NationStates Jolt Archive

First the story

http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=3282
BERLIN, July 26 (Reuters) - Europe should not ignore attempts to introduce Islamic values in the West which could even threaten the continent's identity, Pope Benedict's private secretary told a magazine on Thursday.

The Pope has tried to underline his respect for the Islamic faith since many Muslims were offended by a speech in Germany last year in which they believed he was linking Islam and violence.

"Attempts to islamise the West should not be brushed off," private secretary Georg Gaenswein told the Sueddeutsche Zeitung magazine in an interview posted on its website.

"And the danger for the identity of Europe, which is linked to that, should not be ignored out of wrong-headed respect," added Gaenswein.

And then the hypocrisy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/508610.stm


Pope John Paul II has left India after a two-day visit during which he called on followers to spread Christianity across South Asia.

He has moved on to Georgia - another country with only a tiny Catholic community.

Before he left India, the Pope insisted that the Catholic church had a right to continue missionary work in Asia, saying conversion should be recognised as a human right.
..
"Religious freedom constitutes the very heart of human rights. Its inviolability is such that individuals must be recognised as having the right to change their religion if their conscience so demands," he added.

On Saturday, the Pope insisted that it was the moral duty of Christians to spread the word of the Gospel throughout Asia.

I am amused. A bit.

Isn't JP2 dead? How old is this article, mate?

No religion has any place in governmental affairs.

No religion has any place outside of people's homes and their places of worship.

Fine, let them wear their crosses, let them wear burqas, just don't have them indoctrinating others into their nonsense which costs so many lives and causes so much hatred.

Isn't JP2 dead? How old is this article, mate?

Doesn't matter as long as the current papal administration keeps pumping in money for evangelizing.

Doesn't matter as long as the current papal administration keeps pumping in money for evangelizing.

True. I suppose Abrahmics will be Abrahmics. Spreading their version of the good word to whoever doesn't really want to listen.

Doesn't matter as long as the current papal administration keeps pumping in money for evangelizing.

Why is this hypocrisy? If I'm selling Pepsi I might well say we should watch out for the effect of Coke's marketing yet still look to market my own brand wherever I can.

Isn't JP2 dead?
Prominent Christians returning from dead? There is a precedent. I refer, of course, to the resurrection of Christine the Astonishing in the 12th Century, in which she flew about the rafters during her own mass.

Why is this hypocrisy? If I'm selling Pepsi I might well say we should watch out for the effect of Coke's marketing yet still look to market my own brand wherever I can.

errrr...if Pepsi says that Coke's marketing strategy is bad and evil while following the same marketing strategy, I believe the word is hypocrisy...unless my English is that bad.

errrr...if Pepsi says that Coke's marketing strategy is bad and evil while following the same marketing strategy, I believe the word is hypocrisy...unless my English is that bad.

No, it's as though people are saying 'don't say anything about Coke because it's insensitive and shows you to be a bigot', killing any reasonable debate on the issue. Since there are extreme elements in Coke that want a Coke republic gained through Cokehad, we should allow ourselves to address that.

I'm not religious so I'm not defending the Catholic church in any way but I can see what they're saying for themselves whether I agree or not.

No, it's as though people are saying 'don't say anything about Coke because it's insensitive and shows you to be a bigot', killing any reasonable debate on the issue. Since there are extreme elements in Coke that want a Coke republic gained through Cokehad, we should allow ourselves to address that.

This assumes that pepsi does not have any extreme elements wanting a pepsi republic gained thru pepsihad (whatever that mean...I am just extending this analogy...hopefully u should understand)

Ever heard of National Liberation Front of Tripura? A group of converted Christians with evangelical backing and taking up terrorism with a declared goal of creating a "Kingdom of Christ".

For the vast majority of us "pagans" and "heathens", Islam and Christianity are just two sides of the same coin and it amuses me when Mr. John Paul or Mr. Benedict go on about how dangerous Islam is and express concerns about "Islamisation".


I'm not religious so I'm not defending the Catholic church in any way but I can see what they're saying for themselves whether I agree or not.

What the hell does that mean?

First off, you don't have to be religious to defend a religion. I am not a religious Hindu either, so that is rather moot and irrelevant.

Secondly, you are defending the Church. I note that according to you when the Church says "And the danger for the identity of Europe, which is linked to that, should not be ignored " it is "reasonable debate on the issue".

Amusing.

Excuse me, but what about the danger for the identity of India or for that matter other non-Christian countries targeted by the Church, rather unapologetically and aggressively, due to Christianization.

Oh, I get it....Islam is the bad thing...Islamization is bad.

But Christianism is a good thing and Christianization is good.

Doesn't matter as long as the current papal administration keeps pumping in money for evangelizing.
Actually it does unless you have something that quotes John Paul II saying something about Islam being bad.

It would be akin to saying something along the lines of President George W. Bush is a hypocrite today because President Clinton did something back in 1998.

I agree with the point, your support though...

Someone should remind the Pope that Saladin died in 1193...

