current event
by During a lecture on "Faith and Reason" at the University of Regensberg in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI used a conversation between Byzantine Emporer Manuel II and and educated Persian as the starting point for his reflections on the topic at hand. Quotes from the conversation harshly questioned the teachings of Mohammed, but the Pope's main focus was to point out the differences between Christian and Muslim thinking, primarily in the use of violence to spread one's faith.
Outrage and protest over the comments made during the speech are coming from around the Islamic world. The government of Turkey has condemned the statements and one leading Lebanese Cleric believes the Pope should personally apologize for the remarks.
Add a Comment (25)
Email This
Message Author
CNN helpfully writes "he pope’s speech in Germany last week — in which he appeared to endorse a Christian view, contested by most Muslims, that early Muslims spread their religion by violence — has sparked protests around the world" (emphasis added.) Funny, but I kinda thought that was historical fact, not even "contested by most Muslims." I'm glad CNN is here to clear up that little matter.
I just read an uncensored transcript of the Pope's comments about Islam, and now I can understand why the Muslims are so upset. (Disclaimer: linked site contains naught words.)
"Islam Can Suck It"
"Why don't you have a seat on my pointy-ass hat. You'd like that, wouldn't you, Abdul?"
"Sure, we treat our women like $&%#, but if we made them dress like fat ninjas, there wouldn't be a single full pew in the whole @$%&*@ world. I mean, it's 2006, how do you a$$holes get away with it?"
and
'After pausing to drink deeply from a bejeweled chalice, His Holiness then closed his statement with, "I got your Allah right here," emphasizing his point by tugging sharply through his robes at his own scrotum. "Pope out."'
(Note: this is obviously just a joke.)
[This is funny. Fat Ninjas? I would've never thought of that. Pretty racist though.] Well, now you would think that Pope Benedict XVI would not do this. His past is a bit of a controversy.
Pretty racist though
Why is anything that is ever said about Islam "racist?" Islam is not a race, it is a "religion."
Ok. Then I change my word to another word that I just made up. "Religionist". On a more serious tone, my friend would find that pretty offensive.
Catholics might find some of the things in the blog I linked to offensive. Christians in general might be offended by things starm has said on this site. Some Jews were offended by The Passion of the Christ. Hindus might be offended by the character of Apu on the Simpsons. Hell, starm is an atheist and he was offended by my Methuselah's Children short story. What is the common thread that binds together all of the above examples? No one has threatened to kill anyone else. just because they might have been offended. Does that go for your friend, as well?
Whoever said my friend will react in that way? I just said he'll be offended by those jokes. Most religious people will be offended by comments like that. It's like going to a church and tell a priest some blasphemy about God. Plus, he doesn't know the existence of Omninerd yet. I'll tell him about this later though.
Poor Taste? I thought that was pretty funny. Two VnutZ thumbs up.
Hmmm...that was my first "poor taste" score. Do I get a t-shirt?
"Hmmm...that was my first "poor taste" score. Do I get a t-shirt?"
No.
IMHO: It appears that we have 2 choices:
I} we continue to find excuses and reasons to spin up new modern hatred on the wreckage of the past - and then create new fodder for the fires of hate for future generations. We all KNOW what will come from that - especially in a nuclear age.
II} as a global community we find ways to come to peaceful terms with our differences and then deal with voices of hatred in our respective civil and faith communities as we forge acceptable solutions to the divisions that confront us.
Unfortunately, hatred is the easier of the 2 choices. Peace requires (among many other traits and behaviors) respect for others where none may be reciprocated; a hand reached out where none is returned and a calm mind and discourse amidst a world that seems to lust for rage as it's next meal.
I am sad that an innocent nun lost her life over this poorly chosen historical reference on the part of Pope Benedict (and I am Catholic). Well intended or not, the Holy Father lost a GREAT deal of future leverage in this whole issue by doing so. That's a voice we needed in modern times.
But mistakes or not, all Christian and Musilm communities need to re-ground themselves on the most peaceful portions of their traditions and assertively deal with sub-communities in thier midst that seek power through violent and chaos.
No one inherits anything of value from the dark promptings of violence and chaos.
