Some thoughts about the Pope's comment

[KingYaba]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5351988.stm

Strait out I think it's ****ing ridiculous that the Pope has to go out and say he's sorry. The Pope should not apologize.

I really don't think the Christian church should be subservient to Islam. Apologizing gives resolve to these people who go out on the streets and riot. These muslims are overly aggressive and are being rewarded when huge figureheads like the Pope roll over on their backs and apologize. Since when does the Pope need to apologize for a comment that really was not offensive. It wasn't intended to be offensive. These people rioting on the streets obviously misinterpreted what the Pope meant. The Pope owes no apology. It's their fault they think the Pope was being offensive. When in actuality he was not.

But rather standing his ground, or communicating to people that this was all a misunderstanding, he backs down and says he's sorry.

Pathetic the way I see it. If someone makes a comment that "offends" muslims, and a few of them go blow up a couple buildings, somehow it's the person who made the "offensive" comments is at fault. Some people are too ***** to go out and speak their mind for fear of offending someone. These thugs who go out and riot in the streets are starting to dictate what people say, and do. I for one am getting very annoyed.

Just take these Danish cartoons for instance. Heaven forbid they were only making a couple jokes about Islam. Something Iran does with Jews on a daily basis. Suddenly the cartoonist's lives are at risk. It's not these people making threats who are to blame, it's the cartoonists. They where the ones who made fun of "holly" allah and now deserve to die. What did the Danish newspaper do? They gave into the demands, rolled over on their backs, and played dead. Are these muslims so insecure about their religion? Are they that insecure about their beliefs? Can they not take a joke? Aparently not.

If you were to go out and piss on a statue of jebus, do you think thousands of Christians would go out and riot on the streets? Make threats upon your life? I don't think so. The world is going soft on these militant, overly aggressive muslims, and this is what they want. Stand up for yourself and tell these assholes to shut the **** up.

end rant

Yeah, go ahead and flame me for speaking my mind, I'm listening.

[skunk]

Strait out I think it's ****ing ridiculous that the Pope has to go out and say he's sorry. The Pope should not apologize.The Pope was being either provocative or foolish, neither of which is in his job description. To quote a Christian emperor characterising 14thC Muslims, the guardians of knowledge and civilization, as violent, shortly before Constantinople itself was laid waste in the Fourth Crusade by Venice, with full Papal backing, is absurd. Infallible? I think not.
If you were to go out and piss on a statue of jebus, do you think thousands of Christians would go out and riot on the streets? Make threats upon your life?Very probably.
The world is going soft on these militant, overly aggressive muslims, and this is what they want. Stand up for yourself and tell these assholes to shut the **** up."The world" is busy bombing, shooting, invading, imprisoning, torturing and occupying them.

[beatsme]

http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

my eyes glaze over...

there was a scene in the West Wing a few years back, which went something like "Is it going to take the American flag flying over Mecca to put an end to all of this? And if so, what on earth are we waiting for?"

[Sayhey]

While the idea of any Pope lecturing about the history of jihad and it's evils, given the history of the Catholic Church, is ridiculous on the face of it, the idea of the representative of the Muslim Brotherhood saying the Pope didn't go far enough in his apology is so absurd as to be burlesque. I would hope the Pope would take a better look at how he casts his appeals for dialogue between Islam and Christianity. I would also hope no one takes seriously the demands of the Muslim Brotherhood.

[funkychunkz]

The Pope quoted an ancient text... why shoot the messenger? Many things have changed since then, nations Popes and the Church. If an Imam made a lecture quoting a Islam leader saying that christians don't follow all holly principles, and therefor are damned, or evil doers, we wouldn't be seeing any riots in North America. Taken that the East is culturally different, and more people are religiously active it could be more of a collective outrage fuelled by missenterpretation. What I mean by that is that something might have gotten lost in translation then told around, and whoever was not visibly opposed to this were seen as not understanding their own directives. Not everyone protesting, (who are causing the isue, and applying pressure here is as informed as we might think. (About the history involved, what was said, to whom and in what context etc.)

[Macaddicttt]

Infallible? I think not.

Sorry, but as an aside, I have to point out the errors of thought inherent in this comment when related to the current debacle. Popes are not believed to be infallible in deed, but merely in certain specific circumstances in which they proclaim a Church doctrine to be true. I believe papal infallibility has only been invoked twice. This current debacle about the current pope's comments has nothing to do with papal infallibility in any way whatsoever.

