My opinion on Ratzinger sticking his foot in his mouth.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Because I know everybody's interested.

Now, I'm not surprised that Ratzinger's a dumb son of a bitch. I already knew he was a dumb son of a bitch because of his comments on homosexuals, women, Harry Potter, and evofuckinglution for example.

And I'm not surprised there are Americans bending over backwards to agree with him. There's no shortage of dumb American sons of bitches.

What I am surprised with is how prolific these dumb excuses for his behaviour there are floating around, mostly unchallenged.


Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Ratzinger had insulted black people.

Let's say, instead of quoting some Emperor, he had quoted the Grand Wizard of the KKK. And instead of calling muslims "evil" and "inhuman," he had called black people "thuggish" and "porch-monkies."

Now, I don't thing that's a terrible large stretch. The same sort of people who hate muslims generally hate black people too. Now let's look at the excuses.

"Well, the Pope was only quoting the Grand Wizard of the KKK. He wasn't necessarily agree with it. Nudge nudge. Wink wink."

Now how the fuck stupid do some people think I am? Yes, I read the whole thing. Yes, he agrees with it. Jesus Christ, this is like the "some folks say..." shit that the Bush administration has been using so much the past couple of weeks. See below.

"Well, the fact that black people got upset over being called 'porch-monkies' just proves the Pope was right."

Well, no, it doesn't. Hell yes, black people should get angry, and so should everybody else who isn't a dumb son of a bitch. Furthermore, the same people who are saying "the Pope was only quoting somebody, he didn't really mean it" are the ones saying "see, the muslims getting upset are proving the Pope's right." Now THAT is irony.

Now this excuse is a kicker. This is an actual argument, just replacing "black" with "muslim."

"That black guy in Somalia who shot that nun is proof that black people are thugs."

I hope whatever dumb son of a bitch that argued that reads the changes and realizes the errors of his ways. Because I sure as hell hope I don't have to explain it to him.

And that's all I had to say about that.

Sorry about the rant.

[JuniperLea]

1. Once a brown-shirt.... eom

[Beelzebud]

2. Well said!

[BOSSHOG]

3. Wouldn't it be great if Religious leaders

spent their time tending to the needs of their own flock?

[Bluebear]

5. You got that right, Boss. nt

[Sequoia]

4. Yes, we are interested.

Point well taken, I can assure you!!! That Pope knew and I just posted my 2 cents before I read yours.

[demnan]

6. Don't they have a way to make all this die down

I mean the Catholic church has tons of money, can't they hire someone to handle image making and stuff. Hollywood is filled with such people.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. The logical conclusion, IMO, demnan...

is that this whole thing was an intentional provocation.

[no_hypocrisy]

8. What I don't understand is how his staff let him make this speech.

The Vatican is generally judicious about its choice of words. For example, I cannot imagine John Paul II making the same speech at issue, and even if he did, his staff would try to persuade him of the edits and rewrites. The Pope in this case reminds me of * leaving the prepared text and talking "common sense" and putting his foot in his mouth.

[Karenina]

37. See post #7

[indepat]

9. The number of dumb Amerikan "sons-of-bitches" is indeed mind-boggling

judging by the number of those who support the man, his dream or vision, and his entire extreme RW PNAC agenda which has fervently been implemented day-by-day over the past 68 months.

[xchrom]

10. i'm going to have to recommend this.

because at some point we HAVE t have a convrsation about the character of the american people -- especially since reagan.

you have really hit on what is the tip of the icebrg of a huge problem.

of course one is -- granting the right's legitimacy to say hateful things and call it intellectuall -- having some merit.

when in fact it doesn't.

o'reilly anyone -- or lynne cheney --etc?

[enigma000]

11. Lots of racist terms you used there

Figure your life is in danger? Will any friends of yours be killed because of this post? No?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

12. Not sure I'm getting your point.

Care to explain it a little?

[enigma000]

15. Your words could be seen as inflammatory to some

People could get upset at the word usage. They may want you to apologize for your choice of words. They may feel violence is called for.

You did write this, right:
"That black guy in Somalia who shot that nun is proof that black people are thugs"

Is that not inappropriate?

PS: I know you don't believe this, but you did write it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. Well then I apologize to dumb sons of bitches...

if they happened to get offended.

Yes, I dare say that quote is inappropriate. I, however, was arguing that it was inappropriate to begin with.

The difference between me and Ratzinger is that I'm not actually saying this racist shit.

[enigma000]

19. Was he?

I think is was that Emperor that had that opinion on Islam

Which was quoted in a scholarly paper, and used to suggest the unjustness and irrationality of forced conversions.

You had a quote, Benedict had a quote. You used it as an argument for your thesis. And did he.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. Oh, I get it.

