This was NOT available at the UN site, but I found it on Democracy Now.
We have only been told that Chavex mentioned the Devil and Sulphur. Here is the entire
speech which received a standing ovation:

/Published on Wednesday, September 20, 2006 by CommonDreams.org /

*Chavez Address to the United Nations *

*by Hugo Chavez

Address to the UN

New York

September 20, 2006

*

Representatives of the governments of the world, good morning to all of

you. First of all, I would like to invite you, very respectfully, to

those who have not read this book, to read it.

Noam Chomsky, one of the most prestigious American and world

intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, and this is one of his most recent books,

/'Hegemony or Survival: The Imperialist Strategy of the United States

./'"

[Holds up book, waves it in front of General Assembly.] "It's an

excellent book to help us understand what has been happening in the

world throughout the 20th century, and what's happening now, and the

greatest threat looming over our planet.

The hegemonic pretensions of the American empire are placing at risk the

very survival of the human species. We continue to warn you about this

danger and we appeal to the people of the United States and the world to

halt this threat, which is like a sword hanging over our heads. I had

considered reading from this book, but, for the sake of time," [flips

through the pages, which are numerous] "I will just leave it as a

recommendation.

It reads easily, it is a very good book, I'm sure Madame [President] you

are familiar with it. It appears in English, in Russian, in Arabic, in

German. I think that the first people who should read this book are our

brothers and sisters in the United States, because their threat is right

in their own house.

The devil is right at home. The devil, the devil himself, is right in

the house.

"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right

here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.

Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the

United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here,

talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.

I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement

made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of

imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the

current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples

of the world.

An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even

propose a title: "The Devil's Recipe."

As Chomsky says here, clearly and in depth, the American empire is doing

all it can to consolidate its system of domination. And we cannot allow

them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship to be consolidated.

The world parent's statement -- cynical, hypocritical, full of this

imperial hypocrisy from the need they have to control everything.

They say they want to impose a democratic model. But that's their

democratic model. It's the false democracy of elites, and, I would say,

a very original democracy that's imposed by weapons and bombs and firing

weapons.

What a strange democracy. Aristotle might not recognize it or others who

are at the root of democracy.

What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?

The president of the United States, yesterday, said to us, right here,

in this room, and I'm quoting, "Anywhere you look, you hear extremists

telling you can escape from poverty and recover your dignity through

violence, terror and martyrdom."

Wherever he looks, he sees extremists. And you, my brother -- he looks

at your color, and he says, oh, there's an extremist. Evo Morales, the

worthy president of Bolivia, looks like an extremist to him.

The imperialists see extremists everywhere. It's not that we are

extremists. It's that the world is waking up. It's waking up all over.

And people are standing up.

I have the feeling, dear world dictator, that you are going to live the

rest of your days as a nightmare because the rest of us are standing up,

all those who are rising up against American imperialism, who are

shouting for equality, for respect, for the sovereignty of nations.

Yes, you can call us extremists, but we are rising up against the

empire, against the model of domination.

The president then -- and this he said himself, he said: "I have come to

speak directly to the populations in the Middle East, to tell them that

my country wants peace."

That's true. If we walk in the streets of the Bronx, if we walk around

New York, Washington, San Diego, in any city, San Antonio, San

Francisco, and we ask individuals, the citizens of the United States,

what does this country want? Does it want peace? They'll say yes.

But the government doesn't want peace. The government of the United

States doesn't want peace. It wants to exploit its system of

exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony through war.

It wants peace. But what's happening in Iraq? What happened in Lebanon?

In Palestine? What's happening? What's happened over the last 100 years

in Latin America and in the world? And now threatening Venezuela -- new

threats against Venezuela, against Iran?

He spoke to the people of Lebanon. Many of you, he said, have seen how

your homes and communities were caught in the crossfire. How cynical can

you get? What a capacity to lie shamefacedly. The bombs in Beirut with

millimetric precision?

This is crossfire? He's thinking of a western, when people would shoot

from the hip and somebody would be caught in the crossfire.

This is imperialist, fascist, assassin, genocidal, the empire and Israel

firing on the people of Palestine and Lebanon. That is what happened.

And now we hear, "We're suffering because we see homes destroyed.'

The president of the United States came to talk to the peoples -- to the

peoples of the world. He came to say -- I brought some documents with

me, because this morning I was reading some statements, and I see that

he talked to the people of Afghanistan, the people of Lebanon, the

people of Iran. And he addressed all these peoples directly.

And you can wonder, just as the president of the United States addresses

those peoples of the world, what would those peoples of the world tell

him if they were given the floor? What would they have to say?

And I think I have some inkling of what the peoples of the south, the

oppressed people think. They would say, "Yankee imperialist, go home." I

think that is what those people would say if they were given the

microphone and if they could speak with one voice to the American

imperialists.

