Do you think Pope Benedict XVI's recent remarks warrant an apology?

[im10ashus]

I'll go first. Yes.

[Poppyseedman]

1. No.

The Muslims need to apologize for the period between the 7th and 16th century when Islam was forced down the throats of western civilization at the point of a sword.

Of course all religions at some point in history have a tainted period so making apologizes are pretty meaningless

I just wish radical Islam would have their reformation already and move on to be a religion of peace as they so vocally and often claim.

[im10ashus]

5. Good points.

I can respect that. Thanks! :hi:

[hlthe2b]

10. Pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

Or does all that history of similar Christian attrocities not count? :shrug:

Yes, I'm a Christian, but my heavens.. We have become such hypocrits. Ratzinger is far from the pious 'Pope' and I do believe he is ultimately as bad for Catholocism as those RW shyster preachers are for Protestant Christianity, here in the US. At a time like this, the last thing we need is for such a potentially influential leader within the Vatican to poke sticks at the Muslim world.

[Bill McBlueState]

15. ok, fine

The Muslims need to apologize for the period between the 7th and 16th century when Islam was forced down the throats of western civilization at the point of a sword.

Of course all religions at some point in history have a tainted period so making apologizes are pretty meaningless

I just wish radical Islam would have their reformation already and move on to be a religion of peace as they so vocally and often claim.

(I'm not a Christian, so hopefully I can call the kettle black without being obliged to comment on the color of the pot.)

[im10ashus]

17. Hopefully the Christian's can do the same.

There's blood on their hands too. :shrug:

[AngryAmish]

46. The Church has repeated apologized

The Crusades, Inquisitians etc.

[bryant69]

21. Both should count

But usually people pick one or the other - and that's mistake - either their atrocities are what counts or ours are what counts.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[midnight]

98. It does make one wonder why the Pope would say something

about a extremely old statement that may or may not of actually been stated. But it does remain a fact that the Pope was very judgmental toward another religion. Why? What is the agenda. Catholicism here in the states is up to it's eyeballs in legal wranglings over improper actions between men, and boys. I can't get my head around why this was even done?

[Jed Dilligan]

113. Not with some.

The 300-pound elephant in the room is that one of the most powerful Christian leaders in the world has made a speech in which Islam is described as "evil and inhuman." This is not a case of "Oopsie! Guess I should've quoted St. Thomas Aquinas instead." It was deliberately inflammatory. If he didn't know what he was doing, he wouldn't be Pope, would he?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

153. That's deliberately misrepresenting what he said

He made a speech in which he said that *someone else* described Islam as "evil and inhuman"; he mentioned that because it was part of a quotation he wanted to make reference to another part of.

The pope did *not* say or even imply that Islam was evil or inhuman.

The suggestion that it was deliberately inflammatory strikes me as silly, because it implies that the pope is doing something which is clearly not in any possible interest he could have. Inflaming non-Muslims against Muslims, conceivably (although it appears that he doesn't want to do that, either), but suggesting he'd deliberately inflame Muslims against Catholics is just silly.

[stepnw1f]

27. That Is Ridiculous!

Then according to your line of thinking, everybody should be killing each other... no one should ever apologize unless it's your team, right poppyseedman? Your statement smacks of fanaticism. You go back to the "7th and 16th century" as an excuse not to apologize?! Why then, anyone could do the same, and then where the hell would we all be? Eye for an eye? What a whacked out line of thinking.

[Bluerthanblue]

44. agreed, ever heard of the CRUSADES..?and ummmm while

i am one who loves Christ- i'm ashamed and infuriated by the way people have done GREAT evil in this world, and attempted to hide it behind Christ's name.

How many people were killed during the Crusades????- In the name of 'Christ'? How many people have been killed tortured and made to suffer for "the Holy Roman Empire, and the Church"??????????????
I don't think that is something that can be answered honestly, no matter how long we count.

I for one believe He would say "MAY IT NEVER BE"- "You never knew me"

[Jed Dilligan]

114. ...as opposed to the point of a musket, cannon, machine-gun...

...smallpox blanket, inquisitor's rack, cossack sabre...

[bridgit]

2. decidedly not, it is time for islam to grow up...

imo of course

[xchrom]

3. sanctimonious superiority is no excuse for glittering generalities

intended to set people on fire.

yes -- he should apologise.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mark414]

6. no way

for a number of reasons...the first is that i don't understand why anyone who says anything these days that offends even one person is usually called upon to apologize when in reality we shouldn't have to apologize for half of the things we say "i'm sorry for." speak your mind! then...apologize?

this guy is a very dogmatic religious leader - what on earth else do they expect him to believe, that islam is a peaceful religion and that he wants it to co-exist with catholicism? anyone who thinks that is fooling themselves...he's the POPE! that's his job.

and finally he shouldn't apologize because he's right! it is an uncomfortable truth for many people here and many people outside of here, that is Islam is NOT a peaceful religion. there are many people who practice it peacefully but read the damn book! "radical islam" isn't being radical at all - they're following their faith 100% - just like "radical christians" aren't radicals, they're true believers who do what the bible says. they're both fucking nuts and ultimately the major problem is religion itself, but like we'll ever see a people enlightened enough to say "we can live without religion"

[WinkyDink]

12. You're 50% right---the Islam part. But Christ advocates peace,

loving thine enemy, forgiving 70 times 7, forbearing casting the first stone, and turning weapons into plowshares. Christian radicals most decidedly pervert His words.

[mark414]

14. nahh they just prefer the old testament

and jesus says plenty of shit about the horrors of hell and how you'll pay for eternity if you don't honor his father...the beatitudes and the sermon on the mount, whoever the hell said em was one wise man...but this jesus character was one bi-polar fellow

the basic premise underlying both is that you are right and everyone else is wrong

[Bluerthanblue]

50. beg to differ-

Jesus' most angry words and actions were reserved for people who acted like todays right wing religious zealots.
He was angrier at those who condemned others with thier words, rules and rituals than he was with the man who is said to have betrayed him. And when Simon Peter used his sword to try to defend Jesus life, he was not only rebuked by Jesus, he was told that "Those who live by the sword will die by it"-

The basic premise of Jesus - if people would really be honest enough to admit it- is to live your life as if you were less important than the person next to you. A life of service to others, seeing that others needs were met before your own- and being the one to do the 'hard' stuff, even when it hurts.
Think about it- if people ACTUALLY did that, in earnest, what a wonderful world this would be-

Kindness is the best tool to destroy hate. Sometimes it seems like a waste of time, energy and life, but in the end, kindness will win out. If I'm wrong, if hate and killing are the answer, then I don't want to live in a world like that after all, what is the point????