Ignore what? I don't get it....Help.

No, it's as though people are saying 'don't say anything about Coke because it's insensitive and shows you to be a bigot', killing any reasonable debate on the issue. Since there are extreme elements in Coke that want a Coke republic gained through Cokehad, we should allow ourselves to address that.

I'm not religious so I'm not defending the Catholic church in any way but I can see what they're saying for themselves whether I agree or not.

If Pepsi started calling Coke a "danger for the identity of Europe", Coke would probably sue them for slander. And win.

Ignore what? I don't get it....Help.

Evangelical effort by muslims / islamization of "christian Europe". Supposedly it changes the character of Europe and it is a danger.

We are supposed to take that as a "reasonable debate" and ignore the church's own efforts in aggressive christianization elsewhere.

Evangelical effort by muslims / islamization of "christian Europe". Supposedly it changes the character of Europe and it is a danger.

We are supposed to take that as a "reasonable debate" and ignore the church's own efforts in aggressive christianization elsewhere.

That's probably true. I guess I'll have to continue seeing advances by radical Islam as a bad thing while remaining neutral about most other religions, rather than approving of their gains. :p

Someone should remind the Pope that Saladin died in 1193...

Hey, in the short term Europeans would probably have been better off ruled by Saladin.

This assumes that pepsi does not have any extreme elements wanting a pepsi republic gained thru pepsihad (whatever that mean...I am just extending this analogy...hopefully u should understand)

Ever heard of National Liberation Front of Tripura? A group of converted Christians with evangelical backing and taking up terrorism with a declared goal of creating a "Kingdom of Christ".

For the vast majority of us "pagans" and "heathens", Islam and Christianity are just two sides of the same coin and it amuses me when Mr. John Paul or Mr. Benedict go on about how dangerous Islam is and express concerns about "Islamisation".

I don't think they're complaining about the attempts, I think they're complaining that they can't raise a debate on it due to 'wrong-headed respect'
What the hell does that mean?

First off, you don't have to be religious to defend a religion. I am not a religious Hindu either, so that is rather moot and irrelevant.

To be fair, I know you're a reasonable debater but I was just heading off the 'shut up you Christian response'

Secondly, you are defending the Church. I note that according to you when the Church says "And the danger for the identity of Europe, which is linked to that, should not be ignored " it is "reasonable debate on the issue".

Amusing.

Well it does affect the 'identity of Europe' according to the church, which is what I don't necessarily agree with, but the thrust of the complaint is that the Catholic Church feels shackled in its response. I don't really agree with that either.

Excuse me, but what about the danger for the identity of India or for that matter other non-Christian countries targeted by the Church, rather unapologetically and aggressively, due to Christianization.

Yet India doesn't have sensitivities to the Christian cause for 'wrong-headed respect' - I hope they laugh at the attempts but, knowing India, they probably accept it as another religion to enjoy - I know a church in Mumbai that has all sorts of denominations going, doesn't seem to relate to which religion it is at all.

Oh, I get it....Islam is the bad thing...Islamization is bad.

But Christianism is a good thing and Christianization is good.

To the Catholic church yes - to most sane people, what's the difference?

Hey, in the short term Europeans would probably have been better off ruled by Saladin.

Possibly. In the long term though, we'd probably still be living like the tribes in Lawrence of Arabia, only in Europe. The first Atlantic crossing would be made by the Aztecs around 1650 or so, and we'd all eat lots of chocolate and tacos. I kinda like it. :p

Possibly. In the long term though, we'd probably still be living like the tribes in Lawrence of Arabia, only in Europe. The first Atlantic crossing would be made by the Aztecs around 1650 or so, and we'd all eat lots of chocolate and tacos. I kinda like it. :p

Yes, cause Europe would of course favour nomadic over settled lifestyle, just like the Sahara. :rolleyes:

Yes, cause Europe would of course favour nomadic over settled lifestyle, just like the Sahara. :rolleyes:

Well of course the terrain would be different. :p Europe wasn't too industrialized in the 12th Century - it wouldn't have done them any favors. ;)

I don't think they're complaining about the attempts, I think they're complaining that they can't raise a debate on it due to 'wrong-headed respect'

A respect they demand in "non-Christian" countries?


Well it does affect the 'identity of Europe' according to the church, which is what I don't necessarily agree with, but the thrust of the complaint is that the Catholic Church feels shackled in its response. I don't really agree with that either.

Well, then what is it that you are disagreeing with me then...;):p

Yet India doesn't have sensitivities to the Christian cause for 'wrong-headed respect' - I hope they laugh at the attempts but, knowing India, they probably accept it as another religion to enjoy - I know a church in Mumbai that has all sorts of denominations going, doesn't seem to relate to which religion it is at all.

Not anymore. I have never given a toss about the next person's religion. Growing up in India, I never thought "Christians" were "others" mainly because of the near total "localisation" and "unobtrusiveness" of local christians. Went to Christian schools for 6 years, go occasionally to churches with christian friends etc where emphasis would be on love and peace and charity...not in how others are bad. Not the luring with money, denigration of other religions, coaxing and pretty much doing everything to make converts.