And that is why, Madam President, my colleagues, my friends, last year

we came here to this same hall as we have been doing for the past eight

years, and we said something that has now been confirmed -- fully, fully

confirmed.

I don't think anybody in this room could defend the system. Let's accept

-- let's be honest. The U.N. system, born after the Second World War,

collapsed. It's worthless.

Oh, yes, it's good to bring us together once a year, see each other,

make statements and prepare all kinds of long documents, and listen to

good speeches, like Abel's yesterday, or President Mullah's . Yes, it's

good for that.

And there are a lot of speeches, and we've heard lots from the president

of Sri Lanka, for instance, and the president of Chile.

But we, the assembly, have been turned into a merely deliberative organ.

We have no power, no power to make any impact on the terrible situation

in the world. And that is why Venezuela once again proposes, here,

today, 20 September, that we re-establish the United Nations.

Last year, Madam, we made four modest proposals that we felt to be

crucially important. We have to assume the responsibility our heads of

state, our ambassadors, our representatives, and we have to discuss it.

The first is expansion, and Mullah talked about this yesterday right

here. The Security Council, both as it has permanent and non-permanent

categories, (inaudible) developing countries and LDCs must be given

access as new permanent members. That's step one.

Second, effective methods to address and resolve world conflicts,

transparent decisions.

Point three, the immediate suppression -- and that is something

everyone's calling for -- of the anti-democratic mechanism known as the

veto, the veto on decisions of the Security Council.

Let me give you a recent example. The immoral veto of the United States

allowed the Israelis, with impunity, to destroy Lebanon. Right in front

of all of us as we stood there watching, a resolution in the council was

prevented.

Fourthly, we have to strengthen, as we've always said, the role and the

powers of the secretary general of the United Nations.

Yesterday, the secretary general practically gave us his speech of

farewell. And he recognized that over the last 10 years, things have

just gotten more complicated; hunger, poverty, violence, human rights

violations have just worsened. That is the tremendous consequence of the

collapse of the United Nations system and American hegemonistic pretensions.

Madam, Venezuela a few years ago decided to wage this battle within the

United Nations by recognizing the United Nations, as members of it that

we are, and lending it our voice, our thinking.

Our voice is an independent voice to represent the dignity and the

search for peace and the reformulation of the international system; to

denounce persecution and aggression of hegemonistic forces on the planet.

This is how Venezuela has presented itself. Bolivar's home has sought a

nonpermanent seat on the Security Council.

Let's see. Well, there's been an open attack by the U.S. government, an

immoral attack, to try and prevent Venezuela from being freely elected

to a post in the Security Council.

The imperium is afraid of truth, is afraid of independent voices. It

calls us extremists, but they are the extremists.

And I would like to thank all the countries that have kindly announced

their support for Venezuela, even though the ballot is a secret one and

there's no need to announce things.

But since the imperium has attacked, openly, they strengthened the

convictions of many countries. And their support strengthens us.

Mercosur, as a bloc, has expressed its support, our brothers in

Mercosur. Venezuela, with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, is a

full member of Mercosur.

And many other Latin American countries, CARICOM, Bolivia have expressed

their support for Venezuela. The Arab League, the full Arab League has

voiced its support. And I am immensely grateful to the Arab world, to

our Arab brothers, our Caribbean brothers, the African Union. Almost all

of Africa has expressed its support for Venezuela and countries such as

Russia or China and many others.

I thank you all warmly on behalf of Venezuela, on behalf of our people,

and on behalf of the truth, because Venezuela, with a seat on the

Security Council, will be expressing not only Venezuela's thoughts, but

it will also be the voice of all the peoples of the world, and we will

defend dignity and truth.

Over and above all of this, Madam President, I think there are reasons

to be optimistic. A poet would have said "helplessly optimistic,"

because over and above the wars and the bombs and the aggressive and the

preventive war and the destruction of entire peoples, one can see that a

new era is dawning.

As Silvio Rodriguez says, the era is giving birth to a heart. There are

alternative ways of thinking. There are young people who think

differently. And this has already been seen within the space of a mere

decade. It was shown that the end of history was a totally false

assumption, and the same was shown about Pax Americana and the

establishment of the capitalist neo-liberal world. It has been shown,

this system, to generate mere poverty. Who believes in it now?

What we now have to do is define the future of the world. Dawn is

breaking out all over. You can see it in Africa and Europe and Latin

America and Oceanea. I want to emphasize that optimistic vision.

We have to strengthen ourselves, our will to do battle, our awareness.

We have to build a new and better world.

Venezuela joins that struggle, and that's why we are threatened. The

U.S. has already planned, financed and set in motion a coup in

Venezuela, and it continues to support coup attempts in Venezuela and

elsewhere.

