Pope's comments on Islam

[Severian]

Since this has become something of a worldwide political controversy, with the Vatican asserting Ratzinger's comments were taken out of context, I dug up the text of the speech. (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/bavaria06/message9.htm) And as long as I've done that, why not post it for others?

It's largely a critique of scientific rationalism, claiming that reason must be combined with faith and not limited to things which are empirically verifiable. So yes, his point wasn't primarily to bash Islam, but it's nonetheless revealing of his attitudes.

(The veiled attack on science might also be an interesting discussion, but hasn't become a worldwide media controversy.)

Here's the parts dealing with Islam:

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 probably 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 the responses of the learned Persian. 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 of the "three Laws": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. In this lecture I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue itself - 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 jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 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.

I gotta say this is an amazing piece of hypocrisy; first the Emperor who supposedly (if this dialogue&#39;s even historic) claims to oppose conversion by force and who supposedly reconciles faith with reason. In reality, the Eastern Roman Empire spread Christianity by the sword and ruthlessly persecuted heretics; many Christian heretics in Egypt and Syria even welcomed the Arab conquerors as relatively tolerant. Church debates were not settled by reason, but rather by burning at the stake. (And since there&#39;s no way to empirically verify if Jesus was one substance or two substances, there&#39;s no other way they could have been settled.)

That&#39;s also the heritage of the Catholic Church; Ratzinger gave this speech in Bavaria, at Regensburg, which was a major fortress during the Thirty Years War. That war was largely conducted under religious banners (especially by Bavaria) - and killed a third of Germany&#39;s population&#33;

But rather than remove the beam from his own eye, the head of Catholicism locates the rejection of reason, and the desire to convert by the sword....among Muslims.

The pope even attributes the Koranic statement that "There is no compulsion in religion" to "one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threaten." It doesn&#39;t occur to him that similarly: his Church doesn&#39;t use Inquisition methods because it&#39;s powerless to do so - thanks to the bourgeois-democratic revolutions - and because of any inherent tolerance.

And worse yet:

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

So: Christianity - which Ratzinger accurately describes as "this convergence" of Jewish, Hellenistic, and Roman "heritage" - "remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe."

So: Non-Christians - including most immigrants from the Middle East and parts of Africa - are alien to the "foundation of what can rightly be called Europe." That&#39;s a growing theme in mainstream bourgeois politics in Europe. Both anti-immigrant laws and anti-immigrant radically ultraright parties gain strength from it.

****

In the worldwide media controversy, it&#39;s not only Muslims who&#39;ve noticed the problem with this speech.

For example, the Hindustan Times writes in part: (http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_1797303,0012.htm)

Unfortunately, going by the contents of the pontiff’s lecture at Regensburg University in Germany on Tuesday, the Vatican only underlined its anachronistic credentials while Pope Benedict reaffirmed notions of his own fundamentalistic streak.
......
Where he did end up sounding downright sinister was when he quoted the 14th century Christian emperor of Byzantium, Manuel II Palaiologos. The Pope was careful to stress that he was quoting Manuel II, who, after defeating the Ottoman forces and securing Constantinople, stated that Mohammad had introduced only “evil and inhuman” practices, “such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. Coming as it does from an entity that once waged its own ‘holy war’ and turned the term ‘Inquisition’ into a terror-word, this is rather rich.

[TTe5]

The Pope was not wrong when he implied that early Islam was spread by violence and force. Muhammed conquered and forcibly converted people to Islam. If anyone clung to their pagan beliefs they were killed. This was carried on after Muhammed&#39;s death. Just because Christians have done wrong things does not excuse Muslims.

[Comrade J]

It&#39;s just entirely hypocritical. It&#39;d be like Hitler calling Hess a "fucking Nazi."

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 03:53 AM
The Pope was not wrong when he implied that early Islam was spread by violence and force. Muhammed conquered and forcibly converted people to Islam. If anyone clung to their pagan beliefs they were killed. This was carried on after Muhammed&#39;s death. Just because Christians have done wrong things does not excuse Muslims.
I&#39;ve done considerable study into the Middle East in the Middle-ages, and I must disagree. No such thing was done on a wide scale, try reading the Pact of Omar which dictates how religious aliens should behave under lands conquered by Muslims. It does not instruct them convert to Islam under threat of death, quite the reverse, one of the agreements Christians were forced to abide by was: -

"We will not teach our children the Qu&#39;ran;"

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pact-umar.html - My copy uses a slightly different translation and format.

While the pact did not oppose conversion, it did not encourage infidels to learn about Islam or the Qu&#39;ran and it specifically allowed infidels to retain their faith.

[ZX3]

The Pope offerred up a religious observation of Islam, reiterating his belief that Islam has brought nothing really new to the table. That which was new, was evil and rotten. There is nothing wrong with religious scholars, and believers, debating the relative merits of their belief. the problem comes about when the criticism is not accepted.

I do not understand the quickness, especially of memebers of this board, to slam the Pope;s comments. It is undeniable that Europe developed along Christian lines. That observing this fact is racist or has any any other negative connotation is absurd. Islam mixes religion and government. It is rather opposed to homosexuality, treats women ot as equals. Say what you want about Christianity. But it would seem efforts to move people away from that heritage can nly make the victory of socialism that much harder.

[The Sloth]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:53 AM
The Pope was not wrong when he implied that early Islam was spread by violence and force. Muhammed conquered and forcibly converted people to Islam. If anyone clung to their pagan beliefs they were killed. This was carried on after Muhammed&#39;s death.
sometimes yes, sometimes no.

certainly more so later on.


Just because Christians have done wrong things does not excuse Muslims.

who is excusing muslims?

we&#39;re equally hateful towards everybody. :P

[gilhyle]

Great post Severian, well done.

