the deal with the pope's speech

[joshs]

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

I have always wondered......What/Whose name does an atheist scream when they are having sex?

 

Their own? Nobody? Non-existent?

 

:)

Hopefully not the name of their other lover....

[bid_em_up]

Suppose for the moment that I decided to drag my white ass down to Compton... In fact, most of my friends would say that I got what I deserved for doing anything this stupid.

they might say that, but they would be wrong... you might deserve to be arrested for disturbing the peace, but you would not deserve to be beat or killed... that isn't to say you *wouldn't* be beat or killed...

Jimmy, I usually dont perceive your posts as bigoted, per se. In most cases, I take them as being just conversation starters, but Richard has a point in the fact that the threads you start tend to be on subjects that could well be controversial and/or inflammatory.

 

It could be intentional, it could be because you actually want to find out about things that are going on in the world, it could be you just like irritating Richard :).

 

Without knowing you personally, it is hard to tell via written medium what your intent actually is.

 

While I usually read the back and forths between the two of you with amusement, the statement above appears to show just how naive you may be of what goes on in the real world (if you actually believe what you wrote).

 

The N-word is considered, in many places, to be a fighting word. Most people know that if they use it, they can expect to get the crap beat out of them, at the very least.....a gunshot or a knife to the throat is also a good possibility. I certainly would tell you that you were stupid for doing such a thing, as you should know what was going to happen to you. If you dont believe me, go down to your street corner and find out for yourself if you get arrested for disturbing the peace....or......

 

Now in a "perfect" world, yes, all that would happen to you is you would be arrested. And its great that you think that is all that "should" happen. But this isnt a perfect world, and you damn well know it and you have to know what WILL happen if you do it. Therefore, if you are dumb enough to actually go and shout that word on the street corner......you DESERVE what happens to you.

 

The same goes for the pope, imo. A man in his position should have a real good idea of how his words will be received by others. To make a speech like the one he did, and claim "Oh gee, I didnt realize that I might offend someone" is ludicrous.

Especially given the tensions in the world today.

 

So either the man is really dumb/naive (I dont believe that he is, as such) or.....his speech could be perceived as being deliberately inflammatory. I dont believe that to be the case either. I think that as the leading authority for his religion, he has just as much right to state his beliefs and give the Church's opinion on matters, as the mullah's do. But he had to be able to forsee what the consequences of such statements would likely be.....and then make a decision that the matter was important enough to him to make the statements anyway.

Of course, he has as much right to defend and state his beliefs as much as anyone else does........

[the saint]

To sum up all this nonsense:

 

My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend. No mine is better than yours.

 

Or

 

Say we are peaceful or we will kill you.

 

Now you begin to understand why all of this is completely pointless and irrational.

 

DId you confuse this with the cricket thread? :)

Nope. If it was cricket it would be a serious matter. As it is religion, I can't take it seriously at all.

[rona_]

For Jimmy :) This is a must read. Can I get excommunicated for posting here? Oh well...

 

A man with little sympathy for other faiths.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875791,00.html

[hotShot]

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

Well the subject seems to be religion, but in fact it is not.

 

Guess we all know from history classes that emperors and kings claimed to be a god or that their claim of reign was some gods will. Religious leadership lead to political and economic power.

Our culture evolved to seperation of religious and political leadership and to enable everyone to participate in the political process.

Making religious leaders give up their political power is a process that was not easy in our culture and it took a few hundred years. And we had Jesus saying something that could be interpreted as separation of religion and state.

The concept of separating state and religion is not compatible with the islam, so it might be harder for them to evolve in that direction.

Additionaly economic extrems between those who got rich selling oil and those who have nothing, lead to high social tensions.

Leaders everywhere and at any time used some external enemy to make the people forget internal problems.

 

The pope is guilty of being an easy target to direct the hatred to, that would have caused social riots otherwise.

[helene_t]

A man with little sympathy for other faiths.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1875791,00.html

The funny thing with this summary is that this guy has been insulting just about everybody - homosexuals, budists, female priests, jews. The leasts insulting things he'd said were about moslems. And guess who just ignore the jerk, and who make a big deal out of it ........