Read the sermon on the mount again, read the beatitudes- Those words are JESUS'- The accounts given in the bible, of Jesus' actions- hangin out with whores, living like a hippy, not looking to make a bunch of money off the sweat of other peoples brows--- healing the kinds of people 'good Jews' would not even TOUCH- (because of uncleanness) and expecting absolutely nothing in return....
The actions match the words- and his death just underscores the reality that he was willing to die for what he preached.

[imfreaky]

19. this is a good point

As a Christian, it frustrate me to no end, how some people try to make Christianity anything other than a "peaceful" religion. The whole concept of Christ is FORGIVENESS. We are not perfect. Plus I feel compelled--Yes by the Holy Spirit (That's toungue and cheek folks)to remind us what we all know. There are radicals in all religions and sections of govt and society. Taking anything to far usually ends up making someone a fool or worse gets someone killed. ..... or at least indigestion.

Peace
Imfreaky

[LeftishBrit]

36. Agree on the need for apologies all round

All political and religious leaders who use their religion in a perverted fashion to gain power and oppress others should apologize, and change their behaviour - or get out! And those who have done so in the past should be repudiated.

And that applies to those who pervert Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, or whatever religion you care to name.

[JI7]

48. that's so true, just about all reigions which are followed like that

people who can't seem to go beyond the literal . just like the right wing with evolution. no matter how much proof is presented they come back with "but the bible".

[WinkyDink]

7. Yes, WHEN I HEAR ANY MUSLIM APOLOGIZE for ANY thing.

We can start with the murders of Christians in Indonesia.

[Bluerthanblue]

45. if so, you have lost everything that

matters, because YOU are having your life dictated by those you see as your enemy.

And your enemy has recruited you- without you even realizing it.

"forgive us, AS (in like measure) we forgive those who tresspass against us"-

That my friend, includes those who murder Christians in Indonesia.

[CarlVK]

142. You changed the subject.

But I suspect you knew that.

[Hav]

8. .

Apology if it was intended as a slam against Muslims, otherwise a clarification would be wise as the media just loves to only present the quote without the context. Before quoting he even emphasized its "startling brusqueness".
Without any doubt though, there could have been a way better way to make the point he wanted to make.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf

[CJCRANE]

9. Other - not sure.

I thought the Pope was meant to be infallible so I'm not sure if he can apologize for his own words.

I'm sure that he will make some of sort of statement of regret that his words have been misunderstood.

[RB TexLa]

60. The pope or an ecumenical council is infallible regarding doctrinal

issues. Not every word that man utters.


891
"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm

[ovidsen]

11. Crusades by all names are bad

Spreading religion by the sword sucks, no matter what the religion is. Did Pope Benedict take the Quran out of context? Then so are a handful of other "Islamic extremists" who aren't coy about their goal of universal Sharia law as they interpet it, by whatever means (including violence) necessary. It's a shame when a small group of insane acolytes defile an entire faith. Any faith.

No, I don't think the Pope should apologize. He was pointing out to Islam that there's a few cubbyholes in it's otherwise grand house that need tidying up, and that it's best done from the inside. And he's right.

[im10ashus]

16. Good points, I'll agree.

I've not read the Quran, so am going to leave that one to the religious scholars. But you've made a good argument. Thanks!

:hi:

[zanne]

13. He can't apologize.

I no longer consider myself a Catholic, but I remember my grammar school catechism, and it stated that the pope is infallible in matters of religion. In other words, he can't be wrong so he can't apologize.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

43. Not quite.

The Pope is only considered infalible when he speaks "Ex Cathedra" and only in matters of Catholic Dogma defining faith or morals.

He was referring to a statement by a Byzantine emporer, who was under threat of Muslim invasion, speaking specifically of the statements by Muhammad to "spread by sword the faith."

Like it or not, the Holy text and foundation of Islam preaches of killing the infidel in the words of its own prophet and founder.

Christianity is based Fundamentaly on the teachings of jesus Christ and four books in the Bible. The Old Testament is used as background to understand where the early Jews were coming from and put things in historical context. The prime Prophet and Founder of Christianity preaches forgiveness and peace, not killing your enemy/infidel. Those that claim such and carry out Crusades as God's will are perverting the words of Christ. However, thos carrying out Jihad are taking the words of Muhammad to heart.

[Dorian Gray]

76. That is incorrect information.

The Pope is not infallible. Well, he can be, if speaking Ex Cathedra in relation to doctrinal issues. However, in this case he was giving a speech and he used an old quote to illustrate a point and further his discussion. There is nothing infallible about the statement he made about Islam. He was quoting another's belief and speaking about the necessity of logic in turning one's heart toward belief over violence and a sword in doing so. It had nothing to do with doctrinal issues.

[Joe Bacon]

18. He's just as stupid as everyone else in the Jesus business.

Really, he's just as ignorant as his fellow crackers Falwell and Robertson. But then, he does have to get the attention of the (m)asses away from those child molesting priests, doesn't he?

[imfreaky]

20. I'm not gonna waste my time arguing your point

but you have an amazing way with words and I'm confident you thought this one through. Thanks for the insight.

[Dorian Gray]

77. "Crackers?"

[LostinVA]

128. Whaat?

[terrya]

22. Yes

He was, as I understand it, quoting a 13th Byzantine emperor about Muslims. He should never had made those comments in the first place.

Yes, he should apologize.

[cgrindley]

23. If your religion contains any advice on physically waging a holy war

then your religion is a stupid one. That goes for every single religion on the planet.

[Lindacooks]

127. Where in the Koran does it say anything about a holy war?

Just because some fundies in the religion are calling for it doesn't mean the RELIGION calls for it.

[CarlVK]

144. Jihad is for self defense only - and has limits (LINK)

There is much to this little understood concept. It is not a free for all for rampaging murderers. Check it out ->

http://muttaqun.com/jihad.html

[Eugene]

24. Benny "sincerely regrets" that Muslims were offended.

Pope Said to Be Upset Muslims Offended - AP

The Pope cited hateful remarks wrapped in a thin layer of "I quote"'s.
If his goal was dialogue rather than incitement, dredging up a quote
calling that other faith evil was a dumb thing to do.

Pope Benedict is leading the Church in to a new century.
Is it the 21st or the 14th?

[im10ashus]

25. Well, it's as close as he'll get to an actual apology.

Maybe he just needs a good :spank:?