There are quite fundamental differences between Christiantiy and Islam, just as there are between Christianity and Judaism. But these centre on the Christian doctrine of the earthly incarnation of God and the Moslem concept of the will of Allah

You&#39;re quite right that, if anything, the Moslem attitude to unbelievers was better than the Christian. The Pope might want to reflect on the &#39;Christian&#39; attitude to &#39;pagans&#39; in the Americas in the 16 th century or the massacre of the Cathars.

When it comes to the debate between faith and reason it is actually striking that almost precisely the same range of views from covert rationalism to mystical faith are present in both religions - and this from a man supposed to be a learned theologian. The Pope wont find there the clear blue water between the reliance on mystery at the heart of Christiantiy and the reliance on mystery at the heart of Islam that he is looking for.

Interesting, though, that he shoud spot that repulsion at islamic fundamentalism can become repulsion at religious fundamentalism of all sorts and should seek to create such clear blue water between Christianity and Islam.

[TTe5]

I&#39;ve done considerable study into the Middle East in the Middle-ages, and I must disagree. No such thing was done on a wide scale, try reading the Pact of Omar which dictates how religious aliens should behave under lands conquered by Muslims. It does not instruct them convert to Islam under threat of death, quite the reverse, one of the agreements Christians were forced to abide by was

Yes, the Muslims were more tolerant. But, in the days following the founding of Islam Muhammed led an army across the Arabian peninsula and conquered it. He forcibly converted people to Islam and massacred many pagans. While this didn&#39;t last too long in a historical sense, it still happened.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 05:10 PM

I&#39;ve done considerable study into the Middle East in the Middle-ages, and I must disagree. No such thing was done on a wide scale, try reading the Pact of Omar which dictates how religious aliens should behave under lands conquered by Muslims. It does not instruct them convert to Islam under threat of death, quite the reverse, one of the agreements Christians were forced to abide by was

Yes, the Muslims were more tolerant. But, in the days following the founding of Islam Muhammed led an army across the Arabian peninsula and conquered it. He forcibly converted people to Islam and massacred many pagans. While this didn&#39;t last too long in a historical sense, it still happened.
I would agree, however he was not speaking specifically about early Islam. He quoted a a 14th century Christian, who was making observations (bias propaganda) about his enemies. The pact of Umar had been in effect for about 700 years by the point which the Emperor was making his statements. As such the Popes comments are a reflection not as much of early Islam but of Islam in the High Middle Ages.

[TTe5]

I would agree, however he was not speaking specifically about early Islam.

Yes, he was.


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 was commenting on the fact that Muhammed spread Islam through violence. He is obviously referring to Islam during the 600&#39;s when Muhammed was still alive. It has nothing to do with Islam during the Middle Ages.

[Invader Zim]

He is obviously referring to Islam during the 600&#39;s when Muhammed was still alive.


Obviously how? He is clearly referring to Islam in a general sense, hense the term &#39;brought&#39;, which is an open reference to his legacy as well as actions. Not to mention that all writing from extremes such as Anna Komnena to Urban II during this period were written with the current political status in mind. His reference to Muhammed is not a reflection of the historical character, whom he undoubtedly knew little about, but the religion he preached.

[Pirate Utopian]

wasnt the pope with the hitlerjugend when he was young?

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 16 2006, 08:41 PM
wasnt the pope with the hitlerjugend when he was young?
Yes, but it is foolish to hold that against him as it was a legal requirement by Christmas 1936.

[Pirate Utopian]

i know because people were forced back then, but i was just curious

[Enragé]

this is simply an attempt to enflame the situation in the world further, and especially to put religion back on the map even more.

And there we thought we smashed it 30-40 years ago (in europe that is), but now we see fuckin revivals which, though smallscale at the moment, might spread

bah, humbug.

[TTe5]

Obviously how? He is clearly referring to Islam in a general sense, hense the term &#39;brought&#39;, which is an open reference to his legacy as well as actions. Not to mention that all writing from extremes such as Anna Komnena to Urban II during this period were written with the current political status in mind. His reference to Muhammed is not a reflection of the historical character, whom he undoubtedly knew little about, but the religion he preached.

He is saying "look, Muhammed brought nothing new to religion. He spread Islam through violence and forced conversions."

He is criticizing Muhammed for being a hypocrite and for spreading religion through violence.

[Pirate Utopian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 08:55 PM

Obviously how? He is clearly referring to Islam in a general sense, hense the term &#39;brought&#39;, which is an open reference to his legacy as well as actions. Not to mention that all writing from extremes such as Anna Komnena to Urban II during this period were written with the current political status in mind. His reference to Muhammed is not a reflection of the historical character, whom he undoubtedly knew little about, but the religion he preached.

He is saying "look, Muhammed brought nothing new to religion. He spread Islam through violence and forced conversions."

He is criticizing Muhammed for being a hypocrite and for spreading religion through violence.
ooh so he thinks muslims are evil murders and lairs?
well that changes everything :rolleyes:

[TTe5]

ooh so he thinks muslims are evil murders and lairs?
well that changes everything :rolleyes:

What are you talking about? You don&#39;t make any sense.

[RevMARKSman]

Hell, I like the comments. Another thing to bring up with my "religious &#39;education&#39; " teacher. All bullshit superstitions deserve to be put down and humiliated...although I don&#39;t like Christianity, I don&#39;t like Islam any better.

[Severian]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 16 2006, 06:07 AM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 16 2006, 06:07 AM) It is undeniable that Europe developed along Christian lines. That observing this fact is racist or has any any other negative connotation is absurd. [/b]
I can and do deny it.

The only thing that lets Ratzinger pose as an advocate of religious tolerance is that the power to persecute was taken from his Church by the bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

The differences between European and Middle Eastern social conditions are not caused by any of the inherent theological differences between Christianity and Islam.