And I also have to point out that the Fourth Crusade went completely against what the pope said. It had no "full papal backing." The pope explicitly declared that no Christian be killed by the Crusaders, but the Venetians convinced them otherwise.

I'm not making these comments to argue on either side of the current conflict, just pointing out factual errors.

[Macaddicttt]

While the idea of any Pope lecturing about the history of jihad and it's evils, given the history of the Catholic Church, is ridiculous on the face of it...

So you're saying that no institution can ever learn from its mistakes and will always have the same flaws it always has? I think not. If anything, the Catholic Church's history gives them more authority in speaking on the evils of religious warfare, considering they've already been through it.

[Ugg]

If anything, the Catholic Church's history gives them more authority in speaking on the evils of religious warfare, considering they've already been through it.

ah, the "only the warriors can comment on the war" mentality. The Catholic Church has not learned from its mistakes as recent history has shown. Rwanda, parts of South America, the Polish Catholic Radio station that continues to spew vile, anti-jewish Propaganda, etc, etc. The Pope was really stupid for saying what he did and the Muslim reaction has been blown out of proportion, religion and its leaders, as usual triumph when it comes to stupidity.

[Sayhey]

So you're saying that no institution can ever learn from its mistakes and will always have the same flaws it always has? I think not. If anything, the Catholic Church's history gives them more authority in speaking on the evils of religious warfare, considering they've already been through it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps the hypocrisy of a Church with the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition lecturing others on religious war and forcible conversion (not really the topic of his speech, but that is how the references to jihad are interpreted) could be tolerated if the Pope had been critical of the Catholic Church's own past. I don't see it in his speech, do you?

[zap2]

The Pope was an idiot for bring it up..and Muslims who give a rats-behind about it being idiots...both of them GET OVER IT


I have to say I think the Pope should say sorry because the angry and damage has led to someone dieing.(I thought I read this, can't find the link so perhaps I'm mistaking)

Either way many world religion over react, and are full of many idiots. I have to say I don't hear many bad things about Buddhist and Hindus, while the other 3 main religions, Islam ,Christianty and Judism, all have more news time(Less so with Judism, but its its up there) Maybe those reilgious leaders need to sit down(with-in each religions) with themselves and talk about how to act with being a bunch of crazy people. Then said some leader to talk about living together with out them killing each others.

Note-Not all Christains, Muslims or Jews are crazy when it comes to other religions, and I'm sure some Buddhist or Hindus are crazy about other religion.

Yet not Agnostics or Athiest are involded..maybe the USSR was onto something

[Thomas Veil]

From beatsme's link:

But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels,” he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words:

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

The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.

Perhaps this was a poor (even bone-headed) choice, on the pope's part, of a historical rationale against spreading faith by violence.

It does, however, give me pause to ponder the dichotomy between the insistence of Muslims that theirs is a religion of peace, vs. the emperor's quotation here that Mohammed advocated spreading the faith via war.

I do not take one side or the other; I'm too ignorant of Islam to do that. But it does make me wonder to what, specifically, the emperor was referring.

As for the reaction to the pope's remarks...I find myself growing less and less charitable to those religious opportunists in the Middle East who seem to seek out every opportunity and excuse to raise hell and burn buildings just because they were "offended". Is their faith THAT fragile?

I tried to be sensitive to their feelings on the Danish cartoon issue, but now I just feel like telling them, "Grow up."

These fanatics wanna talk about getting offended, they should try participating in an internet forum once in a while. ;)

[KingYaba]

The world is going soft on these militant, overly aggressive muslims, and this is what they want. Stand up for yourself and tell these assholes to shut the **** up.
"The world" is busy bombing, shooting, invading, imprisoning, torturing and occupying them.
Bull
-----------------
How does rioting in the streets emphasize "The Religion of Peace?"

[zap2]

Bull
-----------------
How does rioting in the streets emphasize "The Religion of Peace?"


Come on! All religions have wacko...yours does to, and some do kill, other seem to find joy in killing peoples rights here in what was once the leader of the free world.

Can you honestly saying the world is doing nothing to stop extremist? I'd say the government of the west are doing a good deal to stop Muslim extremist. Why then are we in Afganistan? And Bush one day thought it would be a good idea to screw up the Middle east a bit more then it currently was so the USA invaded Iraq, which lead to more death.

