OT: The pope's comments

[rogue]

Just caught up with this thread, very impressive thoughts guys.

I agree with Ben that the job of the Pope or even the head of the Baptist isn't to worry about hurting the Muslims feelings. And I do think the belief that Jesus was the Son of God vs a prophet is a very large sticking point.

The majority is silent when there are attacks on the west, but a perceived slight generates riots.

It's quite torquing, really.

It really is and a problem that may turn around and backfire on Muslims in the West. After 9/11 the backlash against Muslims was slight, instead we learned more about the religion. But I fear that if things keep going where Westerners are asked to put their beliefs on the backburner when dealing with Muslims then Westerners may finally say enough is enough and push back.

Anybody want to guess when the first assasination attempt on the Pope happens?

[Merryprankster]

Chris,

It IS consistent with the theology as a whole, but in large measure because that is how we have interpreted it.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't be the same interpretation had beginning circumstances been different, just that perhaps it might not have been.

Hadn't considered the idea that Christ might have been the Jewish Messiah - interesting concept.

But I fear that if things keep going where Westerners are asked to put their beliefs on the backburner when dealing with Muslims then Westerners may finally say enough is enough and push back.

I hear you. I already have a problem with this. I don't think we should go out of the way to antagonize people when a little forethought could prevent it. But, that said, *I* don't have to follow *their* rules. The Mohammed cartoons are a great example. It is forbidden in ISLAM to depict the prophet (and some would argue human form at all). I am not bound by that. A series of riots is a totally inappropriate response. Heck, even placard carrying pickett lines are actually out of order under those circumstances, IMO. I'll depict the prophet as I **** well please, thanks.

But, would I do that in the UAE? Probably not. Similarly, the pope needs to be concious of his status and realize his words are going to be read and attention paid, and a little forethought could definitely have prevented this. Not that he was required to - just that he really should have thought about it a touch harder. Not everybody is going to make the fine shades of distinction we expect from good thinkers.

[Royal Dragon]

The Pope did, and said nothing wrong....these people are psycotic animals, and need to be exterminated.

[unkokusai]

The Pope did, and said nothing wrong....these people are psycotic animals, and need to be exterminated.

Who are "these people"?

[rogue]

But, would I do that in the UAE? Probably not. Similarly, the pope needs to be concious of his status and realize his words are going to be read and attention paid, and a little forethought could definitely have prevented this. Not that he was required to - just that he really should have thought about it a touch harder. Not everybody is going to make the fine shades of distinction we expect from good thinkers.

"When in Rome" is almost always a smart move, but now we have groups that don't follow that old advice. I also don't blame the Pope for not being sensitive. After all if the Pope can't get most Catholics to pay attention and listen to what he says why should he worry about the Muslims doing so?

[SiuHung]

Who are "these people"?

"these people" are the ones who make statements like this:

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) "We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement, posted on Sunday on an Internet site often used by al Qaeda and other militant groups.

And whose actions support such insane rhetoric.

Did the pope openly threaten all of Islam? No.
Where is the outrage over statements like the above?

[The Willow Sword]

I respect the Muslim culture, very much so. I may not know all of what islam is about, but i am not about to put down the whole religion and culture because the extremeists in that religion do what they do. I say the same thing about christianity and judaism. My blunt opinion is that all three of these religions have mentally ill concepts that go against the very fabric of human nature and the human heart and spirit. Religion should be something that "FREES" your heart and mind not put it in a prison or chain it to its principles. It seems to be what all three of these religions on the planet do to its followers.

but there is also a different side of these religions. there seems to be a great majority,although they seem to be silent, of those who regard their religions as a way of enlightening the spirit of the self, rather than concerning themselves about what it does as a whole to many(spirituality is a private thing to alot of people). these people regard the extremists in their religion as lost souls and peoples whose hearts and minds are clouded with anger(and in some cases rightly so)

we want to focus on the bad side of everything because that is what is at the forefront of our world today, expecially in the middle east, where the ideals of foreign politicians and corporations strain the very nature of the common and poor of those regions and quite frankly spawn these "terrorists" and "extremeists".
but i know that isnt the whole reason why these extremists exist(be they muslim christian or jew).
The support that is talked about with regards to islam as a whole to the "extremists and terrorists" is not a support of what violence they do and the graphic nature at which they do it. The silent support is more political because the world of islam feels like it is being encroached upon by the west and its hunger for the resources in the region(which are dwindling).


originally quoted by Merry Prankster

Yes. And because of the killing done in the name of Christ, most of it hundreds of years ago, we should all refrain from taking action against violence and murder, lest us modern-day Judeo-Christian types get labeled as hypocrites.

By using moral perfection as our prerequisite for legitimacy, we can ensure the moral, ethical and intellectual stagnation of the entire human species.

i am not saying that we should refrain from doing anything against violence and murder, what we should refrain from doing is trying to police the world and impose upon these cultures, who do not agree with or want, our brand of democracy in their region. if the middle east did not have the resources that everyone wants so much we wouldnt give a sh!T what they did to each other. we would be in some other region doing the same thing where we could take advantage of resources. i think this is where the hypocracy comes in.

it is my opinion that WE created these "terrorists" and WE can dispell them if we back off and stop trying to be alexandrian conquerors and friendly fascists and greedy resource mongers.