Rather, it&#39;s a product of the rise of capitalism in western Europe. Which created the conditions for revolutions which smashed feudalism, including the secular power - and property&#33; - of the Church.

There are many reasons why capitalism arose first in western Europe - that&#39;s a complex subject of its own. But the theological features of Christianity are not among them&#33; There was no independent development of capitalism in Christian eastern Europe, including Catholic Poland, or in Christian Armenia, Georgia, or Ethiopia....only in western Europe, and some would argue Japan.

While capitalism and capitalist democracy were rising in western Europe, eastern European peasants were actually being forced backwards, into the "second serfdom". An early example of "underdevelopment" - capitalism&#39;s effects not always being so progressive abroad.

It was only with the Russian Revolution and its aftereffects that all that semifeudal crap, including the enforced monopoly of an official state church, was smashed in eastern Europe.

Similarly in the Middle East, it&#39;s only the working class that can take the lead in dismantling all kinds of medieval-seeming garbage.


Islam mixes religion and government. It is rather opposed to homosexuality, treats women ot as equals. Say what you want about Christianity.

Pot, meet kettle. You could argue that Islam is worse than Christianity...but see above, on how differences in social conditions are not caused by inherent differences between the religions.

I might point out that a number of Middle Eastern countries have state-sponsored Christian religious courts handing down judgements based on archaic scriptural law - right alongside the Islamic sharia courts.

That includes Lebanon, where the Catholic minority of the Christian minority has been politically dominant from French colonialism until recently, and arguably still today. Yup, Catholic and Orthodox religious courts, funded by the state, their decisions enforced by the state, with legal jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other "personal status" issues. Not surprisingly, it&#39;s even harder to get a divorce in the Lebanese Catholic courts than the Lebanese Muslim courts.

(It also includes Israel, BTW, which has Orthodox rabbinical courts, along with Muslim, Christian, and Druze courts as well. The main people objecting to this have been Reform and Conservative Jews, and the legal jurisdiction of the Orthodox rabbis has been limited a bit....)

Anyway, so much for the idea that "mixing religion and government" is uniqely Muslim. Nope, it&#39;s something that&#39;s common in countries which missed the age of bourgeois-democratic revolutions...and haven&#39;t yet had workers&#39; revolutions.


[email protected] 16 2006, 10:10 AM
But, in the days following the founding of Islam Muhammed led an army across the Arabian peninsula and conquered it. He forcibly converted people to Islam and massacred many pagans. While this didn&#39;t last too long in a historical sense, it still happened.
How do you know? There really aren&#39;t any historical facts or records about Mohammed - not even when or where he lived, or whether he had anything to do with the Koran (which barely mentions the name.)

One of the ironies of life: the most vehement critics of Islam are sometimes the first to take Muslim beliefs on faith&#33;

There are some records of the period shortly after the Arab conquests, and its generally agreed by historians that many Christian heretics found the new rulers more tolerant than the old. There&#39;s some reason to think that Islam took the shape we know - the Koran was standardized - etc - after the conquest, as a sort of synthesis of the monotheistic religons of the conquered peoples.

(So yeah, nothing new - certainly the idea of spreading the faith by the sword wasn&#39;t new&#33; In hoc signo vinces, remember?)

At any rate, it seems like the early Muslim rulers were if anything probably more tolerant than the medieval ones. More tolerant of religious differences, that is. I don&#39;t mean they were all sweetness and light.

They were nomadic conquerors, come to pillage their richer, civilized neighbors. Genghis Khan practiced religious toleration, too. That&#39;s social conditions over theology again....

[Vargha Poralli]

Well talking about islam form of govt it became worst in 19th century i think. Earlier when muslims from afghan and central asia conquered northern india and ruled the state as first delhi sultanate around 12th century to mughals in 1707 they didn&#39;t forcibly convert indians and tolerated hindu religion even though its hardly a religion at that time.Evidence is thier continous rule over hindus who never tried to overthrow them and they were only replaced by the britishers.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Severian+Sep 17 2006, 09:48 AM--> (Severian @ Sep 17 2006, 09:48 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 06:07 AM
It is undeniable that Europe developed along Christian lines. That observing this fact is racist or has any any other negative connotation is absurd.
I can and do deny it.

The only thing that lets Ratzinger pose as an advocate of religious tolerance is that the power to persecute was taken from his Church by the bourgeois-democratic revolutions.

The differences between European and Middle Eastern social conditions are not caused by any of the inherent theological differences between Christianity and Islam.

Rather, it&#39;s a product of the rise of capitalism in western Europe. Which created the conditions for revolutions which smashed feudalism, including the secular power - and property&#33; - of the Church.

There are many reasons why capitalism arose first in western Europe - that&#39;s a complex subject of its own. But the theological features of Christianity are not among them&#33; There was no independent development of capitalism in Christian eastern Europe, including Catholic Poland, or in Christian Armenia, Georgia, or Ethiopia....only in western Europe, and some would argue Japan.

While capitalism and capitalist democracy were rising in western Europe, eastern European peasants were actually being forced backwards, into the "second serfdom". An early example of "underdevelopment" - capitalism&#39;s effects not always being so progressive abroad.

It was only with the Russian Revolution and its aftereffects that all that semifeudal crap, including the enforced monopoly of an official state church, was smashed in eastern Europe.

Similarly in the Middle East, it&#39;s only the working class that can take the lead in dismantling all kinds of medieval-seeming garbage.


Islam mixes religion and government. It is rather opposed to homosexuality, treats women ot as equals. Say what you want about Christianity.

Pot, meet kettle. You could argue that Islam is worse than Christianity...but see above, on how differences in social conditions are not caused by inherent differences between the religions.

I might point out that a number of Middle Eastern countries have state-sponsored Christian religious courts handing down judgements based on archaic scriptural law - right alongside the Islamic sharia courts.

