the deal with the pope's speech

[hotShot]

The Pope quotes Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, who he describes as "erudite" as saying ""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". " After that, he never criticizes any part of this remarkably bigoted statement. It is therefore logical to assume that he agrees with it.

 

And he is surprised at a negative, passionate rection from Muslims?

 

What is this guy smoking?

 

Peter

Well he started saying that the following quote is from a paper that is biased against the Islam.

Within this quote, a sura is partially quoted that says: "there should be no force in matters of religon".

As an excurs he mentions that the quoted emporor knew about the regulations of "conversion by sword" and "holy wars" the koran has given.

 

So carefull reading reveals that he agrees that the concept of converting peoples religious belief by force is wrong.

 

One of the big problems with his speach is, that he is often quoting someone who is quoting someone else (and sometimes even quoting someone third). But than he was talking to a bunch of theologie professors at the university where he used to lecture.

 

I guess he learned that now he's pope, he must be much more clear about what he says in public.

[mike777]

Why is spreading a religion wrong by the sword any more wrong than one tribe creating a Kingdom by the sword?

 

It seems in a few generations the status quo will settle in and everyone will think it was normal for the William the Norman to take England or for Rome to rule?

 

How the heck did European countries become countries in the first place? I thought Europe had a bunch of religious wars? All of sudden they are against them now that they are in power?

[pigpenz]

an intersting read to all of this is the book by Madeline Albright

"The Mighty and the Almighty"

[luke warm]

I cannot possibly imagine this person not being able to foresee the consequences of his speech and therefore must (regretably) classify his actions as 'deliberate'.

for the sake of argument, let's say you're right - let's say it was deliberate... so what? what gets me is anybody even implying that there is any justification whatsoever for threats and violence because someone dared to say something another finds disagreeable... it seems to me that radical islam gets a bye when it comes to this stuff... i don't know if it's simple-minded political correctness, or if people actually believe these actions are defensible

 

i mentioned salman rushdie in a previous post, and nobody mentioned the illogical and vicious stupidities spoken by many of the same people at that time... i found this moronic list on Wikipedia, concerning rushdie

 

September 26, 1988 - book is published in the U.K.

 

October 5, 1988 - importation of the book into India is banned

 

November 21, 1988 - the grand sheik of Egypt's Al-Azhar calls on Islamic organizations in Britain to take legal action to prevent the novel's distribution

 

November 24, 1988 banned in South Africa and Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Somalia, Bangladesh, Sudan, Malaysia, Indonesia, and Qatar followed within weeks

 

December 1988 and January 1989 British Muslims hold book burnings in Bolton and Bradford. The Islamic Defence Council demands that Penguin Books apologize, withdraw the book, pulp any extant copies, and never reprint it.

 

February 12, 1989: six people are killed and 100 injured during protests in Islamabad, Pakistan

 

February 13, 1989 one person is killed and 60 injured in riots in Srinigar, India

 

February 14, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issues a fatwa calling on all Muslims to execute all those involved in the publication of the book. The 15 Khordad Foundation, an Iranian religious foundation or bonyad, offers a monetary reward for the murder of Rushdie.

 

February 16, 1989 Rushdie enters the protection program of the British government, and issues a statement regretting the offense his book had caused. Khomeini responds by reiterating that "it is incumbent on every Muslim to employ everything he has, his life and his wealth, to send [Rushdie] to hell."

 

February 22, 1989 The book is published in the United States. Two major bookstore chains, under threat, remove the book from a third of the nation's bookstores.

 

On February 24 1989, an Iranian businessman offered a U.S.$ 3 million bounty for the death of Rushdie.

 

February 24, 1989 12 die in rioting at Bombay

 

February 28, 1989 Two bookstores in Berkeley, California are firebombed.

 

March 7, 1989 Britain breaks diplomatic relations with Iran

 

March, 1989 The Organization of the Islamic Conference calls on its 46 member governments to prohibit the book. The Revolutionary Government of Zanzibar sets the punishment for possession of the book as three years in prison and a fine of $2,500. In Malaysia, the penalty is three years in prison and a fine of $7,400. In Indonesia, a month in prison or a fine. The only nation with a predominantly Muslim population where the book remains legal is Turkey. Several nations with large Muslim minorities, including Papua New Guinea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, Kenya, Tanzania, Liberia, and Sierra Leone also impose penalties for possessing the book.

