The Pope and his comments

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marked Man

I can see why you might want to say the first line of the quote used by the pope (all that Islam brought that was new was also evil); I was just wondering why the pope would want to say it.

---

You have to ask yourself if there's something very wrong when you have to ask why might a person have said something that could be taken totally out of context and look bad. He made it fairly clear that he didn't agree with it using adjectives that described it as forceful and brusque. Is it not a form of bullying if someone kicks up such a fuss everytime you do something that isn't even wrong until you're forced to second guess what may be taken offensively at a stretch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

You have to ask yourself if there's something very wrong when you have to ask why might a person have said something that could be taken totally out of context and look bad. He made it fairly clear that he didn't agree with it using adjectives that described it as forceful and brusque. Is it not a form of bullying if someone kicks up such a fuss everytime you do something that isn't even wrong until you're forced to second guess what may be taken offensively at a stretch?

---

But the initial speech didn't explicitly state whether the pope agreed or not with the quote. Given that and recent history, it was fairly predictable that this speech would lead to violence. The pope, being a world leader, has a duty to be aware of this, and to act so as to avoid needless provocation.

If all the pope wanted to say was that violence and religion are incompatible, surely there was a whole wealth of quotes he could have used that didn't begin by slagging off Islam as being evil and violent? Surely he could have chosen an example from the history of his own religion if he really needed an example?

Marked Man, to be honest I sincerely doubt those who perpetrated the violence saw anything but the quote in isolation. If anyone read the speech at all (it looks like your fairly bog standard philosophical discourse) they wouldn't have drawn the conclusion that he agreed with it. I'd agree with you to a certain extent in that obvious inflammatory stuff (even if considered relatively reasonable) should not be said but I don't even count this as obvious in its context. If you're unable to partially quote someone you don't agree with for fear of violence then I'd call that bullying.

I'd agree that in general freedom of speech should be protected, and I agree that certainly for people acting in their capacities as private citizens, curtailing what one says for fear of reprisals would be giving in to bullying. But there are plenty of times when leaders have to watch what they say, because not doing so would give offence (perhaps, as in this case, to the very people one is supposedly reaching out to). This strikes me as one of those cases. All the pope wanted to say could have been said without the inflammatory remarks prefacing the quote. The inflammatory part of the quote seems quite inessential to the point of the speech, so why take a needless risk?

I haven't read through the full 3 pages here (haven't been online for a bit) but here's my view on it:

1. The quotes were made in an academic setting, and the Holy Father stated twice that they were quotes. Anyone who reads/listens to that whole speech can see it is not offensive to Muslims (and actually very interesting)

2. Whatever happend to freedom of speech? Some of the most prominent critics of the Holy Father's speech are the same people who have called for destruction of Israel, jihard against the 'infidel' and glorifying terrorism

3. Let's look around the world whilst this goes on- Muslim militia carry out a genocide of Catholics and other non-Muslims in Sudan, the Pope makes a speech. A group of Muslims protest against the speech on the international day of action against the genocide -priorities?

4. It was a speech. Just like the cartoons were cartoons and Satanic Verses was an (extremly enlightening) book. Catholic's have companied against the De Vinci Code, other Christians have condemed 'Madona's' crucifix stunt, a lot of people protested peacefully against the Jerry Springer Opera. But that was it- no efigy burnings, no diplomatic relations cut, no churches attacked.

5. Look at some of the things that have been done in the name of Islam (n.b. I am not attributing these things to Islam nor saying all Muslims support them I am simply stating that the people who did them claimed to do them in the name of Islam) -9/11, 7/7, genocide in Sudan, systematic genocide of a quater of the population of East Timor. Surley there things give a worse name to Islam than what the Pope quotes.

6. The people protesting (n.b. not all Muslims) are looking for a fight. They have burnt American flags and Israeli flags alongside effigies of the Holy Father and have attacked Greek Orthodox churches (maybe they should read a history book on the schism). What has Israel, America, or the Greek Ortodox Church got to do with the Pope (I know the Greek Orthodox connection e.g. priests at John Paul II funeral but look at the reason for the split...). Answer: nothing, but of course it is an excuse to burn things and be anti-sematic, anti-Western.

7. The Vatican clarified it was not meant to cause offence. Burnings, protests and attacks continues. The Holy Father clarified it was not meant to cause offence. Burnings, protests and attacks continues. Further evidence that this section of the international Muslim community is just looking for a fight/excuse to protest.

