Pope's Comments

The Pope said “There was a lively exchange with historians, philosophers, philologists ...†Pope Benedict said early in an address on faith and reason. Citing a conversation between a 14th-century Christian Byzantine emperor and an Islamic Persian, the Pope quoted Manuel II: “‘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."
In response to this Muslim extremists conduct "evil and inhuman" acts.
He apologizes but this just further infuriates those who justify violence in the name of religion..

I understand that seen in such a light, “jihad,†which means “struggle,†can too easily be taken literally (as a call to violence against others) rather than figuratively (as many Muslim scholars argue it should be). There's more to this story but I would like to hear opinions from others and their take on this whole mess.

 

Another religion thread... Bored and ready to stir some shit, aren't we. /versus/images/graemlins/deadpan.gif

 

Is that exactly what the Pope said? Where is your source? Link?

 

the pope is a nazi fornicator of the mouth

 

AGREED

 

[ QUOTE ]
Darrius_Cole said:

Is that exactly what the Pope said? Where is your source? Link?

[/ QUOTE ]

Google Recent Pope Speech and you'll find in there somewhere.

I just think that's hypocritical of him. Crusades weren't much fun for some from what I hear.

I think he said it so that it would become a "self-fufilling profecy" of sort. You say that all x people are violent, wait for the backlash and then say "see I told you".

 

From Jon Stuwart of the Daily Show

"...and he was a member of the nazi youth...isn't that a bad thing to have on your resume?"

That being said, I love how the general reaction from the Musliem community was to burn and destroy shit.

 

Lewis Farakhan once called the Pope "a no-good cracker." He was was referring to JP2, but he would probably say that it goes double for this one.

The Nazi Pope's comments not withstanding, I seem to remeber reading that early Islam was tolerent of other religions. Jews and Christians were taxed and thus were a boon to the rulers as a source of revenue.

What does Benedict say about the Inquisition, I wonder?

 

Found the Pope's speech..... Link

The parts that are relevant....

[ QUOTE ]
Text excepted from Pope Benedict XVI's speech on Sept. 14, 2006

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...".

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I see the part the Muslims find offensive.

[ QUOTE ]
Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus as quoted by Pope Benedict XVI

"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".

[/ QUOTE ]

As I see it whether or not the remark was truly offensive or not depends on the whether or not this part
[ QUOTE ]
such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

[/ QUOTE ] is true or not.

If the argument of Muslim people is that Mohammed never ordered that Islam be spread "by the sword" and that argument is indeed true, then the comment is immensely offensive.

If the argument is that Mohammed did order that Islam be spread by the sword then, the statement is not that offensive at all. Rather, there is violent disagreement about what is "inhuman" and what isn't.

 

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom and usually sanctioned by the Pope. They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism.

Taken from wikipedia.

"spread by the sword the faith he preached" indeed.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Cuz said:

The Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom and usually sanctioned by the Pope. They were of a religious character, combining pilgrimage with militarism.

Taken from wikipedia.

"spread by the sword the faith he preached" indeed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Crusades as I understand them were inhumane. (And probably motivated by greed simply using religion as a mask.) That still doesn't change the need to verify or refute what Manuel II advanced as a statement of fact, that Mohammed ordered that Islam be spread by the sword. Did he or didn't he?

 

I dont think crudades was based on greed but mainly of duty. There is a great line that says 'none of us were around when the argument first started, but we are here to face it' and it this old way of thinking is still around.
Why do people feel that others need to convert or die , physically ??
Im sorry i know some christians felt this way before, and muslims now carry that torch proudly?
People with religeion put their religeon ahead of their government at times because its their sense of duty to do whatever they are told a religeon commands them to do. Lifestyle has a lot to do with this,,and though i hate to agree with him,, BinLaden is right when he says most Americans (or westerners) love life where muslims embrace death. This has to do with ones many material things and having an attachment to them instead of looking forward to the afterlife. So many muslims are poor and feel that their attachment to life (or this world ) is not needed, but to death (or the after life).
This gives them a sense of duty to their religeon or god.
Christians used to have this sense of duty as well with the old testament and upto the early 1800's when catholosism took over the americas. Its not until materials made us more attached to the world.

