Popes comments about Islam.

Hobbes

I am pre-empting possible issues on a controversial topic in the news. Please keep all related comments to what happened in this thread and please remain within the guidelines of the charter. Thanks.

Here is the full speech (so people can understand context)
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

wes

Even before reading the full speech I pretty much knew his words were being taken out of context. He quotes what someone else said, hardly worth getting worked up about it.

robinph

I got bored of reading it all as it mostly a load of crap about, well I'm not quite sure. But it seemed more like he was using that statement from some old emperor as an example of what a load of rubbish all religions used to spout much more often about destroying each others infidels and he then seems to go on about saying thats a load of old cobblers. Really he should have found a better example to use of some ancient Islamic text saying that the daft christians were all just about using the sword to spread their gospel though, but it didn't really seem like he was actually attaking Islam at all.

Just proves that hes a bit daft really.

Schuhart

The quote about forced conversions to Islam will get the headlines, but indeed this is not really his point. At the same time, he is implicitly suggesting that Mohammed preached religious tolerance in his early years (when he needed to be tolerated), but changed the message to one of expansion when he was powerful enough to do it. Essentially he’s suggesting the message was tailored to suit Mohammed’s needs, but even that's not his core point.

I think his key point is really that he sees reason as a Christian core value, meaning the faith can happily exist and grow in a secular society. He contrasts this with what he sees as the irrational or “absolutely transcendent” view of God in Islam.

If he sticks to the ideas he’s outlining, it could actually be an exciting message for his Church. However, the openness of Catholicism to intellectual enquiry has hardly been a core value for so terribly long. For example, up to fifty years ago, Teilhard de Chardin was prevented by the Church from publishing his works during his lifetime. They set out a vision of the spiritual significance of evolution. When they were finally published after his death, the Vatican issued a warning saying

… it is sufficiently clear that the above-mentioned works abound in such ambiguities and indeed even serious errors, as to offend Catholic doctrine.

For this reason, the most eminent and most revered Fathers of the Holy Office exhort all Ordinaries as well as the superiors of Religious institutes, rectors of seminaries and presidents of universities, effectively to protect the minds, particularly of the youth, against the dangers presented by the works of Fr. Teilhard de Chardin and of his followers.

In 1981 they confirmed this warning was still in force.

If the Pope is moving to accept that views such as those set out by Teilhard are welcome in the Church, then indeed he can claim to have a position that far outstrips the ability of other faiths to cope with modernity and change. Otherwise, I’m not so sure the Pope can make this claim.

the_new_mr

Statements like that of the pope make me sad. He could easily have shown that he doesn't necessarily agree with such a quote. That would have made things a whole lot better. He decided not to though.

A figure like the pope should be careful not to break bridges that are built between faiths. The late Jean Paul II made a great amount of effort to build bridges and I hope that Benedict doesn't ruin all his work.

I know that this was only a small part of his entire speech (and I have read the speech) but even within their original context, these statements are offensive and ridiculous.

The worst part of this is that this contributes to spreading wide-spread ignorance of Islam and spreading the idea that Islam was spread by the sword... which of course it wasn't. The verse stating "There is no compulsion in religion" was not just for the early times in Mecca (as was stated in the speech) and proof that people were not forced to convert to Islam is that there were (and are today) a number of Islamic states where non-Muslims were free to have their own faith.

His statements show a great deal of ignorance of Islam on his part. Either that or he intentionally misled the people. Only God knows his intention for sure so we must give him the benefit of the doubt but I would hope that he decides to educate himself on Islam before deciding to discuss any aspect of it again in the future.

In an age where things are getting increasingly difficult, people should be trying to make their best efforts to ensure we all live in peace.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

That would have made things a whole lot better. He decided not to though.

Well for one thing he could have picked a better time for such discussions with tempers running high in many parts of the world for both political and religious reasons. Imprudent if nothing else. Interesting speech if nothing else.

The late Jean Paul II made a great amount of effort to build bridges and I hope that Benedict doesn't ruin all his work.

Whether one agrees with much of his philosophy or not(I don't) we won't see the like of John Paul II for a while I'd say. Huge figure of the 20th century.

I know that this was only a small part of his entire speech (and I have read the speech) but even within their original context, these statements are offensive and ridiculous.

Depending on your viewpoint they very well may be. The issue I have is how fast the effigy burning starts. Again this may be purely down to the times at hand, but the "Muslim world" seems very quick to take offense and start aggressive demonstrations. It feels to an outsider that some factions are almost "looking for trouble" and bringing many Muslims who may otherwise have brushed this off along with them. "Ordinary" Muslims need to stop giving these factions power.

The worst part of this is that this contributes to spreading wide-spread ignorance of Islam and spreading the idea that Islam was spread by the sword... which of course it wasn't.

The fact is that both Christianity and Islam were spread by or on the back of the sword. Christianity when Rome and later empires took it on board(sth America anyone). To be fair to Islam it at least laid done rules for the prosecution of such.

The verse stating "There is no compulsion in religion" was not just for the early times in Mecca (as was stated in the speech) and proof that people were not forced to convert to Islam is that there were (and are today) a number of Islamic states where non-Muslims were free to have their own faith.

Equally you could argue that the instruction of death to apostates in Islam is totally at odds with the idea of no compulsion. There are other examples of saving one's neck by converting to Islam in The Prophet's time. As for the status of non Muslims in Muslim states back then one could argue that they didn't have religious freedom or equality anymore than non Christians had in Christian states. Again Islam at least laid down rules of conduct, hence in the 12th century I know which one I'd perfer to reside in, but it was naturally slanted heavily towards Islam and Muslims.

In an age where things are getting increasingly difficult, people should be trying to make their best efforts to ensure we all live in peace.

Agreed. As I said although I fully support his right to say what he likes, it was imprudent of him to discuss such at the moment given the likely reaction. The Catholic church itself would have gotten a bit twitchy not too long ago when faced with outside critique. They've largely adopted a ignore it attitude of late. Perhaps he didn't register that in the current climate certain factions of Islam may not be in the same place. Also bridge building goes both ways.

the_new_mr

Wibbs wrote:

we won't see the like of John Paul II for a while I'd say. Huge figure of the 20th century.

Unfortunately for all of us, I think you're right. This kind of reminds me a little of how in Kingdom of Heaven (not the best film ever it has to be said), King Baldwin dies and Guy de Lusignan takes his place. A bit of an exaggeration I know but you get the picture.

Wibbs wrote:

The issue I have is how fast the effigy burning starts. Again this may be purely down to the times at hand, but the "Muslim world" seems very quick to take offense and start aggressive demonstrations. It feels to an outsider that some factions are almost "looking for trouble" and bringing many Muslims who may otherwise have brushed this off along with them. "Ordinary" Muslims need to stop giving these factions power.

