Al Qaeda vows jihad over Pope remarks

[ECH1969]

AL-QAEDA in Iraq has said in response to remarks by Pope Benedict XVI linking Islam with violence that it will wage jihad until the West is defeated, in a statement posted on the Internet today.

"We say to the servant of the cross (the Pope): wait for defeat ... We say to infidels and tyrants: wait for what will afflict you. "We continue our jihad. We will not stop until the banner of unicity flies throughout the world," said the statement attributed to the Mujahideen consultative council.

"We will smash the cross ... (you will have no choice but) Islam or death," the statement added, citing a hadith (saying of the Prophet Mohammed) promising Muslims they would "conquer Rome ... as they conquered Constantinople".

Two other armed groups in Iraq, Jaish al-Mujahideen and Asaeb al-Iraq al-Jihadiya, have already threatened the Vatican with reprisals in statements posted on Islamist websites.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20433599-5005961,00.html

[CarbonDate]

1. Uh, is it just me....

...or does this belong in the dictionary under "irony"?

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I was gonna say that. Isn't that validating the Pope's remarks?

[Julius Civitatus]

36. Indeed

It's like saying... "If you call me violent, I'll crack your head open."

What the hell?

:shrug:

[gaspee]

4. Either

Either irony, stupidity, or complete craziness. I'm not quite sure which.

I think the Pope was kind of shortsighted because, really, if you're the Pope, you know, head of an entire sect of christianity, your words are going to have an impact.

I don't know if he meant to insult them or if he was giving an academic speech with no intent to insult an entire religion. I don't really care. These freaking religious nuts are going to destroy the planet in their endless quest for holy war. And I'm not just talking about radical muslims.

People willing to kill for their religion. Hmmm, I guess they think their deity can't take care of itself and they have to do it. Kind of negates their entire philosophy if they think they need to protect their supposedly powerful god.

The world descent into fundamentalism kind of makes me feel sick and helpless.

[NoPasaran]

23. Or all three n/t

[indepat]

31. Enough to make one wonder have many have been killed in the name of

Christianity.

[INDIA]

68. Saw your post coming a mile away.

Surprised it took so long.

[Moochy]

184. your implication being...

[INDIA]

203. Any time fanatical Islam is criticized

It's absolutely necessary, almost a knee-jerk reaction on DU to compare their actions to Christian fundamentalists. Christians WERE just as violent and despicable...hundreds of years ago. Voting for Bush (although despicable) is simply not comparable to the thousands of violent acts that have been carried out by muslim radicals in recent history. It's a stupid comparison.

When we're talking about people who commit violent acts in the name of their religion, muslims are a VERY guilty party. If there was a sizable muslim community in the US who voted Bush, the muslim bashing would never end.

[Moochy]

205. Thank you for clarifying

So your main objection is the non-contemporaneous examples, that the sins of the christian conquistadors in the past are not equivalent to the heinous morality of the acts by muslim terrorists today. If that's the objective, to equate the two I agree, that its a stupid comparison. But I don't think that's the point.

I could go into a tangent about states and armies and the tendency to sanitize killing, but suffice to say that I think you shouldnt indict an entire culture for the acts of some of it's terrorists, be they state-sponsored or independent groups.

When making this statement :
"When we're talking about people who commit violent acts in the name of their religion, muslims are a VERY guilty party."

What are muslims as a group guilty of? Should they openly demonstrate in opposition to their religious leader's statements re: the Pope?

(on edit tried to fix clarity in first paragraph)

[toopers]

217. To answer your last questions . . .

Yes, the followers of the true peaceful religion of Islam should rise up and demonstrate against the violent sects, just as much as they do against a cartoon. Which do you think is doing more damage to Islam -- Public be-headings of non-believers, or cartoon depictions of a dead prophet?

[warrens]

160. A few million Mexican, Central American and South American indios...

for starters.

[coalition_unwilling]

135. Check out th e history of the Catholic Church in the Crusdades, and

this pope's unrepentant hypocrisy in accusing Islam of violent tendencies, and you might have a hint as to why there's so much rage.

[cali]

143. Oh, please

stop with the Al-Qaeda apologetics. Al-Qaeda represents a tiny minority of Muslims, and they're total whackjobs. And as far as the violence within Christianity; that was then, this is now.

[coalition_unwilling]

147. well, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. I guess it just

depends on your definitions of "then" and "now". After all, Judeo-Christian forces have been responsible for the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians. But, hey, what do I know?

[OKIsItJustMe]

162. Apparently you know something I don't

Are the soldiers currently in Iraq "Judeo-Christian forces!?"

[coalition_unwilling]

174. They're definitely not from the Arab League, now are they?

[VegasWolf]

150. Yes, the Catholic Church no longer MURDERS and TORTURES heretics!!! nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

163. Then and Now

You're right, Al-Qaeda represents a tiny minority of Muslims.

By the same token, there's a tiny minority of Christians in the US who are also "total whackjobs."

(Consider noted terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Eric Rudolf for example.)

[cali]

180. So every time I make

a comment about Islamic extremism, I should qualify it by making sure everyone knows that I know that Christians can be extremists too? Well, to put it impolitely, fuck that. I'm so tired of the self-righteous running around on threads that discuss Islamic extremism, screaming that the Christians are just as bad. Just out of curiosity, on threads discussing that whackjob Falwell, or Robertson, do you make sure that there's balance there as well, by reminding people that Islam also has its whackjobs?

[smirkymonkey]

197. Hear, hear!

It's about time someone said it. I am tired of the fact that their can be no open discussion of the faults of the Islamic lunatic fringe without the usual suspects chiming in about the evils of Christianity (btw, I am anti-Christian Lunatic Fringe as well).

You know what it reminds me of? When you try to discuss Bush's faults with a Republican and thier usual retort beginning with "Oh year, well Clinton did this ____________ (fill in the blank)"

It shuts down any kind of honest debate about the subject because the knee-jerk liberals on this board can't see beyond their black and white worldview, where if one party is good, the other must be bad and vice versa. There are many shades of gray in this scenario and while we can try to understand what makes the "other" tick, giving them a pass on violent behavior because "we are so much worse" is just bullshit.

[CreekDog]

199. Freedom of religion came from Christian societies

For all of the faults of Christians, they have the best record at tolerating religious pluralism than any other major religion around the world.

And Catholicism is not a violent religion anymore. If anything, it "militates" against the use of force to convert people, to end life, and to make war.

And Benedict's comments were saying that good things don't come from violent conversion. Good things come from faith and faith comes by reason. Violent conversion only converts the body. It's the spiritual conversion that produces the value in a religion, not the bodily conversion.

Read his damn speech. He shouldn't be apologizing.

[daleo]

208. It came after brutal religious wars, Christian against Christian

And it wasn't like the various Christian churches handed it to people in the west - they fought hard for freedom of and from religion. The French Revolution is a case in point as is the American War of Independence.

[NOLADEM]

166. Yeah, now they just molest children and cover it up

How far we have come.

What's that about glass houses and stones?

Religion is silly...Killing people over who's invisible friends are the coolest is fucking nuts.

