NationStates Jolt Archive

So he says. Despite quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor that basically said exactly the opposite. But it is nice for him to clear things up for us all. I suppose we should all forget his comments? Well I for one am not going to. No amount of damage control he does will change that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/25/pope.muslims/index.html

I already don't care for this pope. Hopefully, he abdicates soon, the Vatican picks someone a little less abrasive, and this guy goes and starts a goat farm in...hmm, where should he be a goat farmer...hell, Argentina's nice.

It's not like the pope came out and completely denounced Islam; he stated, using a quote, that some of the teachings have no place in this world, such as jihad.

It's not like the pope came out and completely denounced Islam; he stated, using a quote, that some of the teachings have no place in this world, such as jihad.

Using the most offensive quote he possibly could, and further insulting them by apologizing for their reaction rather than for using an inappropriate quote.

He's not that bad. I think he's a good pope for the most part. And he practically proved the Byzantine emperor's statement right. They were doing all kinds of violent stuff in the middle east after he made that statement and saying crap like this.

We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya. We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/17/pope.islam/index.html

Does that sound like a peaceful religion to you? I don't think the Pope should have to apologize at all since it's not even his words. He just needs to let it go and stop apologizing.

It doesn't matter whether or not he has respect for Muslims. The thing I find strange is that Muslims get so upset over this, as well as that whole Muhammed in cartoons thing, when their newspapers are filled with anti-Jewish, anti-Christian things almost daily. I can't believe how hypocritical they are, and further still, how the majority of Westerners have not noticed. Their reactions have proven him to be correct even better than he could have anyway. If Muslims want apologies, then perhaps they should apologise first. This West-East relationship can't be all apologies from the West and demands from the East. If it is to work, it has to be equal from both sides.

It doesn't matter whether or not he has respect for Muslims. The thing I find strange is that Muslims get so upset over this, as well as that whole Muhammed in cartoons thing, when their newspapers are filled with anti-Jewish, anti-Christian things almost daily. I can't believe how hypocritical they are, and further still, how the majority of Westerners have not noticed. Their reactions have proven him to be correct even better than he could have anyway. If Muslims want apologies, then perhaps they should apologise first. This West-East relationship can't be all apologies from the West and demands from the East. If it is to work, it has to be equal from both sides.
But then that means that the Muslims would have to admit being wrong! :eek:

He's doing his job. I think he does it ok. He's no John Paul II though, those are big shoes to fill.


And he is not going to 'abdictate', especially not over something like this. If you don't like him just wait until he dies, he's pretty old anyway (although in good health).

But then that means that the Muslims would have to admit being wrong! :eek:

Haha, exactly. It's not going to happen. But then they will of course continue to blame the West. The sooner people realize that Muslims have to make the next step towards friendship, not the West, the sooner we can reach it.

I think the thing that we're all missing here, and especially the press, is the context of the Pope's words.

Pope Benedict condemned religious violence. He cited Islamic Jihad, and he also cited (and condemned) the Crusades of Christianity.

The Press, for goodness-knows-what-reason, only discussed his "insult" to Islam.

Meanwhile, throughout the world, Muslim fanatics have killed people and blown up churches in protest to the Pope allegedly saying that their religion is "violent and inhuman". Way to prove him wrong.

I might suggest, before crucifying him, or demaning his abdication (he's not going anywhere. Popes don't abdicate) you understand the context and the point of his statements.

I think the thing that we're all missing here, and especially the press, is the context of the Pope's words.

Pope Benedict condemned religious violence. He cited Islamic Jihad, and he also cited (and condemned) the Crusades of Christianity.

The Press, for goodness-knows-what-reason, only discussed his "insult" to Islam.

Meanwhile, throughout the world, Muslim fanatics have killed people and blown up churches in protest to the Pope allegedly saying that their religion is "violent and inhuman". Way to prove him wrong.

I might suggest, before crucifying him, or demaning his abdication (he's not going anywhere. Popes don't abdicate) you understand the context and the point of his statements.

Exactly, thank you.
As usual, Muslims manage to blame everything on the West while they themselves are the source of all the problems.

http://www.time.com/time/cartoons/20060924/8.html

Exactly, thank you.
As usual, Muslims manage to blame everything on the West while they themselves are the source of all the problems.
No, it's their leaders who are.

A leader who keeps the populance ignorant can make them do his bidding.

Many of the people who lash out are generally uneducated to some degree.

An I the only one who thinks of muslims as people, not just some crazy fellers who bomb places n' stuff? I hate it how people speak of "muslims" when the only example they have is the fundamentalist suicide bombers we all see in TV and newspapers every day. Of course it's not like they are to blame, the newspapers here show that too, and write the same stuff about Israel - I don't think fundamentalist jews are any better than fundamentalist muslims, though.

I've met many muslims and when the discussion goes to religion (which I try to avoid, no matter of the religion of the other person) most of them have the attitude "You believe in what you want and I believe in what I want". Which is fine for me, that's what I think too, being an atheist.

If everyone stopped mocking others' religions/ideologies/ways of life, the world would be a much better place.

Can the Pope abdicate, or does he have to die?

An I the only one who thinks of muslims as people, not just some crazy fellers who bomb places n' stuff? I hate it how people speak of "muslims" when the only example they have is the fundamentalist suicide bombers we all see in TV and newspapers every day. Of course it's not like they are to blame, the newspapers here show that too, and write the same stuff about Israel - I don't think fundamentalist jews are any better than fundamentalist muslims, though.

I've met many muslims and when the discussion goes to religion (which I try to avoid, no matter of the religion of the other person) most of them have the attitude "You believe in what you want and I believe in what I want". Which is fine for me, that's what I think too, being an atheist.

If everyone stopped mocking others' religions/ideologies/ways of life, the world would be a much better place.

Well said.

What about the protests of hundreds of thousands of people throughout Muslim countries? I'm pretty sure they are Muslims. No, of course not all Muslims are supportive, but the majority are.

And I am refering almost entirely to those Muslims in the Middle East. The majority of Muslims living in the West have been Westernized and do not have as extreme views, but the minority of them are arguably more extreme than those in the Middle East.

No, it's their leaders who are.

A leader who keeps the populance ignorant can make them do his bidding.

Many of the people who lash out are generally uneducated to some degree.

So far the 9/11 hijackers and the bombers from London have been fairly well educated.

I think the thing that we're all missing here, and especially the press, is the context of the Pope's words.

Pope Benedict condemned religious violence. He cited Islamic Jihad, and he also cited (and condemned) the Crusades of Christianity.

The Press, for goodness-knows-what-reason, only discussed his "insult" to Islam.

Meanwhile, throughout the world, Muslim fanatics have killed people and blown up churches in protest to the Pope allegedly saying that their religion is "violent and inhuman". Way to prove him wrong.

