Islam vs the pope

[Solus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm)

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".

The Vatican said the Pope had not intended to offend Muslims.

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.

But in spite of the statement, the pontiff returned to Rome to face a barrage of criticism from the Muslim world over the remarks, reports the BBC's David Willey in Rome.

Violence and faith

In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.


Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".

'Angry and hurt'

The Pope's "hostile" remarks drew a demand for an apology from a top religious official in Turkey - where he is due in November on his first papal visit to a Muslim country.

Ali Bardakoglu recalled atrocities committed by Roman Catholic Crusaders against Orthodox Christians and Jews, as well as Muslims, in the Middle Ages.

In Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood head Mohammed Mahdi Akef said the Pope's words "do not express correct understanding of Islam and are merely wrong and distorted beliefs being repeated in the West".

In a statement, he was "astonished that such remarks come from someone who sits on top of the Catholic church which has its influence on the public opinion in the West".

Sheikh Youssef al-Qardawi, a prominent Muslim cleric in Qatar, rejected the Pope's comments, in remarks reported by Reuters.

"Muslims have the right to be angry and hurt by these comments from the highest cleric in Christianity," Mr Qardawi reportedly said.

"We ask the Pope to apologise to the Muslim nation for insulting its religion, its Prophet and its beliefs."

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference also said it regretted the Pope's remarks, and news agencies reported a furious reaction on Islamic websites.

Nice to see Islamic leaders know what issues are important. Terrorist bombings by fellow Muslims no big deal, but a speech by the pope criticizing holy war, well that’s something to protest about! :rolleyes:

[richardm]

It's interesting that it's stressed that when the pope called Islam "evil and inhuman" they were not his own words, but we're not told the context in which he repeated them. If he followed them up with "And I agree with that!", then the reaction might be understandable. If he followed them with "And obviously that was wrong", then the reaction is not understandable. Unfortunately many Muslims seem to have a hair-trigger when it comes to aggressive reactions, and probably don't care about context. I'd still like to hear some though.

So - what will be the upshot of this? Burned-out churches? Riots at Italian embassies? Riots at German embassies? Or will there be wild but ill-educated mobs roaming the streets trying to find the Vatican embassy? ;)

[The Atheist]

How about we get the pope, a few cardinals and bishops and line them up against a team of mullahs. Arm the lot with sticks and stones and let 'em go for it. They're all scum.

[Solus]

It's interesting that it's stressed that when the pope called Islam "evil and inhuman" they were not his own words, but we're not told the context in which he repeated them. If he followed them up with "And I agree with that!", then the reaction might be understandable. If he followed them with "And obviously that was wrong", then the reaction is not understandable. Unfortunately many Muslims seem to have a hair-trigger when it comes to aggressive reactions, and probably don't care about context. I'd still like to hear some though.

So - what will be the upshot of this? Burned-out churches? Riots at Italian embassies? Riots at German embassies? Or will there be wild but ill-educated mobs roaming the streets trying to find the Vatican embassy? ;)

Here a link to the whole speech to see the full context of it http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

I guess should add what he actually said that is supposively offensive:

I was reminded of all this recently, when 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 suras 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 editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

The Islamic religion really needs to grow some thicker skin.

[Skeptic]

Stressing that they were not his own words... Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his...

I'm sorry, I don't see how the Pope "insulted Islam" here.

By the way, let's open the betting pool: how long before somebody issues a fatwa permitting the assassination of the pope for "insulting Islam" by saying it's violent?

[Dave1001]

Perhaps it will take a nazi pope (it's true!) to defeat islamofascism?

[richardm]

I'm sorry, I don't see how the Pope "insulted Islam" here.

Well, he repeated a statement that the only things Mohammed brought to the table were evil things. Considering that simply saying "Mohammed" in the wrong tone of voice makes some Muslims fly into a fury*, this was always likely to upset someone. I'm sure the fatwas are already flying.


* this is a rhetorical device, I've no idea whether they really do (does seem quite likely though, eh?)

[RyanRoberts]

Given its peaceful prayer and reflection day for Islam.. I'd put money on some car / pope effigy burning soon enough. Irony is lost on these people.

14th century byzantines had plenty of reasons to think mohammed and his followers may have been a tad on the violent side. They would not have been big fans of the pope either.

[richardm]

Pope Effigy burning has already begun in Pakistan, according to the news.

Thinking about this, a couple of things spring to mind. One is that unless I've been mislead the Koran does say you should take the sword to unbelievers. The other thing is I don't believe the Pope didn't expect this fuss - he's a smart guy. He's also made critical comments about Islam before. I have a suspicion that he quoted this guy because he agrees with him.

[Jocko]

I'll take the Pope with the points.

[RyanRoberts]

take the sword to the unbelivers

Yep, its pretty clear on that. The most peaceful way to interpret it is to say that it only applied to those particular unbelivers, then. Unfortuntely, that's not what most later commentators thought.

The irony of the Muslim Brotherhood asking for an apology for calling Islam violent is just too much.

[ImaginalDisc]

Yep, its pretty clear on that. The most peaceful way to interpret it is to say that it only applied to those particular unbelivers, then. Unfortuntely, that's not what most later commentators thought.

The irony of the Muslim Brotherhood asking for an apology for calling Islam violent is just too much.

Well, the Pope's got a lot of answer for, as the Bible recomends wiping out nearby towns that worship different gods. This is a pot/kettle situation.

[Marquis de Carabas]

* this is a rhetorical device, I've no idea whether they really do (does seem quite likely though, eh?)
They fly into buildings, not furies.

[Jocko]

Well, the Pope's got a lot of answer for, as the Bible recomends wiping out nearby towns that worship different gods. This is a pot/kettle situation.

Yes, absolutely. If you look closely, you'll see the relevant biblical passages tacked to the burning papal effigies. Obviously, the muslim reaction is completely reasoned and rational in this regard. :rolleyes:

[RyanRoberts]

pot/kettle situation

In the 14th century, yes. Though Byzantium had long ceased to be the regional superpower, it was not the aggressor in that conflict.

His comment about Islam contributing sod all but conflict is pretty much correct too. Hilariously, the Pakistani complainers refuted this by claiming the usual line about Islam inventing science. As opposed to appropriating it from the other cultures they conquered.

[Mike B.]

Well here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213930,00.html

It looks like a requirement now to be in a constant state of indignation.

(Of course, you may say anything you want...)

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm)
Thread: Islam vs the pope
I think it would make a good video game: RTS.

DR

[headscratcher4]

Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.

[RyanRoberts]

The last Pope apologised for the Crusades and the justification of slavery. We are still waiting on reciprocation for the battle of Tours and Al Andalus. Christian doctrine has changed somewhat since the 14th century..

[Darth Rotor]

Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.
In which century are we living, and how recently has the Catholic Church endorsed any conversion by the sword? Between Napoleon and Garibaldi, the Popacy's claws were effectively removed, if not before then.

DR

[BPSCG]

I'll take the Pope with the points.I'll give you the points and the Pope. I'll take Mehmet Ali Agca (http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/db_agca.htm) and a gun.

Soon as he gets out of prison...

[Huntster]

How about we get the pope, a few cardinals and bishops and line them up against a team of mullahs. Arm the lot with sticks and stones and let 'em go for it. They're all scum.

Like the Pope, do you wish to credit the above profound words to someone else, or do you take credit for them?

And why don't you grab your own arsenal of sticks and stones (since it appears to be your idea) and join the fray as the righteous, third alternative; the "balance of power and righteousness"?

[Jocko]

Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.

Ah, so just because most of the Muslim world still lives in the 14th century, that's where we have to stage the discussion. Gotcha. Thanks, but I'll stick with my politically incorrect post-enlightement position that islam needs to grow the f**k up like every other religion on the planet has.

[BPSCG]

Another measured reaction (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060915/D8K5ADM80.html) from The Religion of Making Odious Comparisons Peace.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Jocko
I'll take the Pope with the points.
I'll give you the points and the Pope. I'll take Mehmet Ali Agca (http://crime.about.com/od/murder/p/db_agca.htm) and a gun.

Soon as he gets out of prison...

I'll take the Pope with the points, too.

Agca with his silly gun was not much of a threat to a man like John Paul II (http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/penance.html). And, according to Roman Catholic theology, he's little threat to Benedict's soul and legacy, either.

Surely one of the most riveting images of this century was the encounter between Pope John Paul II and Mehmet Ali Agca in Agca's jail cell, between a Catholic and a Muslim, between an assassin and his target. We do not know what transpired in their brief conversation, but we can be sure that the Pope offered his personal forgiveness and that of the Lord who is "Rich in Mercy" to the assassin who we hope both asked for and accepted it. The meeting underscores the Holy Father's commitment on the deepest personal level to a pastoral ministry of reconciliation.....

[IllegalArgument]

Another measured reaction (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060915/D8K5ADM80.html) from The Religion of Making Odious Comparisons Peace.

It's more measured, at this point, then the cartoon reaction.

At this point.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by headscratcher4
Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.
In which century are we living, and how recently has the Catholic Church endorsed any conversion by the sword? Between Napoleon and Garibaldi, the Popacy's claws were effectively removed, if not before then.

Apparently it isn't just Islamic terrorists who prefer to remain in the Medieval era Era.

[GroundStrength]

Ah, so just because most of the Muslim world still lives in the 14th century, that's where we have to stage the discussion. Gotcha. Thanks, but I'll stick with my politically incorrect post-enlightement position that islam needs to grow the f**k up like every other religion on the planet has.

I like it! New Signature Line! Thanks Jocko.

[BPSCG]

It's more measured, at this point, then the cartoon reaction.

At this point.Give it time. It hasn't been 24 hours yet. Meanwhile (http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2006/09/popeeffigy_700x405.jpg)... (Caption:"Muslim activists burn an effigy of Pope Benedict XVI during a protest in Srinagar, India.")

[BPSCG]

I like it! New Signature Line! Thanks Jocko.Don't forget to link it.

[StewartP]

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence"

Mr Eugenides (http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/)

[BPSCG]

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence"

Mr Eugenides (http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/)That's priceless, except that I can't find it in Mr Eugenides's link.

[Dr Adequate]

Apparently it isn't just Islamic terrorists who prefer to remain in the Medieval era Era. No, there's also His Popiness still banging on about what happened in the fourteenth century. You'd think a Catholic would have the sense to keep his mouth shut about events in medieval Constantinople; if not, then he could have given a more balanced view by also quoting what medieval Byzantines had to say about the question of "spreading the faith through violence" as it applied to the Papacy.

[Jocko]

No, there's also His Popiness still banging on about what happened in the fourteenth century. You'd think a Catholic would have the sense to keep his mouth shut about events in medieval Constantinople; if not, then he could have given a more balanced view by also quoting what medieval Byzantines had to say about the question of "spreading the faith through violence" as it applied to the Papacy.

There is more cogent analysis of the remarks in this two-sentence post than you will find in the entire islamic outrage to come.

Which only underscores the point that this latest brouhaha has nothing whatsover to do with what happened in the 14th century, at least not in any practical way.

[Jocko]

Don't forget to link it.

Or don't. Makes no nevermind to me. I'm not AUP, I can withstand having my own words reposted once in a while. ;)

[geni]

Hilariously, the Pakistani complainers refuted this by claiming the usual line about Islam inventing science. As opposed to appropriating it from the other cultures they conquered.

There were advances. They cracked the monoalphabetic substitution cypher among other things.

[StewartP]

That's priceless, except that I can't find it in Mr Eugenides's link.

You're right. Mr Eugenides links to a USAToday article that doesn't have such a quote. He does give a hat tip to Drinking From Home (http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/09/annan-in-cuba.html) which does have the quote, but I don't know how accurate it is. When it comes to quoting religious fundies, sometimes satire doesn't get anywhere near as crazy as the real thing.

[RyanRoberts]

You'd think a Catholic would have the sense to keep his mouth shut about events in medieval Constantinople; if not, then he could have given a more balanced view by also quoting what medieval Byzantines had to say about the question of "spreading the faith through violence" as it applied to the Papacy.

I assume this is why he quoted a Byzantine, that statement didn't some lightly. I thought the sack of Constantinople was not directly the fault of the Papacy, even though the Schism was deep enough. I thought it was the Venetian contingent taking the opportunity to attack an old enemy.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Apparently it isn't just Islamic terrorists who prefer to remain in the Medieval era Era.
No, there's also His Popiness still banging on about what happened in the fourteenth century. You'd think a Catholic would have the sense to keep his mouth shut about events in medieval Constantinople.....

Yeah, to some extent I agree. However, I'd like to point out that the Crusades were pretty much over by the late 1400's, and they started much the same way (http://www.medievalcrusades.com/ ) as this "holy war" is starting:

The year was 1095 CE, William the Conqueror had united England under one crown 30 years earlier.* The French had been dividing properties amongst their sons for generations, causing bloodshed between brothers over small pieces of real estate. In reaction, Pope Urban II expanded "The Truce of God", which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants on any day of the week. Italy was a collection of city-states, constantly being overrun by invading hordes, the latest of which were the Normans, who had just started to become "civilized".
There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.....

Rome, the "superpower" at the time, was reacting to the violence of others.

...However, I'd like to point out that if not, then he could have given a more balanced view by also quoting what medieval Byzantines had to say about the question of "spreading the faith through violence" as it applied to the Papacy.

Maybe you can cite that?

[Darat]

Pope Effigy burning has already begun in Pakistan, according to the news.

...snip...

Only just started? What's taken them so long we've been doing it over here for literally centuries...

[Bluegill]

They fly into buildings, not furies.

Wow. Not only is that in questionable taste, it's the funniest thing I think I've read in quite a while. :eye-poppi :D

[Tony]

How about we get the pope, a few cardinals and bishops and line them up against a team of mullahs. Arm the lot with sticks and stones and let 'em go for it. They're all scum.

Yes, they are all scum. They would do the world a big favor if they killed each other off.

[Darth Rotor]

Apparently it isn't just Islamic terrorists who prefer to remain in the Medieval era Era.
??

You lost me.

What did that have to do with the forcible conversion being a century's long dead practice among Papists?

