Should the Pope apologise?

juslookin · 18-09-2006 08:34AM

juslookin wrote:

So, should the Pope apologise ?

Well, the general rule is when Islam and any unbelievers intersect, be it a "Cartoon Riot" or a "Hijab Protest" or beautiful peaceful beloved ordinary everyday people with families just getting on with daily lives who happened to murdered by ****ing stone age sub human savage, the message from Islam and Muslims is nearly always the on the same theme.

"You must understand Islam"

"You must learn more about Islam".

"You must not do this"

"You must do that".

"You must understand that according to Islam they were at fault".

Never any mention of "compromise" or "discussion" or "seeing both sides".

Nope, its very simple. You change. You compromise. You give in. Not us.

Well, whaddya know

There was a protest outside Westminister Cathedral in London yesterday. Britain's symbolic main Catholic place of worship.

The organiser said:

" The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.

Get that. MUST.

"I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out. I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

Get that. Understand his warning.

Nice "peaceful demonstration". They waved posters at Catholic worshippers saying "Pope Go To Hell" and "Jesus Is The Slave Of allah".

The last time these people were seen on the streets of London, women and children (lovely) stormtroopers of their belief system carried quite frankly offensive posters, with such slogans as

"Get Ready For The Real Holocaust".
"Europe Is A Cancer, Islam Is The Answer".
"Europe You Will Pay, Bin Laden Is On His Way"

(EDIT: In case you missed it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0yoR8R4T1w )

And now these hypocrites have the cheek to lecture anyone else on insulting somebodys beliefs.

And these hypocrites have the sections of the British establishment and media bending over backwards to appease them.

If I claim to have an imaginary friend, and sqeeem "waaysissum", and claim an x y or z phobia, can I have special treatment too ? They play a crafty immoral game, using our fair play against us.

Wibbs · 18-09-2006 08:49AM

Hobbes wrote:

You mean like England? Muslims can live under Sharia law in the UK quite fine and do so.

Prehaps you didn't know that Sharia law can be run in any countries that do not have it as thier main law, providing it doesn't superceed the law of the land.

True enough. The only issue I have is that some of the nuttier elements

No one is trying to change anything about "your way of life" but you don't seem to have any problem about being intolerant to other peoples. Oh the Irony.

I see your point and much of the irony, but I have little tolerance for those who are intolerent, over sensitive and reactionary to any percieved criticism, yet feel quite happy to be intolerent, sometimes violently intolerent to any other view that disagrees with theirs.

I recommend that rather reading tabloids you actually go read up on what it is you are actually complaining about. Just from this post its clear you have no clue about it at all.

A good plan for all sides of this.

As for Christians baying for blood...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214059,00.html

Oh yeah there are muppets all over the place of various religious hues, especially in the snake handler areas of the US. Hell there are even Buddhist freedom fighters/terrorists which is one of the bigger contradiction in terms. But and it's a big but, how does a local story like that compare to the whole Muslim world up in arms over similar cartoons? Indeed where's the Muslim world in that example complaining about the depiction of one of their respected prophets Jesus? The seeming reaction of the Muslim world to these things always seems to be anger.

(yea its foxnews but you can look for the paper in question)

Jaysus boy you're slippin'. Hobbes quoting Fox??? Never thought I'd see the day. Even a reprobate like me wouldn't reference them. That's a bigger shock than the Pope wearing a "Buddha is a bollix T-shirt".:D

Archeron wrote:

Can I expect an apology for the huge offense these people have caused to me over the past few days?????? Somehow I doubt it.

You'll smash the world record for holding one's breath waiting for anything like that, I'm afraid.

For those many muslims who do not condone pointless savagery, I apologize if the above remarks come across as inflammatory, but constant reports of anger, burnings, bombings and death threats which are never countered in our mainstream media by more moderate muslim opinions are becoming tiresome and worrying. Yes, I repect you and your faith, I only wish more of you would respect mine.

