Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (179648)	9/19/2006 11:40:12 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793964

A reasonable explanation heard last night on a talk show was that Benedict is a renowned professor and theologian who has written and published prolifically. He hasn't quite shed the robes of academia for his papal ones. As the speaker last night commented, he grossly overestimated the intelligence of his larger audience as he spoke to his very educated, academic one. I read the speech and, watching the footage of those with their signs demanding death to the Pope, some of whom were mere children, thought how there is no way that they could answer the simplest questions about Pope Benedict XVI, the context of his speech, or the Catholic faith. The Pope erred in not realizing that his own amazing erudition and comprehensive knowledge may be a handicap in these times when people choose a phrase, an allusion, a word and ignore the context and true message. It may have been an excellent speech for scientists (it focused mainly on reason and religion), but many don't care about that, only how they can find a weapon to increase misunderstanding and anger. I caught a few minutes of Olbermann last night also, and saw an example of this. He was repeating his outrage at how Bush told us it was "unacceptable to think". If you watch that clip, a fair person, even one who dislikes Bush, can see that this is NOT what was being said (though Bush could certainly have phrased it better, but when couldn't he). I hate that kind of see how clever I am tactics.

To: Lane3 who wrote (179648)	9/19/2006 2:15:21 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

I'm saying that, when the Pope opens his mouth, what comes out should be smart, strategically smart. The opposite of "smart" is "dumb." I suspect many believe that what the Pope said was "dumb", strategically dumb. To suggest that the Pope's statements were not "dumb" in this sense is really a bit of a stretch. He has authored a very substantial book on Islam, is by history a very canny political operator [all Pope's are], and obviously spent a lot of time on his piece. He is very far from dumb. It was not at all analogous to the jotted off statement Bush made at the bottom of a burning pile of WTC rubble shortly after 9/11 suggesting that we are now on "a Crusade." You may not think it was "smart" but I suspect that there was a tremendous amount of time and calculation taken to make sure that the statement said precisely the meaning he meant to convey. I dare say that we are not done with his efforts. He has some very strong views which he is apparently not going to self-bowdlerize. I suspect he knew that his statements would create a flashfire of controversy. He also probably believes that the bluntness of his message is a good thing. I don't disagree with either notion. I think it wonderful that the leader of a major church takes on a cultish part of another and tells them the truth, i.e., that reason requires that there be no violence in the name of religion. It was as much a message to moderate, thinking Muslims as anything else. Plus, he's infallible.