Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.

Umm ...

If I read you correctly, I thought you had one of the more spot-on takes I've seen here.

In other words, my comment was intended as praise, not criticism.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by cartman

Instead of going after those who are doing the evil, let's just take an easy way to make ourselves feel better and execute anyone who might be sympathetic towards the evil doers.

You're attempting to draw too fine a point & therefore failing to make one (rather obvious) connection: Those supporting A-Q, et al ARE "doing the evil". There's more to being a part of a war effort than just picking up a rifle.

Yep, that will definitely make those Al-Qaedas see the light, and give up their arms.

Do you really believe that's going to happen in any fashion other than taking those weapons from their cold, dead fingers?

[Edward64]

Newsweeks take
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14866559/site/newsweek/

Then why did Benedict quote the emperor in the first place? The most likely answer is that, no matter what the Vatican says now, the pope believes in having what the Catholic theologian and papal biographer George Weigel calls “a hard-headed conversation” about the role of faith in the life of the world. “He knew exactly what he was doing,” says Weigel. “He is saying that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’ ”

the pope must have known his words would carry. And by speaking of jihad without alluding to Christianity’s dark history of violence in the name of God—the Crusades, forced conversions, pogroms, the Inquisition—Benedict seemed to be denouncing Islam while failing to acknowledge that any religion, including his own, can be manipulated and perverted to evil ends. “It is very hard to construe the pope’s remarks in a benign way,” says William A. Graham, the dean of the Harvard Divinity School. “Historically, there is no more basis for arguing that Islam is irrational than there is for arguing the same about Christianity or Judaism. In all three you can find tremendous discussion about revelation and reason, and there are people in all three who have landed outside the rational. Islam has bloody borders right now, but Christianity has certainly been bloody, as has Judaism in its more extreme forms.”

[st.cronin]

What I find fascinating about this is that there are people (on both sides of the discussion) who can't seperate out what the Pope said and the "reaction" in the Muslim community. My initial point is that Muslim reaction has zero to do with what the Pope actually said, and everything to do with the bizzaro politics that go on within the Mideast.

Consider a thought experiment: What would happen if Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie similiar in tone to his Passion, about the life of Mohammed?

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ...

If I read you correctly, I thought you had one of the more spot-on takes I've seen here.

In other words, my comment was intended as praise, not criticism.

Maybe he thinks you're in the wilderness

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Consider a thought experiment: What would happen if Martin Scorsese decided to make a movie similiar in tone to his Passion, about the life of Mohammed?

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

You mean, kind of what actually did happen to Scorsese when he released The Last Temptation of Christ? He received death threats and (according to Wikipedia) a Christian fundamentalist group in France attacked a theater showing the film with Molotov cocktails. A bounty wasn't placed on his head like what happened with Rushdie, but there was plenty of outrage by the Christian community.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

You mean, kind of what actually did happen to Scorsese when he released The Last Temptation of Christ? He received death threats and (according to Wikipedia) a Christian fundamentalist group in France attacked a theater showing the film with Molotov cocktails. A bounty wasn't placed on his head like what happened with Rushdie, but there was plenty of outrage by the Christian community.

Martin Scorsese has continued to work and has not gone into hiding, and no heads of state have called for his assasination. There are many, many Christians who loved his movie. Nice try.

[Raiders Army]

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

[Glengoyne]

My thoughts on the above quoted criticisms from the Newsweek peice.

I don't think one has to mention failings of the past when discussing a contemporary problem. I also don't believe it would have made one iota difference in the manner his statements were received my a number of muslims.

I don't think that today there is an option for an open dialogue between Christianity and Islam, or for that matter between Islam and outsiders. The only way to curb the violence pervasive to Islam in the middle east today is through internal moderation. Only the moderate clerics of today and years to come can bring about change to what has become, for a number of reasons at least regionally, a religion of discontent.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

I take it you are an atheist or agnostic.