 

In May 1989 Popular musician Yusuf Islam (formerly known as Cat Stevens) gave indirect support for the fatwa, and stated according to the New York Times during a British television documentary that if Rushdie showed up at his door, he "might ring somebody who might do more damage to him than he would like... I'd try to phone the Ayatollah Khomeini and tell him exactly where this man is." For more see also Cat Stevens: Rushdie Controversy

 

After the death of Khomeini in 1989, Rushdie published an essay in 1990, In Good Faith, to appease his critics and issued an apology in which he seems to have reaffirmed his respect for Islam. However, Iranian clerics did not retract the fatwa..

 

1990: five bombings target bookstores in England

 

July 1991 Hitoshi Igarashi, the Japanese translator is stabbed to death; the Italian translator, Ettore Capriolo, is seriously wounded.

 

2 July 1993 Thirty-seven people died when their hotel in Sivas, Turkey was burnt down by locals protesting against Aziz Nesin, Rushdie's Turkish translator

October 1993, the Norwegian publisher, William Nygaard, is shot and seriously injured.

 

1993 The 15 Khordad Foundation in Iran raised the reward for Rushdie's murder to $300,000.

 

In 1997, the bounty was doubled, and the next year the highest Iranian state prosecutor restated his support.

 

In 1998 the Iranian government publicly declared that it would not carry out the death sentence against Rushdie. This was announced as part of a wider agreement to normalise relations between Iran and the United Kingdom. Rushdie subsequently declared that he would stop living in hiding, and that he regretted attempts to appease his critics by making statements to the effect that he was a practicing Muslim. Rushdie affirmed that he is not, in fact, religious. Despite the death of Khomeini and the Iranian government's official declaration, according to certain members of the Islamic fundamentalist media the fatwa remains in force:

"The responsibility for carrying out the fatwa is not the exclusive responsibility of Iran. It is the religious duty of all Muslims – those who have the ability or the means – to carry it out. It does not require any reward. In fact, those who carry out this edict in hopes of a monetary reward are acting against Islamic injunctions."

 

In 1999, an Iranian foundation placed a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie's life, and in February 2003, Iran's Revolutionary Guards reiterated the call for the assassination of Rushdie. As reported by the Sunday Herald, "Ayatollah Hassan Saneii, head of the semi-official Khordad Foundation that has placed a $2.8 million bounty on Rushdie's head, was quoted by the Jomhuri Islami newspaper as saying that his foundation would now pay $3 million to anyone who kills Rushdie."

 

In early 2005, Khomeini's fatwa against Rushdie was reaffirmed by Iran's spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a message to Muslim pilgrims making the annual pilgrimage to Mecca. Iran has rejected requests to withdraw the fatwa on the basis that only the person who issued it may withdraw it

 

February 14 2006, Iran’s official state news agency reported on the anniversary of the decree that the government-run Martyrs Foundation had announced, "The fatwa by Imam Khomeini in regards to the apostate Salman Rushdie will be in effect forever", and that one of Iran’s state bonyad, or foundations, had offered a $2.8 million bounty on his life

 

now i ask you, how can anyone take people like this seriously? when leaders of countries call for the death of someone for writing a book (or making a speech), it shows exactly why reason won't work... it appears that these people want everyone converted or killed - everyone except communists, i should say... n. korea and china seem to be safe, for now

 

Much of the Islamic World is in severe turmoil right now. Many Muslim's believe that their faith and their way of live is being attacking.

so what?

 

They don't consider themselves stakeholders in the emerging international system. Attacking their faith (even criticizing their faith) simple feeds this paranoia.

so what? are those defenses or explanations or what? christians have their faith attcked daily, often by people here in the usa (other places they're just killed outright)... and i'll say it again, yes there are flakes in every religion... i put them all in the same boat, and i criticize them all equally...

