Pope enrages muslim world, inspires death threats by suggesting Islam not peaceful

Hmm, imagine that. The Pope gives a speech where he explicitly states that holy war, be it a crusade or a jihad.... religious violence of any kind is incompatible with the nature of God. As part of the speech, he offers a quote from a dialogue between a 14th century Byzantine Emperor and a Persian scholar, in which Manuel II Paleologus states that the only thing Islam has brought to the world that is unique is jihad, which is unholy.

Now I can understand hurt feelings and strongly worded disagreement. But the reaction to the Pope's speech has lost all bounds of reason. Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent...

Among other incidents include a bombing at a Greek Orthodox church (and if anybody has had it in for the Papacy through the centuries, it would be the Greek Orthodox church).

So, basically, if you want to start a riot, suggest that Muslims are violent? :dizzy2: Doesn't that make the statement true?

I can understand the argument that Pope was painting with a broad brush, but surely the Pakistani National Assembly and the Supreme Imam of Turkey have bigger things to worry about then what the aging, ignored leader of a failing religion that is having secular legal issues in most of the countries it operates in has to say about them... If they really wanted to show Pope Benedict XVI how irrelevant he truly is, they should have ignored him, or quietly rebuffed his comments as the insane ramblings of a man out of touch. Surely the Muslim world is imbuing him with an importance that simply isn't there any more.

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/...itsbest3vh.jpg

This is sooo sooo funny!! The only thing funnier than people rioting over anger at Islam being called violent is that the idiots obviously fail to see the irony in that! :laugh4: :laugh4:

Thank you Islam...you have cheered up my day...

Seriously, it does make you wonder about the general IQ of some people...

@Don
I couldnt get that link to work...might be me though...

And that is religion for you ...

Does it really surprise anyone by now?

Although, there's a lesson to be learned here ... the next time someone calls you violent, punch his lights out.:2thumbsup: That'll teach him not to spread lies about you ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Although, there's a lesson to be learned here ... the next time someone calls you aggressive, punch his lights out.:2thumbsup:

---

LOL!...well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/...itsbest3vh.jpg

---

that image is fake.

As always the entire ordeal is as stupid as jyllands-posten debacle. But thanks to the pope friday attendance at mosques has increased now :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silver Rusher

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/...itsbest3vh.jpg

---

This guy MUST have a wicked sense of humour.

Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent...

While wiping blood from an infidel’s beheading off his hands what? I don’t get it? :blank:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yesdachi

Muslims rioting against implication that they're violent...

While wiping blood from an infidel’s beheading off his hands what? I don’t get it? :blank:

---

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

---

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

what?

oh snap, i have to clean my cleaver and hide that infidels head i recently beheaded

Can't you people think for 5 minutes not every muslim is a maniac that beheads people?

---

Can't you think for 5 minutes that they're not calling every muslim a maniac. :juggle2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.

---

I saw this post before you edited it. And believe me, those comments put you far, far below the level of the Pope. I shan't utter those words here though.

The next time the Pope talks about Islam, I strongly suggest that he Proclaim himself God-King of the Sea People and that if anyone makes threats against the Holy Sanctity of his established position, then he'll send out his Corsairs to deal with the problem... the sad part is, is while the rest of the World would think he is crazy, Islamicists might believe him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

And that is religion for you ...

Does it really surprise anyone by now?

Although, there's a lesson to be learned here ... the next time someone calls you violent, punch his lights out.:2thumbsup: That'll teach him not to spread lies about you ...

---

eh.... broad sweeping generalizations again...
That's NOT religion. That's fanatics, fundamentalists, zealots. Quite a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

"(X and Y) have bigger things to worry about then what the aging, ignored leader of a failing religion..."

"I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is."

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

---

I don't understand the hostility here.

One incident of some being violent is not evidence of all muslims always being violent. Then again, depending on your definition of muslim, it certainly shows that some of them cannot be peaceful, denying the contrary statement that muslims are peaceful.

Quote:

---

I don't understand the hostility here.

---

I have a big issue with the way the Catholic Church has borrowed a few tricks from Cosa Nostra on how to keep the whole buggery scandal quiet, and freaks like Geoghan and Shanley out in the field. One of the primary defenders of the pervs was Cardinal Bernard Law, who, as somebody that's dedicated their lives to the legal system, you should resent more than I. If Cardinal Law was anybody else then the figurehead of Catholicism in Boston, he would have been thrown in jail on numerous counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, extortion, bribery and numerous other felonies. Instead, he got recalled to Rome, where his old buddy Ratzenberger (aka Benedict XVI) saw to it that he was named Pastor in Residence of the Basillica of St. Mary Major. This represented if anything a promotion within the Vatican, as he was now stationed permanently within the Vatican and was able to maintain his title as Cardinal.

Hostility? Hundreds of molested children that Law pimped out to his priests. It's the reason I became a Methodist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blodrast

eh.... broad sweeping generalizations again...
That's NOT religion. That's fanatics, fundamentalists, zealots. Quite a difference.

---

Oh come on...when a riot usually takes place it can very well be a large proportion of the average citizens that get stirred up, it certainly doesnt have to be the fanatics and what not...so did all the zealots and fanatics club together especially for this riot?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

that image is fake.

As always the entire ordeal is as stupid as jyllands-posten debacle. But thanks to the pope friday attendance at mosques has increased now :2thumbsup:

---

The image is indeed fake. The real message was: "behead those who insult islam". This was part of the london demonstrations against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The real message was: "behead those who insult islam".

---

Oh thats much better then...