I want the man who attacked US, behind bars, not some scapegoat.

Why shouldn't the Pope say sorry? If some peaceful Muslime leader insulted Christainty, you know that you would want a sorry. Why not just have the Pope let go fo his pride and say sorry, for the greater good?

[clevin]

The Pope quoted an ancient text... why shoot the messenger? Many things have changed since then, nations Popes and the Church. If an Imam made a lecture quoting a Islam leader saying that christians don't follow all holly principles, and therefor are damned, or evil doers, we wouldn't be seeing any riots in North America. Taken that the East is culturally different, and more people are religiously active it could be more of a collective outrage fuelled by missenterpretation. What I mean by that is that something might have gotten lost in translation then told around, and whoever was not visibly opposed to this were seen as not understanding their own directives. Not everyone protesting, (who are causing the isue, and applying pressure here is as informed as we might think. (About the history involved, what was said, to whom and in what context etc.)
lol, if he doesn't mean any of those words, why he even quote them?

[clevin]

Bull
-----------------
How does rioting in the streets emphasize "The Religion of Peace?"
they weren't doing that in mass until 2003, while islam was there for more than 1000 years.

[Macaddicttt]

they weren't doing that in mass until 2003, while islam was there for more than 1000 years.


Right... :rolleyes:

Islam was just sitting there minding their own business for those 1000 years, never attacking anyone for anything...

I'm not saying that Christianity's perfect, but that statement was ridiculous.

[Macaddicttt]

No, that's not what I'm saying. Perhaps the hypocrisy of a Church with the history of the Crusades and the Inquisition lecturing others on religious war and forcible conversion (not really the topic of his speech, but that is how the references to jihad are interpreted) could be tolerated if the Pope had been critical of the Catholic Church's own past. I don't see it in his speech, do you?

He just wasn't thinking of it in those terms. He wasn't thinking about taking the two sides, we were wrong sometimes, they were wrong sometimes. He was taking the one side, religion shouldn't be spread by violence.

And as for forcible conversion, the Catholic Church have never advocated such a thing, although people have tried to do so in the Church's name. For example, the Inquisition only persecuted those who claimed to be Christians.

[zap2]

they weren't doing that in mass until 2003, while islam was there for more than 1000 years.


Muslims killed people before 2003, don't kid yourself...but so did Christains, Jews and most other religions.

Anyone with a religion shouldn't attack Islam as a religion(Like KingYaba did but feel free to be upset with people who kill in the religion), because its like others killed in the name of your religion. (Maybe not Jainism and Buddist but its likely some in the past did)

Many Muslims don't support the kill of people who did nothing, but some do. This has also been true with Christianty and Judism and other world religions in the past. Its like a Cycle of what religion kills the most, currently Islam is leading the past 15 years.

[skunk]

From beatsme's link:

Perhaps this was a poor (even bone-headed) choice, on the pope's part, of a historical rationale against spreading faith by violence.

It does, however, give me pause to ponder the dichotomy between the insistence of Muslims that theirs is a religion of peace, vs. the emperor's quotation here that Mohammed advocated spreading the faith via war.As in most holy books, there are many contradictions. Surah 2, 256 reads: There is no compulsion in religion.

[trainguy77]

Why shouldn't the Pope say sorry? If some peaceful Muslime leader insulted Christainty, you know that you would want a sorry.
Have we ever put out a request for statements from Muslims to be retracted? Have they ever been retracted....not that I can remember.

As in most holy books, there are many contradictions.

However, there is one book that has none and that is the bible. There has been no proven contradictions. There has been some that people at first think are, but they have been proved that they are not contradictions.

[clevin]

im not saying they didn't kill ppl, :o
anyway, if christians think they are somehow better than other religion, then they should read more history.

[Macaddicttt]

However, there is one book that has none and that is the bible. There has been no proven contradictions. There has been some that people at first think are, but they have been proved that they are not contradictions.

Wait. Wow. Do you really mean that? You must be joking. The Bible is full of contradictions. How about which day Jesus died. Check John and compare it to the other three Gospels. Yeah, there's a contradiction. One of many.

I'm a Christian, but to claim that the Bible has no contradictions is ludicrous. The Bible was meant somewhat figuratively, and each author had their own points to emphasize depending on their audience.

[KingYaba]

Security tight for Pope blessing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm) No you think?