"He was just quoting somebody."

Yeah, if you read my post you'll see I already dealt with that excuse.

And I'm sure George Allen just made the meaningless word "macaca" up on the spot.

:eyes:

[enigma000]

24. Although, to cover another topic,

I suspect he may have known what was going to happen. Cause a reason for an uproar, wait for the Friday sermons at the Mosques, and behold - protesters on the streets.

Catching the eye of hundreds of millions of Catholics (and others). Muslims are winning no admiration over their threats and, I can sense, even among those I know (a progressive bunch), a growing aversion towards that faith.

The pope is a scholar and a teacher. Perhaps he intended this as an object lesson.

[CJCRANE]

27. Except that he's

an anonymous poster on a messageboard. When Bornagainhooligan becomes the leader of a billion-strong religion maybe he'll measure his words a bit more carefully.

[genie_weenie]

13. How does one criticize an Idea?

Man is the measure of all things. That is an axiom for me. Man is more important than words. And that is all Islam is a bunch of words. However, I am fully aware that not all people view the situation as such.

Islam despite what over 1 billion people may believe is an idea created and nurtured by humans. And as a human mental construct it needs to be open to criticism. However, therein lies the problem. Like most people if you attack/belittle/ridicule/critique their cherished beliefs it is often viewed as an attack on them. So, is it possible for starters to even begin with a discussion of Islam where the member of the faith does not feel the argument is an attack on them?

Unfortunately, that is hardly the major problem since location, different cultural backgrounds and language will most likely preclude me from being able to debate with a 99.9% of the members of the Islamic faith.

This argument can be applied to whatever ideology you can name; Christianity, Social Darwinism, Liberalism, Unrestrained Capitalism, Imperialism, Neo-Conservatism, Marxism, Anarcho-Socialism, Fermat's Last Theorem, Superstring Theory...

Obviously, the Pope doesn't share my theory since he is the Inheritor of the Church and the Guardian/Caretaker of the "True Faith". I can only theorize he was speaking to his base, other members of the faith who view Islam as incorrect and Muslims as misguided or worse. Rallying the faithful, as it were, to tell the Catholics that the Church is under threat (understand who he referenced the 3rd to last Byzantine Emperor whose until Empire consitited of Constantinople and who were under daily attacks from the Bloody Turk) and that Christendom needs to unite and solidify itself against Islam, once again.

[Spazito]

14. There is NO way, imo, Ratzinger didn't know EXACTLY what he

was saying, that he wasn't the primary person involved in the writing of that speech. He is a despicable man, not only for this but for many of the things he has said.

[Karenina]

47. He reminds me of Simon Bar Sinister.

Ratzinger is a VERY WELL-EDUCATED man and very worldly. He is GERMAN, no stranger to the Muslim population or the challenges of integration here. Susa just described him as as a Kabarettist. The most common response in any discussion of this latest controversy is, "Ja, SUPER." It's FOOLISHNESS to think for a minute that he was unaware of the ramifications of his reference. His well-known connexions with the *cabal offer no comfort.

It's the perfect storm. Poke Arabs in the eye while reinforcing Anglos prejudices against them on BOTH sides of the Big Pond! Gotta ramp up that invasion of Iran!!!

[Spazito]

48. The former Cardinal was/is VERY aware of everything he says and

does. One does not climb the ladder to become Pope without VERY aggressive political skills, backroom negotiations and an acute awareness that every word uttered is parsed, analyzed, etc. He knew EXACTLY what he was saying and deliberately inserted the quote for his reasons.

One needs only to examine what his agenda is that he would need to use the quote in the manner he did. One can be sure it was not simply inserted without thought to the consequences.

[Annces]

17. The church wanted someone to take them to the olden days

and that is what he is doing.

[CJCRANE]

32. I feel sorry for his followers

most of whom I guess don't want to pick a fight with the muslim world.

[noonwitch]

18. He will never fill JPII's shoes

John Paul II was an amazing pope. I'm not a catholic and certainly didn't agree with him on every single issue, but he did actively pursue peaceful solutions in the world, and travelled to parts of the world that no other pope ever did.

[elehhhhna]

22. He IS filling JP's shoes...

with piss.

Daily.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Nope.

JP didn't wear Prada.

[Bridget Burke]

31. JPII was exactly as conservative as Benedict.

But he was more photogenic & charismatic.

[elehhhhna]

21. Bush quoting Osama. Ratz quoting a Crusader. WTF is next?

Cheney quoting himself?

[deaniac21]

25. Please actually read the comments in context before commenting

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. Please actually read my post before commenting.

[deaniac21]

36. I did. It showed that you had no idea.

[niccolos_smile]

26. How many people actually read the Pope's speech?

Honestly, how many?