...no wait, hang on a minute...

checking...


checking...


Nope- still sick and wrong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I have a big issue with the way the Catholic Church has borrowed a few tricks from Cosa Nostra on how to keep the whole buggery scandal quiet, and freaks like Geoghan and Shanley out in the field. One of the primary defenders of the pervs was Cardinal Bernard Law, who, as somebody that's dedicated their lives to the legal system, you should resent more than I. If Cardinal Law was anybody else then the figurehead of Catholicism in Boston, he would have been thrown in jail on numerous counts of obstruction of justice, witness tampering, extortion, bribery and numerous other felonies. Instead, he got recalled to Rome, where his old buddy Ratzenberger (aka Benedict XVI) saw to it that he was named Pastor in Residence of the Basillica of St. Mary Major. This represented if anything a promotion within the Vatican, as he was now stationed permanently within the Vatican and was able to maintain his title as Cardinal.

Hostility? Hundreds of molested children that Law pimped out to his priests. It's the reason I became a Methodist.

---

I see. So the Pope is ignored and over-the-hill and Catholicism itself is a failing religion because of the evils done by some Priests in the U.S.? Hmmm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I can and do. But rioting because some over-the-hill head of a religion that even it's 'dedicated followers' don't really listen to is not the way to prove how calm and rational the average muslim is.

My apologies to anyone offended by my original description of the Pope. He's not one of my favorite people, and promoting Cardinal Law has done nothing to endear him to me.

---

The thing is, every protest is now called a riot when the protestors are muslims?

Besides the bombing of an orthodox church carried by a few fanatics, what makes you think that these protests are what an average muslim thinks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Smart move by the Pope. Muslim hypocrisy has never been so blatantly obvious.

---

Haha, what, the pope personally gains through this reaction?

"Yes...good..."

The evils I speak of are not those done by Shanley and Geoghan themselves. The evil of pedophilia appears everywhere.... with parents, physicians, Rabbis, ministers, teachers, scout leaders... anybody who has access to children. The only thing that makes the Roman Catholic Church unique in this regard is that while everyone else tries their damndest to root the pedophiles out and bar their access to children, the entire organization, including those at the highest levels, dedicate themselves to using whatever means necessary, including threats of excommunication, to silence the accusers and move the violators into new and fertile hunting grounds. In that, they are so far away from their mission, their very existence makes me question the existence of God.

But you asked me why the vitriol, not why I think they are a failing religion.

Go to any of the traditional strongholds of the Roman Catholic faith: France, Italy, Southern Germany, Ireland, East Coast USA, Austria, etc. Less than 20% attendance, and less than 5% by people under 40. Does that sound like a thriving, prospering religion to you? They've had to pay out so much in monetary settlements that they're selling church property and closing parishes across the Northeast USA, traditionally their richest dioceses. The only place they still have a following is in third world countries, and it's been shown that as nations improve their standards of living (Brazil, Argentina) people either move to Protestant faiths or quit Christianity all together.

The Roman Catholic Church itself will tell you if you press hard enough that they are an Aristocracy. The term 'princes of the church' bestowed upon Cardinals is not slang, it's a title. They view themselves as nobility and the rest of us are peasants. It's an outdated, out of touch institution that is going under (and not quickly enough in my book).

I am a devout Christian, but frankly, somedays I have to wonder if I'm not just believing wives tales when the Lord of Hosts allows men such as Law to blaspheme in His name and excommunicate children to silence them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leet Eriksson

The thing is, every protest is now called a riot when the protestors are muslims?

Besides the bombing of an orthodox church carried by a few fanatics, what makes you think that these protests are what an average muslim thinks?

---

Burning the Pope in effigy and letting off a bomb at an Eastern Orthodox community center in Gaza are hardly peaceful protesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caravel

The image is indeed fake. The real message was: "behead those who insult islam". This was part of the london demonstrations against the Jyllands-Posten cartoons.

---

Of course it is. You just need to have a look at the V to see how worse-than-photoshopped it is. But I posted the pic because it seemed appropriate.

Anyway. The Pope says Islam is violent because of the actions of a few terrorists. Don Corleone says Catholicism is about buggery because of the actions of a few American priests. Can you see a difference? I can. The difference is that the PC society allows people to insult catholics and get away scot-free whereas insulting Islam not only brings you to burning embassies, violent protests and even more terrorist attacks but also gets you shot down by others who are not Muslim.

(and DC, don't try to defend it with untrue spouts of 'I never said that'; as I said before, I saw what you posted before the edit. :inquisitive: Oh, and I may have said I will never utter those words here but you continued with the subject of buggery anyway so I might as well)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

No, but the Muslim Extremists--perhaps the entire Muslim Community--loses face by this rioutous and (to be honest) laughable reaction.

---

Whatever you say. I sincerely doubt that it affects anything real and tangible, even if they have 'lost face'. We all know that they were reactionaries anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Burning the Pope in effigy and letting off a bomb at an Eastern Orthodox community center in Gaza are hardly peaceful protesting.

---

1 incident, the bombing of a church, somewhere in someplace we don't know carried out by a minority group.

Hardly represents most of the protests. And burning effigy's was done since what the 1980's? thats hardly an incident were anyone would feel insulted.

Well, technically, the Pope didn't say Islam was violent ... he merely quoted Manuel II, and that guy said it. That's if you feel like nitpicking.

@Bloodrast: That post wasn't intended to be serious ... I thought that the lesson learned bit would make that obvious.