Its simple to say and probably has some truth to it but I suspect even without religion, there would be other causes (ex. lebansrum, manifest destiny etc) that would cause war/violence etc.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think that today there is an option for an open dialogue between Christianity and Islam, or for that matter between Islam and outsiders. The only way to curb the violence pervasive to Islam in the middle east today is through internal moderation. Only the moderate clerics of today and years to come can bring about change to what has become, for a number of reasons at least regionally, a religion of discontent.

I think that's right. We can't be the ones to do the heavy lifting in this (and will fail if we try). But there are things that we can do that will create an environment conducive to that internal moderation, and conversely things that will be create an environment hostile to moderation. The challenge for our foreign policy is to figure which things are which.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

I doubt it. People would always find something to war over, and religion just gives them a banner to fight under. If you erased religion, then it would be between political systems or any other convenient issue at hand.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I think that's right. We can't be the ones to do the heavy lifting in this (and will fail if we try). But there are things that we can do that will create an environment conducive to that internal moderation, and conversely things that will be create an environment hostile to moderation. The challenge for our foreign policy is to figure which things are which.

I agree with you and Glengoyne. I tend to believe the change needs to be from within and nothing in our foreign policy can make it 'right'.

In another thread, my theory was we could not make Muslim countries pro-US, the best we can do is shift them to 'neutral'.

Anyone has any insights into whether the Sunni's are more 'moderate' than the Shites and why that may be so? It seems to me that most of the sectarian radicalism/extremist are Shite whereas the Sunni's are more secular.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

Although I think this comment was made with a certain pragmatic intent, it is far from true.

In modern times the most violent situations where human life was subdued and eliminated out of abuse of power is communist Russian and China. The two situations that come the closest to eliminating religion as I can think of.

[Greyroofoo]

Personally I blame the heat

[Buccaneer]

It would be hard, at least in the short-term, to see internal moderation in a country like Iran where it is eliminating all liberalism, western teachings and non-fundamentalist professors from its universities.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Personally I blame the heat

Damn global warming.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

Then please explain to me which part of it you didn't understand.

Wow, want a toothpick to help displace that foot?

[Mac Howard]

You can't help but feel that this is the Islamic world deliberately (paranoically?) seeking out examples to justify its antagonism to other religions and western culture in particular. The Pope may well have been careless but my understanding is that this was a lecture he was giving to a small bunch of students at his old University on faith and reason, not his usual advice to the world. He was arguing essentially against the use of violence and the threat of violence in promoting religion. He referred to earlier medieval debates on this and the "quotation" was taken from such a debate. It wasn't a "quotation" in the sense of using it to express his own views but to illustrate the nature of the debate. Not particularly diplomatic in current circumstances but not particularly offensive either and not in a public forum.

I read this morning that the Pope's current tendancy to put his foot in his mouth has continued with a quotation from the bible that speaks of the Jewish "shame of the crucifixion". Fortunately the Jewish community has responded more with a rolling of the eyes than violence.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

It would be hard, at least in the short-term, to see internal moderation in a country like Iran where it is eliminating all liberalism, western teachings and non-fundamentalist professors from its universities.

And yet a mere five years ago it was going in precisely the opposite direction...

[molson]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

If we got rid of all religions there would be a lot more peace in this world.

It would probably balance out. If people gave up the myth of an afterlife, they would probably be less likely to sacrifice themselves in certain types of conflicts. On the other hand, opressed people, without an afterlife to placate them, would probably be quicker to bring violence against their government.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

And yet a mere five years ago it was going in precisely the opposite direction...

I'm not exactly sure what exactly has prompted that shift away from reformation. Not all that long ago there were indications that almost 90% of the population wanted to move away from fundamentalism. The population that had experienced the relative freedoms of a secular government, albeit a dictatorship, was straining against fundamentalist rule. Now they elect someone who might very well be a terrorist as well a mad man.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

It would probably balance out. If people gave up the myth of an afterlife, they would probably be less likely to sacrifice themselves in certain types of conflicts.

Just for food for thought: I think you would probably be replacing wars/larger conflicts with crime in the streets on an unprecedented scale, something that would make the Old West look like a tea party.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Martin Scorsese has continued to work and has not gone into hiding, and no heads of state have called for his assasination. There are many, many Christians who loved his movie. Nice try.