President Michelle Bachelet reminded us just a moment ago of the

horrendous assassination of the former foreign minister, Orlando Letelier.

And I would just add one thing: Those who perpetrated this crime are

free. And that other event where an American citizen also died were

American themselves. They were CIA killers, terrorists.

And we must recall in this room that in just a few days there will be

another anniversary. Thirty years will have passed from this other

horrendous terrorist attack on the Cuban plane, where 73 innocents died,

a Cubana de Aviacion airliner.

And where is the biggest terrorist of this continent who took the

responsibility for blowing up the plane? He spent a few years in jail in

Venezuela. Thanks to CIA and then government officials, he was allowed

to escape, and he lives here in this country, protected by the government.

And he was convicted. He has confessed to his crime. But the U.S.

government has double standards. It protects terrorism when it wants to.

And this is to say that Venezuela is fully committed to combating

terrorism and violence. And we are one of the people who are fighting

for peace.

Luis Posada Carriles is the name of that terrorist who is protected

here. And other tremendously corrupt people who escaped from Venezuela

are also living here under protection: a group that bombed various

embassies, that assassinated people during the coup. They kidnapped me

and they were going to kill me, but I think God reached down and our

people came out into the streets and the army was too, and so I'm here

today.

But these people who led that coup are here today in this country

protected by the American government. And I accuse the American

government of protecting terrorists and of having a completely cynical

discourse.

We mentioned Cuba. Yes, we were just there a few days ago. We just came

from there happily.

And there you see another era born. The Summit of the 15, the Summit of

the Nonaligned, adopted a historic resolution. This is the outcome

document. Don't worry, I'm not going to read it.

But you have a whole set of resolutions here that were adopted after

open debate in a transparent matter -- more than 50 heads of state.

Havana was the capital of the south for a few weeks, and we have now

launched, once again, the group of the nonaligned with new momentum.

And if there is anything I could ask all of you here, my companions, my

brothers and sisters, it is to please lend your good will to lend

momentum to the Nonaligned Movement for the birth of the new era, to

prevent hegemony and prevent further advances of imperialism.

And as you know, Fidel Castro is the president of the nonaligned for the

next three years, and we can trust him to lead the charge very efficiently.

Unfortunately they thought, "Oh, Fidel was going to die." But they're

going to be disappointed because he didn't. And he's not only alive,

he's back in his green fatigues, and he's now presiding the nonaligned.

So, my dear colleagues, Madam President, a new, strong movement has been

born, a movement of the south. We are men and women of the south.

With this document, with these ideas, with these criticisms, I'm now

closing my file. I'm taking the book with me. And, don't forget, I'm

recommending it very warmly and very humbly to all of you.

We want ideas to save our planet, to save the planet from the

imperialist threat. And hopefully in this very century, in not too long

a time, we will see this, we will see this new era, and for our children

and our grandchildren a world of peace based on the fundamental

principles of the United Nations, but a renewed United Nations.

And maybe we have to change location. Maybe we have to put the United

Nations somewhere else; maybe a city of the south. We've proposed Venezuela.

You know that my personal doctor had to stay in the plane. The chief of

security had to be left in a locked plane. Neither of these gentlemen

was allowed to arrive and attend the U.N. meeting. This is another abuse

and another abuse of power on the part of the Devil. It smells of sulfur

here, but God is with us and I embrace you all.

May God bless us all. Good day to you.

###

I'm sure the comments of our Head of State have been made abundanty clear by our media, but some of you may have missed the comments from Ahmadi-Nej ad. I've repronted them verbatim from the UN.org site. I'll try to do the same with Argentina as only a few words have been quoted, but the text is not yet available.

Address by

His Excellency Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nej ad

President of the Islamic Republic of Iran

before the 61 st Session of the General assembly

New York, 19 September 2006

Madam President,

Distinguished Heads of State and Government,

Distinguished Heads of Delegation,

Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen

I praise the Merciful, All-Knowing and Almighty God for blessing me with

another opportunity to address this Assembly on behalf of the great nation of Iran and

to bring a number of issues to the attention of the international community.

I also praise the Almighty for the increasing vigilance of peoples across the

globe, their courageous presence in different international settings, and the brave

expression of their views and aspirations regarding global issues.

Today, humanity passionately craves commitment to the Truth, devotion to

God, quest for Justice and respect for the dignity of human beings. Rejection of

domination and aggression, defense of the oppressed,and longing for peace constitute

the legitimate demand of the peoples of the world, particularly the new generations

and the spirited youth, who aspire a world free from decadence, aggression and

injustice, and replete with love and compassion. The youth have a right to seek

justice and the Truth; and they have a right to build their own future on the

foundations of love, compassion and tranquility. And, I praise the Almighty for this

immense blessing.

