NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

The guy is an ass ... Weather the ridicule is deserved or not in this case does not reduce his assness qualities as a whole

Way to go to promote tolerance, understanding or even simple respect. One step further away from possible peace again. Great work for a pope..

:rolleyes:

he should appologise.

Way to go to promote tolerance, understanding or even simple respect. One step further away from possible peace again. Great work for a pope..

:rolleyes:

He can promote tolerance when they do. He's like, the only leader in the world that realises that the West needs to stop kowtowing to the muslims.

The guy is an ass ... Weather the ridicule is deserved or not in this case does not reduce his assness qualities as a whole

Saying that everything that makes Islam different from Christianity is evil and inhuman is a little more than mere ridicule.

The last pope tried to promote dialogue between the religions that believe in the same God...

Saying that everything that makes Islam different from Christianity is evil and inhuman is a little more than mere ridicule.

Oh yeah? What else makes islam different from Christianity?

its already been established that this Pope is crap

The bible says I do believe “judge not lest ye be judged” so I guess this popes going to hell

he should appologise.

he has done nothing wrong so why should he apologise?

I'm not a christian but if the Pope can stick to his guns here I will have a lot more respect for the church as a whole.

Oh yeah? What else makes islam different from Christianity?

you'd be surprised how similar the two are

he has done nothing wrong so why should he apologise?

apart from insult a few million people whilst he holds the position of leader of the faith

"It was certainly not the intention of the Holy Father to ... offend the sensibilities of Muslim faithful," said Federico Lombardi, the Vatican press officer.
Indeed.

Indeed.

Yeah … if that’s true this pope is an idiot

I doubt its true

Oh yeah? What else makes islam different from Christianity?

Aaaaand thank you for proving your complete ingorance of the religion you keep bashing.

you'd be surprised how similar the two are

That's my point. They're very similar; except muslims also have sharia law and jihad.

The last pope tried to promote dialogue between the religions that believe in the same God...

Benedict doesn't even promote the ecumenism between different Christian churches.

That's my point. They're very similar; except muslims also have sharia law and jihad.

And Christianity has the Mosaic law and evangelism. Biiiiiig difference indeed.

That's my point. They're very similar; except muslims also have sharia law and jihad.

That’s a bit of an over simplification…

Personally I like their take on personal sin better then the Christian faith

That's my point. They're very similar; except muslims also have sharia law and jihad.

as opposed to crusades (which are always violent) and Eve being created for Adam

Aaaaand thank you for proving your complete ingorance of the religion you keep bashing.

It's not a religion, it's a cult. Like Scientology, only with more killings.

It's not a religion, it's a cult. Like Scientology, only with more killings.

Personaly I think most religions including christianty are cult like ... so I might agree with you at least in part

Edit: But being a clult or a religion is not mutualy exclusive

Oh noes, another thread thats turning into a religious dispute! w00t!

as opposed to crusades (which are always violent) and Eve being created for Adam

1) And there hasn't been a crusade in what, 800, 1000 years?

2) The Catholic Church acknowledges that the Biblical account of creation is MYTHOLOGY.

Oh noes, another thread thats turning into a religious dispute! w00t!

How is it "turning into" a religous dispute ... with an OP and a topic like this it really started as one

apart from insult a few million people whilst he holds the position of leader of the faith

and how many times have leaders of the muslim world attacked christians and other religions for being "without morals" or "evil" ?
standards apply both ways, muslim leaders cannot hold the moral highground on this issue when they have proved they are perfectly willing to attack others in this way.

It's not a religion, it's a cult. Like Scientology, only with more killings.

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader.

hmm sounds like the catholic church if you ask me

please at least look up what Islam is: http://www.answers.com/islam

and how many times have leaders of the muslim world attacked christians and other religions for being "without morals" or "evil" ?
standards apply both ways, muslim leaders cannot hold the moral highground on this issue when they have proved they are perfectly willing to attack others in this way.

Who here said they did?

And Christianity has the Mosaic law and evangelism. Biiiiiig difference indeed.

Where do you get this from? Halakha is Jewish. And evangelism doesn't involve killing people for not converting. Being annoying is not harmful.

hmm sounds like the catholic church if you ask me

please at least look up what Islam is: http://www.answers.com/islam

Add to that this actualy fairly simple comparison and contrast site

http://muslim-canada.org/islam_christianity.html

Its actualy a nice breakdown of some of the similarities and differences

http://www.answers.com/islam

I don't care what islam is. 9/11, Bali (both of them), Madrid and London told me all I needed to know.

1) And there hasn't been a crusade in what, 800, 1000 years?

and when was the last official Jihad?

2) The Catholic Church acknowledges that the Biblical account of creation is MYTHOLOGY.

and likely claims interpretation just like there are different ways to intemperate Shari'ah

I don't care what islam is. 9/11, Bali (both of them), Madrid and London told me all I needed to know.

Ah willfully ignorant


Should I let the bombings of abortion clinics also define Christianity as well? ( don’t worry I wont … I choose not to be that ignorant…)

Where do you get this from? Halakha is Jewish. And evangelism doesn't involve killing people for not converting. Being annoying is not harmful.

The fact that Christians don't follow it doesn't change that it's part of teir holy book.
Only a minority of Muslims follow Sharia laws, either.
And as for evangelising, it used to take the form of crusades and the conquista.


So, basically, your problem is not with the essential religion but with it's current interpretation by a minority.

I don't care what islam is. 9/11, Bali (both of them), Madrid and London told me all I needed to know.

don't forget the Irish they’ve committed terrorism as well clearly this proves that all Catholics are evil:rolleyes:

and when was the last official Jihad?

Since there is no central authority in islam... it's pretty much happening now.

and likely claims interpretation just like there are different ways to intemperate Shari'ah

No. It's not interpretation. It's fact. Creation is accepted as mythology.

So, basically, your problem is not with the essential religion but with it's current interpretation by a minority.

No, my problem is with the religion. Any religion that puts women in tents and tells them that they're free while they'll not allowed to anything is my enemy.

don't forget the Irish they’ve committed terrorism as well clearly this proves that all Catholics are evil:rolleyes:

Let's not get into the "N.Ireland: Religious or Political" debate again.

Should I let the bombings of abortion clinics also define Christianity as well? ( don’t worry I wont … I choose not to be that ignorant…)

Abortion clinic bombings are few and far between, and usually don't kill hundreds and thousands of people.

And now, a piece I've been saving for an occasion like this

That excuse has been used a few too many times.

I bought-
1. Oh, 90% of muslims aren't arab, so you can't blame us...
2. Oh, Al Qaeda is just a bunch of fringe radicals. You have crazy christians too!
3. Oh, the Taliban is just one theocratic government that hates the west and jews...
4. Oh, Iran is just one theocratic government that hates the west and jews...
5. Oh, that hostage crisis was ages ago, and Iran had a whole different government...
6. Oh, those schools that preech hate for the west in Saudi Arabia aren't that bad...

and so on, and so on...

The facts are piling up. Lets ignore the middle east, Russia, and China for the moment. I just want to key in on two little things.

-Non-arab muslims in the U.S. and europe, who enjoy freedom of speech and have the right to bitch as much as the rest of us- are now advocating violence, in large numbers.
-Don't forget, muslim students in the U.S., getting free education on student visas (in particular the University of South Florida, but widespread), HAD PARTIES AND CELEBRATED ON 9/11. Police were called out to protect them.

So, I am now saying it straight out.

Although there is a sizeable portion of the muslim world that is peaceful, evidence suggests that Islam is predominantly a zenophobic religion which preaches hate of all other religions, and encourages its members to act violently in the name of God.

I'm sorry, but if it walks like a duck, acts like a duck, and looks like a duck...then it's a fucking duck.

No, my problem is with the religion. Any religion that puts women in tents and tells them that they're free while they'll not allowed to anything is my enemy.

You have a point, any society that puts women on high heels and then tells them that the'yre free is my enemy :D

You have a point, any society that puts women on high heels and then tells them that the'yre free is my enemy :D

It's their choice to wear heels or not. It's not part of the law.

Let's not get into the "N.Ireland: Religious or Political" debate again.

lets not get into the "various terrorist attacks: religious or political" debate again :p

Since there is no central authority in islam... it's pretty much happening now.

actually your wrong though its very much different churches of Islam like different churches of Christianity so its like the pope leading the Christian world

No, my problem is with the religion. Any religion that puts women in tents and tells them that they're free while they'll not allowed to anything is my enemy.

Oh, and a religion that tells women to accept men as "their heads", not to speak on religious matter or in church and to be submissive in every aspect is your friend?

Oh, and a religion that tells women to accept men as "their heads", not to speak on religious matter or in church and to be submissive in every aspect is your friend?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/

It's their choice to wear heels or not. It's not part of the law.

you do know that Muslim women don't have to wear the Burka right?

No, my problem is with the religion. Any religion that puts women in tents and tells them that they're free while they'll not allowed to anything is my enemy.

What about caravans and other recreational vehicles - do they count?

It's their choice to wear heels or not. It's not part of the law.

This is part of the Law in how many islamic countries?

currently none for the Burka..

Oh, and a religion that tells women to accept men as "their heads", not to speak on religious matter or in church and to be submissive in every aspect is your friend?

That's why the Catholic Church is being challenged by the idea of women's ordination, and other Christian traditions have accepted female priests. Furthermore, women are no longer seen as inferior in the Catholic tradition; they can undertake study in Christian theology and then perform many parish services that priests can. They're just not allowed to be ordinated, and the Church has it's reasons for this, although I disagree with them. But nevertheless, at least keeps this stuff within the tradition; remember when Australian women on beaches were told to cover up for visiting muslims? That left me fuming.