DR

[Dave1001]

??

You lost me.

What did that have to do with the forcible conversion being a century's long dead practice among Papists?

DR

Come on, it's like staggered starting points when running a race. Islam gets a few hundred more years of it. :p

[The Atheist]

Like the Pope, do you wish to credit the above profound words to someone else, or do you take credit for them?

And why don't you grab your own arsenal of sticks and stones (since it appears to be your idea) and join the fray as the righteous, third alternative; the "balance of power and righteousness"?
Mate, I will take all the credit for it, thanks!

Join in? The pacifist in me says no, but the devil in me says, "Bring it on!" Can I bring some friends along? I know a couple of very angry, violent atheists who are really good at that sort of thing.

New book open too, Jocko:

Papists 40:1
Mullahs 20:1
Ex-rugby-player atheists: evens

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Apparently it isn't just Islamic terrorists who prefer to remain in the Medieval era Era.

??

You lost me.,,,

Let me try again:

Originally Posted by headscratcher4
Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.

In which century are we living, and how recently has the Catholic Church endorsed any conversion by the sword?...........

For further reference: (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1924650&postcount=12)

Well, the Pope's got a lot of answer for, as the Bible recomends wiping out nearby towns that worship different gods. This is a pot/kettle situation.

There are people out there other than Islamic terrorists who are looking back several hundred years at Christianity with the "kettle/pot" analogy instead of the current problem.

What did that have to do with the forcible conversion being a century's long dead practice among Papists?

That is precisely the point:

Catholicism hasn't committed the sins that Islam is currently committing for centuries. The Papacy (in accordance with the sacrament of Reconciliation) through the centuries has officially apologized for all kinds of wrongdoings. I'm not sure if Islam has ever recognized it's sins of the Medieval Era.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Like the Pope, do you wish to credit the above profound words to someone else, or do you take credit for them?

And why don't you grab your own arsenal of sticks and stones (since it appears to be your idea) and join the fray as the righteous, third alternative; the "balance of power and righteousness"?
Mate, I will take all the credit for it, thanks!

Noted.

Join in? The pacifist in me says no, but the devil in me says, "Bring it on!"

So, obviously (since this "stick and stone" fight is your suggestion here), "the devil" in you is what is speaking now?

Tell me more of "this devil" infesting an athiest........

Can I bring some friends along?

I suppose so. It's your stick and stone fight. I guess you make up your own rules.

I know a couple of very angry, violent atheists who are really good at that sort of thing.....

Oh, I'm sure you do.................

[bigred]

It's interesting that it's stressed that when the pope called Islam "evil and inhuman" they were not his own words, but we're not told the context in which he repeated them. If he followed them up with "And I agree with that!", then the reaction might be understandable. If he followed them with "And obviously that was wrong", then the reaction is not understandable. Unfortunately many Muslims seem to have a hair-trigger when it comes to aggressive reactions, and probably don't care about context. Not to mention being totally freakin loony tunes.

I vote for nukes. Since they will rant and rage and bomb no matter what, give them a legit reason.

[Darth Rotor]

Let me try again:
That is precisely the point:

So you were agreeing with me and responding to more points than just the one I was making.

Got it. I think. :)

DR

[Darat]

Is anyone surprised that the Pope should think less then favourably about Islam? For a start the Roman Catholic church's opinion on other Christian denominations is hardly the most cordial (i.e. they are all deficient) and perhaps even more of a concern for the Pope then just the fact they believe in something he considers to be false is that the "Islamic faith" (to include all the variations that call themselves Islamic) would appear to be his major competitor.

Although he is meant to represent the Prince of preemptive war Peace on earth I don't think that means he can't say nasty things about heathens!

[Darth Rotor]

Although he is meant to represent the Prince of preemptive war Peace on earth I don't think that means he can't say nasty things about heathens!
By his own doctrine, he can refer to the Mohamadens as followers of false prophets. :D I am sure that will unruffle all of the feathers. :rolleyes:

DR

[The Atheist]

So, obviously (since this "stick and stone" fight is your suggestion here), "the devil" in you is what is speaking now?

Tell me more of "this devil" infesting an athiest...
You'be been on a forum with all these atheists and sceptics and you haven't yet caught up to the fact that all atheists worship Satan?
Oh, I'm sure you do.................
It's ok, those guys are non-specific haters.

[The Atheist]

Is anyone surprised that the Pope should think less then favourably about Islam? For a start the Roman Catholic church's opinion on other Christian denominations is hardly the most cordial (i.e. they are all deficient) and perhaps even more of a concern for the Pope then just the fact they believe in something he considers to be false is that the "Islamic faith" (to include all the variations that call themselves Islamic) would appear to be his major competitor.

Although he is meant to represent the Prince of preemptive war Peace on earth I don't think that means he can't say nasty things about heathens!

<<<standing ovation>>>

[Mycroft]

How about we get the pope, a few cardinals and bishops and line them up against a team of mullahs. Arm the lot with sticks and stones and let 'em go for it. They're all scum.

Has anyone ever told you that you don't represent athiesm very well?

[The Atheist]

Has anyone ever told you that you don't represent athiesm very well?
Probably only two or three times a week, so not to speak of, no.

Please tell me in what manner one is required to "represent atheism". Not that it will bother me too much since I don't profess to "represent" atheism.

[Jocko]

I don't profess to "represent" atheism.

You may wish to reconsider your account name, then.

[Ziggurat]

Not that it will bother me too much since I don't profess to "represent" atheism.

Then why use the handle "[i]The[\i] Athiest", rather than "[i]An[\i] Athiest" or even just "Athiest"? Seems a little presumptuous to me.

[Huntster]

So you were agreeing with me and responding to more points than just the one I was making.

Yup.

Got it. I think. :)

Sorry for the poor wording/expression.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
So, obviously (since this "stick and stone" fight is your suggestion here), "the devil" in you is what is speaking now?

Tell me more of "this devil" infesting an athiest...

You'be been on a forum with all these atheists and sceptics and you haven't yet caught up to the fact that all atheists worship Satan?

Nope. In fact, I think I've been instructed otherwise.

Originally Posted by Huntster
Oh, I'm sure you do.................

It's ok, those guys are non-specific haters..

I'm still sure they're your friends.

[Almo]

Well, the Pope's got a lot of answer for, as the Bible recomends wiping out nearby towns that worship different gods. This is a pot/kettle situation.

Catholics in general are not Biblical Literalists. At least, not to my knowledge.

[The Atheist]

You may wish to reconsider your account name, then.Then why use the handle "[i]The[\i] Athiest", rather than "[i]An[\i] Athiest" or even just "Athiest"? Seems a little presumptuous to me.
"The Atheist" is to signify my singularity.

I would use "atheism" if I wished to convey any sort of representative status. Also, as I keep telling people, my current name goes well with my other screen name: Arrogant_B_Stard. The fact that other atheists dislike the way I do things is about as much a disincentive to me as it is that christians dislike it. As is being covered in several threads at the moment, atheism is beset by "soft" versions and namby-pamby, "let's befriend christians and explain the error of their ways" approaches. Religion is so insidious, so disgusting, that I choose to take a very in-your-face attitude to a scam which has been perpetrated on humans for a couple of thousand years.

I don't do soft versions.

[Dr Adequate]

There is more cogent analysis of the remarks in this two-sentence post than you will find in the entire islamic outrage to come. Well, yes. It'll be a strange day when I'm less cogent then 1.4 billion other people put together.

[geni]

Catholics in general are not Biblical Literalists. At least, not to my knowledge.

No it would tend to conflict with certian parts of catholic theology.

[Dr Adequate]

Maybe you can cite that? No, I just assumed that people usually resent genocide. Call me Mr Naive if you will.

[JayT]

If they go on a world wide murder rampage like a bunch of mad, rabid monkeys, then that would prove the Pope was right. But history already did that millions of times.

Both religions are the worst murderers and repressors of human rights and barriers to human and scientific progress in the history of the world.

All the worst dictators that ever lived didn't do 1% of the damage that religion alone has done to the world - and some of them, like Hitler and his clone, wannabe dictator, Bush, raved that religion was their driving force.

Due to their historic records, neither religion has anything to brag about and both owe the world an apology for their very existence.

The proven malignance of the existence of religions infinitely outweighs the proven worth of their existence.

Human civilization has advanced the most where religion has the least influence. The correlation is obvious.

Every time a suicide bomb kills a crowd of innocent people, you can bet that 99.999% of the time, a religion raving about the boundless love and mercy of god, is behind it.

Religious beliefs, actions and mental psychosis cannot be differentiated in terms of their respective characteristics. They are identical twins.

Do the Muslims EVER apologise or display world wide mass outrage for the atrocities done in the name of their religion? And why not?

This is America, God has sent one of the attacks by God and has attacked one of its best buildings. And this is America filled with fear from the north, south, east and west, thank God.

Osama bin Laden, 7 October 2001

The Pope owes them no apology whatsoever unless they do likewise. Both religions are as guilty as hell.

[Polaris]

If they go on a world wide murder rampage like a bunch of mad, rabid monkeys, then that would prove the Pope was right. But history already did that millions of times.

"Let rivers of infidel blood flow in the streets and make grieving widows of all their women for daring to say that Islam is violent and intolerant!"

Do the Muslims EVER apologise or display world wide mass outrage for the atrocities done in the name of their religion? And why not?

No, they don't, because one of the tenets of Islam is that it is perfect, and has nothing left to learn because the Koran is the word of God and intellectual progress is heresy. Hence the largest and longest-lasting empire in history is seen as a good thing, no matter how many millions of lives snuffed out and heritages destroyed. In fact, the time of its greatest expansion is known as the Golden Age in most history books, including Western. And a pedophile rapist cult leader and terrorist becomes the most perfect human being who will ever live.

[geni]

Both religions are the worst murderers and repressors of human rights

Nope communism wins hands down on that one (problem is chrisitianity only managed to start one major war in china which limits the numbers somewht)


and barriers to human and scientific progress in the history of the world.


Nah poverty illness and invadeing barbarians have tended to be a bigger problem.


All the worst dictators that ever lived didn't do 1% of the damage that religion alone has done to the world - and some of them, like Hitler and his clone, wannabe dictator, Bush, raved that religion was their driving force.


Stalin and Mao were athiests. They kinda deal with any inballence single handedly.


Due to their historic records, neither religion has anything to brag about and both owe the world an apology for their very existence.


No so. Islam lead to the cracking of monalphabetic cyphers. The curch came up with a calender that didn't lose days.


Human civilization has advanced the most where religion has the least influence.

It appears that the early civlisations were Theocracies


Every time a suicide bomb kills a crowd of innocent people,


Since this has never happened it doesn't really matter.


you can bet that 99.999% of the time, a religion raving about the boundless love and mercy of god, is behind it.


I wasn't aware that any of the relgions in early 1940's japan went in for love and mercy. At least not of enermies.


Do the Muslims EVER apologise or display world wide mass outrage for the atrocities done in the name of their religion? And why not?

Islam doesn't really have the world wide infrastucure to do that. There have been local cases. See Algeria.

[Dr Adequate]

"Let rivers of infidel blood flow in the streets and make grieving widows of all their women for daring to say that Islam is violent and intolerant!" But no-one actually said that, did they? You made that up.

No, they don't, because one of the tenets of Islam is that it is perfect, and has nothing left to learn because the Koran is the word of God and intellectual progress is heresy. Hence the largest and longest-lasting empire in history is seen as a good thing, no matter how many millions of lives snuffed out and heritages destroyed. In fact, the time of its greatest expansion is known as the Golden Age in most history books, including Western. But, dammit, it was a golden age. Do you suppose that these Western history books are all lying to you? Every successful empire has brought a golden age with it, no matter how bloody the establishment of the empire. To take a non-Islamic empire, Ghengis Khan was not a good man, but the Mongol Empire was a golden age. When, in those famous words, a virgin could walk unmolested from one end of the empire to the other, carrying a basket of gold. This is a slight exaggeration, but it conveys a fact. There are few empires that have not been boons to humanity. Maybe the Assyrians and the Aztecs.

As for your "tenets of Islam", those tenets did not prevent them from building a higher civilization than that of Europe, back in the day.

[Rob Lister]

There are few empires that have not been boons to humanity. Maybe the Assyrians and the Aztecs.

Let's leave out the more recent examples. One that allows, even encourages this:

[BPSCG]

Let's leave out the more recent examples. One that allows, even encourages this:I dunno, maybe some people aren't capable of self-government... :boggled:

[Rob Lister]

I dunno, maybe some people aren't capable of self-government... :boggled:

Boggled indeed. And destory any government that allows it seems to be the current islamic trend.

[Dr Adequate]

Let's leave out the more recent examples. One that allows, even encourages this: Please name the empire. A photograph of a man with his mouth open is not enough to identify it, whereas the name of the empire would be quite sufficient.

[geni]

I dunno, maybe some people aren't capable of self-government... :boggled:

You are learning admittedly slowly carry on at your current rate for a couple of decades and you will be able to do imperialism properly.

[Polaris]

But no-one actually said that, did they? You made that up.

That's correct, that's why I didn't attribute it to anybody.

But, dammit, it was a golden age. Do you suppose that these Western history books are all lying to you? Every successful empire has brought a golden age with it, no matter how bloody the establishment of the empire. To take a non-Islamic empire, Ghengis Khan was not a good man, but the Mongol Empire was a golden age. When, in those famous words, a virgin could walk unmolested from one end of the empire to the other, carrying a basket of gold. This is a slight exaggeration, but it conveys a fact. There are few empires that have not been boons to humanity. Maybe the Assyrians and the Aztecs.

As for your "tenets of Islam", those tenets did not prevent them from building a higher civilization than that of Europe, back in the day.

That "higher civilization" was based entirely on concepts and innovations that came from Europe and classical antiquity, which were foolishly squandered by the new Christian power. The vast majority of advances made by the Islamic system (I taste bile referring to anything Islamic as "civilized") were made by subject peoples, particularly Persians, and more often than not were opposed by the Islamic establishment.