P9
Were the Pope's words "poorly chosen?" Or, in highlighting an historical conversation about the nature of Islam that caused many Muslims worldwide to threaten violence, did the Pope prove his point? Would Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Animists, Zorastrians et. al. have reacted to a similar message on the scale we have seen with Muslims?
The rest of the world might have the two choices you speak of, but Islam has three very different ones. Meaningful reformation of Islam has to come from within Islam itself, so that it is compatible with the other religions and cultures that currently, peacefully coexist in the 21st Century. That is choice #1. Choice #2- Islam refuses to adapts, the West gets tired of trying to deal with spoiled child-like people, and the Islamic world finds itself shut out from the rest of the world. Choice #3 starts out the same as choice #2- but instead of just being ignored, Islam finally launches all-out war with the West, which results in enslavement for the West or destruction of Islam.
Everyday I hope and pray that more and more Muslims choose option #1.
"Were the Pope's words "poorly chosen?" Indeed his words were poorly chosen. The fact that he has decided to apologize for them should be a subtle indication to you of that fact. However the message against violence amidst faith was NOT poorly chosen. That's a message that needs to be repeatedly given. However, he ~could~ have promoted THAT message in a manner that was palatable to everyone.
Your deriviative 3 choices are essentially the same as ongoing conflict or peace.
Quite frankly, I am not sure what the leaders of Islam will do as the storms of violence continue to stir in portions of their communities. But as long as voices of the West views them as "spoiled child-like people" you can guaran-damn-tee their hatred of all things Western will only continue to grow. There is no future in such a position.
I think we can all agree that peaceful coexistence with Islam is the desired endstate.
But how is that even a remote possibility if the Western response to Muslim riots about flushing the Quran is apologetic? When a child throws a temper tantrum, do you (a) give him the butterfinger or (b) discipline him? It has to be coexistence, and coexistence requires mutual respect. The culture that we are dealing with respects power and strength. Apologies portray neither.
The olive branch of peace can only be slapped away so many times before the oak log of self-preservation slaps back.
I cannot agree that coexistence with any religion is a desired endstate, much less a religion that by any objective contemporary measure is supported by some extraordinarily violent and deluded people.
Did the Pope apologize specifically for what he said, or did was he sorry that people got upset over them? That is an important distinction. "'I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims,' he stated.
Speaking at his Castelgandolfo summer residence, he continued: "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.'"
I would say that is a non-apology apology- almost as if he said "sorry if you goat$%#!ers are too stupid to figure out what I actually meant, instead of flying off the handle and gunning down a nun."
But as long as voices of the West views them as "spoiled child-like people" you can guaran-damn-tee their hatred of all things Western will only continue to grow. There is no future in such a position.
Then basically we are all screwed. Frankly, most voices of authority in the West go out of their way to coddle Muslims, and that certainly hasn't helped. Every other religion in the West has dealt with harsh criticisms of their respective faiths, histories, dogmas, and religious figures without rioting, murdering, and calling for violence to those that mock their faith, but Muslims get special treatment? How is that not treating them like a spoiled child? Time and again, from Salmon Rushdie (of course, he was an apostate, but still...) to Disney's Aladdin to Theo Van Gogh to Ayaan Hirsi Ali (another apostate) to the fake Koran-flushing to the Mohammad Cartoons to now the Pope. Where does it all end? I say we will stop viewing the Muslim World as a day-care for spoiled brats when they stop acting like it!
When Mel Gibson drunkenly ranted about "the Joooos!", how many prominent Rabbis called for his death?
When Rosie O'Donnell said that Christian extremists were just as dangerous as Islamic extremists, how many preachers, priests and reverends called for her head?
Maybe three-four hundred years ago, saying something bad about Jesus would have landed you in the business end of an Iron Maiden, but not now, not for a long time. Most world religions have grown and adapted to the modern world- with one big notable exception.
Cboice number 1, while an admirable goal, is contingent upon Islam co-existing within itself. We can't even get Christians to agree--many protestant faiths reject other Protestants and Catholics completely for numerous reasons.
However, the fundamental problem with choice number 1 is that peaceful co-coexistence between Islam and the West is forbidden by their own Koran. The Koran forbids believers from entering into any type of 'contract' with non-believers--more specifically, they are not *required* to honor any terms of such contract. Consequently, any 'deals' we have made for peace from the founding of our Nation until now have rarely been honored. Hence the line 'To the shores of Tripoli' in the Marine Corp Hymn. (Look up historical information on the Barbary Pirates.)