SilverRusher, my issue is not with the buggery itself. Sadly, that shows up everywhere, and yes, you're right, it was a few American priests.

My issue is much deeper... the hypocricy and the sheer evil of an organization that would threaten children with excommunication for going to the police with their stories. Before you go defending the bigwigs of the Church and how it was only a couple of priests, you really ought to go do some research into how many times offending priests have been reassigned. Go read about the Navajo mission in Northwestern New Mexico. Read about Shanley joining NAFTA, and Law telling him not that his desires were evil, but that he ought not to be so public about them.

I did say some nasty things about Ratzinger, and I hold to them. I edited them not because I don't stand behind them, but because I don't think I need to offend practicing Catholics in this dialogue, and I'll pick one, maybe two boogeymen per thread (and Ratzingers Nazi ties are yet another thread).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

I see. So the Pope is ignored and over-the-hill and Catholicism itself is a failing religion because of the evils done by some Priests in the U.S.? Hmmm.

---

To a certain extent, his edicts are ignored. The evils done by the priests and the extent that the church went to cover up those evils has certaintly hurt the religion to the point that one could reasonably say that it has fallen in stature and influence.

Muslims react with violent threats in protest of a sugestion they are not peacefull.....

Pro-life christians kill doctors......


It´s these little ironies that make religion almost worth having around....










....don´t be shocked!...I said almost!:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The only thing that makes the Roman Catholic Church unique in this regard is that while everyone else tries their damndest to root the pedophiles out and bar their access to children, the entire organization, including those at the highest levels, dedicate themselves to using whatever means necessary, including threats of excommunication, to silence the accusers and move the violators into new and fertile hunting grounds.

---

Entire organization? Don, does this seem a sustainable position to you?

Quote:

---

But you asked me why the vitriol, not why I think they are a failing religion.

---

I asked about your hostility and quoted you regarding the Pope and Catholicism as a failing religion.

Quote:

---

Go to any of the traditional strongholds of the Roman Catholic faith: France, Italy, Southern Germany, Ireland, East Coast USA, Austria, etc. Less than 20% attendance, and less than 5% by people under 40. Does that sound like a thriving, prospering religion to you?

---

The loss of devotion in Western Europe is not exclusive to Catholicism. The same is the case in Traditional Protestant Europe.

Quote:

---

I am a devout Christian, but frankly, somedays I have to wonder if I'm not just believing wives tales when the Lord of Hosts allows men such as Law to blaspheme in His name and excommunicate children to silence them.

---

Evil predates the acts of clerical pederasts and those who cover for them. I think your hostility is blinding you to a great religious tradition full of good people. You are a good guy and shouldn't give in to such.

If you want to continue to discuss this, Pindar, that's fine, but we should start another thread. I promise to limit my critcisms of the Catholic Church in this one for now. I don't view my views as blinkered, however, as I have Cardinal Law's promotion in light of his abuses to support my case, but again, this belongs in another thread.

As for Leet's point that one man's protesting becomes rioting where muslims are involved.... here you may have a point. In actually digging through to find examples of violent behavior in response to the Pope's speech, I am coming up rather shorthanded. It seems to be more hints of violence and threats of violence then violence itself. You're right that burning people in effigy is fairly harmless and shouldn't be construed as real violence. Perhaps what really sets us apart is a cultural difference... protests in the Middle East simply tend to be more lively then in Europe or the USA. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I did say some nasty things about Ratzinger, and I hold to them. I edited them not because I don't stand behind them, but because I don't think I need to offend practicing Catholics in this dialogue, and I'll pick one, maybe two boogeymen per thread (and Ratzingers Nazi ties are yet another thread).

---

Well, I don't like the pope or the catholic church either, but the point about ratzinger being a Nazi is pretty weird since he was a kid back then, raised under Nazi doctrine with no other perspective given.

On topic I think that it's usually the bad guys who make a company, group or religion look bad.

A Laden blows up two towers -> all muslims are terrorist breeders
A Bush calls for crusade -> all christians are warmongering idiots
A Putin wants an empire -> all Russians are evil imperialist commies
A Hitler starts WW2 -> all Germans are evil Nazis who murder jews in their spare time

Maybe some monkeysphere phenomenon in that we take the actions of a famous person as example for the actions and thoughts of all of his or her "followers"(or who we think are his followers), especially if we have some previous prejudice anyway.

What some people obviously aren't seeing is the demographics of these rioters/threat makers/whatever.

One, it's small.

Two, they come from a select population.

Consider where Leet...fiz comes from. The UAE. A religious place, though rich (better per-person income than here I believe), prosperous, educated. Is that the source of much tussle?

Remember the India riots over the Da Vinci Code? Not much in rioting at home though...

There's a point to all of this. Essentially, poor people, perhaps oppressed in some way, are most prone to extremism. The fact just happens to be that the Muslim world has more of these places than the Christian world.

Do also recall, that Soundgarden (:rockstar:) recieved numerous death threats for their song "Jesus Christ Pose", which actually criticizes Perry and other rockstars for imitating Jesus on stage. They hadn't blown up yet either, this predated the Seattle explosion.

By the way, here are some responses from high level Muslim leaders around the world. They certainly don't tow the line with the impression of the first post/title...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348436.stm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PALESTINIAN PRIME MINISTER ISMAIL HANIYA

In the name of our Palestinian people... we express our condemnation of the statements of his Excellency the Pope, against Islam as a belief, sharia, history, and a lifestyle.