It seems one quote has been taken and made into something it was never intended to be by everyone. If you read the speech you'll actually see that it is about the synthesis of Greek thought and Christian belief and the attempts at the "dehellenization" of Christianity by Protestants.

The quote used by the Pope was used as a means to transition into that discussion. A discussion which focused far more on divergent forms of Christianity than it did Islam. Conservatives are backing the Pope's statement's and in some cases misrepresenting what he did say.

In retrospect, such as use of Manuel II Paleogus' quote was unwise, but it was not the point of his speech, nor was it his theme. Whether or not you agree with the Pope's comments about "dehellenization" is for you to decide, but this entire speech seems to have been distorted on the basis of one quote, which the Pope neither endorsed nor advocated.

The fulll text of his speech can be found at this link:

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

[CJCRANE]

29. It's still puzzling why

he brought Islam into the discussion...I couldn't read the whole speech, it was too dry and academic, but there was something that didn't quite flow about the section on Islam..

As I'm not a theological expert, I personally will give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[niccolos_smile]

34. It appears...

he was using it as a transition. It had no negative or positive many as I took it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

43. A transition from what? The section on Islam was at the beginning

Quoting someone as saying "all Mohammed's thoughts were evil and inhuman", not commenting further on that, then quoting the same person on faith and reason, and saying you agree with that, and using that as the starting point for the rest of the speech, looks very negative to me. It was only once the protests had started that Benedict said "oh, those weren't my views". He never critcised them in the speech.

He didn't have to give Islam as his example at all. He didn't have to use that Byzantine emperor. He didn't have to put in the irrelevant quote about "evil and inhuman". I still haven't seen a possible explanation by anyone why that quote belonged in his speech.

[niccolos_smile]

45. A transition from his introductory remarks to his main thesis...

He mentions what he has recently read (the dialogue between the Emporer and the Persian), and then relates it to his thesis, which is the relationship between Reason and Faith.

As I said, in retrospect, seeing the reaction, the use of the quote probably wasn't wise, but I don't see it as being the Pope's own thoughts, or that he endorses the view of Manuel II.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. The Pope himself says it's a "starting point"

not a transition.

In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point -- itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself -- which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason," I found interesting and which can serve as the starting point for my reflections on this issue.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

The title is "Faith, Reason and the University". So how does a denunciation of all of Mohammed's ideas as "evil and inhuman" (whoever first made the denunciation) fit in to that?

[niccolos_smile]

59. You do understand...

what I meant I hope. It is a transition between his introductory remarks and his main thesis. It is not the literal starting point of his speech. The literal starting point was when he first spoke.

As far as how Muhammed fits in, it is in how the emporer portrays Muhammed as a person who spread faith by the sword, which the emporer goes on in his dialogue with the Persian to state is against reason. The role of reason in faith is the starting point.

[Bridget Burke]

30. Damned few, obviously.....

I did.

Someone should have foreseen that idiots would take the quotation out of context. But the Pope was giving a scholarly talk in Regensberg, Germany--not addressing the world.

[Spazito]

33. Everything said by Ratzinger is analyzed by the world and...

he is WELL AWARE of that. To say that because he was "giving a scholarly talk in Regensberg, Germany--not addressing the world" should excuse his use of the quote is naive, to say the least, imo.

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. Will you explain the context of "evil and inhuman" to us, please?

How does a speech to a German university and faith and reason need a quote say Mohammed's ideas were all "evil and inhuman"? The more I read the speech, the more that bit sticks out as completely inappropriate.

Or are you saying that the Pope does think Mohammed's ideas were all "evil and inhuman", but didn't think a speech he gave at a university would ever be reported to the world at large? That he was among friends who wouldn't repeat his thoughts?

[JackORoses]

61. bullshit

Every time the Pope speaks, he is addressing the World.

He knew exactly what he was saying.

[Annces]

35. And he is using Islam and Mohammad as the examples of using violence to

force conversion, as if the Christians never did that?

I agree that he did do this on purpose. He made this an opportunity to take a shot at Islam.

Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus
"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.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

38. Case in point.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2163539

[warrens]

39. Not to mention "Islam is spread by the sword"

Wonder what the Maya, the Aztecs and so many others would say about the Spanish conquistadors and their priests.

[Vinnie From Indy]

40. I believe you'd be a dumb SOB to think this was an accident

or a misunderstanding. It was carefully planned and delivered IMHO.

