed infallible in very specific circumstances.

[drcuriosity]

Aha. Thanks for clearing that up for me, good sir :-)

[muerk.livejournal.com]

Ooo, thank you for the compliment. That's made my day.

I think that people with diverse viewpoints can come together and discuss things provided that everybody assumes good faith from the other participants and everyone then acts in good faith themselves.

[atropus.livejournal.com]

uhm.. why is this posed in 2007? (no I didn't read it O_o)

[drcuriosity]

I suspect my computer is a crackmonkey. Fixed now, I hope.