Muslim anger grows over pope’s remarks

[Fountain79]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14846353/

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan’s parliament unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI on Friday for making what it called “derogatory” comments about Islam and demanded he apologize.

The Vatican has said Pope Benedict did not mean to offend Muslims with remarks he made in Germany this week about Muhammad and holy war.

In a speech, Benedict quoted a 14th-century Byzantine emperor as saying, “Show me just what Muhammad 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.”

It again amazes me that comments like this is what stir up muslim indignation worldwide. Not terrorist attacks that are carried out in their name. Not oppressive governments that cite Islamic law as their motivation. But the comments made by another religious leader.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. IMO, this is the equivalent of the Pope saying "Bring'em on!" n/t

[Fountain79]

2. Hardly.....

He offerred a critique of Islam. We can't have that though. We can criticize Christianity all the time.....just not Islam.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Please remind me,

Where where the crusades fought?

What was their purpose?

And which church funded and endorsed them?

Hint: It was not Muhammad.

[ET Awful]

8. Bingo.

For a Pope to make such statements IS incendiary. He is now the leader of a religion that sought to annihilate Islam, he can NOT make such statements and expect anyone to overlook it.

If the Israeli parliament passed a unanimous resolution against statements by a Neo-Nazi leader denouncing Judaism, would you (by which I mean Fountain79) object to them doing so?

[patcox2]

72. The crusades were not fought to annihilate islam.

They were fought to repel islamic invaders from europe, and to gain control of Jerusalem. The muslims the crusaders fought to gain control of Jerusalem were themselves invaders, not palestinians.

[ET Awful]

76. If you truly believe that the Crusaders did not believe it was their holy

duty to kill or convert anyone who did not follow the teachings of the Catholic Church, then you are poorly informed. The same mindset that led to the Crusades also led to the Inquisition. Catholicism of the era was of the opinion that any religious practice not sanctioned by the Vatican was heretical and heresy was punishable by death.

[Spider Jerusalem]

129. I suppose that explains...

why Muslims far outnumbered Christians in the Crusader kingdom of Jerusalem, eh? And why said Muslims were allowed to practise their religion unmolested? Perhaps you're not as well-informed as you think.

[tenshi816]

12. The Muslims were as guilty as the Christians

in the Crusades. The Christian aggression was a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world (don't forget - even Spain used to be a Muslim country).

In my opinion, they should have wiped each other off the face of the earth. Maybe the world wouldn't be in the mess it's in today.

Edited to add that my son studied the Crusades at school last year, and read a book by Thomas Madden (a professor and chair of the Department of History at Saint Louis University) called The Real History of the Crusades. Here's a snippet from Madden:

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. See, for example, Steven Runciman’s famous three-volume epic, History of the Crusades, or the BBC/A&E documentary, The Crusades, hosted by Terry Jones. Both are terrible history yet wonderfully entertaining.

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion of power and wealth. As the faith of the Roman Empire, it spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years.

With enormous energy, the warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The old Roman Empire, known to modern historians as the Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their brothers and sisters in the East.

[treestar]

18. And the Christians are as guilty as the Muslims.

Extremists on both sides are the problem causers.

[tenshi816]

39. Yes, they're as bad as each other, definitely.

I just think it's a bad idea for people to think that Christians have always been the aggressors, because it's not always the case. Christianity is already guilty enough historically without adding to it inaccurately. Muslims don't have clean hands throughout history either.

Organized religion has a lot to answer for.

[bobbieinok]

112. does his view have anything to do with the fact he is Catholic???

And his book is favorably reviewed at many Catholic sites (Yahoo search).

He also has a revisionist view of the Inquisition.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

Probably the truth is somewhere in between.

Often the crusades got off to a 'good' start with a massacre of Jews in Europe. And was it the fifth crusade that just stopped in Constantinople and massacred the Eastern Orthodox Christians and took much loot???

[cigsandcoffee]

13. The Crusades were an answer to Muslim incursion into Europe

They had even sacked Rome in 846. It's extremely inaccurate to paint the picture that the Crusades were an out-of-the-blue attempt to convert Muslims in the Middle East, because they were one part (and not the first bit of aggression) of a much larger civilization clash.

[Bonobo]

42. Ridiculous! You claim this spurred the 1st Crusade 200 years later!?

The Crusade was a way to reduce the internecine fighting bewteween ex-soldiers that were terrorizing Europe and had been left over from all the warring between France and England.

[happyslug]

52. No just 24 years earlier, the battle of Mazikert. in 1071

How big was the battle of Mazikert is unknown, later Byzantine scholars would increase the numbers so that it reviled the losses at Adrianople in 379 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Adrianople) and Cannae (216 BC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae), but these are believed to be exaggerations. The real problem with Mazikert was the destruction of the Thematic system of the Middle Byzantine Empire (Roughly 610 when The Emperor Heraclius who would start the Thematic System till 1071 and the loss of the Central Anatolian). The Thematic system was the basis of the Byzantine Army between Roughly 610 and 1071 AD. A peasant would serve in the Army for 20 or so years (not always full time) at the end of that time period he would be permitted in inherit his father's lands and his son would enter the Army. Thus the Thematic system was military Service in Exchange for land (It replaced the older Roman system of paying the Army in Money, when the Empire no longer had money to pay soldiers).

The lost on Anatolia meant the Thematic system was dead (Through a variation of it would survive in the Ottoman Empire till the late 19th Century). With this lost the entire balance of Power was upset, Constantinople was still the largest and richest City in the World, but it main source of troops were mercenaries and the City Militia NOT the Themes. Byzantine Coins were still the main coins used in the Eastern Mediterranean (Only replaced by the Venetian Ducat decades after the fall of Constantinople to the Fourth Crusade in 1204 AD). The full affect of this loss was felt through out Europe. Till 1071 the main source of Revenue for the people of Northern Europe (Including England) was hiring themselves out as Foreign Mercenaries in Constantinople (The Varangian Guard). While the Varangian survived, it was a shadow of its former self given the need of the Empire to spend money elsewhere to defend itself (The Varangian Guard would survive till the end of the Empire in 1453, but as descendent's of the original members as opposed to actual recruits from Northern Europe).