Madame President,

Excellencies,

What afflicts humanity today is certainly not compatible with human dignity;

the Almighty has not created human beings so that they could transgress against

others and oppress them.

By causing war and conflict, some are fast expanding their domination,

accumulating greater wealth and usurping all the resources, while others endure the

resulting poverty, suffering and misery.

Some seek to rule the world relying on weapons and threats, while others live

in perpetual insecurity and danger.

Some occupy the homeland of others, thousands of kilometers away from their

borders, interfere in their affairs and control their oil and other resources and strategic

routes, while others are bombarded daily in their own homes; their children murdered

in the streets and alleys of their own country and their homes reduced to rubble.

Such behavior is not worthy of human beings and runs counter to the Truth, to

justice and to human dignity. The fundamental question is that under such conditions,

where should the oppressed seek justice? Who, or what organization defends the

rights of the oppressed, and suppresses acts of aggression and oppression? Where is

the seat of global justice?

A brief glance at a few examples of the most pressing global issues can further

illustrate the problem.

A. The unbridled expansion of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons

Some powers proudly announce their production of second and third

generations of nuclear weapons. What do they need these weapons for? Is the

development and stockpiling of these deadly weapons designed to promote peace and

democracy? Or, are these weapons, in fact, instruments of coercion and threat against

other peoples and governments? How long should the people of the world live with

the nightmare of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons? What bounds the powers

producing and possessing these weapons? How can they be held accountable before

the international community? And, are the inhabitants of these countries content with

the waste of their wealth and resources for the production of such destructive

arsenals? Is it not possible to rely on justice, ethics and wisdom instead of these

instruments of death? Aren't wisdom and justice more compatible with peace and

tranquility than nuclear, chemical and biological weapons? If wisdom, ethics and

justice prevail, then oppression and aggression will be uprooted, threats will wither

away and no reason will remain for conflict. This is a solid proposition because most

global conflicts emanate from injustice, and from the powerful, not being contented

with their own rights, striving to devour the rights of others.

People across the globe embrace justice and are willing to sacrifice for its

sake.

Would it not be easier for global powers to ensure their longevity and win

hearts and minds through the championing of real promotion of justice, compassion

and peace, than through continuing the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons

and the threat of their use?

The experience of the threat and the use of nuclear weapons is before us. Has

it achieved anything for the perpetrators other than exacerbation of tension, hatred and

animosity among nations?

B. Occupation of countries and exacerbation of hostilities

Occupation of countries, including Iraq, has continued for the last three years.

Not a day goes by without hundreds of people getting killed in cold blood. The

occupiers are incapable of establishing security in Iraq. Despite the establishment of

the lawful Government and National Assembly of Iraq, there are covert and overt

efforts to heighten insecurity, magnify and aggravate differences within Iraqi society,

and instigate civil strife.

There is no indication that the occupiers have the necessary political will to

eliminate the sources of instability. Numerous terrorists were apprehended by the

Government of Iraq, only to be let loose under various pretexts by the occupiers.

It seems that intensification of hostilities and terrorism serves as a pretext for

the continued presence of foreign forces in Iraq.

Where can the people of Iraq seek refuge, and from whom should the

Government of Iraq seek justice?

Who can ensure Iraq's security? Insecurity in Iraq affects the entire region.

Can the Security Council play a role in restoring peace and security in Iraq, while the

occupiers are themselves permanent members of the Council? Can the Security

Council adopt a fair decision in this regard?

Consider the situation in Palestine:

The roots of the Palestinian problem go back to the Second World War. Under

the pretext of protecting some of the survivors of that War, the land of Palestine was

occupied through war, aggression and the displacement of millions of its inhabitants;

it was placed under the control of some of the War survivors, bringing even larger

population groups from elsewhere in the world, who had not been even affected by

the Second World War; and a government was established in the territory of others

with a population collected from across the world at the expense of driving millions of

the rightful inhabitants of the land into a diaspora and homelessness. This is a great

tragedy with hardly a precedent in history. Refugees continue to live in temporary

refugee camps, and many have died still hoping to one day return to their land. Can

any logic, law or legal reasoning justify this tragedy? Can any member of the United

Nations accept such a tragedy occurring in their own homeland?

The pretexts for the creation of the regime occupying Al-Qods Al-Sharif are

so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about

them, as they are concerned that shedding light on the facts would undermine the

raison d'tre of this regime, as it has. The tragedy does not end with the establishment

of a regime in the territory of others. Regrettably, from its inception, that regime has

been a constant source of threat and insecurity in the Middle East region, waging war

and spilling blood and impeding the progress of regional countries, and has also been

used by some powers as an instrument of division, coercion, and pressure on the

people of the region. Reference to these historical realities may cause some disquiet

among supporters of this regime. But these are sheer facts and not myth. History has

unfolded before our eyes.