[terrya]

42. Ah, the famous "non apology apology"

Try again, Benny.

[saltpoint]

26. No. The Pope's comments were quotations of long-standing

published passages and therefore fair game.

It's not the Pope's fault his Islamic detractors in this instance haven't read the text or live in cultures where such scholarship is not encouraged or allowed.

I thought a bit of Rushdie's novel and the radical response to their "anti-Islam" passages. Some called for Rushdie's head on a platter for those "blasphemous" passages. I stand with the writer and the reader against the tyranny of censorship. The Pope, whether one likes him much or not, is a scholar.

Our current president is not.

I wonder how many of his Islamic detractors can match his scholarship?

If his command of those texts is superior to theirs, they need to hush a minute and risk learning something.

There were three interesting letters on this in today's NYTimes:

_ _ _ _ _
When the Pope Talks About Islam (3 Letters)

Published: September 16, 2006

1. To the Editor:

Re “Muslims Condemn Pope’s Remarks on Islam” (news article, Sept. 15): Pope Benedict XVI, in an address concerning the intricate relationship of religion, reason and peace, included an aside in which he referred to contemporary Islamic practice and quoted a late medieval Byzantine emperor deploring violence and forced conversion.

Removed from context, the aside has been widely reported as an attack upon the holy prophet Muhammad or upon Islam, which it most certainly was not; so much so that the pope’s primary focus upon the way religion and reason can lead to peace has been swept aside.

Our political discourse has had the effect of indicating only the translated quotation’s unattractive choice of words, and the ensuing controversy has, in secular circles at least, largely ignored the felt rejection of violence in effecting conversion — a most important point and one on which pope and prophet both agree.

John C. Hirsh
Washington, Sept. 15, 2006
The writer is an English professor and member of the Medieval Studies Program at Georgetown University.

2. To the Editor:

Many people were “converted” to Islam by the sword. Yet so, too, were many converted to Christianity. A reason many countries outside of Europe are predominantly Christian was the heavy-handed agenda of European churches in the post-Columbus era.

Christopher Wanjek
Baltimore, Sept. 15, 2006

3. To the Editor:

It is fascinating to me that the Muslim community, many of whose religious and political leaders routinely vilify and attack Christians and Jews, cannot listen to any criticism of their own actions or beliefs.

At what point will the non-Muslim world demand the same “respect for the other” that a Turkish official suggests the pope should have afforded to Muslims?

Virginia Bayer
New York, Sept. 15, 2006
_ _ _ _ _

[Hoping4Change]

34. Great post and I completely agree with your point that

"It's not the Pope's fault his Islamic detractors in this instance haven't read the text or live in cultures where such scholarship is not encouraged or allowed."

[muriel_volestrangler]

49. So it's OK to be critical of another religion, as long as it repeats

an ancient criticism?

Wouldn't it be better to consider if the criticism was actually justified?

[Henny Penny]

54. Its ok to support an academic treatise with quotes

from previous authors.. particularly if you're addressing a bunch of academics in an academic context. The offending quote was part of the presenting the background part.

You ask "Wouldn't it be better to consider if the criticism was actually justified?" ... well yes if that is the subject of your thesis. But it wasn't. How was poor old Benny to know that the world's media were waiting with baited breath to hear his views on "Faith, Reason and the University - Memories and Reflections "....

I have to say I never thought I'd be defending Benny in this way on DU... but these days as you might say yourself "Its a funny old world".

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. But Muhammad was not "the background" of his talk

which wasn't about Islam at all; so to suddenly bring up a 600 year old claim that all that Muhammad had added to religion was "evil and inhuman" seems pretty gratuitous to me. If you're going to quote something like that, you ought to make it clear it's not your own view (and there was no criticism of the 14th century emperor in the original speech).

[Henny Penny]

99. He was merely doing what many academics do

and showing that whatever ideas were being discussed were not necessarily new.

In any case it is absolutely clear that the pope is not saying... "Here's what I really think about Mohammed"....


Are we to allow a situation to develop where we cannot even quote long dead individuals who say something we may disagree with? Its a nonsense. Such a concept would make reporting the news impossible and do untold damage to academia. In fact I would go so far as to say that it would do far more damage to our civilisation than any terrorist plot.


The pope was ambushed and already there seems to be dead Italian nun as a consequence. Still, maybe Italy will toughen up on the war on terra wouldn't that be an unforeseen blessing.....

[saltpoint]

59. Not the claim being made. A scholar may examine Aristotle's obvious

bias against "barbarians," but rationally observing that the bias was unfounded.

Aristotle's most famous student, Alexander, repudiated the old man's bias as vehemently and demonstrably as he humanly could. And then some.

A scholar can't understand western civilization unless some study of Constantinople takes place. It's a bloody damned trajectory from antiquity on through the split in the Church, but Benedict is said to be one of the most capable students of that span.

As such, he's entitled to quote extant texts.

Phillip II chose Aristotle because of his brilliant teaching, literally teaching fit for future kings. If I prefer Alexander's much more evolved world view of cultural equality, it means less unless I know his teacher taught him differently. Aristotle's own casting of Macedonians held that they were "barbarians," and that would include Phillip himself, who became his employer.

I'm a Westerner and I have access to this rich, complex, often-contradictory stuff, but I have no respect for anybody in Palestine yesterday who attacked non-Catholic Christian churches just because something the Pope quoted pissed them off.

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. But Benedict did not make any observation about Manuel II

he just quoted him - first saying that the only things Mohammed came up with were "evil and inhuman" - a claim that has nothing to do with the subject of faith and reason; and then actually quoting the emperor on the subject of reason and religion, and developing that line of argument. Since he doesn't come back to Islam at all, it looks as if he used it just as an example of "a wrong religion". Of course he has the right to say so, but it's not what I'd expect of a church leader if they're trying to build a good relationship wit hanother world religion.

[saltpoint]

104. Atrocities by both Christianity and Islam's radical elements make a

sad and long list. No argument from me there.

Whether Benedict used accusation by implication in that passage, I can't say with certainty, but I doubt it; I would agree with you that he might have written it differently to make his objection to violence an untargeted point in the world audience.

Istanbul/Constantinople is a liminal city, one where world religious tradition overlay and criss-cross. For many centuries. The Pope, a scholar, would have known that, and the scholars he was addressing would have known it.

His quotation in and of itself is not an offense. And the Catholic Church has made significant and repeated apologies to groups which in the past have been victims of Church oppression or violence. Quite a bit more so, in fact, than radical Islam.