---

Ooh..."his Excellency"...tactful...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YOUSSEF AL-QARDAWI, QATARI MUSLIM CLERIC AND HEAD OF ISLAMIC SCHOLARS' ASSOCIATION

Our hands are outstretched and our religion calls for peace, not for war, for love not for hatred, for tolerance, not for fanaticism, for knowing each other and not for disavowing each other.

We condemn this and we want to know the explanation of this and what is intended by this. We call on the pope, the pontiff, to apologise to the Islamic nation because he has insulted its religion and Prophet, its faith and Sharia without any justification.

---

Damn, and I thought he was going to call for a beheading... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YOUSEF AL-KHOEI, HEAD OF ISLAMIC CHARITY

He should really know better than quoting a 14th Century Christian emperor who was a political man who made his statements for a political reason... I do not know why people choose to quote things out of context when you have clear instructions in Islam which says no forced conversion. Why do we need a Christian emperor to tell us what Islam is?

---

Ooh, pretty intelligent refutation...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

If you want to continue to discuss this, Pindar, that's fine, but we should start another thread. I promise to limit my critcisms of the Catholic Church in this one for now. I don't view my views as blinkered, however, as I have Cardinal Law's promotion in light of his abuses to support my case, but again, this belongs in another thread.

---

OK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

...

---

Thank you so much Reenk.

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Yes, you're right, it was a few American priests.

---

Am I missing something here? The pedophile priest problem has not been confined to the borders of the U.S.A., not by a long shot. I don't have time to dig up a pile of original links, but here's a summary:

One of the worst examples of a clergyman using his links with families to facilitate the abuse of children occurred in Ireland, where one priest ² systematically raped and sexually abused hundreds of boys between 1945 and 1990. The scandal over the Fr. Brendan Smyth case, and the systematic obstruction of justice in his case by the Norbertine Order caused immense damage to the credibility of the Catholic church in Ireland, as did other cases, such as that of Fr. Jim Grennan, a parish priest, who abused children as they prepared for First Communion, and Fr. Sean Fortune, who committed suicide before his trial for the rape of children. The abuse by Grennan and others in the Diocese of Ferns in south-east Ireland led to the resignation of the local bishop, Brendan Comiskey, while similar scandals in the Archdiocese of Dublin severely damaged the reputation of its archbishop, Cardinal Connell. Although there were other social factors at play, some have argued that the ten-year drop in the percentage of Irish people attending weekly Mass (from 63% to 48%) was related to these events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Well, technically, the Pope didn't say Islam was violent ... he merely quoted Manuel II, and that guy said it. That's if you feel like nitpicking.

@Bloodrast: That post wasn't intended to be serious ... I thought that the lesson learned bit would make that obvious.

---

Oh, okay, I didn't catch the sarcasm - sorry, my humor-meter is probably having a slow day :)
No probs, anyway :)

[QUOTE=Lemur]Am I missing something here? The pedophile priest problem has not been confined to the borders of the U.S.A., not by a long shot. I don't have time to dig up a pile of original links, but [\QUOTE]

I'm going to chalk this one up to you and I being on different wavelengths. Allow me to correct my original statement: a few priests here and there. As with pedophiles in all walks of life, it's a relatively small number of priests that have actually engaged in the behavior. It's because pedophiles are so prodigious in their activities that even one or two can rack up such a large body count. This is true of pedophiles at all levels. The uniqueness of the situation of the Catholic church is the protection level. If you're a rabbi or a lutheran minister and you get caught doing these things, they strip you of your ecclesiastical authority and hand you in to the secular authorities. The Catholic Church seems to be content to 1) move you to another parish where you're unknown 2) payoff those victims and witnesses that will take money to keep quiet and 3) proceed to threaten those that didn't take the money in #2 with excommunication (which, for those non-Catholics out there, to a believer is a fate worse than death, as your immortal soul is in immediate jeoprady of Hell and you cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation, it's supposed to be reserved for heresy and other acts against the Church at large, not for shutting up molested children).

[QUOTE=Don Corleone]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Am I missing something here? The pedophile priest problem has not been confined to the borders of the U.S.A., not by a long shot. I don't have time to dig up a pile of original links, but [\QUOTE]

I'm going to chalk this one up to you and I being on different wavelengths. Allow me to correct my original statement: a few priests here and there. As with pedophiles in all walks of life, it's a relatively small number of priests that have actually engaged in the behavior. It's because pedophiles are so prodigious in their activities that even one or two can rack up such a large body count. This is true of pedophiles at all levels. The uniqueness of the situation of the Catholic church is the protection level. If you're a rabbi or a lutheran minister and you get caught doing these things, they strip you of your ecclesiastical authority and hand you in to the secular authorities. The Catholic Church seems to be content to 1) move you to another parish where you're unknown 2) payoff those victims and witnesses that will take money to keep quiet and 3) proceed to threaten those that didn't take the money in #2 with excommunication (which, for those non-Catholics out there, to a believer is a fate worse than death, as your immortal soul is in immediate jeoprady of Hell and you cannot receive the sacrament of reconciliation, it's supposed to be reserved for heresy and other acts against the Church at large, not for shutting up molested children).

---

Hmm, this may again be a discussion for another thread, but I'll go ahead and ask in this one anyway. Don, I can understand your frustration with the institution (although I don't necessarily agree with your view that if there are a few rotten fruits in the orchard, the entire thing is bad). But why did you change your beliefs, rather than just stop going to church, and remain a Catholic ? I mean, believing whatever Catholicism preaches should not be changed in any way by what the institution does or does not. In my opinion, of course.