What happened to the subject peoples of the Islamic empire was just as brutal and bloody as any other empire, but unlike the histories of other empires, it's taught as a good thing, because the conquered people became Muslims at peace with their overlords (conversion by the sword). Berbers, Persians, Indians, etc. had their societies irreparably changed, for the enduring worse, by Islam - and the results can still be seen today.

No, western history books aren't lying - but the common knowledge of Islam comes from Islamic sources which have a religious duty to portray everything done in the name of the faith as holy and wonderful. Only specialists who can read classical Arabic and study the primary sources can show the horror that the Islamic empire was. General historians aren't concerned with the minutae such as this.

[Tony]

Let's leave out the more recent examples. One that allows, even encourages this:

The look on that guy's face is comedic gold. Fanatics are funny when they're angry. :dl:

[WildCat]

Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.
That's true headscratcher. But does the church teach that as a good thing today? Are the killers revered for their bloody conversions? Look in any Islamic bookstore and look for one called "The Sword of Islam", or "Khalid bin Walid, the Sword of Islam". It's basically a childrens book, what 10 year olds would read in religion school. Details the bloody exploits of Muslim General Khalid bin Walid, and portays him as a hero for spreading Islam by the sword. Convert or die...

[Tony]

That's true headscratcher. But does the church teach that as a good thing today?

Is that relevant? No. The church today still reaps the benefits of its violent past.

[WildCat]

Is that relevant? No. The church today still reaps the benefits of its violent past.
I highlighted the important part for you Tony. Unless you're worried about slipping into some interdimensional vortex which takes you to medievel Europe you have no reason to fear bloodthirsty christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die. Or killing you for blasphemy or not properly worshipping jesus.

[Cylinder]

Muslims demand apology (http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200609/s1742400.htm)

Middle Eastern leaders and analysts have warned of a potentially violent backlash in the region to the Pope's remarks implicitly linking Islam to violence.

[Tony]

I highlighted the important part for you Tony.

Wrong, you highlighted the irrelevant part and failed to address the fact that the church still benefits from its violence. If the church were committed to non-violence, it would give-up its ill-gotten wealth. As usual, the church is a hypocrite and the useful idiots defend it.

you have no reason to fear bloodthirsty christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die. Or killing you for blasphemy or not properly worshipping jesus.

Do you have evidence for this claim?

[IllegalArgument]

I highlighted the important part for you Tony. Unless you're worried about slipping into some interdimensional vortex which takes you to medievel Europe you have no reason to fear bloodthirsty christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die. Or killing you for blasphemy or not properly worshipping jesus.


I don't get it, if we were discussion Scientology, we would be laughing are butts off.

Virgin birth, lol
Body of Christ, rofl

For some reason, it's because it's 2000 years, we cut it slack. Oh, it's not that bad, all that stuff it did was in the past.

If all the Scientologist collectively decided that their religion was a crock and stop believing. There would be a collective cheer on this board, at least from most of the folks, and a hardy "It's about time".

Christianity is an belief system without a shred of evidence to support it, just like Communism and Islam.

[Tony]

"Middle Eastern leaders and analysts have warned of a potentially violent backlash in the region to the Pope's remarks implicitly linking Islam to violence."

It’s an odd occurrence when reality more resembles something you'd think would only appear in the Onion.

[Rob Lister]

I don't get it, if we were discussion Scientology, we would be laughing are butts off.

Virgin birth, lol
Body of Christ, rofl

For some reason, it's because it's 2000 years, we cut it slack. Oh, it's not that bad, all that stuff it did was in the past.

If all the Scientologist collectively decided that their religion was a crock and stop believing. There would be a collective cheer on this board, at least from most of the folks, and a hardy "It's about time".

Christianity is an belief system without a shred of evidence to support it, just like Communism and Islam.


I can't figure what's not to get. Fact is, christians don't hold a sword to your neck and demand, 'convert or die', yet the powers that be the center of islam still do.

[Tony]

I can't figure what's not to get. Fact is, christians don't hold a sword to your neck and demand, 'convert or die', yet the powers that be the center of islam still do.

Who is this "your"? Do you have personal experience of a muslim holding a sword to your neck and demanding that you convert? I have had an experience of a christian threatening me with violence because I was a non-christian. So, the fact is, you're wrong. Both religions are evil and are capable of violence; the evidence to support this is overwhelming. It's sheer political correctness to claim that christianity is non-violent.

[WildCat]

Wrong, you highlighted the irrelevant part and failed to address the fact that the church still benefits from its violence. If the church were committed to non-violence, it would give-up its ill-gotten wealth. As usual, the church is a hypocrite and the useful idiots defend it.
Sorry, I don't believe in responsibility for the sins of ancestors. And going back 500 years is just ludicrous.

Do you have evidence for this claim?
You don't read the papers much, do you?

Convert or die (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-08-27T092037Z_01_L24549716_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-GAZA-KIDNAPPINGS.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-1).

Death for not being a good Muslim (http://www.iranian.ws/iran_news/publish/article_17301.shtml).

[WildCat]

I don't get it, if we were discussion Scientology, we would be laughing are butts off.

Virgin birth, lol
Body of Christ, rofl

For some reason, it's because it's 2000 years, we cut it slack. Oh, it's not that bad, all that stuff it did was in the past.

If all the Scientologist collectively decided that their religion was a crock and stop believing. There would be a collective cheer on this board, at least from most of the folks, and a hardy "It's about time".

Christianity is an belief system without a shred of evidence to support it, just like Communism and Islam.
We'd be laughing if Scientologists were threatening death to those who insult them? Sorry, I don't laugh at dangerous religious fanatics of any stripe.

And I'm an atheist btw.

[Tony]

Sorry, I don't believe in responsibility for the sins of ancestors. And going back 500 years is just ludicrous.


The church is the church. It's the same institution today as it was back then. And you don't have to go back 500 years. There are 20th century examples of Christianity’s violence.

You don't read the papers much, do you?

You don't read (your own post) beyond a fifth grade level, do you?

you have no reason to fear bloodthirsty christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die. Or killing you for blasphemy or not properly worshipping jesus.

Your claim was concerning christianity, not islam. I ask again, do you have evidence that I have no reason to fear "christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die"? Because, judging by history and personal experience, I do.

[WildCat]

Your claim was concerning christianity, not islam. I ask again, do you have evidence that I have no reason to fear "christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die"? Because, judging by history and personal experience, I do.
You forgot to include the part about traveling back in time to medievel Europe. Or do you have any evidence at all of forced conversions to christanity under threat of death in recent times? Didn't think so.

[Tony]

Sorry, I don't laugh at dangerous religious fanatics of any stripe.

I do. They're stupid and deluded. It only serves to help their morale if you fear them and/or take them seriously.

[WildCat]

I do. They're stupid and deluded. It only serves to help their morale if you fear them and/or take them seriously.
In your last post you said you were afraid of being forcibly converted. Now you say you laugh about it... :confused:

[Tony]

You forgot to include the part about traveling back in time to medievel Europe.

I don't include non-relevant red herrings.

Or do you have any evidence at all of forced conversions to christanity under threat of death in recent times.

You have yet to demonstrate how that's relevant.

[Tony]

In your last post you said you were afraid of being forcibly converted.

No I didn't.

[Skeptic]

Side-stepping away from the "controversy"....The Pope (or at least the Catholic church) condeming a doctrine of "violent" conversion? Kettle meet black! There are a whole lot of countries largely catholic today because of a policy of violent conversion and enforced religion...but one religion's violent convesion is another religions bringing the heathan/infidel to god.

Yes, of course, but the problem is, there's a significant movement in Islam today that is still doing just this, while no Catholics are going to revive the Inquisition.

[WildCat]

No I didn't.
I ask again, do you have evidence that I have no reason to fear "christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die"? Because, judging by history and personal experience, I do.
:rolleyes:

[Skeptic]

Folks, you're missing the point.

To riot and kill in reaction for criticism about you violent is not illogical. It is only illogical if your goal is to prove the criticism false and prove that you aren't violent. This is not the Islamists' goal. Their goal is simply to frighten people enough so nobody would dare to criticize (their version of) Islam about anything. Whether the criticism is true or not is simply immaterial. To achieve this goal, showing they are violent and irrational is very effective.

If the pope had declared that, in his view, Islamists have bad taste in clothes, or that he doesn't like the climate in many Arab states, the reaction would have been the same. Come to think of it, we'd be getting the same apologists who "understand" the Islamists' reaction: they would note that the pope wears a dress, or claiming that in the past--during the Ice Age--the weather in the Sahara was much better than the one in France, so that his criticism of Islamic dress or weather is a case of "the pot calling the kettle black".

[Kopji]

The Pope's talk is not very long and is worth reading.

But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf

I am a little confused though why the Pope brought the Muslims into his talk. He is not a stupid guy, but he seems to be using Islam as a counterpoint to what he sees is a more rational (logos) alternative of Christianity. He's not the easiest person to understand, but not the hardest either.

The violent reaction seems to refute a point the Pope has been trying to make for a few months about secular philosophy & science needing religion, and science and ethics being a failure without it.

The thing I would ask is - can religion ever exist without these violent and irrational elements? If it can't that seems like a counter argument to his position. What if the Pope is wrong, and religion carries within it the seeds of our destruction, just as he seems to think that secularism does.

Or maybe his point is that what he really meant is that reasonable people should all be Christians, in which case he is sleeping in the bed he's made.

[asthmatic camel]

In an ideal world, the Pope would be able to discuss any issue without causing so much trouble. Unfortunately, he doesn't live in an ideal world, and he's hardly made it any better by publicly quoting ancient comments which he must have known were going to anger many Muslims.

It's a fair bet that people are going to die as a result of this debacle and that saddens me. The man may be a gifted scholar, theologist and philosopher but he's no diplomat, and that should be a requirement for someone who holds such an influential position.

[mummymonkey]

Back in April this year:

Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, an expert on Islam and the Arab world, has lost his job as head of the department that promotes dialogue with other religions, and is now papal nuncio in Egypt. As a long-time Vatican observer, Father Thomas Reese is in no doubt the move was a demotion.
"The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he says. "He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them. "If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.

BBC Story from April. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4902640.stm)

[brumsen]

Unfortunately, he doesn't live in an ideal world, and he's hardly made it any better by publicly quoting ancient comments which he must have known were going to anger many Muslims.
Exactly. Apart from whether what he said was right, was it necessary to present it in this way, in order to make the point that Roman Catholics don't (anymore) believe in conversion by the sword?
Oil on the flames.

[Skeptic]

In an ideal world, the Pope would be able to discuss any issue without causing so much trouble. Unfortunately, he doesn't live in an ideal world, and he's hardly made it any better by publicly quoting ancient comments which he must have known were going to anger many Muslims.

It's a fair bet that people are going to die as a result of this debacle and that saddens me. The man may be a gifted scholar, theologist and philosopher but he's no diplomat, and that should be a requirement for someone who holds such an influential position.

So what you can, or cannot, say should depend on how violent the reaction to your words would be?

Isn't that exactly what the Islamists want?

"The Pope's worst decision so far has been the exiling of Archbishop Fitzgerald," he says. "He was the smartest guy in the Vatican on relations with Muslims. You don't exile someone like that, you listen to them. "If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.

No doubt he is correct about the facts, but perhaps the Pope's decision to "demote" him (if that is in fact what it is) is to make clear that he will not be cowed by Islamists' threats of violence in deciding what he can or cannot say?

Still, I predict that the more violent and thuggish and extreme the Islamists' reaction is, the more we are going to hear people who are going to put the blame squarely on the Pope, who should have known they'd react that way and therefore shouldn't have said it.

And the little wife should have known not having supper ready when hubby gets home will make him beat her half to death; it's all her fault.

[asthmatic camel]

Skeptic, believe me, I'm no lover of Islam (or any religion.) However, I am a lover of people and hate to see them being maimed and killed. Inflammatory remarks made by people as powerful as the Pope don't help anyone to lead a more comfortable existence.

It seems to me that we should take a pragmatic approach towards religion, fanaticism and downright insanity. It's not possible to rid the planet of everyone who doesn't think rationally without blowing the planet to bits. Get rid of religion and people will find other things to fight about; always have, always will.

Damage limitation is the order of the day.

[webfusion]

This item just in:

The Italian defense minister Arturo Parisi, who visited Italian forces at Ras a-Maroun in South Lebanon, reminded them that alQaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri this week stated that UNIFIL forces in Lebanon faced attack as “enemies of Islam.” (http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?id=2759)

Not that they need any excuse, but now these jihadists certainly have one, courtesy of the Pope in Rome.

It doesn't surprise me in the least to see reports that a huge attack upon the UNIFIL forces is about to erupt...
(while small fires are already burning ----- (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/763199.html))

[Tony]

:rolleyes:


You're exhibiting your fifth grade reading level again, read and learn:

I ask again, do you have evidence that I have no reason to fear "christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die"? Because, judging by history and personal experience, I do.

I was saying that I have a reason to fear, not that I do fear. You need to read more carefully in the future.

[Tony]

Yes, of course, but the problem is, there's a significant movement in Islam today that is still doing just this, while no Catholics are going to revive the Inquisition.

Just because they lack the power to do so doesn't mean they lack the desire.

[Darat]

I highlighted the important part for you Tony. Unless you're worried about slipping into some interdimensional vortex which takes you to medievel Europe you have no reason to fear bloodthirsty christians holding a sword to your neck and asking you whether you want to convert or die. Or killing you for blasphemy or not properly worshipping jesus.

Is 11 years ago too far in the past to be relevant? I.e. the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Bosnia?

[Skeptic]

I am a lover of people too. Therefore, we should take a prgamtic approach towards wife-beating: let's make sure the little wife always has supper ready on time, because we would hate her inflammatory behavior to get her maimed or killed.

After all, it's not possible to rid the world of all wife-beaters, and women get killed for being uppity and disoeying their husbands all the time. Hence the strategy should be to teach women to be as obedient as possible; damage limitation is the order of the day.