This speech is not in that category. The West may be imperfect, but radical Islam's claim that the West is "decadent" is far more explosively dismissive than the Pope quoting old texts. I personally don't think radical Islam is going to prevail. My guess is that the scholars who heard the Pope this past week don't think so either. Modernity and secularism are closing in on these folks, and they now live in a world in which Danish cartoons can be transmitted across the globe in a matter of seconds, and no amount of firebombed churches in Palestine is going to stop those transmissions, or the impulse to publish them, or the world's belief that they should not be censored or withheld.

After you firebomb a church, what's next? Another church. Then another. But soon they're all gone. What's accomplished? Radical Islam doesn't represent the anonymous, peace-making Muslim in Indonesia, say, whose daily ruminations on the Koran generate affirmation and peace. That Muslim is not firebombing churches and could probably care less about what the Pope says to a hall of scholars in Germany.

A case could be made that a scholar might want to gussy up the public relations arm to avoid conflict, but in the West, scholars have much more play in the wheel, and the Pope's speech does not rise to objectionable offense, in my opinion.

[NoodleyAppendage]

66. Oh, I see. As long as you quote someone, whatever you say is fine!

In that I case, I guess you would say that it would be o.k. for George Allen to quote David Duke? Or, how about Heider quoting Hitler?

J

[saltpoint]

68. Senator Allen's evident bigotry eclipses the need to quote David Duke.

I don't find the two constructions to be parallel.

[Dorian Gray]

79. Have you read the piece?

It's quite a long read, and the context has little to do with the quote. It's academically impressive, and it's actually worthy of quite a debate. Much more so than just condemning him for "quoting" the source.

Here is a link to the actual speech. It's fascinating. Long, as well. My original opinion was a little wary of Benedict until I read the piece:

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

[saltpoint]

Good idea to post the entire speech to allow folks to get

a feel for Benedict's range.

I'm not on board with the politics of the Church by and large, but this man is a scholar.

[Dorian Gray]

84. He's definitely a scholar.

His works are dense with theology, and often difficult to grasp or understand. Particularly for a mind that wanders like mine does.

I do have to say, I don't particularly trust him as Pope yet. I had an affinity for JPII that I just don't have for Benedict. I feel like my back is up, nervous about what he will say or do or enact in the name of Catholicism. This is just one instance where I can not believe the hoopla being made over this piece. It's long, it's complicated, it discusses the dehellenization of the theological world and the de-deification of Christ. It tackles complex notions about acceptable religious dogma in today's world, and it juxtaposes our current beliefs with those of past religious and political leaders. The quote is unfortunate, but I didn't get the sense that Benedict agreed with the speaker that Muhammed only brought evil into the world. It actually discusses the differences in tones in the various suras of the Quar'an, in which scholars believe were written at vastly different periods of his life. And, we must remember, that the Quar'an is a book of revelation to Islam, and the whole is to be read as one. It's sort of organic in that way. The ideas feed off of one another, and it breathes as a whole.

Benedict does hold some fault here, though. He is the leader of a major world religion, and he needs to step away from sheer academics at times. He is not a warm man, and he must be aware that his persona is considered to be one that is ultra-conservative and mistrusted by many in the world. He needs to pick and choose his words carefully, as he should be setting the example for discourse for the rest of us Catholics. Many of us have our own minds, of course, but there are others who will only hear the soundbites played on the evening news and believe that Islam is a bloody religion. "Hey, the Pope thinks so, so I can hate them!" I don't believe for a second that is his intention, but he is in the position where he needs to expedite diplomacy and grace before all else.

[saltpoint]

85. Yes. Benedict is the career-track monk, the inward thinker & intellect.

I wouldn't blame you for your misgivings on his eventual stewardship of the Church. It remains in question. I would have preferred to see the Cardinals elect one of their land reform Central or South American colleagues to the Papacy, but now that it has not happened that way, I'm at least going to defend Benedict's erudition.

This in an era when the President of the United States is reading MY PET GOAT while 19 hijackers ram commercial jets into the World Trade Center. I don't believe Bush has completed a sentence in his life that isn't syntactically mangled or blatantly misleading.

A little erudition would go a long, long way in the Bush administration.

I think there are possible translation difficulties (as with any translingual text) and also exactly what you say -- the sensitivity question in a powder keg world. Erudition thrives in contemplative space, unmitigated by political expediencies. The Middle East has rarely been such a place. It might have helped Benedict to have a cultural translator to proof the texts for possible public relations impact. Scholars should not have to do that in the West, but it's rough going trying to graft northern European intellectual scholarship onto volatile and highly-political Middle Eastern sectarianism.

On many issues I flat-out part company with the socially conservative Vatican, but on historical scholarship and censorship issues, the man has a right to speak.

[Dorian Gray]

86. Old Crusoe

I believe you are right. I wanted to respond before I hit the sack, and I've appreciated reading what you've written regarding this topic! But, off to bed! My brain hurts!

[saltpoint]

87. Good night, Dorian Gray.

[CarlVK]

140. I don't think he thought THIS one through.

[saltpoint]

150. The entire address speaks well for itself. Have you read it?

[Posteritatis]

105. Thanks for posting that (n/t)

[citizen snips]

107. I agree

[stepnw1f]

28. Absolutely.... it Does Good

How is apologizing wrong? What's wrong with people?! Jesus preached the very thing the Pope is doing.

[Zhade]

29. WOW. Look at all the bigots who voted no!

I had no idea we had that many religious bigots here.

Disgusting!

[Henny Penny]

30. I'm just about to vote no...

and I'm no bigot.

It is ridiculous to suggest the remarks themselves required an apology. However given the way that some people seem intent on using this to stir up hatred I think he has been very wise to issue an apology. Not because it was merited but because it may go some way to calming the situation.

[Taxloss]

39. I voted no.

Does that make me a religious bigot?

[Zhade]

57. Well, explain it to me, then?

As you may know, I respect you a good deal, so if you voted no...why?

I'm open to hearing how Ratzinger's remarks weren't a form of bigotry against Muslims. Fill me in?

[Taxloss]

108. The question wasn't whether his remarks were bigoted, it was

whether he should apologise. Firstly, let's remind ourselves of the absurdities of the religious mindset. Ratzinger, as a conservative Catholic, believes that all Muslims everywhere will and should be tortured for all eternity. So within that frame his remarks are bigoted, but so are the beliefs of billions of people. As to the remarks themselves, he repeats a historical insult to the Muslim prophet. This is certainly incendiary, but within the framework of his beliefs it is consistent.