[saskatoon]

175. that was then and this is now. Cali?

what kind of rationale is that. You mean sweep it all under the rug and forget it. You must be very young to be so naive.

[cali]

214. No I don't mean sweep it under the rug

and of course, I never said that. I was pointing out that virtually all of the examples of militant Christian extremism that translates into actual violence against others for their beliefs, are several hundred years old. Yes, there are exceptions; the abortion clinic bombings come to mind, but these actions, heinous as they may be, are not to the extent of what has come out of Islamic extremism in recent years. I by no means believe that this violence is reflective of Islam as a whole, and have no patience for those who believe that, but any honest look at violence engendered by religion, would have to acknowledge the facts. And, no I don't believe that our invasion of Iraq, wrong as it was, was founded on religious belief. Just as wrong, terribly and tragically destructive, but not a religious war.

[gaspee]

177. I'm quite

familiar with the history of the crusades, and I agree with your point. I'm a little peeved that *ALL* of these religious freaks are so willing to kill each other and everyone else all in the name of their religion.

I'm not a big fan of any organized religion. People's personal spirituality is their own business, but all these people (on all sides of the big three) willing to kill people all in the name of their religion... it pisses me off.

I think John Lennon said it best in "Imagine."

[qwertyMike]

211. Yankees Go Home

Then all will be well

"Hell's bells and all's well - half the world is at peace with itself and so is the other half."

" At the graveside the undertaker doffs his top hat and impregnates the prettiest mourner’"

Tom Stoppard

[rpannier]

6. My thoughts exactly

It's almost like something out of a 1970's Woody Allen comedy.

[AngryAmish]

25. The ones that were actually funny?

[notadmblnd]

16. Al Quida in Iraq?

sounds like one of those reality show titles. And this spokesman, sent this all out on video tape? Color me cynical, but I just don't believe this anything more than propaganda put out by you know who.

Terra Terra,war war..they want to kill us for our freedoms... see folks, we gotta fight them over there.. on and on and on.... :puke:

[Freedom_from_Chains]

18. Nay, it's the same war that has been going on for centuries.

[rodeodance]

26. yes, Irony indeed

[Zhade]

168. Just two more religious extremists gettin' all up in each other's grill.

I'd hope that the liberal believers would have a chance of reigning in these nutjobs, but they're in as much danger as we are!

[bananas]

2. I was waiting for this - Cosa Nostra vs Al Qaeda.

[smirkymonkey]

198. Ooh - that's kind of like Mothra and Godzilla

Should be a good one...

[whistle]

5. What exactly did the Pope say?

[HereSince1628]

8. Something like this ...

"The Pope's speech quoted from a book recounting a conversation between Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote, `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'."

[ShortnFiery]

9. Wow! No wonder the Muslim Fundies went nuts!

Who advises The Pope - Daniel Pipes? :grr: :thumbsdown:

[humbled_opinion]

37. So the pope can't speak historical fact without violence?

[OKIsItJustMe]

159. It depends on the historical facts...

Imagine if he had quoted some "historical facts" (i.e. cited opinions) which suggested (for example) that "Aryans" were superior to other "races." Regardless of the context, as a former Hitler Youth that would be likely to provoke a negative reaction.

As the leader of one of the largest religious sects, quoting negative opinions about other religious sects should be done with the greatest of care.

[INDIA]

69. Are you serious?

"No wonder the Muslim Fundies went nuts!"

You really see rationale behind their reaction? :eyes:

[Bridget Burke]

15. Here's what the Pope really said.

Read the entire speech & get back to me.

www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

[rodeodance]

27. Basically I agree with this poster from your site-If anything, the Pope is

quilty of poor scholarship!!



http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=46474

Posted by: Bernadette - Sep. 17, 2006 2:24 AM ET USA

"Not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature" (emperor) and then Benedict XVI goes into a very erudite treatise on the nature of reason and to whom we owe our understanding of reason or "logos" (Hellenists)and that this study very properly belongs in a university and that it is to the university to help us rediscover this "great logos...this breadth of reason," inviting all cultures to the table.

The real "meat" of the Pope's speech was lost on the fanatics and the media.

[rodeodance]

28. -interesting--it is a lot about faith and reason [science]

[The Stranger]

30. So why include the shit that would inflame the Muslims?

One of the pope's predecessors declared war on them ten centuries ago, and his followers killed hundreds of thousands of them so that they could go to Christian heaven.

The leader of the Inquisition would most certainly know this.

Yes, -- interesting, indeed.

[rodeodance]

54. Supiditiy at best I think. He is NOT a scholar and his speech should

have been given critical appraisal by his people before he gave it.

I do not think the Pope wants to start a holy war.

[AntiFascist]

228. I'm sure they knew exactly what they were doing...

I'm surprised the media wasn't trying to incite rioting...wait, maybe they did?

[coalition_unwilling]

137. The blood ran knee-deep through the streets of Jerusalem after

the Christians conquered it. Gee, I wonder why Muslims might be p-o'ed that the Pope (whose church contributed mightily to afore-said massacre) called their prophet violent.

[Mudoria]

218. The blood ran knee deep

in Constantinople after the Muslims took that in 1453. So what's your point?

[whistle]

19. Holy shit, he did open a 700 year old wound between Muslims

...and Christians it seems. I have just one question, does the Vatican plan to finance this newest crusade against 2.0 billion muslims? :wtf: Unless of course, Pope Benedict was actually directing his remarks to George W. Bush and the neoconservatives and radically militant religious right.

<snip>
Manuel II Palaiologos or Palaeologus (Greek: Μανουήλ Β΄ Παλαιολόγος, Manouēl II Palaiologos) (June 27, 1350 – July 21, 1425) was Byzantine emperor from 1391 to 1425.

Manuel II Palaiologos was the second son of Emperor John V Palaiologos (1341–1376, 1379–1390, 1390–1391) and his wife Helena Kantakouzena. His maternal grandparents were Emperor John VI Kantakouzenos (1347–1354) and Eirene Asanina.

Created despotēs by his father, the future Manuel II traveled west to seek support for the Byzantine Empire in 1365 and in 1370, serving as governor in Thessalonica from 1369. The failed attempt at usurpation by his older brother Andronikos IV Palaiologos in 1373 led to Manuel being proclaimed heir and co-emperor of his father. In 1376–1379 and again in 1390 they were supplanted by Andronikos IV and then his son John VII, but Manuel personally defeated his nephew with help from the Republic of Venice in 1390. Although John V had been restored, Manuel was forced to go as an honorary hostage to the court of the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I at Prousa (Bursa). During his stay, Manuel was forced to participate in the Ottoman campaign that reduced Philadelpheia, the last Byzantine enclave in Anatolia.

Hearing of his father's death in February 1391, Manuel II Palaiologos fled the Ottoman court and secured the capital against any potential claim by his nephew John VII. Although relations with John VII improved, the Ottoman Sultan Bayezid I besieged Constantinople from 1394 to 1402. After some five years of siege, Manuel II entrusted the city to his nephew and embarked on a long trip to western courts (including those of the Kingdom of England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, and Aragon) to seek assistance against the Ottoman Empire.
<.....>
Controversy
In his controversial speech of September 12, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a dispute around 1391 between Manuel II and a Persian scholar (Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian), in which the Emperor stated: "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." He then continues, saying, "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (syn logo) 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..."