No doubt some people are probably milking this situation for all its political worth in the Muslim world and inciting effigy burning and the like. Also, as you pointed out, everyone's nerves are at their end and sometimes things like this are the final straw that breaks the camel's back.

However, I doubt very many Muslims are prepared to just "brush this off" as you put it. I didn't attend any effigy burning and I don't wish to kill the pope or anything crazy like that but I took serious offense to such a statement and am a little angry too. Every single Muslim I've talked to is really upset about this and I believe that we have every right to be. I'm not the kind of guy to get upset over nothing but this is most certainly something.

Wibbs wrote:

The fact is that both Christianity and Islam were spread by or on the back of the sword. Christianity when Rome and later empires took it on board(sth America anyone). To be fair to Islam it at least laid done rules for the prosecution of such.

I think you'll find that it wasn't. And even if it was (and it wasn't) then this is completely against Islam. If you're going to make statements like that Wibbs then you must back them up with facts.

Allow me to be so lazy and quote something I said in a different thread which is very fitting here.

the_new_mr wrote:

I'd like to straighten out a few points here that some people seem to be quite ignorant of. One is that forcing someone to become Muslim is completely forbidden in Islam. The famous verse:

Al-Baqara:256
"There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower."

And here's the reason for revelation for the above verse. Pagans in Mecca who may have worshipped God but also falsely worshipped idols alongside God largely favoured having boys instead of girls to the extent that they used to perform the disgusting act of burying baby girls alive!! An act completely forbidden in Islam of course.

Anyway, some of these pagans used to say to God "Oh God! If you let us have a boy, we will make him a Jew". So, what happened is that several pagan families had Jewish boys in their families. Later, when some of these pagans rejected their false worships and embraced Islam, they began to put pressure on their Jewish children to embrace Islam as well. Verse number 256 from chapter 2 was revealed protecting the decision taken by the Jewish youth showing that you cannot force someone to become a Muslim. Islam after all, like any religion, is an action of the heart.

Wibbs wrote:

Equally you could argue that the instruction of death to apostates in Islam is totally at odds with the idea of no compulsion.

The idea of death to apostates is not part of Islam. This is something I am completely in agreement with now. Like you say, it goes against "No compulsion in religion" and also some other verses in the Quran. This is not just my opinion but the opinion of a large number of scholars.

Wibbs wrote:

There are other examples of saving one's neck by converting to Islam in The Prophet's time.

Once again, please back your statements up Wibbs.

Wibbs wrote:

it was naturally slanted heavily towards Islam and Muslims.

How so?

Wibbs wrote:

Also bridge building goes both ways.

Agree with that. In fact...
www.bridges-foundation.org
They're site seems to be down at the moment. Here's something they set up though. An interesting read I think you'll find.
http://www.knud-holmboe.com/
He's some guy. A real hero of Islam.

Rev Hellfire

I have to say the whole reaction to the rather selective quoting from the speech give by the Holy Father smacks of opportunism from where I’m standing.
Certainly if the quotation had been voiced as the personally held view of the pope there would be cause for concern, but this is plainly not the case once taken in the context of the overall lecture.

And while it must be said that the_new_mr is a highly effective spokesman for Islam the vision of Islam as a peaceful all-inclusive religion it is not one that the majority of non-muslim people would identify with. A religion is judged as much by its creed (and I’m willing to accept the view espoused by new_mr_mir is the ideal), equally it is judged by the actions of its practitioners ( the various attempted church burnings make a lie of the idea of inclusiveness ).

wes

Without a doubt the people who burned churchers are evil people and I agree there are far to many of these people within the faith.

lostexpectation

RTE and most stations really covered the story badly when it appeared first, simply quoting the selective quote then, saying there was controversy and showing images of the protests in pakkistan. Reporting on the reaction. They didn't put it in context or explain it like hobbes did. They 'reported it' this habit of RTE reporting international news stories like this without gving an analysis is really sloppy. Like saying today george bush said this ... without saying well he may have said that but the the reality is this.

Anyway listening to RTE this morning and the group show had someone making the points Rev H said, that it was pretty clear some muslim leader looking for political power selectively quoted and translated this german speech and sent it out like press release to stir up reactions in his followers. And the countries he mentioned Iran and Syria???

No mention of Saudi Arabia where the reactions against the cartoons was initiated from the muslim side by all accounts.

Rev Hellfire

wes wrote:

Without a doubt the people who burned churchers are evil people and I agree there are far to many of these people within the faith.

One thing I would say on that, is that I don't believe myself that Islam has more of 'those people within the faith' than say christanity by default.
But rather (and its my own view) that islam has allowed itself to be radicalised through the rise of the Wahhabi sect. Its seems to me that the islam vs everyone else is getting generated by this. The uproar about the popes speech seems to be part of this.

wes

Rev Hellfire wrote:

One thing I would say on that, is that I don't believe myself that Islam has more of 'those people within the faith' than say christanity by default.
But rather (and its my own view) that islam has allowed itself to be radicalised through the rise of the Wahhabi sect. Its seems to me that the islam vs everyone else is getting generated by this. The uproar about the popes speech seems to be part of this.

I think the power of the Wahhabi's comes from there oil money. They fund mosques the world over and hence have a great deal of influence. I am not fan of the Wahhabi's and we would be better off without them.

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

However, I doubt very many Muslims are prepared to just "brush this off" as you put it. I didn't attend any effigy burning and I don't wish to kill the pope or anything crazy like that but I took serious offense to such a statement and am a little angry too. Every single Muslim I've talked to is really upset about this and I believe that we have every right to be. I'm not the kind of guy to get upset over nothing but this is most certainly something.

Eh no it's not. All that happened was that another religious leader from another faith when giving a speech quotedthe view of Islam a long dead emperor. A view extant at the time. A view that in this speech at least the Pope doesn't agree with. How often do you hear Muslim leaders decrying much of the west and indeed aspects of Christianity. How many Christians are demonstrating.

I think you'll find that it wasn't. And even if it was (and it wasn't) then this is completely against Islam. If you're going to make statements like that Wibbs then you must back them up with facts.

The Prophet himself built a small religious empire in the Arabian lands on the back of battles with other tribes. While Islam has obviously gained converts through other means then and now much of it's early success was down to military action. Fact.

dathi1

Can anybody publish a list of Things That Don't Offend Islam?
Just so the rest of us can thread lightly:rolleyes:

Hobbes

dathi1 wrote:

Can anybody publish a list of Things That Don't Offend Islam?
Just so the rest of us can thread lightly:rolleyes:

I hope thats not sarcasm. You do know that the pope quoted a reference that Islam was spread by the sword. I'm pretty that would offend any people of any religon.