[Mojo]

You're right. Mr Eugenides links to a USAToday article that doesn't have such a quote. He does give a hat tip to Drinking From Home (http://drinkingfromhome.blogspot.com/2006/09/annan-in-cuba.html) which does have the quote, but I don't know how accurate it is. When it comes to quoting religious fundies, sometimes satire doesn't get anywhere near as crazy as the real thing.Maybe he's fixed it in the meantime, but it now links to a Grauniad story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6082667,00.html) containing the quotation in question. Even better, it continues: Aslam said Muslims had a long history of tolerance...It would appear that Islam is capable of changing its nature.

[Darat]

I can't figure what's not to get. Fact is, christians don't hold a sword to your neck and demand, 'convert or die', yet the powers that be the center of islam still do.

Yes they do.

It is just we often seem to ignore the "Christan" part when looking at other conflicts. I'm often surprised that many people seem to be able to understand that religion is only one factor in conflicts (that involve Christians) but when someone is a Muslim that seems to be only important characteristic.

For example of what I mean look at the civil war that hopefully has just come to an end in Uganda and the utter brutality of the Lords Resistance Army (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army).

[asthmatic camel]

I am a lover of people too. Therefore, we should take a prgamtic approach towards wife-beating: let's make sure the little wife always has supper ready on time, because we would hate her inflammatory behavior to get her maimed or killed.

After all, it's not possible to rid the world of all wife-beaters, and women get killed for being uppity and disoeying their husbands all the time. Hence the strategy should be to teach women to be as obedient as possible; damage limitation is the order of the day.

Skeptic, I understand what you're saying but don't think your metaphor is particularly appropriate. What's your answer to this problem? Kill everyone who even once displays the slightest degree of aggression? That would involve killing everybody on the planet.

[Darat]

Maybe he's fixed it in the meantime, but it now links to a Grauniad story (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6082667,00.html) containing the quotation in question. Even better, it continues: It would appear that Islam is capable of changing its nature.

Thanks for that article - slight aside - it really bugs me these days with on-line articles that they still often do not provide a link to the statements they take their quotes from.

[BPSCG]

Back in April this year:"If the Vatican says something dumb about Muslims, people will die in parts of Africa and churches will be burned in Indonesia, let alone what happens in the Middle East.
BBC Story from April. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4902640.stm)And that's the pope's fault?

A says something B doesn't like. B decides then to go and kill C, a friend of A.

And you blame A? :confused:

[BPSCG]

Exactly. Apart from whether what he said was right, was it necessary to present it in this way, in order to make the point that Roman Catholics don't (anymore) believe in conversion by the sword?
Oil on the flames.But why does Islam have to be so inflammable to begin with? People here - and I'm sure elsewhere - point to Christianity's violent past all the time. Yet no one gets threatened as a result.

Okay, maybe Tony. Given Tony's "live and let live" attitude towards religion, I'd be fascinated to hear how the exchange actually went down when the Christian supposedly threatened him. I'm thinking it probably started something like this:

"Good morning friend! Have you heard the good news about Jesus?"
"@#$% you, you goddam #$%^..."

... and headed south from there...

[WildCat]

You're exhibiting your fifth grade reading level again, read and learn:



I was saying that I have a reason to fear, not that I do fear. You need to read more carefully in the future.
Now it is you making the positive claim - that you have reason to fear being forcibly converted to christianity - so now the burden of proof is upon you.

[zenith-nadir]

But why does Islam have to be so inflammable to begin with? People here - and I'm sure elsewhere - point to Christianity's violent past all the time. Yet no one gets threatened as a result.I find the repeated over-reaction of muslims very disturbing. What "they" want "us" to do is to subjugate to their belief systems.

For instance, write a book like Salman Rushdie...pass a fatwa to murder him. Produce a film criticizing the treatment of women under Islam like Theo van Gogh...stab and shoot him. Draw a few cartoons of Allah....burn down your embassies.

I for one refuse to subjugate.

[WildCat]

Is 11 years ago too far in the past to be relevant? I.e. the massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Bosnia?
Were they asked to convert to Christianity to avoid being killed? Or was the reason for their deaths something else entirely, long-running ethnic hatred perhaps?

I'm specifically talking about forcible conversions, Khalid bin Walid style.

[mr_fidget]

If anyone is interested, according to La Republica online, the Pope has apologised, well sort of.

The article reports that a spokesperson for the Pope, a cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has read a statement in which he says that (loosely translated) the Pope “ is deeply contrived that some parts of his speech might have sounded offensive to Muslims and that those were interpreted not as he intended them.”

The cardinal also says that the speech was meant to be about violence and religion and the refusal of fundamentalism violence .

[mrfreeze]

Islam doesn't really have the world wide infrastucure to do that. There have been local cases. See Algeria.

I live about 10 miles outside of Dearborn Michigan, which has a rather large Muslim population, and apparently a group of mosques bought tv time to run ads saying that they in no way agree with all the violent stupidity being done by those overseas. Go figure, I guess I lucked out and got to live near the sane ones.

[Pyrrho]

The Pope, being one of the most powerful men on earth, leader of a huge religion, must be smart enough to have known that the 14th-century remarks he publicly cited would result in outrage from Islamic leaders, Muslims, and Islamic terrorists. The question I have is, "Why seek to further outrage an already outraged group of people? Why seek to alienate Muslims?" He had to have known what the response would be. Sure, he owes Muslims an apology--for referring to the statements from the 14th century and for the "We didn't mean to offend anyone," defense. Sure he meant to offend Muslims; otherwise, he wouldn't have done what he did.

On the other hand, if he really is that stupid, he ought to resign immediately.

I wonder what his political game is. Maybe he want to see Armageddon played out during his lifetime or something.

[Foolmewunz]

A relevant derail (or at minimum, a tangent).

What's the chance that THIS Pope didn't know exactly what he was doing? I have trouble believing that this was an innocent recitation. The speech was purportedly to an academic audience and if you read it through he's more concerned with one of the current Church's more odious preoccupations, pushing the church away from logic, reasoning, and science and more to a faith based religion. See also various threads on the moves to support ID and to demote anyone who promotes evolution. How similar is that to the dismissal of Fitzpatrick? He's cleaning house and those who do not support his reactionary doctrine are being removed.

Be that as it may, to just what purpose do you bring up a six hundred year old dissertation (and then effectively abandon it) in a structured lecture to academics on the Hellenization or De-Hellenization of Christianity/Catholicism? I'm not a theologian by a far cry, but I cannot see the relevance of the portion on the spread of religion by violence to the topic he was addressing. As such, I have to think he had his own reasons for doing this. Like the cop shows before CSI... I always look to motive. I can't find one, frankly, unless he's trying to draw very well-defined lines in the sand. (I do NOT think he did it to incite violence or reaction. But, I truly can think of no rational explanation for choosing this strange moment to make such a statement.)

[Pyrrho]

Sure he knew. My guess is he's bored and wants to foment war as a bit of light relief.

[Foolmewunz]

Sure he knew. My guess is he's bored and wants to foment war as a bit of light relief.

Sorry if we were double-posting inadvertently. I think we were typing at the same time - I actually checked seconds before hitting "Post Reply" to see if the topic had been broached yet.

[stamenflicker]

The church is the church. It's the same institution today as it was back then. And you don't have to go back 500 years. There are 20th century examples of Christianity’s violence.

A large part of the Rwanda genocide can be attributed to Christians, as can the conflicts in Serbia.

Even so, it is uncategorically ignorant to think the situation in Islam is remotely comparable. Attempts to unify Christianity and Islam in violent activities is typical of the apologist leftist campaign to make these people less evil than they really are.

[BPSCG]

As such, I have to think he had his own reasons for doing this. Like the cop shows before CSI... I always look to motive. I can't find one, frankly, unless he's trying to draw very well-defined lines in the sand. My sense of it (and hope) is that that's exactly what he was doing. His predecessor did the same with communism. The soviets tried to murder John Paul II for that. Will history repeat itself?

[IllegalArgument]

My sense of it (and hope) is that that's exactly what he was doing. His predecessor did the same with communism. The soviets tried to murder John Paul II for that. Will history repeat itself?

I was not aware they tried to kill him.

Do you have a link for that?

I'm curious, though not surprised.

[asthmatic camel]

I find the repeated over-reaction of muslims very disturbing. What "they" want "us" to do is to subjugate to their belief systems.

For instance, write a book like Salman Rushdie...pass a fatwa to murder him. Produce a film criticizing the treatment of women under Islam like Theo van Gogh...stab and shoot him. Draw a few cartoons of Allah....burn down your embassies.

I for one refuse to subjugate.

I find it disturbing, too. The problem is that there are over a billion Muslims around, and they're not going to disappear overnight simply because others disagree with their beliefs.

What's the sensible thing to do when you spot a hornets' nest; give it a bloody good kick?

[BPSCG]

I was not aware they tried to kill him.

Do you have a link for that?

I'm curious, though not surprised.Lots of controversy surrounding it, including conspiracy theories involving the CIA and the Masons (:eek:). Most recent developments:
In March 2006, an Italian parliamentary commission supported the Bulgarian theory. The "Mitrokhin commission", as it was known, was opened up after KGB agent Vasili Mitrokhin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Mitrokhin)'s 1992 defection to the West, and was led by Senator Paolo Guzzanti (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Paolo_Guzzanti&action=edit), a member of Berlusconi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silvio_Berlusconi)'s Forza Italia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Italia). The report concluded that "leaders of the former Soviet Union were behind the assassination attempt", alleging that "the leadership of the Soviet Union took the initiative to eliminate Pope John Paul" because of his support for Solidarity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity), relaying "this decision to the military secret services" (and not the KGB) [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Ali_Agca#_note-12). The report's claims were based on recent computer analysis of photographs that purported to demonstrate Antonov's presence in St Peter's Square during the shooting and on information brought by French judge Jean-Louis Bruguières (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jean-Louis_Brugui%C3%A8res&action=edit). Both Russia and Bulgaria condemned the report. ""For Bulgaria, this case closed with the court decision in Rome in March 1986," Foreign Ministry spokesman Dimitar Tsanchev said, while also recalling the Pope's comments during his May 2002 visit to Bulgaria [16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mehmet_Ali_Agca#_note-13). Senator Guzzanti said that the commission had decided to re-open the report's chapter on the assassination attempt in 2005, after the Pope wrote about it in his last book, Memory and Identity: Conversations Between Millenniums. The Pope wrote that he was convinced the shooting was not Ağca's initiative and that "someone else masterminded it and someone else commissioned it".If you really want to get CT-ist about this, you can adopt the CT'ers favorite tactic of posing a question as evidence: "Is it just coincidence that the Soviet Union's two most powerful antagonists, John Paul II and Ronald Reagan, were targets of assasination attempts within a few months of each other? How do you explain that?" :rolleyes:

[IllegalArgument]

I find it disturbing, too. The problem is that there are over a billion Muslims around, and they're not going to disappear overnight simply because others disagree with their beliefs.

What's the sensible thing to do when you spot a hornets' nest; give it a bloody good kick?

The popes comments make sense, if he thinks that people don't realize it's a hornets nest.

Kicking it reveals it's true nature.

Just my speculation.

[BPSCG]

What's the sensible thing to do when you spot a hornets' nest in your garage, and there are hornets flying around your house and periodically, one or two of them stings you, and occasionally, a bunch of them come after you, and they all seem to be very perturbed?Fixed it for you.

[superscaper]

while no Catholics are going to revive the Inquisition.

Well nobody expects the Inquisition. Their main tool is surprise.......

[Pyrrho]

Sorry if we were double-posting inadvertently. I think we were typing at the same time - I actually checked seconds before hitting "Post Reply" to see if the topic had been broached yet.
Like minds run in the same gutter. ;)

[Pyrrho]

The Pope's lecture, with his remarks in context:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

His remarks about reason, theology, and the sciences are relevant to skepticism:


And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is - as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector - the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically verifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Bolded for emphasis.

[RyanRoberts]

Phyrro, I assume he said it because it needs to be said, as loudly and repeatedly as possible. The Jihadist ideology that forms part of mainstream Islam must be confronted. If no one (except for jihadi recruiters and agitators behind mosque doors) can even mention it, how on earth do you expect us to form a coherent response?

[Skeptic]

Skeptic, I understand what you're saying but don't think your metaphor is particularly appropriate. What's your answer to this problem? Kill everyone who even once displays the slightest degree of aggression?

No. Simply to do one's best not to bow down to the demands of those who see terror and violence as the way to force other to say or not say things they disagree with.

I am not suggesting that all abusive husbands should be executed, either; but surely it's not as if the wife's only two options are slavish obedience or murder, is it?

[alfaniner]

This is gonna be bad...

I predict bombings in Italy especially. Some nutjob will probably do it at a large gathering in St. Peter's Square.

[DaChew]

As a dhimmi, the Pope must not say anything even remotely disparaging about Islam even if it is not his own words. Even if he does not agree with them. He is not supposed to be saying anything about Islam at all unless he intends to convert. People of the books may live in peace with Islam as long as they follow the proper rules which include submission to a lower class status and payment of jizya. Here's a photo of a demonstration which illustrates that the Pope has indeed stepped outside his boundries as a dhimmi.

One question: The yellow sign saying "Jihad is hump of Islam". Anyone want to take a stab at explaining that?

[Skeptic]

As a dhimmi, the Pope must not say anything even remotely disparaging about Islam even if it is not his own words. Even if he does not agree with them. He is not supposed to be saying anything about Islam at all unless he intends to convert. People of the books may live in peace with Islam as long as they follow the proper rules which include submission to a lower class status and payment of jizya. Here's a photo of a demonstration which illustrates that the Pope has indeed stepped outside his boundries as a dhimmi.

One question: The yellow sign saying "Jihad is the hump of Islam". Anyone want to take a stab at explaining that?

Unless it's some obscure reference to camels, I suppose that's a misspelling of "hope". They also seem not to realize that "within" is one word, not two.