<more>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_II_Palaeologus

[spoony]

220. Doesn't take a lot

to open wounds that never went away. Very sad.

[CreekDog]

200. Heresince, congrats on not actually reading the Pope's speech

No wonder you totally misrepresented the Pope's words.

The Pope was speaking against violent religious conversion.

His point is that conversion through coercion produces nothing good.

He later says that conversion of the spirit is what we should be doing and that work is through reason and not violence.

Spritual conversion is the type of conversion that produces good things. Bodily conversion doesn't produce what spiritual conversion can.

Read the damn speech before you criticize it.

It's one thing to criticize it, but to criticize it without even attempting to understand it is just making it worse.

here's a snippet:

"... 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 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 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 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 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 practice idolatry. ..."

[HereSince1628]

206. Actually, I did. I was answering a question

the crux of which I took to be "what did the pope say that was offensive."

I'm sorry that you think that my focus on what published accounts take to be the offensive passage too out of context. I apologize that saying "something" was not sufficient. I think I did state the portion of the speech that has been published as the passage that people objected to. But I could be wrong.

At any rate, what is your feeling about any Pope, let alone one who once headed what had previously been named the office of the inquisition, trying to make a point about the wrongness of propagating religious purity by violence, without bothering to mention that that just about 70 years after the time of the origin of the quote that Pope cited, the Catholic church itself was culpable in one of western history's great bloody purges of impiety via the Spanish Inquisition?
Do you have any feeling about whether that is merely ironic, the pot calling the kettle black, blind insensitivity, all of the above, or perhaps other?

[CreekDog]

209. Ok, if it was an honest mistake

And the Catholic church does not teach conversion by force anymore. This speech wasn't about the sins of the Roman Catholic church.

[HereSince1628]

7. Rome is "over there," So long as we are fighting them over there...

Elections of Popes have consequences.

I wish the Pope's Swiss guards the best, and hope they are up for this.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, this is seemingly Pope Benedict's "Bring em' On" - Faux Pas

"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'."

Can we say incredibly stupid? The Catholics in Vatican City will not be able to focus their ire on Condoms nor Homosexuals from now on. It will be all they can do to protect The Pope (partially from himself?).

Did I mention - that statement was INCREDIBLY STUPID?!?

[CBHagman]

57. That was a quote from a 14th century emperor.

Just to recap, the brouhaha is about repeating a quotation during a lecture. See story below.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1873277,00.html

[Stella_Artois]

65. That makes sense

Al-Queda's 14th century reaction seems more fitting now.

Difference is, the Pope was quoting someone from that time, Al-Queda ARE from that time in theological terms at least.

[lgn19087]

155. Well put nm

[coalition_unwilling]

139. To quote Stalin (somewhat out of context): how many divisions

does the Pope command? Tee-hee-hee. Old Joe had a great sense of humor :)

[Eugene]

11. As predictable as night following day.

Al-Qaeda always tries to attach itself to any perceived outrage
against Islam to win support among ordinary Muslims. They have
exploited the Palestinian conflict, the Iraq invasion, the Danish
cartoon fiasco, and numerous other causes.

Who didn't see this coming?

[ShortnFiery]

13. The Outrage is not *all* perceived for that was a very inflammatory

statement. No, we're way more disrespectful than 'cartoons' in The Pope's implication that Muslim's #1 Prophet is "evil." That was outrageous and I'm a practicing Catholic. :grr:

Quite honestly, The Pope should resign because such a horrific statement is understandably not easily forgiven, especially by fundy believers. :(

[WildEyedLiberal]

35. So you're essentially justifying fundamentialist Islamic violence?

Would you be so forgiving and understanding if fundamentalist Christians declared a guerrila war against anyone who said things that offended them? Or is religious violence and oppression OK when radical Muslims do it?

[ShortnFiery]

50. No we are not justifying ANY violence, but I do hope The Pope resigns.

All the same. That is, I don't want to get into an arguement as to "who's fundies" Muslim or Christian are the most Bat Shit Crazy.

We'd both lose - so I'm not going to compete.

[jacklambert]

62. You are really misguided...

I'd feel a lot more comfortable criticizing Christianity than Islam.

You might get shot, stabbed, burned, raped or beheaded for openly criticizing one of them. Can you guess which one??

[LanternWaste]

161. The one that the Rev. Jim Jones followed?

The one that the Rev. Jim Jones followed? Or Koresh?

[coalition_unwilling]

140. Check out the Spanish campaign in the 15th century against

Muslims in Spain. Today's Islamic fundamentalists don't hold a candle when it comes to cruelty to the forces of Spanish Catholicism.

[vssmith]

12. I can understand making an ill-advised statement

if you are speaking off the cuff but this was a prepared talk. Doesn't he have advisers that read the text before he delivers it--Wow!

[CJCRANE]

14. Who does all this

"convert or die" rhetoric benefit?

It just plays into the hands of the neocons.

On edit: and again it comes from obscure sources.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Whoa! Let's hope Benedict resigns sooner rather than later ...

Or else these guys, albeit honorable and trustworthy - are gonna need a whole lotta back-up to protect "His Eminence." :shrug:

[mtnester]

44. Don't worry, the church will take care of it if need be

Can you say Petrus Romanus?

Of course you can.


:)

[Freedom_from_Chains]

20. It's just part of the standard talking points for most book religions

They see everything as a life and death struggle.

[CJCRANE]

21. Yes, that's true

but the reality of the threat is very small compared to the way it is portrayed in the media. First it was "Azzam the American" on video now it's some obscure website.

It's not as though the leader of the Arab League has declared that their countries are mobilizing their military forces for the imminent invasion of the West.

[Hav]

22. .

The Onion couldn't have written a better story. The first sentence alone...just wow.

Not to excuse the unfortunate part of the Pope's speech, but since when did these idiots ever need a reason to go berserk..

[ShortnFiery]

49. The "unfortunate part" was inflammatory and called their prophet "EVIL"

Yeah, it's time for Benedict to take an early retirement. And rightly so. :-)

[leesa]

24. Now is this OUR pet Al Qaeda....the one we use for our propaganda?

Now doesn't that benefit our little war in Iraq to have our Goldstein call for a jihad.

[Danascot]

29. Damn, the Pope had to apologize

Too bad he's not infallible like *

[Sapere aude]

32. You know, I wish sometimes there was no religion. More people

have been killed by religious zealots as anyone. Now we have a Jesus Camp. The pope should shut the fuck up, the jihadist should get lives.

[coalition_unwilling]

142. There'll be pie in the sky when you die by and by (old

Socialist chant). Here's a modern rendition I'm fond of: God is Santa Claus for adults. :)

[gordianot]

33. Naw, someone is watching reruns of Monty Python.

None of this is really happening.

[Straight Shooter]

34. I'm getting tired of thin-skinned outrage.

These people who head AQ aren't stupid, are they? Instead of screaming for jihad, how about issuing a statement that sounds reasonable. They aren't helping the cause of Islam, that's for sure.