[mike777]

In the interest of furthering the discussion I offer up a couple of quotes from a long article by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

 

"Let us be frank: There is absolutely nothing in the pope's speech that isn't appropriate or pertinent to a civilized discussion of revealed religions and ethics. Even if one is not a believer in any revealed faith, or has some memory of the conflict, daily cruelty and forced conversions meted out by representatives of Rome's bishops, or has some skeptcism about the church's commitment to defending the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment, one can be thankful that the pope sees Christianity as a vehical of peace and tries to explain why he thinks this is so. And by extension why Islam is so often today the loudly proclaimed faith of men who define their relationship to God through violence. Joseph Ratzinger's explanation, as befits a former professor of theology and philosophy, is an abstract one, but it is in the broadest sense undeniable true.......

 

The pope doesn't tell us how we should proceed to counter the defects he sees in Islam. He should, since that would begin a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between West and Islam. But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech-and one sees the same reaction among those uncomfortable with President Bush's use of the term "Islamofascism"-is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, non-confrontation dialogue, WHICH CRITICIZES 'OUR" POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR WHILE DOWNPLAYING "THIERS" WILL SOMEHOW LEAD TO A MORE PEACEFUL, ECUMENCIAL WORLD."........

 

"But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests"......

[Winstonm]

Late-Breaking News Item

 

It has just been revealed that careful analysis of the Pope's speech by Italian scholars has uncovered a glaring mistranslation.

 

What the pope actually said was, "Islam sucks."

[mikeh]

I am sorry, Mike, but I disagree with the idea that the Pope's speech contained appropriate comments on the defects he sees in Islam.

 

My reading of his speech (admittedly in translation) suggests that he was setting forth an argument whereby he compared Islam to Christianity, by stating the that former was inferior to the latter because Islam condones and in some cases justifies the spread of the religion by the sword while Christianity does not.

 

He suggests that the use of force to spread religion is evil: a concept with which I heartily agree, and, insofar as that might have been his point, I agree that it is appropriate for the leader of a non-coercive religion to raise the matter in public discourse. I agree also that, if that had been what happened, appeasing the Islamic leaders, who for purposes of realpolitik, arouse the anger of their uninformed congregations, is at least a questionable policy, if not counterproductive.

 

Unfortunately, this was not what happened.

 

The Pope is not the head of a religion, but he is the head of a powerful, and historically dominant sect of a religion. And that sect has a bloody history of forced conversions, torture, and massacre of those who dare to disagree with it. It also has an unenviable history in terms of the imposition of its faith in South and Central America, to name perhaps the best example of enforced cultural change in the past thousand years.

 

For a Pope, trained in the history of the church, to pontificate (I use the word deliberately) as if his church was the epitome of civility and reason while Islam is irrational and violent is inexcusable: it is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

 

Now, if he had begun his speech by candidly admitting that the Catholic Church had, as of the time of the alleged dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and the Persian scholar, held to much the same 'evil' practice of spreading itself through coercion, but had since reformed, he would have my respect for intellectual honesty, even while I would question his motive or intelligence.

[Winstonm]

It seems to me that once again it is proven that the root of all evil is not the love of money; the root of all evil is religious doctrine.

I suspect that for some on this thread, they'd (incorrectly) modify your statement to read: the root of all evil is the other guy's religious doctrine.

 

Their own, of course, being revealed truth, has to be seen differently.

Acutally, I think this can be presented as a mathematical formula.

 

The root of evil=arrogance squared

[Al_U_Card]

"C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together , try to love one another, right now." S.Stills (Buffalo Springfield, C.S.N (& Y.)

 

You don't have to be a philosopher or a theologian to reveal something truly good.

 

Unlike the pope who prefers statements like: "Buddhism is a form of masturbation for the mind." Perhaps this explains the difference in temperament between the various faiths.

[hrothgar]

In the interest of furthering the discussion I offer up a couple of quotes from a long article by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

 

"Let us be frank: There is absolutely nothing in the pope's speech that isn't appropriate or pertinent to a civilized discussion of revealed religions and ethics.  Even if one is not a believer in any revealed faith, or has some memory of the conflict, daily cruelty and forced conversions meted out by representatives of Rome's bishops, or has some skeptcism about the church's commitment to defending the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment, one can be thankful that the pope sees Christianity as a vehical of peace and tries to explain why he thinks this is so.  And by extension why Islam is so often today the loudly proclaimed faith of men who define their relationship to God through violence. Joseph Ratzinger's explanation, as befits a former professor of theology and philosophy, is an abstract one, but it is in the broadest sense undeniable true.......