 

Personally, I don't believe that "Democracy" is the answer in the Middle East. Democracy can't flourish in a vacuum. There are a number of preconditions that it needs to survive.

as much as i'd like to see freedom and democracy worldwide, i tend to agree with you here... different cultures have different ideas about liberty, justice, and freedom for all... in some places just introducing a concept like the 1st ammendment would be cause for execution

 

Do you think maybe the promise of paradise, heaven, absolution and 70 virgins might just be a ploy to allow powerful and devious people to manipulate the poor ignorant masses

careful, i said much the same thing a few months back and it offended someone (truth sometimes does that)

 

Why is spreading a religion wrong by the sword any more wrong than one tribe creating a Kingdom by the sword?

it's only right or wrong based on the internal tenets of the religion... that's pretty much the gist of the pope's speech

[pbleighton]

"So carefull reading reveals that he agrees that the concept of converting peoples religious belief by force is wrong."

 

Yes, this point is obvious, but you missed my point, which I didn't think required such careful reading.

 

Quoting someone you describe as "brusque" but "erudite", then never saying that you disagree with the quote, certainly implies some degree of agreement with the quote. When this quote describes the founder of a religion as having brought only evil and inhuman things to the world, it is a fair assumption that the quoter is a bigot.

 

This assumption is reinforced by the half-assed nature of the Pope's "apology", where he failed to apologize for saying what he said.

 

Peter

[hrothgar]

for the sake of argument, let's say you're right - let's say it was deliberate... so what? what gets me is anybody even implying that there is any justification whatsoever for threats and violence because someone dared to say something another finds disagreeable... it seems to me that radical islam gets a bye when it comes to this stuff... i don't know if it's simple-minded political correctness, or if people actually believe these actions are defensible

I haven't seen anyone claim that the death threats are justified.

 

I have seen a number of people, including myself, say that the Pope's comments were poorly chosen.

 

The two points are separate and distinct. I know you like your simplistic little straw man arguments, but please try to pay attention to what folks are saying.

[helene_t]

Maybe it was not an example of optimal communcation when the pope quoted the Byzantine emperor for saying sometyhing bad about Mohamed, without clearly stating that he (the pope) disagreed with the quote. Maybe he was historically incorrect in saying that the verse in question was written at a time when Mohammed had a weak power base.

 

But so what? We all once in a while say something that could have been said better. What the pope said was nothing terrible compared to all the b...sh.t we can read from all kind of religious, commercial, political and academic leaders every day. The pope also said some not so nice things about homosexuals. The Iranian president denies holocaust. Etc etc etc etc.

 

Besides, what does it matter if Mohamed said that religion should not be spread with violance? It doesn't make him any better, just more hypocrat. We all know he was a pedophilic mass murderer. Not that Christianity was any better in those days.

[hotShot]

The pope was refering to a paper from Prof. Khoury, quoting a document written by emperor Manuel II. Palaeologos presumingly 1391 about a dialog the emperor had with an unknown Persian scholar. In this dialog the emperor is quoting a sura, that is following Prof. Khoury from a time were Mohammend had no power at all.

Maybe a poor choice of quote, but usually quoting a paper from a well known scientist, you expect the facts to be right.

 

Yesterday there was an interview with a young muslim, who said he would be willing to kill the pope if he came to his hometown, because the pope dishonored all muslims. Asked what the pope said that offended him so much, he said he does not know what the pope said, his friends told him that the pope dishonored all muslims. So he was asked what his friend told him what the pope said that was so dishonorable and he answered they don't know what the pope said either.

[hrothgar]

The pope was refering to a paper from Prof. Khoury, quoting a document written by emperor Manuel II. Palaeologos presumingly 1391 about a dialog the emperor had with an unknown Persian scholar. In this dialog the emperor is quoting a sura, that is following Prof. Khoury from a time were Mohammend had no power at all. Maybe a poor choice of quote, but usually quoting a paper from a well known scientist, you expect the facts to be right.

When I read the Pope's speach, it seemed clear that the Pope was referencing a dialogue that had been translated by Theodore Khoury. However, there is no evidence that the Pope's assertions about the dating of the sura was based on Khoury or some other source. Given how quickly any number of people pointed out these types of inaccuracies in the Pope's speach I expect that he was improvising rather than relying on any qualified authorities.