Well put from start to finish.

juslookin wrote:

" The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment.

Get that. MUST.

"I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out. I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

That's the problem. Immediately there's the threat of violence. Usually not directly by the speaker, but the inference is there that one of their number will carry it out. Not a big surprise as a reading of the various Islamic Hadeeth(biographies of the prophet Mohammed)will show such reaction to disagreement or insult to the faith or him was all too often dealt with harshly by him, or by agents of his.

If I claim to have an imaginary friend, and sqeeem "waaysissum", can I have special treatment too ?

All religions should be afforded respect, but respect based on fear of reprisals is no respect at all.

gandalf · 18-09-2006 09:08AM

Definition of Hypocrisy, protesting that comments make your religion out to violent and backward and having your followers shoot a 65 yr old nun in the back, burn churches and threaten violent acts on the centre of another religion.

HelterSkelter · 18-09-2006 11:34AM

gandalf wrote:

Definition of Hypocrisy, protesting that comments make your religion out to violent and backward and having your followers shoot a 65 yr old nun in the back, burn churches and threaten violent acts on the centre of another religion.

How long did it take you to come up with that profound statement? :rolleyes:

What about Christians who believe in the message of Love one another as thought by Jesus, their followers who mass murder (or support the mass murder of) the people of Iraq, Lebanon, Afganistan and other muslim countries?

gandalf · 18-09-2006 11:58AM

They are just as bad.

I am just pointing out that when someone says Islam (or in this case a 14th Century Christian emperor quoted) is violent or hints that in some cases is driven by violence the way the muslim world reacts is violent hence showing that the criticism is in some way valid.

Personally I think the Pontiff was insensitive in the quote and wording he choose for his lecture but the over reaction from the Muslim world is unbelieveable especially as he has now apologised for the hurt he caused.

But I do think that some of the over reaction has occured due to selective reporting by the media of his comments and I would assume that in the Muslim countries where the most violence has occured that the reporting has been even more selective.

juslookin · 18-09-2006 12:13PM

Defending the indefensible ?

Why is it, whenever this issue of "Islamic outrage" arises (because, damn it just keeps arising) that some would try to avoid, defend, claim moral equivalence, by citing "The Crusades", or "Asymetric Warfare" rather than recognising and addressing the issue in September 2006, not the year 1427.

The fact is, a lot of people are wondering, why it is that Islam is unique in these events ?

Sure, as we are constantly told by the apologists and appeasers, "all religions have extremists", and yup, "all religions have terrorists" and yup "all religions holy books have phrases justifying violence" ... yadayadayada. It's right on to agree.

But amongst the world's religions, in the year 2006, Islam seems to be virtually unique not only in this worrying and frightening phenmomenon of "Global Religiously Excused Outrage", but in the sheer scale of violence, mayhem and murder of its ordinary everyday followers, whipping themselves up into a frenzy over a rumoured slight on the other side of the world they have little first hand knowlege of. And that their "revenge" is taken out on their fellow citizens, their fellow townsfolk, their neighbors ... who have little or nothing to do with that slight.

Other religions may have been offended or slighted, but there I struggle to think of a direct comparative example of similar behavior that can be highlighted.

Despite the apologists and appeasers clutching at straws to try and draw paralells with the crusades et al, its clear that the frequency and scale of phenomenon is unique to Islam.

It would be better if they had a long hard look at the cold hard reality, and tried to solve it, rather than trying to excuse it by firing back accusations at other religions.

As alcholics, drug addicts, gamblers and others know, the first stage is being true to yourself about the problem.

juslookin · 18-09-2006 01:00PM

Here is some coverage of yesterdays events in London.

http://catholiclondoner.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-rushed-post.html

You'll notice a female child, estimated aged 7, dressed in full garb.

It is not a particularlly uncommon sight in East London.

Now, I recalling again just why it is that females must dress in this way, I'm wondering should we be more concerned about the behaviour of the child, the behavior of men in her social circle, or the behavior of her parents.