 

The pope doesn't tell us how we should proceed to counter the defects he sees in Islam. He should, since that would begin a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between West and Islam.  But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech-and one sees the same reaction among those uncomfortable with President Bush's use of the term "Islamofascism"-is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, non-confrontation dialogue, WHICH CRITICIZES 'OUR" POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR WHILE DOWNPLAYING "THIERS" WILL SOMEHOW LEAD TO A MORE PEACEFUL, ECUMENCIAL WORLD."........

 

"But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests"......

In the interests of furthering the discussion, I'm going to provide some background information on Reuel Marc Gerecht. The condensed version is that he is a promient neo-conservative who makes a lot of money promoting the whole "clash of civilizations" model. In a not too surprising development, he's supporting the Pope's little efforts at kulture kampf...

 

Director of the Middle East Initiative of the Project for the New American Century. For anyone who is unfamilar with the PNAC, they were the idiots who were arguing that we needed to invade iraq and over throw the government back in 1998. Many people (myself included) believe that this group used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to achieve this policy goal.

 

Contributing Editor at the Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard is the group of idiots who have decided to "double down" on Iran. After all the Weekly Standard's Predictions about invading Iraq provided wrong, they've decided that the real solution to achieving peace in the region is to bomb Iran and over thrown the government.

[Winstonm]

The pope's comments once again reinforce what I contend is the fault with Christianity in general is that it is based on judgementalness. Jesus himsefl admonished against this when saying before you pluck the gnat from your neighbor's eye remove the log from your own eye.

 

If the pope wants to make a historical critique, let him chose the crusades, the Inquisition, or writs of absolution. It takes a tremendous amount of audacity and arrogance to offer criticism of an organization of which you are not part.

 

Turn that spotlight inward and look at the history of the Roman Catholic Church if you want but don't have the arrogance to judge me or anyone else against your holier-than-thou standards.

 

All I can say is: the pope sucks.

[pbleighton]

I read Gerecht's ridiculous, intellectually dishonest article. He completely ignores the "evil and inhuman" quote, which is the basis of Muslim anger, and which the Pope hasn't apologized for using.

 

Peter

[mikeh]

As a trial lawyer for some 30 years, my experience is that anytime a witness says something like "To be frank......" I am about to hear an excuse, a rationalization, a half-truth or an outright lie.

 

Now, that is not to say that no-one by the name of Frank, or wanting to be Frank, ever tells the truth.... but my bullshit detector (all trial lawyers get one in lawschool) goes on high alert whenever any Tom, Dick or Harry wants to use Frank's name as a preamble to a proposition.

[bid_em_up]

Dagnabbit, does that mean I gotta go to law school to get one of them thar thingies?

 

I sure could use one of my own.

[mikeh]

I heard that you can get them on E-Bay....

[Winstonm]

Director of the Middle East Initiative of the Project for the New American Century. For anyone who is unfamilar with the PNAC, they were the idiots who were arguing that we needed to invade iraq and over throw the government back in 1998. Many people (myself included) believe that this group used the 9/11 attack as an excuse to achieve this policy goal.

 

Not to change subjects in midstream, but the more analysis I read, the more eyewitness testimony I hear, and the more audio I hear from 9-11 the more convinced I become that the NIST report is the weak link in the government's conspiracy theory - that 19 men with box cutters, directed by a madman sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, could hijack 4 airliners without being intercepted by a single fighter plane and crash two of these planes into two of the WTC towers, cuasing the collapse of three steel-framed buildings, and crash another airplane into the pentagon, disintegrating the plane so totally so that not even the engines could be recovered.

 

Does this conspiracy theory make any sense and is it supported by a majority of the evidence?

 

Latest news #1: Bush admits Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9-11.

#2: The F.B.I. has acknowledged there is no hard evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9-11.

 

Yet the official version is unchanged: Al-Queda is responsible for 9-11 (Unproven conspiracy theory). And we are still at war with Iraq for sponsoring terrorism and concealing weapons of mass destruction (outright lie).

 

As for the PNAC, they stated that what was needed was "a new Pearl Harbor" to galvanize the U.S. into accepting the subsequent invasions as necessary.

 

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle via Sherlock Holmes.

 

And to return to this thread - the pope still sucks.