TWS

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

Killing in the name of religion is an aberation of any religious consideration.. but, as those that avow the destruction of others that don't believe as they do, i consider the individual making those statements as targets for pre-emptive self-defense.. in today's maddness with weapons of mass destruction there is wisdom in considering public statements of intended extermination by people that have evidenced their willingness to do so, with a keen eye toward survival.. if a man is walking toward me with a gun and he has publically stated his most fervent intent is to kill me, i am wary of of negotiable outcome.. and i will act, pre-emptively, to secure my own survival.. So, i have no issue with those that would take pre-emptive action on the avowed jihadists, only those that would take such action indiscriminately.. certainly, there are decent Muslims, but.. as evidence of their decency, i would think they would hold their radical brothers and sisters accountable for the impending catastrophies.. change comes from within, they may fear reprisals from their brethern, but.. ultimately, there will be a reckoning that will shake the foundations of humanity.. this can be mitigated by the true Muslims of faith controlling their radical factions..

We are witness to a radical shift in world power, the muslim radical factions have succeded in inspiring fear among the strongest of nations, among the most well-intended of peoples.. they have figured out how to wage war against the most powerful.. they sow the seeds of fear.. they have forever changed how our societies operate.. It is not beyond comprehension to imagine a long and terrible conflict of ideologies.. it is a sad commentary that questions the principles of evolution.. civilization can put men on the moon, heal diseases that only a hundred years ago assured early departure.. civilization can also ruin its ONLY environment, and.. now, civilization, can set itself in motion toward mass deaths of innocent people.. WHERE IS THE VOICE OF REASON? Where is the next Mahatma Ghandi? when wil we change our foolish ways? i am awed by the insipid ignorance of war, hate, and ideology.. common-sense trumps it all.. but, it's not too common..

Be well...

[SiuHung]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

Be well...

What a load of crap!

How many radical Christian groups carry out guerilla warfare in Islamic countries and train suicide kamakaze-like brainwashed followers to blow up unwary citizens?

And yes, the US has carried out Military operations that leave many casualties. Sometimes it's very difficult to fight an enemy that hides behind women and children, has no courage to wear a uniform or follow treaties, and preaches a doctrine of hatred to those who would better be served with compassion.

But lucky for you, you live in a society where you can express your distaste for the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so.

Be well...

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

SiuHung: Struck a nerve, huh.. blinded by your own ideologies? unprejudiced self-examination is tough, try it..

And, for the record, sir.. (yes, i saw the unedited post).. i served this country in one of those lovely affairs where "the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so" did a very poor job.. SE Asia: '69-70, so your condescending attitude falls on experienced and wiser ears..

Read the whole post and open your eyes.. i give no quarter to avowed enemies, and i recognize enemies in all quarters... if you're "sick" over this, you would do better to cure yourself, rather than lashing out at others.. understand the game and understand the players.. I am not your enemy..

Be well..

[David Jamieson]

Greetings..

Extremism is the issue, whatever faith subscribes to it.. Rosie got in a bind for comparing Christian extremists to Muslim extremists.. not much difference, really.. If you consider GWB's faith and his likely extremist sentiments, it's not too far-fetched to link US policy to faith-based extremism.. The US has it's own sordid past so history isn't our redeemer.. fire bombings, carpet bombings, nuclear bombings.. these are mass killings as well, in fact, the US set the standard for mass killings, whatever the reason.. now, i'm only trying to put things into perspective 'cause i disagree with the notion that any one or any group has the moral authority to impose their beliefs on anyone else.. someone may have the right to "believe" others are infidels and should die, but.. they have no right to act on their beliefs..

I have to answer to your post Bob because usually you make more sense than this.

First, no one can honestly say that George Bush is a religious man by any stretch. I'll bet america doesn't even know which Church this guy belongs to. He says God bless and Jesus a lot, but so what, so do a lot of people that don't actually practice Christianity.

Second, when it comes to setting the Bar for Mass killings, I give higher marks to Germany, China and Russia for those, with America in the top ten, but only due to techhnology an dthe whole a-bomb thing.

Thirdly, people will make war on some opf the flimsiest of pretense, as we've all seen, religion is as good a reason as any other really isn't it?

Killing in the name of religion is an aberation of any religious consideration.. but, as those that avow the destruction of others that don't believe as they do, i consider the individual making those statements as targets for pre-emptive self-defense.. in today's maddness with weapons of mass destruction there is wisdom in considering public statements of intended extermination by people that have evidenced their willingness to do so, with a keen eye toward survival.. if a man is walking toward me with a gun and he has publically stated his most fervent intent is to kill me, i am wary of of negotiable outcome.. and i will act, pre-emptively, to secure my own survival.. So, i have no issue with those that would take pre-emptive action on the avowed jihadists, only those that would take such action indiscriminately.. certainly, there are decent Muslims, but.. as evidence of their decency, i would think they would hold their radical brothers and sisters accountable for the impending catastrophies.. change comes from within, they may fear reprisals from their brethern, but.. ultimately, there will be a reckoning that will shake the foundations of humanity.. this can be mitigated by the true Muslims of faith controlling their radical factions..

