Pope Criticizes US Bellicosity
The Pope released some statements for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace. May not be happy with Bush's war. Could get interesting. From the UK's Daily Mail:
Remember when, at Christmastime, you'd see banners and cards that said "Peace on earth, goodwill to men?" You seeing much of that lately? I'm not either.
Pope Benedict XVI criticised George Bush as he declared states had to set ethical limits in what they do to protect their citizens from terrorism.
He also suggested some countries had flouted humanitarian law in recent wars.
Read here also...
International human rights groups have criticised the U.S. over its treatment of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay and the practice of 'rendition', or flying terror suspects to third countries for interrogation.
Although the Pope did not identify any specific countries, Vatican sources made it clear he was referring to the U.S. particularly.
The Pope made his comments in an annual message for the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1. In the message, which is traditionally sent to governments and international organisations, he also repeated his belief that war in God's name is never justified. Pope's message contains veiled criticism of US 'terror' tactics
Remember when, at Christmastime, you'd see banners and cards that said "Peace on earth, goodwill to men?" You seeing much of that lately? I'm not either.
posted by JimK at 12:48 PM
13 Comments:
Jim,
For what it's worth, the actual biblical quote is:
Peace on Earth to men of good will.
Merry Christmas!
Anon, for what it's worth, Luke did not speak English, and whatever we know of his gospel is a translation. The statement has been translated from the original in many ways. A number of examples are published HERE.
By the way, for those who don't follow the link, none of these are what Anon said.
JimK
When growing up, I had always heard the phrase, when on television, as "peace on earth, goodwill to men." Years later, I went down to the Mall to hear my kids sing with the school chorus and noticed that the sign there read "peace on earth to men of goodwill." Looking at the various translations on Jim's link, I suppose one takes the translation that fits one's perception of how things ought to be. The first is all-inclusive (well, we will assume men = all people), the second says only peace to people we believe are of goodwill. As an American Jew, I learned most of my Christian theology from Dr. King. He would certainly take the former translation.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate it.
David
I had actually never noticed that version of the quote. Fitting to have come from Anon.
Anyway, Merry Christmas to all!
the aclu had the Quote baned as a violuation of the first admendment. as a secular nation we reject Peace on Earth good will to men and replace it with tolarance, of everything and anything.
Anonymous said...
the aclu had the Quote baned as a violuation of the first admendment. as a secular nation we reject Peace on Earth good will to men and replace it with tolarance, of everything and anything.
I would be interested in seeing some specific information and citation on the allegation Anon just made.
"Anon, for what it's worth, Luke did not speak English, and whatever we know of his gospel is a translation."
Yes, Jim, thanks for this little-known revelation.
"The statement has been translated from the original in many ways. A number of examples are published HERE."
You listed a number of oddball versions here. No widely used modern English version says "good will to men". They all say "men of"
some characteristic or another. Usually men who are in "God's favor".
King James and its derivatives use the term "good will to men" but, while historically signficant, the language is archaic. The wrong idea is conveyed.
"By the way, for those who don't follow the link, none of these are what Anon said."
However, Jim's list missed the world's first English translation, the Wycliffe Bible, from the 1300s, which did use the term "men of good will".
King James should have known.
"Looking at the various translations on Jim's link, I suppose one takes the translation that fits one's perception of how things ought to be."
With all due respect, David, a serious believer should concern himself with the most accurate translations. Otherwise, you're simply making a god of yourself.
"The first is all-inclusive (well, we will assume men = all people), the second says only peace to people we believe are of goodwill."
I think you're falling into the same trap again. It doesn't say "people we believe are of goodwill". It says "men of goodwill". Our opinion is not relevant.
"As an American Jew, I learned most of my Christian theology from Dr. King. He would certainly take the former translation."
Don't know that much about his religious beliefs but can you document his disregard for scriptural accuracy? As far as I know he believed in the actual biblical text.
Dr. King was a good Republican.
http://www.martinlutherking.org/articles.html
And how does Anon decide which are the most "accurate" translations?
Before asking that question, Dana, one has to decide whether it matters. David's comments seemed to imply that he didn't think it did.
My comment is that it does matter.
Anonymous said...
“With all due respect, David, a serious believer should concern himself with the most accurate translations. Otherwise, you're simply making a god of yourself.”
“Our opinion is not relevant.”
“Don't know that much about [Dr. King’s] religious beliefs but can you document his disregard for scriptural accuracy? As far as I know he believed in the actual biblical text.”