I might suggest, before crucifying him, or demaning his abdication (he's not going anywhere. Popes don't abdicate) you understand the context and the point of his statements.

Sure, he was only quoting. It didn't mean what he really thought. People go around quoting things that they themselves don't believe in. Just because some fanatics decide to react violently doesn't make what the pope said any less wrong. Besides, just because he mentioned the Crusades doesn't absolve him. There are plenty of other violent episodes in the past of Christianity. Whatever his motives might have been the idea that he has any respect for Islam is a joke.

I'm surprised that no one has yet touched on what the pope was doing when he made that comment. He was actually giving a history lecture. That's right, people. The pope was simply reporting what an emperor said hundreds of years ago. And the result of his reporting that an ancient emperor said that Muslims were violent and warlike?

Why, they said, "Take that back or we'll kill you." Then they killed a nun. :headbang:

What gets me is that after not accusing anyone of anything the pope felt the need to apologize. 'course, what with the whole violent protests that were occurring in front of churches he may have felt it was a good measure to try and protect his people.

Incidentally, popes CAN abdicate but have only done so when their health was failing. Essentially, when they feel that their health is so poor that they can't serve the church then they might abdicate. One interesting exeption to this was during WW2, I believe, when the reigning pope was afraid that the Vatican would get stormed and he would be taken hostage. The guy actually wrote up an abdication that was to be executed in case of his capture. Pretty clever if you ask me.

So far the 9/11 hijackers and the bombers from London have been fairly well educated.

Don't forget the bombers in Spain.

An I the only one who thinks of muslims as people, not just some crazy fellers who bomb places n' stuff? I hate it how people speak of "muslims" when the only example they have is the fundamentalist suicide bombers we all see in TV and newspapers every day. Of course it's not like they are to blame, the newspapers here show that too, and write the same stuff about Israel - I don't think fundamentalist jews are any better than fundamentalist muslims, though.

I've met many muslims and when the discussion goes to religion (which I try to avoid, no matter of the religion of the other person) most of them have the attitude "You believe in what you want and I believe in what I want". Which is fine for me, that's what I think too, being an atheist.

If everyone stopped mocking others' religions/ideologies/ways of life, the world would be a much better place.

Hear Hear..!

But should we be concerned for those who profess and ACT to bring on a mass conversion of the entire planet to islam by violence?

If they would simply quit trying to RUSH god (allah) into converting all humanity to one particular religion, and instead LIVE the life that they would have us all live in faithfullness to their religion, perhaps we'd see the wisdom of their ways, and god's will would be done.

But NO,.. "we gotta rush god, 'cause we know better than he does..!"


That, I dare say, would be blasphemous in ANY religion.

Yet they say it and act it out daily.

These are the folks who are a real threat, regardless of religion.

So he says. Despite quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor that basically said exactly the opposite. But it is nice for him to clear things up for us all. I suppose we should all forget his comments? Well I for one am not going to. No amount of damage control he does will change that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/25/pope.muslims/index.html

You absolute ingrate. The Pope cited a Byzantine emperor, from a period in which Islamic expansionism was unprovoked and militant, in an academic lecture. How dare he cite factual evidence in an academic affair? Poor form says I.....:rolleyes:

Exactly, thank you.
As usual, Muslims manage to blame everything on the West while they themselves are the source of all the problems.
Ok, now we have reached a new step. Muslims are the source of all of the worlds problems. Once that one becomes commonplace we will have almost completed our historical circle yet again. Way to go! As long as people like you keep it up we'll be doing laps on this cylce for- well who knows?

What about the protests of hundreds of thousands of people throughout Muslim countries? I'm pretty sure they are Muslims. No, of course not all Muslims are supportive, but the majority are. Hundreds of thousands constitutes a majority of the middle east?

So far the 9/11 hijackers and the bombers from London have been fairly well educated. So far nearly half the hijackers have turned up alive and well, unconnected to Al Qaeda.:rolleyes:

I think he is a fine pope. You have to admit its ironic the Islams would protest the Pope calling Islam violent by using extreme violence.

*snip*

If everyone stopped mocking others' religions/ideologies/ways of life, the world would be a much better place.

If everyone stopped believing in Bronze age fairtales, the world would be a much better place too, considerably better than the one you said. Seriously as a civilisation, nay a species, we need to get over this shit. It served its purpose, we had an interesting time, now lets move on.

So far nearly half the hijackers have turned up alive and well, unconnected to Al Qaeda.:rolleyes:

That's called identity theft. It's something that happens in the real world. You'll learn about it when you're older, son.

Guys, how many of you have actually heard or read the Pope's complete lecture?

I have. I've seen the broadcast and I've read the transcript in German and in English.

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

The interesting part really is that the media has only quoted 2-3 sentences and those got sent around the globe.

Do us all a favor and go read the text - it really ain't that long and clearly shows the Pope's standpoint and conveys his reasoning better than that quoted quote taken out of context.

I think he is a fine pope. You have to admit its ironic the Islams would protest the Pope calling Islam violent by using extreme violence.

We have a winner.

/thread

If everyone stopped believing in Bronze age fairtales, the world would be a much better place too.

Aside from just insulting every religious person on this forum, it might be noted just how well that plan worked in Communist Russia.

cool,religion care for (it) hemself!
It is know to protect peepeols,who ever they are..
respect is fun to deal with.
it jusat need you :p
benedict the 16 th nazi

Aside from just insulting every religious person on this forum, it might be noted just how well that plan worked in Communist Russia.
In Communist Russia, religion forgets you?

Well, I guess all Muslims are horrible people that want to destroy democracy. I mean, otherwise those believing in peace and love would have stood up to the other Muslims and killed them, proving that they are willing to be anti-extremist and peaceful!

Brilliant!

The question is, are we gonna see assassination attempts on the Pope?

I doubt it, but it's quite likely that some terrorists will try to set off a bomb in some random part of Rome - geographical proximity seems to be their method of determining sin.

German Nightmare,
In Communist Russia, religion was illegal, and the government operated under a Marxist notion of an atheistic state.

The religions that did survive there were not the source of Communism's corruptions nor the poverty and desperation of the people.

Thanks for the link to Pope Benedict's lecture, by the way. Reading it, I cannot fathom what the issue was with his speach. One or two sentences, taken completely out of context, obliterated throughout the world the entire point of his lecture.

I have to shake my head and wonder, sometimes.

German Nightmare,
In Communist Russia, religion was illegal, and the government operated under a Marxist notion of an atheistic state.

The religions that did survive there were not the source of Communism's corruptions nor the poverty and desperation of the people.