Alternative headline:

"Pontiff Calling The Kettle Black"

That's why the Catholic Church is being challenged by the idea of women's ordination, and other Christian traditions have accepted female priests. Furthermore, women are no longer seen as inferior in the Catholic tradition; they can undertake study in Christian theology and then perform many parish services that priests can. They're just not allowed to be ordinated, and the Church has it's reasons for this, although I disagree with them. But nevertheless, at least keeps this stuff within the tradition; remember when Australian women on beaches were told to cover up for visiting muslims? That left me fuming.

Not all the faith seems to follow that idea (taking christian faith as a whole as you are taking islamic faith as a whole)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/

This is part of the Law in how many islamic countries?

currently none for the Burka..

"Modestly" laws exist in Iran, I'm pretty sure about Saudi Arabia too.

"Modestly" laws exist in Iran, I'm pretty sure about Saudi Arabia too.

Modesty laws exist in the US too ... apparently it is alright for a man to go around without a shirt on but not a woman

Wierd that they treat the sexes differently even here

Not all the faith seems to follow that idea (taking christian faith as a whole as you are taking islamic faith as a whole)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/21/menonly.sundayschool.ap/

Every religion has it's wackos and weird splinter groups. islam just happens to have a huge proportion of those wackos.

Every religion has it's wackos and weird splinter groups. islam just happens to have a huge proportion of those wackos.

Edit: what are the proportions you get? I have not seen any clear stats on the subject

That's why the Catholic Church is being challenged by the idea of women's ordination, and other Christian traditions have accepted female priests.

Better check on that again. Take a look at what the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church has to say about women holding equal station in the Church.


Furthermore, women are no longer seen as inferior in the Catholic tradition; they can undertake study in Christian theology and then perform many parish services that priests can. They're just not allowed to be ordinated, and the Church has it's reasons for this, although I disagree with them.

Yeah, women are no longer seen as inferior, except for the cases where they are still clearly seen as inferior.


But nevertheless, at least keeps this stuff within the tradition; remember when Australian women on beaches were told to cover up for visiting muslims? That left me fuming.
Oh, well if it's tradition then that's a different story! If somebody comes up with a new and crazy means of oppressing women then we should all go bugfuck crazy with rage, but if they've been oppressing women for hundreds of years then we shouldn't get too miffed about it. Because the longer you treat people like crap, the more okay your behavior becomes.

Modesty laws exist in the US too ... apparently it is alright for a man to go around without a shirt on but not a woman

Wierd that they treat the sexes differently even here

It's called public nudity. Like it or not, breasts are considered naughty bits. Men often keep their shirts on anyway, because that how society likes it.

"Modestly" laws exist in Iran, I'm pretty sure about Saudi Arabia too.

Have you seen how the men dress in the Middle East.

When I lived in Egypt I discovered that the pious men covered themselves as well...

It is a combination of culture and religion, it aplies to men and women alike and it makes sense once you consider the sun in these areas...

It's called public nudity. Like it or not, breasts are considered naughty bits. Men often keep their shirts on anyway, because that how society likes it.
Yes, and that would be a sexist "modesty law." The fact that the nude male torso is not considered "public nudity" while the nude female torso is...can you see how that would qualify? Can you see how prohibitions against public nudity, when not specifically for sanitary or public health reasons, qualify as "modesty laws"?

It's called public nudity. Like it or not, breasts are considered naughty bits. Men often keep their shirts on anyway, because that how society likes it.

Yup … and apparently the hair of women just like the chest of women is more objectionable then men …

Like I said weird to see you rallying against their sexist laws and apparently ignoring ours



Personaly I think they are both bad

Yes, and that would be a sexist "modesty law." The fact that the nude male torso is not considered "public nudity" while the nude female torso is...can you see how that would qualify? Can you see how prohibitions against public nudity, when not specifically for sanitary or public health reasons, qualify as "modesty laws"?

I thought that was apparent ...

Better check on that again. Take a look at what the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church has to say about women holding equal station in the Church.

The Pope has said the the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. I disagree with this, but at least people have a choice to leave the Church and join a group which better represents their spirituality. It's called Anglican.

Yeah, women are no longer seen as inferior, except for the cases where they are still clearly seen as inferior.

But they're not. Give me an example.

Oh, well if it's tradition then that's a different story! If somebody comes up with a new and crazy means of oppressing women then we should all go bugfuck crazy with rage, but if they've been oppressing women for hundreds of years then we shouldn't get too miffed about it. Because the longer you treat people like crap, the more okay your behavior becomes.

If you don't know the meaning of tradition in a religious context, you shouldn't talk. And like I said, just because Christianity has only changed within recent history, doesn't give islam a free pass to hang rape victims and put all woemn under veils as to not temp men.

Better check on that again. Take a look at what the supreme ruler of the Catholic Church has to say about women holding equal station in the Church.


Yeah, women are no longer seen as inferior, except for the cases where they are still clearly seen as inferior.


Oh, well if it's tradition then that's a different story! If somebody comes up with a new and crazy means of oppressing women then we should all go bugfuck crazy with rage, but if they've been oppressing women for hundreds of years then we shouldn't get too miffed about it. Because the longer you treat people like crap, the more okay your behavior becomes.

:D

Nice to know some leader in the word has some backbone.

Dont say sorry ben until they say sorry for all the sorrow there religion has caused.

I thought that was apparent ...
So did I, but I guess it wasn't clear for some people.

Given that male breast tissue does not serve any pratical function, while female breast tissue is frequently used to feed young, it seems particularly backwards to insist that FEMALES should cover their chests while males should not be required to do so.

I for one applaud Pope Bendict. He doesn't compromise Scpriture even though the entire world wants him to.

And before you say I'm spouting RC propaganda, just know that I'm not RC.

Looks like I lose again. Yay islam! Come and enslave us! Glory to Allah! Death to all infidels!

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/t1.srinigar.ap.jpg

In Soviet Russia, this Pope Loves you!

Dont say sorry ben until they say sorry for all the sorrow there religion has caused.

I'm sure more than one Muslim has apologised for the extremist of there religions actions I would hardly call that fair

That's why the Catholic Church is being challenged by the idea of women's ordination, and other Christian traditions have accepted female priests. Furthermore, women are no longer seen as inferior in the Catholic tradition; they can undertake study in Christian theology and then perform many parish services that priests can. They're just not allowed to be ordinated, and the Church has it's reasons for this, although I disagree with them. But nevertheless, at least keeps this stuff within the tradition; remember when Australian women on beaches were told to cover up for visiting muslims? That left me fuming.

Listen, you hero Ratzinger held more than one patronizing, condescending, dismissive sermons about women's role in the Cathollic church. And it basically said they should be grateful that they are allowed to clean the churches.
He has disallowed altar girls again, and I'm sure he's got more in store.

Looks like I lose again. Yay islam! Come and enslave us! Glory to Allah! Death to all infidels!

Hurrah now maybe moderate Islam will understand that the actions of a few do not equate the actions of all

So many christian leaders in the west (Particularly Europe) are always too concerned with acting politically correct, talking about 'Inter-faith dialogue' and the usual crap. So it's good to see a religious leader (The most influential one at that) who actually has a spine and isn't afraid to tell things as they are.

Listen, you hero Ratzinger held more than one patronizing, condescending, dismissive sermons about women's role in the Cathollic church. And it basically said they should be grateful that they are allowed to clean the churches.
He has disallowed altar girls again, and I'm sure he's got more in store.

Yes, death to Christian infidels.

It's called public nudity. Like it or not, breasts are considered naughty bits. Men often keep their shirts on anyway, because that how society likes it.

Yep. And public nudity is illegal why, exactly? Modesty law, hon.

The Pope has said the the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. I disagree with this, but at least people have a choice to leave the Church and join a group which better represents their spirituality. It's called Anglican.

Yeah, and the KKK isn't racist because blacks are free to join different organizations.


But they're not. Give me an example.

Read your own post. Women are specifically and clearly denied status within Catholicism for no reason other than that they are female.


If you don't know the meaning of tradition in a religious context, you shouldn't talk.

Tradition doesn't carry any special meaning "in a religious context." The fact that people sometimes call on superstition in regards to their belief systems doesn't make a bit of difference. If a tradition is sexist and oppressive, it doesn't magically become non-sexist and non-oppressive when somebody invokes a Sky Fairy.


And like I said, just because Christianity has only changed within recent history, doesn't give islam a free pass to hang rape victims and put all woemn under veils as to not temp men.
Well there's a giant goddam straw man if ever I've seen one.

It's not a zero-sum game, my friend. People like me have been screaming at the world to help women under the Taliban since long before most people could even locate The Middle East on a map. Funny how nobody seemed to give a flying fuck about those women until their plight could be used to justify Muslim-hating and wars of conquest.

I object to sexist and woman-hating bullshit no matter which Invisible Super-Powered Patriarch is backing it. I don't let anybody, Christian or Muslim or atheist or anything, use "tradition" as some kind of excuse for abuse and injustice. If you've been fucking women over for so long that it is tradition, that's not a point in your favor.

The thing is, I live in a country that is run by Christians, and I believe in taking the log from mine own eye before pointing out the mote in my neighbor's. My first responsibility is to make sure that my own culture is behaving in a just and reasonable manner. I don't get off the hook by pointing across an ocean and saying, "Hey, but they're doing it too!"

Yep. And public nudity is illegal why, exactly? Modesty law, hon.

Being uncovered is against Islam. Death to those who show skin.

The Pope has said the the Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. I disagree with this, but at least people have a choice to leave the Church and join a group which better represents their spirituality. It's called Anglican.

In Islam, similar to Judaism a Muslim can choose to follow various Ulema or Islamic scholars, which have differing but all valid views on this matter...

