The Pope and the gangsta rappers.

[mhatrw]

Imagine if the Pope quoted somebody in a speech who said that all black people are useless, violent thugs. Then, as a means of characterizing the response of the black community to this affront, the media widely broadcast gangsta rappers' reactions to the Pope's statement.

There's a lot of irony on all sides of the Pope's destructive provocation.

[Sequoia]

1. He knew what he was doing.

[Kire]

2. And what was that?

[Sequoia]

3. Stiring up trouble of course.

[oasis]

7. Kicking the hornet's nest in attempt to bolster support for the Chimpster.

Bush has an outspoken ally in his 21 Century crusade against "islamo-facists".

[genie_weenie]

4. Excuse me. But why is the Pope's speech being

equated with racist hate speech, in this thread and another with disparing Black people? Why add this into the mix? Could it be a crude attempt to make them the same? I think the Pope's comments can stand to be viewed without saying what if he slandered group x or y? Unless you can not come up with any decent argument on why the Pope was in error.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2162165

Very Lame.

[mhatrw]

5. So what the Pope said wasn't slanderous to Islam?

That's quite a stretch.

[genie_weenie]

8. You obviously believe in "fighin' words"

Can you, on the basis of what the Pope said, (and not you're made up sceniro of "What if the Pope had called Black people") prove he slandered all Muslims?

The only reason you threw in Race, is because it is so highly charged a topic it was sure to make people agree with you hypothesis.

Islam (like Christianity and Imperalism, Social Darwinism and every other human ideological construct) is open to critique and can be ridiculed at any time. Just because 1 billion people believe in the idea of Islam does not make it right or free of criticism.

Obivously the pope was speaking to his base (Catholics & probably all Christendom) in an effort to convince them they are in a struggle akin to the one which *destroyed* the Byzantines and turned the Grandest Church in christendom into a mosque (Hagia Sophia) in order to rally them.

[mhatrw]

11. So anybody can say that Judaism teaches only materialism and

deviousness because Judaism is also a human ideological construct open to critique?

Your distinction between racial and religious bigotry is silly and meritless.

[genie_weenie]

13. Saying my distinction is "silly and meritless"

frankly does not make it so. And I will continue to await your reasons on exactly what makes the Pope's speech bigotry, without the side shows of equating the popes comments with other ones.

You seem to making the point that the culture a person is born into will forever determine their future. I do think the culture one is born into shapes one's future but to simply hold that once a person is born into a Religion it forever controls them is wrong. How would you explain conversions and people who leave religions?

[Kire]

14. Saying it isn't doesn't make it not so

tit for tat, mhatr gave you the reasons, you seem to want to be scoring more points

The OP is a genius comparison.

[genie_weenie]

16. No all mhatr did was use the sloppy analogy of Race

a highly charged issue in order to win the debate and offered no reasons based on What the Pope actually said.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

6. Well, genie_weenie...

Bigoted attacks against somebody's religion is essentially the moral equivalent of bigoted attacks against somebody's race.

If, for example, the Pope had disparaged Jews (again) then he'd still be a just as much a bigot.

IMHO, the thing that is very lame is that pretending bigotry against religion is any more acceptable than bigotry against race.

Shit, man, this is grade school level diversity training.

[genie_weenie]

9. Unfortunately, he is the head of a Religion

which believes it's members are going to heaven and others are going to hell. It's no doubt he was attemtping to rally Christendom to equate now with the Death of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Turk (who are not Arabs and were recent converts to Islam and therefore filled with Holy Zeal).

The question is can one every criticize Islam and not be attacked (physically and in print) for belittling Muslims? I think I asked you before if it is possible to seperate the human constructed idea from the believers?

Edit- Here is my post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2162165&mesg_id=2162468

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Genie_Weenie, just because he's the head of a Religion...

doesn't not give him the right to call a billion people evil and inhuman.

After all, Adolf Hitler was the head of a whole country, and he thought its members were better than anybody else. There's no doubt he was attempting to rally Germans.

Frankly, anybody who does criticize Islam (or Judaism, or black people) should be attacked in print.

Especially those in power.

[genie_weenie]

12. So, some ideas are sacrosanct.

Islam is off limits. Gotcha. "Frankly, anybody who does criticize Islam should be attacked in print." But that doesn't go for Catholicism and their silly man in a dress, right? After all he's a bigot and a nazi and is evil.

The exact problem. No idea is sacrosanct and above ridicule and criticism.

[Kire]

15. Criticism is one thing

but calling Islam "evil and inhuman" is not it

[genie_weenie]

17. Calling Islam evil and inhumane is NOT

calling Muslims evil and inhumane anymore than calling Imperalism or Social Darwinism or Unrestrained Captialism or Christianity evil and inhumane is calling those who believe in those ideas evil and inhumane...

[mhatrw]

18. Again, your distinction is ridiculous. John Lennon had to apologize

for the offhand remark that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.

Christians burned Beatles albums all across the United States in response. Suppose instead that Lennon had said that Jesus's entire contribution to mankind was vileness and inhumanity? How do you think Christians across the world would have reacted to that?