Thanks for the link to Pope Benedict's lecture, by the way. Reading it, I cannot fathom what the issue was with his speach. One or two sentences, taken completely out of context, obliterated throughout the world the entire point of his lecture.

I have to shake my head and wonder, sometimes.
You're welcome.
As for the Communist/Soviet Russia phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Soviet_Russia

Eh. The pope says Islam was spread by the sword. And Christianity wasn't? Heck the early Christians went and slaughtered anyone who disagreed with their ideals. >> The church wanted power at all costs. Is that was Jesus said? Nope... not in any bible, or any supposedly biographical movie I've ever seen.

I say Jesus was a great man. He had some great ideas. Pity that so many of his followers don't follow his teachings. :confused: :rolleyes:

It's not Christians or Catholics I dislike. Christians and Catholics are wonderful people for the most part. At least, all the ones I know personally are great. It's the main establishment I have issues with. I have only this to say to their Nazi pope: :upyours:

German Nightmare,
In Communist Russia, religion was illegal, and the government operated under a Marxist notion of an atheistic state.

The religions that did survive there were not the source of Communism's corruptions nor the poverty and desperation of the people.

Having a government than bans religion is not the same as everyone ceasing to be religious. The latter is not going to happen (at least not any century soon), but it would be beneficial.

Using the most offensive quote he possibly could, and further insulting them by apologizing for their reaction rather than for using an inappropriate quote.

Yes, and they protested his remarks linking Islam to violence by.... threatening violence. Really well done. I mean, seriously.

Leading Muslim scholars and clerics have been denouncing Americans, Christians, and "infidels" for years. These are religious leaders of huge repute in their areas. A lack of cohesive unification doesn't change the fact that the Muslim population is decrying the Pope for doing something their religious leaders have been doing, in a FAR more extreme sense, for hundreds of years.

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.


In other words, my real focus is on the people who don't bother commenting on the outrageous reactions by the Muslim population, including death threats, but still snipe at the Pope for his insensitivity.

Now, I have to wonder. Is the lack of reaction because you have come to expect such overly violent and unnecessary responses from the radical Muslim faction, or simply because its politically incorrect to verbally attack any Muslim these days. Why are the standards you insist on only held to one side, that side being the one you don't like. Blatant bias and pitifully childish temper tantrums are not going to convince the Vatican or anyone else to change policy.

If a man is killed for the words he speaks, and you actually think that this is justifiable or reasonable, then I see that liberals have come far from their idealistic background, and perhaps learned a few things from Stalin.

Ultraviolet Radiation, on what do you base your assumption?

Guacca...liland...
Precisely when do you classify "Early Christianity"? And to what do you refer to as "the early Christians went and slaughtered anyone who disagreed with their ideals." Aside from the Crusades, what are you referring to. And the Crusades weren't specifically early Christianity.

Moreover, you illustrate perfectly the contrast between Christianity and Islam. As you said, Jesus never taught us to spread the faith by the sword. Rather, the Church condemns that. The Crusades, and other (possible, provided you provide examples) instances, were abberations of true Christianity.

On the other hand, while most Muslims are peaceable people, and I have several Muslim friends, whom I respect a lot, it nevertheless is taught in the Qur'an to wage Holy War. Those who take those passages literally in our day and age are known as "fanatics", true, and rightly so. But the difference is still that the Qur'an advocates a violent approach, while the Christian scriptures deny.

As for your rather racist remarks about the Pope, are all German people Nazis, or are all those who were forced into the war Nazis? If not, on what basis is Benedict (who had no choice about joining up, and who deserted at his first opportunity) to be labelled as such?

Eh. The pope says Islam was spread by the sword. And Christianity wasn't? Heck the early Christians went and slaughtered anyone who disagreed with their ideals. >> The church wanted power at all costs. Is that was Jesus said? Nope... not in any bible, or any supposedly biographical movie I've ever seen.
I say Jesus was a great man. He had some great ideas. Pity that so many of his followers don't follow his teachings. :confused: :rolleyes:

It's not Christians or Catholics I dislike. Christians and Catholics are wonderful people for the most part. At least, all the ones I know personally are great. It's the main establishment I have issues with. I have only this to say to their Nazi pope: :upyours:

Maybe thats why he also condemed the crusades in his speech? Of course no one knows that because they are to busy taking a one too two line quote out of context, as has been pointed out repeatedly, to bother reading what he actually said instead of a little soundbite fed to them by the media. I mean God forbid someone haveing something to say that can't be summed up in less than five seconds:rolleyes:

Who cares what an irrelevant old man with a funny hat says?

Eh. The pope says Islam was spread by the sword. And Christianity wasn't? Heck the early Christians went and slaughtered anyone who disagreed with their ideals. >> The church wanted power at all costs. Is that was Jesus said? Nope... not in any bible, or any supposedly biographical movie I've ever seen.
Actually, the first Christians were way too busy being eaten by lions than to promote their new religion by the sword, eh?
(Later on, that changed - but it's not like the Pope didn't accept and condemn that.)
I have only this to say to their Nazi pope: :upyours:
The Pope was not a nazi. He was in the Hitler Youth (like almost every young German) and got drafted to an auxiliary anti-aircraft corps. That hardly makes him a nazi.

Who cares what an irrelevant old man with a funny hat says?

A lot more people than probably should.

...

Which makes me wonder if his speech and it's reaction and the subsequent catholic-muslim diplomacy( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14996192/ ) was all unexpected.

Regardless of whether or not the Pope is a smart man(and I see no reason to believe otherwise), he is surrounded by very smart men. *nod*

Maybe thats why he also condemed the crusades in his speech? Of course no one knows that because they are to busy taking a one too two line quote out of context, as has been pointed out repeatedly, to bother reading what he actually said instead of a little soundbite fed to them by the media. I mean God forbid someone haveing something to say that can't be summed up in less than five seconds:rolleyes:

More accurately, God forbid they know what they are talking about, rather than jumping to conclusions based on a previously held hatred of the Pope.

A lot more people than probably should.

...

Which makes me wonder if his speech and it's reaction and the subsequent catholic-muslim diplomacy( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14996192/ ) was all unexpected.

Regardless of whether or not the Pope is a smart man(and I see no reason to believe otherwise), he is surrounded by very smart men. *nod*

Probably a smart guy, true. But still, a guy who acts as "the voice of god" should not be needed in this day and age.

Probably a smart guy, true. But still, a guy who acts as "the voice of god" should not be needed in this day and age.

