These are false oppositions, no? We are talking (sometimes in circles) about relations of power and control. To achieve and maintain power with the sword is difficult, expensive, and time-consuming. It also punches holes in one's claim to be advancing peace and 'democracy.' The Judaeo-Xian tradition (derived from the Platonic tradition, let us not forget: Plato is already metaphysical and understands its power) masterfully achieves and maintains power by turning people into 'docile bodies' (Foucault's term in _Discipline and Punish_ and elsewhere), i.e. into subjects who exercise their own self-restraint for the most part: the 'willing and obedient' eat from 'the best of the land'. It's much cheaper, easier, and seemingly more harmonious. As many here have noted in other threads, 'most people are not questioners.'

Each modality of power accomplishes the same end, but one seems so much more palatable, that we not only embrace it but defend it, especially in the face of challenges from those 'outside' (esp those who rely on the more expensive use of coercion; it doesn't help that they are dark and scary 'others').

*The point is they are not, finally, different*. It's not 'reason' *or* the sword, then--they are both metaphysical and seek the same end. Can we (ever) begin to imagine something else? Are we ever to emerge from our enthrallment to the onto-theo-logos (Heidegger's term)?

Of course, we must also consider that during those 900 years, Muslim and Jewish scholars preserved the works of the Greeks while the Christians were burning them. Then Islam, having led the West into the Renaissance, reverted. Judaism split, with some staying on the side of reason and others, like the Haredi/ultra-Orthodox, rejecting it. Of course, until the rebirth of Israel, Judaism hadn't been merged with power in more than 2,000 years. Theocratic trends in Israel, spearheaded by hardliners and opposed by many Israeli and non-Israeli Jews, do not bode well.

I think the conflict between religion and reason is often a function of power and the attempt to exert control. It's also a matter of preserving tradition/faith/nation against a perceived or real threat. Sometimes the threat, as in some strains of modern Christian fundamentalism, is reason/science itself and its incompatibility with Biblical literalism as well as perhaps, rapid social/cultural changes incompatible with traditional morality (blamed on science/reason/secularism?). Sometimes the threat, as in Islamic radicalism, seems to be rapid modernization and the sudden emergence of foreign influence (both European colonialism and American cultural hegemony). In extremist Judaism, the threats are obvious: the Holocaust, growing anti-Semitism, attacks on Israel, questions about Israel's right to exist, etc.

Religions, their interpretation/practice, and attitudes toward non-believers and people of other faiths seem to respond to external factors and internal conflict in the way that all ideologies and even individuals do. It's easy for us to be peaceful when we feel safe, but when we feel threatened, we embrace attitudes/actions that would have been abhorrent to us otherwise.

The current debate over Bush administration methods seems to hint at this. After all, who could have imagined six years ago that America would be making use of torture, rendition, indefinite detention, secret and illegal domestic spying programs, etc.? How many Americans would have instinctively recoiled at such methods then but support them now?

Yes, it's interesting that the commentary about the Pope's quotation focused on what he said, and about whether he meant to say that, and about whether merely quoting something means you also believe in it. What was ignored was the more-general ridiculous of one leader of a myth-based cult criticizing the tenets of another. It reminded me either of a debate between sports fans over who has the best team ("Colts rock! Christianity sucks!"), or one between children about two concepts that are equally child-like in their supposed reasonableness ("Babies come from storks" "No, they come out of your Mom's belly after she eats pickles!")