[WildCat]

One question: The yellow sign saying "Jihad is hump of Islam". Anyone want to take a stab at explaining that?
A camel carries its load on its hump, so jihad is necessary to carry Islam forward? Just a WAG. And probably wrong. :confused:

[Pyrrho]

Good article here:

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=38459

[Darth Rotor]

The church is the church. It's the same institution today as it was back then. And you don't have to go back 500 years.
False.

The Church (if you mean the RCC) is significantly different in 2006 from The Curch in 1506. Between the successful splits of the various sects begun during the Reformation, the loss of England (and then the Netherlands and much of the North German Plain) as part of the greater Catholic polity, and the continued erosion of both political and moral / spiritual authority in the generally "Christian" world, it is a less powerful organization.

The Church underwent a significant internal change during the Second Ecumenical council, early 1960's.

As to "violence," 500 years ago, the Church had a number of states that were held in fief, the Papal States, from which it could raise soldiers and undertake military campaigns. That capability has been unavailable since at least 1870, though more practically from the time of Napoleon (IMO, historians differ a bit on this)

You can argue cases of "war or influence by proxy" and I won't disagree. To assert that the RCC is the same organization it was 500 years ago is to fundamentally misunderstand what has happened in Christianity for the past 500 years, and its decline in political affairs.

It was either Hitler or Stalin, upon being asked "what the Pope thought" about a policy to be undertaken, who is said to have replied:

"How many divisions does he have?"

The answer then as now: zero.

DR

[Tony]

Now it is you making the positive claim - that you have reason to fear being forcibly converted to christianity - so now the burden of proof is upon you.

I have no need to prove to myself that I have reason to fear, I have the first hand experiences.

[Tony]

False.

The Church (if you mean the RCC) is significantly different in 2006 from The Curch in 1506. Between the successful splits of the various sects begun during the Reformation, the loss of England (and then the Netherlands and much of the North German Plain) as part of the greater Catholic polity, and the continued erosion of both political and moral / spiritual authority in the generally "Christian" world, it is a less powerful organization.

The Church underwent a significant internal change during the Second Ecumenical council, early 1960's.

As to "violence," 500 years ago, the Church had a number of states that were held in fief, the Papal States, from which it could raise soldiers and undertake military campaigns. That capability has been unavailable since at least 1870, though more practically from the time of Napoleon (IMO, historians differ a bit on this)

You can argue cases of "war or influence by proxy" and I won't disagree. To assert that the RCC is the same organization it was 500 years ago is to fundamentally misunderstand what has happened in Christianity for the past 500 years, and its decline in political affairs.

It was either Hitler or Stalin, upon being asked "what the Pope thought" about a policy to be undertaken, who is said to have replied:

"How many divisions does he have?"

The answer then as now: zero.

DR


You misunderstand. I know the church has change, but it still remains the church. It is the same organization, the just lack the power they once had.

[Tony]

Even so, it is uncategorically ignorant to think the situation in Islam is remotely comparable. Attempts to unify Christianity and Islam in violent activities is typical of the apologist leftist campaign to make these people less evil than they really are.

You have an ad hom and an unsupported claim. I'm not impressed.

[Tony]

The popes comments make sense, if he thinks that people don't realize it's a hornets nest.

Kicking it reveals it's true nature.

Just my speculation.

Excellent point.

[Darat]

A large part of the Rwanda genocide can be attributed to Christians, as can the conflicts in Serbia.

Even so, it is uncategorically ignorant to think the situation in Islam is remotely comparable. Attempts to unify Christianity and Islam in violent activities is typical of the apologist leftist campaign to make these people less evil than they really are.

Yet I see terrible, disgusting brutal and totally inhumane acts being committed by both Christians and Muslims. The common denominator would appear not to be the religion but the fact that they are people.

Some people who say they worship the Prince of raping children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army) Peace and some people who say they follow the Religion of we will kill your children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beslan_school_hostage_crisis) seem equally evil to me.

[Iamme]

....... that unless I've been mislead the Koran does say you should take the sword to unbelievers.

And unless I too have been misled, the Bible says plenty bad things that we should do against our fellow unbelieving 'man', in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy. BUT...there is not one current Christian (or maybe even a Jew) (that I am aware of, anyway) that condones that which is written there...unlike the Mulsim fanatic who can't let go of some of the old weird teachings in the Koran.

[zenith-nadir]

...and it begins...

Sep 16 12:31 PM US/Eastern (http://www.breitbart.com/news/na/cp_w091615A.xml.html)

5 churches attacked in Palestinian areas following Pope's comments on Islam

ALI DARAGHMEH NABLUS, West Bank (AP) - Palestinians wielding guns and firebombs attacked five churches in the West Bank and Gaza on Saturday, following remarks by Pope Benedict that angered many Muslims.

No injuries were reported in the attacks, which left church doors charred and walls pockmarked with bullet holes and scorched by firebombs. Churches of various denominations were targeted.

Who exactly does this show of violence actually hurt? The Pope? No. The Catholic church? Nope. Christian Palestinians who worship at these West Bank churches?...yes.

Ahhhh...good old Palestine... :rolleyes:

[Ziggurat]

The popes comments make sense, if he thinks that people don't realize it's a hornets nest.

Kicking it reveals it's true nature.

Just my speculation.

I agree. Not that I didn't already recognize the nature of Islamic radicals, but to me their protest signs kind of translate like this:

http://bamapachyderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/showletter.JPG

[Mycroft]

The Pope, being one of the most powerful men on earth, leader of a huge religion, must be smart enough to have known that the 14th-century remarks he publicly cited would result in outrage from Islamic leaders, Muslims, and Islamic terrorists. The question I have is, "Why seek to further outrage an already outraged group of people? Why seek to alienate Muslims?" He had to have known what the response would be. Sure, he owes Muslims an apology--for referring to the statements from the 14th century and for the "We didn't mean to offend anyone," defense. Sure he meant to offend Muslims; otherwise, he wouldn't have done what he did.

On the other hand, if he really is that stupid, he ought to resign immediately.

I wonder what his political game is. Maybe he want to see Armageddon played out during his lifetime or something.

I think to force Islam to confront its own violence.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html


Somali cleric calls for pope's death

A HARDLINE cleric linked to Somalia's powerful Islamist movement has called for Muslims to "hunt down" and kill Pope Benedict XVI for his controversial comments about Islam.

Eventually shame and embarrassment has got to produce a fundamental shift in Islamic thinking.

[Mycroft]

One question: The yellow sign saying "Jihad is hump of Islam". Anyone want to take a stab at explaining that?

Unless it's some obscure reference to camels, I suppose that's a misspelling of "hope". They also seem not to realize that "within" is one word, not two.

My first guess would be mistranslation of hump/pillar. Jihad is a pillar of Ilsam makes sense.

[Kopji]

They sure need a sense of irony.

The Pope's talk was about secular science needing religion, because religion is required for ideas like ethics and love. La la la la I can't heeeear yoooou.

[Skeptic]

Eventually shame and embarrassment has got to produce a fundamental shift in Islamic thinking.

Don't hold your breath.

Oh, and By the way... (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1157913641658&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Mujahideen's Army threatens Pope with suicide attack

On a website used by rebel movements in Iraq, a message posted by the Mujahideen's Army said members of the organization would "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome."

Surpise, surprise, surprise.

By the way: how long since the church burning in the WB and Gaza will be blamed on the "root cause" of "the occupation" (despite the fact that Gaza isn't occupied) and the Muhahideen's statements on "the illegal invasion of Iraq"?

It probably already happened.

[peptoabysmal]

I find it disturbing, too. The problem is that there are over a billion Muslims around, and they're not going to disappear overnight simply because others disagree with their beliefs.

What's the sensible thing to do when you spot a hornets' nest; give it a bloody good kick?
The other options are let it grow bigger or use a suitable method to destroy it. I'm not sure that I want to equate insects and humans.

[Beerina]

Mujahideen's Army threatens Pope with suicide attack

On a website used by rebel movements in Iraq, a message posted by the Mujahideen's Army said members of the organization would "smash the crosses in the house of the dog from Rome."


So it's true then. "How dare you say Islam is a religion of violence that kills people opposed to it!!! WE WILL KILL YOU FOR THIS!!! :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes:

[RyanRoberts]

Irony is hump of reason.

[Solus]

So it's true then. "How dare you say Islam is a religion of violence that kills people opposed to it!!! WE WILL KILL YOU FOR THIS!!! :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled: :rolleyes: :boggled:

Funny stuff:D exactly I what was thinking.

[zenith-nadir]

As if firing automatic weapons and thowing firebombs at churches in the West Bank wasn't low enough on the scum scale... :rolleyes:

Italian nun shot dead by Somali gunmen (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_re_af/somalia_nun_killed) - Sept 17th 2006

MOGADISHU, Somalia - An Italian nun was shot dead at a hospital by Somali gunmen Sunday, hours after a leading Muslim cleric condemned Pope Benedict XVI for his remarks on Islam and violence.

The nun, who was not immediately identified, was shot in the back at S.O.S. Hospital in northern Mogadishu by two gunmen, said Mohamed Yusuf, a doctor at the facility, which serves mothers and children. The nun's bodyguard and a hospital worker were also killed, doctors said.(emphasis all mine)

What brave brave men these folks are who shoot nuns IN THE FRIKKIN' BACK inside HOSPITALS.

[Darth Rotor]

You misunderstand. I know the church has change, but it still remains the church. It is the same organization, the just lack the power they once had.
OK, but the violence bit still needs a bit of clarity.

Did the Papacy incite or benefit from the two great wars of Europe, 1914-1918 and 1939-1945? No. Did the Pope seek to start either? I am pretty sure No in 1914, though

I am at a loss about 1939.

The Red Scares of the1930's were felt in places other than the US. Even if the Pope would have supported the attack on Communist (and previously Russian Orthodox) Russia/USSR, the outcome was massively damaging to Catholicism and the Papacy: Communism (anti Christian, pro atheist) was strengthened tenfold by Soviet success in WW II.

If anyone knows of some good (well researched) sources on this, I'd be much obliged.

DR

[Infinite]

Well I watched the live "apology" this morning, while I was flipping channels I happen to see it and it didn't seem like much of an apology. He simply mentions again that he was quoting from text. In other words .... "you guys wrote the stuff, so...." That was his true response.

[Dr Adequate]

Even so, it is uncategorically ignorant to think the situation in Islam is remotely comparable. Attempts to unify Christianity and Islam in violent activities ... The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA. How about you?

... is typical of the apologist leftist campaign to make these people less evil than they really are. Here's another leftist apologist.

"Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn't follow the great traditions of Islam. They've hijacked a great religion."

"The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That's not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace."

"Islam, as practiced by the vast majority of people, is a peaceful religion, a religion that respects others."

His name is Bush (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55273-2002Nov29?language=printer), you may have heard of him.

[WildCat]

The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA. How about you?
Are you claiming that the goal of the IRA is the death or conversion of all non-Catholics or that the death or conversion of the infidels is not the aim of the Islamic terrorists?

Of course, the fact that the IRA are Catholics is really incidental to their terrorist (and crime syndicate) activities, isn't it? But Islam is part and parcel of the Islamic terrorists.

[Dr Adequate]

Are you claiming that the goal of the IRA is the death or conversion of all non-Catholics or that the death or conversion of the infidels is not the aim of the Islamic terrorists? No, as you can see by reading my post.

Of course, the fact that the IRA are Catholics is really incidental to their terrorist (and crime syndicate) activities, isn't it? No.

[WildCat]

No, as you can see by reading my post.
Then why did you say "The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA."
The IRA does nothing that I have seen to further their faith. Their only goals seem to involve increasing their bank accounts, especially since they appear to be out of the revolution business and are now concentrating primarily on the business of organized crime.

You brought up the IRA as an example of Christians indulging in violence in the name of their faith, back that up or drop it.

[Dr Adequate]

Then why did you say "The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA." Because it's true.

You brought up the IRA as an example of Christians indulging in violence in the name of their faith, back that up or drop it. Huh? They are, or were, a Catholic terrorist organization. The violence in Northern Ireland was sectarian (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-16,SUNA:en&q=%22northern+ireland%22+%22sectarian+violence%22) . Which part of this do you dispute?

[WildCat]

Because it's true.

Huh? They are, or were, a Catholic terrorist organization. The violence in Northern Ireland was sectarian (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-16,SUNA:en&q=%22northern+ireland%22+%22sectarian+violence%22) . Which part of this do you dispute?
Sow what IRA doctrines mandate any religious aspect to IRA activities? Do they force people into church at gunpoint? Do Catholic priests give them their marching orders from the pulpit? Are people punished for breaking religious doctrines, such as eating meat on a Friday during Lent?

Your little google link does nothing to help your case, try a little harder maybe...

[Dr Adequate]

Sow what IRA doctrines mandate any religious aspect to IRA activities? Do they force people into church at gunpoint? Do Catholic priests give them their marching orders from the pulpit? Are people punished for breaking religious doctrines, such as eating meat on a Friday during Lent? Huh? What's that got to do with it? They are a Catholic terrorist organization, do you deny this?

Still, since you ask. (http://www.ivanfoster.org/article.asp?date=10/5/2002&seq=2&printerFriendly=true)

Another (http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00615FB3E5F0C7B8CDDA90994D0494D 81&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fOrganizations %2fI%2fIrish%20Republican%20Army%20)

Another (see 5th July 1988) (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/chron/ch88.htm)

Your little google link does nothing to help your case, try a little harder maybe... Is the violence in Northen Ireland sectarian, yes or no?

Why do you say that my "little" link (to 97,000 websites) does not support the answer "yes"?

[Skeptic]

Of course, the fact that the IRA are Catholics is really incidental to their terrorist (and crime syndicate) activities, isn't it? But Islam is part and parcel of the Islamic terrorists.

Besides, the IRA terrorists at least (a) drink alcohol, and (b) know the proper use for virgins is in this life, not another life.

[Skeptic]

Huh? What's that got to do with it?

It has to do with the fact that while it's true that Catholics are fighting Protestants in Ireland, the REASON for the fighting is not the Catholic church preaching that all non-Catholics must die or convert. In this sense Islamism is quite different: it's not really a sectarian war, it's a religious war.