So what we have here is two mutually exclusive Abrahamic religions rubbing up against each other. That tension existed all along, and in a world that considers religions acceptable we can hardly consider it bigoted - to do so would be to condemn much of the doctrinal basis of both systems and call about two billion people bigoted. Maybe they are, technically, but should they all apologise? Ratzinger is just openly stating a doctrinal difference that has always existed between the two faiths; incendiary, but no more bigoted towards Islam than stating that Christ is divine, the son of God.

Therefore, I don't see that he can apologise more than he already has done without creating a doctrinal contradiction. I would also venture that those demanding an apology - voices from the Middle East, that is - are more interested in embarrassing and humiliating the Catholic Church and advancing their own agendas rather than appeasing moral outrage. And I don't think he should play along with that. And so if no apology should be made to those groups, then to whom should an apology be made? I think a further apology would solve nothing, and might potentially further inflame the situation.

[Dorian Gray]

119. The following quote:

"Ratzinger, as a conservative Catholic, believes that all Muslims everywhere will and should be tortured for all eternity. " is untrue. You don't know what he believes. The Catholic Faith allows some leeway to the judgement of God in saving anybody He chooses to do so, and nobody would proclaim that God will punish all Muslims in the leadership of the Catholic faith. (At least in today's scholarship. The same is patently untrue hundreds of years ago, sadly.) The Cathechism of the Catholic Church clearly states to those that we can not know God's mind in the issue of salvation. We are not to presume. It is not our place to judge.

[Taxloss]

120. True, I don't know exactly what he believes. n/t

[Dorian Gray]

123. Sorry I focused on that.

But, I think it's important to reiterate that Catholics don't necessarily believe that all who are not Catholic are going to be punished by God for eternity in Hell. I appreciated your thoughts, however, on the rest of your post, and I posted too quickly to state that in my last post. :) Cheers!

[Zhade]

138. Worthy points.

I hereby withdraw my earlier remark, once again remembering the crazy nature of religion.

[JI7]

52. if being critical of religion is bigotry

i have the same things about other religions. when Christian liberals say something like Falwell, Robertson and other haters aren't real christians i tell them it's not true. of course they are Christian in their literal interpretation of things.

they are just not able to look beyond and see things in historical context and take into account things that prove them wrong. such as Christian fundies and evolution. no matter what you show them they come back with "but the bible" as if that matters.

anytime a Christian uses to bible to prove a point on something other than religion i tune them out. i guess that's religious bigotry also.

[Zhade]

58. Oh, it's not that - I'm an atheist, after all.

At first blush, it seemed Ratzinger was insulting Muslims. If that's NOT the case, I'll retract my earlier comment - but I need to be shown how his quoting and (what appeared to be) agreeing with the emperor wasn't bigotry.

[Behind the Aegis]

61. How is voting "no" for issuing an apology a sign of religious bigotry?

:shrug:

[Zhade]

67. In this case, I'm awaiting some clarification.

So I don't know that I can answer at this time.

[Violet_Crumble]

97. Did you ever get that clarification?

I'm interested to find out what other reasons could be behind voting no....

On edit: I read through some more of this thread, and discovered one reason that stood out like a sore thumb. Papal groupies who think the Pope walks on water would automatically vote no :)

[Dutch]

101. And Imam-groupies who see Muslims as perpetual victims

will always vote yes. And posts 14 and 27, for a start, lay out reasons why some are voting no that go beyond your accusation and that of the above neo-McCarthyite, whether you agree with them or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

151. Yr very mistaken. Apparently you didn't read my post very carefully....

My 'accusation' was me adding to my post that I'd spotted one other possible reason why people would vote no. I didn't say it was *the* reason people voted yes. I don't know wtf an Imam-groupie is, nor do I care. I'm an Atheist and I voted yes because I believe if someone has made a comment that is religious bigotry and has offended others, then it doesn't hurt them to apologise....

If the Pope had made comments about Judaism and a poll was started to ask if he should apologise or not, would you think someone coming along and going 'And Rabbi-groupies who see Jews as perpetual victims will always vote yes' is coming from a direction other than bigotry? Just curious...

[Dorian Gray]

80. Oh, please....

I think that everyone should be required to read the speech as a whole before they believe that anyone who doesn't jump on the condemnation of Benjamin for this particular quote is a bigoted asshole.

Here it is:

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

[im10ashus]

100. I wouldn't call it religious bigotry.

It's a healthy debate that's going on and just because they may not agree with you or me doesn't make them bigots. Peace.

:hi:

[Posteritatis]

109. I'd call it "having read the speech," myself. (n/t)

[Dutch]

102. Nice bit of McCarthyism. n/t

[Marrah_G]

31. This whole thing is just sad

For thousands of years people have been killing each other in the name of one god or another. Both sides are horribly wrong in this ever intensifying war of faiths. Violence met with violence creates a cycle of revenge and anger that takes generations to calm. Leaders on both sides need to choose their words cautiously and work toward peace and understanding. Unfortunately it seems that no one of standing is willing to take those first steps.

The Pope's words were taken out of context if you read the entire speech. That one paragraph swept through the world fanning flames of hate. The Pope should not necessarily apologize to Islam but rather he should come out and explain what it was that he was talking about and acknowledge the bloody history of his own church as well. He should be wary of his words and the effects they can have in this extremely tense time. This would be a great opportunity to invite the leaders of the Muslim world to Rome to talk about healing the wounds of the past. Also the leaders of Islam should be calming their followers and asking that people not call for death and destruction in response. Both religious claim to be peaceful, yet neither culture behaves in a peaceful manner. Both have slaughtered the other, both have conquered each others lands, both have converted others at the end of a sword.

I hope that someday humanity can get past this and learn to live in peace with one another, turning away from ALL those who preach intolerance and hatred.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. Of Course. Especially Since He Claims He Didn't Intend It To Come Off

in an offensive manner.

When a man of that position and visibility says something even unintentionally insensitive that incites anger and hurt in that many people, than an apology is always the right thing to do. It is even more the thin to do when the comments were not intended to portray what they portrayed. I'm a bit surprised that a religious man such as the pope would not have immediately offered an apology upon angering and hurting millions of people.

Fact is that his statement was quite insensitive to the muslim world, and if he meant it to be then he doesn't really need to apologize. But if he didn't mean it to offend, and finds himself having regrets for having done so, then he needs to be a real man and apologize for his error.