In all this mess people missed the other news of the US Christian league demanding the retraction of a religous cartoon in the US (and got it).

*shrug*

I guess the answer is to be a bit more mindful of what you say about any religon.

the_new_mr

Let me just start by completley condemning the attacks on the churches. The people who carried out this act are a complete disgrace to humanity and this kind of thing has no foundation in Islam whatsoever.

I'd also like to say that this is the second time I'm writing this post because we just suffered a power fluctuation causing the computer to restart Maybe God did it so that I could write a particular phrase better.

Wibbs wrote:

All that happened was that another religious leader from another faith when giving a speech quotedthe view of Islam a long dead emperor. A view extant at the time. A view that in this speech at least the Pope doesn't agree with. How often do you hear Muslim leaders decrying much of the west and indeed aspects of Christianity. How many Christians are demonstrating.

It's a little more than that. The Pope is the leader of another religion and not just another figure of another faith. Also, he didn't choose to say that he doesn't agree with said quote at the time. And although he has since said that he doesn't agree with that quote, did he really need to say it in the first place? Saying that he doesn't agree with violence in religion is one thing but quoting a quote like that which is clearly and obviously offensive towards the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) is quite another and was, in my opinion, completely unnecessary.

Anyway, since the Pope has now clarified his position (although some say that technically speaking he was apologising for the reaction and not the action itself), I don't see any need in going into this further so we should probably just leave it at that. Peace and respect is the way forward.

Wibbs wrote:

The Prophet himself built a small religious empire in the Arabian lands on the back of battles with other tribes. While Islam has obviously gained converts through other means then and now much of it's early success was down to military action.

Sorry Wibbs but that's only half the truth. Although it is true that there were a number of battles, the truth is that these were almost always in self-defense. The only other two situations where military action was/is allowed is either to defend everyone's right to religious freedom or to fight against oppression. Islam was never spread by the sword. It goes against the very core of Islam. Islam means submission to God and to be a Muslim means someone who has submitted themselves to God. This can only be an action of the heart.

Fighting sucks. There's no doubt about it. But, unfortunately, it is sometimes necessary. A verse from the Quran.

Al-Baqara:216
"Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know."

Also, the following link explains the whole thing very well. I'd urge everyone to read it.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-AAbout_Islam/AskAboutIslamE/AskAboutIslamE&cid=1123996015820

Rev Hellfire wrote:

And while it must be said that the_new_mr is a highly effective spokesman for Islam

Thanks I am honoured to be doing this. Anything good I do is only because God lets me do it. I ask for His forgiveness for anything I may do wrong.

Rev Hellfire wrote:

A religion is judged as much by its creed (and I’m willing to accept the view espoused by new_mr_mir is the ideal), equally it is judged by the actions of its practitioners ( the various attempted church burnings make a lie of the idea of inclusiveness ).

No doubt. See top of my post. We should always try not to hold an entire faith (or faith community) accountable for the actions of a stupid few.

Wibbs wrote:

But rather (and its my own view) that islam has allowed itself to be radicalised through the rise of the Wahhabi sect. Its seems to me that the islam vs everyone else is getting generated by this. The uproar about the popes speech seems to be part of this.

Well, just to be accurate, Wahhabism cannot really be classified a sect. Also, Islam cannot stop the rise of anyone. There is nothing to facilitate this function. It doesn't have a central authority. It belongs to everyone and it belongs to noone. I believe this is one of its strengths. It only really belongs to God.

Still, it's very true that some people are too ready to take opportunities like this to their advantage. Still, I think we have to remind ourselves (again) that for many people, this is a case of the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Hobbes wrote:

In all this mess people missed the other news of the US Christian league demanding the retraction of a religous cartoon in the US (and got it).

Good for them!!

Hobbes wrote:

I guess the answer is to be a bit more mindful of what you say about any religon.

Hear hear!! (or is it "here here" ? ) If everyone can respect everyone else and everyone understands that there is no good to be gained from offending someone else's religion (whilst at the same time having the right to intelligently and respectfully disagree with it) then the world would be a much much better place.

I pray to God that we have peace.

the_new_mr

A quick google later and had a quick read about the cartoon retracted after the appeal of the Christian league. I'm very happy about this. The description of the cartoon ridiculing Jesus (peace be upon him) is completley disgusting. I just don't know how or why people draw things like this. Even if someone is a complete athiest, surely it's just common courtesy not to do things like this.

dent

Sadly it looks like murder of a nun might have being a result of all this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354862.stm

I have respect for the muslim faith but I'm losing respect for its followers

Hobbes

dent wrote:

Sadly it looks like murder of a nun might have being a result of all this. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354862.stm

I have respect for the muslim faith but I'm losing respect for its followers

They are not followers. If they were they wouldn't of committed murder. Incidently there is no direct link as of yet to the nuns death and this incident (its believed to be though).

dathi1

A quick google later and had a quick read about the cartoon retracted after the appeal of the Christian league. I'm very happy about this. The description of the cartoon ridiculing Jesus (peace be upon him) is completley disgusting. I just don't know how or why people draw things like this. Even if someone is a complete athiest, surely it's just common courtesy not to do things like this.

George Orwell was right to a certain extent. The newspeak is what you can say and what you can’t say. That’s to be followed by offensive religious icons like cribs in Hospitals. In England flying the national Flag is also haraam in certain areas.
the_new_mr would you have a problem with Catholics protesting outside clonskegh mosque over the death of the nun?

Hobbes

Just remember the_new_mr is not on trial here and those sort of questions are best left for the humanities forum.

To answer it somewhat. People are allowed protest, why would anyone have a problem with it unless it wasn't peaceful or was intent on screwing up everyone else in some way.

However the protests would be somewhat skewed. For example killing another person in Islam is considered one of the worst possible things you can do and I think gunning a nun in the back would pretty much guarantee a one way ticket to hell.