Certainly I after seeing the shocking images of children in the youtube video above of the London "Cartoon Protests", it's tragic to think that adults in our society are actively indoctrinating their children to hate their fellow citizens.

Fanny Cradock · 18-09-2006 01:13PM

A Jihad on you dirty kuffars!

How dare the Pope and all you people say that Islam is, in any way, associated with extreme violence.

May Allah, in his infinite mercy and wisdom, kill you all for suggesting such.

Raiser · 18-09-2006 01:33PM

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

Personally I believe him to be a scary, freaky, scheming toad who speaks about himself in the third person much like our very own venerable religious icon Pigman.

He f*cked up and irritated the beejaysus [†] out of another [rival] group of religious pretenders and idealogical nuts and then tried to worm out of it with a half-arsed apology. The sort of apology that makes the recipient feel further violated and undeserving of respect and moral decency.

If you wanna be sucessful head of a group of crazed religious fanatics then its probably best not to pi55 off rival groups who are more crazed and more fanactically holy-joe than your own.

He should go back to promoting the global propogation of AIDS and trying to claw his way back to the dark ages with the full support and passionate piety of every pensioner in Europe - Personally I believe that it was clear from the start that Ratzinger would make the Catholic Church look archaic, comical and farcical - for that Benny the 16th I remain indebted to thee.

Be The Holy · 18-09-2006 02:59PM

The pope should be commended (whether intentional or not) for taking a stand in the defence of christian/secular Europe.

For all those that dont care, they will care when sharia law is being forced upon them because the demographics are pretty scray. At the mo, one in five people in the world are muslim, in twenty five years time, one in four people will be. And if you think I am being ott, what do you think is going on in Somalia and Sudan at the moment?

juslookin · 18-09-2006 03:44PM

Regardless of what the Pope said, the behavior of some people is simply unexcusable.

There is NO EXCUSE for the murder of the nun.

There is NO EXCUSE for burning and vandalising of churches.

There is NO EXCUSE for flag burning, effigy burning and rioting.

If apologists and appeasers can excuse this behaviour away, then they approve of violence in the streets of Dublin if anyone says anything somebody does not like.

That is the conclusion of their apologism. Perhaps they should offer up their own homes for destruction and vandalism because somebody somewhere says something somebody else does not like ?

Could I murder a random innocent muslim and justify this on my "anger" about the atrocity of 7/7, and have the extreme left crowd sypathise with me ? Could I vandalise a mosque and justify this on my "upset" about a comment an iman or mullah had made offending my beliefs, and have the extreme left sympathise with me ? Could I burn a Pakistani flag in the middle of O Connell Street and justify this by my "upset" by the continuing persecution of my "infidel brothers" in Pakistanm and have the extreme left sympathise with me ?

"I could on my bollix".

So you have to ask yourself why Islamic sickos can get away with their behaviour, and apologists from the extreme left clamour to invent reasons to justify their behavior, from a 600 year old war to a conflict geographically further away from them than it is from me.

NO EXCUSE.

Sam Vimes · 18-09-2006 03:51PM

gandalf wrote:

Personally I think the Pontiff was insensitive in the quote and wording he choose for his lecture but the over reaction from the Muslim world is unbelieveable especially as he has now apologised for the hurt he caused.

insane, yes. excessive, yes. completely unjustified, yes. unbelievable, unfortunately no

ferdi · 18-09-2006 04:12PM

Its this 'clash of civilisations' again. we in the west dont really comprehend that to many muslims, their religion means everything to them, where as we for the most part, operate without any really strong religious passion or convictions. therefore we dont understand why muslims get really offended when islam is critisised, we just dont look at religion in the same light...to us its a personal experience, to many muslims, it governs their every waking moment.