Now right after Manzikert the Empire went into Civil War, but by 1081 that was over but the Emperor needed assisted to undo the damaged caused by losing Manzikert AND the subsequent Civil War. This the Emperor asked the Pope and the West for assistance. It took another 14 years for the Pope and the Eastern Emperor to convince the Knights of Western Europe to come to the Aid of the Eastern Empire (Many were recovering from the lost of revenue do to the reduction of money being spent by the Eastern Emperor, we are talking massive depression). Anyway once Western Europe recovered from the affect of the defeat at Manzikert, the West Responded with the Crusades.

Thus the Crusades were NOT the result of the Arab Conquest of the 600s but the Invasion of the Greek Heartland in 1071. Now the problem with Allies is that Allies often want something different from each other. In the case of the Western Knight they wanted new lands to rule, thus instead of helping Constantinople re-take Anatolia, the First Crusade marched on Jerusalem instead. That is the problem with any real coalition, the various members often want different things as opposed to want any one member wants.


More on the the Battle of Manzikert:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Manzikert

More on the Byzantine Military:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_army#Themata

[Bonobo]

53. Thank you... Will study when I can. ;)

[ET Awful]

57. What you leave out is that the first crusade was basically ordered

by Pope Urban who used the Battle of Manzikert in much the same way that Bush uses 9/11, as a pretext for actions he desired to take anyway, to whit, the recapture of the "holy land" from the "infidels."

His speech which spurred it was met with the battle-cry that was used throughout the crusades "Deus vult! Deus vult!" - "God wills it."

[happyslug]

70. You ignoring some other history, as who were the majority in Palestine

At that time. Egypt did NOT become majority Moslem till the Mamluks, and this seems to be in response the the Mongols more than the Crusades (The Mongols sacked Baghdad in 1258, and from that point on Egypt and the Mongols were in a constant set of wars till the raise of the Ottoman Turks 100 years later).

Now the Mumluks had driven the Crusaders out of Palestine, but more in fear of the Mongols than the Crusaders. The Crusaders had assisted the Mumluks in the Mumluks defeat of the Mongols in Syria in the Battle of Ain Jalut, clearly in supplying and NOT hindering the Mumluk's advance to Syria, but maybe even in joining the Mumluks in Battle (Officially this did not happened, but we know Christians had long served in Moslem Armies int he preceding 600 years by just saying they were Moslem and the Moslem leadership not looking to closely).

Basically the Mumluks realized after their defeat of the Mongols, that what the Crusaders did for the Mumluks the Crusader states could for the Mongols (Thus the Crusader States had to go). Furthermore given the strength of the Mongols the Mumluks wanted all of Egypt behind them, thus force conversion, massive discrimination against Christians etc, started in this period. Thus we only have a majority Moslem Egypt starting during the Reign of the Mumluks AFTER THE CRUSADERS HAD BEEN DRIVEN OUT OF PALESTINE (and as part of the Mumluk's defense of Egypt they destroyed all of the ports of Palestine, least the Crusaders return, thus setting back economic development in Palestine for the next 600 years). The fear the Mongols brought to the Middle East was immense and most of the problem with the economic development of the Middle East for the next 600 years can be traced back to the Mongols and how roughshod the Mongols were over most of the Middle East.

Anyway back to the Crusades, While Tunis had converted to Islam quite Quickly after the Conquest (Probably had more to do with Tunisian being the home to a group of Christians heretics before hand), Egypt, Syria and Palestine were Majority Christian till while after the Crusades (With Coastal Lebanon
Majority Christian to this day, and even much of the West Bank Christian till the Israeli Occupation when even long time Christian towns like Bethlehem became majority Islamic for the first time ever). Now most of the Christians are tied in with the Coptic Church of Egypt than the Orthodox Church of Constantinople, but you are Correct, the Pope wanted BOTH branches to be more united with Rome than they had been since the Arab Invasion of the 600s.

My point is the Crusade went to majority CHRISTIAN territories, stopping while short of Damascus (A Moslem City that actually allied itself with the Crusading States between the First the Third Crusades).

As to retaking this Area, in the century prior to Mazikert the Byzantine Empire had made several marches into the Palestine and had started tow plans to re-take both areas for the Empire (Both plans died when the Emperor planing the expedition died of natural causes). The Arabs had almost no control of this area by this time, outside or their own tribal areas or Cities (and would NOT have any control till WWI), the control was in the hands of the Seljuk Turks, then the Mongols, than Timberlane and finally the Ottoman Turks (With the Greeks and then the Crusaders providing the Opposition to the Turks, the Mongols and Timberline Contact with both were minimal

Thus my point, the area was up for grabs the Seljuk Turks did not have the Strength to hold it, but the Byzantine and then the Crusaders were also to weak to take it from them. The Mongols were over extended when in the Middle east as was Timberlane, the middle east ended up as a set of small city-States till the Ottoman Turks who then set up an old fashion empire where these City-States paid tribute to them but otherwise were left alone, Such Empires last for the few centuries and then fade away, as the Ottoman empire did starting in the 1600s, but by then none of the European Powers were interested in Palestine given the destruction of the Ports under the Mumluks 400 years before.

Thus Pope Urban had good Reasons to participate in the Crusades, it meet with his long term goals of reuniting Christianity under Rome.

[patcox2]

74. Its wonderful to see real facts and analysis brought to this.

Instead of the simplistic ignorant anti-catholic bias which usually informs the subject.

[ET Awful]

75. It has nothing to do with anti-catholic bias, but rather with facts

It has to do with fact. To bring Egypt into a discussion of what violences Catholics perpetrated on Muslims during the Crusades is to stray well beyond the subject.

The FACT is that muslims were persecuted by Catholics who did so because "God wills it." That is fact, you can attempt to dance around the issue, but you sound exactly like the "historians" who argue that the massacre of native Americans was done for just and noble causes. You attempt to say anything you can to justify atrocities carried out under the guise of whatever cause you happen to support.

The FACT is that Catholics massacred Muslims on their own soil at the orders of the Pope. That is historic fact, and there is no amount of story telling that will eliminate that fact. Just as it is FACT that the Spanish Inquisition was also a result of Papal edict and result in death, pain and suffering on a massive scale. That is also historic FACT.

Trying to justify it doesn't eliminate the fact that it happened.