So we are going through another crusades per say because people are now looking at what side they want to be on : an understanding and helping side to help the muslim world deter from 'death' as being the only option to non mulsims ( look at blue box on right : http://www.chicagosuntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-pope19.html)

Curious as to your ideas on how to address 'death to non converted muslim' which is growing in muslim worlds.
U.S muslims are a different story because they are also inthe delimna like other muslims in prosperous western and arab countries,, where they question their allegiance to religeon or country .

 

If he didn't he'd be in essence better then the Christians in that regard, if he didn't then he is the same. So why even bother critisizing him?

 

[ QUOTE ]
Cuz said:

If he didn't he'd be in essence better then the Christians in that regard, if he didn't then he is the same. So why even bother critisizing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't understand that. I think you got one of your negatives wrong. Could you please clarify?

[ QUOTE ]
MADrox said:

BinLaden is right when he says most Americans (or westerners) love life where muslims embrace death. This has to do with ones many material things and having an attachment to them instead of looking forward to the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is right (I don't know enough Muslims to know that it is) then I would guess that it has more to do with general freedom, than with simple material possessions. While material wealth is a part of the equation, other more qualitative factor would have to be taken into account. The bottom line being:.... does the person feel that he is able to be the person that he wants to be, or does he feel that some outside force is holding him down?

 

GLC, if you dont like it, dont post, it's that simple.
For those who wonder "Why must we talk about this?", for those who say "come on, man, if we dont talk about maybe it will just go away". Dont post, stay away from this "scary", "nasty" thread. /versus/images/graemlins/ooo.gif

I'm interested in other's points of view. I dont worship the Pope or even care about his personal life or what the Popemobile looks like but the aftermath of his not-well-thought-out remarks is important.

I believe the Pope made the tragic mistake of pointing out another's religion weak points without addressing his own. Thus making it seem like the only ones capable of such savagery are the Muslims.

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

I agree. At the same time I think that we as humans have advanced since those times. Are we or shouldnt we be more civil? Are the Christians, Catholics, or Jews still killing in the name of religion?
There is no perfect religion or race, we all have our skeletons in the closet. I think that what he was trying to get at is that irrational violence is displeasing to God. The question Benedict is putting on the table is: ‘Does a significant part of Islam have the capacity to be self-critical?’.
The problem is that when he made that remark, he was not self-critical himself of his religion's past.

Much of the Regensburg address was a meditation on faith and reason, the roots of religiously inspired violence and the need for believers to see God as a figure of love.
Roughly put, his argument was this: to Benedict, Islam’s conception of God so stresses God’s will that God can be understood to command the irrational.

How many or us rational human beings actually believe that God wants us to KILL for Him. Vengeance is mine, said the Lord.

The pope’s intentions in discussing “holy war†were presumably goodâ€â€he approvingly quoted an early Qu’ranic “surah†(chapter), which says “there is no compulsion in religionâ€Ââ€â€and he was right to raise the issue of how to confront and combat the religious extremism that gives rise to terror and violence. Sadly, though, he did so clumsily and obliquely, and, far from opening a constructive conversation, instead exacerbated tensions between Christianity and Islam.

 

[ QUOTE ]
tonyfamilia said:

I believe the Pope made the tragic mistake of pointing out another's religion weak points without addressing his own. Thus making it seem like the only ones capable of such savagery are the Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I do agree with you in that the Pope made an error speech-making, I do think that recent Muslim has more to do the fact that he alluded to Manuel's criticism of Mohammed. Muslims are overly sensitive of Mohammed and any criticism of him is taken as a criticism of the entire faith, moreso, it cuts to the core of their faith.