Salman Rushdie has continued to work as well. I didn't say the two experienced the same thing, I was merely stating that threats were made on Scorsese's life, just like there were on Rushdie. There were protests against both works, and in some instances, violence did occur.

[Edward64]

They would do to him what they did to Salmon Rushdie, and make him hide for fear of his life.

Jonathan Ezarik. Do you really disagree with what WVUFAN is saying? Of course this would happen, why argue the obvious?

Now, if you believe the same happened to Scorsese with the Christian crowd, I just don't see it.

The Scorsese and Rushdie experiences are no where close to being the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'.

Can you confirm you really believe these 2 examples are approx the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I'm not exactly sure what exactly has prompted that shift away from reformation. Not all that long ago there were indications that almost 90% of the population wanted to move away from fundamentalism. The population that had experienced the relative freedoms of a secular government, albeit a dictatorship, was straining against fundamentalist rule. Now they elect someone who might very well be a terrorist as well a mad man.

From what I remember ...

The prior President Khatami, a reformer, had a broad base of younger generation support but was not willing to confront the hardliners and slowly saw his support base and popularity wane away over 2 terms.

In the past election, candidates had to be approved by the hardline mullahs. This lead to a limited number of reformers.

The current madman apparently did have a broadbase of support as he was the former mayor of Tehran.

I think the answer is that the younger generation got disillusioned with Khatami and broken promises.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

You can't help but feel that this is the Islamic world deliberately (paranoically?) seeking out examples to justify its antagonism to other religions and western culture in particular.

Here is the point I was making before: EVERY minority does this! There is the Italian-American organization that got pissed at the Sopranos, Jessie Jackson going on TV for every perceived slight, Christian groups picketing for Terri Schiavo, etc. People here are taking a common negative occurance due to human psychology, attributing it to one group, and denegrating that one group because of it. This doesn't make Muslims a bad group of people any more than it makes black people a bad group of people for rioting in the streets after the Rodney King verdict.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Funny, that's not how I read what he said at all. I think you read it that way because you prefer to imagine him a horrible racist, instead of somebody who might possibly have some ideas which are different than yours.

There is no other way to read that. He wants to kill every Muslim who supports in any was Al Qaeda, which will only make more people support it, which will mean more people to kill. That's easily millions of people.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Here is the point I was making before: EVERY minority does this! There is the Italian-American organization that got pissed at the Sopranos, Jessie Jackson going on TV for every perceived slight, Christian groups picketing for Terri Schiavo, etc. People here are taking a common negative occurance due to human psychology, attributing it to one group, and denegrating that one group because of it. This doesn't make Muslims a bad group of people any more than it makes black people a bad group of people for rioting in the streets after the Rodney King verdict.

If you can't see what's different about the Islamic reaction to the Pope's remarks (which were not even public remarks, mind you), and the rest of this, then you are trying way too hard.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I think he expects Muslims to act civilized, and if they don't, then do something about it.

So, what is the solution to those extremist Muslims out there, Bigglesworth? Should we never do anything that might get them mad? Think that'll stop them?

Or maybe we should try to "share" and "understand" what they're feeling. Because I'm sure they will go with that.

So, what is your solution, then?

The best case scenario of the "War on Terrorism" is the same as the "War on Poverty": a reduction in the targetted noun, not the complete abolition of it. Terrorism is like crime: it would certainly be possible to have a near zero crime rate, but the things neccessary to do that (spending most of the budget on police, cameras everywhere, death penalty for the smallest misdemeanors, having people inform on each other, etc) make it counter-productive. It is better as a society to live with a relatively low amount of crime than to eradicate it all. Same with terrorism: there will always be a certain percentage of people out there with extremist views. So you go after the support networks, put pressure on those harboring them, and act in a way that makes your influence mostly positive in the regions known to generate terrorism. Killing them all and letting God sort them out is both immoral and counter-productive.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

There is no other way to read that. He wants to kill every Muslim who supports in any was Al Qaeda, which will only make more people support it, which will mean more people to kill. That's easily millions of people.