[BPSCG]

Are you claiming that the goal of the IRA is the death or conversion of all non-Catholics or that the death or conversion of the infidels is not the aim of the Islamic terrorists?You forgot to ask if IRA terrorists are going around the world killing people in the U.S., Spain, England, Holland, Indonesia, Somalia...

[Dr Adequate]

It has to do with the fact that while it's true that Catholics are fighting Protestants in Ireland, the REASON for the fighting is not the Catholic church preaching that all non-Catholics must die or convert. In this sense Islamism is quite different: it's not really a sectarian war, it's a religious war. What I said was, and I quote, "The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA."

The fact that the IRA is not exactly the same as al-Qaeda but with "Muslim" crossed out and "Catholic" written in does not invalidate this statement.

[Dr Adequate]

You forgot to ask if IRA terrorists are going around the world killing people in the U.S., Spain, England, Holland, Indonesia, Somalia... You want to know whether the IRA have killed English people?

Yes.

You will also note, if you follow my second link, that this particular RC priest was operating in America.

[BPSCG]

What I said was, and I quote, "The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA."

The fact that the IRA is not exactly the same as al-Qaeda but with "Muslim" crossed out and "Catholic" written in does not invalidate this statement.The fact that the IRA is not even remotely the same as al-Qaeda does, however, make the comparison pretty thin. I'm sure you could replace the word "Muslim" with "Hindu" or "Buddhist" and it would be just as true - and just as irrelevant.

[WildCat]

What I said was, and I quote, "The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA."
You can say it over and over, it doesn't make it true.

Show where the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism.

[Dr Adequate]

You can say it over and over, it doesn't make it true.

Show where the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism. "The provisional IRA emerged during the late 1960s styling itself as the defenders of the Roman Catholic minority." * (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9240/)

Oh, yeah, just so's you know, the Pope is Catholic, too. If you need any information concerning the lavatory habits of bears, please don't hesitate to ask.

[Dr Adequate]

The fact that the IRA is not even remotely the same as al-Qaeda does, however, make the comparison pretty thin. Well, there are certain resemblances, such as blowing people up and a religious motivation.

[WildCat]

"The provisional IRA emerged during the late 1960s styling itself as the defenders of the Roman Catholic minority." * (http://www.cfr.org/publication/9240/)
Sorry, this is completely inadequate. All you've managed to prove is that the IRA is comprised of Catholics. And I see your crack googling skills have revealed the Pope to be Catholic also. I'll take your word as to bears and where they defecate.

Now, are you able to show the IRA forcing people to observe Catholic religious doctrines? Didn't think so.

[Dr Adequate]

Sorry, this is completely inadequate. All you've managed to prove is that the IRA is comprised of Catholics. That is not what the quote says. You asked "Show where the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism." I produced a quote which said that they styled themselves as defenders of Roman Catholics.

Now, are you able to show the IRA forcing people to observe Catholic religious doctrines? Didn't think so. I am only obliged to substantiate what I actually say; I have no obligation to argue for your straw men.

[WildCat]

That is not what the quote says. You asked "Show where the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism." I produced a quote which said that they styled themselves as defenders of Roman Catholics.
Defenders of Roman Catholics is not the same as defending Catholicism. To show the latter you need to show how the IRA is enforcing the doctrine of the Catholic church - the way the Islamist terrorists believe they are enforcing the tenants of Islam. And this is what the thread is about, your attempt to derail and obsfucate notwithstanding.

Can you show that the IRA is concerned w/ enforcing Catholic religious doctrine? It's a very simple question.

[DanishDynamite]

All religions are stains on humanity. If I had to judge in this particular squabble between two stains, I'd say that the cult-leader with the funny hat didn't mean to insult the adherents of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Pictured-Even-In-Cartoons.

[Dr Adequate]

Now, are you able to show the IRA forcing people to observe Catholic religious doctrines? Didn't think so. Still, since you ask.

"By embracing the aggressive tactics and ideological extremism more usually associated with US antichoice groups, Ireland’s Youth Defence briefly grabbed the headlines, first as an object of curiosity and then as the subject of derision. As Youth Defense’s extremism, rather than its beliefs and goals, became the news, the whole antichoice movement was tarred by the same brush and severely discredited.

Youth Defence’s founders—the ultraconservative, Catholic Mac Mathúna family—were inspired by the example of Joe Scheidler, the American author of the book Closed! 99 Ways to Stop Abortion (1985), who was largely responsible for developing the tactic of personally harassing abortion providers. The group’s aggressive approach may be explained by its links with members of the conservative, ultranationalist political party, Republican Sinn Féin, which formed in 1986 as a splinter from Sinn Féin and is widely believed to have links to the paramilitary Continuity Irish Republican Army." * (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/other/documents/2006youthdefence.pdf#search=%22%22provisional%20ir a%22%20%22abortion%22%22)

Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?

[Dr Adequate]

Defenders of Roman Catholics is not the same as defending Catholicism. To show the latter you need to show how the IRA is enforcing the doctrine of the Catholic church - the way the Islamist terrorists believe they are enforcing the tenants of Islam. And this is what the thread is about, your attempt to derail and obsfucate notwithstanding. :dl:

You seem to lack both a sense of irony and a sense of shame.

[Skeptic]

The point, Dr. A., is that the IRA was not commanded by religious leaders who saw it as a religious duty to fight all those of a different religion until they convert or die. Islamism, however, does think like that--which means that it is, unlike the conflict in Northern Ireland, a return to the 16th century's religious wars, only with modern weapons, possibly nuclear.

[WildCat]

Still, since you ask.

"By embracing the aggressive tactics and ideological extremism more usually associated with US antichoice groups, Ireland’s Youth Defence briefly grabbed the headlines, first as an object of curiosity and then as the subject of derision. As Youth Defense’s extremism, rather than its beliefs and goals, became the news, the whole antichoice movement was tarred by the same brush and severely discredited.

Youth Defence’s founders—the ultraconservative, Catholic Mac Mathúna family—were inspired by the example of Joe Scheidler, the American author of the book Closed! 99 Ways to Stop Abortion (1985), who was largely responsible for developing the tactic of personally harassing abortion providers. The group’s aggressive approach may be explained by its links with members of the conservative, ultranationalist political party, Republican Sinn Féin, which formed in 1986 as a splinter from Sinn Féin and is widely believed to have links to the paramilitary Continuity Irish Republican Army." * (http://www.catholicsforchoice.org/topics/other/documents/2006youthdefence.pdf#search=%22%22provisional%20ir a%22%20%22abortion%22%22)

Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about?
Nice job of moving the goalposts. And thus irrelevant.

[WildCat]

:dl:

You seem to lack both a sense of irony and a sense of shame.
You're really looking silly now.

Show that the IRA is concerned w/ enforcing the doctrines of the Catholic church. Then your comparison to Islamic terrorist will be proven valid.

What you have shown so far is inadequate.

[DanishDynamite]

Islam has never had an enlightening, such as (in fairness) it must be said that Christianity did. The major Christian franchises are thus not outright confrontational today, while basic Islam remains so. This is not to say that Islam cannot be house-broken. Witness Turkey.

[The Atheist]

What brave brave men these folks are who shoot nuns IN THE FRIKKIN' BACK inside HOSPITALS.
Probably about as brave as the GI grunts which massacred an unarmed family because one of the grunts had just had his head blown off by someone else. Or maybe the prison guards who inflict inhumanities on defenceless prisoners.

Anything you can do, we can do better.

[Dr Adequate]

Nice job of moving the goalposts. And thus irrelevant. :dl:

You put up a straw man. I show that, although I made no such claim, ever, at any point, the straw man can in fact be justified.

And you whine that I have moved the goalposts.

You moved the goalposts --- and I still scored.

[Dr Adequate]

You're really looking silly now.

Show that the IRA is concerned w/ enforcing the doctrines of the Catholic church. Then your comparison to Islamic terrorist will be proven valid. (1) I have just done so. Opposition to abortion is one of the doctrines of the Catholic Church.

(2) That was not my claim. I claimed that they were sectarian terrorists who blow people up.

To be precise, let's quote it again.

What I said was:

"The fact remains that Christians have in fact indulged in "violent activities" in the name of their faith or sect. I see no particular difference between being blown up by Muslim nuts or by the IRA."

When you try to pretend that I made some other claim, everyone reading this thread can see that you're lying.

[Dr Adequate]

The point, Dr. A., is that the IRA was not commanded by religious leaders who saw it as a religious duty to fight all those of a different religion until they convert or die. Islamism, however, does think like that--which means that it is, unlike the conflict in Northern Ireland, a return to the 16th century's religious wars, only with modern weapons, possibly nuclear. I never said they were exactly the same. Indeed, I have explicitly denied that they are the same.

I did, however, say they were sectarian terrorists who blow people up. You, too, have described them as sectarian. (I notice that for some strange reason WildCat is not arguing with you.) I take it we can all agree that they are, or were, terrorists who blow people up.

[Dr Adequate]

You need to show how the IRA is enforcing the doctrine of the Catholic church - the way the Islamist terrorists believe they are enforcing the tenants of Islam. And this is what the thread is about, your attempt to derail and obsfucate notwithstanding. And now, the OP.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm)

Nice to see Islamic leaders know what issues are important. Terrorist bombings by fellow Muslims no big deal, but a speech by the pope criticizing holy war, well that’s something to protest about! :rolleyes: And now, magically, the thread is about whether the IRA enforces Catholic doctrine, and anyone who says different is "obfuscating" and "derailing".

Well, well.

[BPSCG]

And now, magically, the thread is about whether the IRA enforces Catholic doctrine, and anyone who says different is "obfuscating" and "derailing".

Well, well.Your outrage is a little disingenuous, since you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1929583#post1929583) were the one who quite irrelevantly drug the IRA into this discussion in the first place,

[Darat]

Your outrage is a little disingenuous, since you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1929583#post1929583) were the one who quite irrelevantly drug the IRA into this discussion in the first place,


The OP started by saying: ...Terrorist bombings by fellow Muslims no big deal, but a speech by the pope criticizing holy war, well that’s something to protest about!...

Therefore seems very much in line with the OP's sentiments to mention one of the existing Christian terrorist organisations seem to be in line with the OP's sentiments. Even more so since the IRA is a Catholic terrorist organisation i.e. one that was founded by and run by people who state that they follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic church which as we all know is headed by the Pope. (And as far as I know the RC has not ex-communicated any of the known IRA terrorists that actually carried out murderous attacks. Seems a pity that they find terrorist bombings by fellow Catholics no big deal, but the decriminalisation of abortion in the UK, well that's something to protest about!)

As I said earlier the common denominator does not seem to be what particular religion any terrorist is - since all religions have terrorists that claim to be doing their religions work when they are murdering people.

[steverino]

I arrived a bit late to this party. But "just for fun" thought I'd mention that, as a former Chicagoan, I am aware that certain members of that city's Muslim community fund terrorism over-seas, and certain members of Chicago's Irish Catholic community fund the IRA. (Less so since 9/11.)

I guess the two phenom are linked in this basic way, even if in no other.

[Tony]

All of the defenders of catholocism/christianity in this case remind me of a famous quote: "I laugh at the weak when they say they are good because they have no claws".

[DanishDynamite]

All of the defenders of catholocism/christianity in this case remind me of a famous quote: "I laugh at the weak when they say they are good because they have no claws".
I laugh at defenders of any religious cult whatsoever.

[The Atheist]

I laugh at defenders of any religious cult whatsoever.
Bingo!

[WildCat]

I never said they were exactly the same. Indeed, I have explicitly denied that they are the same.
No, you compared them to Islamic terrorists and likened their reasons for being.

They are not.

[WildCat]

And now, magically, the thread is about whether the IRA enforces Catholic doctrine, and anyone who says different is "obfuscating" and "derailing".
The pope brought up the fact that Islam was and still is being spread by the sword. The current form is the Islamic terrorists. Then you made the ridiculous comparison to the IRA, and climed they were similar when they are not. You brought up this straw man, not me.
From the link in the OP:
In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.

You still have not demonstrated that the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism. In fact, the IRA started off fighting to separate NI from the UK and uniting it w/ Ireland. It has since devolved into a crime syndicate. It never was and still is not about forcing the doctrines of the Catholic church.

[SteveGrenard]

So the Pope apologizes and explains but the muslims remain angry anyway...
is there something ironic about this? Muslims are attacking Churches and a nun in Somalia has been shot and killed. Signing up for the "day of anger"?

Monday, 18 September 2006, 00:08 GMT 01:08 UK




Pope apology fails to end anger

Muslim clerics in Qom, Iran, were part of continuing protests
Pope Benedict XVI's renewed apology for comments he made last week on Islam has been welcomed by some Muslim groups but has failed to end the anger.

There were further protests in Indonesia and Iran and one influential cleric called for a day of anger.

The Pope on Sunday apologised in person for causing offence in the speech.
He said the medieval text he quoted, which said the Prophet Muhammad had brought the world only evil, did not in any way express his personal opinion.

The Pope issued his apology from the balcony at his residence at Castel Gandolfo outside Rome as gave the Angelus blessing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5354862.stm

[Eos of the Eons]

This is what is worrying me now:

Israeli-US plot behind pope's remarks: Iran hardline press
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/17/060917085717.hyi6hm06.html

Slippery slope: Iran attacks Israel.


Hmm.

[Dr Adequate]

The pope brought up the fact that Islam was and still is being spread by the sword. The current form is the Islamic terrorists. Then you made the ridiculous comparison to the IRA, and climed they were similar when they are not. They are similar in the ways I said they were similar.

They are dissimilar in the ways in which I said they were dissimilar.

If you are completely unable to argue with any statement I've actually made, then you are also not capable of arguing with me.

You brought up this straw man, not me. Please learn the meaning of the phrase "straw man".

You still have not demonstrated that the IRA is fighting for the spread or defense of Catholicism. No, I still haven't demonstrated the claim I didn't make.

You still haven't demonstrated that elephants can roller-skate.

[Dr Adequate]

There were further protests in Indonesia and Iran and one influential cleric called for a day of anger. How will we tell?