Having said that, public face of islam has certainly been hi-jacked by extremists (as most religions have been at some stage) and is now unfortunatly viewed by many in the west as the faith of terror. these flames are fanned by the global media which seems eager to incourage tensions by minipullating and frightening public perceptions in order to sell print media and pull in the ratings.

If we look at our present situation with our Historian hat on, its clear that Islam is in a state of flux and more importantly, expansion. When a seemingly forgein or 'alien' force gets bigger, everyone else gets scare. Similarly, those who are part of that expanding movement, grow in confidence. This leads to tention and latent hostility.

Darragh29 · 18-09-2006 04:35PM

What literally infuriates me about the Islamic faith is this... In most islamic countries, Christianity is actually outlawed & Christians are persecuted. ASAIK, it is a capital offence punishable by death to be a Christian in Iran & Saudi Arabia or to attempt to convert someone to Christianity. In countries such as Pakistan & Iraq, Christians are barely tolerated and utterly unwanted, as opposed to just simple opressed, tormented jailed and tortured as they are in Saudi Arabia & Iran.

Meanwhile back on Craggy Island and other western societies for example the UK, we have Muslims coming here saying our attitude to them is less than what they are happy to accept and demanding equal rights, they have the brass neck to complain when the pope quotes someone else as having said that their Prophet brought inhumane and evil things to the world! WHT!?!?! What message are they sending out when Christianity is BANNED in their countries??? What kind of statements are they making about Jesus when their governments systematically persecute Christians???

Again, in a similar Fu*ked up mindset, they run riot when the Pope makes a reference (and that's what it was, a reference), to some chap who lived about 600 years ago who had spoken of his vague notion that the Muslim Prophet had brought evil & unhumane things to the world. What do they do, shoot a Christian Nun and burn effigies of the Pope??? It's getting increasingly difficulty to listen to talk of Racism when you see the hypocracy that is going on at the moment...

Laslo · 18-09-2006 05:53PM

Hobbes wrote:

You mean like England? Muslims can live under Sharia law in the UK quite fine and do so.

Prehaps you didn't know that Sharia law can be run in any countries that do not have it as thier main law, providing it doesn't superceed the law of the land.

Yes, and if you read my posts you would see that I have no problem with any laws or religions being practiced provided that it doesn't superceed the law of the land. And yes, I'm well aware that Sharia law in some forms is practiced in the UK... relating to mortgages and other monetary matters, the availability of certain meat products, etc.

My issue is with the 30 odd percent of British Muslims who want a stricter form of Sharia introduced to Western socities.

Hobbes wrote:

No one is trying to change anything about "your way of life" but you don't seem to have any problem about being intolerant to other peoples. Oh the Irony.

Nonsense. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about what I do and don't know. I don't feel under any direct threat that Muslims in the UK or Ireland are trying to 'change my way of life'... I don't think they'd stand a chance. However why don't we look farther afield? Why can't ex-pats practice or even spread their religion in Saudi Arabia or Yemen? Why do the Saudi authorities confiscate crucifixes and Bibles at their airports?

For you to accuse me of being intolerant of Islam as a religion, practiced and defended by peaceful means, is simply stuff and nonsense. However, I am completely intolerant of people who practice violence in the name of Islam, those who refuse to condemn it and those who spur it on with reactionary bile. Sadly they make up a sizable enough % of the Muslim world in order to ask questions or even justify intolerance.

Hobbes wrote:

I recommend that rather reading tabloids you actually go read up on what it is you are actually complaining about. Just from this post its clear you have no clue about it at all.

Stop your pseudo-intellectual nonsense. Accusing someone of being a tabloid-reading ignoramus is childish and stupid. I've travelled extensively all over the Middle East and while for the most part I enjoyed it, I was extremely concerned by the fascism I experienced first hand. I was quite disappoited too by the way Muslims the world over treat each other. Many of their societies are basket-cases. It's no wonder the Muslim world is resorting to such sickening hatred, violence and intolerance.

Don't accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. I would imagine my life experiences have given me a far better insight than you sitting in front of the web and learning how to be a PC freedom fighter have taught you.