Same difference..

Yes, death to Christian infidels.

I know it's too much to ask to get your mind around that fact that it is in fact possible to be tolerant WITHOUT automatically wishing to convert to Islam....

:rolleyes:

He can promote tolerance when they do. He's like, the only leader in the world that realises that the West needs to stop kowtowing to the muslims.
*Catholic here*

This is not a good example of JPII's legacy of interfaith dialogue and friendship. We don't have to wait for every Muslim to get tolerant before we do when we can be tolerant now.

It is good we will all agree that the Pope clearly opposes speading religion through violence, but the implication that most Muslims favour this is not even true.

Aaaaand thank you for proving your complete ingorance of the religion you keep bashing.
You like to bash every religion, don't you?

And Christianity has the Mosaic law and evangelism. Biiiiiig difference indeed.
Evangelism isn't violent. That is a big difference.

hmm sounds like the catholic church if you ask me
This is immature. Just cos some idiot says "Islam is a cult," there's no need to prove that you're equally an idiot by proclaiming Catholicism to be one.


And as for evangelising, it used to take the form of crusades and the conquista.
Christian Evangelism isn't violent. Present tense. It's not violent in the Bible either.

Being uncovered is against Islam. Death to those who show skin.

Yes. Right. Islam is the reason why I can't walk topless through Dublin. :rolleyes:

Yes. Right. Islam is the reason why I can't walk topless through Dublin. :rolleyes:

Death to the Dubliners, the infidels!

You like to bash every religion, don't you?

I dislike religion. But I dislike all religions equally.


Evangelism isn't violent. That is a big difference.

Neither is the principle of Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad) automatically or necessarily violent.
Both have been used in violent ways in the past. It's a matter of interpretation.

So many christian leaders in the west (Particularly Europe) are always too concerned with acting politically correct, talking about 'Inter-faith dialogue' and the usual crap. So it's good to see a religious leader (The most influential one at that) who actually has a spine and isn't afraid to tell things as they are.

Acting like he has a spine is nice, but I'd like to see him act as if there's a brain attached to that spine. Pushing back reforms in his own religion and condemning another that shares some of the same history and beliefs makes Ratzinger look strong, but not too smart. The leader of one the world's largest religion needs to be both to be successful.

Well keep in mind he's just parroting what the Catholic Church has always said about Muslims. Crusades anyone? Catholics and Muslims butt heads just as bad as Evangelicals and Scientists.

Acting like he has a spine is nice, but I'd like to see him act as if there's a brain attached to that spine. Pushing back reforms in his own religion and condemning another that shares some of the same history and beliefs makes Ratzinger look strong, but not too smart. The leader of one the world's largest religion needs to be both to be successful.
You are well named, O Sane One.

I'm annoyed at how so many people appear to believe it is a virtue if somebody is wrong in a very committed way.

Being honest and straightfoward in your words is a good thing; being needlessly rude and inflamatory, particularly when you are the leader of a global religious community, is not a good thing.

Being willing to defend your culture and your beliefs is a good thing; being unwilling to recognize flaws or injustices in your culture is not.

Standing up for something isn't a good thing if the "something" sucks.

Standing up for something isn't a good thing if the "something" sucks.

So Western society sucks? Then get the hell out.

Oh, and a religion that tells women to accept men as "their heads", not to speak on religious matter or in church and to be submissive in every aspect is your friend?
You could be talking about conservative interpretations of Islam or Christianity here.

I don't get the Islam=good, Christianity=bad junket that many atheists/agnostics seem to jump on.

Alternative headline:

"Pontiff Calling The Kettle Black"
I don't agree with what he said, but that would only be true if he himself advocated violence in the name of his religion. Which he doesn't.

Rather, he denounced those who advocate violence in the name of their religion.

Modesty laws exist in the US too ... apparently it is alright for a man to go around without a shirt on but not a woman

Wierd that they treat the sexes differently even here
It must suck living in a fundamentalist theocracy. Is the USA really as repressive as Iran as you say?

Edit: what are the proportions you get? I have not seen any clear stats on the subject
Come on this is so obvious... Muslim groups protest over every comment against their religion. Their extreme wackos are much more extreme and dangerous.

Like I said weird to see you rallying against their sexist laws and apparently ignoring ours
You expect him to criticise both in the same thread?

Personaly I think they are both bad
But you never actually criticise theirs.


It's not a zero-sum game, my friend. People like me have been screaming at the world to help women under the Taliban since long before most people could even locate The Middle East on a map. Funny how nobody seemed to give a flying fuck about those women until their plight could be used to justify Muslim-hating and wars of conquest.

I object to sexist and woman-hating bullshit no matter which Invisible Super-Powered Patriarch is backing it. I don't let anybody, Christian or Muslim or atheist or anything, use "tradition" as some kind of excuse for abuse and injustice. If you've been fucking women over for so long that it is tradition, that's not a point in your favor.
So why, Bottle, when someone criticises these patriarchs you always instantly respond, "butChristiansdoittoo".

The thing is, I live in a country that is run by Christians, and I believe in taking the log from mine own eye before pointing out the mote in my neighbor's. My first responsibility is to make sure that my own culture is behaving in a just and reasonable manner. I don't get off the hook by pointing across an ocean and saying, "Hey, but they're doing it too!"
If you're working for women's rights there aren't any logs in your eye. It's odd to see an atheist quoting the Bible.

So Western society sucks? Then get the fuck out.
Darling, the Catholic Church has not determined "Western Society" in several hundred years. The last time Western Society was controlled by the Church was called The Dark Ages.

Since we evicted him from the choir he became a nice guy.
Some Muslim States are too happy to fuss about something they did not understand.
Ben said nothing, he just referred an old book.
He just said they are evils. Then what?
But Islamists are too happy to jolly mess everything.

Join the mass confusion, who cares. All are evils.
Only our church is right, other religions are fakes.

We aren't the cheapest, but it's no free beer!
Look our great colourful temples, our nice parades outfits.
Join us for a strong unified religion.

Satanism is not so bad! :gundge:

I don't agree with what he said, but that would only be true if he himself advocated violence in the name of his religion. Which he doesn't.

Rather, he denounced those who advocate violence in the name of their religion.

We're talking about a guy who is currently pushing an active campaign that tells women it is a sin to use condoms with their HIV+ husbands. We're talking about an organization that has intentionally and knowingly lied about the AIDS epidemic, deliberately thwarting efforts to combat the epidemic.

Sorry, but the Pope has absolutely no reason to bitch anybody else out for sacrificing innocent lives in the name of faith. The Catholic Church is doing exactly that, all over the world, at this very moment.


So why, Bottle, when someone criticises these patriarchs you always instantly respond, "butChristiansdoittoo".

Because the objections to the abuse of Muslim women are being held up as examples of how radical and extreme Islam is, or how evil it is, or how we really should bomb the snot out of them. So I respond by pointing out that Christianity has done (and is doing) pretty much all the same shit, so Christians probably shouldn't try to use that as our justification for attacks on Islam.


If you're working for women's rights there aren't any logs in your eye.

I am a citizen of a country that still practices institutionalized sexism. That is a log in my eye, because my government is "by the people." I'm one of the people. If my government is unjust, I bear part of the responsibility for that injustice.


It's odd to see an atheist quoting the Bible.
Why? Christians quote secular literature all the time.

So Western society sucks? Then get the hell out.

I am free to live in the West and still think that it sucks, if you would want to go to a place where one is not that free, it's your choice. ;)

I am free to live in the West and still think that it sucks, if you would want to go to a place where one is not that free, it's your choice. ;)
Hmm, that's another good point:

It's kind interesting to see who has this "give up when it sucks" mentality. If I care about something, I don't just give up when the going gets rough. If I love somebody and they start acting like a jerk, I don't ditch them and go away because they suck. I stick around and try to make things right. My life has sucked from time to time, but I don't respond by trying to kill myself to escape my sucky life. My job has sucked from time to time, but I don't quit every time I hit a professional snag. I stick around and work hard to make things better.

I don't think things actually suck in the West, but even if I did that wouldn't necessarily mean I would cut and run. I give a shit about my country and my fellow humans, even if they sometimes do hurtful or assholish things.

There are problems, serious problems, in the West. There are some things that deeply suck. But I happen to believe that it's possible for things to not suck, and that it's possible for me to do things that will in some small way help to reduce the suckery that occurs. So that's what I do.

You could be talking about conservative interpretations of Islam or Christianity here.

I don't get the Islam=good, Christianity=bad junket that many atheists/agnostics seem to jump on.

I don't particularly like either. But that's just me.

I am free to live in the West and still think that it sucks, if you would want to go to a place where one is not that free, it's your choice. ;)

You shouldn't be.

snip

The West is fucked. It's not worth fighting for. I'm here to protect my own interests.

I don't get the Islam=good, Christianity=bad junket that many atheists/agnostics seem to jump on.

I think I heard that fat bitch lesbo Rosie O Donnell say something along those lines on the View.

Rosie O Donnell :mp5:

I don't particularly like either. But that's just me.
Don't worry, it's just a straw man. If you are an atheist or agnostic who voices most objections about the religion that most directly impacts your life, and if that religion happens to be Christianity, then that is going to be interpretted as your clear bigotry against Christians. If you suggest that perhaps the anti-Muslim sentiments in the West are a bit out of control, this will be read as your endorsement of Islam as a package deal.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

Er...

He is the power.

You shouldn't be.
Hmmm, you know, there are nations where they kill or kick out anybody who disagrees with the majority religion.

There are countries where dissenters are abused and eliminated by the Powers That Be.

There are countries where it is illegal to hold values or beliefs that contradict the will of the religious officials who hold power.