The actions of the minority does not reflect the religon as a whole.

mysteria

dathi1 wrote:

Can anybody publish a list of Things That Don't Offend Islam?
Just so the rest of us can thread lightly:rolleyes:

What if a Muslim religious leader made a speech on the world stage referring to historical situations e.g.
1. The Crusades where Christian armies invaded, conquered then slaughtered all who would not convert to Cristianity?(Fact)
2. The Spanish inquisitions?
3. The world domination by Christians who invaded every continent and forcibly "civilized" their people by "converting"them to Christianity ( think South America, the Incas, Africa, the slaves etc etc etc.)
3.The holocaust against Jews by Christians. (To name but a few)
The Christians of this world would be up in arms, and the prevalent Western holocaust against the people of Islam would be intensified.
The leader of the Roman church has, I feel, deliberately provoked this outrage to fuel Anti-Muslim feeling in the Western world. In a vain hope to gain new recruits for his church who, by their own actions, are losing followers(and donations) with a rapidly dwindling priesthood and followers, while Islam (and Paganism) are statistically growing in strength and numbers. The Western world is brainwashed by media propaganda and biased programming into fearing the Islamic people and religion. We are witnessing a holocaust against the people of Islam, and the Pope knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would produce. Why doesn't he just apologise? Peace be with you all.

HelterSkelter

mysteria wrote:

What if a Muslim religious leader made a speech on the world stage referring to historical situations e.g.
1. The Crusades where Christian armies invaded, conquered then slaughtered all who would not convert to Cristianity?(Fact)
2. The Spanish inquisitions?
3. The world domination by Christians who invaded every continent and forcibly "civilized" their people by "converting"them to Christianity ( think South America, the Incas, Africa, the slaves etc etc etc.)
3.The holocaust against Jews by Christians. (To name but a few)
The Christians of this world would be up in arms, and the prevalent Western holocaust against the people of Islam would be intensified.
The leader of the Roman church has, I feel, deliberately provoked this outrage to fuel Anti-Muslim feeling in the Western world. In a vain hope to gain new recruits for his church who, by their own actions, are losing followers(and donations) with a rapidly dwindling priesthood and followers, while Islam (and Paganism) are statistically growing in strength and numbers. The Western world is brainwashed by media propaganda and biased programming into fearing the Islamic people and religion. We are witnessing a holocaust against the people of Islam, and the Pope knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would produce. Why doesn't he just apologise? Peace be with you all.

I agree with you 100% there mysteria.

Rev Hellfire

mysteria wrote:

What if a Muslim religious leader made a speech on the world stage referring to historical situations e.g.
1. The Crusades where Christian armies invaded, conquered then slaughtered all who would not convert to Cristianity?(Fact)
2. The Spanish inquisitions?
3. The world domination by Christians who invaded every continent and forcibly "civilized" their people by "converting"them to Christianity ( think South America, the Incas, Africa, the slaves etc etc etc.)
3.The holocaust against Jews by Christians. (To name but a few)
The Christians of this world would be up in arms, and the prevalent Western holocaust against the people of Islam would be intensified.

That the church has committed numerous crimes and atrocities in the past is well documented and has been acknowledged by the holy see.
To blame the catholic church for the holocaust shows a lack of understanding as to what happened, catholic churches where actively involved in getting Jews out of Germany and other occupied countries at the time.
But then if you think about it we’ve already had the pope compared to Hitler and other mass-murders (which to a catholic is a pretty big insult since he is meant to be Christ representative on earth), so if you look around at the protests against Islam by Catholics worldwide and the mosques getting burnt you can see the answer to your question.

mysteria

I did not blame the RC Church for the Holocaust, I pointed out that the Nazi attrocities were committed by Christians. There is a difference between Religious policies and the actions of it's followers but that applies to every religion. I feel the Ratzinger should show Christian qualities of humility and apologise. He's supposed to want peace in the world , is'nt he? Instead of stirring up inter-religious hatred with inflammatory comments.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

A quick google later and had a quick read about the cartoon retracted after the appeal of the Christian league. I'm very happy about this.

Just to be clear of the context, this withdrawal seems to be at the request of the author and not because of any official action.

the_new_mr wrote:

The description of the cartoon ridiculing Jesus (peace be upon him) is completley disgusting. I just don't know how or why people draw things like this. Even if someone is a complete athiest, surely it's just common courtesy not to do things like this.

You will understand that I don’t know if the author of the cartoons is an atheist, nor do I feel an intense need to pen cartoons mocking the idea of the virgin birth. But an atheist perspective might help explain why people might.

By ridicule, atheists display the fact that these doctrines hold no power over them. Hence, in a sense, it is akin to an act of prayer and so rightly protected as a matter of freedom of conscience.

Before anyone pretends that disrespect is in some way unacceptable, let us recall that the Quran states that the Christian idea of God having a son is a ‘disaster’. Should Christians burn copies of the Quran, or symbolically cut the offending words from copies of the Quran as a protest? Should they continue such protests until they get an apology for this text, and the Quran is edited to remove the relevant words?

Profession of a faith, or of no faith, inevitably involves doing things that cut to the heart of the beliefs of others.

mysteria wrote:

We are witnessing a holocaust against the people of Islam

We really aren’t.

mysteria wrote:

the Pope knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would produce. Why doesn't he just apologise?

As I understand it, he’s now saying something to the effect that compulsion cannot be part of spreading the faith. I would assume within that he’s accepting that his own crowd haven’t exactly been saintly either. What is it that he’s said that you feel requires an apology? I’m not being smart – I’m just wondering if this whole thing isn’t a ball of smoke. ‘Pope says Islam is evil’ might be reason to get worked up. If that’s not what he’s saying, then what’s there to be worked up about?

dathi1

What if a Muslim religious leader made a speech on the world stage referring to historical situations e.g.

What would happen?? Nothing would happen. This happens nearly every day???? Amadinijad? You don’t see Christians on the street calling for fatwas or burning Muslim effigies. We all know why. I agree with you on the Christian slaughter in the past and even present (Iraq, Israel by proxy etc).
I can say that without the sword Ireland today as a result of the fallout of the Roman Empire probably would not be Christian. I know a fatwah won’t be issued against me or anybody else for making such a statement.
I'm sick listening to so called moderates from monotheistic faiths making excuses for Islamic violence, Zionist violence and Christian neocon(Bush) violence. Its all one God in the end...get real.

Hobbes

This thread is a getting out of hand. Back on topic or its getting locked or moved.

mysteria

"I know a fatwah won’t be issued against me or anybody else for making such a statement.
I'm sick listening to so called moderates from monotheistic faiths making excuses for Islamic violence, Zionist violence and Christian neocon(Bush) violence. Its all one God in the end...get real.[/QUOTE]"

With respect daithi you're not the Pope, or a religious leader making inflammatory statements to the world media ( or are you? ). I'm not a moderate from a monotheistic faith, I honour the Pantheons of every religion because Spirituality transcends religion. Religion is elitist and divisive as we can see by the furore caused by Ratzsingers statement.

Rev Hellfire

mysteria wrote:

With respect daithi you're not the Pope, or a religious leader making inflammatory statements to the world media ( or are you? ).