Frank Grimes · 18-09-2006 06:39PM

Darragh29 wrote:

...it is a capital offence punishable by death to be a Christian in Iran...

Just a small point but that's totally untrue. It's not illegal, I met plenty of Christians and saw many churches while I was in Iran.

RedPlanet · 18-09-2006 09:31PM

Some people have made a point that you don't hear other muslims condeming a lot of violence and "terrorisim". I just want to point out that it's is happening.
If you check out The Council on American- Islamic Relations website:
http://www.cair-net.org/default.asp
They've got a collection of signatures and what not, condeming terrorism.
For example:
http://www.cair-net.org/html/911statements.html
The page isn't formatted particularly well, but if you spend a moment scolling down skimming headlines etc, you'll soon see that there are hundreds of muslim organisations basically saying what you're hoping they'd say.

Maybe this seems rare because the press prefers to give air time to the violent extremist and his deeds rather than the peace niks.

But i'm sure it also doesn't help when muslims are being slaughtered wholesale in a few countries by enemies that use words like "crusade".....with all the connotations that carries.

Laslo · 19-09-2006 05:32PM

Frank Grimes wrote:

Just a small point but that's totally untrue. It's not illegal, I met plenty of Christians and saw many churches while I was in Iran.

I think he meant Saudi.

20-09-2006 12:59AM

It is unfortunate that the words of the Pope caused such a fuss. And he did apologise for what he said. Now can we have a little peace?*

*Personally, I am not optimistic that there ever will be a peaceful world, as we suffer from a long history of violence (as well as finger pointing).

bounty · 20-09-2006 05:06AM

bloody religious zealots (both sides)

Son_of_Belial · 20-09-2006 08:29PM

muletide wrote:

Has anybody here actually bothered to listen/read his speech in full. He used that quote, about the spread of Islam by the sword, as an example of where Europe was in the 1400s in relation to Islam. And his point was that he wished to move away from that to a more inclusive Europe. Obviously alot of people here have just read the sun or star and formed their opinions there. He was quoted completly out of context and the press is more responsible than he for brewing up this storm in a tea cup.

In fairness it would have been fairly cheeky of a Catholic Pope to criticise the spread of religion by violence when all the actions of the Crusades are there for all to see. I dont think he is that stupid and this is just another indication of how he was quoted out of context

The offending comments were:

I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that Surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the Surahs of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. 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 addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.

The idea Ratzinger wanted to put across while supported by an (albeit ill-advised) quote was in general how Science (Reason) and Religion (Faith) should be able to co-exist.

In remarking how the spread of a religion by force of arms is wrong (yes, I am aware that The Crusades did the same), of course he could have chosen a less inflammatory quote. However, I do not believe that there was malicious intent in his words, even if the relevance of the passage seems a tad shaky. He meant to show (somewhat clunkily) that shoving religion down people's throats is a bad way of going and that one should do so with reason and persuasion - not by violence. He used Manuel II's little tantrum as some sort of an example.

Should he apologise? I believe the apology and explanation he gave was more than adequate. If you offend someone it is plain good manners to offer some sort of an apology.

I would be interested to know, however, how many of the Al Qaeda posse have actually read the above transcript?

If anyone wishes to read the entire speech, it is here for all to view. Forgive me if I seemed to ramble a bit - I'm tired alright!

Edwardius · 20-09-2006 11:25PM

Hobbes wrote:

As for Christians baying for blood...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,214059,00.html
(yea its foxnews but you can look for the paper in question)

Riots? Killings? Er... no, A few angry emails is not even remotely comparable to the backlash from the muslim cartoons (granted the depiction of mohammed is what they were most offended about).

But you have to wonder what the press in predominantly muslim states are actaully telling these people to cause such a reaction with the whole "death to the west business" and all. It's probably not the full truth anyway...

Should the Pope apologise?

Comments