That includes Lebanon, where the Catholic minority of the Christian minority has been politically dominant from French colonialism until recently, and arguably still today. Yup, Catholic and Orthodox religious courts, funded by the state, their decisions enforced by the state, with legal jurisdiction over marriage, divorce, inheritance, and other "personal status" issues. Not surprisingly, it&#39;s even harder to get a divorce in the Lebanese Catholic courts than the Lebanese Muslim courts.

(It also includes Israel, BTW, which has Orthodox rabbinical courts, along with Muslim, Christian, and Druze courts as well. The main people objecting to this have been Reform and Conservative Jews, and the legal jurisdiction of the Orthodox rabbis has been limited a bit....)

Anyway, so much for the idea that "mixing religion and government" is uniqely Muslim. Nope, it&#39;s something that&#39;s common in countries which missed the age of bourgeois-democratic revolutions...and haven&#39;t yet had workers&#39; revolutions.

[/b]

Capitalism developed in western Europe alongside the Protestant Reformation. Protestant churches did not attach the the same same social stigma to the "businessman" as did the Catholic, and Orthodox, Church.

I never made the claim that other churches do not mix religion and state. Indeed, the USA is closer to Cuba and North Korea, and are in a distict minority worldwide in its degree of separation of the two. What i wondered about is why the quick siding with the Islamic fundamentalists by so many on this board, in light of the fact that their "mixture" is far tighter than in the western states or in the USA.

[Janus]

It&#39;s interesting how the Church has responded and apologized so quickly as opposed to their slow actions before.


Indeed, the USA is closer to Cuba and North Korea, and are in a distict minority worldwide in its degree of separation of the two
Religion and state are not so separate in the US as can be seen by the power of the religious right. We currently have a president who has ruled on behalf of religion concerning certain technologies and has made no attempts to hide his religious zeal. Furthermore, the religious community has been able to prevent the teaching of evolution as fact in certain schools such as those in Texas. This separation is blurred in many aspects of the US.

[Severian]

Originally posted by Janus+Sep 18 2006, 12:46 AM--> (Janus &#064; Sep 18 2006, 12:46 AM)It&#39;s interesting how the Church has responded and apologized so quickly as opposed to their slow actions before.[/b]
Nah; really Ratzinger&#39;s made a non-apology. He regrets other people&#39;s reaction to his comments, not his comments. A lot of John Paul&#39;s much-hyped apologies for historic Church atrocities were really non-apologies, too.

I think the difference between the Church&#39;s actions now and in the past is something else....

BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5352404.stm)

But on one key issue, Vatican-watchers detected a divergence in the views of the two men: the Vatican&#39;s attitude towards Islam.

John Paul II wanted to reach out to other religions and in 2001, on a visit to Syria, he became the first pope to set foot in a mosque.
.....
Benedict XVI undoubtedly wants to achieve better relations with Islam, but there is an important proviso.

It can be summed up in a single word: reciprocity. It means that if Muslims want to enjoy religious freedom in the West, then Christians should have an equal right to follow their faith in Islamic states, without fear of persecution.

Now think about that: freedom of religion for Muslims in Europe is conditional on freedom of religion for Christians in majority-Muslim countries? Seriously fucked-up. Democratic rights aren&#39;t "reciprocal" or conditional; they have to be defended and expanded everywhere, regardless of whether one area gets ahead of another.

It&#39;s not even likely to help Christian minorities - rather they&#39;ll be exposed to retaliation, as we see presently. It does, however, fit into the increasingly anti-immigrant politics of Europe.

Which Ratzinger always has:

Another BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5349808.stm)

During his time as a cardinal, Pope Benedict opposed Turkey&#39;s bid to join the European Union, saying it belonged to a different cultural sphere, adding that its admission would be a grave error against the tide of history.

And in 1996, he wrote that Islam had difficulty in adapting to modern life.
.....
Last year he accused Muslim leaders in Germany of failing to steer their youth from what he described as the darkness of a new barbarism.

The debate on Turkish EU admission is immigration-related because of the lowering of travel and migration barriers between EU members. A lot of European politicians have used anti-Muslim demagogy to oppose admitting Turkey.

****


[email protected] 17 2006, 06:44 PM
Capitalism developed in western Europe alongside the Protestant Reformation. Protestant churches did not attach the the same same social stigma to the "businessman" as did the Catholic, and Orthodox, Church.
Isn&#39;t it strange to cite the Protestant Reformation in defense of a speech by a pope? His predecessors tried hard to stop the Reformation, including by "spreading the [Catholic] faith with the sword." I mentioned the Thirty Years War in my first post....

Yes, the Protestant Reformation was (past tense) an early form of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Though often not involving either religious freedom or church-state separation (esp. early Lutherans and Anglicans.)

But it did not arise because of any theological feature of Christianity - rather because of the economic changes underway in Europe.

And the bourgeois-democratic revolution, when fully developed, cracked that religious shell and took an openly secular form - in the French and American Revolutions.


I never made the claim that other churches do not mix religion and state. Indeed, the USA is closer to Cuba and North Korea, and are in a distict minority worldwide in its degree of separation of the two.

It&#39;s true that unlike some west European countries, the US has no established church. That&#39;s because the USA had two unusually thorough bourgeois-democratic revolutions (War of Independence and Civil War.)


What i wondered about is why the quick siding with the Islamic fundamentalists by so many on this board, in light of the fact that their "mixture" is far tighter than in the western states or in the USA

Nobody in this thread has. More generally, it&#39;s simplistic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking.

I&#39;m guessing that for you, comparing the USA to Cuba and north Korea is not a compliment. So if you think there&#39;s too much church-state separation - couldn&#39;t I turn your logic around and ask why you don&#39;t side with "Islamic fundamentalists"?