Islam may *claim* it is a religion of Peace, but it truly is not. The 'Convert or Die' philosophy maintained in their own Koran contradicts that. I'm sure many adherents of their faith do not take those commands literaly, just as many Christians do not adhere to Christs commmand that 'if your eye offends you, pluck it out'. However, if even 15 million do (current estimate of the number of radical extremists within the 1.5 Billion Muslims), then that's a fairly large army; much larger than any army that can be fielded by most Western nations. Not only that, but they (much like our own Continental Army during the Revolutionary War) do not rely on 'rules of engagement' to conduct warfare. Everyone is a target; there are no exceptions.
As a Christian I won't type here and tell you we are a perfect relgion, but at least we try (for the most part) to get along with everyone. If you practice what Christ preached (The Greatest Commandments or Golden Rule) and 'love your neighbor as yourself' (Matt. 22:38), then you understand what I mean. However, as Christians, we are also compelled to act in accordance with the Great Commission, and spread our faith- not by the sword, but by how we live- in Love (Greek: Agape--self-sacrificing) for one another, believer and non-believer alike. We are not perfect, but we keep trying.
I know Christian teachings have been used to commit atrocious acts of violence against many people. I also realize that Islam is much younger religion--but one must think they would have learned from our own 'Inquistion' mistakes. However, Islam uses hate as a weapon, rather than trying to alter hate into Love as Chrisitianity does. Consquently, any type of peaceful co-existence is hampered because of the actions of a few. Fear keeps the most of the rest of Islam from truly acting against the actions of the extremists who lend credence to the more violent teachings of the Koran.
Eventually, I believe Radical Islam will be all but wiped out (Ezekiel 39 and 39) when they try to destory Israel. However, I will love them all the way to their graves, and like God, will shed tears for the lost.
Interestingly enough, since 9/11/01 millions of Muslims have converted to Christianity, and no one held a gun to their head to do so. Rather, they risk death by converting to become followers of Christ.
I'll end this post with a quote from Joel C. Rosenberg's own blog:
The Pope's initial comments were accurate. Radical Islam that seeks to convert by force rather than by love and persuasion is evil.
Interestingly enough, since 9/11/01 millions of Muslims have converted to Christianity, and no one held a gun to their head to do so. Rather, they risk death by converting to become followers of Christ.
Do you have a source for that? That's a very interesting fact if you can confirm it.
Only Anecdotal evidence, based on other people interviwiewing Missionaries and Christian Pastors in the Arab world.
However, a quote may be found here:
http://joelrosenberg.blogspot.com/2005/03/big-untold-story-in-mideast.html
IMHO: Some ~great~ commentary today.
In driving to work this morning, I remember thinking - where was all this Islamic anger 5 years ago? I could be wrong, but my recollection was that the voice of rage was that of a minority (albeit a dangerous and well organized minority).
Did the West have to defend itself from the agression of 9/11? I think so - sometimes we have but only one fated option.
But in the years that followed, I earnestly believe we have HELPED to turn the voice of rage that once was confined to a minority into one of a MAHORITY. ~WE~ (the West) helped shape the outcome we are confronted with.
Yes - the voice and actions of the Muslim world are THIER moral and political responsibilty. And THAT is a message that must be drilled home every day. But we have a role to play in that dynamic of peace or violence just as they have a role to play in our deliberations and choices.
Now we can erect a bellicose fortress of "logic" that justifies turning them into a nuclear parking lot of glass (if that's the future humanity chooses for itself) or WE can consitently look for ways to de-escalate this situation - all the while preparing for multi-dimensional conflict should that become the inevitable path that is forced upon us.
Forgive me - but Osama (to me) is little more than an evil SOB for what he has done to so many innocent human beings- from his homeland to ours. I HATE to see him prevail in this clash of civilizations. By fanning the flames of hatred accross this panet, I think we are inadvertently helping his cause. I, for one, refuse to help him by pushing many otherwise good and noble Muslims into his welcoming arms of easy hatred.
I just won't do it.
There HAS to be a better way....
