If it can make the goons happy…

mustapha,

i’m sorry dude. I think you’re totally dancing to the tune of those in the muslim community who would like nothing more than to inflame religious passions.

The pope’s words were taken out of context. The only problem with what he said was that he should have referred to Christian, Jewish (and other) examples of faith-inspired violence, not just Muslim.

Furthermore, I’m sure people have pointed this out before me, but I’d like to say it anyway: had it not been for “muslim outrage,” that brought so much attention to what the pope said, no one would have even noticed! Who listens to this guy, anyways? Seriously!

By simply having this discussion, we’re going back to the 13th century. The point of modernity, and secularism, is that it really no longer matters what religious people say!

I said in response to your previous post that the Muslim Brotherhood had accepted the Pope’s apology - based on an initial BBC News online report.

I see that they’ve now decided he hasn’t kow towed down deeply enough for them…or rather like other radical groups see value in this carrying on for a bit longer (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BF183AD4-9B6F-422D-B4B0-F188412DA43A.htm)

Completely agree with Raja. Initially I had some sympathy for the storm of protest and thought the Pope’s choice of quote unwise (though I don’t think he intentionally meant to offend).

Now? All I can see is another example of “Waaaah, waaaaah, waaaah. You’ve insulted our Holy Quaran. I think I’m going to cry…I mean, burn a few effigies and churches.”

Sorry to sound so “brusque” (to quote something from his Holiness’ speech!). I know the Arab world tolerably well and was even due to buy a property in an Arab country a few months ago so am far from a foaming at the mouth arab-aphobe.

But a society that is so thin skinned that any mention of the “m” word sends it into a frenzy, is one that is very ill at ease with itself.

To Raja and others…

The pope is not George Bush and he is definitely not some blogger … Every word that comes out of his mouth is well thought out and previously prepared (especially in the case of his speech in Germany).
Raja, you are wrong. Many believers do listen to the pope and believe in what he says. Have you heard any known Christian figure denouncing the pope’s words?
On the other hand, when a person talks about something and quotes someone to prove his/her point, this means that he/she believes in what is quoted.
Sadly, I think that the pope’s words are part of an orchestrated attack on Islam… That will definitely drive the world into more extremism…

Mark… USA

The pope is not George Bush and he is definitely not some blogger … Every word that comes out of his mouth is well thought out and previously prepared (especially in the case of his speech in Germany).

I don’t agree Mark. Well prepared in the style of a 78 year old academic and theologian delivering a speech to a University audience.

What he doesn’t have, which a number of commentators have remarked on, is a knack of communication. In the same vein there has also been comment that his previous job, concerned with Vatican theology, has left him somewhat inward looking.

I mean do you seriously believe that he would have been out to deliberately insult Islam? Everyone now knows how these things pan out, especially following the Danish cartoons, and I very much dobut any pope, no matter how hard line, would put Christians in the Middle East at risk.

However, I think things have moved on since then and this is no longer about what Benedict may or may not have meant to say. Rather it’s about whether groups in the Islamic world, having made their anger perfectly clear, will now put the genie back into the bottle.

Dirk said:
I mean do you seriously believe that he would have been out to deliberately insult Islam?

I’m sure he did. He is a highly educated and intellecutal person. He was the first figure after the former pope for more than ten years.

Well, at least Al Jazeera has learned a lesson about caricatures and freedom of speech. Unfortunately they did not yet understand that a cartoon should enhance reality and not phantasy.

He is a highly educated and intellecutal person. He was the first figure after the former pope for more than ten years.

But intellectual doesn’t mean a good communicator or being very “aware”, Katrin. Go into any University department for evidence of that!

One should not underestimate the importance of this speech.

Even if the West is more or less dechristianized today, the pope remains a moral reference. His will untie many tongues and help politician denounce concept such as Jihad and moral relativism.