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 08:15 PM
Isn&#39;t it strange to cite the Protestant Reformation in defense of a speech by a pope? His predecessors tried hard to stop the Reformation, including by "spreading the [Catholic] faith with the sword." I mentioned the Thirty Years War in my first post....

Yes, the Protestant Reformation was (past tense) an early form of the bourgeois-democratic revolution. Though often not involving either religious freedom or church-state separation (esp. early Lutherans and Anglicans.)

But it did not arise because of any theological feature of Christianity - rather because of the economic changes underway in Europe.

And the bourgeois-democratic revolution, when fully developed, cracked that religious shell and took an openly secular form - in the French and American Revolutions.


I never made the claim that other churches do not mix religion and state. Indeed, the USA is closer to Cuba and North Korea, and are in a distict minority worldwide in its degree of separation of the two.

It&#39;s true that unlike some west European countries, the US has no established church. That&#39;s because the USA had two unusually thorough bourgeois-democratic revolutions (War of Independence and Civil War.)


What i wondered about is why the quick siding with the Islamic fundamentalists by so many on this board, in light of the fact that their "mixture" is far tighter than in the western states or in the USA

Nobody in this thread has. More generally, it&#39;s simplistic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" thinking.

I&#39;m guessing that for you, comparing the USA to Cuba and north Korea is not a compliment. So if you think there&#39;s too much church-state separation - couldn&#39;t I turn your logic around and ask why you don&#39;t side with "Islamic fundamentalists"?
I wasn&#39;t citing the the Protestant reformation to defend the Pope. I was responding to your assertion that capitalism only developed in western europe, and suggesting why that was so. But the Pope was scarcely speaking of capitalism when he made his comments, nor speaking specifically about the Catholic faith.

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by Big [email protected] 16 2006, 07:41 PM
wasnt the pope with the hitlerjugend when he was young?
What relevance does that have? Honestly?

[Cheung Mo]

Aside from little boys, Nazinger&#39;s wet dreams tend to involve remaking Europe along the lines of Franco&#39;s Spain and remaking Canada along the lines of Duplessis&#39; Quebec.

If you want an idea of what the fucking Vatican is capable of in societies where people are ignorant enough to take it seriously, look no further than the Catholic-sponsored censorship, anti-sex, and anti-contraception laws in the Philippines.

[EwokUtopia]

Its interesting and rather scary if you think about it. The Pope is quite the ally of international conservative movements, and has allways been. The last Pope was elected in the 70&#39;s, when the main enemy of the Western Conservative world was the USSR, and John Paul reflected this with his staunch opposition to Communism. But that era is dead and gone, as is that pope, and now we have a new Pope, and the people in the Western world are being fed a new string of fears, namely the supposed threat "Islamofascism" provides to the American people. Of course, this threat and string of fears is largely ficticious, and the problems within radical Islam, which, grossly exaturated, are opposed by the vast majority of the worlds Muslims and Schools of Islam, represent the ruling classes of many Middle Eastern Nations in sync with the United States (or at least supported by the US economic policy, for now), so Namely Saudi Arabia. But regardless of where the actual threat lies and how great its extent is, an institution that is infinately more dangerous to the world than any Islamic Fundamentalist could ever hope to be puts its people in constant fear of the Islamic world. This is reflected in the speech patterns of the vast majority of Western leaders in the world today. And what do we now have? a Pope elected in 2005 that starts his first big international incident with remarks against Islam. When Popes start anti-Islamic rhetoric, it is at best hypocritical, and at worse reververates into violent and xenophobic anti-Islamic (or even just anti-arab) sentiments, which, in past times have culminated in the wonderous Crusades.

As it stands, Europe is becomming radically Islamophobic (or rather Xenophobic pinning their prejudices on the fear of "Islamic terror") and the Popes statements have been celebrated by many European leaders. The Popes word is somewhat less powerful in America (though still hugely powerful) but this is irrelevant because of many other Christian leaders in the US whose Islamophobic statements dwarf anything this old German has said. We really need to be weary of this, or else the Third World War could be the Tenth Crusade as well....This would probably be the most humiliating way to destroy the world, so we must vanguard against it. There are many people in the United States and across the Western world whose power we must check. Some espouse violent Islamophobia with subtle rhetoric (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html)that claims friendship with muslims, yet at the same time terrorizes millions at the prospect of radical Islam, for many people in the west, this is the first association they have with islam, others are more blatant (http://www.falange.us/), but the results are the same, just browse any open forum and see how much hatred directed towards Muslims and the Mid East is going around. I feel sometimes that we are on the verge of an anti-Islamic Kristallnacht, which means that we are on the verge of something far far more dangerous than anything I would ever want to comprehend. It is up to us to stop this from happening before it starts.




Oh, and the Pope was wrong. When the verse in the Koran that says "there is no compulsion in religion" was set to paper, Muhammed was in Medina surrounded by loyal followers, he had plenty of power at that time.

[Darth Revan]

The Pope just quoted some Byzantine Emperor and you see protests of Muslims all over the world I hate the Pope and christianity especially catholics just as much as i hate Islam only when somebody makes fun of Jesus you wont see Christians blowing up mosques

[Rollo]

So you hate the brainwashed youths?

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 08:04 AM
So you hate the brainwashed youths?
no

[Rollo]

A lot of young christians are just listening to what they were told by there parents, who were brainwashed by there parents.

[The Rover]

Originally posted by Darth [email protected] 1 2006, 06:55 AM
The Pope just quoted some Byzantine Emperor and you see protests of Muslims all over the world I hate the Pope and christianity especially catholics just as much as i hate Islam only when somebody makes fun of Jesus you wont see Christians blowing up mosques
That&#39;s because they got it all out during the crusades...