P9
where was all this Islamic anger 5 years ago? I could be wrong, but my recollection was that the voice of rage was that of a minority
That's because, like most Americans, terrorism happened to other people. Five years ago, nobody in the West gave much of a crap. The Islamic "anger" has been there for years.
Sayyid Qutb. the man credited with being the father of modern Jihad came to study in America and was appalled by our decadent ways- in the 50's. To be specific, he hated: racism (towards Arabs) materialism, individual freedom, our economic system, poor haircuts, triviality, restrictions on divorce, enthusiasm for sports, "animal-like" mixing of the sexes (i.e. sitting near, talking to, looking at, etc.) and lack of support for the Palestinian struggle. About women: "the American girl is well acquainted with her body's seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs -- and she shows all this and does not hide it." Again, that was in the suburbs in the 50's. About Jazz: "Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires."
If we go further back, there is the Palestinian Arab Riots of '29, which was instigated by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem over the hotbed issue ... praying at the Wailing Wall.
The same dude, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini "aided the pro-Nazi revolt of 1941. He then spent the rest of World War II as Hitler's special guest in Berlin, advocating the extermination of Jews in radio broadcasts back to the Middle East and recruiting Balkan Muslims for infamous SS 'mountain divisions' that tried to wipe out Jewish communities throughout the region."
Since the late 70's, most of the "Muslim Rage" was directed at the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan and the Israeli occupation of ... Israel (by those damn Jooos!) Let's not forget the fatwa against Salmon Rushdie (for which he went into hiding), and Bin Laden's declaration of war against the US in '98.
I must, at this point issue this disclaimer: many Muslims live in totalitarian regimes and are uneducated. How many people riot and call for the death of the Pope (or Danish Cartoonists) because they are simply told to? But while that may excuse Muslims living in Third World hellhoes such as Iran, it doesn't glibly explain why Muslims act this way in "adopted" nations such as France and the U.K., especially when the governments of these nations go out of the way to placate these folk.
RSS
Ironic by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 16 September 2006
My favorite part is that Muslims of the world choose to protest the Pope's quote that said Mohammed's teachings are violent and inhumane with...violence and burning him in effigy. Does this strike anyone as remarkably fitting?
I, for one, hope that the Vatican does not backpedal. Someone needs to stop treating Islam like a spoiled child, and its about time the Vatican stepped up to the plate.
RE: Ironic by jmarkdavison :: NR6 :: on 16 September 2006
Agreed. Muslims are turning out to be the neighbor who asks you if you wouldn't mind pruning your tree so its leaves won't fall in his yard. Sounds reasonable enough. Then he asks if you can keep it down during your Saturday barbecue. Before you know it the color of your house offends him and he expects you to bend over backwards to satisfy his every demand.
From the fake Koran-flushing story to Paris burning, to the Danish cartoons, to this...we need to draw a line in the sand. As a Catholic I hope Ben 16 tells them all to pound sand. They are proving his point with their reactions.
RE: Ironic by romanizzo :: NR6 :: on 17 September 2006
This blog entry has more exerpts from the Pope's speech, along with some historical context and more irrational (although nonviolent) response from the Muslim community.
RE: Ironic by LordDilly :: NR8 :: on 16 September 2006
Wanna talk about ironic-- here is the main point of seething and whining: "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"-- from the conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. So, what has been the Muslim response to the phrase "evil and inhuman?"
"In Gaza City, a group calling itself the Islamic Organization of the Swords of Righteousness claimed responsibility for unleashing a volley of gunfire on the oldest church in the city.
'We carried out this shooting because of the pope’s statement, and he must apologise,' the caller, who refused to give his name, told AFP Saturday."
"A hardline cleric linked to Somalia’s powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to 'hunt down' and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam."
"An Iraqi insurgent group threatened the Vatican with a suicide attack over the pope’s remarks on Islam, according to a statement posted Saturday in its name on the Web."
Of course, all this does is underscore the validity of eminent sage Rosie O’Donnell's (and a certain occasional O-Nerd commenter) asserts that "Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America where we have separation of church and state," because of all of the...um...y'know...stuff with gays...er...not stuff like this, of course, 'cause "radical Christians" aren't in the habit of executing gays. (Note: I don't consider jagoff Fred Phelps and his gaggle of slack jawed in-bread wanktards Christian.)