I'm asking out of curiosity, I'm not pointing fingers or anything of the kind, and I hope you don't take it that way. I'm specifying this, because I know it's hard to get tone and implications from an Internet board post...

Apologies if I'm derailing this thread, and, if you want, of course we can save this for another thread or something similar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

I'm going to chalk this one up to you and I being on different wavelengths.

---

Hey, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your position, and I'm sorry if I did. It was one of those moments when you read something, say to yourself, "Is he saying what I think he's saying?" and post a little more backround info. Please have patience with the lemur when he misunderstands you. It's not meant maliciously.

I didn't take it that way. It was more a sigh of frustration at the misunderstanding itself then defensive posturing. I would think it goes without saying that the pedophilia crisis looms over the entire world. The reason it appears to be so prevalent in the US is we actually air our dirty laundry. I in no way meant to imply that I believed it was a uniquely American Catholic affair, nor did I take offense with you Lemur when you read my phrase a little too literally. The fault, if any, is mine for sloppy lanaguage. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

...

---

Great post. That pretty much sums it up.

You know, it occurs to me that what Benedict did to Law was move him out of his own little Empire back to the Vatican where he can't do very much damage. Its the sort of move you make when you want to de-fany someone without causing too many waves within your own institution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

You know, it occurs to me that what Benedict did to Law was move him out of his own little Empire back to the Vatican where he can't do very much damage. Its the sort of move you make when you want to de-fany someone without causing too many waves within your own institution.

---

I agree- it was no promotion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

SilverRusher, my issue is not with the buggery itself. Sadly, that shows up everywhere, and yes, you're right, it was a few American priests.

My issue is much deeper... the hypocricy and the sheer evil of an organization that would threaten children with excommunication for going to the police with their stories. Before you go defending the bigwigs of the Church and how it was only a couple of priests, you really ought to go do some research into how many times offending priests have been reassigned. Go read about the Navajo mission in Northwestern New Mexico. Read about Shanley joining NAFTA, and Law telling him not that his desires were evil, but that he ought not to be so public about them.

I did say some nasty things about Ratzinger, and I hold to them. I edited them not because I don't stand behind them, but because I don't think I need to offend practicing Catholics in this dialogue, and I'll pick one, maybe two boogeymen per thread (and Ratzingers Nazi ties are yet another thread).

---

What on Earth does the North American Free Trade Agreement have to do with buggery?

(Aside from you Yanks bending us Canucks over the table in the softwood lumber dispute?)

~;p

Oops, substitute NAMBLA for NAFTA, sorry about that. :oops:

Any org theologians know if Poppy Benny's lecture qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

If not, it's just one man's opinion.

But if so, it obligates the world's catholics to some kind of active affirmation.

Either way, Sunday's sermons this week ought to be interesting.

I believe the Pope has to declare he is speaking ex cathedra, and that it has to be about certain matters only. So I'm going to say no, if I didn't get mixed up about your question.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Any org theologians know if Poppy Benny's lecture qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?

If not, it's just one man's opinion.

But if so, it obligates the world's catholics to some kind of active affirmation.

Either way, Sunday's sermons this week ought to be interesting.

---

No, I dont think it was. Besides, his point "Conversion by violence is not of God" is pretty tough to disagree with either way. Him quoting a long dead emperor while making that point doesnt make for some sort of Church proclamation against Islam.

well his holiness should have knew what was coming..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Among other incidents include a bombing at a Greek Orthodox church (and if anybody has had it in for the Papacy through the centuries, it would be the Greek Orthodox church).

---

That is'nt a good way to try to prove you arent a violent religion ("We are not violent!" "in other news another muslim bombing....")

Why bomb an Orthodox church because the Pope said something. I thot the enemy of my enemy is my friend, not the guy I will hurt because I am angry.
Talk about being dumb.

Yes lets just insult eachother. What does anyone gain in this? Nothing this in no way furthers any relations with anyone. Why the pope would say this is utterly beyond me. Ethier find peace or fight to the death. Im sick of the enemoures egos when it comes to ismlaomfacism on both sides.

Well I refuse to fight for any religion... if Pope McPopeHat wants a Crusade I won't be joining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

Any org theologians know if Poppy Benny's lecture qualifies as an ex cathedra pronouncement?.

---

No, it was simply a lecture.

I know that the Backroom contains people who like to pursue knowledge, and those that prefer to rant.

In the spirit of the former, I post a link to the Holy Father's actual speech. It was an intelligent reflection on the nature of God as reason, something that has exercised us here on occasion. He quoted Emperor Manuel II Paleologus from the text written by the emperor, recounting a debate with a Persian.

In essence, His Holiness was arguing for the belief that the biblical God is the fount of reason and that violence to promote faith is both unreasonable and doomed to failure. He noted that this was a position that Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) took originally, but then changed to support violent spread of the faith in his later years. The philosophical essence of Allah was that His word was absolute (even the interlocutor reported was arguing that Allah was not even bound by his own word).

In essence, Pope Benedict was charting the journey that Christianity has taken from peaceful origins through violent conversions to reasoned co-existence and arguing that this last was more reflective of God as logos (in Greek, word or reason). In contrast, fundamentalism in both camps was ignoring reason in favour of emotional and practical violence, and thus a dialogue between reasoning people in both religions might bring understanding.

It is a thoughtful speech and one that bears reflection. How some Muslim leaders have stoked it up into:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SALIH KAPUSUZ, DEPUTY LEADER OF TURKEY'S RULING AK PARTY

The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini.