As for the Pope, pfffftt. He's an imbecile. This is what happens when conservative politics trumps spiritual merit.

[WildEyedLiberal]

38. So, to protest being called violent, they declare war.

That makes sense. :eyes:

You know, I am disappointed in the conservatism of Pope Benedict, but this faux outrage from violent jihadist (who are essentially proving the point that they think Benedict made) is just pathetic. More pathetic is that some DUers are trying to justify said violence. I find it highly ironic that some here who HATE fundamentalist Christianity and constantly bring up the legacy of death and torture it has left never seem to tire of finding excuses for fundamentalist Islam and its legacy of death and torture. Someone on this thread is practically salivating over the potential jihad against Rome. Wow, that's so progressive! It's obviously completely unacceptable if anyone makes any comments that might be construed as anti-Islam, but if radical Muslim suicide bombers blow up a church and kill people in retaliation, that's perfectly understandable! They were gravely insulted, and of course, killing people is a perfectly rational response to a perceived slight against your religion.

I wonder if those DUers would feel the same way if fundamentalist Christians started bombing and killing everyone who insulted them - I wonder if it would be just as "justified" and "understandable" then.

[Julius Civitatus]

45. I agree with your statements

I am APPALLED at some of the reactions to these news developments. I have read a couple of posts literally saying they "understand" the violent reaction of the radical Muslim world. As you said, would the reaction be the same is some Xtian fundies had reacted the same way?

Words really fail me.

[jacklambert]

59. very well said...

some real solid logic. Hopefully your views are the rule and not the exception.

[INDIA]

70. Definitely the exception

I got my first post deleted today. I tried to argue that fundamentalist Muslims are more violent and dangerous than fundamentalist Christians. OOOOPS! Silly me.

[coalition_unwilling]

146. fundamentalist Muslims are far less violent and dangerous

than, say, 15th-century Catholics or 17th-century Protestants (against native Americans) or 21st-century Israelis (against Lebanese children).

But, hey, what do I know?

[WildEyedLiberal]

170. So that makes jihad and suicide bombing okay, obviously

Let's see if I understand your logic:

Because Christians in the past were violent, Christians today deserve to be killed.

Because Islamic militants today haven't amassed the body count Christian militants of ages past did, it's okay for them to kill people.

You know, I'm of Irish heritage. Hundreds of years ago, English people beat, tortured, starved, and killed my ancestors. So, obviously it would be okay for me to go to England and kill people in retaliation, because English people a century ago committed cruelties. Hey, I like your logic! Let's never let go of violent acts of the past and dredge them up to justify violence and murder committed today!

[coalition_unwilling]

171. You're really good at creating a straw man. I was simply pointing

out that Islamic "terrorists" are not as violent as their historical precedents in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

[WildEyedLiberal]

178. So that justifies their violence today?

I posted about DUers making excuses for radical Islamic violence, and you respond to my post by saying "well, medieval Christians were violent too." Unless your comment is a complete non sequitor, you are responding to my allegation that many DUers are making excuses for Islamic violence by... making excuses for Islamic violence (by implying that since Christians have been violent, Muslim violence is somehow justified or irrelevant).

Is religious violence only to be condemned if it is perpetrated by Christians?

[coalition_unwilling]

182. Does it justify Catholic hypocrisy and self-appointed

self-righteousness??? My attack is on the Catholic Church's utter hypocrisy in accusing others of violence. I'm not justifying anyone being violent to anyone. But understanding someone's rage is different (I think) from justifying the acting out of that rage.

[WildEyedLiberal]

196. I don't agree.

Saying you "understand" their rage means that you think there is a sound reason for their reaction. We're not discussing people who are offended by the pope's words and are expressing their anger peacefully, although I am not denying that they are out there. What we are talking about is the declaration of jihad against the Pope and Catholics because of these remarks, and the subsequent killing of a nun and the bombing of churches that has occured. No, I don't "understand" the desire of radical violent Islamists to kill an innocent person because they are pissed at what the pope said. I don't "understand" the thought process that would follow an insult to one's religion with bombing, murder, and violence. I don't "understand" why there is apparently a different standard for radical Muslims, who are apparently justified in feeling murderous rage over every slight against their religion, real or perceived. I would similarly not "understand" such "rage" if it came from a Christian group upset at mockery of Christianity or Jesus. Quite frankly, the idea that words - however offensive - justifiably deserve murder in retaliation is repugnant to me, no matter who utters the hateful words or who is reacting in rage. I see no reason why there should be an exception for radical Muslims.

[CJCRANE]

212. There's two points here:

yes, radical muslims are just proving the Pope's point to some extent.

But I think we also need to step back a little and realise that the muslim nations themselves are not as much a threat to us as we are to them. Let's face it B*sh's "war on terror" has killed approx 50,000+ muslim civilians (and tortured and kidnapped many others).

So whilst we're more civilized than the muslim world in some ways, in the balance of things, the jury is definitely out on whether we have the moral high ground.

[CreekDog]

201. The Messiah brought forgiveness

So that people can move on in response to past wrongdoings. And it is God's job to deliver punishment and revenge, not our job.

A Christian or Jewish person can be taken to task on his/her own religious terms for taking the sword on behalf of religion/God.

However, what is the rule for Islam? Are they obligated to avenge those that criticize their God or prophet? I have spoken to one who says that in fact, it is their job to avenge on behalf of God.

[cali]

176. Clearly,

the answer to that, is not very much.

[rpannier]

195. Feel free to tell that to

people living in northern Pakistan that have had family members beaten and killed by Al Qaeda and their supporters.
You can also tell that to the people (both Arab and Jewish) that were blown up in the restaurant by suicide bombers. (Source: BBC, KBS, ABC <Asia-Pacific>)
The homosexuals that have been 'executed' for the crime of being homosexual in Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc
And don't forget that at least one priest is killed in Turkey every year by fundamentalist Islamist groups. (Source: Turkish Government)
You can also include people in Iraq that have been killed by fundamentalists on both sides of the Islamic aisle.
And the list goes on.

Fundamentalist Islamists are as bad, and in many cases worse, than the groups you describe. If they had the means to spread their version of Islam throughout the world they would. And in their world, women remain veiled, men must have beards, homosexuals are the enemy, open and free dissention is outlawed, criticism of their religion is not allowed and they will kill any apostate.

[coalition_unwilling]

227. Protestants in 17th-century colonies killed way more

people (indigenous peopels of North America) than Islamic extremists ever did

[cali]

173. Bravo

Well stated.

[rpannier]

193. Excellent Post

I'd give you a greatest page for this if I could.

[Mz Pip]

194. Excellent post

Making excuses for the jihadists violent reaction to a speech by the Pope is ridiculous. I am no fan of the Pope but he is not out there declaring a Holy War on Islam. He is not calling for the assassination of Islamic leaders. And it is not his fault some nutcase decided to kill a nun.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[dkofos]

39. I guess the pope wasn't wrong after all.

Unless you think his apology was a mistake.

Infallable my ass!!