Anyone approaching the history of the Crusades with any honesty or integrity is forced to admit that first and foremost, the Crusades were fought to restore the so-called "Holy Land" to the control of Christians. This was the reason given to the Crusaders and the prime reason most joined the Crusades (that and the offer of absolution for all sin by Papal edict for those who fought in the Crusades).

" Why did Pope Urban II call for the recapture of the Holy Land? Three reasons are primarily given for the beginning of the Crusades: (1) to reclaim the Land of Christ and stop the Moslem invasion; (2) to heal the rift between Roman and Orthodox Christianity following the Schism of 1054; and (3) to marshal the energy of the constantly warring feudal lords and knights into the one cause of "penitential warfare." (from http://www.jesuschristsavior.net/Crusades.html )

The mere fact that the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" was created as a result of the First Crusade and placed under the rule of a European (Godfrey of Bouillon) goes a long way towards proving the true goal of the Crusades. If the goal was not to conquer and subjugate the Muslim occupants of the region, why continue beyond Constantinople and into Jerusalem? Simple, because the sense of religious fervor demanded that the "Holy Land" not be under the occupation and control of those the Vatican looked upon as infidels and savages.

'The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II to regain control of the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Christian Holy Land from Muslims. What started as an appeal to the French knightly class quickly turned into a wholesale migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe. Both knights and peasants from many different nations of western Europe, with little central leadership, travelled over land and by sea towards Jerusalem and captured the city in July 1099, establishing the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other Crusader states. Although these gains lasted for fewer than two hundred years, the First Crusade was a major turning point in the expansion of Western power, and was the only crusade — in contrast to the many that followed — to achieve its stated goal, which was possession of Jerusalem." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade

[patcox2]

77. Catholics did not massacre muslims in their own lands.

Their is your biggest lie, many smaller ones. The muslims then ruling over the land known as palestine were themselves conquerors who had taken control by force. As were the muslims who had conquered the balkans and spain.

Typical sophomoric self-hatred, knee-jerk rejection of your own culture.

[ET Awful]

78. Self-hatred? I don't think so. You know nothing about me or who

I am, so I'm not sure exactly where you draw your unfounded conclusions from. Here's a little hint for you, there's not one Catholic in my family tree.

Here's a little hint for you . . . Arabs are Semitic peoples, as are Jews, they have continuously occupied the area throughout history, the Islamic faith originated with Arabs. They lived there for centuries.

We are not discussing Spain and we are not discussing the Balkans,we are discussing the Crusades to the Holy Land (of which Spain is not part).

You can continue to spin all you like, but you aren't changing historical fact.

Quick, tell us how there came to be so many Catholics in England, France and Spain (or, for that matter, Europe in it's entirety) . . . I'll give you a clue, it's not because everybody there decided they wanted to be Catholic one day. There's this little thing called the Roman Empire that made that possible (and I'll give you three guesses how they came to be in power in those areas).

[mmonk]

117. Unless you aren't Christian, how

did you manage not to have a Catholic in your family tree? The Catholics and Orthodox were one at one time. Are you Jewish or Muslim or another religion or has your family tree never had any religious people? Just curious to understand the perspective.

[ET Awful]

118. Definitely not a Christian.

'Nuff said.

[mmonk]

131. And your tree?

[happyslug]

100. To ignore Egypt when it comes to Palestine is to ignore 5000 yr of History

Egypt has ALWAYS had a say in who controlled Palestine, be it the Pharaohs or the more Modern Islamic and Secular States. Saladin's Power base was Egypt, which he took from the Fatima Dynasty just before the Third Crusade. Saladin's uncle had controlled Syria but when an Invasion of Egypt by the Christian Crusader States showed how weak the Fatamine Dynasty was., Saladin went in and took it, first for his uncle and then for himself.

I have already mentioned the Mumluk, but even Napoleon moved into Palestine once he took Egypt, for control of Palestine secured Egypt from any land assault. Of all the conquest of Egypt, only one came from Libya and one from the Sudan, both came in with support from Native Egyptians and once that support was gone, the invaders were driven out. On the other hand Egypt has suffered many invasions from Palestine (Not from who lived in Palestine, but once Palestine was in the control of some other power, be it from present day Turkey, as was the case of Alexander, or Iraq and Iran, as did the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Persians etc. Egypt has also been invaded form the Sea, but this is rare, Napoleon being the most famous, Napoleon lost of his Fleet sealed the doom of his Army which is why it was rare for a Sea Invasion of Egypt, the invader had to have the Strongest Army AND strongest Navy to win such a war.

At the same time Palestine, under Egyptian control permitted Egyptian invasion of present Day Turkey and Iraq, and neither of these two powers liked that Possibility. Thus Palestine has been the center of a 5000 conflict between the people who lived in and now live in Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. None of them can afford any of the other two to control Palestine, and at the same time they want to control it to attack the other two. Most times the best compromise is to leave the area in some sort of Strong neutral hand, for example Israeli under King David and Solomon, with the conquest of the Northern Kingdom of Israeli by the Assyrians, Judea (and of Course Palestine between the First and Fifth Crusades).

On the other hand sometime Egypt wants to rule Palestine directly, Canaan before the Israeli invasion, Palestine under the Ptolemy and later Roman Empires, During the Mumluks fight with the Mongols, during Napoleon rule and even Under the British Rule of both Egypt and Palestine after WWI.

You can NOT understand anything about the Holy Lands without understanding their central locations between these three super powers of the Area.

As to the massacres done by the Crusaders, lets not use 21st century morality to judge people of that time period. First it was accepted Military tactic to massacre any city that fell in a storming of that city. First it is hard to control the blood lust of soldiers once it is up and they had seen a lot of their comrades killed before their eyes, often within feet of each other (and this was much more common in the days before Gunpowder, such as the days of the Crusades). I have participated in some fast paced, close in military maneuvers and one of the things you find out that when you are in such a situation you are acting on adrenalin and instinct. Training can control it to a degrees, but only to a degree (Thus why it was considered bad for a town NOT to surrender when its wall was broke even as late as the 1700s).