[Dutch]

41. But he DIDN'T insult black people. Your argument is utterly bogus.

The Muslim extremists who have reacted violently to the Pope's speech are motivated to violence by their religious beliefs (which are of course not in line with the interpretation of Islam followed by most Muslims, but I'm not the kind of arrogant imperialist who sits in judgement over which members of a religion I don't belong too should be considered genuine folowers of that religion). That's the irony in relation to the Pope's speech- it's so obvious that even those you so delightfully and progressively refer to as "dumb American sons of bitches" can see it, even if you apparently cannot.

Whilst a disturbing number of DUers seem unable to grasp this, islam is not a race, it's a religion, ie an ideology. Only an idiot or lunatic would claim a person's race makes them more predisposed towards violence- and only an idiot or lunatic, or perhaps in this case a neo-McCarthyite, would claim that the ideology a person chooses to follow cannot make them more or less predisposed towards violence (hint- you're better off sharing a lift with a quaker than a Nazi). Of course Muslims are free to disagree forcefully and vociferously with the Pope's comments- but when they turn to violence in direct response to them, then there is an obvious irony whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

[mhatrw]

42. How ignorant. How exactly like Pope Ratman.

Islam is no more an "ideology" than Christianity and no more violent in the arena of ideology than Christianity. Just like Christianity, it is a system of religious and spiritual ritual that the vast majority people are simply born into.

Just look at the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. Consider that Hitler and Mussolini were both "good Christians" of "good Christian" nations. Consider that Dubya is an avowed "born again" evangelical.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Let's say he insulted Jews, then.

Quoted Hitler and started blathering about how jews are corrupt and greedy. That's fine too, right? Judaism is just a religion.

"That's the irony in relation to the Pope's speech- it's so obvious that even those you so delightfully and progressively refer to as "dumb American sons of bitches" can see it, even if you apparently cannot."

Hmm. Nope, they can't see anything I'm not seeing. They're just dumb sons of bitches.

[QuestionAll...]

50. good lord and sweet jesus you're way off the mark.

and I'm not 'religious' mmkay?

what kind of rock has to hit you over your walnut to realize this islam/terror thing has 'conveniently' replaced communism.

everything is 'ism' for the folks that make their bucks from warm peasant blood flowing out of their bodies right into the cash machine.

but yes, this one, terrorism... no borders, no rules, no one safe, anywhere.

[6000eliot]

52. It's called an analogy.

And it's a legitimate way to argue that the pope is a bigot.

[bridgit]

51. well, yes i suppose, but wasn't "that guy in Somalia" that "shot that...

"...nun" a "thug" AND a "muslim" :shrug:

religion, being the opiate of the people, religious leaders of every stripe owe the world a most sincere apology when their 'user problems' spill out, or onto the otherwise, and from time to time civilized streets of the world is my point; each & every stripe...because some people simply cannot handle their addictions = religion being prime among them

rant will taken :thumbsup:

[Disturbed]

54. This pope should have known that his statement would

garner wrath from Muslims. No excuse that he didn't think that his speech would not be world wide. Btw, most Muslims are not Arabs.

[Karenina]

56. He KNEW. Benny ist Ausgebildet.

He's a well-educated, politically savvy guy who is also IN LEAGUE with *Co.

[bridgit]

57. oh sure, the notion that some enlightened discussion regarding...

comparative religions is specious at best in today's climate; i made the point the other day, that the pope could have cast 90% of his 3x5 cards into the wind and still upset islam; but islam should chill as well imo and you are right...most muslim' are not radicalized they're concerned as are a good many of us

[crim son]

53. That was beautifully said.

If I had any questions about the poop's intentions, you have just answered them.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

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

[jazzjunkysue]

58. Great rant. The Pope should show better leadership. Spread peace.

If that's not his job and his daily results, frankly, there's nothing godlike about him at all.

It's either peace, or it's merely human. His remarks encourage lowering oneself to the most common denominator, rather than asking people to rise above violence.

[Hoping4Change]

60. This irrational rant is completely off the mark.

It is irrational to equate an negative opinion about an idea/religion to an attack on people. The Pope did not engage in name-calling. Period. So drawing parallels to KKK is absurd.

To regard an negaaitve statement about an idea as an attack is a paranoid delusion.

Furthermore, even if the Pope shared Paleologos' opinion that Islam was evil and didn't bring anything new into the world, it is still an opinion about an idea. For the Pope to be equated with the KKK he would have to make a statement that denigrated Muslims.

[JackORoses]

62. why don't you draw parallels

to the Hitler youth, then?

Which Ratzinger was a card-carrying member of.

Once a bigot, always a bigot.

[Hoping4Change]

63. Draw that parallel if you want but if you value rational thought then

back up your argument with fact and don't spin an argument out of thin air. My family is Catholic but I'm not so I'm no kneejerk defender of the Pope but as far as I know you can't prove guilt by association.