Nowadays, I can see the difference. Evangelical versions from abroad are taking over local denominations prompting several local christians themselves to speak out against it. I could not find the article I read about...but I found this..

http://www.thesouthasian.org/archives/2005/us_evangelism_serious_threat_t.html
Under these conditions, evangelical groups have spread out over the third world, attempting to provide some respite to the heathens, on one hand, and harvesting souls on the other. The state government of Karnataka agreed to ‘host’ proselytizer Benny Hinn – a multi-millionaire evangelist from the US, even as local church groups in India dissociated themselves from his visit. A Sri Lankan Methodist minister, Reverend Sarangika Fernando observed their work and told The New York Times that he felt that the missionaries acted unethically. Christian leaders from around South Asia have criticized these efforts, loudly proclaiming that the work of US evangelical groups must not represent all of Christianity.

Numerous commentators of the rise of evangelical efforts have presented evidence to strategies for focused conversions in what is termed the Resistance Belt or the 10/40 Window. Vijay Prashad points out that the evangelical leadership– especially Luis Bush, head of the AD2000 & Beyond Movement – offered a concept for the new evangelism called 10/40: "The core of the unreached people of the world live in a rectangular-shaped window! Often called `The Resistant Belt', the window extends from West Africa to East Asia, from 10 north to 40 north of the equator. If we are serious about providing a valid opportunity for every person to experience the truth and saving power of Jesus Christ, we cannot ignore the compelling reality of the 10/40 Window regions and its billions of impoverished souls."

In India, a new wave of evangelism targets what is called the ‘cow belt’ with increased activity in Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, and Haryana – a region that traditionally has seen little evangelical activity. Christian Today profiles a group named World Help that plans to set up over hundred thousand churches in Uttar Pradesh, claiming that they have a very Indian strategy for conversions in India. "The goal of that is that whole extended families and whole villages will become part of a church planting movement , so that it's not a single person here, a single person there being isolated and drawn out of their society, but rather, whole families and villages are coming to Christ”, says Eric Vess from this organization.

As these high-financed evangelical groups turn on the momentum in high-powered proselytizing, the response has been unbalanced. Most secular groups have ignored this process and the right wing Hindu groups in India have used this trend to justify their own brand of hate based religious nationalism. Within this mixture, local Indian church groups and Christian communities – most of who are neither involved in conversions nor associated with the evangelical groups are being threatened. Church leaders from within India have been strongly criticizing most of these efforts.

Someone should remind the Pope that Saladin died in 1193...
Bah, though his powers of the Dark Side of the Force, the Emper... er, the Pope can channel Saladin!

Europe may not have been industrialized but most Europeans were living in fixed settlements at the time.

Also most of Europe's leaps forward in the maths and sciences during the 12th century came from the Arab world.

*snip*

I simply disagree with the idea that it's hypocrisy for the Church to say that they feel stifled in being able to talk about the spread of Islam and try to counteract it.

I guess this is because I feel that there is a lack of honest debate about Islam, in a form of self-censorship by ethnic Europeans themselves. It's easier to talk to Islamists openly about the subject, to be honest.

I like honest debate and I feel there's a certain dishonesty due to being branded a bigot for things one can say about any other religion and it's taken as a reasoned judgment. Islam is a special case due to an atmosphere of 'we mustn't blame the Muslims' - well no we shouldn't but we shouldn't be over-sensitive due to 'wrong-headed respect' either.

Oh, and on reading your article - a true shame but at least it's being debated and called for what it is - wrong.

Not anymore. I have never given a toss about the next person's religion. Growing up in India, I never thought "Christians" were "others" mainly because of the near total "localisation" and "unobtrusiveness" of local christians. Went to Christian schools for 6 years, go occasionally to churches with christian friends etc where emphasis would be on love and peace and charity...not in how others are bad. Not the luring with money, denigration of other religions, coaxing and pretty much doing everything to make converts.

Nowadays, I can see the difference. Evangelical versions from abroad are taking over local denominations prompting several local christians themselves to speak out against it. I could not find the article I read about...but I found this..


21st Century money with 17th century values and arrogance. Theres no place safe from that kind of US evangelical poison....

Hey, in the short term Europeans would probably have been better off ruled by Saladin.

Hell, they'd probably be better off in the long term. They'd get a several hundred year head start on the Renessaince. Dear god I cannot spell that word for the life of me.

21st Century money with 17th century values and arrogance. Theres no place safe from that kind of US evangelical poison....

Run for the hills!

I'd be more worried about efforts to "Buddhamise" the west. Yep. We can't have any of the peaceful hippie shit making us sit in a love circle singing Kumbaya. :D

Catholic church full of crap. Hmmm. Since when is this news?

I'd be more worried about efforts to "Buddhamise" the west. Yep. We can't have any of the peaceful hippie shit making us sit in a love circle singing Kumbaya. :D

/win