 

Benedict has introduced a lot of changes to the power structure within the Catholic Church. Some of these changes have directly impacted the Pontiff's ability to research these types of issues. (For example, the Pope removed Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald from his post as president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-Religious Dialogue. He's also cracked down on a number of previously independent Fanciscan orders that were working to promote better interfaith relations)

 

The Pope is viewed as an extremely important Christian spokesman. I wish that he would show a bit more descretion...

[luke warm]

for the sake of argument, let's say you're right - let's say it was deliberate... so what? what gets me is anybody even implying that there is any justification whatsoever for threats and violence because someone dared to say something another finds disagreeable... it seems to me that radical islam gets a bye when it comes to this stuff... i don't know if it's simple-minded political correctness, or if people actually believe these actions are defensible

I haven't seen anyone claim that the death threats are justified.

when condemnation over the actions and insane ramblings of those calling for the pope's assassination isn't forthcoming, and when reasons are given for those words and actions, it implies that they are defensible... i didn't say anyone had stated there was justification, but the implication is clear

 

I have seen a number of people, including myself, say that the Pope's comments were poorly chosen.

and the calls for assassination, were they merely "poorly chosen?" was the act of murdering a nun "poorly chosen?" were the words of khomeni et al during the rushdie affair "poorly chosen" or can you bring yourself to use stronger language?... how exactly would *you* categorize either of those? we're talking here about leaders of countries calling for murder, for holy war to kill all who don't affirm their faith, leaders who can't possibly be taken seriously on the world stage by anyone not having an axe to grind...

 

I know you like your simplistic little straw man arguments, but please try to pay attention to what folks are saying.

bantering about logical fallacies such as straw man arguments isn't the same as quoting the fallacious argument...

 

The Pope is viewed as an extremely important Christian spokesman. I wish that he would show a bit more descretion...

this statement frankly amazes me... no matter what the pope, or anyone else in the world, says or writes, there is no excuse for the words and actions of those who are offended (and especially those who are offended because they're told they should be)

 

Yesterday there was an interview with a young muslim, who said he would be willing to kill the pope if he came to his hometown, because the pope dishonored all muslims. Asked what the pope said that offended him so much, he said he does not know what the pope said, his friends told him that the pope dishonored all muslims. So he was asked what his friend told him what the pope said that was so dishonorable and he answered they don't know what the pope said either.

and if he or his friend were told to strap on explosives and blow up a mosque or synagogue, killing as many who disagreed with the leaders as possible, would anyone be surprised if they did so?.. paradise awaits, after all

[hrothgar]

for the sake of argument, let's say you're right - let's say it was deliberate... so what? what gets me is anybody even implying that there is any justification whatsoever for threats and violence because someone dared to say something another finds disagreeable... it seems to me that radical islam gets a bye when it comes to this stuff... i don't know if it's simple-minded political correctness, or if people actually believe these actions are defensible

I haven't seen anyone claim that the death threats are justified.

when condemnation over the actions and insane ramblings of those calling for the pope's assassination isn't forthcoming, and when reasons are given for those words and actions, it implies that they are defensible... i didn't say anyone had stated there was justification, but the implication is clear

Comment 1: I don't feel the need to run arround vociferously condemning every action that I think is obviously wrong.

 

Case in point: I think you're a bigot. With the exception of birthday related posting, most of the threads that you start in the Watercooler are an effort to condemn muslims and direct fear and hatred towards them. Despite my beliefs on this matter, I haven't (until now) made a post saying that "Jimmy is a bigot". There didn't seem to be a need to do so. In a similar fashion, I never really felt a need to write a posting explaining my deep belief that shooting nuns is a bad thing.

 

Comment 2: I don't think that the dramatic over-reactions to the Pope's comments are at all defensible. With this said and done, I have a lot of issues with what the Pope did. Let me try a simple little analogy here:

 

Suppose for the moment that I decided to drag my white ass down to Compton and started shouting the "N-Word" on some street corner. I'm quite sure that this would land me in the hospital pretty damn quick. Now suppose that I went and started complaining to my friends that that I had just gotten the living ***** beaten out of me and how unfair it was that the local reacted violently to mere words... I'd get zero sympathy. In fact, most of my friends would say that I got what I deserved for doing anything this stupid.

 

You know what the big difference is between these two examples? If I went down to Compton and started an incident, I'd be the one to take the beating. In the Pope's case, the costs for his stupidity are going to be born by a bunch of innocent bystanders like that nun who got shot.