Worst yet, is the blanket and unwarranted support provided to this regime.

Just watch what is happening in the Palestinian land. People are being

bombarded in their own homes and their children murdered in their own streets and

alleys. But no authority, not even the Security Council, can afford them any support

or protection. Why?

At the same time, a Government is formed democratically and through the free

choice of the electorate in a part of the Palestinian territory. But instead of receiving

the support of the so-called champions of democracy, its Ministers and Members of

Parliament are illegally abducted and incarcerated in full view of the international

community.

Which council or international organization stands up to protect this brutally

besieged Government? And why can't the Security Council take any steps?

Let me here address Lebanon:

For thirty-three long days, the Lebanese lived under the barrage of fire and

bombs and close to 1.5 million of them were displaced; meanwhile some members of

the Security Council practically chose a path that provided ample opportunity for the

aggressor to achieve its objectives militarily. We witnessed that the Security Council

of the United Nations was practically incapacitated by certain powers to even call for

a ceasefire. The Security Council sat idly by for so many days, witnessing the cruel

scenes of atrocities against the Lebanese while tragedies such as Qana were

persistently repeated. Why?

In all these cases, the answer is self-evident. When the power behind the

hostilities is itself a permanent member of the Security Council, how then can this

Council fulfill its responsibilities?

C. Lack of respect for the rights of members of the international community

Excellencies,

I now wish to refer to some of the grievances of the Iranian people and speak

to the injustices against them.

The Islamic Republic of Iran is a member of the IAEA and is committed to the

NPT. All our nuclear activities are transparent, peaceful and under the watchful eyes

of IAEA inspectors. Why then are there objections to our legally recognized rights?

Which governments object to these rights? Governments that themselves benefit from

nuclear energy and the fuel cycle. Some of them have abused nuclear technology for

non-peaceful ends including the production of nuclear bombs, and some even have a

bleak record of using them against humanity.

Which organization or Council should address these injustices? Is the Security

Council in a position to address them? Can it stop violations of the inalienable rights

of countries? Can it prevent certain powers from impeding scientific progress of other

countries?

The abuse of the Security Council, as an instrument of threat and coercion, is

indeed a source of grave concern.

Some permanent members of the Security Council, even when they are

themselves parties to international disputes, conveniently threaten others with the

Security Council and declare, even before any decision by the Council, the

condemnation of their opponents by the Council. The question is: what can justify

such exploitation of the Security Council, and doesn't it erode the credibility and

effectiveness of the Council? Can such behavior contribute to the ability of the

Council to maintain security?

Excellencies,

A review of the preceding historical realities would lead to the conclusion that

regrettably, justice has become a victim of force and aggression.

Many global arrangements have become unjust, discriminatory and

irresponsible as a result of undue pressure from some of the powerful;

Threats with nuclear weapons and other instruments of war by some powers

have taken the place of respect for the rights of nations and the maintenance

and promotion of peace and tranquility;

For some powers, claims of promotion of human rights and democracy can

only last as long as they can be used as instruments of pressure and

intimidation against other nations. But when it comes to the interests of the

claimants, concepts such as democracy, the right of self-determination of

nations, respect for the rights and intelligence of peoples, international law and

justice have no place or value. This is blatantly manifested in the way the

elected Government of the Palestinian people is treated as well as in the

support extended to the Zionist regime. It does not matter if people are

murdered in Palestine, turned into refugees, captured, imprisoned or besieged;

that must not violate human rights.

-Nations are not equal in exercising their rights recognized by international

law. Enjoying these rights is dependent on the whim of certain major powers.

-Apparently the Security Council can only be used to ensure the security and

the rights of some big powers. But when the oppressed are decimated under

bombardment, the Security Council must remain aloof and not even call for a

ceasefire. Is this not a tragedy of historic proportions for the Security Council,

which is charged with maintaining the security of countries?

-The prevailing order of contemporary global interactions is such that certain

powers equate themselves with the international community, and consider

their decisions superseding that of over 180 countries. They consider

themselves the masters and rulers of the entire world and other nations as only

second class in the world order.

Excellencies,

The question needs to be asked: if the Governments of the United States or the

United Kingdom who are permanent members of the Security Council, commit

aggression, occupation and violation of international law, which of the organs of the

UN can take them to account? Can a Council in which they are privileged members

address their violations? Has this ever happened? In fact, we have repeatedly seen the

reverse. If they have differences with a nation or state, they drag it to the Security

Council and as claimants, arrogate to themselves simultaneously the roles of

prosecutor, judge and executioner. Is this a just order? Can there be a more vivid case

of discrimination and more clear evidence of injustice?