[Julius Civitatus]

40. Al Qaeda threat over pope speech

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/18/pope.islam.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- An al-Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters returned to the streets across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaeda in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

(...)

This is getting out of control.
While I beleive the pope, of all people, should be more careful when talking about other religions, I think this violent overreaction is idiotic. Once again, radical muslims demonstrante their "tolerance" by issuing a "jihad" against the Pope and the west over a comment. Any criticism or comment of Islam automatically unleashes violent reactions, threats, riots and murder.

WTF?

[Mr. Blonde]

41. Clearly they don't cover irony

in Islamic schools. Or maybe they are just huge fans of it.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

42. Monty Python crew

Could not have come out with a better movie.

"You insult us by saying we are violent, well, we'll kill you for that."

[slackmaster]

156. Sounds more like Firesign Theatre to me

Security guard at airport:

"Oh, you are American? Then we must open ALL of your luggage!"

[jacklambert]

43. excuse me, but your intolerance is showing...

Don't call me violent or I will kill you. Damn infidels. When will they learn.

Looks to me, more and more everyday, that we have a "clash of cultures" on the horizon.

I think "clash of cultures" will be the new buzzwords in the coming months or years. But here we are. The fuse is in place, now someone has to light it.

[Phx_Dem]

46. what is intolerant about pointing out that AQs response

to the popes comment is ironic?

[mhatrw]

167. Well, first you are assuming these statements are actually representative

of an actual group Muslims operating under our Western pundits' banner of "al Qaeda". Second, you are are assuming that this group of crazies (or Western intelligence assets) is somehow representative of Islam.

[Show_Me _The_Truth]

48. Then please tell me

What other interpretation you can get from the Al Qaida reaction?

Should the Pope have said it, maybe not, I haven't read the speech so I don't know the context of the quote from the 14th Century text so I don't know what he was trying to convey.

However, whether or not the Pope should have said it, there is HUGE IRONY in answering the "insult" that your religion is spread by the sword with calls to violence for all from your same faith, and stating that "infidels" should convert or die.

Pointing that out is not intolerance, merely a statement of fact.

Do you ask for tolerance when we criticize Pat Robertson and his ilk for the stupid things they say? No, because we realize that we are not criticizing Christians, merely the idiots that use it as an excuse for self-righteousness.

[Julius Civitatus]

51. Intolerance? WTF?

What's intolerant on pointing the obvious?

Give me a f*cking break!

[jacklambert]

58. I wasn't pointing out anyone's intolerance except for the Radical Muslims.

who continue to press for conversion or death.

Despite the misguidedness and stupidity of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell's "communication or relaying of communications of God's will", the Muslim hierarchy are completely off the wall. Not even I have heard Falwell or Robertson come close to saying "convert to Christianity or die".

Blech!! It leaves an awful taste in my mouth.

[coalition_unwilling]

149. It's the new 30-Years War, I tell you (n/t)

[RiDuvessa]

47. It's really too bad.

Most of the speech is an intelligent request for reason. He's asking for a dialog between Muslims and Christians. It's unfortunate that it started with such an unfortunate quote. It's also unfortunate that the radical fringe of Islam can't act like adults and form a reasonable response. Let's just firebomb churches, kill nuns, and burn effigies to show how reasonable we are.

[ShortnFiery]

52. Oh, that's why he set aside a "specific paragraph" to call their prophet's

actions as "bringing evil."

You know that was kind of like "an outrage" to the Muslim People.

No, I don't condone violence but Ole' Benedict *crossed the line* - he really should retire or whatever insensitive unworthy Popes (those who call another Religions Profit "evil")choose to do when they give up - The Pope-Hood?

[RiDuvessa]

53. Have you actually read the speech?

If you haven't, get back to me when you have.

[jberryhill]

55. I've read it...

That paragraph is a truly bizarre jumping off point for the rest of the speech, wherein he also fires rimshots at rationalists, secular humanists, liberal theologians, social scientists, the eastern orthodox churches and protestants.

He's trying to teach a review course in Western philosophy in under thirty minutes, and really could have used some editing help.

This is the point in the dialogue where person A says to person B, "stop shouting", motivating person B to shout "I'M NOT SHOUTING!"

But the headline "(Insert Extremist Group) Calls For Jihad Over (Outrage Du Jour)" says "slow news week" to me.

The Onion should do a piece under "Fundamentalist Muslim Scholar Does Not Call for Jihad Today"

[ShortnFiery]

61. I have, but dispute all the pearls of wisdom, THAT STATEMENT

stands out like "a turd in the punch bowl."

And very few people would not consider it "an insult" to the Muslim People.

No, there's no excuse for violence, but The Pope should have given "a full apology" EARLIER, and now to minimize the HATE, it would be wise for Benedict to Resign. But he won't because he's so arrogant, it's cool to let other people die. Even though it's the fanatics fault, Benedict can correct his egregious insult and stop them killing his beloved Christians by resigning.

But, he won't. :(

[noonwitch]

56. I wonder what Jack Chick thinks?

He thinks that the catholic church and muslims are allied. Their alleged alliance will make them the anti-christ (along with new agers and liberal christians, to form the "ecumenical movement").

This sort of shoots his theory all to hell. Then again, he also believes that Jesuits were behind the holocaust.

[slackmaster]

132. Jack Chick says Allah is not the god of the Jews and Christians

For the rest of the copyrighted tract "ALLAH HAD NO SON" please go to:

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

[maxsolomon]

60. you can't start another jihad when one is already under way

that's double jihad. not permitted.

[jacklambert]

66. Yes, but Double-Secret Jihad is okay...Isn't it??

[maxsolomon]

67. we're already on double super secret jihad!

i'm not scared of their jihad. screw their jihad.

i don't think its insulting the prophet to say this: islam needs an enlightenment.

fast.

[judaspriestess]

63. Stupidity

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- An al-Qaeda-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters returned to the streets across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence."


More of an apology, while they still think its ok to kill a woman in the streets if she is not covered up completely? Sheer stupidity and madness!! what the hell is in the water?

[Renew Deal]

64. Another Jihad?

Message from Bleachers7 to Jihadi's. Go fuck yourselves.

[Spinoza]

71. Al Qaeda should take their show

on the road. They are hysterically funny and would probably have sell-out performances. Talk about validating Benedict's foolish remarks.

[FormerDem06]

72. The Pope must die, says Muslim

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23367232-details/The+Pope+must+die%2C+says+Muslim/article.do


snip
=============================================================================
Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".
=============================================================================

snip
============================================================================
Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

============================================================================

[BlueManDude]

73. I'd like to be left out of this Holy War.

I despise both this current Pope and violent Islamists.

[cboy4]

74. Isn't religion peaceful and loving?

:sarcasm:

[eagler]

76. Oh! islam is such a peaceful loving religion

And I will undoubtedly be targeted for not capitalizing islam.

[zreosumgame]

77. did you just get back from jesus camp?

did you learn all about mailing antrax letters and bombing clinics?

[VegasWolf]

80. I guess you forgot christianity's contribution, witch burning Fridays,

the Crusades, the raw land grabs of the new world to convert the heathens. No religion deserves uppercasing.