To you. However, millions and millions of people disagree with you. I'm actually not Catholic, and despise organized religion, but it doesn't bother me that there is a Pope. And honestly, I can't see why we don't need a "voice of God." After all, humans are doing such a great job of taking care of themselves and the planet, we obviously don't need any help, thankyouverymuch. ;)

To you. However, millions and millions of people disagree with you. I'm actually not Catholic, and despise organized religion, but it doesn't bother me that there is a Pope. And honestly, I can't see why we don't need a "voice of God." After all, humans are doing such a great job of taking care of themselves and the planet, we obviously don't need any help, thankyouverymuch. ;)

This "voice of god" allready had a go at running europe in the middle ages, and look what that got us.
That's not the kind of "help" we need.

That's called identity theft. It's something that happens in the real world. You'll learn about it when you're older, son.
While your [atronising tone is most hilarious, I must ask your to take a break from wetting your pants and point out that the point of my post wasn't whether they are who they say they are, but rather that valid judgements on the hijackers' level of education cannot be made when, as you said, their identity is in fact in question. Hows your foot pops? You should really keep the safety lock on on that gun of yours.

Aside from just insulting every religious person on this forum, it might be noted just how well that plan worked in Communist Russia.
Yeah, you really shouldn't force anything on anyone. I am just appealing to the religious people directly to give up in the face of increasingly overwhelming evidence. I just don't want to wait until science effectively disproves god all together, who knows how long that'll take.

Yes, and they protested his remarks linking Islam to violence by.... threatening violence. Really well done. I mean, seriously.


I'm sorry what on earth does that have to do with the topic of this post? Oh, not a damn thing. Now if you want to debate the violent tendancies of muslims feel free to start a thread about it. That however is not what this thread was about eh?

Probably a smart guy, true. But still, a guy who acts as "the voice of god" should not be needed in this day and age.
AMEN!..oh, uh right. Sorry.

This "voice of god" allready had a go at running europe in the middle ages, and look what that got us.
That's not the kind of "help" we need.

yeah, and then we had something called the Reformation!

When was the Islamic Reformation? Or did I sleep through that one like how you slept through history class?

yeah, and then we had something called the Reformation!

When was the Islamic Reformation? Or did I sleep through that one like how you slept through history class?

Yes, then there was the Reformation. Your point?

yeah, and then we had something called the Reformation!

When was the Islamic Reformation? Or did I sleep through that one like how you slept through history class?

Islam had it's 'reformation centuries before the Christians, only it wasn't a 'reformation' so much as a 'formation'. The middleages was a period of peace, prosperity and enlightenment in the middle-east. Then as Christianity fixed itself, it descended into what it is today. This however, reflects nothing upon their holy scripts which are as ridiculous as any other religions' but rather their wealth, which was declining due to desertification from overfarming. Actually, that history lecture you apparently were awake in surely would have taught what actually triggered the imminent Rennaissance, which in turn triggered the reformation, right? It was the invasion of Constaintinople (In evil muslim land) by the brutal Ottoman empire. All of the Scholars fled to Venice and brought their love of Classical thought, philosophy, and art with them. Or were you asleep in that particular lecture?

Islam had it's 'reformation centuries before the Christians, only it wasn't a 'reformation' so much as a 'formation'. The middleages was a period of peace, prosperity and enlightenment in the middle-east. Then as Christianity fixed itself, it descended into what it is today. This however, reflects nothing upon their holy scripts which are as ridiculous as any other religions' but rather their wealth, which was declining due to desertification from overfarming. Actually, that history lecture you apparently were awake in surely would have taught what actually triggered the imminent Rennaissance, which in turn triggered the reformation, right? It was the invasion of Constaintinople (In evil muslim land) by the brutal Ottoman empire. All of the Scholars fled to Venice and brought their love of Classical thought, philosophy, and art with them. Or were you asleep in that particular lecture?

Constaintinople was christian, Eastern Orthodox, the Ottomans were muslims.

Constaintinople was christian, Eastern Orthodox, the Ottomans were muslims.
Yeah, at that point. But that was half my point, the Ottomans were the 'new' breed of Islam and they expelled all of the fruits of the 'old' islam to Venice. Although Constaintinople was under Christian control at that time, it had a massive Islamic influence, which was also carried to Venice by the scholars. Buildings such as the Basilica a reminiscent of the Byzantinian empire and evident of this importation centuries earlier.

Yeah, at that point. But that was half my point, the Ottomans were the 'new' breed of Islam and they expelled all of the fruits of the 'old' islam to Venice. Although Constaintinople was under Christian control at that time, it had a massive Islamic influence, which was also carried to Venice by the scholars. Buildings such as the Basilica a reminiscent of the Byzantinian empire and evident of this importation centuries earlier.

The Byzantines had been fighting with Turkish muslims for centuries before Constaintiople finaly fell. The first crusade was launched in part to retake Byzantine lands taken by the Saljuke(sp) Turks. Than you had the moorish invasion and occupation of Spain and the atempted invasion of France that was halted by Charles Martel, to say that Islam was all peaceful during the the so called "Dark Ages" and the Midieval period is as untrue as saying that Christianity was at that time. And yes the fall of Constaintinople combined with the crusades created a spread of knowledge to the west that made the Renniassance period possible, but what does that have to do with the claim that the middle ages in the mid-east were a time of peace, at the vary least the crusades would have interrupted that.

And what do you mean by Constaintinople having a "massive Islamic" influence, it had been christian since the time of Constantine and the majority of the knowledge that moved west with its fall were Greek and Roman texts forgotten in the west?

Exactly, thank you.
As usual, Muslims manage to blame everything on the West while they themselves are the source of all the problems.
I agree with you that Muslims have some apologising to do, but to say that they are the source of all the problems is ridiculous. For example, the Iraq war is a source of the problems and the west did that, mind you the Pope was against the Iraq war but still, part of the west.

Hundreds of thousands constitutes a majority of the middle east?
"Only" 2% of Irish people marched against the Iraq war back in 2003. Does that mean that the majority of Irish people were not against the war?

*snip*
"Only" 2% of Irish people marched against the Iraq war back in 2003. Does that mean that the majority of Irish people were not against the war?
It doesn't mean anything. At least not in regards to the people who didn't march. They could be intensely pro-war/anti-war/ or neither.

*snip* Ugh, your talking politics, I'm talking society. Yes Constaintinople was under Christian control for some time, so was Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there was a huge islamic influence in both places. Lots of the people there were muslim, lots of the philosophy was influenced by Islam, most of the art was also Influenced heavily by Islam (or vice versa, depends how you look at it). Venice also exhibits more of this social rtrend not only in architecture, but also in the population demographics. I don't have any figures, but Venice was famous for having many 'Moors' (generally dark people). Most of the philosophy of the rennaissance was built from the earlier works of Islamic Philosophers. They took it much further, but you can see where they got their ideas.

We have a winner.