A statement on a web site purportedly issued by the Iraqi insurgent group, the Mujahideen Army, threatened an attack on the Vatican. The statement could not be independently authenticated.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Assholes. :mad: The Pope makes a comment, and suddenly the death threats come. Someone needs to come out and challenge these thugs.

[zap2]

Have we ever put out a request for statements from Muslims to be retracted? Have they ever been retracted....not that I can remember.


Its possible it had happen..you(noone) have(has) been around that long when you look at the length of the religion.

Even if Christains never did, or if it was never retracted so what. I thought a big thing about Christianity was "do on to other as you would have them do on to you" Surely you don't want Muslim talk bad about your religion..right? I'm sure you'd like them to atleast respect it, even if that don't follow it.

[zap2]

Someone needs to come out and challenge these thugs.

I'm pretty sure you have people doing that...the Pope and Mr. Bush seem to have your back:rolleyes:

I mean Bush is helping to force Christianity down peoples throats by law here...possible because of upbringing by his father.

No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots.

[Sayhey]

Security tight for Pope blessing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5353208.stm) No you think?


This is exactly what I'm talking about. Assholes. :mad: The Pope makes a comment, and suddenly the death threats come. Someone needs to come out and challenge these thugs.

Challenging these "thugs" isn't the problem. There are more than enough people in nations throughout the world willing to puff up their chests and challenge muslim extremists. There are also too many people who are willing to challenge all muslims to a "war of civilizations." The real trick is developing a sound strategy that isn't based on bravado, but rather on a smart analysis of how to isolate extremism and violence on the part of the idiots in all religions who want a global religious war.

[KingYaba]

I didn't mean only resort to violence, but rather engage in a war of words ;) Tell them to go "stick a cork in it." :p

[yg17]

Bull
-----------------
How does rioting in the streets emphasize "The Religion of Peace?"

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The actions of a few certainly don't represent the entire religion.

Now, I do believe any religion calling themselves the "religion of peace" is sort of an oxymoron, considering the number of wars and the millions killed in the name of religion. And pretty much every religion is guilty of that.

[MACDRIVE]

I have to say I don't hear many bad things about Buddhist and Hindus, while the other 3 main ...

Yeah I never here anything about the Buddhist either. They seem to be fairly mellow.

[XNine]

I've been saying it for years. Religion needs to be destroyed and abolished and anyone who acts on behalf of it be shot or imprisoned. Any country who allows a religious figure head do all of the talking on its policies (and this is very true for America as well) gets what it deserves. There's a reason why the Middle East is constantly at war with itself. RELIGION. And it's religious controlled politics in which causes the strife.

The pope is as much of a jackass as any muslim who riots on behalf of a statement, and for that matter, a cartoon, or any christian who blows up an abortion clinic, or ties a gay teen to a fence and brutally kills him. Religion is the vessel for violence and intolerance and ignorance, despite what any of their figureheads or texts preach or teach.

[Sayhey]

I have to say I don't hear many bad things about Buddhist and Hindus...

I think if you read about Hindu nationalism in India or the conflict in Sri Lanka you will find more than enough trouble to include these two religions alongside Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.

[skunk]

I've been saying it for years. Religion needs to be destroyed and abolished and anyone who acts on behalf of it be shot or imprisoned.Define "religion".

[FFTT]

Define "religion".

Give us your faith and your loyalty and 10% of your income
and we'll tell you what you should believe.

[Music_Producer]

I've been saying it for years. Religion needs to be destroyed and abolished and anyone who acts on behalf of it be shot or imprisoned. Any country who allows a religious figure head do all of the talking on its policies (and this is very true for America as well) gets what it deserves. There's a reason why the Middle East is constantly at war with itself. RELIGION. And it's religious controlled politics in which causes the strife.

The pope is as much of a jackass as any muslim who riots on behalf of a statement, and for that matter, a cartoon, or any christian who blows up an abortion clinic, or ties a gay teen to a fence and brutally kills him. Religion is the vessel for violence and intolerance and ignorance, despite what any of their figureheads or texts preach or teach.

You're my best friend.. I wish everyone thought like you.

[FFTT]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42095000/jpg/_42095534_popered_body_afp.jpg

I'm really sorry :rolleyes:

[skunk]

Give us your faith and your loyalty and 10% of your income
and we'll tell you what you should believe.OK, can we make that "organized religion", then?