[The Atheist]

And you whine that I have moved the goalposts.

You moved the goalposts --- and I still scored.Not only that, I'm keeping the score, and as of the time of this post, a quick tally reveals that Martin Clunes is in front 6 - 0.

Doesn't it make you laugh, in a cynical, trying to not sob at the shape of humanity in the 21st century, kind of way? Funny how some people's memories either ignore or don't count terrorist attacks with nail-bombs in London, horses and kids screaming, gutted on the footpath - christian vs christian, but don't dare bring that memory up! Muslims are Terrorists, sorry, Terrorists are Muslim, or was it right the first time?

Just for the record, WildCat, I'm posting here and I don't think I've made friends of either of you so far - probably the opposite, in fact. Dr Adequate, with whom I sometimes agree, has one trait which cannot be ignored. His written English is a model of clarity. If you choose to read things into, or misread, his posts, then I feel you need to get a translator in. I can't help but admire DA's restraint, I would have gone for rule 8 long ago.

[Dr Adequate]

A quick look at the other side in "the Troubles"; in the interests of balance.

Ulster Protestant Action, as described by themselves: "Its basis and union is Protestantism, the Protestantism of the Bible. It unflinchingly maintains the cardinal doctrines of Christianity as set forth in the Apostle’s Creed an uncompromisingly denounces all forms of popery .. Its purpose is to permeate all activities social and cultural with Protestant ideals." * (http://www.philipjohnston.com/ni/loyalism.htm)

Red Hand Commando, as described by themselves: "Being convinced that the enemies of the Faith and Freedom are determined to destroy the State of Northern Ireland and thereby enslave the people of God, we call on all members of our loyalist institutions, and other responsible citizens, to organise themselves immediately into platoons of twenty under the command of someone capable of acting as sergeant." * (http://www.philipjohnston.com/ni/loyalism.htm)

The Orangemen, as described by themselves: "An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father; a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man ... he should love, uphold, and defend the Protestant religion, and sincerely desire and endeavour to propagate its doctrines and precepts; he should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act of ceremony of Popish worship; he should by all lawful means, resist the ascendancy of that Church, its encroachments, and the extension of its power..." * (http://www.serve.com/pfc/orders/loyal.html)

The Protestants of Ireland, according to Ian Paisley: "You will never get your thieving murderous hands on the Protestants of Northern Ireland because every drop of Ulster blood will be willing to be shed before we entered into your priest-ridden banana republic ... Dogs may return to their vomit, washed sows to the mire, but we shall not be guiled ... By God's grace we will never return to Popery.' * (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/sectarian/brewer.htm)

This, my friends, is sectarianism.

[zenith-nadir]

This is what is worrying me now:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/17/060917085717.hyi6hm06.html

Slippery slope: Iran attacks Israel.


Hmm.It's ALWAYS an israeli/American plot in the muslim world. :rolleyes:

9-11 was an Israeli plot in the Arab press.

The Iraq War was an Israeli plot in the Arab press.

Al-Qaeda cells in the Gaza Strip are an Israeli plot in the Arab press.

Remember the big tsunami? It too was an Israeli plot in the Arab press.

...and now the Pope remarks are an Israeli plot ....

[WildCat]

A quick look at the other side in "the Troubles"; in the interests of balance.

Ulster Protestant Action, as described by themselves: "Its basis and union is Protestantism, the Protestantism of the Bible. It unflinchingly maintains the cardinal doctrines of Christianity as set forth in the Apostle’s Creed an uncompromisingly denounces all forms of popery .. Its purpose is to permeate all activities social and cultural with Protestant ideals." * (http://www.philipjohnston.com/ni/loyalism.htm)

Red Hand Commando, as described by themselves: "Being convinced that the enemies of the Faith and Freedom are determined to destroy the State of Northern Ireland and thereby enslave the people of God, we call on all members of our loyalist institutions, and other responsible citizens, to organise themselves immediately into platoons of twenty under the command of someone capable of acting as sergeant." * (http://www.philipjohnston.com/ni/loyalism.htm)

The Orangemen, as described by themselves: "An Orangeman should have a sincere love and veneration for his Heavenly Father; a humble and steadfast faith in Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, believing in Him as the only Mediator between God and man ... he should love, uphold, and defend the Protestant religion, and sincerely desire and endeavour to propagate its doctrines and precepts; he should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the Church of Rome, and scrupulously avoid countenancing (by his presence or otherwise) any act of ceremony of Popish worship; he should by all lawful means, resist the ascendancy of that Church, its encroachments, and the extension of its power..." * (http://www.serve.com/pfc/orders/loyal.html)

The Protestants of Ireland, according to Ian Paisley: "You will never get your thieving murderous hands on the Protestants of Northern Ireland because every drop of Ulster blood will be willing to be shed before we entered into your priest-ridden banana republic ... Dogs may return to their vomit, washed sows to the mire, but we shall not be guiled ... By God's grace we will never return to Popery.' * (http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/issues/sectarian/brewer.htm)

This, my friends, is sectarianism.
You got me Dr. From now on I will understand that when the various factions in NI smuggle drugs, collect protection money from businesses, kneecap uncooperative members of their gang fellow Crusaders and other enemies of their gang religion, run gambling and prostitution rings, etc. it is done directly at the behest of the Vatican and the CoE as part of an effort to convert the heathens. And has nothing at all whatsoever to do w/ making money.

[Dr Adequate]

You got me Dr. From now on I will understand that when the various factions in NI smuggle drugs, collect protection money from businesses, kneecap uncooperative members of their gang fellow Crusaders and other enemies of their gang religion, run gambling and prostitution rings, etc. it is done directly at the behest of the Vatican and the CoE as part of an effort to convert the heathens. And has nothing at all whatsoever to do w/ making money. Why will you "understand" that, when I said no such thing?

If you genuinely suffer from some sort of handicap, then on the one hand I feel sorry for you; but on the other hand, I would advise you not to parade it on these forums.

[BPSCG]

Meanwhile, Islamists savor the prospect of murdering Christians and robbing their corpses: (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-18T100352Z_01_L18796129_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-ISLAM-QAEDA.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsHome-C1-topNews-1)

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.
Remember, there wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't provoked them.

And, likewise, Rome won't be attacked unless someone provokes them.

Or unless there's a lot of money involved.

[Dr Adequate]

Or unless there's a lot of money involved. I can't wait to see what WildCat makes of that.

[Darth Rotor]

I laugh at defenders of any religious cult whatsoever.
Laugh hard enough, and they'll truck bomb you where you sleep.

DUBAI (Reuters) - An Iraqi militant group led by al Qaeda vowed a war against the "worshippers of the cross" in response to a recent speech by Pope Benedict on Islam that sparked anger across the Muslim world.

"We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya," said an Internet statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council, an umbrella group led by Iraq's branch of al Qaeda.

"We shall break the cross and spill the wine. ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome. ... God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen," said the statement.

Remember, there wouldn't be any terrorists in Iraq if the U.S. hadn't provoked them.

And, likewise, Rome won't be attacked unless someone provokes them.

Or unless there's a lot of money involved.
Follow the money, there's the trick to understanding this, or the wealth/land titles.

DR

[BPSCG]

Sura 8:38-41: Say to the unbelivers, if now they desist from unbelief, their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more persecution, and religion becomes Allah's in its entirety.... If they refuse, be sure that Allah is your Protector — the Best to protect and the Best to help. And know that out of all the booty that you may acquire (in war), a fifth share is assigned to Allah and his Messenger ...


Sura 48:18-20: Allah promiseth you much booty that you will capture, and hath given you this in advance, and hath withheld men's hands from you, that it may be a token for the unbelievers, and that He may guide you on a right path.
Kill the unbelievers, rob their corpses, and don't forget to give Allah his cut.

[TimmyBerry]

Everyone on this planet is criticizing everyone else. Now is a good time for Islamists grew some self-respect and stopped snapping at every single thing.

I'm swiftly losing whatever little respect for that religion I've had.

[BPSCG]

From the Daily Telegraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/wpope116.xml)...no pope in history has made a deeper study of Islam. Having explored every verse of the Koran, and engaged in long debates with Muslim scholars, he rejects the simplistic notion — held by fundamentalist Christians, and by the Roman Catholic Church until the middle of the 20th century — that Islam is evil. Yet he is convinced that some of its doctrines are morally indefensible.

In Benedict's view, a profound ambiguity about violence lies at the heart of Islam, arising from the Prophet's belief that faith can be spread by the sword. Mohammed, after all, was a general whose troops beheaded hundreds of enemy captives.

Asked recently whether he considered Islam to be a religion of peace, the Pope replied: "Islam contains elements that are in favour of peace, just as it contains other elements." Christianity, by contrast, he sees as a religion of pure peace — which is why he adopts a near-pacifist approach to conflict in the Middle East.

Where the pontiff differs from his predecessor is in his impatience with what might be termed "Islamic political correctness".

John Paul II hoped that prayer could bring Christians and Muslims closer together, and famously prayed alongside Islamic leaders at Assisi in 1986. He also reassured Muslims that "we believe in the same God".

Benedict would emphasise that the Islamic understanding of God is radically different from that of Christians.

He has also refrained from issuing the apologies for historical misdeeds made by John Paul II, arguing that they are never reciprocated.Worth reading in its entirety.

[DaChew]

I could have told him an apology wouldn't work. He is dhimmi and he has only once choice now - The Pope must convert to Islam.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1157913651799&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

One of them, Dr. Imad Hamto, called on the pope to "repent and ask for forgiveness." He added: "We want to use the words of the Prophet Muhammad and tell the pope: 'Aslim Taslam'" Aslim Taslam is a phrase that was taken from the letters sent by the Prophet Muhammad to the chiefs of tribes in his times in which he reportedly urged them to convert to Islam to spare their lives.

This really isn't that hard to understand.

[The Atheist]

Kill the unbelievers, rob their corpses, and don't forget to give Allah his cut.
Funny, sounds exactly like the bible:

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the women children who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." [Numbers 31:17-18]

[steverino]

Isn't it likely that the non-believers in this forum, who quite eloquently point out the absurdities of both Christianity and Islam, might have to choose a "side" in a future religious world war?

In a nutshell, (we) Non-Christians may have to come to terms with siding with Christians in a world war against Muslims.

[The Atheist]

In a nutshell, (we) Non-Christians may have to come to terms with siding with Christians in a world war against Muslims.

No, mate, we just sit on the sidelines and watch them all kill each other, then we can start afresh.

[The Atheist]

You got me Dr. From now on I will understand that when the various factions in NI smuggle drugs, collect protection money from businesses, kneecap uncooperative members of their gang fellow Crusaders and other enemies of their gang religion, run gambling and prostitution rings, etc. it is done directly at the behest of the Vatican and the CoE as part of an effort to convert the heathens. And has nothing at all whatsoever to do w/ making money.

Ok, an own goal by WildCat, giving the doc a 7-0 lead. Pity it isn't golf, be all over by now with 6 to play.

[Jocko]

No, mate, we just sit on the sidelines and watch them all kill each other, then we can start afresh.

Newsflash, athiests are even higher on radical islam's *****-list than christians. Food for thought.

[The Atheist]

Newsflash, athiests are even higher on radical islam's *****-list than christians. Food for thought.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Christians feel exactly the same way: Exodus 20:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo020.htm) etc., etc.

[Tony]

Newsflash, athiests are even higher on radical islam's *****-list than christians. Food for thought.

And athiests are higher on radical christianity's list than muslims.

[senorpogo]

How does one "sit on the sidelines" during a war?

[Tony]

Christopher Hitchens on the pope:

http://www.slate.com/id/2149863/

He isn't afraid to call out christian hypocricy;

Now, you do not have to be a Muslim to think that for the bishop of Rome to cite this is the most perfect hypocrisy. There would have been no established Byzantine or Roman Christianity if the faith had not been spread and maintained and enforced by every kind of violence and cruelty and coercion. To take Islam's own favorite self-pitying example: It was the Catholic crusaders who sacked and burned Christian Byzantium on their way to Palestine—and that was only after they had methodically set about the Jews, so the Muslim world was actually only the third victim of this barbarity. (Sir Steven Runciman's A History of the Crusades is the best source here.) Yet of all the words he could have chosen, to suggest that religion might wish to break its old connection with conquest, intolerance, and subjugation, Ratzinger had to select an example that was designed to remind his hearers of the crudest excesses of the medieval period. His mention of Manuel II was evidently not accidental or anecdotal. He refers to him repeatedly and returns to him again in the closing paragraph, as if to rub it in.

[BPSCG]

Funny, sounds exactly like the bible:

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the women children who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." [Numbers 31:17-18]You know what else is funny? Christian and Hebrew clergymen don't preach that any more. You'd be pretty hard put to find Christian or Hebrew laymen who wouldn't be appalled if their clergy told them to do that.

But radical Islam? You read this kind of stuff every day.

The Hebrews have gotten more civilized since the time of Moses and Joshua. The Christians have gotten more civilized since the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

And Islam... well, we're stuck in the 14th century there.

[Dr Adequate]

Kill the unbelievers, rob their corpses, and don't forget to give Allah his cut. Curiously enough, the Muslim laws on plunder might just have saved Europe for Muslim domination.

The following account of the Second Siege of Vienna is from Jason Goodwin's Lords of the Horizons.

"But meanwhile the inaction of the Grand Vizer became curiously apparent. The outer walls were crumbling; now, if ever, was the time for the blood-curdling general assault that Ottoman troops were accustomed to make as soon as a breach appeared: when eager volunteers would fling themselves forward, wear down the enemies defences, and martyring themselves in their hundreds, provide a slippery footing for the fresh professional troops who closed in for the kill. Nothing of the sort was happening now ...

The Grand Vizier seems to have believed that the city was on the point of surrender. A city stormed, according to Muslim law, was to be given over to plunder for three days and nights before authority stepped in --- to take possession of the ruins. A city which surrendered, however, was inviolate, and everything in it belonged to the state."

At this point the relief forces of Charles V of Lorraine and Jan Sobieski of Poland turned up ... and the rest is history.