A long-standing theory in psychology suggests that we often hate and fear those things which embody our own personal flaws. I'm just saying.

You shouldn't be.

Defend western freedoms by taking them away; we have a winner!

Don't worry, it's just a straw man. If you are an atheist or agnostic who voices most objections about the religion that most directly impacts your life, and if that religion happens to be Christianity, then that is going to be interpretted as your clear bigotry against Christians. If you suggest that perhaps the anti-Muslim sentiments in the West are a bit out of control, this will be read as your endorsement of Islam as a package deal.

I know... it's still annoying.

The West is fucked. It's not worth fighting for. I'm here to protect my own interests.

If I'm not mistaken, till now you have only been fighting against, never for... Why would you?

Go Pope dude ! you tell them !

The West is fucked. It's not worth fighting for. I'm here to protect my own interests.
So if you think the West sucks, and if you think people should leave the West if they believe it sucks, why are you still here?

Don't get me wrong, it's fine by me if you want to stay. You seem to be seething with impotent rage, but you also seem pretty harmless. I don't much mind if my country is home to people who disagree with me. It just seems like maybe you'd be happier if you took your own advice.

snip

Your point?

Your point?
When you snip the whole post, it's hard to know which "point" you are inquiring about.

So if you think the West sucks, and if you think people should leave the West if they believe it sucks, why are you still here?

Don't get me wrong, it's fine by me if you want to stay. You seem to be seething with impotent rage, but you also seem pretty harmless. I don't much mind if my country is home to people who disagree with me. It just seems like maybe you'd be happier if you took your own advice.

I never said it sucks, I said it was fucked. Nice cultural values, but it will be destroyed soon.

I never said it sucks, I said it was fucked. Nice cultural values, but it will be destroyed soon.

So many sexual metaphors! Hard to keep track!

I never said it sucks, I said it was fucked. Nice cultural values, but it will be destroyed soon.
Meh. All cultures rise and fall, just as all people live and die. "Soon" is relative.

I never said it sucks, I said it was fucked. Nice cultural values, but it will be destroyed soon.

Things will change as always, but we retain some power over the direction...

Meh. All cultures rise and fall, just as all people live and die. "Soon" is relative.

Within the next 10 years.

Within the next 10 years.

Want to put some money on that?

Want to put some money on that?

Sure.

Within the next 10 years.
People have been predicting the imminent fall of the West for as long as there was a West to worry about.

They were sure it would happen when the Enlightenment and Reformation came about. They were damn sure when the colonies rejected the authority of the monarchy. They were freaking positive when the slaves were freed. They knew Doom was at hand when women were allowed the vote. They pissed their pants when Hitler rose to power, and their soiled their drawers over Stalin and Mao. The hippies were poised to topple the West, followed quickly by the blacks, the women (again) and the gays. In the 80s and 90s we learned that Hollywood will be the downfall of the West.

I'm hoping if I stick around long enough there will be a movement that recognizes the REAL threat to the West: capri pants. Abominations, I'm telling you.

So Western society sucks? Then get the hell out.

No organized religion sucks … and I prefer to do the right thing and strive for change …

Because the objections to the abuse of Muslim women are being held up as examples of how radical and extreme Islam is, or how evil it is, or how we really should bomb the snot out of them.
Criticising Islamic groups is not usually intended to generalise about over a billion people. And questioning the human rights record of Islamic groups is certainly not inherently used as a justification for bombing them.

You're so paranoid about extremists wanting to justify "wiping 'em out" that you're even against reasonable criticism of Islam.


I am a citizen of a country that still practices institutionalized sexism. That is a log in my eye, because my government is "by the people." I'm one of the people. If my government is unjust, I bear part of the responsibility for that injustice.
No, the people who voted for repression are to blame. You can't logically be held responsible if you have never supported, and always opposed, repression of women.

Why? Christians quote secular literature all the time.
The Bible is bullshit according to you so I don't see why you give it any credibility.

The quote is also inapplicable. The log is in "their" eye, while the mote is in "ours". Amnesty International consistently gives Europe (and even America, especially pre-2001) better human rights ratings than many parts of the world.

So I don't get how the west is equally if not more repressive than the most backwards fundamentalist middle-eastern theocracy.

Want to put some money on that?
Sure.

I'd take the bet, you cannot lose :D

I think I heard that fat bitch lesbo Rosie O Donnell say something along those lines on the View.

Rosie O Donnell :mp5:
Including a gun smilie invalidates whatever moronic "point" you're making.

Don't worry, it's just a straw man.
I didn't mean to point at all atheists or agnostics, but in a few cases it's certainly not a straw man.

The Danish cartoon debacle revealed that there are some around who believe that Islam should be protected from mockery, but that other religions shouldn't. And plenty of them are not Muslims*.


*And plenty of Muslims support free speech even when it mocks their faith.

I didn't mean to point at all atheists or agnostics, but in a few cases it's certainly not a straw man.

The Danish cartoon debacle revealed that there are some around who believe that Islam should be protected from mockery, but that other religions shouldn't. And plenty of them are not Muslims*.


*And plenty of Muslims support free speech even when it mocks their faith.

Nothing and nobody should be protected from mockery. Both the Muslim and non-Muslim reaction to these cartoon was a farce, it would have been ridiculous if it hadn't been that serious.

Criticising Islamic groups is not usually intended to generalise about over a billion people.

You haven't been here long, have you?


And questioning the human rights record of Islamic groups is certainly not inherently used as a justification for bombing them.

"Inherently"? Perhaps not. However, it is routinely used precisely that way, even by the highest ranking members in my government.


You're so paranoid about extremists wanting to justify "wiping 'em out" that you're even against reasonable criticism of Islam.

Riiiight. Which is why I was participating in efforts to fight back the Taliban about 10 years before the average person in my country even knew who they were.

I've criticized Islam many times, both here and in the real world. I've made it clear on this very thread that I call bullshit on ANY religion that holds woman-hating as a traditional values, and I've made it very clear that this includes Islam. Get over it.


No, the people who voted for repression are to blame. You can't logically be held responsible if you have never supported, and always opposed, repression of women.
There are about 300 million people in my country. I believe that this means I carry one 300 millionth of the responsibility for everything my government does. I am my government, as much as all my fellow citizens are.


The Bible is bullshit according to you so I don't see why you give it any credibility.

The Bible is a book according to me. I don't believe that Moby Dick is a factual work or the absolute word on morality, but I still quote it on occasion.


The quote is also inapplicable. The log is in "their" eye, while the mote is in "ours". Amnesty International consistently gives Europe (and even America, especially pre-2001) better human rights ratings than many parts of the world.

That's like a guy saying, "I only hit my wife hard enough to give her bruises, but the guy across the street breaks his wife's arms, therefore I don't have to worry about my own behavior!"


So I don't get how the west is equally if not more repressive than the most backwards fundamentalist middle-eastern theocracy.
I'm not grading on a curve.

If you get 75 out of 100 answers wrong on your test, I'm not going to give you an A+ just because some other guy got 95 wrong.

I think they should fight it out. Might let the rest of the world get back to doing something constructive.

I don't care what islam is. 9/11, Bali (both of them), Madrid and London told me all I needed to know.

And that post told me all I need to know about you.

You're a moron. Plain and simple.

The muslim faith itself never attacked America, Madrid, or London. People did. Twisted, psychotic people. That doesn't reflect in the muslim faith at all. They aren't "leaders" in the muslim world. Walk up to a muslim in America and ask him if Osama Bin Laden is his religious leader, and watch you get punched in the face, rightfully so.

He has a good point. It's worthless to spread faith by the sword. How is that objectionable?

He has a good point. It's worthless to spread faith by the sword. How is that objectionable?

Because it was said by a Byzantine emperor to incite rage against muslims.

Because it was said by a Byzantine emperor to incite rage against muslims.

He chose a poor quote to use, but I agree that the sword is no way to spread faith.

He chose a poor quote to use, but I agree that the sword is no way to spread faith.

As do many muslims. What's your point?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

Props to Pope Benedict for daring to speak the truth. Now don't go wobbly on us and apologize!

And note, please, the difference in reactions to criticism on the part of the Catholic Church and the "religion of peace."

Because it was said by a Byzantine emperor to incite rage against muslims.

A Byzantine emperor, by the way, whose land was occupied by Muslims.

Of course, since it was Muslims doing the occupyin', you won't hear many voices today calling for "withdrawal from the occupied territories."

A Byzantine emperor, by the way, whose land was occupied by Muslims.

Of course, since it was Muslims doing the occupyin', you won't hear many voices today calling for "withdrawal from the occupied territories."

Depends. Is there any oil invoolved?

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

You're going to the Eternally Uncleaned Litter Box for this.

A Byzantine emperor, by the way, whose land was occupied by Muslims.

Of course, since it was Muslims doing the occupyin', you won't hear many voices today calling for "withdrawal from the occupied territories."

Would be nice if Christians didn't start a holy war to begin with. Besides, the Byzantines were quickly losing power and getting more corrupt. I'm not going to shed tears because a stronger nation conquered them. Happened many times in history, Byzantine was nothing special.

You haven't been here long, have you?
Well there's Deep Kimchi and a few other far-right freaks, but who else? I certainly don't criticise every Muslim, nor does Drunk Commies and many others. If you criticised them (which I would expect more often, you being a feminist) would it make you a hateful bigot?

"Inherently"? Perhaps not. However, it is routinely used precisely that way, even by the highest ranking members in my government.
It's not inherently so, thus you shouldn't act as if it is. It's getting to the point where I can't criticise human rights abuse without being called a bigot.