[Beelzebud]

33. He should apologize for pedophile priests...

[Swamp Rat]

35. Thank you!

It's about time they turned all the pedophile priests over to the authorities... I won't hold my breath though. :eyes:

I would post my pic of the Alien Lizard Pope, but it was banned by a mod a long time ago.

[Taxloss]

37. No. n/t

[JVS]

38. No.

[Jack Rabbit]

40. I voted Yes; I'm surprised there's any debate.

Publicly defaming another's religious beliefs is something that well-mannered people don't do.

Islam is not monolithic. Tarring all Muslims with the same brush as medieval Muslims who demanded conversion at the point of a sword (and not even all medieval Muslims were guilty of that; check your Spanish history, please) or those Muslims today who think Jihad means a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv or flying a hijacked passenger jet into an office building is just wrong to begin with. To many Muslims, Jihad simply means verbally correcting somebody with a misconception about Islam.

I'm neither Muslim nor Catholic, but if somebody called the Pope a Roman dictator or said that Catholics let priests do their thinking for them, I would think an apology would be in order.

It is more than appropriate that the Pope should apologize for his remarks. More than approving that he apologized, I hope he understands the error of his ways.

[Henny Penny]

41. The person who did the "defaming" is a long dead

Byzantine Emperor... hence the debate. :sigh:

Why do so few seem to take the trouble to inform themselves? I don't mean you particularly Jack, but I have myself posted the excerpt and the link to the entire speech several times and frankly anyone who thinks an apology was merited either hasn't read a word of the actual quote or is willing to suspend all their critical faculties and substitute instead whatever inflammatory drivel comes out of the MSM. Drivel I might add designed solely to promote the so called clash of civilizations.

The amount of manipulation going on here is quite frightening.

Look at the story about the girl who was gang raped in Pakistan because she dared to get an education. There are girls attacked every day in Europe and the west do we hear of their plight? No because the message here is not about the actual story the message is "Look at these evil Muslims... they are evil.." Then cut to angry mobs burning the Pope's effigy... "Look how unreasonable and scary they are..." "Now do you see why we have to fight them???"

Wake up people before it is too late.

[leesa]

53. Really. The words came out of the dead Emporer's mouth?

You know the Pope's intent was not nicey-nice or he would have said nothing at all. HE said the words.

Yes he should apologize. It was meant to wound.

[Henny Penny]

55. Well the coverage of it was certainly meant to wound...

The Pope himself meant to wound? No. Absolutely not. They finally showed some tv footage of it this evening and really the intent to wound charge doesn't stand up.

[Dorian Gray]

81. One more time, just for shits and giggles...

The entire speech:

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


It's the uncut version. I know that I often mouth off about things without reading the first hand source, so it's understandable that people have opinions without knowing the context. Is this speech worth torching churches over? Seriously?

[CarlVK]

133. So if a modern neonazi quotes Hilter in defaming Jews....

it's OK because Adolf is dead?

Am I rading you correctly?

[JI7]

47. Pope has done a lot of things which are bad because that's what he

believes. if he isn't sorry, i'm not sure how much good an apology will do.

the recent remarks from what i understand aren't even the worse and are taken out of context. some are saying he was trying to get the message out about not using violence in order to convert. but i'm not sure.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. If he wants to promote understanding, then yes

If he just wants to score points off another religion, then he can become just another person who sees their own viewpoint, but no-one else's. If he doesn't apologise, it'll hurt his standing as a religious leader, though. I don't think many Catholics look to the Pope for broadbrush comments about other religions. That's not so much 'leading' as 'booing from the audience in the other guy's rally'.

[saltpoint]

62. The most socially conscious Catholic publication I know of, THE

NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER, offers a very good analysis of Benedict's remarks:

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/word/

An excerpt:

============

Ultimately, Benedict argued, a form of reason which rejects religious and philosophical thinking cannot promote dialogue with other cultures.

"In the Western world, it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid," he said. "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."

Whatever the merits of Benedict's argument, it is a subtle and carefully modulated analysis of Western intellectual history head and shoulders above the standard fare most leaders offer on the stump. Of course, that's not what the world is talking about right now, raising the question of whether Benedict could do with a dash more sensitivity to how wires in today's hair-trigger world are tripped.

============

The writer, John Allen, is the magazine's Vatican reporter, and appears to have nailed down Benedict's thesis in this particular address, the one which has caused such a flare-up.

That thesis is misrepresented in the media.

[boolean]

63. Why don't the Muslims ever apologize?!?!?!

I'm sick and tired of ANY group of religious people getting outraged over bullshit.

The Muslims insult people all the time. Enough already. I voted no.

[Bluerthanblue]

75. people who do things

you find wrong set the bar for what you should now see as acceptable?
ie: "they don't apologize, so i won't either"

Sounds like 'they' have converted you-

[Posteritatis]

106. I prefer my double-standards to be nonexistent, myself. (n/t)

[CarlVK]

134. You're changing the subject.

Nice try though.

[Spider Jerusalem]

64. No.

(n/t)

[saltpoint]

69. Spider Jerusalem, just wanted to say hi. Chances for me to do that are

fewer than I'd like, but let me take advantage of this one.

It is always a plus to read your invariably excellent posts on these boards, no matter the topic.

Good wishes going into the Fall.

[Spider Jerusalem]

126. Hello to you, too.

And good wishes back to you as we enter autumn (something I'm rather happy about; it's my favourite time of year).

[NoodleyAppendage]

65. Wouldn't it be the Christian thing to do? Pride goeth before the fall...

What would Jesus do? Something tells me he would apologize, but I guess that's asking too much for a friggin' Nazi Pope with his head up his ass.

J

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

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

[peteatomic]

70. Do you understand what the Pope was talking about?

[CarlVK]

71. His comments are reprehensible.

Period.

[peteatomic]

74. Why?

[Dorian Gray]

82. Really?

I would love for you to explain to me how this:

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



is reprehensible. Seriously. I'd love to debate the ideas behind it. The fact that religious conversion by the sword is untenable. Sure it is. That's obvious to me. It's a criticism of Islam because of some latter suras in the Quar'an. But, it's also a statement about world religions, and he acknowledges that there is a place in Islam for true learning and spiritual growth is possible. This is an anecdotal example acknowling a long history of knowing that coerced conversion doesn't really work.

[saltpoint]

83. Which passages did you find so objectionable?

Here's the whole speech. Maybe give it a look:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

[Common Sense Party]

89. Which comments? Why are they reprehensible?

Because the NY Times said so?