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 11:21 PM
A lot of young christians are just listening to what they were told by there parents, who were brainwashed by there parents.
well children will believe everything they hear if there parents wouldn&#39;t make them go to church and all that religious craps most chances that they were atheists thinks like that stay with forever and its hard to get rid of them thats how all religions mainly spread from the parent to the child if we stop this cycle most chances that by 30-50 years 80 % of the world would be atheists

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 04:10 PM

I&#39;ve done considerable study into the Middle East in the Middle-ages, and I must disagree. No such thing was done on a wide scale, try reading the Pact of Omar which dictates how religious aliens should behave under lands conquered by Muslims. It does not instruct them convert to Islam under threat of death, quite the reverse, one of the agreements Christians were forced to abide by was

Yes, the Muslims were more tolerant. But, in the days following the founding of Islam Muhammed led an army across the Arabian peninsula and conquered it. He forcibly converted people to Islam and massacred many pagans. While this didn&#39;t last too long in a historical sense, it still happened.
DIdnt the pagans try to opress people who didnt want to worship their gods first?

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by Raisa+Oct 6 2006, 06:59 AM--> (Raisa @ Oct 6 2006, 06:59 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 04:10 PM

I&#39;ve done considerable study into the Middle East in the Middle-ages, and I must disagree. No such thing was done on a wide scale, try reading the Pact of Omar which dictates how religious aliens should behave under lands conquered by Muslims. It does not instruct them convert to Islam under threat of death, quite the reverse, one of the agreements Christians were forced to abide by was

Yes, the Muslims were more tolerant. But, in the days following the founding of Islam Muhammed led an army across the Arabian peninsula and conquered it. He forcibly converted people to Islam and massacred many pagans. While this didn&#39;t last too long in a historical sense, it still happened.
DIdnt the pagans try to opress people who didnt want to worship their gods first? [/b]
Only the Romans i think :huh:

[grove street]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2006, 02:53 AM
The Pope was not wrong when he implied that early Islam was spread by violence and force. Muhammed conquered and forcibly converted people to Islam. If anyone clung to their pagan beliefs they were killed. This was carried on after Muhammed&#39;s death. Just because Christians have done wrong things does not excuse Muslims.
Early Muslims faced great persecution from the pagan Arabs. Muhammed and his fellow Muslims were left with no little choice, but to fight the pagan Arabs and convert them or face genocide. If one actually reads the story of Muhammed then you would know that he sought peace with the pagans, but the pagan persuction became so great towards the Muslims that they had to defend themselves.

There is no denying that Muhammed was an incredible military and political leader who fought for the poor and mistreated of Arabia against the oppressive Pagans.

Although there is alot about fighting infdels in the Quran, one cannot over look the fact that it meantions helping and caring for the poor, orphans, sick and elderly more then anything else.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by grove street+Oct 6 2006, 09:25 AM--> (grove street &#064; Oct 6 2006, 09:25 AM)
[email protected] 16 2006, 02:53 AM
The Pope was not wrong when he implied that early Islam was spread by violence and force. Muhammed conquered and forcibly converted people to Islam. If anyone clung to their pagan beliefs they were killed. This was carried on after Muhammed&#39;s death. Just because Christians have done wrong things does not excuse Muslims.
Early Muslims faced great persecution from the pagan Arabs. Muhammed and his fellow Muslims were left with no little choice, but to fight the pagan Arabs and convert them or face genocide. If one actually reads the story of Muhammed then you would know that he sought peace with the pagans, but the pagan persuction became so great towards the Muslims that they had to defend themselves.

There is no denying that Muhammed was an incredible military and political leader who fought for the poor and mistreated of Arabia against the oppressive Pagans.

Although there is alot about fighting infdels in the Quran, one cannot over look the fact that it meantions helping and caring for the poor, orphans, sick and elderly more then anything else. [/b]
Mohammad was such a nice guy. He owned slaves, but he treated them well. He had 25 wives/concubines but they received the best of care. He also ordered the execution of a woman who made fun of him in a poem. What a great guy.

About Islam spreading by the sword.

"Over the centuries there have been sporadic purges, pogroms and forced conversions to Islam"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5367892.stm



Slaves were obtained through conquest, tribute from vassal states ...The latter method provided the majority of slaves, and at the borders of the Islamic Empire vast number of new slaves were castrated ready for sale (Islamic law did not allow mutilation of slaves, so it was done before they crossed the border). The majority of these slaves came from Europe and Africa

Slave troops in Tunisia in the seventeenth century even included cavalry, and the Sultan of Morocco is recorded as having an army of 250,000 black slaves.


http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Grove Street made a point and knowing he has a good point just made you forgot and move on to after Muhammed History.

The Pagan Arabs were rich, wealthy, Opressive and their communities in Central Cities were Massive. They Persecuted the muslims and like grove street said, the prophet (PBUH) had no choice but to fight back.

what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:20 PM
Grove Street made a point and knowing he has a good point just made you forgot and move on to after Muhammed History.

The Pagan Arabs were rich, wealthy, Opressive and their communities in Central Cities were Massive. They Persecuted the muslims and like grove street said, the prophet (PBUH) had no choice but to fight back.

what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.
So to be a free man i need to convert to islam wow what equalness :o

[AfricanSocialCommunist]

Originally posted by Darth Revan+Oct 9 2006, 01:55 PM--> (Darth Revan @ Oct 9 2006, 01:55 PM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 12:20 PM
Grove Street made a point and knowing he has a good point just made you forgot and move on to after Muhammed History.