Lets tack this baby back on course and avoid the rocks of hobbes.
Firstly the remarks that where made by the pope where not made to media but rather to the group of peers.

Maybe you could quote for me the section of the lecture you feel the pope should apologise for, just so we have a frame of reference to the actual slight you feel was committed.

Wibbs

Hobbes wrote:

Just remember the_new_mr is not on trial here

Very true.

and those sort of questions are best left for the humanities forum.

Might be a plan as these things have a habit of getting a bit OT

To answer it somewhat. People are allowed protest,

Indeed they should protest if they feel offended. Also they should have a good idea s to why they're protesting in the first place. I suspect many of the rabid types have little clue. It appears that much of the protest has the hand of the religious heirarchy behind it. This guff always kicks off just after friday prayers.

why would anyone have a problem with it unless it wasn't peaceful or was intent on screwing up everyone else in some way.

That's precisely the problem I have with it Hobbes. The reaction tends towards the rabid wild eyed threat scenario all to quickly(at least from what we see all too often in the various media and I know this is an issue in of itself too).

For example killing another person in Islam is considered one of the worst possible things you can do and I think gunning a nun in the back would pretty much guarantee a one way ticket to hell.

Correct on the nun bit. In fact Mohammed states quite clearly that no Priest(and presumably nun) is to be attacked in war or any other state. As for the first part of your sentence, that like in most religions would be up to debate. Indeed the oft quoted "thou shalt not kill" in Christainity and Judaism is better translate as "thou shalt not murder". Unlawful killing is forbidden. The law in this is the crux of it. Islam expressly forbids the killing of innocent people. The difficulty comes with that definition of innocence. As an example, mocking the prophet or Islam would be considered a crime against both and would be punishable in both this life and the next. In the prophets time quite a few people who mocked the Prophet were killed for it, either on his instruction or with his approval afterwards. Among others Al-Huwayrith, Sara, Asma bint Marwan, the one eyed shepherd who sang a song mocking Mohammed(who had a unstringed bow driven through his good eye for his troubles), Kab bin al-Ashraf (here's a few quotes from the sources).
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.271
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/059.sbt.html#005.059.369
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4436

The actions of the minority does not reflect the religon as a whole.

Naturally. However, the largely complicent silence of the majority on matters such as this, just may.

mysteria wrote:

What if a Muslim religious leader made a speech on the world stage referring to historical situations e.g.

Many do and regularly to their own and various media outlets.

1. The Crusades where Christian armies invaded, conquered then slaughtered all who would not convert to Cristianity?(Fact)

True. How long ago was that? Even so we don't have catholics rioting in the street when somebody who brings up moral equivalence points this out.

2. The Spanish inquisitions?

Nobody expects them I've heard.

3. The world domination by Christians who invaded every continent and forcibly "civilized" their people by "converting"them to Christianity ( think South America, the Incas, Africa, the slaves etc etc etc.)

Which you could accuse Islam of doing in it's territories too. Organised slavery was practiced far longer and way after in the Islamic world than when the Christian west outlawed the practice. Who do you think supplied and controlled the African slave trade(and still practice it in some places).

3.The holocaust against Jews by Christians. (To name but a few)

He also gassed Catholics, Christians and other religious types too you know. That comparison is loopy and woolyheaded TBH. It's in the same area as accusing Islam of "honour" killings. Sure it's emotive reasoning I'll give you that.

The Christians of this world would be up in arms,

Well they wouldn't. How many authors, filmakers and others have been killed, injured or threatened by Christians when a percieved anti Christian book, movie etc has appeared? Did John Cleese get a death sentence fatwah on his head for the life of Brian. Imagine a film with Buddha in the same vein. Imagine the Pagan life of Brian. Now cast your mind further and imagine "The life of Ahmed" that followed similar themes in the life of Mohammed? World war 3 aint in it. Compare and contrast if you will.

and the prevalent Western holocaust against the people of Islam would be intensified.

Huh? Right so. That would be the freedom to practice their faith in the west. The regular burning of mosques, their exclusion from social, academic and economic life in the west. Their lack fo freedom to protest, sometimes very provocatively in the west. Yep I can see the wholesale slaughter alright.

The leader of the Roman church has, I feel, deliberately provoked this outrage to fuel Anti-Muslim feeling in the Western world.

Possibly, but I fail to see why. It's strikes me as paranoid to suggest same. Surely he could have fueled anti Islamic feeling far more easily. Then again anti western feeling seems very easy to ignite in some sections of the Muslim world.

while Islam (and Paganism) are statistically growing in strength and numbers.

Well the stats for Islam are contentious and are largely down to birthrates. In any case many ex Muslims in many countries would be quiet about their apostasy as too many Muslims wouldn't be reading from the same hymn sheet as the new mr. The stats for Paganism(which technically could be applied by the Abrahamic faiths as anyone outside their remit) are even harder to quantify. I find it interesting you lump Islam and Paganism together. The attitude to Pagans in Islam and indeed any of the Abrahamic faiths is not exactly welcoming judging by the texts.

The Western world is brainwashed by media propaganda and biased programming into fearing the Islamic people and religion.

and the Muslim world is just as led by their media and leaders if not more so. Could we be even having this debate in some parts of the Muslim world? No would be your answer.

We are witnessing a holocaust against the people of Islam,

As Schuart said, we're really not. In any case if we are how come their numbers are growing according to you?

and the Pope knew exactly what he was saying and the effect it would produce.

You know that for sure? I didn't know mind reading was part of Paganism. Have you read the speech or are you taking your opinion from equally biased sources?

Why doesn't he just apologise?

He did and he explained the context. Why did he have to? 1) Good manners. 2) Because the violent reaction from too many sectiosn of the Islamic world might have gotten even further out of hand.

I honour the Pantheons of every religion because Spirituality transcends religion.

Which is laudable and cuddly, but trying telling a Muslim that(or Christian or Jew for that matter) when the biggest precept of their faiths is that there is only one God with Mohammed (Jesus, Moses, delete where applicable) as his messenger. Pantheosn don't apply. In fact suggesting such would leave your listeners bemused at best.

Peace be with you all.

and to you and yours.

mysteria

Ratzsinger just apologized to the Muslim community so he obviously felt he had reason to. I mentioned being Pagan simply to explain that I'm not, as my surname may imply, from an Islamic background.

maitri

the_new_mr wrote:

Let me just start by completly condemning the attacks on the churches. The people who carried out this act are a complete disgrace to humanity and this kind of thing has no foundation in Islam whatsoever.