As to religious justification for going on the Crusade, while done, that was NOT the reason people went on the Crusade, it was to gain a place to rule. Most of the Crusading knights were second or third sons, their eldest brother would get everything from their parents. All they could hope for was to win a great place for themselves. When Pope Urban called for a Crusade it was the perfect call to arms for them, prospect of gaining some sort of fiefdom (Fiefed from the Eastern Emperor). Now the Eastern Emperor were hoping to use the Crusade to re-take Anatolia, but that did NOT give the Crusaders any land to call their own fiefs, thus the Crusaders went to Palestine leaving the Eastern Emperor in Anatolia. The aim on paper was to free the Holy Lands from the grip on the Moslem. In reality the Crusaders wanted to conquer Palestine and divide up the Holy lands into fiefdoms so each of the leading knights would be his own ruler and the knights under each would have a nice estate (and even the peasant Soldiers would have a piece of ground for his own).

The Crusader could do NONE of this if they stayed with the Emperor in Anatolia, thus after fighting one or two battles in Anatolia the Crusaders left the Emperor and attacked southward a directions the Eastern Emperor had no desire to go. While the Crusaders stated they were they to help the Eastern Emperor and to free the Holy lands, once they took most of Palestine they settled down to ruling their new fiefdoms.

[Fountain79]

99. Remind me...how long ago was that? n/t

[Spider Jerusalem]

128. Not quite that cut and dried...

considering that the Crusades were at least in party a response to aggressive militarism by Muslim rulers and the forced conversion of Christian populations in conquered territories. The Crusades were, to some degree, defensive (at least initially); to take the simplistic and ahistorical view that they were fought to subjugate Muslims and force them to accept Christ at sword-point is to ignore the fact that between 632 and 1095, when Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, Islam had conquered most of what HAD been Christendom (including North Africa, Palestine, etc; which had been largely Christian prior to Muslim conquest), and continued to make aggressive assaults against Christian territories (including the Byzantine Empire and much of Southeastern Europe; this aggression didn't really stop until the armies of Poland and Austria under Jan II Sobieski defeated the Ottoman Turks at Vienna in 1683).

[cigsandcoffee]

14. There does seem to be some kind of unwritten rule about that.

Christianity is often ridiculed on this forum. Islam is a sacred cow.

[treestar]

19. Considering the current political situation it makes sense

Like blacks can make jokes about whites and be funny, whereas whites making jokes about blacks would seem racist and dangerous.

It's who is on top. Besides, this country is the one that has the bad attitude towards the Muslims, collectively. Their issue is how the handle the Christians, ours is how we handle the Muslims. If we are what we say we are, we make some attempt to treat them fairly. What Bushco does in our name is not something we want to identify we, not all of us, so why would there not be Muslims of like mind?

As usual, these few Muslims who are criticizing the Pope somehow speak for all of them. Then why doesn't Bush speak for all of us?

[cigsandcoffee]

36. I don't like the black/white double standard, either.

I think this country can be forgiven for some of our "bad attitude" toward the Muslims, as it's difficult to find moderation and room for togetherness from an area that burned embassies and attacked diplomats over some political cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper (this is but one example).

I'm just not in to the idea of treating a culture with kid gloves because their extremists might go bananas, in some sort of appeal to hypothetical moderates.

[leesa]

105. Never mind the many thousands of innocent people murdered whnever we get

the urge to invade a Muslim country or slap sanctions on them. Cartoons?? It has NOTHING to dso with cartoons. It has to do with the appalling way we treat them.

[Craftsman]

20. There is extremism on both sides on the past

But in the now the majority of the extremism is from the muslims. You do not see Baptist blowing themselves up on buses.

[treestar]

31. They have the US military carrying out their work for them.

They don't need to resort to puny attacks.

Really, if 911 is a military attack, then it follows that terrorism is a military weapon. As such, it is a puny weapon compared to what the Baptists have going on their behalf. The Baptists wouldn't blow themselves up on buses if they had no nuclear-powered state behind them? They wouldn't burn anybody at the stake for heresy? There are some among them who would.

[ET Awful]

38. Bombs planted outside family planning clinics however are

fine and dandy? How about bombs planted in Olympic parks?

[Craftsman]

45. No but they are few and far between

[ET Awful]

54. Mmmmhmmmm, your point?

Quick, who said "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good..."

I'll give you a clue, it wasn't a muslim.

There is NO difference.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. Just a couple of days ago...

Some christian just rammed his care into a women's clinic and tried to set it on fire.

But they won't call it "terrorism."

Why do you suppose that is?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

50. I don't see Muslims doing that either, to be fair.

100% of baptists are not terrorists; 99.many% of Muslims are.

There are many very, very good reasons to dislike Islam - it's stances on women's rights, crime and punishment, gay rights, abortion, religious freedom, freedom of speech, separation of church and state, etc, etc - but terrorism is not amongst them. All those are things a great many Muslims have very unpleasant views on; only a very few are terrorists.

That said, I do agree that there is far too much reluctance to criticise Islam by liberals - I think it's not possible to be a liberal and not disapprove very strongly indeed of Islam without being a hypocrite - but terrorism is not one of them, and refering to it plays into the hands of those who think that supporting women's rights and opposing the execution of gays is cultural imperialism, and therefor bad.

We need more, and stronger criticism of Islam, but not like this. Anyone who discusses Islam in a way that isn't offencive to most Muslims (although by no means all - there is a non-trivial liberal muslim minority) is probably not accurately representing it. But terrorism is not a fair criticism.

[ET Awful]

55. The problem is not that people don't criticize Islam, the problem is that

people are surprised when Muslims react to it.

If a Grand Dragon of the KKK calls a black man a N*****r, the black man can react. If Fred Phelps calls a gay man a f****t, the gay man can react. But when the leader of the entirety of Catholocism insults all of Islam, Muslims are not allowed to react?

THAT is a double standard.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

95. Yes and no.

My impression is that, in general, the response to criticisms of Islam is not "you're wrong" but "you shouldn't be saying that".

In general, criticism of Islam is met not by rebuttal but by claims that it is insensitive/offensive/ignorant/irresponsible/cultural imperialism etc from moderates, and by fanaticism from fanatics.

There appears to be a widely held opinion among Muslims - and not just extremist ones - that not merely are certain specific criticisms of Islam incorrect, but that the activity of criticising Islam is morally wrong.

I also don't agree that westerners outside the loony right are not problematically unwilling to criticise Islam - I see very little criticism of Islam outside the far right, especially considering how much there is about it to attack.