[FleurDuMal]

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42095000/jpg/_42095534_popered_body_afp.jpg

I'm really sorry :rolleyes:

Such friendly eyes, don't you think? :(

[FleurDuMal]

There's a reason why the Middle East is constantly at war with itself. RELIGION.


That is one of the most over simplified and naive analysis of the Middle East I have ever witnessed :-S. Kind of forgoes the influence of oil money, Western impierialist adventures, the egos of megalomaniac political leaders, etc, etc.

[calculus]

The problem with all religions is that there is no reasoning with them. They all have a fixed idea of what the truth is. This makes any religious based conflict so frightening as the possibility of compromise just doesn't exist.

[XNine]

That is one of the most over simplified and naive analysis of the Middle East I have ever witnessed :-S. Kind of forgoes the influence of oil money, Western impierialist adventures, the egos of megalomaniac political leaders, etc, etc.

These Middle Eastern nations have been fighting since before the discovery of oil. It's all come down to Religious outcries and vendettas spurred by intolerance of others. Why do you think anyone outside of Islam is considered an "infadel?" The Crusades themselves were not about oil, were they? No, religious intolerance.

Is the war in Iraq religion driven? I believe partially. I believe George Bush thinks this is what God wants him to do. And I won't get into how much of a moron he is, because we could go on and on forever about this.

Skunk: Yes, we can define all organized religions under this. However, I would exclude three organized religions off the bat: Satanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Other than the few church burnings in norway, the Satanists haven't been very prominent in war. Buddhists and Hindus are also very peace driven. Christians (this includes Catholics), Jews, and Muslims are the top three religions in the world. They're also the most violent and intolerant people when it comes to other peoples.

[zap2]

Is the war in Iraq religion driven? I believe partially. I believe George Bush thinks this is what God wants him to do. And I won't get into how much of a moron he is, because we could go on and on forever about this.

Skunk: Yes, we can define all organized religions under this. However, I would exclude three organized religions off the bat: Satanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Other than the few church burnings in norway, the Satanists haven't been very prominent in war. Buddhists and Hindus are also very peace driven. Christians (this includes Catholics), Jews, and Muslims are the top three religions in the world. They're also the most violent and intolerant people when it comes to other peoples.


I think the Iraq War is about Oil....sure hope its not about Religion on USA part...however Religion is standing in the way of rebuild it, But I'm not to sure with Bush at the wheel


As for the religion you named that are not violent, we talked about it, and there has been Violence in there name, but not nearly as much as the other big 3

[XNine]

I think the Iraq War is about Oil....sure hope its not about Religion on USA part...however Religion is standing in the way of rebuild it, But I'm not to sure with Bush at the wheel


As for the religion you named that are not violent, we talked about it, and there has been Violence in there name, but not nearly as much as the other big 3

No doubt. I don't disagree. The scales are tipped heavily on one side.

[beatsme]

it seems to me that Farrakhan, for one, is missing a golden opportunity to shore up support for the Muslim community in the US by not roundly condemning Islamic radicalism/terrorism. To his credit, he did speak out against the WTC attacks, but I can't recall having heard much from him since. It'd be nice to see an influential western Muslim make a spiritual appeal for peace on all sides, without (aha...the caveat) dragging politics into it.

[Sayhey]

These Middle Eastern nations have been fighting since before the discovery of oil. It's all come down to Religious outcries and vendettas spurred by intolerance of others. Why do you think anyone outside of Islam is considered an "infadel?" The Crusades themselves were not about oil, were they? No, religious intolerance.

Is the war in Iraq religion driven? I believe partially. I believe George Bush thinks this is what God wants him to do. And I won't get into how much of a moron he is, because we could go on and on forever about this.

Skunk: Yes, we can define all organized religions under this. However, I would exclude three organized religions off the bat: Satanism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Other than the few church burnings in norway, the Satanists haven't been very prominent in war. Buddhists and Hindus are also very peace driven. Christians (this includes Catholics), Jews, and Muslims are the top three religions in the world. They're also the most violent and intolerant people when it comes to other peoples.

The nations of today's Middle East are largely the result of the post-World War I division of the region by the colonial powers. They have not, in the main - with the obvious exception of the conflict of Israel with her neighbors, fought one another. Previous to WWI, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area for centuries (Baghdad was conquered in 1535) and a relative stable peace existed throughout the region until the Empire fell in the 20th Century. How is it then that you view this part of the world as subject to constant warfare spurred on by religious conflicts? Like the rest of the world, the Middle East has at times been rocked with wars, but not all of these have their roots in religion.