I agree, those people have probably not read very much in the Qu'ran - or they havn't understood what it says:

[25:63] The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

[7:180] And Allah's are the best names, therefore call on Him thereby, and leave alone those who violate the sanctity of His names; they shall be recompensed for what they did.

[33:48] And be not compliant to the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and leave unregarded their annoying talk, and rely on Allah; and Allah is sufficient as a Protector.

[10:65] And let not their speech grieve you; surely might is wholly Allah's; He is the Hearing, the Knowing.

For the record, I am not by this implying that the Pope is an unbeliever or a hypocrite or blasphemic or any such thing, but even if he were, the burning of churches and murder of nuns, does seem to me to have nothing to do with Islam as represented in the Qu'ran.

However, I think the Pope's speech was stupid and that he must have really bad counsellors, and I think that it is good that he apologised.

Wibbs

mysteria wrote:

Ratzsinger just apologized to the Muslim community so he obviously felt he had reason to. I mentioned being Pagan simply to explain that I'm not, as my surname may imply, from an Islamic background.

Of course and as I said his reasons were twofold. Good manners and the fact that the nutjobs have hijacked this and were likely to go off on a revenge spree. Do you really think if this had been about Buddha we would have seen something like this? Oh hang on, his predecessor wrote some stuff about aspects of Buddhism that troubled him and upset some in that community(IIRC he suggested that certain aspects of Buddhism might be thought of as self centered or something along those lines). Where were the riots, the burning of effigies?

As for your surname, I've no idea what it is, but I take your point.

mysteria

To be fair Buddhist countries are'nt being invaded and their people murdered in their thousands for the past 5yrs. Look at the furore caused by Mel Gibson's reference to someone being a Jew. An actor who was drunk at the time. I still maintain that the Pope was very ill-advised to make the references he did. Religion as we know all too well is always an inflammatory subject and in the current political climate the worldwide reaction speaks for itself.

Flying

Whilst I am no fan of the RC Church or the Pope, I believe that he said nothing wrong and I would tend to agree with his quote it was relevant back in the 14th Century and is relevant now.

This clearly is another jibe by the muslims to get us to submit, I listened to several celrics from Iran to Indonesia spout vitrol and violence and also burning of ephergies of the Pope.

He has proved his point as did the danish cartoonist, Islam clearly is a religion of Violence and Power.

I watched al jerzza yesterday and I may aswell have been watching Hitlers speeches of the 30's and 40's.


I support the RC church on this for this once, I as a Zionist understand the clear and simple undertones present in the Islamic world and their "senisitivity" to comments, maybe they should stop trying to wipe out Christians and Jew's and people will accept them more.

If you want to practice your religion do so in peace, but the word "Peace" is not part of their makeup.

Another clear case of Islamofacism.

mysteria

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this. If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe) condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him. I believe in justice, and Ratszinger's ill-conceived words have made the world a harder place for everyone right now. Peace & Blessings to all I say!

Flying

mysteria wrote:

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this. If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe) condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him. I believe in justice, and Ratszinger's ill-conceived words have made the world a harder place for everyone right now. Peace & Blessings to all I say!

I may not be impartial but this is a clear case of good and evil and muslims are not very peace loving.

Wibbs

mysteria wrote:

To be fair Buddhist countries are'nt being invaded and their people murdered in their thousands for the past 5yrs.

Ever heard of Tibet?

Look at the furore caused by Mel Gibson's reference to someone being a Jew. An actor who was drunk at the time.

Does Mel Gibson have a viable realistic death threat hanging over him. Were effigies of Mr Gibson burned in the street? Imagine if he made the same kind of statement about Muslims?

Religion as we know all too well is always an inflammatory subject and in the current political climate the worldwide reaction speaks for itself.

That much I'm in some agreement with.

Well as a Zionist you'd hardly be considered impartial in this.

That goes for pretty much everybody posting on the subject. Naturally.

If Ratszinger ( who had some tentative Nazi connections at some stage I believe)

Low blow. Pretty much everybody of German birth at his age would have had "Nazi connections" as you put it.

condemned Israel for it's attack on Lebanon I doubt you'd support him.

You'll find he condemned both sides like many other world leaders.

the_new_mr

Schuhart wrote:

Just to be clear of the context, this withdrawal seems to be at the request of the author and not because of any official action.

Oh really? Well, at least it was withdrawn. That's the main thing.

Schuhart wrote:

nor do I feel an intense need to pen cartoons mocking the idea of the virgin birth.

Did I read about a different cartoon incident or was that you just stating something as an example?

Schuhart wrote:

By ridicule, atheists display the fact that these doctrines hold no power over them. Hence, in a sense, it is akin to an act of prayer and so rightly protected as a matter of freedom of conscience.

And yet by doing so, they offend literally millions of people. Can't see it as a good quality to have. I know some athiests personally. They don't make extra effort to offend other peoples' religions.

Schuhart wrote:

Before anyone pretends that disrespect is in some way unacceptable, let us recall that the Quran states that the Christian idea of God having a son is a ‘disaster’. Should Christians burn copies of the Quran, or symbolically cut the offending words from copies of the Quran as a protest? Should they continue such protests until they get an apology for this text, and the Quran is edited to remove the relevant words?

Let's be accurate here. There is a huge difference between diagreement and disrespect. A difference of opinion in creed is perfectly okay. Indeed, according to your logic, it could work the other way with Muslims saying that any book that says that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the son of God should be burnt, altered etc. As we know, this is not required of Christians in a Muslim state as Christians are allowed full religious freedom.

So, to have a difference in beliefs concerning creed is perfectly okay. To slander one of the main figureheads of another religion isn't okay by any means.

Schuhart wrote:

Profession of a faith, or of no faith, inevitably involves doing things that cut to the heart of the beliefs of others.

Why does it have to be that way?

Al-Kafirun:1-6
"Say: O disbelievers!; I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship.; And I shall not worship that which ye worship.; Nor will ye worship that which I worship.; Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion."

To each their own and that's that. Noone needs to be offended by that. It's like if I like Snickers and you like Mars. I won't force you to eat Snickers because I think it's better than Mars. If you want to eat Mars then that's fine. I can eat snickers and even go so far as to tell you why I think Snickers is better but, in the end, the decision is yours. Also, I should not ridicule the Mars (okay, so the analogy falls a bit weak at the end there but you get the picture )

Wibbs wrote:

As an example, mocking the prophet or Islam would be considered a crime against both and would be punishable in both this life and the next. In the prophets time quite a few people who mocked the Prophet were killed for it, either on his instruction or with his approval afterwards.

maitri wrote:

[25:63] The worshipers of the Most Gracious are those who tread the earth gently, and when the ignorant speak to them, they only utter peace.