/thread

why thank you

Ugh, your talking politics, I'm talking society. Yes Constaintinople was under Christian control for some time, so was Jerusalem. Nevertheless, there was a huge islamic influence in both places. Lots of the people there were muslim, lots of the philosophy was influenced by Islam, most of the art was also Influenced heavily by Islam (or vice versa, depends how you look at it). Venice also exhibits more of this social rtrend not only in architecture, but also in the population demographics. I don't have any figures, but Venice was famous for having many 'Moors' (generally dark people). Most of the philosophy of the rennaissance was built from the earlier works of Islamic Philosophers. They took it much further, but you can see where they got their ideas.

Most of the philosophy in the Rennaissance was based on the works of ancient greek philosophers that had been preserved beter by the Muslims of the east while lost by the those of the west, I'm not sure that should qualify as an Islamic influence same with the culture of Constaintinople it considered itself culturaly Roman being as the Byzantine Empire was basicly the eastern half of the Roman Empire after it was split. And I'm not seeing where the Islamic influence necessarily comes in it was the way it was before the emergence of Islam in the 700s. As for art how does that work Icons are an important aspect of Byzantine art, while Islam forbids such art outright. The similarities that due sem to exist, domes and such, seem to be more of an Eastern thing in general as opposed to a Christian/Islamic thing in particular. As for the comparison with Jerusalem that dosen't really hold up as it was under Islamic control politicaly and culturaly for most of teh period under discussion while Constaintinople was controled and populated primarily by Eastern Orthodox christians up until its fall to the Ottomens.

*snip* Ok then. The sophisticated Islamic culture which generated complex art and philosophy across all of the east, didn't have any influence at all upon the philosophers and scholars of the middle east who congregated at Constaintinople. Despite the fact that Constaintinople was the original melting pot of cultures, Somehow the roman scholars who were there when the West half of Rome fell, kept their love of classical art untainted for generations while they traded, conversed, lived with, and intermarried with the islamic culture prevalent in the region. Then the Ottomans moved in, only those pure Roman christian philosophers and artists fled to Venice bringing with them only greek and Roman art and philosophy. Right. [/strawman]

Here is how I see all this:

Okay, you always have to offer every belief system a bit of respect. Anyone has the right to believe in what they want, be it Catholicism, Islam or Witchcraft.

But sometimes you have to call a dog a dog. The Pope was talking about the relationship between the major religions, and the problem of a "clash of cultures". In a speech revolving around the idea that violence can't be used to introduce religion to people, he used the quote by a Byzantinian Emperor. That guy was under threat, he used propaganda. I completely agree that he could've picked a better one. I also see however how the quote made sense in this context...it was about Mohammed having introduced Islam by the power of the sword, and that much is true.

Then the usual suspects started to riot again. In many places it wasn't peaceful demonstrations either, mind you. In Somalia a nun was shot in the back and killed.

Which is worse? I don't think the Pope should have appologised at all. If all there had been was a formal, peaceful protest against his remarks - fine. Hell, if Islamic countries would allow the same freedom of religion that is common in the West - fine.
But these guys are asking us to use two different scales of measurement for religions. Christianity, Judaism et al should be respectful and avoid offending hypersensitive knobheads all over the world at all times. And meanwhile people can get hung for changing their religion in those countries, and the sort of bile you can hear both in the media and the religious ceremonies eludes all reason. Atheists and many Agnostics can't stand about religion that they claim to know the entire truth, to the exclusion of everyone else - who is the worst offender these days? It's Islam. Whether government-sponsored or not, show me a country where Muslims are in the majority and where other religions aren't being subjected to harassment.

The nun died with the word "forgiveness" on her lips (or that is the official story anyways). Who here thinks that some Imam (and especially his mates afterwards) would react this way if someone attacked them like this?

I apply the same standard to every religion. But that also means that if one side acts up and is pretty much entirely in the wrong, I will condemn them accordingly. The Pope said the right thing the wrong way...fair enough. But how can people honestly say that justifies even 1% of the reaction? People condemned Israel for disproportionate reaction in Lebanon - what about this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,437587,00.html
SPIEGEL: Do you think a dialogue on equal footing is possible?
Cardinal Walter Kasper: One cannot be naïve when engaging in this dialogue. Islam undoubtedly deserves respect. It has some things in common with Christianity, such as Abraham as a common progenitor, and the belief in only one God. But Islam developed in opposition to orthodox Christianity from the very start, and it considers itself superior to Christianity. So far, it has only been tolerant in places where it is in the minority. Where it is the majority religion, Islam does not recognize religious freedom, at least not as we understand it. Islam is a different culture. This doesn't mean that it's an inferior culture, but it is a culture that has yet to connect with the positive sides of our modern Western culture: religious freedom, human rights and equal rights for women. These shortcomings are one reason so many Muslims feel such frustration that often turns into hatred and violence against the West, which is despised as being godless and decadent. Suicide attacks are the actions of losers who have nothing left to lose. In this case, Islam serves as a mask, a cover for desperation and nihilism, but not for religion.

I still don't like Benedict though.

So he says. Despite quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor that basically said exactly the opposite. But it is nice for him to clear things up for us all. I suppose we should all forget his comments? Well I for one am not going to. No amount of damage control he does will change that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/25/pope.muslims/index.html

While I didn't always agree with Pope John Paul II, at least he generally maintained good relations with other faiths.

While I didn't always agree with Pope John Paul II, at least he generally maintained good relations with other faiths.

My biggest dislike of Benedict's speech was not the byzantine whats-his-face quote, but what he said about dialogue between the two faiths.

He said that because christianity's perception of god is based on reason or logos as he called it, and that islam's perception of god is an all-knowing, transcendental, and unknowable being, that dialogue between the two was impossible. He seems to have done everything in his power to destroy John Paul's legacy of understanding. His past has alienated jews, and now his words have alienated muslims, whats next? a buddha-bashing campaign?

Ok then. The sophisticated Islamic culture which generated complex art and philosophy across all of the east, didn't have any influence at all upon the philosophers and scholars of the middle east who congregated at Constaintinople. Despite the fact that Constaintinople was the original melting pot of cultures, Somehow the roman scholars who were there when the West half of Rome fell, kept their love of classical art untainted for generations while they traded, conversed, lived with, and intermarried with the islamic culture prevalent in the region. Then the Ottomans moved in, only those pure Roman christian philosophers and artists fled to Venice bringing with them only greek and Roman art and philosophy. Right. [/strawman]

No what I'm disputing is the insinuation of two things.
1: That Islamic culture was the dominate culture in Constantinople and the insinuation that the Eastern Orthodox cutlure of the Byzantines wasn't every bit as vibrant as that of the Islamic Middle East, which I note was deeper in to the Middle East than Constantiople, which was the center of Byzantine culture, which was dominate in the region around Constainople extending into Asia Minor.
2: That the majority of the knowledge was of pure Islamic origin or just stuff the Byzantines had stolen from Islam. That it was instead a mixture of the Byzantine knowledge and Islamic knowledge filtered through the Byzantine point of view. And again that the Islamic philosophers had a profound effect on the Rennaissance when the Rennaissance in the south was primarily concearned with the Italian city states whishing to recapture their glory days of Rome and Greek. Hence why artwork started taking one more classical styles as appossed to gyometerical Islamic styles. Hence why the philosophers of the time begain to try and reconcile the work of classical philosophers with christianity instead of Islamic philosophers. hence the distinct differences between the southern (Italian) Rennaissance and the Northern Rennaissance.

ah will you look at this

NSG has its very own flag burning group.

