NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/23/pope.turkey.reut/index.html

I actually agree somewhat with these guys:
"He should follow in the footsteps of his predecessor John Paul, who was against the theory of the clash of civilizations," Qari Hanif Jallundri, a senior official for a large network of madrasas (Koran schools) in Pakistan, said in a typical comment.

Cemal Usak, a Turkish Muslim active in inter-faith dialogue, noted Benedict had no real experience of Islam whereas Pope John XXIII spent a decade as a Vatican diplomat in Istanbul.


Any thoughts?, predictions?, opinions?


There are already protests and people are already jumping on the "clash or faiths" Bandwagon....

Anyone?


:(

I agree with them, too.

Anyway, I hope he's able to mend some of the damage his earlier comments caused.

I think Turkey is the place to go on a political level as well as a religious level because that country has been courting both the Middle Eastern and European nations for years without really taking sides.

However Pope Benedict is probably the worst person to do such talks because he is too quick to judge Islam and Islamic nations as Cemal Usak said earlier.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/11/23/pope.turkey.reut/index.html

I actually agree somewhat with these guys:



Any thoughts?, predictions?, opinions?


There are already protests and people are already jumping on the "clash or faiths" Bandwagon....

I think he's in for a rough old ride. What he said was reprehensible and he may face a backlash from some extremist elements.

There's a latin saying, it goes: Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur

Lit. Trans: It is a wise man who speaks little.

Something that ALL religious leaders could well take heed of.

I think he's in for a rough old ride. What he said was reprehensible

What did he say that was so reprehensible?

I agree with them, too.

Anyway, I hope he's able to mend some of the damage his earlier comments caused.You mean the dilberate out of context misquoting of his earlier comments caused correct, or is this going to have to turn in to another argument with people pointing to the fact that his speech was a condimnation of violence as a tactic for spreading religion and others obsessing over one small quote, albeit propably a poorly chosen one, in said speech taken out of context to make it look like he was personally bashing on muslims.

What did he say that was so reprehensible?

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached

In his defence he was quoting a text written in 1391. However, he didn't pre-empt this quote by saying 'I am now going to quote' or something similar.

That sentence made no sense. I'm tired.

AFAIK, he was just saying that Catholics don't believe that God would call them to attack other people in the name of faith or something. Fairly harmless, but then you have the people that believe the opposite, and I suppose they got angry someone called them wrong...

AFAIK, he was just saying that Catholics don't believe that God would call them to attack other people in the name of faith or something. Fairly harmless, but then you have the people that believe the opposite.

He was giving a speech on why religons in general shouldn't try to use violence to spred and during said speech he, unfortunantly, quoted a Byzantine emperor from the time of the crusades who made same rather unflatering comments about the religion of Islam. Taken with in teh context of the rest of the speech it was fairly clear that he was saying that this is what he thinks, at least going from memory it seemed clear been awhile since I read it, but I remember this be being fairly clear. Unfortunatly certain groups and individuals then took said quote out of context reporting solely on it and not on the speech over all and created a bit of a fuss.

They're a bit late on the uptake since its been 800 years since that was first published! People take themselves too seriously, take arguments too personally, and take action too readily. I'm guilty of that too I guess, but my usual actions are not deadly, particularly to people that had very little to do with what set me off...

I hope he's able to smooth things over a bit. That's better for everyone I think.

I hope he's able to smooth things over a bit. That's better for everyone I think.

Amen, I think the Pope should get all the issues out on the table and explain the facts, maybe taking some of the blame. A reconciliation between the faiths would be to the world's benefit methinks.

In his defence he was quoting a text written in 1391. However, he didn't pre-empt this quote by saying 'I am now going to quote' or something similar.

Yes, I'm aware that he said that, however I don't consider it reprehensible.

You've just perpetuated the myth that it was an out of the blue statement. It was used as a direct quote, during a lecture about faith vs. reason. He was mentioning a conversation that had taken place between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Persian man who were, IIRC, discussing whether man should do what God commands.

He had earlier mentioned how the Qu'ran says that nobody should be forced to convert, but seemingly contradicted itself in later passages. He used the quote from the Emperor because, when he read it, it was how he had been reminded about the subject, and how it had again come to his interest.

The Pope's point, from what I remember, was somewhere along the lines of how man could be forced by faith to undertake unreasonable actions, of which he considered forced conversion to be one.

Yes, I'm aware that he said that, however I don't consider it reprehensible.

You've just perpetuated the myth that it was an out of the blue statement. It was used as a direct quote, during a lecture about faith vs. reason. He was mentioning a conversation that had taken place between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Persian man who were, IIRC, discussing whether man should do what God commands.

He had earlier mentioned how the Qu'ran says that nobody should be forced to convert, but seemingly contradicted itself in later passages. He used the quote from the Emperor because, when he read it, it was how he had been reminded about the subject, and how it had again come to his interest.