[951-Riverside]

95. ....I guess I forgot

BECAUSE IT HAPPENED HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO!

[VegasWolf]

101. So what? It was imperfect then and it is now. Seems to me the pot

is calling the kettle black. I doubt human nature has changed much in 300 years.

[Igel]

116. So words and murder are equivalent.

Ah. I see.

:think:

No, strike that. I don't see in the least.

Explain how having killed people for God in 1600, said you're sorry, and not being perfect by being rude is equivalent to continuing to do kill people for God tomorrow. Seems there's a little thing called anteriority at play in the former, and preventability in the latter. Unless we really are saying that all violations of good manners(civility or whatever the proper phrase is) are the same. Call sombody a fool, rape the person, or chop off his head ... eh, piddling difference. Odd sense of morality. Sort of rigging the morality to reach the conclusion that "they're really the same, so we can't judge."

While I'd like you on my jury if I kill somebody in cold blood, I don't think I want you on my jury for jaywalking.

[VegasWolf]

134. Exactly!@ They are all the same in the eyes of many of us. Were

you a Mayan Indian a few hundred years ago, you would have an entirely different view of the Catholic Church. It is simply a matter of timeframe, not substance. I am glad the new and improved perfect Catholic Church no longer kills heretics because they differ with the Church's teachings, that is all for the good. But never forget that the church has a long and bloody history, and while we are glad it has quieted down in the last few hundred years does not excuse its past. The Catholic Church is in no position to lecture other religions about violence.

[coalition_unwilling]

154. I doubt it's changed much in 30,000 years, But, hey, that's me. (n/t)

[knight_of_the_star]

110. Two words

Abortion Clinics.

[INDIA]

128. How many died in clinic bombings?

20? 30 total? Maybe? Does that put Christian Fundamentalists in the same ballpark as Islamic Terrorists who probably killed that many Shiites in the last 48 hours?

Here on DU IT DOES!:bounce:

[silvermachine]

164. Soldiers in the Army of God

You should check out the documentary film "Soldiers in the Army of God" sometime. And there have been a lot more deaths attributable to Christian Fundamentalists besides those resulting from abortion bombings/attacks.

[Canadian_moderate]

129. How do Muslims feel about abortions?

I think most of the World's religions are probably against abortions because they need more members.

It seems to be that Islam is currently at a point where Christianity was 400-600 years, when they enforced their religion by the sword.

Personally, I hate all religious fanatics, but I'm less worried about extremist Christians than I am about extremist Muslims when it comes to my personal safety. Their response to the pope's foolishly chosen words simply prove the point that their religious has many violent followers.

Hardly any Christians get outraged to that extent when someone offends Christianity. I hope that most Muslims will take it in stride and try to prove the pope wrong, though the vocal minority seems to get all the attention and moderates seem to be afraid to criticize the radicals.

[JunkYardAngel]

213. I might be wrong but

I think both Judaism and Islam allow abortion up to the first 40 days. I'm open to correction though.

[coalition_unwilling]

153. Pope Pius XII kept his mouth shut when presented with

irrefutable evidence of the Holocaust (which was occurring principally in Nazi-occuppied Poland, a Catholic country). That was only 60 years ago.

[humbled_opinion]

114. How can you even compare it...

In historical perspective Slavery was also inhuman but many in the U.S. did it. Obviously unlike the Muslims the Christians learned from their mistakes.... Is that your point?

[VegasWolf]

141. Good, then we agree that the Church is imperfect and has stopped

killing and torturing heretics. Whew, that is a relief. Now that we have established that this church was once as bad as what current christians accuse muslims of, but has "now cleaned up its act" as you put it, then why fall for any religion, albeit even ones that were once murderers and have now been clean for years. Who needs religion? I don't.

[coalition_unwilling]

151. Not to mention the Counter-Reformation (aka the Spanish

Inquisition).

[crim son]

100. Actually this Muslim reminds me of my Catholic

MIL who believes that the war on the middle east is justified, our murders excusable, because the people over there are "heretics".

Religion kills. I just plain stay away from it.

[PsychoDad]

111. And no "Christians" have called for the death of another?

And no Christians have ever called for the death of another person?

Falwell, Robertson, et al?

Out of 2 billion adherents, the worlds second largest religion, a couple of idiots call for the death of the Pope, thus all of Islam is branded as evil?

As I recall some "christians" claim the Pope is the Anti-Christ or False Prophet spoken of in the book of Revelations.

Some christians call for the deaths of people who work in abortion clinics.

Can you or your religion withstand the same criteria for judgment that you apply for another?

I remember a great man once said, "Judge not lest you be judged". He also spoke about us worrying about the splinter in the eyes of others while we ourselves are blinded by a log in ours.

Peace be upon him, and you.

[Igel]

117. I haven't seen anybody calling for the murder of

blithering idiots who say that Jesus wasn't the son of God, sacrificed for our sins and resurrected from the dead on the third day.

Not that anybody would say such a thing. At least not somebody who believes in God Especially any real Muslim. It would be so obviously insulting to Christianity. (From an atheist it seems not objectionable in the least.)

[VegasWolf]

144. No, they nowadays just call for the deaths of foreign politicans who diss

Bush.

[Igel]

219. Usually cast in the form of

"I wish that somebody would order his troops to do it" or "I wish God would do it".

The call to kill Chavez (it was Chavez, wasn't it) was ludicrous on the face of it, and provided no motivation for anybody to do anything. Much has been made of things like the Left Behind series, but again, it's hard to see that there's any impetus given to anybody to act. The groups that do tend to be hunted down and arrested by others that are Christian, and are pariahs. You won't see any abortion-clinic bomber's face plastered on a street in celebration, or in churches. Abortion-clinic bombing doesn't draw broad support from the ranks of the Episcopalians, Cathlics, Baptists, and others.

I find an asymmetry with some of the Muslim world. Khomeini issues a fatwa, and he may not speak for all Muslims, but there would have been no surprise if somebody had followed it. Same for other imams. From Morocco to Indonesia, from Britain to South Africa.

[marshall]

103. Just Wait

Can't they just wait it out? Twenty years at the outside and God (or Allah) will take care of it.

[AX10]

75. Mohammed was a violent SOB!

That is a fact!

[zreosumgame]

78. so was David

and Lot, and Gawd now that you mention it.

are their violent fundie muslims? sure are. are there violent christer fundies? oh, boy are there ever...

[Bacchus39]

79. Jesus was not though

Christians believe in Christ as the basis for their religion duh!! not David.

anyway, lets prove to the Christians that Islam is not violent by killing the pope and declaring jihad.

[VegasWolf]

81. Jesus wasn't, Christians are. Unless you are claiming that Catholics

are not Christians.

[Bacchus39]

82. I made no such claim, of course Catholics are Christians

n/t

[VegasWolf]

84. Yes, I know. I am simply pointing out the very bloody history of the

Catholic Church in response to your quote,

"Christians believe in Christ as the basis for their religion duh!! not David."

[Bacchus39]

86. has the Catholic church declared jihad recently?

n/t

[zreosumgame]

89. dumbaya did

and he claims gawd appointed him

[Bacchus39]

96. Bush is not the pope

thank God.