"someone drew a cartoon of our prophet, lets burn some flags"

"the pope made fun of us, lets burn some flags"

"the guy in the elavator farted and left without saying anything, lets burn some flags"

I read the entire speech, and I am amazed how society have lost critical thinking! They now allow the media to do their thinking for them! "Daddy, is it true what Pope Benedict XVI said about Muzlium?" "Why yes it is Sally, CNN knows everything that we need to know." "But Daddy, they only..." "CNN knows all Sally, CNN Knows all!" I mean jesus, I thought the people that share the same passion for world event and politics like I do would possess some form of critical thinking, but alas, I am let down because yall have decided to let the media do the thinking for you. You've decided that two sentance out of a sixteen paragraph was enough for you to make your judgment! However, what's even more ironic was the fact that the muslium community, that is supposed to be "peaceful" and "intelligent" killed a freakin nun out of what, like 2% of the entire freakin speech?! That Nun died because people were too stupid to actually think for themselves and maybe, just maybe, think that they wern't getting the whole story. However, I guess we don't need critical thinking in today's society. I mean we got CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, C-Span, etc. and the internet. We live in a time where mankind has finally been able to master information such that it can be availiable at our fingertips, and this is the best we can do. This is the best we can do, we have taken two sentance out of a sixteen paragrpah speech and decided that, those two sentence was the whole speech, and people died for that. Yea, great job there people. *claps*

There was nothing inappropriate about what he said. Islam is savagery, especially as it is practiced by arabs. Holy war and holy oppression are cancers on the world and always have been, regardless of who is fighting them.

There was nothing inappropriate about what he said. Islam is savagery, especially as it is practiced by arabs. Holy war and holy oppression are cancers on the world and always have been, regardless of who is fighting them.

But But, the whole speech was about Muzlium, the Pope took a stab at Muzlium so that must mean that's what the whole speech is about! It can't be about how spreading religion through violence is wrong! It just can't be because...tht would make logical sense!

His past has alienated jews, and now his words have alienated muslims, whats next? a buddha-bashing campaign?

LOL

It would be pretty hard to pick a fight with Buddhists, but I almost think that Benny is up to the task.

So he says. Despite quoting a 14th century Byzantine emperor that basically said exactly the opposite. But it is nice for him to clear things up for us all. I suppose we should all forget his comments? Well I for one am not going to. No amount of damage control he does will change that.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/25/pope.muslims/index.html

Well, I think he was wanting to say something different, but basically chose an inappropriate quote for the message he was trying to present. What the message was, beats the hell out of me! But I'd like to think it was something positive, not "Muslims are evil" Bullshit.

Well, I think he was wanting to say something different, but basically chose an inappropriate quote for the message he was trying to present. What the message was, beats the hell out of me! But I'd like to think it was something positive, not "Muslims are evil" Bullshit.

You know, reading though the thread it has been posted repeatedly that the quote was taken out of context. Maybe. The quote he used was certainly inappropriate however he intended to use it. But is it going to be argued that the pope has no problem with other faiths?

Using the most offensive quote he possibly could, and further insulting them by apologizing for their reaction rather than for using an inappropriate quote.


Why apologise for the quote? He basically quoted someone saying islam was violent, and it may have been a mistake to not make it clear that the quote was not his own view. Many muslims reacted to this apparent suggestion that islam is violent by... being violent. Muslims should apologise.

For what it is worth, I actually quite like Benedict. Irrespective of his being either an anachronism, or"poltically incorrect", he fufills his mandate quite impeccably. The Pope is not purposed, either by scripture, or by Catholic perception, as yet another tedious religious figure striving only for world peace. As St.Peter's representative, and thus both the spiritual and temporal head of the Catholic faith, he ought to possess conviction, passion, fervour, and not retrench from an academic statement for fear of offending an amorphous and, at present demonic faith.

Were the majority of the body politic willing to engage Islam as a whole, not simply deplore "a minority of extremists", an argument which is, in any case, fallacious, Islam would not percieve itself as invulnerable to criticism.

Why apologise for the quote? He basically quoted someone saying islam was violent, and it may have been a mistake to not make it clear that the quote was not his own view. Many muslims reacted to this apparent suggestion that islam is violent by... being violent. Muslims should apologise.

As far as I'm aware the violence wasn't that extreme, hardly what it was with the cartoon mess. There were plenty of demonstrations but it didn't go much farther from that. Unless angry shouting is violent now...

As far as I'm aware the violence wasn't that extreme, hardly what it was with the cartoon mess. There were plenty of demonstrations but it didn't go much farther from that. Unless angry shouting is violent now...

A Nun was shot...

His past has alienated jews, and now his words have alienated muslims, whats next? a buddha-bashing campaign?
Would you care to elaborate on that bolded part?

But before you reply, please take this into account:

"Today, too, I wish to reaffirm that I intend to continue with great vigour on the path towards improved relations and friendship with the Jewish People, following the decisive lead given by Pope John Paul II."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/august/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20050819_cologne-synagogue_en.html

You know, reading though the thread it has been posted repeatedly that the quote was taken out of context. Maybe. The quote he used was certainly inappropriate however he intended to use it. But is it going to be argued that the pope has no problem with other faiths?

I don't understand what makes you think that your position is defensible. It has been thoroughly established that B16 was in an academic lecture. Should we never review the words of world leaders simply because someone might be offended?

Should we not learn how Hitler managed to sway an entire nation to unimaginable horrors through words simply because some Jewish people (not to mention anyone with common sense) would find the words to be too strong to be used today? Should we stop talking about MLK's "I have a dream" speech because some racists find it offensive? How about offensive music? Ever heard Tchaikofsky's "Rote Missa?" (Red Mass) You don't have to be Catholic to understand why a sadistic priest holding a large, fleshy, bleeding heart above an altar during church is an offensive image.

We can't forbid the discussion of what others have said before us simply because someone finds it offensive. Aside from it being an atrocious travesty against freedom of speech it forces us to remain ignorant of past mistakes, unable to compare changes in behavior, incapable of predicting the future, etc.