---

is rather beyond me, unless they believe that discussing the root causes of the evil that is perpetrated in Islam's name makes them feel vulnerable and on the defensive. The reaction rather proves the point that reason is becoming a scarce commodity in the face of the fundamentalist threat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It was an intelligent refection on the nature of God as reason, something that has exercised us here on occasion.

---

From what I've know of Benedict XVI he appears a thoughtful, perceptive mind.

Look, Islam is a violent religion. The Koran implicity preaches hatered and jihad. And it's about time everyone woke up to that.

I can quote directly from the Koran to prove my point.

There are portions of the Koran that promote peace, but unfortunately they were written before the violent ones. And in the Koran, the later writings replace the older ones.

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people.

If you say the Koran has many quotes dealing with the Destruction of Non-Muslims, especially in the later part. I can Quote the Bible in many parts (Ironically both new and old testament) on the Destruction of non Jews-Christians.

Its how you interpret what a word means, not what a word implies.~;)

Except that in the Bible the Gospels always take precedence over everything else.

As to violent religions, have you ever heard of Thugi?

I don't think Islam is inherently evil but I do think a militant aspect was built into it from the first. This was probably done to allow Muslims a way of defending themselves without breaking with their God, but it unfortunately gives ammunition to the fundamentalists.

Did anyone see Sleeper Cell when it was on? That program dealt with this very issue, quite well for fiction, I thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people

---

:inquisitive: :inquisitive:

Which means that non-religious people should spread a religion ?:inquisitive: :dizzy2:

Sorry, these kind of people are religious FANATICS - you have non-religious fanatics as well.

It is not the fact that you are religious, but the fact that you go too far with some ideas religious or atheist.:book:

Meh!

Retitle the thread to "Muslims take offence at the Pope quoting an Emperor speaking whilst currently besieged by the armies of Islam"

Now, I think I've probably established that I'm not a right-wing Christian Conservative survivalist fruitbat by now, but I do feel this is a case of looking for something to be offended by, having read the speech for myself. A serious case of someone telling someone else something about something he'd heard of, til eventually it reaches the illiterate peasants who then have to be appeased by the educated spokesmen that really ought to know better (Pakistani parliament springs to mind here...)

Bear in mind that Popes USED to say: "Hey, guys, let's put together the biggest army Europe's ever seen and romp around killing Muslims until we have taken back Jerusalem". Now THAT would be offensive to Islam, but to suggest that the Byzantine emperor whose empire was about to be destroyed may have had some negative feelings towards his military enemy is hardly offensive, but speaking the historic truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wakizashi

No Religion can promote violence, only religious people.

---

Thats all very philosophically nice and all that but I dont think it has much bearing in the real world.

The 'big three' religions clearly inspired people (or promoted if you like) to violence...does not Islamic law say you are perfectly entitled to take non believers as slaves?...how is that not the religion promoting a certain course of action?

And even if it is the people who are violent, the religion can/does & is prompting them to do it.

If a reporter axes the Pope if he is sorry, he should respond "does mohammed wear a funny hat?"

Pope apologizes for remarks on Islam

This is the article,

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Pope Benedict XVI is "extremely upset" that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday.

Firebombs scorched the wall of this Greek Orthodox church in Nablus. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press) Firebombs scorched the wall of this Greek Orthodox church in Nablus. (Majdi Mohammed/Associated Press)

On Tuesday, the Pope quoted a Medieval text that referred to the Prophet Muhammad's contribution to religion, remarks made by 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said. "He said, I quote, '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.'"

The pontiff quoted Manuel's argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."

Since Benedict's speech at the University of Regensburg, in Bavaria, Germany, there has been growing outrage from Muslim leaders around the world.

In the West Bank city of Nablus, two churches — one Greek Orthodox and the other Anglican — were hit by firebombs Saturday morning. A group claiming responsibility said it was protesting against what many Muslims view as disparaging remarks about their religion.

Newspapers in many Muslim countries have carried editorials denouncing the controversial reference. Pakistan's Nawa-i-Waqt newspaper said the Pope "should not get involved in such provocation without reason."

Vatican spokesman says Pope 'very sorry'

The new Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said the Pope's position on Islam is unmistakably in line with Vatican teaching that the Church "esteems Muslims, who adore the only God."

"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers," the statement said.

Some of the strongest denunciations over the remarks came from Turkey, where Benedict is scheduled to travel in November. Turkey's ruling party likened the Pope to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Pope Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.

With files from the Associated Press

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

two churches — one Greek Orthodox and the other Anglican — were hit by firebombs

---

Quote:

---

"the result of pitiful ignorance" ..... or, worse, a deliberate distortion

---

Pot, kettle, anybody?

How does Christianity actually inspire violence???

If you were reading from the words of Christ alone, you must require a pretty warped mind to interpret violence from his words...it may not be a case of inspiration, but a case of a person's own predisposition imposed over a religious context and presented as religious truth which is the case with many things that happened when the Church used "un-Christian" violence.

"Love thy neighbour" = Only those who are Christians spared from violence?

"Love those who despise you" = I'm sure that means retaliate with a Crusade...no doubt

"Turn the other cheek" - uncover the Kalashnikov beneath your jacket flap and blast the infidel to hell

"My commandment to you: Love each other" - Death to infidels

"I leave you my peace" - Impose an inquisition, force Jews to convert, burn all heretics on the stake

How could I be wrong, Jesus might be a Zealot/Sicarii warlord after all...gah!!