Well done maitri. I was just thinking of this verse today. This is the best response as it is indeed the one proscribed by God. As for the hadith, I'll have to find out more about it but I doubt that it was just for saying bad things about the Prophet (peace be upon him) if the hadith is authentic. Abu Sufyan was one of the leaders of Mecca and said basically everything bad he could about the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). He was never killed for it and in fact embraced Islam (of his own free will I must add) later.

Wibbs wrote:

Hobbes wrote:

The actions of the minority does not reflect the religon as a whole.

Naturally. However, the largely complicent silence of the majority on matters such as this, just may.

This goes back to media coverage bias. The media prefer to show the angry mob rather than the law abiding citizens. Their reason for doing so is anybody's guess but it's true. Also, what about this forum man?!! I'll think you'll find that 100% of the Muslims here are non-violent

Wibbs wrote:

Which you could accuse Islam of doing in it's territories too.

Already handled this. Islam was not spread by the sword. See post from earlier.

Wibbs wrote:

Organised slavery was practiced far longer and way after in the Islamic world than when the Christian west outlawed the practice. Who do you think supplied and controlled the African slave trade(and still practice it in some places).

Still haven't gotten round to putting up that chapter of that book on how Islam abolished slavery in phases. Also, if slavery was (and is) performed in the Islamic world, that doesn't mean that it's an Islamic practice. I mean, you've got people all over Africa killing each other because of tribal feuds. Is that part of Islam? You've even got people smoking hash and drinking till they conk out (Muslims and non-Muslims). Is that part of Islam? Like Hobbes said, don't take the actions of some individuals as what Islam is about. Like Suff said, Islam is a perfect religion, its followers are not.

Wibbs wrote:

Then again anti western feeling seems very easy to ignite in some sections of the Muslim world.

Can you blame them? I would like to stress on the point that most people in the Muslim world are Anti-Bush, Anti-Blair but not Anti-West. Most people in the Muslim world understand that it's the governments to blame and not the people.

Wibbs wrote:

and the Muslim world is just as led by their media and leaders if not more so.

Sorry Wibbs, this is not true. I know this from my own experience of living in the Muslim world. I have a very perceptive eye for these kind of things (even if I do say so myself) and there is no equivalent in the Muslim world of the subtle anti-Islam messages that are continually propagated in the west.

Wibbs wrote:

Could we be even having this debate in some parts of the Muslim world? No would be your answer.

And you know this because...?

mysteria wrote:

Peace be with you all.

And with you mysteria.

Flying, you're getting a one week ban starting today for breaking rule #1. I'd like everyone to note that he's not being banned because he's a Zionist (although his Zionist views which influenced his post did). You know something Flying, as long as people have that kind of attitude then you can forget about living in peace. Why don't you try and assume the best in people instead of the worst in people? Also, I wouldn't make random statements about Islam and Muslims which clearly show your ignorance on the subject. Perhaps some light reading will enlighten the ignorance. You don't have to read it but you really should.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Zone-English-Discover_Islam/DIEZone

Wibbs

the_new_mr wrote:

To each their own and that's that. Noone needs to be offended by that. It's like if I like Snickers and you like Mars. I won't force you to eat Snickers because I think it's better than Mars. If you want to eat Mars then that's fine. I can eat snickers and even go so far as to tell you why I think Snickers is better but, in the end, the decision is yours. Also, I should not ridicule the Mars (okay, so the analogy falls a bit weak at the end there but you get the picture )

I must say that's as class an anology I've seen for a while in religious matters. The sermon of the confections as it were.

As for the hadith, I'll have to find out more about it but I doubt that it was just for saying bad things about the Prophet (peace be upon him) if the hadith is authentic.

I'll dig up the other hadith about the other killings where dissention even in poetry is rewarded by death. The one eyed shepherd is a very good example of an arbitory killing as he was hardly a "threat".

Abu Sufyan was one of the leaders of Mecca and said basically everything bad he could about the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). He was never killed for it and in fact embraced Islam (of his own free will I must add) later.

Well the Prophet had ordered his execution before taking Mecca, but he escaped. In the end I seem to remember he came to Mohammed when he was at prayer to talk. He was jumped on by some of the Prophets followers who asked if they should kill him(strange time to ask such a thing given they were at prayer). At that point Mohammed pardoned him as Abu had accepted him as a Prophet(and indeed rewarded him with title and goods later). Now the only difference is that he became a Muslim. If he had not he would likely have been killed. A cynic might think it was a good political move on the part of Abu Sufyan.

This goes back to media coverage bias. The media prefer to show the angry mob rather than the law abiding citizens. Their reason for doing so is anybody's guess but it's true.

Sadly there's bias everywhere. One has to attempt to pick apart the guff from the facts. That's the duty of anyone looking for a middle ground.

Sorry Wibbs, this is not true. I know this from my own experience of living in the Muslim world. I have a very perceptive eye for these kind of things (even if I do say so myself) and there is no equivalent in the Muslim world of the subtle anti-Islam messages that are continually propagated in the west.

Really? Even if you watch al jazeera their slant is naturally towards their own audience. There are many Muslim religious types with anti west leanings and pronouncments(and some who do not of course). There are subtle anti whatever messages wherever one looks. No culture is innocent of that. There seems to me at least to be a tendency on the part of many Muslims to find bias and critique where little exists. There can be a paranoia(maybe too strong a word) present, when looking at the "west". Sometimes with good reason, many times with none. That may be down to many practices in the west that would be thought of as anti religion or anti the instructions of religion and this is picked up by some as specifically aimed at them(hard line Christians do it too). Oft times it's not.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, at least it was withdrawn. That's the main thing.

There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.

the_new_mr wrote:

Did I read about a different cartoon incident or was that you just stating something as an example?

I thought one was along the lines that Mary had a venereal disease.

And yet by doing so, they offend literally millions of people.

Provocation is an acceptable way of getting your point across. The Quran takes a similar approach in the way it lays heavy stress on the eternal damnation facing anyone who refuses to accept the faith. I’d say mockery and humour is a justifiable tactic in response by people who regard the suggestion they are bound for hell as offensive.

Indeed, according to your logic, it could work the other way with Muslims saying that any book that says that Jesus (peace be upon him) is the son of God should be burnt, altered etc.

That is more or less my point. You have to put up with the Pope quoting from 14th century texts when he finds it helpful to get his point across, and he has to put up with you saying Christ’s divinity is a disaster. Both of you have to put up with your doctrines being dismissed by others. I don’t want to pre-empt your response, but this doesn’t seem to be what’s happening.