Turning to your final point, why should anyone be surprised that the pope has problems with other religions? Tolerance and agreement are two different things. Does the pope think that witchcraft is a good religious choice? No. Does he try to persecute pagans, et. al.? No. Does he agree with Islam, a religion that is offended by his own belief that Christ was divine? Absolutely not. Does he advocate violence against Muslims.? Again, absolutely not. It should not surprise anyone that the pope would not advocate other religions at all, in fact. If he were predisposed towards another religion it would not make sense that he was Catholic as opposed to, say, Baptist.

All this shit's ridiculous. Really. An old pope & ex-Hitler Jugend holds a speech. The primary focus of the speech is to show that western values & culture is interconnected with his silly religion, and that the world would be much better off if we all bought his regressive shite.

Next, mobs of ignorant, xenophobic orthodox Muslims run riot, killing people from yet other religions & burning their shit.

And we blame the pope for inciting riots?

Reality is like Monty Python on crack sometimes.

The only ones who should apologize are those who purposely took the text out of context, whether to get viewers(news show) or start a riot, and those who participated in any acts of violence.

If you are offended by someone calling you violent, do you really want to be violent, followed by more people calling you violent? The pope did nothing wrong, no matter what the media or violent sobs told you. World peace can not come to a world of obvious bias. It just can't.

An old pope & ex-Hitler Jugend holds a speech.
Can people please get over this? My grandfather was in the HJ, and both my grandmothers were in the BDM.

It was compulsory.

A Nun was shot...

So we blame all Muslims for this?

A Nun was shot...

Yeah unlike the peacefull religion that is christianity

Fabianus Tibo, 60, Marinus Riwu, 48, and Dominggus da Silva, 42, were found guilty of leading a Christian militia that launched a series of attacks in May 2000 including a machete and gun assault on an Islamic school where dozens of men were seeking shelter.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2474145

"Why's everyone always picking on me?"

Whaaa, get over it. The Pope was stating a quote. How come anything a person says regarding a muslim is automatically considered an attack.

Is the world prohibited from saying anything negative about muslims? It seems they can say anything in the world about anything and it's okay. But beware do not talk bad about the muslims. The heavens are gonna come crashing down.

Well, sometimes the truth hurts. "Sticks and Stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Remember that saying.

Yeah unlike the peacefull religion that is christianity



http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2474145

May want to add that whilst the nun was supposed to have been shot in retaliation for what the Pope said, the religious violence in Sulawesi was reciprocal and tit-for-tat and, probably like religious violence elsewhere in Indonesia (Borneo and Maluku I think), was tied into ethnic and land disputes that coalesced along religious lines i.e. simmering over a long time. Bit of an unfair comparison to make then.
Still, religious violence by anyone is deplorable.

Yeah unlike the peacefull religion that is christianity

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2474145

Now now. The Muslims in Indonesia are just as bad. I remember reading a few stories where they ran down a few Christians and gave them a machete touch up as well.

Even in your story. Christian does. Death. Muslim does it. 15 years.

Now now. The Muslims in Indonesia are just as bad. I remember reading a few stories where they ran down a few Christians and gave them a machete touch up as well.

Even in your story. Christian does. Death. Muslim does it. 15 years.
And for every story about a Christan killing in the name of religion I can name at least 6 cases of Religious killing by a Muslim.

So we blame all Muslims for this?

Well, yea, muslims did shoot the nun, so yea..

Well, yea, muslims did shoot the nun, so yea..

collective punishment is irrational, plenty of white people commit murder every year, so should every white man be on trial for it right now??

collective punishment is irrational, plenty of white people commit murder every year, so should every white man be on trial for it right now??

Hey he asked if Muslium should be blamed, I said yes because a muslium did shoot the nun, so comon. I mean who else are we going to bring charges up on?

Can people please get over this? My grandfather was in the HJ, and both my grandmothers were in the BDM.

It was compulsory.

BDM?

Well, yea, muslims did shoot the nun, so yea..

Wilgrove's brilliant deductive reasoning: "Some radical Muslims murdered a nun in response to Benedict's statements. Therefore all Muslims are responsible."

Further proof that t3h 3b1l |\/|0zl3|\/| 80rg ⌐0lle⌐71\/3 Theory has become a bigger and longer-lasting phenomenon than Snakes on a Plane.

Sigh.

:rolleyes:

Hey he asked if Muslium should be blamed, I said yes because a muslium did shoot the nun, so comon. I mean who else are we going to bring charges up on?

He said ALL muslims not A muslim

HUGE difference.

He said ALL muslims not A muslim

HUGE difference.

He never specifiy if he said ALL or A Muslim. He just said Muslim, so one must assume that he ment those that were responsible for the death of the nuns. Also, really, I mean how much longer are we going to defend these people? They get pissed off even by a cartoon! Not a stable batch of people here.

He never specifiy if he said ALL or A Muslim. He just said Muslim, so one must assume that he ment those that were responsible for the death of the nuns. Also, really, I mean how much longer are we going to defend these people? They get pissed off even by a cartoon! Not a stable batch of people here.


So we blame all Muslims for this?

yes he did
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11740951&postcount=94


and that "batch of people" is not monolithic, it has dozens of different idealogies

He never specifiy if he said ALL or A Muslim. He just said Muslim, so one must assume that he ment those that were responsible for the death of the nuns. Also, really, I mean how much longer are we going to defend these people? They get pissed off even by a cartoon! Not a stable batch of people here.

Neither are most people that place an inordinate amount of faith in a symbolic figure. Christians watched a man get beaten, tortures, flailed, and nailed to a cross on a movie screen and leave talking about how much they apprectiate their faith. Scary stuff.

yes he did

and once again you reveal your "us or them" mentality

Hey, tell you what, when the day comes that we can make fun of Muhammed, just like we make fun of Jesus, Buddah, Moses, etc. and they do not riot and react with violence, is the day that I stop attacking them. When they realize that not everyone is going to believe what they believe, and that people are going to criticize their actions, and their beliefs, and they don't react to such criticism with violence, I'll stop my attack. Until then.

Neither are most people that place an inordinate amount of faith in a symbolic figure. Christians watched a man get beaten, tortures, flailed, and nailed to a cross on a movie screen and leave talking about how much they apprectiate their faith. Scary stuff.

Yea, but Jesus knew this was going to happen and accepted it. I doubt the nun knew or accepted her death.

Hey, tell you what, when the day comes that we can make fun of Muhammed, just like we make fun of Jesus, Buddah, Moses, etc. and they do not riot and react with violence, is the day that I stop attacking them. When they realize that not everyone is going to believe what they believe, and that people are going to criticize their actions, and their beliefs, and they don't react to such criticism with violence, I'll stop my attack. Until then.