The problem I see with the whole discussion is, that what the pope said was (in my opinion) a not very good chosen example, but still something he did NOT identity himself with in his original speech.
Whether or not his choice was wise, the reaction from a part of the muslim world (meaning the ones who choose violence or threats) is much more convincing to those people who want to believe that Islam is a source of violence than the pope’s words themselves. The whole fuss is just supporting those people on both sides who are not interested in differentiating.
That’s what makes me sad.

The irony of it all - one figure talks about the problem of violence being associated with religion, and then others burn effigies and attack Christians and churches. Enough said! Hearty

Surely, the pope can be expected to criticize all other faiths that his own. But if he really wanted to enrage the Islamists, he could say that he rejects the idea that God has chosen one race and promised land to just them. But the ideal of the Islamists is also of a state coterminous with one religion and the law is a religious law. This is a formula for unending conflict.

The jihadis could be best attacked by pointing out how they mirror the most extreme Zionists.

But intellectual doesn’t mean a good communicator or being very “aware”, Katrin. Go into any University department for evidence of that!

Dirk, Read his statements carefully. He knows exactly, what he was doing and communicating.

Your University department should rather teach journalists to improve their communication abilities. Communication includes reading and comprehension.

First the media didn’t perceive that the pope not just quoted but also rated this quote as ‘astonishing brusqueness’ and a forceful expression.

Next the media misinterpret his being ’sorry about the reactions’ as an apology. How could he apologize for something others do?

Look at the press statement of the Vatican and what they put in bold letters:
He simply used it as a means to undertake - in an academic context, and as is evident from a complete and attentive reading of the text - certain reflections on the theme of the relationship between religion and violence in general, and to conclude with a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence, from whatever side it may come.

http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/18815.php?index=18815&lang=en#TRADUZIONE%20IN%20LINGUA%20INGLESE

The message can’t be clearer, it’s just a matter of comprehension.

Pope Benedict demanded a ceasefire in Lebanon. Is that less important than a quote from a 14th century Byzantine emperor (who had been weakened by attacks from Turks and Crusaders at the same time)? He is an intellectual. Pope John Paul II was primarily a politician whose “task” was to break up the Soviet Union. Naturally he was more popular in the western establishment than Pope Benedict. Al Jazeera should bear those facts in mind

Can someone explain to me why the christians didn’t get offended, started riots, followed by outrage anger etc… when the “DA VINCI CODE movie WAS RELEASED BY HOLLYWOOD” (this movie was a controversial movie on the christians)

Do you think the christians should do the same thing that the outraged muslims are doing?

I believe that the Christians did not riot after the Da Vinci Code was released for the same reasons that they do not riot whenever someone attacks or slanders their beliefes -

1) They know that the words and images are just that. They are no matter to someone who is secure in what they believe so let them say what they want.

2) Psychologically speaking acts of outrage and violance in reaction to a topic are the actions of someone who is insecure or derranged or can be attributed to a gang mentality in which the people in the group looses their indiviuality and as a group they do things that they would never do if they were alone.

3) Violance and distruction are things that go against the very fabric of what the Christian religion teaches. Sure there are some inflamitory verses in the Bible but over the years as reason entered the picture. These verses are left out, demphsized or put in the context of the violent ignorant time that they were written in. They now realize that there is no place for these verses along side the largly peacful teachings of Jesus.

Plus rioting is foolish. There is no better way to turn the world off to your thoughts.

Does anyone remember back in the 80s when a Muslum Extreamist tried to kill the last Pope. Look back and you will not find a single riot that broke out. not a single Koran was burned, and not a single mosqe was bombed.

It is a shame!

Didn’t yall get the MEMO?

I went there to “spontaneously” demonstrate and “accidentally” burn the offices of Al-Jazeera, but I found muself alone with my Jerrycan.

The Pope should know better than to endorse the idea of a war of faiths

The freedom-of-speech defence is a sideshow. The pontiff has broken an unwritten compact of religious leaders

Jonathan Freedland
Wednesday September 20, 2006
The Guardian

The same “liberal” media that refused to call for a ceasefire in Lebanon has joined forces with Islamic radicals to repeatedly attack the Pope!

*************************************
** LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER **
*************************************