I don't want to deny that religious antagonisms strongly influence the politics of today's Middle East, but to reduce the main cause of the many problems to religion is to miss many huge, non-religious factors that feed the conflicts, and in some cases are the main causes of tensions.


Lastly, Hinduism and Buddhism are not exempt from justifiable criticisms concerning the role of religion in fueling wars. Hindu nationalism has moved India and Pakistan closer to war and led to a long history of religious riots in India. Buddhism is a factor in the conflict in Sri Lanka between the largely Hindu Tamil minority and the largely Buddhist Sinhalese majority. A little search of any religion's history will show conflicts with others.

[zap2]

Lastly, Hinduism and Buddhism are not exempt from justifiable criticisms concerning the role of religion in fueling wars. Hindu nationalism has moved India and Pakistan closer to war and led to a long history of religious riots in India. Buddhism is a factor in the conflict in Sri Lanka between the largely Hindu Tamil minority and the largely Buddhist Sinhalese majority. A little search of any religion's history will show conflicts with others.


Yup we talked about this a little, but there is not as much violence in there name

[FleurDuMal]

These Middle Eastern nations have been fighting since before the discovery of oil. It's all come down to Religious outcries and vendettas spurred by intolerance of others. Why do you think anyone outside of Islam is considered an "infadel?" The Crusades themselves were not about oil, were they? No, religious intolerance.

Is the war in Iraq religion driven? I believe partially. I believe George Bush thinks this is what God wants him to do. And I won't get into how much of a moron he is, because we could go on and on forever about this.


Perhaps every Western incursion into the Middle East has somehow had a relation to religious bigotry and triumphalism (I'd doubt this), but to say every conflict in the Middle East is as a result of religion is simply not true. Ethnic and nationalist hatred has been a reason for war completely separate from religion for many centuries. The gassing of the Kurds by Saddam had nothing to do with religion - it was the stiffling of internal unrest using nationalist and ethnic rhetoric as its justification. The Kurds didin't fight the Iraqi state for any religious reason - they fought because they believed the establishment of a Kurdish state was essential the the protection and prolongment of their own ethnic identity. The several wars that accompanied the expansion and contraction of the Ottoman Empire also follow similar logic - it was often the defence of national identity that would fuel resistance to imperial expansion.

To boil every tension in the Middle East to religion dangerously underestimates the ethnic and nationalist fires that have fuelled tension in the region for centuries. Just because all European nations are (or were) Christian (of either denomination) doesn't mean we only fought against each other because of religion. So why should people in the Middle East only pick up arms to defend their religion?!? They're as much concerned with national and ethnic identity as we are!!

[FFTT]

Since the days of Alexander The Great, someone or another has tried to conquer
and exploit the riches of Persia.

According to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it was in our strategic interest to secure the uninterrupted flow of oil from the Middle East.

But you can't use that to convince a normally peace loving society that we need it, so we're just going to take it.

The hard facts is that certain individuals still consider the indigenous population
of the Middle East to be nothing more than Heathen Savages sitting on something we want/need.

This is obviously not the first time the ruling class manipulated the masses using
religion to get what they want.

A few thousand years ago, a few clever individuals figured out how to use human nature and faith in THE CHURCH to turn one group of people against another.

They sat on their lofty gilded thrones, while millions bludgeoned each other to death.

We apparently haven't learned much from history.

[nbs2]

A few thoughts:

How did Judaism become a major religion? With about 10-12 million adherants, they are about as big as the LDS church (The Mormons). compare that with any of the Eastern religions, and you are talking really small potatoes.

Hindus and Buddhists - Not much violence in their name? Denial isn't a river in Africa. Both groups have engaged in rather severe acts of violence in the name of religion. Even now it happens, dollar for dollar I'd say almost on the same scale as the religions that dominate wealthy areas of the globe.

The only way to really end war based on differences is to eliminate everybody who is different. Wars are fought under the banner of religion, but there is often a cultural, ethnic, or national undertone. Were the Europeans opposed to the Moors becuase of faith alone, or was it the different culture or the nationalism for their homeland? Were the Crusades only to convert, or was there a desire to ensure that they were never attacked again? Is the current conflict spilling out of the ME because of religion alone, or is it backlash at the West forcefeeding it's culture down their throats and exporting our social ills?