Riiiight. Which is why I was participating in efforts to fight back the Taliban about 10 years before the average person in my country even knew who they were.

I've criticized Islam many times, both here and in the real world. I've made it clear on this very thread that I call bullshit on ANY religion that holds woman-hating as a traditional values, and I've made it very clear that this includes Islam. Get over it.
Right so criticism of Islamic traditions is acceptable, but only if you're doing it.

There are about 300 million people in my country. I believe that this means I carry one 300 millionth of the responsibility for everything my government does. I am my government, as much as all my fellow citizens are.
So when did you vote for repression?

The Bible is a book according to me. I don't believe that Moby Dick is a factual work or the absolute word on morality, but I still quote it on occasion.
You try to convince people to do things in real life based on quotes in novels?

That's like a guy saying, "I only hit my wife hard enough to give her bruises, but the guy across the street breaks his wife's arms, therefore I don't have to worry about my own behavior!"
I didn't say we should have to worry about our own behaviour. Nothing I have ever said implies that. I campaign for human rights and tolerance in my own country and all over the world.

I just said that we have the right to criticise. Your belief that we shouldn't criticise human rights abuses worries me greatly.

I'm not grading on a curve.

If you get 75 out of 100 answers wrong on your test, I'm not going to give you an A+ just because some other guy got 95 wrong.
Good teacher.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

You are no Catholic... but you appreciate when the catholic head of religion stirs up aggression between the Middle East and the West, by quoting centuries old propoganda?

And - again - you STATE that this is nothing to do with being Catholic.

So - what is the prupose of the thread, then? Just to hate on Muslims?

Funny the way someone's words can be taken to the extreme. How many people who called for the Pope's apology actually bothered to read his speech and the context in which he quoted the Byzantium emperor?

But, yet again, the Muslim world reacts violently against something bad said about them. They certainly arn't helping to prove Islam is a "religion of peace".

Would be nice if Christians didn't start a holy war to begin with. Besides, the Byzantines were quickly losing power and getting more corrupt. I'm not going to shed tears because a stronger nation conquered them. Happened many times in history, Byzantine was nothing special.

Losing power? Sure. Getting more corrupt? Compared to what? The Byzantines have gotten a bad reputation among historians until relatively recently, for being effete, corrupt and, as you say, "nothing special." And yet they maintained civilization (literature, art, science) when the Western Empire had dissolved into a patch-work of barbarian states, the guarded Christian Europe for a thousand years (whether or not you think that was a good thing). Were the Byzantines perfect? Of course not. They had their politicians and fanatics just like everyone else. Study them a bit, you might be surprised.

Would be nice if Christians didn't start a holy war to begin with.

Do you mean the one that started in 634 AD? Oops, that wasn't the Christians. How about the one in 717 AD? Nope, that wasn't the Christians either. Maybe the one in 1071 AD? Try again, that also wasn't the Christians. Well, what about 1097? Now there's a holy war the Christians "started". Of course, they were also helping Alexius II expel the invaders of 1071 and end the occupation of formerly Byzantine territory.

Besides, the Byzantines were quickly losing power and getting more corrupt. I'm not going to shed tears because a stronger nation conquered them. Happened many times in history, Byzantine was nothing special.

Most recently in 1967.

Losing power? Sure. Getting more corrupt? Compared to what? The Byzantines have gotten a bad reputation among historians until relatively recently, for being effete, corrupt and, as you say, "nothing special." And yet they maintained civilization (literature, art, science) when the Western Empire had dissolved into a patch-work of barbarian states, the guarded Christian Europe for a thousand years (whether or not you think that was a good thing). Were the Byzantines perfect? Of course not. They had their politicians and fanatics just like everyone else. Study them a bit, you might be surprised.

It was the foolish decisions of Byzantine "emperors" that caused their empire decline to the point where all the territory they held was Constantinople itself. They simply couldn't adapt to the change in military tactics and let the Turks overrun them.

Do you mean the one that started in 634 AD? Oops, that wasn't the Christians. How about the one in 717 AD? Nope, that wasn't the Christians either. Maybe the one in 1071 AD? Try again, that also wasn't the Christians. Well, what about 1097? Now there's a holy war the Christians "started". Of course, they were also helping Alexius II expel the invaders of 1071 and end the occupation of formerly Byzantine territory.

Ok, so the Arabs invaded when they first gained power and then centuries later the Christains invaded. I suppose you could try to say it makes it "even".

It was the foolish decisions of Byzantine "emperors" that caused their empire decline to the point where all the territory they held was Constantinople itself. They simply couldn't adapt to the change in military tactics and let the Turks overrun them.

I don't know, I think lasting close to 1,000 years shows they adapted pretty well. In that amount of time you'll certainly have bad rulers, and goodness knows the Byzantines had their share. Using Turks as mercenaries and bringing them over to the European side of the Straits seemed like a good idea at the time, I'm sure. All I mean is that you shouldn't go spouting "Oh, the Byzantines were nothing special, they got pwned by the Turks, FTW" without doing a bit of research (though I suppose this is what's still taught, so ... ).

Props to Pope Benedict for daring to speak the truth. Now don't go wobbly on us and apologize!

And note, please, the difference in reactions to criticism on the part of the Catholic Church and the "religion of peace."

Yeah the Catholic Church probably went into a frenzy of giddy kiddy touching :p

I don't know, I think lasting close to 1,000 years shows they adapted pretty well. In that amount of time you'll certainly have bad rulers, and goodness knows the Byzantines had their share. Using Turks as mercenaries and bringing them over to the European side of the Straits seemed like a good idea at the time, I'm sure. All I mean is that you shouldn't go spouting "Oh, the Byzantines were nothing special, they got pwned by the Turks, FTW" without doing a bit of research (though I suppose this is what's still taught, so ... ).

The Byzantines did have an impressive run but in the end they went the way of all the other empires. And their last couple hundred years don't count in my opinion as they were not a power in any way. Hell, during the Fourth Crusade Constantinople was sacked by Christians!

Ok, so the Arabs invaded when they first gained power and then centuries later the Christains invaded. I suppose you could try to say it makes it "even".

More than even. The "Muslims are angry because of the Crusades" argument doesn't hold water when viewed historically.

More than even. The "Muslims are angry because of the Crusades" argument doesn't hold water when viewed historically.

I'd say the Muslims would be angry because of being used by Europe after WWI. Being turned into their colonies is what pissed them off and is much more recent then the Crusades. More of a reason to get someones blood up.

now a days, i do things 10 times more then i did them before if the muslims protest it.

why?

because i can

now a days, i do things 10 times more then i did them before if the muslims protest it.

why?

because i can

You shouldn't let others decide what you think but if you do things purposely to anger someone then you get periously close to being as insulting as the offended party claims.

You shouldn't let others decide what you think but if you do things purposely to anger someone then you get periously close to being as insulting as the offended party claims.

well sometimes you have to let the other group know what it is like to be really insulted, if they think a cartoon that depicts their prophet is insulting, then you have to show them that that is really a compliment compared to what could be

well sometimes you have to let the other group know what it is like to be really insulted, if they think a cartoon that depicts their prophet is insulting, then you have to show them that that is really a compliment compared to what could be

Somehow I don't see how giving "real" insults are going to show that Muslims were overreacting to the cartoons. Besides, it was a certain unscrupulous few who agitated the people. Without it, I doubt the cartoons would have made an impact at all.

well sometimes you have to let the other group know what it is like to be really insulted, if they think a cartoon that depicts their prophet is insulting, then you have to show them that that is really a compliment compared to what could be

Let's assume, just for a second.. that Islam is collectively just as dangerous as certain pundits want you to believe....

Okay - are we imagining this 'Islamo-fascist' nightmare we keep hearing about?

Okay... so... you go out of your way to piss them off, and they kill you, then your friends, then your family. Then they poison the water supply in your town, and kill everyone who lives within a ten mile radius of you.

Here is your ghost, sitting in the ruins, laughing at the lesson you taught them, yes?

I don't care what islam is. 9/11, Bali (both of them), Madrid and London told me all I needed to know.

Ah. Because a few extremists speak for a majority. I see! That makes sense!

So...

All christians are dominionists interested in raising hate-soldiers to enforce theocracy.
All white people are racists who support lynching and discrimination
All Americans are crusading cowboys out to colonize the world
and All Asians are short dictators with Napoleon Complexes

Suddenly, I see in a whole new light...

It's a mustard yellow. I think it symbolizes my feelings of disgust.

well sometimes you have to let the other group know what it is like to be really insulted, if they think a cartoon that depicts their prophet is insulting, then you have to show them that that is really a compliment compared to what could be

Sounds awfull close to a friend of mines husbands thinking when he used to beat her when she complained.

Showed her who is really boss and what suffering really was.

Thankfully she stabbed him in self defense a few years ago

The pope was trying to convey a good message, the message that faith shouldn't be spread by violence, but picked a bad quote to do it with. I'm not sure how he could have thought that using it could have been a good idea. But I think that we can be fairly certain that inciting rage in the Islamic world was not his intention. Having the Islamic world screaming at them and setting up an "us vs. them" mentallity is, I'm sure, the last thing that the Vatican wants.

Hitler Jungen, it was Jews and now Muslims eh, very nice.

The pope was trying to convey a good message, the message that faith shouldn't be spread by violence, but picked a bad quote to do it with. I'm not sure how he could have thought that using it could have been a good idea. But I think that we can be fairly certain that inciting rage in the Islamic world was not his intention. Having the Islamic world screaming at them and setting up an "us vs. them" mentallity is, I'm sure, the last thing that the Vatican wants.

In fairness, this pope isn't know for his attempts at inegration or open dialogue. Speaking for Germany, he nearly brought the ecumenic movement there to a standstill from the catholic side, and I remember a Berlin catholic priest being banned from office after celebrating mass with a protestant community.