[zreosumgame]

99. he seems to think he is

[VegasWolf]

90. Recently, no. The church seems to have gotten complacent. nt

[zreosumgame]

91. is OBL a 'pope' of the muslim world?

nope, just a puffed up violent kinda retarded person who hates everyone else. just like dumbaya declaring his crusade.

[Bacchus39]

97. his followers seem to think he is

n/t

[zreosumgame]

88. if that were truely so it would be a much better world

sadly however when a christer-cultist wants to scream they always dig into the old Testement. Want to burn faggots or old ladies? OT. want to bomb a clinic or shoot pregnant women? OT will be the way. Want to claim hate is one of gawds best qualities? you got it, the OT every time...

[Bacchus39]

92. or cut off an infidel's head or blow up 30 people

in the name of Allah.

[zreosumgame]

98. exactly

fundies, no matter what brand-name the use, are the scourge, NOT the brand-name.

[Name removed]

109. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[zreosumgame]

118. dude, follow the thread

neither of us was giving a pass to either crister or ismaist cultists...

[progdonkey]

126. perhaps it was simply...

seeing his earlier post "has the Catholic Church declared jihad recently?" in response to the other poster mentioning the bloody history of Christianity that made me think he would "give a pass" to violence carried out by Christians and not that carried out by Muslims or at the very least have a biased view towards Islam.

Besides, the point of my post was pointing out that he was either intentionally or unintentionally (and his earlier posts lean me towards the former) setting Muslims aside as believers in a god separate from the Jewish and Christian god, ie. why say "in the name of Allah," when "in the name of God" has the exact same meaning, except to make the former seem more alien?

[Igel]

119. My God expects his followers

to follow Christ, resurrected him, and also expects his followers to keep the Sabbath, Passover, and Succoth.

Yours says to do something else. To accept what Muhammed said. Friday is the big day for prayer. Eid is a big deal. I don't see much about Passover there.

Believe in a schizophrenic God much, do you? Now he says "fast on Day of Atonement", now he doesn't; now he says to keep the seventh day, now he says not to; now he says, This is my beloved Son, now he says that the Christian scriptures were corrupted and an inferior revelation anyway--God's son got it wrong, or at least God didn't really trust him, so somebody else had to come along to give the final revelation. Unless the Ahmedi are right, and there was a later prophet. And let's not get into the other variant Christian versions of God, all of which say the exact same thing in different word with different meanings ... and with so many different voices. God needs a hefty dose of drugs to block out most of them if this is the case.

Do you and the Ahmedi have the same god?

My take: Different gods, different Jesus/Isa figures.

[PsychoDad]

115. I remember our Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him)...

Became upset with some money changers in the temple. As I remember he became quite upset and in addition to overturning tables, fashioned a whip to drive them out.

Peace.

[Finder]

122. Sure he was...

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household." (Matthew 10:34-36)

[Acadia Blue]

125. Fundamentalists follow the hateful Old Testament instead of the

New Testament and new covenant that Jesus taught. Thus the problem.

[Spinoza]

191. But only in the Old Testament

do we find direct criticism of God for HIS lack of morality. Read the Book of Job. Also it is in the Old Testament that we can read some of the worlds greatest poetry ('The Lord is my Shepherd....')and heartfelt paeans for peace: " They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks; nation shall not lift sword against nation nor ever again be trained for war. (Isaiah)

As an atheist, I much prefer the Old Testament's power of expression.

[smirkymonkey]

202. So if Christian Fundamentalists follow the Old Testament, are they

really Christian? They claim to be followers of Jesus, yet subscribe wholly to the Old Testament. Either I'm not getting it or they aren't getting it.

[spoony]

221. What about Jews?

The Old Testament is kinda all they have, are they therefore necessarily "hateful?" I agree, by the way, about the new covenant and that's what I base my spirituality on, but calling those who follow the OT hateful does pose a problem when it comes to people for whom it is the main holy text.

[Sam Odom]

130. David you say ? Then you must die too

Fact is: Mohammed was a murdering marauder.

[cali]

179. Ugh

Statements like yours are truly offensive.

[Sam Odom]

181. Is it true

That is all that matters

[Captain Hilts]

83. And this threat plays into stereotypes and makes Card. Rat look correct!

[PsychoDad]

113. Oh, is it?

Perhaps you could explain or cite sources.

Yes, Muhammad did lead the young Muslim nation to against with the Meccans, but only after 13 years of only defensive actions in the face of Meccan military harassment.

If you are familiar with the Quran then you are aware that Tolerance and acceptance are ordered for Muslims, and violence is a last resort only in the face of oppression.

Perhaps we could discuss other "facts".

[slackmaster]

120. But he liked cats

Nobody is all bad.

[Sequoia]

85. Why did that Pope read that old quote anyway?

An idiot would know better than to stir up that sort of trouble and you can't tell me it was somewhat intentional. The Pope with the evil eyes.

[deadparrot]

87. Oh, Jesus.

Literally. Figuratively. Whatever.

I'm just so sick of religious fanaticism that I could scream. :puke:

[marshall]

106. I agree

But it's a religion of peace, doncha know?

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Not just making a choice at the local Blockbuster, then?

Maybe he's just a Robbie Coltrane fan.

[rodeodance]

94. I think Choudary is clearly inciting violence and needs to be stopped. I

do not know how this can be done.

[rodeodance]

105. "A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London......"

........A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.........




Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised

demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet. .......

[CJCRANE]

145. He can be arrested.

I would expect that mainstream muslims in Britain hate this guy. But he's probably more useful to Blair running around stirring up trouble.

[progdonkey]

102. "The Pope Must Die, Says Man With Black Hair"

Quick, we need to round up all the men with black hair, because they're all violent, Pope-killing extremists!!!

Jackass. :banghead:

[VegasWolf]

104. Killing the Pope is absurd. They should just lock him in that little room

where the Vatican used to keep the insane Popes and give him a bunch of books.

[CJCRANE]

107. This guy is a nutcase

and pretty much an outcast in Britain. I don't know why anyone listens to him, he's not much better than Fred Phelps.

[Igel]

121. Because he's fiery.

If Wikipedia has it right, he's sort of al-Bakri's #2.

Bakri. The dolt who was kicked out and with much bravado went to Lebanon, denouncing the British along the way. Then he tried to threaten the Brits into evacuating him during the July-August conflict. "No, I was misunderstood." Got nowhere, the coward.

He wanted to be muhajir? Well, they certainly hajaruuhu. He got his wish.

[rodeodance]

108. There were around 100 people at the demonstration.----no arrests made.

.....A Scotland Yard spokesman said of his comments: "We have had no complaints about this. There were around 100 people at the demonstration. It passed off peacefully and there were no arrests."

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

[Karenina]

112. But this lunatic lawyer

and the crazy cleric in Somalia get all the ink. LOTS OF IT! Those who are cool, barely a mention. LOOK OVER THERE!!! AL-CIADA DONE JUMPED INTO THE ACT!!! :eyes:

[RangerSmith]

123. Truly beyond even "radical".... /nt

[Acadia Blue]

124. This Pope is just plain stupid or senile to say what he said in the

present climate. He does not deserve to die but to be replaced by a sane modern pope like the African who should have been elected.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nebula]

133. What kind of name is "Benedict Ratzinger" anyway?

I had a bad feeling about this new pope from the start.