[CJCRANE]

67. The muslims and rest of the world

saw the killing of 30,000 civilians in Iraq in an illegal war led by a born-again Christian who called it a "crusade".

If that's not extremism I don't know what is.

When the Democrats regain control and push forward human rights, international law and secular values then we can justifiably begin to reclain the moral high ground.

[deaniac21]

56. I thought Hindu was the sacred cow...

[CJCRANE]

63. Islam is not a sacred cow

but there is a clear RW attempt internationaly (particularly in America and UK) to demonize all muslims to create atmosphere that supports pre-emptive wars against muslim countries.

That is the context in which these kind of comments play out.

[Clark2008]

26. A critique from the 14th century is valid today?

Hardly.

It's not comparing any critiquing of Christianity to Islam. It's about using extremly antique information to judge the world's fastest-growing religion (pssstt.. that would be Islam).

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

62. Der Popenfuhrer just called Islam evil.

That's not a critique. That's hate speech.

And enough with this shit about "criticizing Christianity" shit.

You sound like that preacher upset over Rosie O'Donnell.

[Henny Penny]

91. no he didn't. n/t

[MADem]

11. No it isn't. The clown in a dress was quoting one of his ancient

predecessors, not speaking extemporaneously. He even repeated several times that he was QUOTING. What, should he have done the Doctor Evil "quote" sign with his fingers?

The offended Muslims need to learn to read in context, and to listen to the entire argument before getting all offended and outraged. They're doing the same shit the GOP does all the time...picking out a few words in a massive text, and extrapolating meaning that isn't there.

[tenshi816]

16. You're right, of course, but wouldn't you just

love to see the Pope using air quotes? I'd almost pay money to see him do that.

[MADem]

43. It would be worth seeing, for sure...and even more so if he wore

the big goofy sombrero he had on a week or so ago while doing the move!!

[tenshi816]

48. Sunglasses would be good too,

maybe a pair of Blues Brothers type Ray-Bans.

What a visual I'm getting here.

[cigsandcoffee]

83. "Clown in a dress." What does the Dalai Lama have to do with this?

Or his his dress OK, while the Pope's deserves ridicule?

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. The Dalai Lama doesn't wear a dress. He wears curtains.

I thought everyone knew that.

[MADem]

130. I find all religious costumes goofy and manipulative

The Pope pulled out the red sombrero the other day--not the little one, the big one. He looked like the Queen Mother at Ascot. The dresses and gold are just too much, IMO. But he is certainly not alone.

It's a technique that most religions use, from Shinto priests to mullahs to medicine men, and points beyond, to entice the believing public to NOTICE them. Their costumes somehow are supposed to convey authority. Oddball headdresses which serve little or no use but are large and colorful are a definite plus. Dresses seem to be popular across a wide variety of faiths, too.

Please be assured that I am an equal opportunity ridiculer in this regard.

That said, I think the Pope is getting a raw deal here. I don't think his actual speech (which no one wants to read, unfortunately--they'd rather bash the content without bothering) was outrageous at all. It was scholarly and sourced, as theological theses go. It asked for dialogue, but instead, all it got was misinterpretation, which might have well been deliberate.

[Henny Penny]

90. you might like to reconsider your opinion!

Pope QUOTES someone else saying these things...

but unfortunately gives the MSM the opportunity to throw petrol on the flames... an opportunity they seize with relish.

The pope is quoting the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus who says "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things that are only evil and inhuman, such has his command to spread by the sword the faith that he preached."

Somehow Long Dead Byzantine Emperor makes these claims doesn't have quite the same appeal.

The Vatican better step up security...

The whole speech is at the bbc website. Page 2 is the excerpt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pop...

Read the whole thing, you'll see it is very far from the Bush style offensive soundbite that is being represented.

or you can get a shorter version in my post here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2140865&mesg_id=2144013

[magellan]

3. Are the people being stirred up regular Muslims

...or mostly the moral equivalent of our RW Christian fanatics who seethe over US postal stamps honoring an Islamic holiday?

[treestar]

23. Exactly, what is it about one Muslim fanatic that gets Americans

to generalize about all Muslims?

To quote the Nation, we let a "tiny band of fanatics" who attacked on 911 to define the individuals of an entire, major world religion.

[Number9Dream]

4. Organized religion - the #1 cause of bloodshed in the world

If it isn't christian vs muslim, it's catholic vs protestant, or it's hindu vs sikh, or it's muslim vs jew... just pick a corner of the world...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

21. i guess the millions killed in pogroms in Soviet

and other forms of communism don't count...

sP

[treestar]

25. Sure they do. There was something religious about the Soviets

attachment to the ideological doctrine.

Religion is too narrow a term, maybe. It is the fanatic devotion to a narrow path that causes the problems. When you cross that line that you think something so right that you have to force other people into it "for their own good."

Broader thinking and education is a good thing.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Try "dogma." And take a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

Creationism, Soviet style.

[treestar]

34. The Soviets had control of the press, too.

They had it even better than the mainstream media when it came to "controlling" the masses through propaganda. Yet even when people risk being put in a gulag, they are those who will insist on trying to get the truth out.

[doubleplusgood]

33. Communism WAS a religion

they had infallible dogma, saints (Marx, Engels, etc.), holy places (Lenin's tomb), holy scriptures ("Das Kapital") & wanted total control over every aspect of life...kinda like today's radical fundies of Christian, Muslim, etc. persuasion.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

37. ok...as long as people see that

that is fine by me...most people will only acknowledge it as a political/economic movement...and like you, I disagree...

sP

[Hamlette]

46. religion isn't the cause, more the means to war. . .

wars (including this one) are greedy land (or resources) grabs (or a response to a greedy land grab). Religion gives the real motives cover and rallies the troops.

The Irish are pissed because the Brits invaded and treated them like slaves for hundreds of years and they want their 7 counties back. The people in Northern Ireland have lived there for several generations and now consider it their land/country. People who have written about terrorist attacks say each one of them can be traced to resentment against an occupying force (Osama wanted us out of Saudi Arabia.)

The problem is, you can't get the people to willingly lose their lives so the King (president/whatever) can have more land/power/oil/resources so you need the priests to tell the masses it is necessary to protect/worship god/allah, or more recently because we are more "civil", to protect "our freedom" "way of life" "civilization itself." Think opiate.