[CarlVK]

135. Because a world voice for peace shouldn't be agitating for violence

no matter how underhanded the tactic. He knows damn well what it means to purposely agitate the Muslim community at this juncture in history. If he doesn't, he has not the brains to be occupying that seat.

[6000eliot]

72. What can you do?

He was a Nazi, after all.

[alphadog]

92. And

And Robert Byrd was a klansman, and Cindy Sheehan is tied up with anti-semites and we could go on and on and none of it has any relevance except for name calling...so what's your point, champ?

[Posteritatis]

115. So was every other German minor during the war. Your point? (n/t)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. He should apologize for his church's stance on Birth Control.

And, his idiotic remarks about secularism. His equally idiotic remarks about Islam under the transparant guise of decrying violence in the name of religion, considering the violence perpetrated in the name of Catholicism in this century alone, are obscene.

[mykpart]

78. I think the "apology" he gave was kinda like

"Gee, I'm sorry you feel that way." Not sorry he said it. I really don't think the pope gives a rat's patoot what Muslims think of him, do you?

[Common Sense Party]

88. Hell, no. Perhaps someone who voted "yes" can tell me

EXACTLY, precisely what he said that was so offensive.

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. The "evil and inhuman" quote was offensive

and not related to the subject of the speech. He could have left that out completely. Going from the cwnews.com version linked to in other posts, he could have left out

Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

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.

[Dorian Gray]

121. But those weren't his words...

they were words by another person, from centuries ago, that he was using through scholarship to expand upon his own thesis. Those words don't support his thesis, and by including them in the context you did, without reading the work as a whole, you are perpetrating the misconstruation of the speech as racially inflammatory.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. He chose to include them

and they look very out of place in the rest of his speech, to me. If you think those words don't support Benedict's thesis, then can you explain why he put them in there at all? And why his entire comment on them in the speech was they were 'brusquely' made?

[Dorian Gray]

146. I can't fully explain anything on his behalf,

but I read the whole work as though it were a thesis regarding modernization and religion's role in modernity. He fully believes that conversion through coersion is not a valid way to convert (whether to Christianity or Islam), and he takes sources from ages ago that deal with that concept. It's a scholarly thesis he is delivering here, not a speech to the masses. That the one sound bite was picked up by news sources is problematic to me, as it really is sensationalizing this whole thing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. So you appear to agree the quote had no place in the speech

and therefore, perhaps, it was a good idea to apologise for including it in the first place?

It doesn't surprise me that quote was picked up. If there's a strange smear of someone in the middle of an unrelated speech or article, you'd expect it to be noticed. For instance, if you write 5 good paragraphs in a post here on DU, but it includes one sentence insulting another DUer, you expect the whole post to get deleted. You can't plead "but look at the quality of the rest of it".

[Dorian Gray]

155. Well, I did say in another post

that his position as head of the church requires great diplomacy. He isn't as free with expressing ideas as he was prior to this position. And, because he is very scholarly, he does appear to be very stiff and formal. He has to embrace his position and embrace diplomacy! And that's where I believe he is at fault in this whole thing. So, I suppose on some level that I believe that he shouldn't have included that quote in the thesis. I am at a loss, however, at the anger, violence and rhetoric that have followed this speech. It's truly amazing to me, and I believe anything other than an, "I wish he hadn't included that quote; he should apologize" is overkill in reaction to the speech.

[alphadog]

90. Absolutely not

1. Because the remarks have to be read within the entirety of the speech; and 2. Because
the truth hurts. Wherever Islam has spread, and wherever it continues to spread, it has been spread by the sword, which we can assume is abhorrent to any concept of a just and loving God. Deal with it, fundamentalist Islam. And the people protesting, as usual, are just listening to their leaders who are telling them to protest -- I doubt the "Muslim street" has read or understood a thing he said in that speech.

[Dutch]

103. Given the firebombing of churches and murder of a nun that Muslim

extremists have carried out in response to this speech, clearly the Pope must apologise for quoting any source that suggests Islam is or has ever been anything other than a religion of peace!:crazy:

[nini]

110. That's exactly what I was thinking

Their reaction just added validity to his remarks to most of the world.

The pope should have had more sense than to say what he did given the world climate these days - he was wrong.

The Muslims who turned around and did the bombings and killing a nun are wrong.


It all boggles the mind.

[CarlVK]

136. So I guess you'd be for the Mullahs bringing up the Inquisition

as proof positive that Christianity is a death cult.

gotcha.

[DFLforever]

93. Yes, apology is most appropriate

He seems to have forgotten he's now pope and not just an opinionated, small-minded cardinal.

The modern Vatican hasn't typically made many of these mistakes. They do have a diplomatic staff and a foreign office. They're not much given to one-off statements like Pat Robertson.

There are some Catholic Christians in the Mideast, often in high positions such as in Iraq and among the Palestinians. I'm astonished this pope forgot about their welfare.

[and-justice-for-all]

112. What would be most appropiate is if.....

The Pope would reframe from speaking publicly...

[Violet_Crumble]

96. I voted Yes...

The Pope has said something that's been found offensive to another religion. He should apologise for it...

[johnnie]

111. Interesting

I wonder what the answers would be if it were the other way around. Or if anyone here should apologize to the Christians or Catholics for all the bashing they get from people at DU.

[smirkymonkey]

145. Personally, I am anti-religion in general, but I have definitely

noticed the double standard. Criticism of Islam or Muslims is strictly forbidden here on DU, however feel free to bash Christians & Jews all you like. :sarcasm:

I am an equal opportunity basher of fundamentalist bullshit, and I see no need to apologize to anybody. I don't like the Pope, but I don't really see the need for him to apologize considering all the hate propaganda against Christians, Jews and the Modern World coming from Muslim political and religious leaders.

[Marie26]

116. Yes.

His remarks were not helpful.

[TankLV]

117. I can't believe some people here are actually defending this former Nazi!

The old repuke/fartwell apology: "I'm sorry you're offended". "I'm upset your angry."

But then again, I'd sure love to hear all those Iranian mullahs and other COUNTLESS "not typical" (so we are told over and over) representatives of that "faith" apologize for all THEIR statements. But I won't hold my breath.

A pox on ALL these same assholes - from ALL religions!

"WE" should be the better person. If this fuckwad pope didn't mean to inflame, etc, then what the fuck was he bringing up the damn quote in the first place. His "lecture" could have been more effective without using such quotes.