Then you should stop, right now. Hate to burst your bubble, but islam is not a monolithic force marching on europe; its a fractured mosaic of different beliefs, same way christianity, buddhism, and judaism are.

Are all christians like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

Then you should stop, right now. Hate to burst your bubble, but islam is not a monolithic force marching on europe; its a fractured mosaic of different beliefs, same way christianity, buddhism, and judaism are.

I don't know, the recent criticism from Pope Benedict XVI got a country in an uproar (forgot the country, want to say Turkey, but not sure) so nah, try again.

I don't know, the recent criticism from Pope Benedict XVI got a country in an uproar (forgot the country, want to say Turkey, but not sure) so nah, try again.

Firstly, not a whole country more like a group of people making a petition

Second of all, Turkey=/=entire islamic world.

You've pretty much placed 1.2 billion people in a stereotype. Which is both illogical and false, not every muslim is a terrorist.

BDM?Bund Deutscher Mädel, aka Hitler Jugend for girls.

On that note; NL you'll just have to cope with me not having the least bit of respect for former Hitler Jugend & the like. Not everyone do what they're told, when they know what they're told is wrong. In this case, figuring out that it was wrong didn't exactly take a rocket scientist.

One can only hope that idiotic little pope is forgotten far sooner than der Edelweisspiraten.

I still don't get why people are so focused on his criticisms of Islam however. His trying to insinuate his silly superstitions & backwards, inhumane values into our societies, strikes me as far more outrageous. That despicable old mongrel should have his teeth kicked in.

On that note; NL you'll just have to cope with me not having the least bit of respect for former Hitler Jugend & the like. Not everyone do what they're told, when they know what they're told is wrong. In this case, figuring out that it was wrong didn't exactly take a rocket scientist.
If you lived outside, maybe. As it was, his dad was very much at odds with the Nazis. He attended HJ meetings because they did have a list of everyone, and they would go and get them.

The Edelweißkids essentially had to run away from home and disappear. Not everyone hates their parents that much, especially not poor little Joseph from a Catholic family.

As for serving with the air defence later-on...that was compulsory too. My grandpa lived in Berlin, and they marched into their house back in '45 to get him help defend the "fortress". So my great-grandparents hid him in the attic under a bunch of old blankets.

If you really are interested though in it all...Günter Grass recently published his memoirs. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but a significant part focusses on his childhood in Nazi Germany and how he ended up signing up for the U-Boats and fighting with a Waffen-SS unit. I suppose there are few better people to ask about how that sort of thing can happen.

Not everyone do what they're told, when they know what they're told is wrong. In this case, figuring out that it was wrong didn't exactly take a rocket scientist.
If you didn't do what you were told in Nazi Germany, you were disappeared. Simple as that.
And how were they supposed to know that what they were told was wrong, eh?
It's not like you had a lot of reliable sources for "the truth" in Nazi-Germany.
I still don't get why people are so focused on his criticisms of Islam however. His trying to insinuate his silly superstitions & backwards, inhumane values into our societies, strikes me as far more outrageous. That despicable old mongrel should have his teeth kicked in.
You haven't actually read what he said, have you? While his choice of wording might have been a better one, his aim was to start a dialogue of the various world religions based on the hypothesis that violence has no part in religion. Something to which this little incident gave a kick-start, as he had talks with muslim clerics just a couple of days ago.
Seeing that you call for violence is something I frown upon. You can agree or disagree if you like, but calling for violence definitely puts you off the map...

If you really are interested though in it all...Günter Grass recently published his memoirs. I haven't had a chance to read them yet, but a significant part focusses on his childhood in Nazi Germany and how he ended up signing up for the U-Boats and fighting with a Waffen-SS unit. I suppose there are few better people to ask about how that sort of thing can happen.Yea, I've been meaning to read it. My thoughtful better half actually bought it for me, but I got caught up in the Foundation Trilogy. Next week maybe.If you didn't do what you were told in Nazi Germany, you were disappeared. Simple as that.Or you went underground & tried to fight back, fled the country or whatever. Plenty of people did. I might have some sympathy for families with small children or old crippled parents, but the vast majority of the young adults forced into the youth organisations could have stood up for themselves. As could their parents.And how were they supposed to know that what they were told was wrong, eh?
It's not like you had a lot of reliable sources for "the truth" in Nazi-Germany.I'm at a loss for words here. Do you seriously believe people didn't know what they themselves were doing?You haven't actually read what he said, have you? While his choice of wording might have been a better one, his aim was to start a dialogue of the various world religions based on the hypothesis that violence has no part in religion. Something to which this little incident gave a kick-start, as he had talks with muslim clerics just a couple of days ago.If you're asking that, then I can only assume that you're the one who haven't read it. The quip about Muhammed was completely insignificant. His rant was primarily about how Catholicism is Europe, how scientific methodology is dangerous, and how the continual secularisation of (primarily) education & society as a whole, is unethical, unreasonable & dangerous.

Still, talking about poor wording, it surprised the shit out of me that no one picked up on his one-liner about how not all of the Catholic rubbish needs to be chucked down the throats of all cultures. The crystal clear implication being that Catholic gibberish does indeed need to infest everyone, everywhere. To make it even more idiotic, he mentions the above as part of what leads to his "Only then can all religions & cultures get along". See if Muslims had picked up on that, I just might have understood why they got mad. I think it's pretty damn offensive, and I'm not even the slightest bit religious. What really pisses me off though, are things like this: "Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based." (that's a direct quote from Zenit.org (http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748) who kindly translated the bollox to English.

So the basic scientific method's got to be tossed so his irrational, prejudiced, mass-killing, obnoxious bullshit can permeate all, just like in the good ole Darkages (which he even has the nerve to claim not to want a return to).Seeing that you call for violence is something I frown upon. You can agree or disagree if you like, but calling for violence definitely puts you off the map...Excuse my hyperbole. I don't actually go around kicking old people's teeth out, even when they clearly have it comming. This guy's insistance on spreading unreason, irrationality & utter fabrications to people who die of it, makes him belong in a prison in my not so humble opinion.

I suppose I should have just said I'd like to tie the guy to a chair & have a crap on his lap.

If the aim of that speech, which was almost exclusively centered around presenting Catholicism & the Bible as the cornerstone of western civilization, knowledge, education, logic & reason, was about streatching out a hand to other superstitious cults, the bits about Catholicism & the Bible being the only "real" superstition & that it's job is to integrate itself into everyone's lives & cultures, came across as more of an outstretched mailbomb.

Remind me, did you read his idiotic tirade?

Bund Deutscher Mädel, aka Hitler Jugend for girls.

Thanks.