When they say there are no atheists in fox holes they don't mean because atheists do last minute conversions, its because atheists are less willing to crawl into fox holes for oil...I mean god.

And yes, Communism doesn't fit the model. But then again, its gone, or almost gone. It used extreme nationalism to rally the troops.

[ET Awful]

5. I guess he forgot about his predecessors who suggested

that God wanted them to do things like . . . say . . . massacre all the non-Christians in the Middle East? Or maybe that little Spanish Inquisition thing (which nobody expects by the way).

Sorry, but coming from the leader of a religion who for centuries sought to utterly destroy the Islamic faith, such remarks are incendiary, like it or not.

[treestar]

35. Even part of the same faith

In fact if he were honest, he would think the Protestants are just as "out" as the Muslims.

[Recursion]

81. Well, Benedict ran the Spanish Inquisition

Seriously.

Up until his election as Pope he ran the Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, which is the oldest of the Curia's congregations, and only took the name in 1834; before that it was known as Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis Sanctum Officium, or, more popularly, The Inquisition.

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!

[Ripley]

7. Oh really? How amazing!

It's not like any Christians get bent if Jesus is criticized or the Christian Soldier ethos is discussed as being the root cause of violence, intolerance and WAR.

How many American Christians get indignant and stirred up about the invasion and occupation of a couple of ME countries carried out in THEIR name? How many American Christians love Bush and the US flag because of what some Islamic cleric said?

Think.

[Recursion]

82. How many burn embassies of muslim countries though?

And incidentally, have you seen some of the editorial cartoons that get printed in Egypt, or Iran? If you can get a copy of Al-Quds or Al-Ahram some time, check out the cartoons and prepare to be shocked. Now, Quds and Ahram don't go after Christianity very much, because Egypt has a sizeable Christian population, but Judaism is fair game and you'll see cartoons that would make Himmler blush.

The corrupt leaders of these countries very disingenuously persuade their populations to riot over stuff like the Danish cartoons while happily supporting their state-run media's printing of much worse stuff about the west, Israel, and America.

[NC_Nurse]

9. What I want to knowis

if you really believe your faith, what does it matter what other people say about it? Isn't God on your side anyway?

[CBGLuthier]

10. They have a long memory

Whenever Popes start stirring shit up with Muslims bad things happened to the muslims.

[philosophie_en_rose]

15. Because the history of Catholicism is all warm and fuzzy, right?

of course, right.

:shrug:

[treestar]

17. It's not like we make any attempt to understand them

We just apply our standards and judge them negatively for coming up short.

Their complaining about this does not mean they approve terrorist acts "in their name." The same individuals may have nothing to do with terror attacks in the first place.

It is ironic the way we, in such an individualistic society, collectively judge them. The way we judge them, it is fair for them to blame us all collectively for what the US government does in our name in their countries.

No attempt is made to understand their view of having the US and its allies mess around in their countries on oil bidness.

[Codeine]

101. They make no attempt to understand the West, either.

It cuts both ways.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

22. So, if a top Jewish cleric says Jesus brought the Inquisition

it's all rigth, huh? No need to get upset about THAT, huh?

[treestar]

28. There probably are some "Christians" who would bomb a

synagogue over that, but would that be terra? Not in Bushie-language.

It has happened, too. Do they go after the white supremacists with equal energy? In fact, the white supremacists seem to have dropped from the news since 911. Yet one wouldn't think 911 would have made them anything but more rabid.

[geek tragedy]

24. Firebombings of Catholic churches will probably start

within a week.

I mean, they (the Muslims who respond to blasphemy with violence)got royally pissed at the Danish for something one jackass in Denmark published. Oy.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

27. That's probably what Pope Ratzi wants.

What other reason can there be for him to say that?

I'll bookmark this and get back to you within a week.

[geek tragedy]

32. Pope Ratzo is a rightwinger and is incredibly intolerant.

He probably forgot that things like the free press exist.

[geek tragedy]

119. Well, the attacks on Christian Churches have already begun.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060916/ap_on_re_mi_ea/palestinians_churches_5

Of course, it was Palestine, so they had to go after the next closest thing, Greek Orthodox churches.

[dogday]

30. That's a holy man for you....

Always making you say holy shit, did he just say that...

[Woolwich]

40. Double Standards

I can't support extremism whether motivated by religious or other fervent beliefs but there is a serious point to be made that muslims in general can appear intolerant of any perceived criticism of their religion. I have seen muslim protests in London where placards threatening death by burning of anyone critical of islam are openly paraded around the streets by thousands of demonstators, some of whom are dressed as suicide bombers. The same protests also brought us placards that praised the suicide bombers responsible for 9/11 and the 7/7 attacks. None of these actions were condemned by mainstream or moderate muslims, but rather drew requests for insensitive western authorities to ensure that muslims were protected from further provocation.

Equal standards of behaviour should be expected of all of us, with no exceptions whether we are christian, muslim, atheist or whatever.

[madrchsod]

41. he`s an old fool

who thinks the world should listen to what ever delusional thing he says. to bad he doesn`t clean up his own church before he criticize someone elses..or maybe the "church" is still pissed off cause the muslims saved the great works of the greeks and others while the "church" created the "dark ages" for their wealth and power. clean up your own "den of iniquity" before you speak of others,ratso...

[genie_weenie]

44. Islam should be ridiculed at every

opportunity. Just as the ideas of Democracy, Aristocracy, Social Darwinism, Christianity, Unrestrained Capitalism, Liberalism, Nationalism, Conservatism, and any idea or ideology or thought process.

The only thing worthy of respect are people. Man is the measure of things, not words.

And that is all Islam (or any of the other ideas I listed) is a bunch of words, despite what those who believe them profess.

[Taxloss]

69. Agreed.

No passes, no special treatment - if an idea's on the table, it can be criticised and insulted. It doesn't matter how strongly some people believe it. Catholicism is slowly waking up to the notion that a world of globalised communications requires a thicker skin - I hope Islam does as well.

[Codeine]

102. Well said!

:applause:

No sacred ideas, no protected thoughts.

[genie_weenie]

116. *No Sacred Cows* sounds good and

I'd like to think many agree with such a system until you start talking about _____.

[UTUSN]

47. Da pope has gone and pooped

That was going to be my subject title. You beat me to the post.