The asshole pope knew EXACTLY what he was doing, as he has all other times.

AND to top it all off, it wasn't even THIS ASSHOLE POPE who "apologized" - it was some spokesperson.

Nice...

[CarlVK]

139. There are many stealth bigots hiding in our aisles.

And as I wrote in another thread, they simply wait for some famous person to say something really biggoted, really ugly, so they can come out in force.

Sad - vomitous - but true.

[npincus]

118. he ought to clarify and educate

regarding his remarks and then apologize for having offended so many.

[LostinVA]

129. Exactly how I feel -- I wish it was a choice in the poll

Since it wasn't, I voted "no." And believe me, I am NOT a fan of Pope Rat. People like him are why I left the Church in the first place.

[lonestarnot]

122. Why does someone in Popie's position have to stir up a turd by

quoting what knows is inflamatory. He's sure into peace isn't he?

[CarlVK]

137. The Pope has long been held as a voice for harmony.

Well, until Pope Hitlerjugend took the helm, that is.

[fedsron2us]

124. Pope announces global itinerary of apology

Apparently he will be accompanying Boris Johnson, the foppish blond British Tory MP, who has also recently got into hot water over some unfortunate comments about cannibalism in New Guinea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5327984.stm

Mr Johnson, who is great-grandson of Ali Kemal, the last interior minister of the Ottomon Imperial Turkish government, will presumably be giving the Pope some much needed advice about how to survive his forthcoming trip to Istanbul.

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

On edit - Let us hope His Holiness Pope Benedict is more successful than Johnson's ancestor who sadly was unwise enough to sign an arrest warrant for Ataturk (the founder of modern Turkey) and subsequently got lynched for his pains by a mob in Izmit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

130. Other: it's no use, the damage is already done. -nt

[CarlVK]

132. Funny, that's one excuse being used to keep troops in Iraq.

Not that I'm....you know....suggesting any parallels.....

[Raine]

131. No

the pope is the head of his religion, the Catholic religion. As the head of his religion he promotes it and putting other religions down is just the par for the course. It wasn't the smartest thing to do cause when you do that to the other side (whatever it happens to be) it's like kicking a hornets nest but both sides do it. Apologies need to come from both sides for committed wrongs.

[ScreamingMeemie]

141. How about he comes on right after Bush's apology.... IOW... I don't

care?

[Tyo]

143. It's one oppressive monotheistic religion vs another

Who cares? They can trade barbs and insults all they want. Maybe if they are preoccupied with each other they'll leave the rest of us alone.

[smirkymonkey]

147. Best post on this subject yet.

What I hope we are seeing is the decline of monotheism in favor of a philosophy of humanism and respect for the earth. Face it, religion provided comfort for the masses for a very long time, but it's not working any more. It has degenerated into an institution that solely exists for the purpose of social and political control.

I think this escalation of tensions is part of the evolutionary process of the religious cycle (nothing reigns for ever), and that eventually monotheism will give way to a more appropriate (and hopefully more peaceful) expression of the human spirit, just as polythiesm gave way to the Abrahamic religions. Otherwise, humanity is doomed.

[Tyo]

148. We can hope, can't we?

I think we've got a fighting chance.

[NNN0LHI]

149. No

It would be like walking up an punching some guy in the nose and then real quick apologize and think everything will be OK now.

It don't work that way in real life. The damage is done. Can't unring a bell

The Pope would do well to just STF up and get back under the rock he crawled out from under.

Don

[noonwitch]

154. No.

He should be able to say what he wishes to say.

I believe that Islam is a religion that encourages cruelty and abuse of women. Once, so did Christianity and so do some sects within Christianity today. However, in Islam, pretty much every group demands women be treated as second class citizens at this point in time. There are differing degrees, but the only middle eastern countries where women vote are Israel and the ones we're occupying.
I'm not sure about Lebanon.

[Name removed]

156. Deleted message

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

[Swamp Rat]

157. Efcharisto

thanks ;)

edit: That's 'thanks' in Hellenic Greek

[saltpoint]

158. Howdy, Swamp Rat. A good afternoon to you.

I just ran across Raimondo's piece about an hour ago -- he's a high-cred progressive and has the best article on this Pope flap I've seen so far.

I hope things are good your way.

Just a month & a half to go before we toss the Republicans overboard. I can't wait.

:hi:

[ButterflyBlood]

159. No, his remarks were proven to be valid

He would be proven incorrect if the response wasn't to firebomb churches or murder a nun. But that's what happened.

[muriel_volestrangler]

161. Your logic is wrong

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2163539&mesg_id=2164698 for a refutation of the same argument.

Some Muslims doing something 'evil' now does not show that all of Mohammed's ideas were 'evil'. A murder by a Christian does not show that Jesus was evil. See?

[ButterflyBlood]

164. No, but perhaps the thousands killed in Mohammed's conquest does

And then the many more killed in the further attempts to expand the Caliphate into Iberia and south Asia.

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. People get killed in war

whether it's run by Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, pagans, ...

When a religion that stops war comes along, let us all know. It'll be a real change.

[ButterflyBlood]

166. What wars did Jesus or Buddha start?

There's a difference between a religion's founders and some nuts who decide to fight in their name centuries later.

[im10ashus]

163. His remarks were insensitive and have provoked more hatred.

I hope he can live with that. He's just another religious zealot who will do and say anything in the name of their own religion. Everyone else be damned.

[meow2u3]

160. Pope Benedict XVI's comments warrant an explanation

The explanation being that 14th Century rulers were intolerant of anything that challenged their earthly authority. They pulled the strings of the Catholic Church, which was extremely powerful because it did the bidding of emperors and kings. In fact, church and state were one and the same. On top of that, there were a strong fundamentalist influence in the medieval church, similar to what Islam is going through now, with its fundamentalists strong-arming moderate Muslims into involuntary submission.

Political rulers in Christian Europe were so prejudiced against Muslims, in part because of the Crusades, that they decided to decree that mathematics and science were evil and heretical--solely because Muslims used math to make sense of their world.

[mtnester]

162. Other - he cannot help he is a disconnected idiot

Kind scenario - Some people just cannot see the big picture no matter how hard they try. It is like some kind of cognitive disconnect. Using such an inflammatory statement, no matter the context it was meant to be in (deliberate or not) just went straight over his head. He could not SEE it coming if he tried.

Worst scenario? It was deliberate. Meant to entice. Playing stupid about it part of the plan.

Either scenario makes him an imbecile, and will require some explaining at the gates.