Regrettably, the persistence of some hegemonic powers in imposing their

exclusionist policies on international decision making mechanisms, including the

Security Council, has resulted in a growing mistrust in global public opinion,

undermining the credibility and effectiveness of this most universal system of

collective security.

Excellencies,

How long can such a situation last in the world? It is evident that the behavior

of some powers constitutes the greatest challenge before the Security Council, the

entire organization and its affiliated agencies.

The present structure and working methods of the Security Council, which are

legacies of the Second World War, are not responsive to the expectations of the

current generation and the contemporary needs of humanity.

Today, it is undeniable that the Security Council, most critically and urgently,

needs legitimacy and effectiveness. It must be acknowledged that as long as the

Council is unable to act on behalf of the entire international community in a

transparent, just and democratic manner, it will neither be legitimate nor effective.

Furthermore, the direct relation between the abuse of veto and the erosion of the

legitimacy and effectiveness of the Council has now been clearly and undeniably

established. We cannot, and should not, expect the eradication, or even containment,

of injustice, imposition and oppression without reforming the structure and working

methods of the Council.

Is it appropriate to expect this generation to submit to the decisions and

arrangements established over half a century ago? Doesn't this generation or future

generations have the right to decide themselves about the world in which they want to

live?

Today, serious reform in the structure and working methods of the Security

Council is, more than ever before, necessary. Justice and democracy dictate that the

role of the General Assembly, as the highest organ of the United Nations, must be

respected. The General Assembly can then, through appropriate mechanisms, take on

the task of reforming the Organization and particularly rescue the Security Council

from its current state. In the interim, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organization of

the Islamic Conference and the African continent should each have a representative as

a permanent member of the Security Council, with veto privilege. The resulting

balance would hopefully prevent further trampling of the rights of nations.

Madame President,

Excellencies,

It is essential that spirituality and ethics find their rightful place in

international relations. Without ethics and spirituality, attained in light of the

teachings of Divine prophets, justice, freedom and human rights cannot be

guaranteed.

Resolution of contemporary human crises lies in observing ethics and

spirituality and the governance of righteous people of high competence and piety.

Should respect for the rights of human beings become the predominant

objective, then injustice, ill-temperament, aggression and war will fade away.

Human beings are all God's creatures and are all endowed with dignity and

respect.

No one has superiority over others. No individual or states can arrogate to

themselves special privileges, nor can they disregard the rights of others and, through

influence and pressure, position themselves as the "international community".

Citizens of Asia, Africa, Europe and America are all equal. Over six billion

inhabitants of the earth are all equal and worthy of respect.

Justice and protection of human dignity are the two pillars in maintaining

sustainable peace, security and tranquility in the world.

It is for this reason that we state:

Sustainable peace and tranquility in the world can only be attained through

justice, spirituality, ethics, compassion and respect for human dignity.

All nations and states are entitled to peace, progress and security.

We are all members of the international community and we are all entitled to

insist on the creation of a climate of compassion, love and justice.

All members of the United Nations are affected by both the bitter and the

sweet events and developments in today's world.

We can adopt firm and logical decisions, thereby improving the prospects of a

better life for current and future generations.

Together, we can eradicate the roots of bitter maladies and afflictions, and

instead, through the promotion of universal and lasting values such as ethics,

spirituality and justice, allow our nations to taste the sweetness of a better future.

Peoples, driven by their divine nature, intrinsically seek Good, Virtue,

Perfection and Beauty. Relying on our peoples, we can take giant steps towards

reform and pave the road for human perfection. Whether we like it or not, justice,

peace and virtue will sooner or later prevail in the world with the will of Almighty

God. It is imperative, and also desirable, that we too contribute to the promotion of

justice and virtue.

The Almighty and Merciful God, who is the Creator of the Universe, is also its

Lord and Ruler. Justice is His command. He commands His creatures to support one

another in Good, virtue and piety, and not in decadence and corruption.

He commands His creatures to enjoin one another to righteousness and virtue

and not to sin and transgression. All Divine prophets from the Prophet Adam (peace

be upon him) to the Prophet Moses (peace be upon him), to the Prophet Jesus Christ

(peace be upon him), to the Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him), have all called

humanity to monotheism, justice, brotherhood, love and compassion. Is it not possible

to build a better world based on monotheism, justice, love and respect for the rights of

human beings, and thereby transform animosities into friendship?

I emphatically declare that today's world, more than ever before, longs for just

and righteous people with love for all humanity; and above all longs for the perfect

righteous human being and the real savior who has been promised to all peoples and

who will establish justice, peace and brotherhood on the planet.

0, Almighty God, all men and women are Your creatures and You have

ordained their guidance and salvation. Bestow upon humanity that thirsts for justice,

the perfect human being promised to all by You, and make us among his followers

and among those who strive for his return and his cause.