When threatened, a rattlesnake doesn't want to attack and tries to warn you to stop. Only when you proceed does it strike.

OK - on topic. The statements by the Pope were totally out of place. Citing to a historian from a period when Christians were torturing Muslin POWs (while Christian POWs of the Muslims were treated roughly in accordance with the Geneva convention) just seems strange.

[Macaddicttt]

Anyone else find the reactions to the pope's comments to be the most ironic thing ever to come out of the Middle East?

"You say we spread our religion with the sword?! We are going to conquer you and then you will convert or die!!"

:rolleyes:

(Yes, I know not all the Muslims are saying this, but al-Qaeda released a statement to this effect.)

[skunk]

No more ironic than George and Tony branding Saddam Hussein a war criminal, really.

[KingYaba]

I don't understand how we (the west) can sit down and "talk" when any criticism is met by violence.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214282,00.html

Two churches were set on fire in the West Bank, raising to at least seven the number of church attacks in Palestinian areas over the weekend blamed on outrage sparked by the speech.

There was also concern that the furor was behind the shooting death of an Italian missionary nun at the hospital where she worked for years in the Horn of Africa nation of Somalia. The killing came just hours after a Somali cleric condemned the pope's speech.
Just more examples from the religion of peace.

Anyone else find the reactions to the pope's comments to be the most ironic thing ever to come out of the Middle East? Very ironic but the Christian church does no such thing these days. Too bad we can't say the same about the Muslim faith.

There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. The actions of a few certainly don't represent the entire religion. Then there should be 1.499999999 billion muslims going on record and condemning this violence.

[yg17]

Then there should be 1.499999999 billion muslims going on record and condemning this violence.


I don't think they should have to apologize for what others have done, you don't see white Americans apologizing for the Oklahoma City bombings

[KingYaba]

Apologizing? Where? I'm talking about condemning it! I have not seen any muslim cleric go out and demand that this rioting, and violence must be stopped.

[KingYaba]

Meanwhile, a group of Italian Catholic nuns are being evacuated from the capital, Mogadishu, after one of their elderly colleagues was shot dead on Sunday by gunmen; the UIC condemned the killing.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5356126.stm

alright! we have one!

[hulugu]

The nations of today's Middle East are largely the result of the post-World War I division of the region by the colonial powers. They have not, in the main - with the obvious exception of the conflict of Israel with her neighbors, fought one another. Previous to WWI, the Ottoman Empire ruled the area for centuries (Baghdad was conquered in 1535) and a relative stable peace existed throughout the region until the Empire fell in the 20th Century. How is it then that you view this part of the world as subject to constant warfare spurred on by religious conflicts? Like the rest of the world, the Middle East has at times been rocked with wars, but not all of these have their roots in religion.

I don't want to deny that religious antagonisms strongly influence the politics of today's Middle East, but to reduce the main cause of the many problems to religion is to miss many huge, non-religious factors that feed the conflicts, and in some cases are the main causes of tensions.


Lastly, Hinduism and Buddhism are not exempt from justifiable criticisms concerning the role of religion in fueling wars. Hindu nationalism has moved India and Pakistan closer to war and led to a long history of religious riots in India. Buddhism is a factor in the conflict in Sri Lanka between the largely Hindu Tamil minority and the largely Buddhist Sinhalese majority. A little search of any religion's history will show conflicts with others.

This is one of the best posts I've read in the Political Forums. Kudos.

[adroit]

However, there is one book that has none and that is the bible. There has been no proven contradictions. There has been some that people at first think are, but they have been proved that they are not contradictions.

There are no proven contradictions of the Lord of the Rings either.

"All hail almighty Gimli son of Gloin. He'll tell us what to do"

[mactastic]

I've seen no contradictions in Bukowski's works either...

[Don't panic]

No more ironic than George and Tony branding Saddam Hussein a war criminal, really.

very true, but there are a lot of people in US and UK strongly and loudly disagreeing with them.

it is a fact that the 'peaceful muslim majority' has been loudly silent in condemning the urges to violence from the 'extremist minority', in these and a number of other of occasions (i.e. the ridiculous cartoon accident).

that other churches are or have been intolerant does not change the fact that currently islam is by far the least tolerant of the main religions, and more frequently than not promotes/allows/condones uses and customs (i.e sharia law) that should be have been left to the middle ages.