Killing has always been done in the name of God, it's in the bible, it's in the q'uran, it's in the Torah and so on. I think the Buddhists get ok marks on this angle, but that's about it.

We are witness to a radical shift in world power, the muslim radical factions have succeded in inspiring fear among the strongest of nations, among the most well-intended of peoples.. they have figured out how to wage war against the most powerful.. they sow the seeds of fear.. they have forever changed how our societies operate.. It is not beyond comprehension to imagine a long and terrible conflict of ideologies.. it is a sad commentary that questions the principles of evolution.. civilization can put men on the moon, heal diseases that only a hundred years ago assured early departure.. civilization can also ruin its ONLY environment, and.. now, civilization, can set itself in motion toward mass deaths of innocent people.. WHERE IS THE VOICE OF REASON? Where is the next Mahatma Ghandi? when wil we change our foolish ways? i am awed by the insipid ignorance of war, hate, and ideology.. common-sense trumps it all.. but, it's not too common..

Be well...

We are witnessing the same shit we've always been witnessing just in a different pile. Know your enemy is the flavour d'jour. Pick an enemy, try to pick one taht everyone can stay mad at. lol. It's not hard to get mad at a faction that in response to commentaries goes on riots instead of making civilized rebuttals. It's not hard to get mad at people who won't negotiate and who will commit suicide rather than negotiate.

It's hard to give leeway to the imams and clerics of Islam who pay lip service to how much these acts are reprehensible but in their own arabic countries and ciommunities, they don't really do anything and in fact perpetuate what is coming out of the radical arm of islam.


It's an interesting mix of truth and lies from everyone involved really and blaming america is only part of it. I think there is an enemy in the Muslim faith and it has shown itself again and again.

the father whoes son is a criminal ,may be able to disown the son, but the son still wears the name of teh father and teh house is accountable for the deeds of the son. So the father hasn't exactly disowned the son in any meaninigful way. The saudi army doesn't rise up against it's radicals, teh syrians not against their's Palestine grows their terror groups, Iran, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Pakistan and so on. these countries are all paying lip service and doing squat. If they were really on board with putting an end to this, then they would have taken stronger action some time ago. So far, these countries, from which the root springs it's branbches of radical Islam, have done virtually nothing about the problem and allow their media and governments to eprpetuate the idea that it is ok to be this way. Osama Bin Laden is a freaking hero in the region. A hero! and for what?

How exactly does a country allow a group like the Taliban to come to power?

America certainly has it's foibles and it's share of lashes to take, but to blame america because islam is basically prety screwed up is a touch skewed.

[SiuHung]

Greetings..

SiuHung: Struck a nerve, huh.. blinded by your own ideologies? unprejudiced self-examination is tough, try it..

No more so blind than anyone else. Yourself included.

And, for the record, sir.. (yes, i saw the unedited post).. i served this country in one of those lovely affairs where "the very establishment that defends and preserves your right to do so" did a very poor job.. SE Asia: '69-70, so your condescending attitude falls on experienced and wiser ears..

I edited it beceause it was too personal and that was not an appropriate tone.

FYI: You're not the only one with military experience. As for wiser? That is not for me, or you to judge.

Read the whole post and open your eyes.. i give no quarter to avowed enemies, and i recognize enemies in all quarters... if you're "sick" over this, you would do better to cure yourself, rather than lashing out at others.. understand the game and understand the players.. I am not your enemy..

Be well..

I am well educated on the players, thier respective cultures, governments, and practices. And please, do not fret over my health. As for your post, I read it. My opinion is that you are misinformed on many issues, however I respect your right to be that way. Enjoy your freedom.

[BoulderDawg]

Sometimes it's very difficult to fight an enemy that hides behind women and children, has no courage to wear a uniform or follow treaties, and preaches a doctrine of hatred to those who would better be served with compassion.

What do you expect? Do you think Muslims are going to put on uniforms parade in front of the Americans with 30-40 year old guns?

I don't understand this at a all. America spends billion on advance weapons and they are upset when people refuse to just stand there and get shot?

The American have vastly superior fire power. This forces the other side to fight the only way they know how......I see nothing wrong with this.

Finally, speaking of "No courage": It appears the Americans have no courage (or morality for that matter) since they are now trying to distance themselves from the Geneva Convention ....Talk about breaking treaties....

[Ben Gash]

America never actually signed the Geneva convention

[David Jamieson]

America never actually signed the Geneva convention

Actually, Chester Arthur signed it in 1882.

You're correct that they did not sign the original and neither did Great Britain, Swedn and a nother country that no longer exists since the turn of the last century.