*******QUOTE*******

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[The Stranger]

49. Wake up. Damage from Christian terrorism far exceeds that of Muslim.

The Christian-inspired and sponsored terrorism that has enveloped the world with lying, torturing illegal wars launched on the basis of lies and the incarceration of thousands without due process -- the "War on Terror" has done far more damage to far more lives than has Muslim-inspired and sponsored terrorism that is hyped on your AM radio and on the television set.

[Taoschick]

114. Excuse me?

Christian inspired/sponsored terrorism?

Perhaps you can post a link for us to any news story where Christians murdered women and children in the name of God? Perhaps the equivalent of Allah Akbar! while sawing off the head of a civilian?

[Hatalles]

115. How about this?

Today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord. (Mein Kampf, Vol. 1, Ch. 2)

My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. (Munich Speech, April 12, 1922)

[CarlVK]

127. Are you unaware of the rampage called The Holy Inquisition?

It is a long and horrendously bloody period in human history - carried out hby the Catholic Church. MUCH too big a subject for a post here. Perhaps you should Google it.

[noonwitch]

51. This guy just shows how great of a pope JPII was

I didn't agree with JPII on a lot of things, but I always repsected him as a man who sought peaceful resolutions to world problems.

I'm so glad I am not a catholic, and am not required to believe that whomever is pope is God's representative on earth.

[deaniac21]

58. Yes, thank Goddess!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

59. Anyone attacking the pope for this needs to read what he actually said

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14848884/

His remarks were no more anti-Muslim than the statement "Hillaire Beloc believed that the Jews were responsible for most of Europes problems" is anti-semitic.

This, as far as I can see, is purely manufactured outrage caused by irresponsible reporting. The pope *didn't* say he thought Islam was evil, he said someone else did. I don't like the pope, but on this occasion he clearly hasn't done anything wrong.

[genie_weenie]

60. Sorry. I'm too filled with the Zeal

of Righteous Indignation to care what was actually said...

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

66. Oh, but you SHOULD follow his suggestion! See below.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

64. Thanks for the suggestion. I read what he actually said...

...instead of taking your word for it. Now read the below and tell me he isn't agreeing with the Emperor's quote. Much more than "he said someone else said."

In the seventh conversation 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.

[Taxloss]

68. He certainly speaks out against violent conversion.

I don't know how far this translates into an attack on Islam - but the emperor does attack Mohammed, and quoting that directly does seem somewhat incendiary.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

71. My thoughts exactly.

My spider-sense says he coated it with enough academic veneer to build plausible deniability.

Someone else in this thread distilled it down to the very core:

"Bring it on."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

89. Yes, because clearly the pope wants to offend Muslims pointlessly.

If the pope were opposed to Islam, his objective would be to stir up as much anti-Islamic feeling among non-Muslims for as little offence caused to Muslims as possible. Suggesting that he would deliberately endorse something that would offend Muslims but not stir up anti-Islamic sentiment (or, indeed, contain any substantive criticisms of Islam), and then deny that he endorsed it, is just strains credibility well past breaking point.

The only people who will take offence at this are a) those (I suspect including you) who are actively looking for excuses to take offence at things the Pope says and b) those who either don't hear or don't think about what he actually said.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

92. No, not pointlessly. -nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

96. You'll need more than that to convince me of anything.

His comments do no possible good to him, nor do they advance any agenda he could believably have - they bring him and Catholicism into disrepute, they stir up anti-Catholic feeling among Muslims and others, they don't stir up anti-Muslim feeling in Catholicism, they won't increase his popularity amongst anti-Muslim catholics because he's hade it clear he doesn't endorse the emperor, they make him look thoughtless at best.

Pointless, and clearly accidental.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

88. He clearly isn't agreeing with it.

He refers to it as "startling brusqueness" - only an offhand criticism, because it's only peripheral to what he's talking about, but clearly not in any way an endorsement. The part of it he cares about is the dismissal of spreading the faith through violence.

He's talking about violent conversion, a relevant quote just happens to come with an attack on Islam as an integral part of the sentence, this is nothing to do with what he's talking about. The only people who could take offence at this are the - many - people who are actively looking for excuses to take offence at things the Pope says, or people who haven't actually thought about what he was saying.

[Xenotime]

61. RW is totally out of control. These fundies are out of control

[CJCRANE]

73. Yep, the only people

this kind of talk benefits are extremists on both sides.

I wish also there was some major spokesman for human rights and secular values in the West but it seems like the fundies are determined to have their clash of civilizations (in reality a clash of extremists of the Abrahamic faiths who have more in common with each other than with the rest of us).

[JI7]

79. did they condemn Ahmadinejad ?

i agree with your comments. i can understand people being offended. but there does seem to be a case of showing outrage at things done to criticize Islam itself and not much when something bad is done in the name of Islam by Muslims.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. I, frankly, have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.

That sounds, to me, like Jerry Falwell saying something bad about black people. And then the black people get upset. And then you wonder why all the black people are bad at Falwell instead of condemning OJ Simpson.

:shrug:

[retread]

84. This morning I read, "Anyone that accuses Islam of intolerance risks

death." I'm putting that one with Cheney's "humanitarian bombs."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

93. Who said that? Somebody from the Taliban?

They're getting uppity again in Afghanistan. Or was it someone else? Link please. That's a delightfully ironic statement, in the vein of "beatings will continue until morale improves."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

97. Thankfully, it's not true.

There are, however, depressingly large swathes of the globe where it is, and even in the West anyone who accuses Islam of intolerance risks being excorciated to a ludicrous degree.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. Here's some words for you boys: "Gays. Birth Control. Science. Sexuality."

"Rational Thought, Separation of Church & State, and evidence-based understanding of the Universe".

See, people... you hate ALL the same things--- You have WAY more in common than you think!