The Pagan Arabs were rich, wealthy, Opressive and their communities in Central Cities were Massive. They Persecuted the muslims and like grove street said, the prophet (PBUH) had no choice but to fight back.

what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.
So to be a free man i need to convert to islam wow what equalness :o [/b]
why put words in my mouth&#33;&#33;

I never said that nor do I suscribe to that.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by AfricanSocialCommunist+Oct 9 2006, 03:29 PM--> (AfricanSocialCommunist @ Oct 9 2006, 03:29 PM)
Originally posted by Darth [email protected] 9 2006, 01:55 PM

[email protected] 9 2006, 12:20 PM
Grove Street made a point and knowing he has a good point just made you forgot and move on to after Muhammed History.

The Pagan Arabs were rich, wealthy, Opressive and their communities in Central Cities were Massive. They Persecuted the muslims and like grove street said, the prophet (PBUH) had no choice but to fight back.

what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.
So to be a free man i need to convert to islam wow what equalness :o
why put words in my mouth&#33;&#33;

I never said that nor do I suscribe to that. [/b]
sorry what i meant that no Abrahamic religion (Judaism,Christiannty,Islam) never practised equality between classes its also true for other religions

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:20 PM
Grove Street made a point and knowing he has a good point just made you forgot and move on to after Muhammed History.

The Pagan Arabs were rich, wealthy, Opressive and their communities in Central Cities were Massive. They Persecuted the muslims and like grove street said, the prophet (PBUH) had no choice but to fight back.

what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.
570 - 632 AD, said "He will not enter paradise who behaveth ill to his slaves. The companions said, "O Apostle of God&#33; Have you not told us, that there will be a great many slaves and orphans amongst your disciples?" He said, "Yes; then be kind to them as your own children, and give them to eat of what you eat yourselves. The slaves that say their prayers are your brothers." and "..yield obedience to my successor, although he may be an Abyssinian slave."

Notice how slavery isn&#39;t condemned by Muhammad, just be nice to your slaves... :lol:

Your assertion that Muslims don&#39;t enslave their own is fallacious. Saudi practiced (and still does) slavery up until 1962. Other Arab states practice defacto slavery eg. camel jockies. In Lebanon, many Asian housemaids are kept under slave like conditions. Indeed most of the countries where slavery is practiced are Muslim.


what I don&#39;t understand is why legitimate points and major social gains by Muhammed (PBUH) is thrown out the window because one of his followers slaved 250,000 blacks. and Unlike in the Americas, It was mandatory for slaves to be released from their chains imidiately if they converted. In Fact, Islam was the first Religion to practice equalness and its still does.

Slavery in Islam has been practice by more than one Muslim leader. If you read my article you would have learned that. Muslims captured slaves from Yugoslavia, Africa, even from the Indian subcontinent. Slavery in Islam and spreading Islam by the sword began under Muhammed.

"However, the spread of the Islamic Empire resulted in a much harsher interpretation of the law. For example, if a dhimmis was unable to pay the taxes they could be enslaved, and people from outside the borders of the Islamic Empire were considered an acceptable source of slaves."
http://africanhistory.about.com/library/weekly/aa040201a.htm

BTW, Muhammed wasn&#39;t a great military leader, he was just some brutal illiterate that attacked his former allies and relied on prepotence for his victories.


Mohamed Yahya (emphasis on his name)
A refugee from the Darfur region of Sudan, Mr. Yahya is the chairman of the Damanga Coalition for Freedom and Democracy (DCFD). In the early 1990s, his village was attacked by the Sudanese government-backed Arab militia, known as the Janjaweed. The raiders decimated his village and Mr. Yahya&#39;s relatives and neighbors were shot, raped, and burnt alive. Today, he works with other refugees and speaks out against the genocide in Sudan. Mr. Yahya has spoken at Duke, George Washington University, and alongside Gloria Steinem at a rally in front of the UN.

http://www.iabolish.com/speakers_bureau/index.html

[Darth Revan]

Islamic kingdoms also used slaves as warriors for example the Mamluks slave soldiers who converted to Islam and served the Muslim caliphs and the Ayyubid sultans during the Middle Ages Captured as children from Georgia and other european countries as children and then forcefully converted to Islam

[Severian]

Originally posted by grove [email protected] 6 2006, 03:25 AM
Early Muslims faced great persecution from the pagan Arabs. Muhammed and his fellow Muslims were left with no little choice, but to fight the pagan Arabs and convert them or face genocide. If one actually reads the story of Muhammed then you would know that he sought peace with the pagans, but the pagan persuction became so great towards the Muslims that they had to defend themselves.

"If you read the story of Muhammad"? The story according to who?

You mean, if you take on faith the Muslim religion&#39;s account of its own origins?

We certainly don&#39;t know what Arab pagans might have said&#33; We&#39;ve only heard one side of the story.

And that in the form of oral traditions written down many years later&#33; Ever played the game "Telephone"?

Without contemporary writing, coins, inscriptions, or other evidence - who knows anything about Muhammad.

(That goes as well for negative statements, for example Tecumseh&#39;s: "BTW, Muhammed wasn&#39;t a great military leader, he was just some brutal illiterate that attacked his former allies and relied on prepotence for his victories.")

We do know, for a fact:

1. Pagans, historically, have often been more religiously tolerant than monotheists. After all, they believe in many gods; they&#39;re often indifferent to which god one worships. Monotheists, in contrast, believe everyone should worship the one true God. I&#39;m doing you a favor by making you worship Him - otherwise you&#39;d go to Hell.

For example, the Roman Empire was more religiously diverse and tolerant before the rise of Christianity.

2. Contemporary written accounts of the Arab conquests describe them as ruthless nomadic barbarians, thirsting for blood and plunder. On the other hand, accounts of the early Islamic rulers (in Persia and formerly Roman lands) describe them as more religiously tolerant than the Byzantine Empire.

In the context of the time, some Islamic rules may have been progressive. For example, the commandment to free enslaved war captives if they converted. For another example, the Koran spends a lot of space on repeatedly forbidding infanticide of girls - suggesting it may have been previously common among some Arabs. (Since most societies don&#39;t bother to prohibit something &#39;til somebody&#39;s done it.)