Biggles, as strange as this may seem, that is a pretty accurate summation.

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.

Categorically, I don't give a flying rat's ass if we're talking about white, black, brown, green, or purple. It also doesn't make a flying fuck to me if we're talking about Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Baptists, Atheists, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterists.

The origin is the support of an enemy/enemies that we are at war with. Period.

I'm very equal opportunity when it comes to advocating the eradication of anybody who fits that description, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

[cougarfreak]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe...tml?eref=yahoo

This oughta help things out quite a bit!

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Biggles, as strange as this may seem, that is a pretty accurate summation.

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.

Categorically, I don't give a flying rat's ass if we're talking about white, black, brown, green, or purple. It also doesn't make a flying fuck to me if we're talking about Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, Baptists, Atheists, or Flying Spaghetti Monsterists.

The origin is the support of an enemy/enemies that we are at war with. Period.

I'm very equal opportunity when it comes to advocating the eradication of anybody who fits that description, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin.

Actually you are right, in your case, in this instance, it's not racial, as you have shown a willingness to kill people over downloading songs on the internet. So I think this is more to do with your autocratic nature.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

as you have shown a willingness to kill people over downloading songs on the internet.

Sweet Chocolate Christ, I hope Jon never finds out I downloaded the new Bob Dylan album.....ooops.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Oilers9911

Sweet Chocolate Christ, I hope Jon never finds out I downloaded the new Bob Dylan album.....ooops.

Go forth and sin no more.
(If you suffered through a Dylan album, you've suffered enough)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually you are right ... I think this is more to do with your autocratic nature.

That assessment I don't have a problem with. I don't completely agree with it, but it isn't offensively off base AFAIC.

Thank you for acknowledging the distinction.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The exception I take, the strong exception, is any implication that this is somehow "racial" or "ethnic" in its origin.

That's always his easy way out in this situation, throw around the racism accusations at anyone who is on the right side of the arguement (the logical side, logic seems to be his worst enemy).

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

That's always his easy way out in this situation, throw around the racism accusations at anyone who is on the right side of the arguement (the logical side, logic seems to be his worst enemy).

WTF are you talking about? I've called maybe three statemens racist in my entire time here. And you know why I did it? Because they were. Like these comments:

They're gonna riot over anything, so it's not surprising this does it.

When a group of people throw a fit over a cartoon, they're not all there to begin with.

My point was simply that "mideast Muslim leaders" have a strong tendency to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault.

(again, this one is racist because it ascribes a universal negative human tendancy to one specific group, then denigrates that entire group because of it)

The Pope was RIGHT in his words, and I'm glad his refuses to retract them.

More the pity, 'cause it's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject [of Muhhamed being evil], but he didn't.

I agree with Jon -- he didn't go far enough [in calling Muslims evil and inhuman]

That's just from the first page. To test for racism, change the subject to black people and see if you can say them in polite company. "Blacks are going to riot over anything, so it's not surprising." "Black leaders have a tendencay to teach that everything bad that happens is somebody else's fault." "It's about time somebody spoke directly on the subject of black people being evil." Easy calls. There is no logic there at all.

People here that are calling Muslims violent are the same ones that have continually supported a war of agression against a country primarily filled with Muslims. Extreme Christian groups bomb abortion clinics. Humans are violent, being Muslim has nothing to do with it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Jonathan Ezarik. Do you really disagree with what WVUFAN is saying? Of course this would happen, why argue the obvious?

Now, if you believe the same happened to Scorsese with the Christian crowd, I just don't see it.

The Scorsese and Rushdie experiences are no where close to being the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'.

Can you confirm you really believe these 2 examples are approx the same in 'degree of hostility/threats'?

I wasn't arguing how the Islamic world would react if Scorsese made a film that slighted Islam. I'm sure they would react the same as they did with Rushdie, or maybe even worse. My point was that the Christian realm isn't exactly innocent when you start talking about outrage over a controversial film/book.