History shows that the Vatican, as well as the Religious Right Whackjobs who have hijacked the US Government, CAN work together with Fundamentalist Muslims when there is a worthwhile common goal, like keeping people from using birth control or making sure uppity women don't start getting too many "rights":

http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6523

[FoxOnTheRun]

86. Nothing new

Benedikt XVI
as HJ and Flak soldier





They all desperately want the Clash of Civilizations and the church does the cheer-leading, again

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that Europe and the United States must unite to head off a "war of civilizations" arising from a nuclear-armed Middle East.
ADVERTISEMENT

In an opinion column in the Washington Post, the renowned foreign policy expert said the potential for a "global catastrophe" dwarfed lingering transatlantic mistrust left over from the
Iraq war.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060913/ts_alt_afp/usattackseurope

[Supersedeas]

87. the Pope's language is an incitement of more violent rhetoric

[WinkyDink]

94. Is there something incorrect about what that emperor said? Was that NOT

Muhammad's command, and did he NOT lead armed forces to accomplish his mission?

[Cornerstone]

98. Yeah Fountain79 I agree

The Islamics are seeking to 'humble' all to their ill-will and ways and as we see, that goes for the Pope, the Vatican and Catholicism. They figure they've got Bush kow-towing to them by tricking that idiot to play their game according to their rules.

They've all but made Spain and France 'submit.'

So let's see, now the Pope uttered what? Doesn't matter that they distorted what he was saying, 'bow, apologize, submit' to Islam.

This is a dangerous battle a-brewin'. I'm not Catholic, never have been but hope the Pope doesn't 'submit' and 'apologize' or those Islamic derelicts will claim it as victory.

[leesa]

107. Lots of bigots on this thread.

[QC]

111. lots of self-righteous prisspots, too. n/t

[CarlVK]

124. Apparently the Pope is one of them.

Which is a disgrace, because he is traditionally one of the most powerful voices for peace in the world.

[CarlVK]

103. Give me a break. Why would you excuse inciting Muslims at this time?

with all the world's going through right now? Whats the point? what's to be gained by inflamatory rhetoric like this?

It's stupid. Pope Hitlerjugend should apologize and learn to watch his damn mouth.

[Codeine]

104. Muslim anger grows over every damned thing!

Idiotic religious zealots of every stripe disgust me, and should disgust all progressives. Nobody hestitates for a second to lambast the Pope for his comments but the chorus of apologia for Islam is as predictable as Bush being a dumbass.

[leesa]

106. Maybe because they are the ones getting blown up and murdered by the tens

of thousands. That's not happening to Christians or Jews.

[CarlVK]

126. "Islam" is not the problem. Fanaticism is.

And your post horrendously mischaracterizes Muslims in general. "Muslims" do not get angry over every damn thing. I know because I am close to my local Muslim community. They are workaday folks who pay their taxes, have kids to worry about, and contribute to their commmunity like everyone else does. The ones you decry are the tiny sliver of a minority who are actually nutcases. Please be more discerning in your commentary on them.

Let me add this, only a complete bigot and or fool would knowingly inflame Muslims at this point in time, with all the troubles we are having around the world. The Pope's comments were completely out of line, inflammatory and unhelpful to the cause of world peace. If he had a shred of honor he'd make a sincere apology for them.

[savemefromdumbya]

108. The man isn't worthy of being a pope

he' just one of 'them'

[lisainmilo]

109. Pope doesnt want war in name of religion....

“It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary,” she said Friday. “What Benedict XVI makes clear is a decisive and uncompromising rejection of any use of violence in the name of religion.”


He needs to speak to Bush!!!!

[bobbieinok]

110. and how did Charlemagne convert the Saxons???

As I recall reading, he led them to a river and said be baptized or die.

If you've forgotten, Charlemagne was crowned Holy Roman Emperor in 800. The Holy Roman Empire was officially ended by declaration by Napoleon in 1806. (One reason Nazis talked about a 'thousand year Reich.' The HRE was the first Reich, the German Empire of 1871 was the second, the Nazis wanted to be the third.)

Napoleon defeated the Prussians in the battle of Jena in 1806. Hegel, teaching at the U of Jena at the time, wandered the streets of Jena during the battle.

[Dorian Gray]

113. I'm a little unsure what I think about this right now.

I've been a little insulated this past week, due to two deaths of family friends, attending wakes and funerals. So, I read this story tonight. I, being Catholic, tend to have a knee jerk response thinking that it's an overreaction on the part of Muslim leaders. But, I'm trying to maintain non-discriminatory thinking. But, I do look at it, and I wonder if the comments are worth the stories of elevated pique that is happening. I just don't know. It seems as though there are some outbreaks of violence, though nothing in comparison to the Dutch cartoons. And while I found the Dutch cartoons reprehensible, I also found the reaction to those cartoons to be reprehensible.

[Dorian Gray]

123. I've read the text of his comments in full

and now I have a stronger opinion. The text is actually a theologically fascinating read. I can understand some umbrage brought up at using the quote from the source the Pope used, however, his points are actually well thought out and introspective. I see no insult in his words regarding Islam. As a matter of fact, he holds it to a relatively high ideal, believing that the Truth, as laid out in the Quaran, is not a truth that can be claimed through violence. He truly believes that faith is stronger if found through reason rather than violence, and he believes that the Quaran advocates that, as well.

I know that there can be a lot of discussion regarding the text of his speech, and I would love to see a well reasoned debate about that in its own topic. But, I find that the anger that is resulting from the speech is in taking his comments and the intention in which they were made totally out of context.

Here's a link to the speech (which I considered adding whole to this post, but it's LONG!):

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

[nadinbrzezinski]

120. This is a reflection of the world we live in

if this was said, in the context of the lecture it was said, ten years ago... some might have been a tad annoyed, but that is it

Today... everybody is looking for an excuse to go to jihad, crusade, what have you

It seems we are on the precipice of a real WW III (noticed the talk, haven't you) and people are just trying to stir shit up

This pope is also quite right wing... I am betting that if John Paul said this, in the same context, a lecture, ten years ago... nobody would have said a word.

Oh and to add... reality is that Mohamed did try to conquer and spread the faith using a sword.. but so did many Chsitians, (crusades anyone) and Jews (shall we mention Moses and his followers) So having a knee jerk reaction over the commments of expansion of the faith through the use of a sword... well it happens, it is called history.

[Zhade]

121. Well, of course - Ratzinger is a religious bigot.

NT!

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[1932]

132. This is NOT an issue where the Catholic Church leaders' hands are clean.

This is an indictment that applies to so many leaders who claim to be religious --whether kings, popes, emirs and sultans -- and is rightly offensive to the vast majority of worshippers of all religons who love peace and in no way endorsed killing in the name of their religion.