The Pope's point, from what I remember, was somewhere along the lines of how man could be forced by faith to undertake unreasonable actions, of which he considered forced conversion to be one.


I consider it reprehensible in conjunction with the current political climate. A clear-headed and rational discussion of Islam is fine: if it results in violence throughout the Muslim world I don't care and I will stand up for any rational and clear discussion that can be had.

However, the above quote that lead in to the following was not well-timed nor well-laid out:

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.

God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death....

His discussion as I read it (I didn't hear or see him give the talk) was in terms of criticising a Westerned non-logoscentric trend within Christianity: the briefest, tiniest negative mention of Islam was reprehensible considering his position and the current situation that the world is in.

Has the Pointff written a Last Will and Testament yet? He is going to need it. That and a closed casket burial ceremony.

well he's too late for thanksgiving :(

This is what I have written about this in my blog.

A difference two sentence can make.
By now, we all know about Pope Benedict XVI speech about using violence to spread religion. However, what most people don't know is that what the news reported, was just 1% of the speech. What the news media reported was just two sentence of a sixteen paragraph speech, why because controversy sells, and that is what they're after right?m 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 y'all 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 Muslim 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 weren'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 available 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 paragraph speech and decided that, those two sentence was the whole speech, and people died for that. Yea, great job there people. *claps*

I think it summed up the whole Pope's speech up nicely.

This is what I have written about this in my blog.



I think it summed up the whole Pope's speech up nicely.

No it didn't. Regardless of the stuff about logos in the rest of the speech, the man is a public figure talking about an ultra-sensitive topic - don't get me wrong, as I say above, I'm all for a rational and calm discussion of Islam - using examples pertaining to bloodshed and murder from the middle ages. Yes it wasn't his words. Yes there was a lot more to the rest of the damn speech but should he have said it? No. Simple as. Not getting at him for being Catholic, German or dumb: I'm simply saying if you're the head of a world religion pick you're damn words carefully else you might have to face consequences from whoever you offend...

No it didn't. Regardless of the stuff about logos in the rest of the speech, the man is a public figure talking about an ultra-sensitive topic - don't get me wrong, as I say above, I'm all for a rational and calm discussion of Islam - using examples pertaining to bloodshed and murder from the middle ages. Yes it wasn't his words. Yes there was a lot more to the rest of the damn speech but should he have said it? No. Simple as. Not getting at him for being Catholic, German or dumb: I'm simply saying if you're the head of a world religion pick you're damn words carefully else you might have to face consequences from whoever you offend...

Well, maybe he didn't realize that the world would be so freakin' stupid over this. I mean he's not a politician, he doesn't know that the general human population loves drama and excitement and will take anything out of context to get one or both. He was trying to give the general human population some credit for being smart to put the thing into context.

Well, maybe he didn't realize that the world would be so freakin' stupid over this. I mean he's not a politician, he doesn't know that the general human population loves drama and excitement and will take anything out of context to get one or both. He was trying to give the general human population some credit for being smart to put the thing into context.

Come on. Has he been living in a box for the past five years? Did he not see what happened when a Danish paper published one little inocuous cartoon? The man can't be living that much in the dark ages to not know to just say nothing about Islam in ANY context - leave it to the politicians to sort out the pseudo-crusadel mess...

Come on. Has he been living in a box for the past five years? Did he not see what happened when a Danish paper published one little inocuous cartoon? The man can't be living that much in the dark ages to not know to just say nothing about Islam in ANY context - leave it to the politicians to sort out the pseudo-crusadel mess...

The way fathers, bishops, cardinals, and Popes talk, is through stories and example. To try to relate the message to the people of today. He was talking about how spreading religion through violence was wrong, and well, he had to pick a current example of spreading religion through violence, and well, there ya go.

The way fathers, bishops, cardinals, and Popes talk, is through stories and example. To try to relate the message to the people of today. He was talking about how spreading religion through violence was wrong, and well, he had to pick a current example of spreading religion through violence, and well, there ya go.

No he did not pick a current event - he sideswiped a current event through the use of a seven hundred year old tomb. He could of talked about Judaism in Palestine or Christianity in Nigeria but if he chose to talk about violence in religion - which, by the way, I don't think he did, he was just being very silly - he plumped for talking about violence within a religion that is struggling to deal with the violence that is afflicting it from within; shockingly prompting more violence. I don't think you convince me Mr Veep that he acted correctly in any way...

No he did not pick a current event - he sideswiped a current event through the use of a seven hundred year old tomb. He could of talked about Judaism in Palestine or Christianity in Nigeria but if he chose to talk about violence in religion - which, by the way, I don't think he did, he was just being very silly - he plumped for talking about violence within a religion that is struggling to deal with the violence that is afflicting it from within; shockingly prompting more violence. I don't think you convince me Mr Veep that he acted correctly in any way...

I think he did acted correctly, it's just that idiots like to take things out of context and say "OMG HE BASHED MUZLIM!!!!111 HE' HATES BROWN PEOPLE!!!1111ONE!"