[luke warm]

Suppose for the moment that I decided to drag my white ass down to Compton... In fact, most of my friends would say that I got what I deserved for doing anything this stupid.

they might say that, but they would be wrong... you might deserve to be arrested for disturbing the peace, but you would not deserve to be beat or killed... that isn't to say you *wouldn't* be beat or killed...

Jimmy, I usually dont perceive your posts as bigoted, per se. In most cases, I take them as being just conversation starters, but Richard has a point in the fact that the threads you start tend to be on subjects that could well be controversial and/or inflammatory.

 

It could be intentional, it could be because you actually want to find out about things that are going on in the world, it could be you just like irritating Richard :).

 

Without knowing you personally, it is hard to tell via written medium what your intent actually is.

 

While I usually read the back and forths between the two of you with amusement, the statement above appears to show just how naive you may be of what goes on in the real world (if you actually believe what you wrote).

 

The N-word is considered, in many places, to be a fighting word. Most people know that if they use it, they can expect to get the crap beat out of them, at the very least.....a gunshot or a knife to the throat is also a good possibility. I certainly would tell you that you were stupid for doing such a thing, as you should know what was going to happen to you. If you dont believe me, go down to your street corner and find out for yourself if you get arrested for disturbing the peace....or......

 

Now in a "perfect" world, yes, all that would happen to you is you would be arrested. And its great that you think that is all that "should" happen. But this isnt a perfect world, and you damn well know it and you have to know what WILL happen if you do it. Therefore, if you are dumb enough to actually go and shout that word on the street corner......you DESERVE what happens to you.

 

The same goes for the pope, imo. A man in his position should have a real good idea of how his words will be received by others. To make a speech like the one he did, and claim "Oh gee, I didnt realize that I might offend someone" is ludicrous.

Especially given the tensions in the world today.

 

So either the man is really dumb/naive (I dont believe that he is, as such) or.....his speech could be perceived as being deliberately inflammatory. I dont believe that to be the case either. I think that as the leading authority for his religion, he has just as much right to state his beliefs and give the Church's opinion on matters, as the mullah's do. But he had to be able to forsee what the consequences of such statements would likely be.....and then make a decision that the matter was important enough to him to make the statements anyway.

Of course, he has as much right to defend and state his beliefs as much as anyone else does........

i posted a longish reply, and somehow it got lost... you'd have liked it, it was very reasonable and logical... unfortunately, i can't remember what i said :)

[keylime]

Oh you didn't think that I would be silent on this didn't you?

 

The Pope has skillfully drawn out the true sources of why Islamofascism is a plague. Granted his "clarifications" are becoming maddening, but the Holy See wanted to depict a picture that would speak for itself.

 

The one person that I of late have been reading diligently is what the former Lord of Canterbury has written about this topic.

 

Contrary to the view that the Weekly Standard are "a bunch of idiots", many of the pundits that were espousing that "Bush is the reason for all things wrong" have been exposed...by one of their own, Hugo Chavez. I expect the Republicans to keep the House (so sorry MSM).

[hrothgar]

What does Chavez have to do with anything? I have seen any posts here offering him much support.

 

Personally, I think that there are (probaly) better choices to be be running Venezuela, however, my opinions really don't matter. Chavez seems to be the popular choice of the Venezuelan people. I don't have any right to go arround sponsoring coups to depose leaders who I don't like.

 

(The Bush administration appears to feel differently, which might be part of the reason for the theater down at the UN the other day)

[rona_]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/default.stm

 

Click watch now. They will do anything to cover up their crimes. Less Catholics means less income and the fear that they will not be able to live in the style to which they have become accustomed. After all, the Vatican is a business. :(

[Gerben42]

Anyone involved in these horrible crimes or responsible for covering up such crimes belongs in jail. And if this includes the Pope, he belongs in jail too.

[luke warm]

Anyone involved in these horrible crimes or responsible for covering up such crimes belongs in jail. And if this includes the Pope, he belongs in jail too.

i agree; however, the one has nothing to do with the other... the threats against the pope, as far as i know, have nothing to do with this... different people can justify different actions in different ways, but it doesn't mean either the actions or the justifications are right...

[Gerben42]

threats against the pope, as far as i know, have nothing to do with this...

 

No, they don't. The current business has to do that people were long looking for an excuse to criticize the pope and found one by misquoting him. If you want to be offended, you find a way, you see.