 

Comment 3: A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm. If this turns out to be true I will have lost what little respect I have for the man...

[Al_U_Card]

Travel through the mists of time

and search with all your might

to find a time and place and folk

where men didnt have to fight.

 

It's in the nature of the beast

to struggle for what's right

Just to realize much too late

that all that's left is just hindsight.

 

For understanding cannot thrive

where fear and hatred reign.

The gift of life is too oft spent

to ensure other's gain.

 

Refuse to join the maddened crowd

reveal your inner light

so you and I can join as one

and see with the same sight.

[luke warm]

Comment 1: I don't feel the need to run arround vociferously condemning every action that I think is obviously wrong.

 

Case in point: I think you're a bigot.

you think i'm a bigot concerning whom? i've stated countless times that the things i'm against, i'm against regardless of who does it... that isn't bigotry, it's consistency...

 

With the exception of birthday related posting, most of the threads that you start in the Watercooler are an effort to condemn muslims and direct fear and hatred towards them.

this isn't the first time you've made assertions without proof... i've never started a thread or made a post containing condemnation of muslims, or any other group... maybe you're confused, maybe you think when i say something negative about a murderer, in your mind i'm condemning whatever ethnic group the murderer is a member of... you need to work a little harder on the tendency you have to generalize... fwiw, i could say that you are the bigot, especially where christians are concerned... but i won't

 

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...

 

Comment 3:  A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm.

what "number of people?" you have a link?

[rona_]

Fitz is now demoted to being the Papal Nuncio in Egypt. Why would he send him here. Egyptian Christians are mostly Copts and have their own Pope. I am a Catholic, live in Egypt, and I feel that the Pope's speech was unfortunate and definitely ill-timed. The man is no idiot..does he have an agenda? Who knows. I don't go to church, I have no idea where there is a Catholic church or how many Catholics there are here. Will find out tomorrow.

[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.

[rona_]

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? B)

[pbleighton]

"A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm."

 

Well, the alternatives are:

1. The Pope is stupid, or

2. The Pope is naive, or

3. The Pope is ignorant.

 

It seems pretty clear that it was deliberate. Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid (Murdoch's New York Post) agree, and think it was a WONDERFUL idea. Go team!

 

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Case in point: I think you're a bigot."

 

Oh dear, Richard. Don't you know that only conservatives are allowed to be so blunt? When they do it, the beacon of their intellectual honesty shines ever so much brighter, as if fueled by the fire of a thousand burning crosses...

 

Peter

[luke warm]

"A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm."

 

Well, the alternatives are:

1. The Pope is stupid, or

2. The Pope is naive, or

3. The Pope is ignorant.

hmmm... so the pope is stupid, naive, or ignorant unless he deliberately wanted to enrage the terrorist elements involved? you are very good at making assertions but not so good at proving or defending them

 

Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid

ahhh so he was referring to people writing letters to newspapers... i thought he meant some intellectually honest, objective person was making that case

 

"Case in point: I think you're a bigot."

 

Oh dear, Richard. Don't you know that only conservatives are allowed to be so blunt? When they do it, the beacon of their intellectual honesty shines ever so much brighter, as if fueled by the fire of a thousand burning crosses

it's easy to make such statements, but not quite so easy to prove them... it shoud be easy to post quotes from me showing bigotry... but i think people reading all our words over numerous posts know who has and has not made such statements

 

Say we are peaceful or we will kill you.

 

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

yep, that pretty much sums it up... say (and write) what we want or we'll murder some more women and children... or don't say what we want, we'll do it anyway

 

i've stated in other threads that i believe the, for example, kkk is a homegrown terrorist organization.. some of what they've done has been in the name of a religion they've perverted... they are still murderous bastards and mad dogs... is that bigotry? no... did i dehunanize them? no

[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.

[hrothgar]

Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid

ahhh so he was referring to people writing letters to newspapers... i thought he meant some intellectually honest, objective person was making that case

I first heard this raised by Silvia Poggioli on NPR...

[zasanya]

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

[pbleighton]

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

 

Peter

[bid_em_up]

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?

 

:)

[mikeh]

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.