“. . . one has to decide whether it matters [which biblical translation is accurate]. David's comments seemed to imply that he didn't think it did. My comment is that it does matter.”
I think it is interesting as to which translation is an accurate rendering of the ancient language. I do not believe it is dispositive in terms of religious understanding. That does not mean that I am “simply making a god of [my]self.” What it does mean is that I do not believe that scripture, written down by people a few thousand years ago was product of Divine Stenography. If I believed that, then I would have to be an ultra-Orthodox Jew, seeking to follow every single instruction as written in, for example, Leviticus. And I suspect that you, Anon, do not follow literally every word in the Bible. Very few people do, and that failure is not simply because they are sinners, but rather because we seek to use the common sense God gave us to make wise choices. Does this mean that those who are not scriptural literalists are making gods of themselves? No. What it does mean is that people exercise the freedom to use common sense and caring to order their lives. The use of that freedom is not always unerring, but it is the risk of freedom. To not use that freedom, to be an absolute follower of translated words written years ago at a different stage of human development is, in my view, a much greater risk. For example, Bin Laden believes he follows the precise word of God.
As for Dr. King’s view of the literalist view of scripture, I first note that I have been an avid reader of Dr. King words for many years, particularly in the late 1980s, when I was a member of Montgomery County’s Martin Luther King Commemorative Commission and helped prepare the scripts for the County’s annual celebration of the life and work of Dr. King. An excellent compilation of Dr. King’s writings, sermons, and speeches may be found in A Testament of Hope, which is available in public libraries and I believe is still in print.
My reading of Dr. King’s works convinced me that he was not a scriptural literalist, but rather looked to the essence of biblical tradition as his guidepost. I refer you to a presentation I made at my synagogue’s January 2005 MLK Service, which was posted on this blog. See http://www.teachthefacts.org/2005/01/legacy-of-dr-martin-luther-king-jr.html
The page references in my presentation are from A Testament of Hope. For easier reference, here is the text of the pertinent portion of my presentation. I think it provides a fuller response to all the questions you posed:
My dictionary [American Heritage Dictionary] provides this definition of theology: "An organized, often formalized body of opinions concerning God and man's relationship to God." This encompasses quite a lot. For some, these formalized opinions include compliance with a comprehensive set of unbending, unquestioned rules governing all human conduct which adherents believe constitute the absolute word of God. Dr. King himself wrote that he had "been raised in a rather strict fundamentalist tradition." His writings, however, reveal his intense interest in theology not as a search for unbending rules, but, rather, as a search for an understanding of "man's relationship to God." He described his theological studies, once he left home, as a “pilgrimage."
Dr. King wrote at length about his theological studies, during which he adopted much of what was known as “liberal theology.” He became concerned, however, that liberal theology might assume too much regarding the inherent goodness of man. He wrote that a "large segment of Protestant liberalism defined man only in terms of . . . his capacity for good,” while opposing views “tended to define man only in terms of . . . his capacity for evil." Dr. King concluded that an "adequate understanding of man is found . . . in a synthesis which reconciles the truths of both" views. He went on to add existentialism to the mix, observing that "history is a series of unreconciled conflicts and man's existence is filled with anxiety and threatened with meaninglessness.” No where in Dr. King's writings do I find an insistence on the literal acceptance of every word in Scripture as a command from God.
So this is what, at the outset, separates Dr. King from those today who purport to bring God's literal word to our laws and our culture. The difference between scriptural literalists and modern theologians is enormous.
While the former focus on the literal terms of the Koran or the Bible (or their translations thereof), the latter focus on the developing effort to understand the relationship of humankind and God.
The former focus on absolutes as they see them, without reference to our developing perspectives on the nature of the human race. The latter understand that we have learned much, and still have much to learn in our ongoing conversations with each other and in our private conversations with the Almighty.
I suspect that much of this division has to do the feelings about the ability of human beings to make good use of freedom. There are those who fear that if people do not have absolute, unbending rules about human behavior, then they will make bad choices. On the other hand, there are those who believe that people do have the capacity to make wise choices.
Dr. King demonstrated his belief that human beings had the capacity to use freedom wisely, to use freedom to achieve justice. He recognized man’s capacity for violence, yet worked tirelessly to convince people to use non-violence to combat segregation. In community after community, he succeeded. Dr. King believed, and demonstrated, that people can use freedom wisely. Obviously, he did not, and could not, premise this on an insistence on following every word of Scripture, which is filled with violent responses, including violent responses to injustice. Rather, Dr. King looked to the essence of what he saw as good in religious tradition, and applied it to the problems we faced.
Post a Comment
<< Home