CHRISTIAN REASONING

so far as I can tell, these are some of the Christian attempts at "reason" prior to the remarks cited by Bennie the Enforcer:

• 1096-1291 Crusades
  • 1096-1099 First Crusade
  • 1101 Crusade of 1101
  • 1147-1149 Second Crusade
  • 1187-1191 Third Crusade
  • 1202-1204 Fourth Crusade
  • 1209-1229 Albigensian Crusade
  • 1212 Children's Crusade (Often believed to be fictional event)
  • 1217-1221 Fifth Crusade
  • 1228 Sixth Crusade
  • 1248-1254 Seventh Crusade
  • 1270 Eighth Crusade
  • 1271-1291 Ninth Crusade
• 
  

It’s Fatwah Time!

(PS: Benedict is AKA "Bennie the enforcer")

Pope Benedict (hereafter Bennie) quoted Manuel II Paliologous (hereafter Adolph) as attacking Islam.

It kind of reminds me of the furor over Salmun Rushdie (hereafter Sally) and the Satanic Verses, especially since I had heard of neither Sally or Adolph before.

The Byzantine Empire has never been high on my list of interests. It certainly ranks below Bird Flu which is still being hushed up.

Not that I avoid the arcane. I had heard of and read Agricola (Arabic), Melanthon (German), Ramus and Talon (French) and who could forget the more modern Salmasius? However, these all wrote in Latin. I don’t know what language Adolph wrote in (greek)

He attacked Islam, but to me it was another case of sour grapes. See, the Catholics had ruled just 200 years before and now the Turks (Ottomans) were running things, so you can see why Adolph was pissed.He signed a peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks in 1424, paid tribute to Murad II of the Ottomans (and took it all back, I guess), and then died in 1424.

Bennie should have made this clear.

In 1492 Columbus discovered American and things haven’t been the same since.

Czar Donic

Repost again with further developments and besides, I posted the documentation later.

Bennie is also known as "Bennie the Enforcer"

It’s Fatwah Time!

Pope Benedict (hereafter Bennie) quoted Manuel II Paliologous (hereafter Adolph) as attacking Islam.

It kind of reminds me of the furor over Salmun Rushdie (hereafter Sally) and the Satanic Verses, especially since I had heard of neither Sally or Adolph before.

The Byzantine Empire has never been high on my list of interests. It certainly ranks below Bird Flu which is still being hushed up.

Not that I avoid the arcane. I had heard of and read Agricola (Arabic), Melanthon (German), Ramus and Talon (French) and who could forget the more modern Salmasius? However, these all wrote in Latin. I don’t know what language Adolph wrote in.

He attacked Islam, but to me it was another case of sour grapes. See, the Catholics had ruled just 200 years before and now the Turks (Ottomans) were running things, so you can see why Adolph was pissed.He signed a peace treaty with the Ottoman Turks in 1424, paid tribute to Murad II of the Ottomans (and took it all back, I guess), and then died in 1424.

Bennie should have made this clear.

In 1492 Columbus discovered American and things haven’t been the same since.

Czar Donic


# posted by Charles @ 9:53 AM 0 comments links to this post

Here is the full text:

(In someone's translation)

Full text

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Faith, reason and the university: memories and reflections*

Following is the speech given by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of

Regensburg in Germany on September 12

*Friday September 15, 2006*

*Guardian Unlimited*

Your Eminences, Your Magnificences, Your Excellencies, Distinguished

Ladies and Gentlemen

It is a moving experience for me to be back again in the university and

to be able once again to give a lecture at this podium.

I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the

Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn.

That was in 1959, in the days of the old university made up of ordinary

professors. The various chairs had neither assistants nor secretaries,

but in recompense there was much direct contact with students and in

particular among the professors themselves.

We would meet before and after lessons in the rooms of the teaching

staff. There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers,

philologists and, naturally, between the two theological faculties.

Once a semester there was a dies academicus, when professors from every

faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making

possible a genuine experience of universitas - something that you too,

Magnificent Rector, just mentioned - the experience, in other words, of

the fact that despite our specializations which at times make it

difficult to communicate with each other, we made up a whole, working in

everything on the basis of a single rationality with its various aspects

and sharing responsibility for the right use of reason - this reality

became a lived experience.

The university was also very proud of its two theological faculties. It

was clear that, by inquiring about the reasonableness of faith, they too

carried out a work which is necessarily part of the "whole" of the

universitas scientiarum, even if not everyone could share the faith

which theologians seek to correlate with reason as a whole.

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not

troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there

was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to

something that did not exist: God.

That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary

and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason,

and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith:

this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by

Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on -

perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite

Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the

subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both.

It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during

the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would

explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his

Persian interlocutor.

The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the

Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and

of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship

between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old

Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an.