I equate any death threat equally. I'm sure Scorsese had some moments where he was actually scared for his life. There are plenty of crazies out there, and if something like this sets them off, then what's going to stop them? Especially if they take it as an insult to their religion. Are Christian extremists as determined as Islamic extremists? If you look back in history you can say yes, but in today's world that is no longer true. Of course, abortion doctors would probably disagree with this notion.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by PSUColonel

This is the politically correct thing to say, and the same sentiment being echoed by politicians and others, but if you closely examine Islam as a religion, and the Koran as it's "Bible", you'll see that it really isn't the case of a a few bad eggs, or a few rotten tomatoes. Islam as a religion DOES in fact preach violence and DOES in fact encourage it against infadels.

Just curious: Have you actually studied the Koran?

[EagleFan]

Again, Muslim is not a race!!!!

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Again, Muslim is not a race!!!!

I think the dictionary might disagree with you.

race2  /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
2. a population so related.
3. Anthropology.
a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.
b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups.
c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.
4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.
5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Just curious: Have you actually studied the Koran?

Or the Old Testament?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

I think the dictionary might disagree with you.

I don't think it is possible that we both read the same definition, yet you bolded a part of it that seemingly does nothing to make what I believe is your intended point.

I'm thinking that this assertion, along with your conclusion that a few christian whackos threatening Scorsese compares even obliquely with what Salmon Rushdie faced after writing Satanic Verses, is evidence that you are attempting to prolong this arguent by being intentionally obtuse.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I don't think it is possible that we both read the same definition, yet you bolded a part of it that seemingly does nothing to make what I believe is your intended point.

I'm thinking that this assertion, along with your conclusion that a few christian whackos threatening Scorsese compares even obliquely with what Salmon Rushdie faced after writing Satanic Verses, is evidence that you are attempting to prolong this arguent by being intentionally obtuse.

Do you disagree that followers of Islam are "united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc."? Do you consider Judaism a race? If not, what is your definition of race?

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

And once again, I'm not saying that what Scorsese experienced is the same as Rushdie. My point was this: Christians have a history of doing exactly what they are criticizing Muslims for doing. They might not do them on the same scale as the Islamic world, but they still do them.

The bolded part of your statement is important to note, and it's what tickles me every time something like this happens. The pope may like to take a holier than thou stance and criticize the Islamic people for resorting to violence, but how many religious institutions over history have as much innocent blood on their hands as his own?

Religion in the Islamic society today holds the same sort of position that Catholicism did in its dark days, and it was only when the church lost it's power that it began to clean up its act.

This is why I get so irritated when Bush throws god's name around so much. Do we need any clearer proof of the irrationality and violence that is caused by the combination of religion and state than the current problems in the Islamic world, as well as our own history?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Religion in the Islamic society today holds the same sort of position that Catholicism did in its dark days, and it was only when the church lost it's power that it began to clean up its act.

Regardless of the reason, the plain truth of the matter is many Muslims and the Islamic society in general are still acting like the same Barbarian, blood-thirsty monsters that they did in the Dark Ages. Christianity has changed, reformed from our dark times. Islam, or many parts of it, has not. The rest of the parts seem to be unwilling to hold those extremists responsible in check.

Again, when a Christian group flies planes into buildings so they can go to heaven with virgins, then come back and tell me that we need to understand them.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

The bolded part of your statement is important to note, and it's what tickles me every time something like this happens. The pope may like to take a holier than thou stance and criticize the Islamic people for resorting to violence, but how many religious institutions over history have as much innocent blood on their hands as his own?

Why is Chritianity's past relevant? Isn't the whole point of the opposing view that Islam is still in the "dark ages" that Christianity has advanced past? I'm not particularly concerned about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades claiming too many lives in the next few years.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by molson

Why is Chritianity's past relevant? Isn't the whole point of the opposing view that Islam is still in the "dark ages" that Christianity has advanced past? I'm not particularly concerned about the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades claiming too many lives in the next few years.

It's particularily relevant when you take in to consideration what time period the pope was quoting from, and that he was using an Islamic reference when he could have just as easily referred to his own religion.