Now, I don't want to suggest that he was after and "us vs. them" message, but I'm pretty certain that he was after a very clear distancing and judgmental message.

I would like this Pope better, if he didnt look like he was about to shoot lightning out of his hands and shout "UNLIMITED POWER!"

The Pope is a fucktard and a Nazi. I want to have sex with him. Sweet Jesus he's sexy

The Pope is a fucktard and a Nazi. I want to have sex with him. Sweet Jesus he's sexy

What on earth are you drinking there???

What on earth are you drinking there???

Antifreeze, I hope.

What on earth are you drinking there???

oh my. Spiced rum, beer, whiskey, some other stuff. Why? What are you drinking. Do you want ot go drinking to gether when I go to Ireland? We would have fun.

We'll soon find out whether what he said is true... bye the reaction of the muslim world. If there's large-scale violence (as oppopsed to just a small group of people), we'll know he was right to say what he said, as it's true.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

Um... Isn't he the Power?

John Paul the Second caught two hardpoints depsite being an ardent proponent of peace. How many rounds in the head will this pope get? I'm taking bets.

I would like this Pope better, if he didnt look like he was about to shoot lightning out of his hands and shout "UNLIMITED POWER!"

Now then I would think about being converted...into sith religion of course not christianity for gods sake! Why choose lesser evil!

John Paul the Second caught two hardpoints depsite being an ardent proponent of peace. How many rounds in the head will this pope get? I'm taking bets.

I'm betting none... It seems like it's the peaceful ones that gets shot.

It's a strange old world... :p

The Pope is a fucktard and a Nazi. I want to have sex with him. Sweet Jesus he's sexy
UN Abassadorship?

Okay... so... you go out of your way to piss them off, and they kill you, then your friends, then your family. Then they poison the water supply in your town, and kill everyone who lives within a ten mile radius of you.

Here is your ghost, sitting in the ruins, laughing at the lesson you taught them, yes?
Your logic is, don't piss them off or they'll kill us?

Your logic is, don't piss them off or they'll kill us?

No... you missed the point.

If you are going to accept Islam as largely a religion of peace, then screwing with their violent minority is NOT dealing with the representative MAJORITY. By treating the whole religion as 'extreme', it is just going to force more moderates to head towards the extreme.

On the other hand, if you honestly believe that Islam is a globespanning empire of evil, bent on destruction... then, if you screw with them, you are risking your life and the lives of everyone you know to prove a point that basically equates to 'I bite my thumb at you, sir'.


Either way... it makes no sense, now, does it?

I'm betting none... It seems like it's the peaceful ones that gets shot.

It's a strange old world... :p

Well of course, it is how it always works. The ones who there may actually be a reason to assassinate are the ones who survive. The "better" ones get the bullet. Wonder why the crazies do that?

Let's assume, just for a second.. that Islam is collectively just as dangerous as certain pundits want you to believe....

Okay - are we imagining this 'Islamo-fascist' nightmare we keep hearing about?

Okay... so... you go out of your way to piss them off, and they kill you, then your friends, then your family. Then they poison the water supply in your town, and kill everyone who lives within a ten mile radius of you.

Here is your ghost, sitting in the ruins, laughing at the lesson you taught them, yes?

which brings a good point aboutour mentality on this and theirs.

they are taught that dying for this is a good thing, if they got shot by an American while fighting against them, or even just being an active voice against them they will be rewarded in their afterlife.

we are taught that if an islamic kills one of us, we are dead. thats pretty much it.

now who do you think is more fearful of who?

Saying that everything that makes Islam different from Christianity is evil and inhuman is a little more than mere ridicule.

He is a freaking catholic? What do you expect him to think?

Yay for hating freedom of speach some more :rolleyes:

Ah. Because a few extremists speak for a majority. I see! That makes sense!

So...

All christians are dominionists interested in raising hate-soldiers to enforce theocracy.
All white people are racists who support lynching and discrimination
All Americans are crusading cowboys out to colonize the world
and All Asians are short dictators with Napoleon Complexes

Suddenly, I see in a whole new light...

It's a mustard yellow. I think it symbolizes my feelings of disgust.

Guess what? In 1917, "a few extremists" really did speak for a majority. In 1934 too. It happens.

In the case at hand, it's far from your dismissive characterization of "a few extremists." The three cited incidents are only three of thousands of such incidents worldwide.

Your "all christians, all white people, all whoever" argument is a typical misstatement of his position. Nobody (including me, so STFU Gauthier, Republica de Tropico and the rest of NS's heroic defenders of poor persecuted Islam) says that all Muslims are terrorists. The fact is that there is a significant movement within the Islamic world that does spread death and destruction in the name of Islam, and furthermore, that there is little effective opposition to that movement.

I don't care if 95% of the Islamic world is "moderate" (and I'm not saying they are anyway). That remaining 5% equals fifty million killers who are taking the action, and if they gain power, I see no reason to believe that the silent 95% will do anything other than remain silent and not try to stop them. For example, assuming arguendo that the majority in Afghanistan was what the apologists would say were "moderates," that didn't stop the Taliban from seizing power and oppressing almost the entire nation (except Massoud's territory) until we threw them out.

Oh, one last thing: since 9/11, at latest count (of reported incidents only) there have been almost six thousand instances of Muslim violence and terrorism worldwide, including such oppressive and/or colonialist regimes as Thailand, the Philippines, India, Turkey and Kyrgyzstan (yes, Kyrgyzstan!). See "The List" at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ -- it lists the most recent five months' worth of attacks. Earlier attacks going back to 9/11 are archived.

Of course, this is a "biased" site (right, Pyotr?), so you can't believe what they say, right? It must all be made up by hateful neo-cons and/or neo-Nazis who just want to wipe out every last Muslim (right, Gauthier?).

And also check the link to http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html for a good analysis of why we can't rely on "moderate Muslims", i.e., a "biased argument by another Muslim-hater".

Read them and judge for yourself.

Of course, this is a "biased" site (right, Pyotr?), so you can't believe what they say, right?


Yup. try getting a source from someone who is actually educated on the subject, like a prof. or an analyst, not bloggers with an agenda.

but you did make a very good point, with a religion as big as islam, a 1% minority who is violent and insane is more than enough to fill our TV screens with psychopaths screaming "death to america"

http://www.uga.edu/islam/

here is a website by a georgia professor of religion, and no he is not a muslim, and no he is not a member of Al-Qaeda, and no he is not part of the global Taquyyia conspiracy to take over the west.

Guess what? In 1917, "a few extremists" really did speak for a majority. In 1934 too. It happens.

In the case at hand, it's far from your dismissive characterization of "a few extremists." The three cited incidents are only three of thousands of such incidents worldwide.

Your "all christians, all white people, all whoever" argument is a typical misstatement of his position. Nobody (including me, so STFU Gauthier, Republica de Tropico and the rest of NS's heroic defenders of poor persecuted Islam) says that all Muslims are terrorists. The fact is that there is a significant movement within the Islamic world that does spread death and destruction in the name of Islam, and furthermore, that there is little effective opposition to that movement.

I don't care if 95% of the Islamic world is "moderate" (and I'm not saying they are anyway). That remaining 5% equals fifty million killers who are taking the action, and if they gain power, I see no reason to believe that the silent 95% will do anything other than remain silent and not try to stop them. For example, assuming arguendo that the majority in Afghanistan was what the apologists would say were "moderates," that didn't stop the Taliban from seizing power and oppressing almost the entire nation (except Massoud's territory) until we threw them out.

Oh, one last thing: since 9/11, at latest count (of reported incidents only) there have been almost six thousand instances of Muslim violence and terrorism worldwide, including such oppressive and/or colonialist regimes as Thailand, the Philippines, India, Turkey and Kyrgyzstan (yes, Kyrgyzstan!). See "The List" at http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ -- it lists the most recent five months' worth of attacks. Earlier attacks going back to 9/11 are archived.

Of course, this is a "biased" site (right, Pyotr?), so you can't believe what they say, right? It must all be made up by hateful neo-cons and/or neo-Nazis who just want to wipe out every last Muslim (right, Gauthier?).

And also check the link to http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html for a good analysis of why we can't rely on "moderate Muslims", i.e., a "biased argument by another Muslim-hater".

Read them and judge for yourself.

Its strange, I don't understand how war will benefit europe? It didn't benefit America in Irak. Only quicken the collapse of european culture and religion.

All Americans are crusading cowboys out to colonize the world

You misspelled Texans...because we are going to take over the world

I found Benedict XVI's comments embarrassing.

I found Benedict XVI's comments embarrassing.

I found them depressing, Benedict probably just wiped out John Paul's legacy of spreading understanding between faiths :(

I'm no Catholic, but I love this Pope.

Well, since you're not a Catholic, have you considered gay marriage?

I found them depressing, Benedict probably just wiped out John Paul's legacy of spreading understanding between faiths :(

That is his job for the next however long the bastard lives. Seeing as how he is a collossal douche, probably a good 50 more years.

I found them depressing, Benedict probably just wiped out John Paul's legacy of spreading understanding between faiths :(
Pretty much my opinion.

No... you missed the point.

If you are going to accept Islam as largely a religion of peace, then screwing with their violent minority is NOT dealing with the representative MAJORITY. By treating the whole religion as 'extreme', it is just going to force more moderates to head towards the extreme.