It's not all Muslims -it is a proportion of zealous bigots. But the moderate Muslim community should do more to stand out against the actions of the few just like I would stand out against the actions of Catholic's who tried to blow up the Iranian embassy, burn down Mosques or kill Dan Brown......just likes most Jews would stand out against people who burnt effigys of Mohammad.

Breaking news -1000 Muslim clerics and scholars have demanded the Pope's removal over the comments. It's insane.

I demand the removal of:

The Indonesian Muslim government for genocide in East Timor and the impending murder of three innocent Catholics (schedueled for tomorrow)

The Muslim leaders in Pakistan for subverting justice (ref. Mirza Tahir Hussain) and propegating hate and violence

The Ayotollahs in Iran simply because they are murdering f**ks ("crimes against chastity" executions, 16 year old girls hanged from cranes, sectarian violence against Christians, torture)

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because he is a genocidal, anti-sematic, holocaust denying maniac

How's that for starters???

The removal the Pope for a few comments? Take a look at the genocidal nutters in your own religion first.

N.b again this is directed towards the 1000 idiots asking for the Pope's removal, I fully accept that the majority of Muslims are not bigots, idiots or genocidal lunatics........it's just these ones giving the rest a bad name.

Keep it calm please. I don't want any rants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by liam88

N.b again this is directed towards the 1000 idiots asking for the Pope's removal, I fully accept that the majority of Muslims are not bigots, idiots or genocidal lunatics........it's just these ones giving the rest a bad name.

---

I think you are giving Catholics a bad name by your rant. Just because they are wrong doesn't give licence to similar inflamatory comments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Can't resist having a pop at the left can you Jebus? :rolleyes:

My problem with what he said was that it is even more true of christianity that it was spread by the sword than it is of islam. More people have died as a result of Holy Wars involving christian religions than any others. Who do you think coined the phrase, "kill them all, God will know his own"?

---

Lets not go ahead and get intellectually dishonest shall we?

It is impossible to deny, whatever your biased political persuasion (And I'm guessing you are 'a big rebel' who listens to 'Rage against the Machine' and has a T shirt of 'Che Guevara') that the Islamic religion had expanded immeasurably more than the Christian one within 110 years of its existence. Christianity was largely a non violent sect until Constantine and Romans killed it in the 4th century and replaced it was something disgusting and which has been used to justify several wars right up until this day.

P.S- I think the pope was asking for trouble, but he has no need to apologise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

Lets not go ahead and get intellectually dishonest shall we?

It is impossible to deny, whatever your biased political persuasion (And I'm guessing you are 'a big rebel' who listens to 'Rage against the Machine' and has a T shirt of 'Che Guevara') .

---

Everyone is biased towards their own opinion. To deny this is to deny you have an opinion.
As for the rest of your statement, no, I hate RATM and I don't own or never have owned a Ché T Shirt.
I am currently wearing a Hawain shirt!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Everyone is biased towards their own opinion. To deny this is to deny you have an opinion.

---

Bias being a preference that inhibits impartial judgment, I think that you're talking nonsense. But then I'm biased. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Leeza

Lets not go ahead and get intellectually dishonest shall we?

It is impossible to deny, whatever your biased political persuasion that the Islamic religion had expanded immeasurably more than the Christian one within 110 years of its existence. Christianity was largely a non violent sect until Constantine and Romans killed it in the 4th century and replaced it was something disgusting and which has been used to justify several wars right up until this day.

---

Having been p'd off at your cookie cutter characterisation of me, I overlooked your other point. This is irrelevant as the Christianity that Benedict represents is not the "non violent sect" (though there is evidence to contradict this characterisation of the early Christians - some of the gnostic texts in the Nag Hammadi library suggest that they used justifiable revolutionary force) but the post 4th century murderous fanaticism as represented by "official" christendom.

the pope is a head of state and 'leader' of a billion people on earth and the speech is simply a political one. the fact that he dug up an obscure text with this 'inflamatory' quote to have a pop at islam speaks volumes. as another poster(s) previously pointed out, there are other examples he could have cited to make a similar point.

everything the man says is vetted, countless times. there was nothing accidental in either the content or timing of this speech. the church in the middle east is in danger, the number of disillusioned and lapsed catholics around the world is growing, and he is simply taking hardline stance at appealing to that base of catholic support. the fact that he used a quote allows benedict to claim plausable deniability - notice he hasn't apologized.

the muslim reaction was expected. of course he saw the furor over the danish cartoons, the man didn't rise through the (political) vatican ranks by accident. we are naive to think that this is anything other than calculated.