I think he did acted correctly, it's just that idiots like to take things out of context and say "OMG HE BASHED MUZLIM!!!!111 HE' HATES BROWN PEOPLE!!!1111ONE!"

Which I hope is not a way of saying that this is what I am saying.....else I may have to lose some respect for you and take back that wombat you ate...

Which I hope is not a way of saying that this is what I am saying.....else I may have to lose some respect for you and take back that wombat you ate...

No, it's just that you can't take what he said by itself, you have to look at the whole speech or at least the whole paragraph.

No, it's just that you can't take what he said by itself, you have to look at the whole speech or at least the whole paragraph.

Which I have. I still draw the same conclusions: the section that has been highlighted has nothing to do with the rest of the speech and he is not attacking Muslims.

My point is that he should be intelligent enough not to have mentioned them in the first place, maybe those Nuns wouldn't be dead....

Which I have. I still draw the same conclusions: the section that has been highlighted has nothing to do with the rest of the speech and he is not attacking Muslims.

My point is that he should be intelligent enough not to have mentioned them in the first place, maybe those Nuns wouldn't be dead....

That is possible...

As a secularist I don't acknowlegde any religious authority of pope or anyone claiming to be khalif etc. By Turkish Revolution Laws we have ended and banned khalifate. Its christian equal should be considered and treated the same. No man can be allowed political control of religion over the masses, its against human rights, science and common sense!

Pope is an ex-nazi that hates islam to the core and has great experiance in politics which he will use to spread fear and hate. He will probably organise some trouble for everyone. If it was up to me I would have denied him this visit or kept him occupied all the time, not letting him brew up some trouble with religious groups.

This Pope is an.......idiot

This is exactly what the world needs now, the head of the Catholic, heck the Christian world calling Islam ""violent".

I repeat, the pope is an idiot. God really has a funny way of choosing the messager to the people

My point is that he should be intelligent enough not to have mentioned them in the first place, maybe those Nuns wouldn't be dead....

So instead of blaming the people who could not control themselves not to be viloent at provocation, we blame what is very easily not actually a racist quote (if it examined in context)

Here in Italy we get "Pope said this, Pope did that" about 5 minutes in every damned TV news, and even more in main state TV news (TG1 on RAI1). Not to mention newspapers. We're bored out of our skulls - the Papal hyerarchy meddles continuously with italian politics, they even attacked italian satyrical TV programmes last week. Damn Vittorio Emanuele II, couldn't he just finish the work with the bloody Papacy back in 1871?

So, here's an offer:

DOES ANYONE WANT VATICAN CITY?
We Italians will raise funds and take the whole Vatican, stone by stone, to the country who's ready to accept them. Of course, you'll have to take Pope Ratzinger also, it's a bundle...

:D

Here in Italy we get "Pope said this, Pope did that" about 5 minutes in every damned TV news, and even more in main state TV news (TG1 on RAI1). Not to mention newspapers. We're bored out of our skulls - the Papal hyerarchy meddles continuously with italian politics, they even attacked italian satyrical TV programmes last week. Damn Vittorio Emanuele II, couldn't he just finish the work with the bloody Papacy back in 1871?

So, here's an offer:

DOES ANYONE WANT VATICAN CITY?
We Italians will raise funds and take the whole Vatican, stone by stone, to the country who's ready to accept them. Of course, you'll have to take Pope Ratzinger also, it's a bundle...

:D

Hell the state of North Carolina will take the city. I'd be funny to see the fundies freak out when they realize that the capitol of the Catholic faith is in their bible belt. :D

It's all part of a cunning plan to keep turkey out of the EU. It'll work too.

I am in favour of letting Turkey join our European Union. And the idea of expelling the Holy See to America doesn't sound that bad....

I am in favour of letting Turkey join our European Union. And the idea of expelling the Holy See to America doesn't sound that bad....I'm not exactly in favour of the EU, but this has to be the sanest idea I've heard all day.

I'm not exactly in favour of the EU, but this has to be the sanest idea I've heard all day.

That's why it's important to get off NSG every once and awhile

That's why it's important to get off NSG every once and awhileUnfortunately I live in a country that might as well be America. Politicians across the spectrum thinks it's a great idea to send young men & women off to kill & die in Iraq. Tax legislation needs to be revised for the sole purpose of enabling the largest corporation in the country to pay less tax. Centers of art, culture & alternative political movements are sold by the state to fanatical Christian sects, and when people dare protest, they're not just arrested, they're arrested, incapacitated & only then beat so bad they need hospitalization... And the local anarchists start talking about armour & weapons.

On days like this, NSG seems relatively sane.

, he was just saying that Catholics don't believe that God would call them to attack other people in the name of faith or something.

Crusades, anyone? :confused:

It's all part of a cunning plan to keep turkey out of the EU. It'll work too.

Are you being sarcastic?

whatev.