But today? What may have been progressive in the 9th century sure ain&#39;t now.

That&#39;s the problem with taking any book as the absolute and eternal truth. Humanity learns, gains knowledge over generations, eventually corrects its mistakes....a book can&#39;t.

[KaytiSweet]

Pope says he was &#39;misunderstood&#39;
Pope Benedict XVI tells pilgrims at the Vatican that
his remarks on Islam last week were misunderstood.

[Janus]

Last week? How old is your source? His comments were made almost 2 months ago.

[Severian]

And in fact he wasn&#39;t "misunderstood". See my first post in the thread, where I link and discuss the whole speech.

[Orion999]

Let&#39;s see. The Pope accuses Islam of being a violent religon and in order to prove him wrong the Islamos start shooting nuns and blowing up churches. Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?

Who cares what happened hundreds of years ago, I only give a shit about what is happening today and today the muslim religon definitely resorts to violence far more than any other. You all need to wake up and realize that islamofacism is a very real threat and not something made up to scare everybody.

How are you all ever going to establish your peaceful little communes without first defeating the Islamos? Do you really think they will let you live in peace?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2006 12:24 pm
Let&#39;s see. The Pope accuses Islam of being a violent religon and in order to prove him wrong the Islamos start shooting nuns and blowing up churches. Am I the only one that sees a contradiction here?
"The Islamos"? It&#39;s certainly not Muslims in general who responded in this way; there were relatively few acts of violence. As I pointed out in another thread on this:

"Muslims in general"? Is the reaction you describe really coming from Muslims in general?

None of these demonstrations have been particularly huge; I saw one news item mentioning rallies of "hundreds" in Iran - mostly theological students, apparently. And certainly those committing acts of violence against Christians have been only the worst elements of the ultraright - al-Qaeda and so forth.

Even a leader of Egypt&#39;s Muslim Brotherhood - a more moderately rightist political group - was quoted in the news today saying the anger was justified but would soon blow over, and "Our relations with Christians should remain good, civilized and co-operative."

There are, of course, ultrarightists in Europe who&#39;ve committed similar acts of bigoted violence against Muslims - sometimes on a large scale, as in Bosnia.

As I point out in another thread (with the text of Ratzinger&#39;s speech), there is reason to condemn those comments, which occur in the context of anti-immigrant politics in Europe. It&#39;s not surprising that many Muslims are justifiably angry about it; in part for the reason Ace points out. And it&#39;s not only Muslims who&#39;ve criticized them.

But the overblown reaction, and particularly the acts of violence against Christians, are not the reaction of "Muslims in general."

(That was true of the Danish cartoon controversy, also; the protests were largely small, and mostly organized by repressive governments seeking to outflank the "Islamist" opposition and to give free speech a bad name as "anti-Islamic.")

Ironically, you also posted in that thread, but you still don&#39;t want to deal with these facts.


today the muslim religon definitely resorts to violence far more than any other. You all need to wake up and realize that islamofacism is a very real threat and not something made up to scare everybody.

Hm. Conflating "the muslim religion" and "islamofascism" again.

There are of course rightist groups which call themselves "Islamic". Most people describe these groups as "Muslim fundamentalist", "Islamist" or "political Islam."

Communists oppose them like any ultraright group, and have actively opposed them for decades within Middle East politics. Is "fascist" an accurate description of them? Not especially. If anyone really thought it was, they&#39;d just call &#39;em "fascist", you wouldn&#39;t need this new term "Islamofascist".

The term was, in fact, geared up to scare people. As is the picture of a rising tide of "Islamic" rightism threatening civilization or whatever. In reality, their movement&#39;s been in overall decline since the late 1970s. Al-Qaeda-like attacks on the "far enemy" are acts of desperation arising from their failure to overthrow the "near enemy" - regimes in the majority-Muslim countries.

The overall trend of history is against them, as with other rightists. The trend is for greater secularization of society; expansion of womens&#39; rights; everything else they oppose. Even in Iran today - a majority of university students are women. They can&#39;t stop history.

Their desperate, violent flailing attempt to do so - may slow it down; but I&#39;m not going to go into a frenzy of fear over &#39;em, or abandon the overall communist approach.

I&#39;m certainly not going to support the more powerful and dangerous enemies of progress because of fear of "Islamofascism" - which is what you really want, of course.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Although the Pope was wrong in everything he said I dont see what the big deal is. If anything it shows how desperate the anti-Muslim community is that theyre willing to dig up a thousand year old opinion from a person long dead who was either ignorant or lying.

[Johnny Anarcho]

Originally posted by Darth [email protected] 01, 2006 08:54 am
The Pope just quoted some Byzantine Emperor and you see protests of Muslims all over the world I hate the Pope and christianity especially catholics just as much as i hate Islam only when somebody makes fun of Jesus you wont see Christians blowing up mosques
How do you know that for sure. I&#39;ll bet anything that if a cartoon of Jesus masturbating with a dildo while smoking weed was printed in the New York Times there would be riots in the street.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by Johnny Anarcho+November 12, 2006 06:32 pm--> (Johnny Anarcho @ November 12, 2006 06:32 pm)
Darth [email protected] 01, 2006 08:54 am
The Pope just quoted some Byzantine Emperor and you see protests of Muslims all over the world I hate the Pope and christianity especially catholics just as much as i hate Islam only when somebody makes fun of Jesus you wont see Christians blowing up mosques
How do you know that for sure. I&#39;ll bet anything that if a cartoon of Jesus masturbating with a dildo while smoking weed was printed in the New York Times there would be riots in the street. [/b]
I doubt it. You might get some protesting from the Christian fundamentalists but nothing on the scale of the Muslim reaction to the pope&#39;s comments.