[Darth Rotor]

I could have told him an apology wouldn't work. He is dhimmi and he has only once choice now - The Pope must convert to Islam.

And when my sweetheart kisses me
I think the Sultan I would be
But when my reddish wine I tope
Well then I think I'd be the Pope

Chorus to an old drinking song.

If the Pope converts, does he have to give up his cool hat and put on a rag head?

DR

[Jocko]

Oh, I'm well aware of that. Christians feel exactly the same way: Exodus 20:5 (http://www.newadvent.org/bible/exo020.htm) etc., etc.


Apparently you're confusing a dirty look across a church lawn on Sunday morning with a beheading. 'Sokay, it's a surprisingly common mistake.

[Dave1001]

From the Daily Telegraph: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/09/16/wpope116.xml)Worth reading in its entirety.


He has also refrained from issuing the apologies for historical misdeeds made by John Paul II, arguing that they are never reciprocated.



That's very mature of the current Pope.:p

[Ziggurat]

That's very mature of the current Pope.:p

Well, yes, actually it is. It's not a sign of maturity to keep doing the same thing when it never works. I don't blame JP2 for trying, it was worth the effort, but it failed, and there's no point in trying again right now.

This isn't original phrasing of mine, but there is no other religion which expects so much from others and so little from itself.

[The Atheist]

You know what else is funny? Christian and Hebrew clergymen don't preach that any more.
You know what's even funnier - I never suggested preachers say that. I said THE BIBLE says it - go back and read it for yourself.

[The Atheist]

Apparently you're confusing a dirty look across a church lawn on Sunday morning with a beheading. 'Sokay, it's a surprisingly common mistake.
And apparently you're confusing my posts, Exodus 20:5 is all about god's eternal damning of those who hate him, no beheadings, no violence, just damnation.

CAN PEOPLE IN HERE ACTUALLY READ?

[Solus]

The OP started by saying: ...Terrorist bombings by fellow Muslims no big deal, but a speech by the pope criticizing holy war, well that’s something to protest about!...

Therefore seems very much in line with the OP's sentiments to mention one of the existing Christian terrorist organisations seem to be in line with the OP's sentiments. Even more so since the IRA is a Catholic terrorist organisation i.e. one that was founded by and run by people who state that they follow the teachings of the Roman Catholic church which as we all know is headed by the Pope. (And as far as I know the RC has not ex-communicated any of the known IRA terrorists that actually carried out murderous attacks. Seems a pity that they find terrorist bombings by fellow Catholics no big deal, but the decriminalisation of abortion in the UK, well that's something to protest about!)

As I said earlier the common denominator does not seem to be what particular religion any terrorist is - since all religions have terrorists that claim to be doing their religions work when they are murdering people.

Interesting, I would have never thought of IRA in the the same manner as the muslim terrorists but you have a point there, interesting parallel.

[Darat]

You know what else is funny? Christian and Hebrew clergymen don't preach that any more. You'd be pretty hard put to find Christian or Hebrew laymen who wouldn't be appalled if their clergy told them to do that.

But radical Islam? You read this kind of stuff every day.

The Hebrews have gotten more civilized since the time of Moses and Joshua. The Christians have gotten more civilized since the time of the Spanish Inquisition.

And Islam... well, we're stuck in the 14th century there.

And if the media had reported it you'd have heard it everyday from "radical Christianity".

ETA: As for your comment about "You'd be pretty hard put to find Christian or Hebrew laymen who wouldn't be appalled if their clergy told them to do that." I'd say the evidence is against you - again to use an example of a Christian terrorist group operating in the UK for over 40 years - the IRA - have a look at these horrifying results (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/story.jsp?story=618621)from a poll in 2005. I hope that you find it just as shocking as I do that (for example) 56% of the voters of Sinn Fein do not believe the Christan terrorist group the IRA should disband, and 41% of them don't think the IRA should give up it's arms! So people in NI are still supporting a group that attempts to murder UK citizens and spread terror. (And don't forget about the scale of terrorist activities we are talking about - for example during the more active periods the UK security forces were successfully dealing with 2000 explosive & incendiary devices a year and of course those were just the devices they prevented exploding or activating. Now like Dr A I am not saying that the IRA was and is identical to every single Muslim terrorist group out there however it undermines the idea that violence and terrorism is limited to any particular faith.

No matter what any holy book says "religious" people can always find some justification for their actions.

[zenith-nadir]

Interesting, I would have never thought of IRA in the the same manner as the muslim terrorists but you have a point there, interesting parallel.It's a false parallel. The IRA's goal was a united Ireland not spreading fundamental Christianity across Europe and then across the globe.

The IRA didn't fancy itself holy warriors who desire to wipe Britain off the map, the IRA isn't interested in destroying judiasm and islam in order to spread Christianity across Europe. The IRA never murdered folks because they said Jesus "was a loser". While the opposite is true of the Islamofacists.

The only parallel between the IRA and islamofascists of today is a use of terrorism.

[Darth Rotor]

Funny, sounds exactly like the bible:

"Kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the women children who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." [Numbers 31:17-18]
Small wonder the Vikings finally converted to Christianity: there was something there for everyone. :) (NUmbers is OT, of course)

DR

[Darat]

It's a false parallel. The IRA's goal was a united Ireland not spreading fundamental Christianity across Europe and then across the globe.


So taking over part of the UK is different to taking over say part of Afghanistan? Both types of terrorists wanted to destroy another country and establish their own country in place of the internationally recognised nation. Sounds very parallel to me.


...snip... The IRA never murdered folks because they said Jesus "was a loser". While the opposite is true of the Islamofacists.


Are you sure? After all they were quite happy to kill you if you happened to have an extra line in the version of the Lord's Prayer you said in your church.


The only parallel between the IRA and islamofascists of today is a use of terrorism.

And the fact they both have some very similar political goals in common i.e.. both want to "reclaim" nations that they say belong to "them" for some obscure historical reason. Oh and of course they also share in common that someone being of a different religion (e.g. Protestant) was enough of a reason for them to declare you the enemy and kill you.

(And I should point out that the violence was and is not just Catholic against Protestants, the Protestants also have their own terrorist organisations as well as an appalling record in trampling over the civil rights of the Catholics in NI.)

[Jocko]

And apparently you're confusing my posts, Exodus 20:5 is all about god's eternal damning of those who hate him, no beheadings, no violence, just damnation.

CAN PEOPLE IN HERE ACTUALLY READ?

No, your words were:

Christians feel exactly the same way.

Not the bible. Christians. Backed by a biblical verse, sure, but couched as "Christians."

Hence my good-natured but laser-accurate exposure of your hysterical conflation of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims. Like I said, it's a surprisingly common mistake round these parts. So is an all-caps denial of one's own silliness.

[Dr Adequate]

It's a false parallel. The IRA's goal was a united Ireland not spreading fundamental Christianity across Europe and then across the globe.

The IRA didn't fancy itself holy warriors who desire to wipe Britain off the map, the IRA isn't interested in destroying judiasm and islam in order to spread Christianity across Europe. The IRA never murdered folks because they said Jesus "was a loser". While the opposite is true of the Islamofacists.

The only parallel between the IRA and islamofascists of today is a use of terrorism. And a religious motivation.

What has gotten into you guys? In order to hate Islamic terrorism, as Darat and I both do, it is not necessary to whitewash Christian sectarian terrorism. The IRA, the UDF, and other paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland were sick stupid terrorists motivated by religious bigotry. It is not necessary to deny this in order to condemn OBL and other filth of that kind. Indeed, it is hypocritical to condemn Islamic terorism while whitewashing Christian terrorism. Ian Paisley is just as culpable as OBL.

[Mycroft]

And a religious motivation.

What has gotten into you guys? In order to hate Islamic terrorism, as Darat and I both do, it is not necessary to whitewash Christian sectarian terrorism.

But apparently it's necessary to whitewash Islamic terrorism by creating fictional parallels in other religions. Why? I don’t know, but a small handful of individuals seem to feel a need to interject these manufactured comparisons at every opportunity.

Sure, the Irish/English conflict is sectarian, but virtually every conflict is. Hang your hat on that if you wish, but it’s a very thin peg.

Is the conflict religious in nature? No, not really. That the two sides happen to be of different religions is an accident of politics, nothing more. If Henry VIII hadn’t wanted an annulment, the Irish/English conflict would have been much the same.

[Darat]

But apparently it's necessary to whitewash Islamic terrorism by creating fictional parallels in other religions. Why? I don’t know, but a small handful of individuals seem to feel a need to interject these manufactured comparisons at every opportunity.


Which manufactured comparisons? Which fictional parallels to other religions?


Sure, the Irish/English conflict is sectarian, but virtually every conflict is. Hang your hat on that if you wish, but it’s a very thin peg.


Since you can't even get the countries involved correct I find it hard to give your opinion on the matter much credit.


Is the conflict religious in nature? No, not really. That the two sides happen to be of different religions is an accident of politics, nothing more. If Henry VIII hadn’t wanted an annulment, the Irish/English conflict would have been much the same.

Can you please provide some support for this opinion?

[Dr Adequate]

But apparently it's necessary to whitewash Islamic terrorism by creating fictional parallels in other religions. Why? I don’t know, but a small handful of individuals seem to feel a need to interject these manufactured comparisons at every opportunity.

Sure, the Irish/English conflict is sectarian, but virtually every conflict is. Hang your hat on that if you wish, but it’s a very thin peg.

Is the conflict religious in nature? No, not really. Yes, as I have proved.

That the two sides happen to be of different religions is an accident of politics, nothing more. If Henry VIII hadn’t wanted an annulment, the Irish/English conflict would have been much the same. So you can't argue with anything I said?

Thought not.

But still you want to lecture the British posters (me and Darat) on the, ahem, "root causes" of terrorism in NI?

If I banged on about how the Palestine / Israel thing had nothing to do with religion, how dumb would you think I was?

Well, that's what I think of you right now. There are indeed Islamic fanatics stirring up trouble in the Middle East. In the same way, there are Catholic and Protestant fanatics stirring up trouble in Northern Ireland.

To deny this involves a flight from reality unprecendented ... except in your previous posts.

I am British. I am also half Catholic Irish, on my mother's side. I know whereof I speak.

And: "If Henry VIII hadn’t wanted an annulment, the Irish/English conflict would have been much the same".

???

This is like me saying "If there hadn't been any slavery in the South, the Civil War would have happened anyway."

You don't know the first damn thing about what you're trying to lecture me about. If you can't be bothered to learn whereof you speak, then shut up.

[Dr Adequate]

I think I'll say this again.

And a religious motivation.

What has gotten into you guys? In order to hate Islamic terrorism, as Darat and I both do, it is not necessary to whitewash Christian sectarian terrorism. The IRA, the UDF, and other paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland were sick stupid terrorists motivated by religious bigotry. It is not necessary to deny this in order to condemn OBL and other filth of that kind. Indeed, it is hypocritical to condemn Islamic terorism while whitewashing Christian terrorism. Ian Paisley is just as culpable as OBL.

[The Atheist]

No, your words were:



Not the bible. Christians. Backed by a biblical verse, sure, but couched as "Christians."

Hence my good-natured but laser-accurate exposure of your hysterical conflation of fundamentalist Christians with fundamentalist Muslims. Like I said, it's a surprisingly common mistake round these parts. So is an all-caps denial of one's own silliness.
Mate, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but if you read Genesis 20:5, you will realise that you are trying to link two completely different ideas - maybe it's contagious in this thread.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Almo
Catholics in general are not Biblical Literalists. At least, not to my knowledge.
No it would tend to conflict with certian parts of catholic theology.

Which parts might those be?

[Jocko]

Mate, I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but if you read Genesis 20:5, you will realise that you are trying to link two completely different ideas - maybe it's contagious in this thread.

Genesis, schmenisis. I was reading your post, wherein you linked disparate ideas in a disingenuous way. I quoted it for your reference, but you seem to prefer embracing random tangents instead.

[Tony]

I laugh at defenders of any religious cult whatsoever.


Then lets laugh together my friend.

:alc:

[Tony]

Kill the unbelievers, rob their corpses, and don't forget to give Allah his cut.

That would make a good t-shirt.

[The Atheist]

Genesis, schmenisis. I was reading your post, wherein you linked disparate ideas in a disingenuous way. I quoted it for your reference, but you seem to prefer embracing random tangents instead.As opposed to embracing random posts, mis-reading them and replying, then continuing to compound your error time and time again?

Have you been concussed recently?

[Geckko]

I think I'll say this again.

And a religious motivation.

What has gotten into you guys? In order to hate Islamic terrorism, as Darat and I both do, it is not necessary to whitewash Christian sectarian terrorism. The IRA, the UDF, and other paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland were sick stupid terrorists motivated by religious bigotry. It is not necessary to deny this in order to condemn OBL and other filth of that kind. Indeed, it is hypocritical to condemn Islamic terorism while whitewashing Christian terrorism. Ian Paisley is just as culpable as OBL.

A good point. A poorly chosen example.

Ian Paisley, while the source of some divisive and almost hate-filled rhetoric, has not to my knowledge had any hand in terrorist activity. Nor to my knowledge has he ever publically endorsed encouraged or excused it.

[Mycroft]

Which manufactured comparisons? Which fictional parallels to other religions?

Really, I can't imagine being more clear. The fictional parallels made between the IRA and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Why would you need that explained? You can't possibly be that obtuse.


Since you can't even get the countries involved correct I find it hard to give your opinion on the matter much credit.

How very...skeptical. :oldroll:


Can you please provide some support for this opinion?

Sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Historic_communal_divisions_1609.E2.8 0.931801

[Darat]

Really, I can't imagine being more clear. The fictional parallels made between the IRA and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Why would you need that explained? You can't possibly be that obtuse.



But there are no fictional parallels in this thread.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Troubles#Historic_communal_divisions_1609.E2.8 0.931801

I've read it - I do not see how that supports your claim:

Is the conflict religious in nature? No, not really. That the two sides happen to be of different religions is an accident of politics, nothing more. If Henry VIII hadn’t wanted an annulment, the Irish/English conflict would have been much the same.