I just wish people understood that tolerance also means tolerance of remarks that might offend. I mean look, the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem has a sentence written in Arabic which disparages the Christian belief in the Trinity. Fair enough, its their opinion, their religion says God is unitarian, not trinitarian. I'm not going to protest or burn anything down. IN fact, the VAST majority of Muslims did NOT burn anything DOWN so I think that means most Muslims just let it slip by and are not funding some assassination of Pope Benedict. We notice how the leaders of Muslim countries condemn the Pope, but how many of them are democratic countries which represent the whim and thoughts of their own people?


Yes, those extremists are dumb animals. Thats why they are extremists, they are dumb, ignorant and easily led by equally dumb, ignorant religious leaders bent on their own personal power base and not for the spiritual benefit of their flock.

Banquo's Ghost, cheers for posting the entire speech. I had read it, and I'm glad someone actually posted it in this topic. It's a shame that from a well-written and balanced speech detractors choose to take one comment entirely out of context, and a comment that in fact is explicitely referred to as a quote. If muslims wish to be taken seriously, perhaps they should take such speeches seriously and not merely offer a blinkered take on what is in fact a well-reasoned take on religion. In the end, the reaction to the speech shows exactly why the reasoned thinking promoted in the speech is necessary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

detractors choose to take one comment entirely out of context, and a comment that in fact is explicitely referred to as a quote.

---

In this context it should be noted that one of the vocal protestors, he head of the Ministry of Religious Affairs in Ankara, Ali Bardakoglu, in the meantime adimitted that he did not even read the whole speech, but just reacted to hearsay... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by macsen rufus

Pot, kettle, anybody?

---

Why are they bombing my religions churches!

Its not like the Greeks agreed with the pope.

Still some who follow Islam (and those who are terrorists) actually believe that if they walk into a building strapped with an IED, blow the building up and kill innocents, that they would be rewarded with 70 some odd virgins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kataphraktoi

How does Christianity actually inspire violence???

If you were reading from the words of Christ alone, you must require a pretty warped mind to interpret violence from his words...it may not be a case of inspiration, but a case of a person's own predisposition imposed over a religious context and presented as religious truth which is the case with many things that happened when the Church used "un-Christian" violence.

"Love thy neighbour" = Only those who are Christians spared from violence?

"Love those who despise you" = I'm sure that means retaliate with a Crusade...no doubt

"Turn the other cheek" - uncover the Kalashnikov beneath your jacket flap and blast the infidel to hell

"My commandment to you: Love each other" - Death to infidels

"I leave you my peace" - Impose an inquisition, force Jews to convert, burn all heretics on the stake

How could I be wrong, Jesus might be a Zealot/Sicarii warlord after all...gah!!

I just wish people understood that tolerance also means tolerance of remarks that might offend. I mean look, the Dome of Rock in Jerusalem has a sentence written in Arabic which disparages the Christian belief in the Trinity. Fair enough, its their opinion, their religion says God is unitarian, not trinitarian. I'm not going to protest or burn anything down. IN fact, the VAST majority of Muslims did NOT burn anything DOWN so I think that means most Muslims just let it slip by and are not funding some assassination of Pope Benedict. We notice how the leaders of Muslim countries condemn the Pope, but how many of them are democratic countries which represent the whim and thoughts of their own people?


Yes, those extremists are dumb animals. Thats why they are extremists, they are dumb, ignorant and easily led by equally dumb, ignorant religious leaders bent on their own personal power base and not for the spiritual benefit of their flock.

---

Um i think we're talking about Roman Catholicism. They WERE and maybe are violent (best example: the crusades).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It is a thoughtful speech and one that bears reflection. How some Muslim leaders have stoked it up into:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SALIH KAPUSUZ, DEPUTY LEADER OF TURKEY'S RULING AK PARTY

The owner of those unfortunate and arrogant comments, Benedict XVI, has gone down in history, but in the same category as Hitler and Mussolini.

---

is rather beyond me, unless they believe that discussing the root causes of the evil that is perpetrated in Islam's name makes them feel vulnerable and on the defensive. The reaction rather proves the point that reason is becoming a scarce commodity in the face of the fundamentalist threat.

---

You see Banquo's Ghost this is one leader, and just looking at his title, he is a political leader. Do check post #39 (hmm, they have removed some of the quotes from yesterday, and updated them with new ones).

In fact, I believe that the responses from many Muslim leaders have been quite intelligent. What better way to respond then to question why the Pope would be using a 14th century Byzantine emperor, as an authority on the theological complexities of the jihad and Muhammad's relation to it?

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

As for the "violent" reaction, it just reinforces my personal view that it is common for many to have an easier time generalizing Islam and Muslims. I had to do some deep searches for examples of this "violent" reaction, and I got two incidents against churches (non-Catholic ones :rolleyes:) involving Molotov cocktails ("bombings") causing superficial damage to the exterior of the buildings. Besides that, there was the sparing burning effigy, and then the common peaceful-protest for apology. The incidents we can classify as "violent" were also in the Palestinian territories, an environment which solidifies my view of the perfect extremism breeding ground: poor + some form of oppression.

I would hardly call Islam the most peaceful of religions, on the basis that immediately after the founder of the religion, the Muslims immediately began a campaign of conquests to build an empire that would stretch from the Pyrenees to the Indus.

Quote:

---

Why are they bombing my religions churches!