He is one creepy looking dude.

[hughee99]

158. Actually, it's Joseph Alois Ratzinger.

Popes often take "papal" names when the become Pope. John Paul II was actually named Karol Józef Wojtyła.

[slackmaster]

131. How many Jihads can they handle at one time?

There has to be a limit somewhere.

Perhaps the solution for the WoT is to do everything possible at every opportunity to piss off radical Muslims. Sooner or later they'll reach their maximum production point, or "Peak Jihad", and the cost to them of taking on new ones will increase astronomically.

[treestar]

152. Agreed, how to see any real practical difference here is beyond me

But we could avoid extra jihads by just laying off the stupid cartoons and silly generalized comments.

What do people expect from Al Qaeda nutcases? It's the flip side of Bush/Cheney's insanity.

[JVS]

136. And I thought Al Qaeda was going legit! D'ohhh!

:sarcasm:

[daleo]

138. This all seems like a propaganda setup to me

It all seems contrived to convince Christians (and perhaps secular folks too) that "the Muslims are coming to force convert me".

- Newspapers with provocative Mohammed cartoons.
- Fox news "kidnapped journalists forced conversions".
- Pope's stupid and provocative quotation of a 14th century emperor regarding Muslims "contributing nothing to religion".
- Bush's blathering about saving civilization (i.e. "Christendom").
- Convenient "Muslim websites" parroting the "convert or die" meme.

The whole thing just seems like a preposterous propaganda scare to con the gullible for the next election. They have ran out of any rational arguments.

I think there are political actors who think a "war of civilizations" theme will stifle political dissent, as well as religious actors who think it will bring people back to the safe harbor of their ancestral religion. It all gets more surreal by the day.

[stepnw1f]

183. And The Right Wing is Playing Up the Bigotry of ALL MUSLIMS

Just gander over at your local graigslist political forum. Some of them are here on this thread.

[OregonDem]

148. Maybe the Jesus Camp warriors will step up to defend Christanity

"For thousands of years all the bloodiest and most brutal wars have been based on religious hatred. Which of course, is fine with me; anytime "holy" people are killing one another, I'm a happy guy"......George Carlin

[Tyo]

187. Maybe the Jesus camp warriors will step up.....

We can only hope.

[Tyo]

157. Is Bush a radical Muslim?

As is the case with hard-core Muslims, death seems to be Bush's preferred solution to just about every problem. Of course Christians are no slouches themselves when it comes to spilling blood.

I donno, Jihad, Crusade, whatever. Just let them go at it. Maybe they'll cancel each other out.

[mhatrw]

165. Who exactly said these words?

Was is Al Kayda or Al CIAda?

[Megahurtz]

169. These People are Just Plain Lame-Ass Stupid.

Who knows how many times I have heard remarks from others,
but do I get fucking bent over it???? No!

They would save themselves a lot of turmoil if they just looked at it in the way of
"That's YOUR opinion, not mine."

They just want to fight all the time and they look for justifications to do that.

[PittPoliSci]

172. "you think we're violent? well! war it is then! to prove you wrong!"

makes perfect sense.

[tomg]

185. What I simply don't understand is

the apparent willfull fanning of the flames by Benedict. I just read the speech and it is pretty clear that the opening remarks about Islam are simply gratuitous insults, if seen in the context of a discourse on the relationship between faith and reason. If one seeks to build bridges between religions, the opening quote is the best way to blow up the very bridge one is trying to build. For that matter some of the other elements in his speech could be construed as less than flattering.

If you go back to the speech and simply cut out "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."

and begin with "God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (syn logo) 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..." one's seeming rhetorical purpose is served without losing the meaning. In fact, the cutting out of the offensive element is far more effective because then Islamic theological scholars and historians who might be aware of the full quote have a much more subtle consideration to think about.

I think Benedict knew exactly what he was up to, although he might very well have underestimated the amount of rage it would produce in the streets. I just can't figure out what he was up to or who he thought his actual audience was. Ratzinger is not stupid. From my point of view, he is a complete flaming asshole, but he is certainly not a stupid one.

[Sam Odom]

186. "I think Benedict knew exactly what he was up to..."

I whole heartily agree

[stepnw1f]

188. How Could He Not Have Known?

Is he that stupid and the timing?

[Sam Odom]

189. Stupid ?

Depends of what his intent was, maybe the results is 100% what he wanted.

[stepnw1f]

190. Rhetorical Question

I don't buy "stupid"...

[fujiyama]

192. Not surprising

considering the reaction spawned by the cartoon several months ago. The Islamic world (and I understand it's a flawed term that covers way too many people and cultures) does need to tolerate criticism and dissent though. I notice, even from some moderate Muslims a real inability to view their religion critically. Free speech is a concept absent in most Muslim countries, especially considering blasphemy laws are on the books in so many.

But the Pope in this instance should have realized the anger and paranoia (some certainly justified, and some simply hyserical) that exists in the Muslim world at this moment. Also, considering the Pope himself condones censorship when he sees fit (ie. films offending Catholics or journalists covering pedophile preists), imposing on his right to free speech is not an issue here. The Pope, as the central leader of the Catholic church should have been more sensitive and aware of that.

[eggbeater]

204. Call me selfish but

I know my religion is the only correct on, and that anyone that does not believe the same as me is going to burn a thousand deaths in hell while covered with termites and cockroaches.
Yet at the same time, I do hate crowds, so,, I kinda embrace all those wrong religions because the more that dont beleive like me, the more real estate I can claim as mine in heaven.

[DreamTheaterFan]

207. Nazi Youth a racist?

NO!

So a former Nazi Youth says something racist, and the Muslims are shocked?

[eridani]

210. Just goes to show that Marx was all wet

Religion isn't the opium of the people--seems to me it's more like the methamphetamine of the people.

[4bucksagallon]

215. Leave it to the germans to start a world war.

Ummmmmmmmm this will be what #3?


:sarcasm:

[schmuls]

216. I think it's a shame that people can't speak the truth anymore and

have to walk on eggs around some people. I think Islamic fanatics are being offended "on purpose" if that makes any sense. People who think are willing to at least give someone the benefit of a doubt. If it wasn't the Pope it would be someone else. Besides, how does anyone know that these people demonstrating haven't been given an edited version of the Pope's speech?

[Taoschick]

222. I doubt

Many Muslims actually read a commplete trascript of what the Pope said.

I can't defend the bloody past of Christianity and I won't defend the current mindless violence of many Muslims worldwide. Saying, well, they did it 500 years ago doesn't cut it with me.

[allisonthegreat]

223. Ramadan is coming

Should at least get a tape from OBL.

[Az_lefty]

224. Oh stop bashing the Pope...

Al Qaeda would declare a jihad over a womans hat.

[spoony]

226. White after labor day? Jihad!

:evilgrin:

[goforit]

225. Alqaeda comes to save Bush!!! Right before the election!!