[adroit]

that other churches are or have been intolerant does not change the fact that currently islam is by far the least tolerant of the main religions, and more frequently than not promotes/allows/condones uses and customs (i.e sharia law) that should be have been left to the middle ages.

One guess which religion is a VERY close 2nd. And for bonus points, which holier-than-thow nation still employs capital punishment.

[Don't panic]

One guess which religion is a VERY close 2nd. And for bonus points, which holier-than-thow nation still employs capital punishment.

which one? care to make some examples?
i can't stand fundamentalisms, i don't like this pope and i am not particularly fond of religions in general so i feel i can be fairly objective on the matter.
they are not even in the same league.

As far as capital punishment, I am completely against it but i don't see how this is relevant to the point (other than being condemned by the catholic church but not by the main islamic sects)

[adroit]

which one? care to make some examples?
Christianity, you seriously need examples?!?:confused:

As far as capital punishment, I am completely against it but i don't see how this is relevant to the point (other than being condemned by the catholic church but not by the main islamic sects)
frequently than not promotes/allows/condones uses and customs (i.e sharia law) that should be have been left to the middle ages.

Capital punishment = customs that should be have been left to the middle ages.

I do believe you and I are in agreement on most points. My main objection is to the characterization of Islam as intolerant and barbaric (for the lack of a better term to describe customs from the middle ages) when christianity/the west is not much better.

[iGary]

Who cares what he said?

I like how the muslim extremists put a hit out on and try to burn down or blow up anything or anyone that says anything disparaging about them.

[mactastic]

Who cares what he said?

I like how the muslim extremists put a hit out on and try to burn down or blow up anything or anyone that says anything disparaging about them.
Hey, at least they're not out there saying "That pope tried to kill mah daddy!"

:p

[Desertrat]

For a bit of reasoned commentary...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone62.html

Much less "So's your old man."

:), 'Rat

[iGary]

Hey, at least they're not out there saying "That pope tried to kill mah daddy!"

:p

:D

[mactastic]

For a bit of reasoned commentary...

http://www.lewrockwell.com/featherstone/featherstone62.html

Much less "So's your old man."

:), 'Rat
Christ, I hope you're not aiming THAT blunderbuss at me again...

[Don't panic]

Christianity, you seriously need examples?!?:confused:
i know you mean that and i wouldn't disagree if we were talking about the past, but i still think that you would have a hard time finding current examples of manifest, massive religious intolerance from christianity, that wouldn't be clearly and quickly condemned by most people in the west.

i don't see how it can be denied that the muslim religious leadership tends to be a lot more radical and have a lot more following than that of christianity or other religions. Of course this has an historical basis and political motivations, but it remains that extremist clerics move millions of people on issues that are, or should be, quite trivial. And the moderate ones are not intervening saying that it's a ridiculous overreaction.

true, this pope is very conservative and the right-wing religious nutties are trying their best to ruin this country, but this cannot be compared in influence, scope and magnitude.

Capital punishment = customs that should be have been left to the middle ages.
i have no difficulty whatsoever in considering capital punishment barbaric, but the US is (luckily) the exception rather than the rule in western democracies, so i wouldn't consider it a link to christianity:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fc/Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png/800px-Death_Penalty_World_Map2.png

[Desertrat]

Seems to me it's not Muslims as Muslims where the problems lie. It's that percentage (I use the label "Jihadist") which will eagerly take almost any comment out of context to incite "the mob". The purposes are religious or political or both, but they're aimed at fomenting the mob to at least excitement if not violence.

Does it really matter what religious group did to any other group, in the past? It seems to me that what's happening today is what's germane to today's world.

So the Pope points out that the history of Islam is not one of peace by quoting somebody else as part of a larger expounding. Fine. Regardless of any specific accuracy, it's accurate enough to apply to those who came under Islamic rule via force of arms. If those Islamics who strongly believe it is indeed a religion of peace, why in hell are they rioting and killing? Does that show "peace"? To me, it damned sure doesn't, at least for that percentage that's raising the ruckus...

As usual, it's that small percentage that can be found in almost any group, anywhere, that's causing trouble for all the rest of us: Most any ethnicity, most any religion.

'Rat

[n8236]

The Pope is a politician.

[Desertrat]

n8236, any person who gets to the top in any group is a politician. Kiwanis, Rotary, sports car Club, quilting club, you name it. The leader of any group of any sort is one with political talent, over and above any knowledge of the primary subject of the organization.

'Rat