As we know, this is not required of Christians in a Muslim state as Christians are allowed full religious freedom.

Does that include the right to accept converts from Islam? If not, its not full religious freedom.

So, to have a difference in beliefs concerning creed is perfectly okay. To slander one of the main figureheads of another religion isn't okay by any means.

Which basically amounts to you saying ‘We can say what we like about Jesus, because saying he’s not divine is a difference in creed but not slander. On the other hand, no-one can say anything we don’t like about Mohammed because that’s slander’.

To each their own and that's that.

That is certainly the target, but I’m not sure that we’re there yet.

Hobbes

Schuhart wrote:

There’s a world of difference between the idea that the author deciding to withdraw it and being compelled to withdraw it.

He didn't do either. He clarified what it was he said and apologised that he may of caused offense. I didn't see anything in that he was forced to release an apology, his intent was not to incite in the first place and even the vatican stated this before he did.

The Quran takes a similar approach in the way it lays heavy stress on the eternal damnation facing anyone who refuses to accept the faith.

I don't see how that is provocation.

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what faith you belong to there will always be another that as far as you are concerned your going to hell.

The Quaran btw, does preach trying to get on with other religons (Catholic church to iirc).

Both of you have to put up with your doctrines being dismissed by others.

Your missing the point. If an average joe on the street said it then its probably going to be ignored (unless they are stupid enough to do it in front of fanatics, regardless of religon).

However this is the head of the whole of the catholic church.

While a lot of people are aware according to the RC religon that the Pope is infallible many are not aware that this only relates to matters of the Catholic Church. As the presentation was his personal opinion it would not fall under that. But its easy to see people think that way.

‘We can say what we like about Jesus, because saying he’s not divine is a difference in creed but not slander.

IIRC they can't say what they like about Jesus. The only contention is they don't believe him to be Son of God. But then each religon has its own beliefs.

On the other hand, no-one can say anything we don’t like about Mohammed because that’s slander’.

If your not Muslim you certainly can say what you like (not in this forum though). You are going to offend a lot of people, but then the same will happen no matter what religon you try to offend. Some have varying levels of what they find offensive.

Schuhart

Hobbes wrote:

He didn't do either. He clarified what it was he said and apologised that he may of caused offense.

The comment you are responding to was, in turn, in response to the issue mentioned by The New Mr relating to the cartoons published in a US student magazine, which were the subject of complaints by Christians.

Hobbes wrote:

The truth of the matter is that it doesn't matter what faith you belong to there will always be another that as far as you are concerned your going to hell.

That’s pretty much what I’m saying. Equally, if people feel its perfectly in order to suggest I’m bound for eternal damnation, they have to accept that I regard that notion as risible. They can display their faith by attending worship in whatever form they like and huddle in groups giving thanks to their god for saving them from the flames beckoning me.

I really cannot understand how they feel their believe in my eternal pain is in some way socially acceptable, while someone else’s idea that they are complete fools and should be laughed at is unacceptable.

Bear in mind, I’m not saying any block should be placed on their enjoyment of their philosophy. I just don’t see why they should stop others enjoying theirs because they find the material distasteful. Is my eternal damnation tasteful? (Sorry if I’m labouring the point, but I think it needs to be made and we seem to be circling it rather than landing).

Your missing the point. If an average joe on the street said it then its probably going to be ignored (unless they are stupid enough to do it in front of fanatics, regardless of religon) . However this is the head of the whole of the catholic church.

But another point being missed is that because he’s the head of the Church, he must have some right to express his faith as he sees it. Hence my example of the Quran describing the divinity of Jesus as a disaster. Of course this has to be preached if it’s a central tenet of Islam. Similarly, the Pope has to preach to his flock.

This is not some silly Danish cartoon – it’s a world religious leader making a speech that, in fairness, actually contains some interesting content on the relationship between religion and reason. I don’t think he really needs to explain this controversy because of a tangental reference to Mohammed. Nevertheless, in fairness, he has.

Some have varying levels of what they find offensive.

And this is really the issue. Can people self select what’s going to be said about them? Can Islam tell the Pope that he cannot quote 14th Century writings if he finds it useful to make a point? Can he tell Islam to edit the Quran? Can I decide I want both of them to stop pretending that I’m bound for hell?

Or can we all just accept the free expression that we all need to profess our beliefs inevitably mean we will say things that others regard as offensive?

tonyj

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears."

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

Hobbes

tonyj wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

Not a valid point at all when the Pope has already said that is not what he meant.

cyrus the virus

RTE wrote:

Some Australian Muslim leaders said the comments by both Pope Benedict and Cardinal Pell should be condemned.http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0918/pope.html

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

What I have been reading in the news lately and I now see that Islam is not a religion but its a cover for evil. It seems in my own view that Islam has failed as a religion. When I draw a picture of Islam I see them as bigot people who are evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments. I know that this not all Muslims, and the good should condemn evil.

Frank Grimes

cyrus the virus wrote:

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

Here's some links for you.

HelterSkelter

cyrus the virus wrote:

What I have been reading in the news lately and I now see that Islam is not a religion but its a cover for evil.

What are you smoking my friend?!!There are 20,000 Muslims in Ireland. Don't you think there would be a bit more evil if this was true? As a matter of fact most of the destructive things in our society today are against Islamic beliefs, i.e. Alcohol, Drugs, Gambling, so you could argue that if we were all Muslims this country would be a much less evil place.

cyrus the virus wrote:

It seems in my own view that Islam has failed as a religion. When I draw a picture of Islam I see them as bigot people who are evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments. I know that this not all Muslims, and the good should condemn evil.

And how many muslims do you personally know? Out of these Muslims you know, how many of them are "evil and can't respond to criticism with rational arguments" ?

HelterSkelter

tonyj wrote:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1234375,00.html

Cardinal George Pell, the head of Australia's RC Church, made a valid point today;

"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears."

"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence."

Aaah come on, you are always going to get crackpots who will commit violent acts no matter what their religion is. It seems to me certain sections of the media like to make out that most muslims are like this when it is clearly not the case. There are between 1 & 2 million muslims in the UK and I didn't see any reports of violent protests.

RedPlanet

cyrus the virus wrote:

Yet I have not read one Muslim leader condemning 9/11 nor did I ever read one Muslim leader condemning 7/7 bombings.

Spend a minute of your time scrolling thru this page:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html

You can be excused (to a degree), for your perception since it's probably formed by the mainstream media you tune-in to.
I've been visiting the CAIR website for a number of years (before 911) and i would characterise the US generally as being fairly intolerant, abusive, and discriminatory of muslims.
The ACLU is America's saving grace.