 

Darrius,,

great point about the freedom aspect.. i didnt take that into account. Freedom does allow us to feel an attachement to ourselves and no real affiliation to a god/religeon because we are free to do as we will. Dictatorships or religeous states force us to conform to an extreme,, but this extreme makes us desire a freedom in the afterlife and where , according to religeon, it shouldnt be desired in this world.
But what do you think it is that maintains the hyper-sensitivity in the muslum world that isnt as dominant anywhre else? is it the freedom to love yourself and yourthings and ability to put god or government aside for yourself ? Imnot saying christians arent hyper-sensitive as well,, hell i can go to mexico and preach against the Virgin Mary and easily get stoned,, so freedom isnt a deterant either.

Tony Famila:
Nice points.. I like your straight arrow to those who dont like this discussion in the General Section. ... thoughwe can equate Lau to a taliban with his vicous attacks... /versus/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But on quick question: you mentioned 'can we be civil' but do Muslims today in their countries or Africans in theirs,, have to be civil ? why should they ? dont they have a right to endulge in war as they see fit or as their traditions have taught them to be?
on that matter what keeps us the US civil ? arrogance or in fact civility ?
my opinion,, is thathe muslim worlds is diong what they've done for centuries and keeping all aspects of their way of life in tune with whats worked for them.
As far the US/westerners,, we've always had a class issue since the middle ages and have never evolved from that as well. Anything not done as the elite,, is viewed as barbaric or savage-like. And it may be ,, but im the school of be equal to your enemy if not worse.

dumb-stino

 

[ QUOTE ]
MADrox said:

Darrius,,

1) - But what do you think it is that maintains the hyper-sensitivity in the muslum world that isnt as dominant anywhre else? is it the freedom to love yourself and yourthings and ability to put god or government aside for yourself ?

2) - Imnot saying christians arent hyper-sensitive as well,, hell i can go to mexico and preach against the Virgin Mary and easily get stoned,, so freedom isnt a deterant either.


[/ QUOTE ]

1) Oppression - I think the main reason is the lack the rights guaranteed in the United States Bill of Rights; the most specific of which is lack of Freedom of Speech, and the lack of Freedom of Religion. Most of the people doing the most complaining are living in places where there is isn't freedom of speech where religion is concerned. Their religion is criticised, and ridiculed, joked about. So when it happens they overreact.

Imagine if there was a characterization of Mohammed on South Park like the charaterization of Jesus that appears there. Remember it is still illegal to take a Bible to Saudia Arabia. Remember the Afganistan native who was a Christian and left because he knew they killed people who were not Muslim.

2) Freedom is a huge deterrent. However, you have to realize that you can't have freedom without economic viability. So you have to be both free to do what you want and have a reasonable way to get the means to do so.

P.S.

Stoning people is not proper Christian behavior.

 

[ QUOTE ]
Darrius_Cole said:

[ QUOTE ]
Cuz said:

If he didn't he'd be in essence better then the Christians in that regard, if he didn't then he is the same. So why even bother critisizing him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't understand that. I think you got one of your negatives wrong. Could you please clarify?

[ QUOTE ]
MADrox said:

BinLaden is right when he says most Americans (or westerners) love life where muslims embrace death. This has to do with ones many material things and having an attachment to them instead of looking forward to the afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that is right (I don't know enough Muslims to know that it is) then I would guess that it has more to do with general freedom, than with simple material possessions. While material wealth is a part of the equation, other more qualitative factor would have to be taken into account. The bottom line being:.... does the person feel that he is able to be the person that he wants to be, or does he feel that some outside force is holding him down?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant is that if Mohamed didn't push his religion by sword he would be in essence better then the Christians because they have. If he has done like the Christians, why criticize him?

Muslims probably should embrace death. At the rate that others kill them, clinging to life is a bit moot.

 

CUZ,

can you elaborate on the high sensitivity and lack of respect muslims have for other religeons ?? (they respect that they exist,,,but would be willing to kill those that dont believe)..

There is an issue there that makes Muslims react the way they do . I understand and like their passion for their god (i wish a lot christians shared it).. but when does it become an obsession to want to kill people for not wanting to follow the Muslim way.. where does thsi come from ? and when will it end ,, even if prosperous (i.e. Arab Countries) this attitude will continue , why?