On the other hand, if you honestly believe that Islam is a globespanning empire of evil, bent on destruction... then, if you screw with them, you are risking your life and the lives of everyone you know to prove a point that basically equates to 'I bite my thumb at you, sir'.
I agree with you, now that I understand you.

http://articles.news.aol.com/news/_a/protests-continue-as-pope-stop-short-of/20060915051209990007?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Pope says hes sorry if muslims are offended, but doesn't apologize for his statement ;P

EDIT: holy shit look at the remarks in the forum about the poll question: one thread's title is "WHY DO MOSLIMS STINK SO BAD!" anyone who says islamophobia is a myth is delusional

I have not read all 12 pages of this post. I read a few on the first page and some on the last page and I am amazed and appalled. The statements made by the Pope that upset the Muslim world so much and lead to the diatribes on this post were taken out of context. Totally and fully out of context.

Has anyone here; has anyone in the Muslim world read the text, or even the prevalent portion of the text? I think not.
:mad:

Here is the link http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

I have not read all 12 pages of this post. I read a few on the first page and some on the last page and I am amazed and appalled. The statements made by the Pope that upset the Muslim world so much and lead to the diatribes on this post were taken out of context. Totally and fully out of context.

Has anyone here; has anyone in the Muslim world read the text, or even the prevalent portion of the text? I think not.
:mad:

Here is the link http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

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.

sounds inflammatory to me.

sounds inflammatory to me.

Do you also understand the Pope was quoting someone else and using the quote to talk about reason and religion? :eek: No, I didn't think you did.

sounds inflammatory to me.

lets look at the paragraph before and after then.

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 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.

The emperor 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. so the Pope was quoting someone else and suddenly it's his fault?

are those of Islamic faith saying that it's true that their "Peaceful" religion, their Religion of Peace, is to be spread "By the SWORD"?

and people say it's Christians with the "Convert or Die" mentality...

He is a freaking catholic? What do you expect him to think?

Yay for hating freedom of speach some more :rolleyes:

So questioning someone's voiced opinion and motives is suddenly "hating freedom of speech"? :rolleyes:

so the Pope was quoting someone else and suddenly it's his fault?

are those of Islamic faith saying that it's true that their "Peaceful" religion, their Religion of Peace, is to be spread "By the SWORD"?

and people say it's Christians with the "Convert or Die" mentality...

what do you mean by that?

what do you mean by that?

mean by what?

mean by what?

are those of Islamic faith saying that it's true that their "Peaceful" religion, their Religion of Peace, is to be spread "By the SWORD"?

and people say it's Christians with the "Convert or Die" mentality...

that.

that.

oh. just remembered some comments that Christans use the "Convert or Die" method of recruitment.

and many here preach that Islam is a "Religion of Peace"

However, in the transcript you quoted from...
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 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.

The emperor 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.

you even quoted it when you said it sounded inflammatory to you.

now considering the FOX reporters that were kidnapped were forced to convert or die, sorta puts some truth in that quote... about spreading the faith by the sword.

Can Islam say they are a Religion of Peace while pointedly (yes pun intended) forcing people to join? I can see if that was the case many hundreds of years ago... but it appears to be also happening now.

oh. just remembered some comments that Christans use the "Convert or Die" method of recruitment.

and many here preach that Islam is a "Religion of Peace"

However, in the transcript you quoted from...


you even quoted it when you said it sounded inflammatory to you.

now considering the FOX reporters that were kidnapped were forced to convert or die, sorta puts some truth in that quote... about spreading the faith by the sword.

Can Islam say they are a Religion of Peace while pointedly (yes pun intended) forcing people to join? I can see if that was the case many hundreds of years ago... but it appears to be also happening now.


thats exactly what I thought you meant. As much as I hate reciting talking points; insane terrorists are forcing people to convert to islam, not islam itself. Islam has no central authority, no pope if your going to judge a religion by its worst elements than it is always going to be judged inhumane.

He chose a poor quote to use, but I agree that the sword is no way to spread faith.

After 9 damn pages you are the only person who seems to have taken the quotes that the pope said in context. Everyone esle seemed to first take it out of context and then reopened the same tired old debates and throwing of insults.

Here is the section of text which had the quote that has caused so much trouble:

Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war..

As you can tell by reading the text the pope was getting at what the emperor said about conversion by viloence. He only used the quote to give a background to why the emperor was talking on thi subject. With hindsight you can say that maybe he should not have used that quote but just by reading the speech I can not really see how the pope was trying to insult islam. All he was doing was highlighting a previous debate in the past about how violence should not be used in the name of religion.

Here is the address to get the full speech, nicely provided by the bbc website though even the bbc seemed to take the quote out of context when reporting on it.

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

thats exactly what I thought you meant. As much as I hate reciting talking points; insane terrorists are forcing people to convert to islam, not islam itself. Islam has no central authority, no pope if your going to judge a religion by its worst elements than it is always going to be judged inhumane.

ah, but isn't that what the Pope quoted the Emporor saying about Jihad and the forcing of conversion via the sword being wrong?

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 turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: as the Pope said, he [the emporer] was questioning the relationship of violence (Jihad I guess) in relation to Religion.

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.here the Emporer mirrored your sentiment about forcing people to join. calling it Evil. the discussion was about JIHAD. not Islam itself. the paragraph above stated it was concerning Jihad (holy war.)

The emperor 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.
so is this what got some people angry? the fact that the the Emporer of Byzantine called for conversion by the sword evil?

so how can you, in apparent agreement with the Emperor about "Forced conversion" find the statement calling for Forced Conversion evil, so inflammatory?

So questioning someone's voiced opinion and motives is suddenly "hating freedom of speech"? :rolleyes:

No but forcing him to apologize for what every catholic thinks of anyone who worships "false Gods" is.

Damn, JuNii beat me to the bullet.

No but forcing him to apologize for what every catholic thinks of anyone who worships "false Gods" is.

Do you honestly think I of all people am in a position to force the pope to do anything, least of apologise???

If I were, that guy would have done away with celibacy, allowed women to become ordained, recognised re-marriage after divorce, performed gay weddings himself, advocated safe sex, and agreed with abortion before the third month.

Damn, JuNii beat me to the bullet.
Actually, you beat me to it. ;)

Reading the transcripts, I can see where some might mistake the Pope calling what Muhammad was preaching Evil. when the Pope did state that it was in reference the relationship between Violence and Religion.

so I wonder... is that what got some the Islamic people riled up? the misunderstating that the Emporer of Byzantine (and by proxy, the Catholic Pope) was calling the whole of Islam (or at least what the Prophet Mohammad was teaching) evil...

or is it that it was because the Emporer of Byzantine (and by proxy, the Catholic Pope) was calling the practice of Jihad (Holy War) evil?

Do you honestly think I of all people am in a position to force the pope to do anything, least of apologise???

If I were, that guy would have done away with celibacy, allowed women to become ordained, recognised re-marriage after divorce, performed gay weddings himself, advocated safe sex, and agreed with abortion before the third month.

Well I'm not directly refering to you.

Reading the transcripts, I can see where some might mistake the Pope calling what Muhammad was preaching Evil. when the Pope did state that it was in reference the relationship between Violence and Religion.

so I wonder... is that what got some the Islamic people riled up? the misunderstating that the Emporer of Byzantine (and by proxy, the Catholic Pope) was calling the whole of Islam (or at least what the Prophet Mohammad was teaching) evil...

or is it that it was because the Emporer of Byzantine (and by proxy, the Catholic Pope) was calling the practice of Jihad (Holy War) evil?


Well going by the protests, demands for apologies and comments made on this thread I will unfortunately have to say it is the first one. I do not understand why people have not read/listened to his speach first before commenting as it was quite short.

bit added later:
well, Celtlund beat us all to it:

I have not read all 12 pages of this post. I read a few on the first page and some on the last page and I am amazed and appalled. The statements made by the Pope that upset the Muslim world so much and lead to the diatribes on this post were taken out of context. Totally and fully out of context.

Has anyone here; has anyone in the Muslim world read the text, or even the prevalent portion of the text? I think not.
:mad:

Here is the link http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

What I am so surpprised about is that it took 12 pages before anyone posted a link to the popes actual speech. Normally you have someone do that the first few pages.

Well I'm not directly refering to you.

Well, you quoted me with you accusatory comment.

ah, but isn't that what the Pope quoted the Emporor saying about Jihad and the forcing of conversion via the sword being wrong?

as the Pope said, he [the emporer] was questioning the relationship of violence (Jihad I guess) in relation to Religion.

here the Emporer mirrored your sentiment about forcing people to join. calling it Evil. the discussion was about JIHAD. not Islam itself. the paragraph above stated it was concerning Jihad (holy war.)


so is this what got some people angry? the fact that the the Emporer of Byzantine called for conversion by the sword evil?

so how can you, in apparent agreement with the Emperor about "Forced conversion" find the statement calling for Forced Conversion evil, so inflammatory?

damn, all this stuff is so out of context that I can't get a reference point to judge it by, so now as I understand it, the pope said something like:

Jihad is bad, don't do it. like byzantine emperor said.

and the problem is the fact that he was quoting a byzantine emperor from around the crusade's time right?


still kind of stupid to quote a speech from the crusades, especially with Usama bin laden and his ilk about how "the west" is on another crusade; way too easy for radicals to twist what he said into hate speech.

damn, all this stuff is so out of context that I can't get a reference point to judge it by, so now as I understand it, the pope said something like:

Jihad is bad, don't do it. like byzantine emperor said.

and the problem is the fact that he was quoting a byzantine emperor from around the crusade's time right?


still kind of stupid to quote a speech from the crusades, especially with Usama bin laden and his ilk about how "the west" is on another crusade; way too easy for radicals to twist what he said into hate speech.yep. guess that's why the reaction isn't as severe as the Cartoon incident. most of them realized that the Pope was referencing Jihad only and quoting someone long dead and gone.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!
Late breaking news.....the Pope has apologized to Muslims:

'Upset' Pope expresses regrets over remarks (http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/TopStories/ContentPosting.aspx?newsitemid=CTVNews%2f20060915%2fpakistan_pope_060916&feedname=CTV-TOPSTORIES_V2&showbyline=True)

"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," said new Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone in a statement.