---

I hardly think that idiots like these make much distinction between one denomination and another: to them they are all infidels. (Please note: by idiots I mean the ones who bombed the Anglican and Orthodox Churches in Palestine)

I am disappointed that the Pope had apoligised: he has nothing to apologise for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Banquo's Ghost, cheers for posting the entire speech. I had read it, and I'm glad someone actually posted it in this topic. It's a shame that from a well-written and balanced speech detractors choose to take one comment entirely out of context, and a comment that in fact is explicitely referred to as a quote. If muslims wish to be taken seriously, perhaps they should take such speeches seriously and not merely offer a blinkered take on what is in fact a well-reasoned take on religion. In the end, the reaction to the speech shows exactly why the reasoned thinking promoted in the speech is necessary.

---

I agree.

The point that the Pope makes, and I think it is a very valid point, is that conversion through violence is wrong and incompatible with God's nature. He simply uses Mohammed as an example of somebody who converted people to his religion using violence. This is historical fact and should not be confused with opinion.

I hear people making the argument of how the Catholic church was also responsible for atrocities throughout history. This argument reeks of ignorance. This has nothing to do with the Pope's point, which was far from "Islam is a violent religion" or "Islam has a violent past" which is how many seem to interpret it. He simply used Mohammed as a historical example to prove his point, and quite rightly so for I cannot think of any aspect of Christian history that would have fit into the argument better than Mohammed's example.

Everyone, read that lecture. You will learn a valuable lesson.

And finally, thank you very much BQ. While I doubt it will slice through the ignorance associated with the lecture as effectively as I would have hoped, at least now people can read the argument and realise exactly what the Pope meant.

EDIT: Ah, the ignorance seems to have stacked already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

---

The point isn't about Christianity, it is about the nature of God and how people should be converted. Mohammed converted more people through violence than any other, so why not use his example? The Baltic Crusades converted people by the sword, yes, but small numbers of people and not using Mohammed's example works far more effectively as an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hannibal99

Um i think we're talking about Roman Catholicism. They WERE and maybe are violent (best example: the crusades).

---

See above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

---

Well Islam did come up with the concept originally.

Quote:

---

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

---

Manuel II was an extremely cultured and learned ruler. Accoridng to wiki, "Manuel II was the author of numerous works of varied character, including letters, poems, a Saints's Life, treatises on theology and rhetoric."

i dont get why they would kill his holiness and compare him to Hitler!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

I am disappointed that the Pope had apoligised: he has nothing to apologise for.

---

I disagree - he did the right thing. He regretted the that his speech has been interpreted in a way that was not in line with the original intent.
AFAIK, he did not retract anything, but rather said that he is hoping that people will understand the true meaning of what he said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

You see Banquo's Ghost this is one leader, and just looking at his title, he is a political leader. Do check post #39 (hmm, they have removed some of the quotes from yesterday, and updated them with new ones).

---

There is a whole horde of quotes available. That one was just a peach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

In fact, I believe that the responses from many Muslim leaders have been quite intelligent. What better way to respond then to question why the Pope would be using a 14th century Byzantine emperor, as an authority on the theological complexities of the jihad and Muhammad's relation to it?

---

He didn't. Read the speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Another question brought up is, if this is a speech directed mainly at Christians, of the apparent contradiction between "faith" and war, why use an example from Islam? Wouldn't the Pope be better off taking examples from the Crusades? At least use both. It certainly would be more relevant.

---

Because the biggest problem with religion facing us today is the unwillingness of mainstream Muslims to clamp down on jihadists and fundamentalists. Whilst examining the lessons of the Crusades is a worthwhile academic exercise in self-flagellation, Muslim extremism is killing people right now. The inability of Muslim leaders to accept this, preferring instead to inflame violent feelings by this kind of over-reaction (one gets the impression that swathes of them were just waiting for the Pope to make any remark that could remotely be interpreted as anti-Muslim and had their 'anger' ready prepared) means that once again, debate on this real issue is being stifled by 'outrage' - where are the riots against the suicide bombers, the comparison of jihadists to Hitler? Why should we be taking lectures from the likes of Pervez Musharraf on freedom of speech?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

I think the real beef that Muslims are having with this, is the Pope's tacit support for Manuel II's statements. Before he goes on to quote him, he lauds him as "erudite". There is an implicit agreement by the Pope with the statements as well.

---

I'm hardly anti-muslim, but I agree with the essence of what was being said by Manuel too. He was facing a violent attack by religious zealots, and in that context, his arguments have force. Why did Mohammed (p.b.u.h.) suddenly drop the idea of non-violent conversion to urge conversion by the sword? These are important points to examine, because we have Islamic theologians telling us that Islam is a peaceful religion, but it's fine to bomb infidels into powder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

As for the "violent" reaction, it just reinforces my personal view that it is common for many to have an easier time generalizing Islam and Muslims. I had to do some deep searches for examples of this "violent" reaction, and I got two incidents against churches (non-Catholic ones :rolleyes:) involving Molotov cocktails ("bombings") causing superficial damage to the exterior of the buildings. Besides that, there was the sparing burning effigy, and then the common peaceful-protest for apology. The incidents we can classify as "violent" were also in the Palestinian territories, an environment which solidifies my view of the perfect extremism breeding ground: poor + some form of oppression.

---

The reaction seems to be limited so far, which is good. But the rabble-rousing over such a small thing will have increased anger amongst many in the Muslim world. They have much to get angry over, but not this. And this kind of reaction has another effect - people such as myself, who try to have an understanding of muslim issues, get very angry ourselves over their inability to seek understanding and dialogue without screaming 'victim.' I have found myself today thinking untypically 'Fragony-esque' thoughts because of the stupidity of the muslim leaders' reaction. That's sad.

The Holy Father has apologised, with more humility than I would muster. Muslims need to accept this, and shut the heck up.