It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture;

here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to

the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith

and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the

starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation [text unclear] edited by Professor Khoury,

the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have

known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion".

According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period,

when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the

emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the

Qur'an, concerning holy war.

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment

accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses

his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question

about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying:

"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".

The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to

explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence

is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of

God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood

- and not acting reasonably ... is contrary to God's nature. Faith is

born of the soul, not the body. 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...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is

this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.

The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine

shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident.

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not

bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here

Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R Arnaldez, who points

out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by

his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to

us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete

practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable

dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's

nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?

I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is

Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of

faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the

first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel

with the words: "In the beginning was the Word".

This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, [text unclear] with

logos. Logos means both reason and word - a reason which is creative and

capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the

final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the

often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their

culmination and synthesis.

In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the

Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought

did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to

Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: "Come

over to Macedonia and help us!" (cf. Acts 16:6-10) - this vision can be

interpreted as a "distillation" of the intrinsic necessity of a

rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time.

The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which

separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and

simply declares "I am", already presents a challenge to the notion of

myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands

in close analogy.

Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush

came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel,

an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the

God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes

the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am".

This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment,

which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the

work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with

those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the

customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the

Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep

level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later

wisdom literature.

Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced

at Alexandria - the Septuagint - is more than a simple (and in that

sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it

is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in

the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a

way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.

A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an

encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very

heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek

thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act "with

logos" is contrary to God's nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find

trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek

spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called

intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a

voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we

can only know God's voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God's

freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of

everything he has actually done.

This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazn

and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even

bound to truth and goodness. God's transcendence and otherness are so

exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer

an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally

unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions.

As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that

between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created

reason there exists a real analogy, in which - as the Fourth Lateran

Council in 1215 stated - unlikeness remains infinitely greater than

likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language.

God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a

sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God

who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues

to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says,

"transcends" knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than

thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the

God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote

Paul [text unclear] worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with

our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical

inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint

of the history of religions, but also from that of world history - it is

an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not

surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant

developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive

character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this

convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created

Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral

part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a

dehellenization of Christianity - a call which has more and more

dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age.

Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of

dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from

one another in their motivations and objectives.

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the

Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of

scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a

faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an

articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a

result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one

element of an overarching philosophical system.

The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its

pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word.

Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from

which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully

itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order

to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a

radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus

anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to

reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered

in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von

Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in

the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in

Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal's

distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham,

Isaac and Jacob.

In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,

and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I

would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second

stage of dehellenization.

Harnack's central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his

simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of

hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the

religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to

worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father

of a humanitarian moral message.

Fundamentally, Harnack's goal was to bring Christianity back into

harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from

seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in

Christ's divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical

exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its

place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something

essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific.

What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an

expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful

place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern

self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant's "Critiques",

but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural

sciences.

This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a

synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis

confirmed by the success of technology.

On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its

intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter

works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the

Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature.

On the other hand, there is nature's capacity to be exploited for our

purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification

through experimentation can yield ultimate certainty. The weight between

the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side

to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J Monod has declared

himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we

have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the

interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered

scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured

against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history,

psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to

this canon of scientificity.

A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its

very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear

an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced

with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to

be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be

observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology's

claim to be "scientific" would end up reducing Christianity to a mere

fragment of its former self.

But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then

it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human

questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion

and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason

as defined by "science", so understood, and must thus be relegated to

the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of

his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and

the subjective "conscience" becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical.

In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a

community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous

state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies

of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced

that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to

construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and

sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must

briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in

progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is

often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the

early Church was a preliminary inculturation which ought not to be

binding on other cultures.

The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of

the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate

it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not only false;

it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in

Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come

to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in

the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated

into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the

relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the

faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith

itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad

strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do

with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and

rejecting the insights of the modern age.

The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly:

we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened

up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us.

The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned,

Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such,

it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the

Christian spirit.

The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but

of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we

rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the

dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how

we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and

faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed

limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more

disclose its vast horizons.

In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the

wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline

and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry

into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and

religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely

held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on

it are universally valid. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures

see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an

attack on their most profound convictions.

A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into

the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of

cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern

scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within

itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the

possibilities of its methodology.

Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational

structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the

prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its

methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a

real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences

to other modes and planes of thought - to philosophy and theology.

For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening

to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of

humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of

knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our

listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said

to Phaedo.

In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had

been raised, and so Socrates says: "It would be easily understandable if

someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest

of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being - but in this

way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a

great loss".

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions

which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby.

The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of

its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in

Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act

reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God",

said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in

response to his Persian interlocutor.

It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our

partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the

great task of the university.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006