Bertone said the pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching -- that the church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

The pope, therefore, is "extremely upset that some portions of his speech were able to sound offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers and have been interpreted in a way that does not at all correspond to his intentions."
Also from the end of the article another quote and perhaps a clear message for Potato Factory and the warmongers on these boards:

The pope's speech, said Bertone, ended with "a clear and radical refusal of religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it comes from."
Amen!!

Every religion has it's wackos and weird splinter groups. islam just happens to have a huge proportion of those wackos.
Yeah, a few radical Muslims level the WTC, and that gave the US carte blanche to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I see what you mean. :rolleyes:

The West is fucked. It's not worth fighting for. I'm here to protect my own interests.

Well, at least you're honest.

Yeah, a few radical Muslims level the WTC, and that gave the US carte blanche to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I see what you mean. :rolleyes:

I'm sure there were a few terrorists in there somewhere. Probably.

I'm sure there were a few terrorists in there somewhere. Probably.

under saddams rule? no. VERY few at the most

under saddams rule? no. VERY few at the most

One or two, maybe.
To quote another famous medieval saying from a different religious conflict "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoset" or "Kill them all. God will know his own."

under saddams rule? no. VERY few at the most

yeah, they weren't there till we found them.

From Turkey, the party in power is upset with the pope...
And the Polish Walesa is upset they could be European.

Ok keep cool give them the bloody pope, they impale him and everybody is happy !
Christians Cathodics have a new martyr, Muslim hot metal radicals heave their Nasrani killed.

Christianity is relieved of an old fashion temperamental priest killing gays by vice and lack of humanity in his veins.

I wonder what's the part gw bush played in that game.
He maybe is a would be next pope?

I'm no Catholic, but I love this Pope. I liked JP2 better..

under saddams rule? no. VERY few at the most

Congrats. You get the day's "Sucking at Sarcasm" award. *hands you a stick*

He maybe is a would be next pope?

Maybe he's not Catholic? :rolleyes:

And Pyotr, just because something happened in a certain period of time doesn't mean we shouldn't quote from it. Hell, if that were the case, go and forget your history.

I am catholic. And I am shocked at the disrespect shown here. This pope is no JP2 but he is still in charge of millions of people. He took the high road by apologizing for the stupidity of those who misunderstood his remarks. I don't believe anyother leader would have been as nice. Most would just have pointed out how stupid the people were who misunderstood his point.

I am catholic. And I am shocked at the disrespect shown here. This pope is no JP2 but he is still in charge of millions of people. He took the high road by apologizing for the stupidity of those who misunderstood his remarks. I don't believe anyother leader would have been as nice. Most would just have pointed out how stupid the people were who misunderstood his point.

That or those other leaders would not have been dull enough to make THAT obvious of a mistake in the first place

Edit: Some, people are idiots in general I have no doubt other leaders will make mistakes but that does not excuse him for his obvious one

That or those other leaders would not have been dull enough to make THAT obvious of a mistake in the first place

Edit: Some, people are idiots in general I have no doubt other leaders will make mistakes but that does not excuse him for his obvious one.

Oh, please. Honestly? It's not Benedict's fault that they got all pissy over him saying "don't use violence to spread faith." It's the radical Muslims. Any attempt to blame Benedict for it only stems from the subconcious desires of people who feel the need to attack Christianity whenever they can.

The catholic equivalent of W Bush.

In my eyes he has the right to say anything he wants, even if I do not agree with it.

under saddams rule? no. VERY few at the most

that's right. Saddam only paid suicide bombers... while his people starved.

Oh, please. Honestly? It's not Benedict's fault that they got all pissy over him saying "don't use violence to spread faith." It's the radical Muslims. Any attempt to blame Benedict for it only stems from the subconcious desires of people who feel the need to attack Christianity whenever they can.

Nice … I either agree with you or … if we trust your statements … I have some sort of subconscious need to attack Christianity …

Silly

Also from the end of the article another quote and perhaps a clear message for Potato Factory and the warmongers on these boards:
Pardon my ignorance, but what has this topic got to do with war? (other than jihad)

The Pope is not a warmonger.

Yeah, a few radical Muslims level the WTC, and that gave the US carte blanche to invade Iraq and kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I see what you mean. :rolleyes:
Is this a threadjack I'm witnessing? I don't think anyone has mentioned Iraq in this thread because IT'S NOT THE TOPIC.

that's right. Saddam only paid suicide bombers... while his people starved.
Resist urge to threadjack!

Nice … I either agree with you or … if we trust your statements … I have some sort of subconscious need to attack Christianity
You're a self proclaimed anti-Catholic.

Same!

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
--Steven Weinberg

I like your epigram, but please don't shy of adding the previous sentence:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity."

Is this a threadjack I'm witnessing? I don't think anyone has mentioned Iraq in this thread because IT'S NOT THE TOPIC.


Resist urge to threadjack!


You're a self proclaimed anti-Catholic.

No I am a self proclaimed disbeliever in organized religion ... there is a difference ...

Its an organized structure to a very personal thing that seems silly and abusable to me. That does not mean all my opinions of a specific leader are tainted

Not only that but disliking the current "administration" is also not hating the whole organization either.

And borderline ad-hominims like that are no better then calling someone anti-muslim because they disagree with a specific leader or anti-semite because they disagree with some choices the government made

Does anybody honestly think that this Pope is stupid enough to not realise the effects of what he was saying at the time? Of course not. He was the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (The modern version of the Inquisition).

And as for the idea that Catholics don't mind criticism of Catholicism. It simply isn't true and is either motivated by ignorance or by malice.

These quotes are taken from http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060522/22davinci.htm

In late April, a high-ranking Vatican official urged Catholic communications directors to boycott the film. If "such lies and errors had been directed at the Koran or the Holocaust," said the official, Archbishop Angelo Amato, secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, "they would have justly provoked a world uprising."

-- Cardinal Francis Arinze, head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, hinted at possible legal action against the film because it offends Christ and the church. "Christians must not just sit back and say it is enough for us to forgive and to forget," Arinze, who was considered a contender to become pope last year, told an Italian TV documentary team.

World uprisings? If a Muslim leader had said that there would be mass outrage.

As for the remarkable idea that Christian terrorists don't exist. How about the 2004 attacks in Nagaland? http://www.stephen-knapp.com/christian_terrorists_kill_44.htm

Or the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Or do deaths not count if they don't happen in the west?

If you suggest that perhaps the anti-Muslim sentiments in the West are a bit out of control
Anti-Muslim sentiments in the West are not at all out of control. Anti-Western sentiments in the Middle East are violently out of control.

The thing everyone has to remember, that if you read the whole speech he was just talking about religion as a motivation for violence and how it's wrong. He used one quote and the media jumps on it because they know that they can make some good headlines out of it that will sell papers.
This wasn't some public address to the faith, this was in an academic environment, and most of the paper had very little to do with Islam.
We need to stop just reading headlines and assuming the worst of the pope.
That's how all these other countries are painted in such a negative light in the United States; no one bothers to look into the issues that much. Most people just read headlines and base their opinions on 'talk at the water cooler' type conversations of other people who have read the same headlines on the way to work.
Popular sentiment is "Apologize for your statements!" when he can't apologize because he didn't say anything like what everyone seems to be outraged about. I'm not saying that this is some Islamic scheme either I just think that the average American/British/Middle Eastern Muslim reads the papers in the same way that the average Christian/Atheist/Buddhist does.

Pardon my ignorance, but what has this topic got to do with war? (other than jihad)

The Pope is not a warmonger.
I will pardon your ignorance. I did not even slightly suggest that the Pope is a warmonger. However, Potato Factory is. I do believe that he (PC) misinterpreted the Pope when he started this thread. :p

Is this a threadjack I'm witnessing? I don't think anyone has mentioned Iraq in this thread because IT'S NOT THE TOPIC.

Perhaps you do not recognize my sarcasm directed at the OP?

BTW, when the OP opens the can of worms, then the topic becomes open to further debate of related issues.

Nice … I either agree with you or … if we trust your statements … I have some sort of subconscious need to attack Christianity …

Silly

I'm surprised you haven't realized I don't take the general forum seriously. Meh, whatever. And I was half-right, your desire is concious, not subconcious. :p :D

I'm surprised you haven't realized I don't take the general forum seriously. Meh, whatever. And I was half-right, your desire is concious, not subconcious. :p :D

That or not right at all and seting up a false dicodmy

That or not right at all and seting up a false dicodmy

Or overgeneralizing for my own amusement, in order to laugh at you taking all this so seriously.

I like what was said on real time about the popes comment on isalm tending to be a violent religon. You know where maher said that "muslims take the pope more serious than catholics."

Or overgeneralizing for my own amusement, in order to laugh at you taking all this so seriously.

Ohhh kinda like baiting huh?

I like what was said on real time about the popes comment on isalm tending to be a violent religon. You know where maher said that "muslims take the pope more serious than catholics."

Sadly … that man don’t deserve to be taken seriously by anyone

Ohhh kinda like baiting huh?

No, it's only baiting if I'm trying to get you to flame. Flaming sucks, so I don't try to bait people to flame.

'sides, if baiting didn't have the "flame" modifier, then every serious thread in General is baiting.

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/15/pope.islam/index.html

Go Benny! Fight the power!

Newsflash: Benny is the power, stupid. You can't get closer to being The Man than by being the pope.