Some surprising statements on the Catholic Answers website.

[Shadowcry]

George Waters:

That is right, Shadowcry, we all have opinions. Some based upon experience and fact some based on simple likes and dislikes and some based on erroneous information and preconceived notions. What you or I may call arrogance someone else may call recognition of facts.

I am curious, why in your opinion can’t a religion be considered peaceful or violent based on its teachings and the actions of its adherents due to those teachings?

I agree the past is important. It seems too often that instead of learning from the past people want to use it to justify current bad behavior.

How do you tell if a religion is violent or peaceful according to you I would really like to know.

 

[Shadowcry]

“Maybe you should see the log in your own eye instead of pointing out the speck in another’s eye perhaps.”

Muslim. Definitely muslim.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

(fyi shadow: inside joke for americans. welcome.)

I do not understand what do you mean?

 

[George_Waters]

Shadowcry:

How do you tell if a religion is violent or peaceful according to you I would really like to know.

Shadowcry,

In my opinion the teachings and the actions of the adherents of a particular religion due to those teachings are all we have to judge if a religion is peaceful or not.

I do not know enough about the real teachings of the vast majority of religions to judge if they are inherently violent or not. I have not said any particular religion is inherently violent.

You asked why people view Islam as a violent religion and I offered you my opinion of why people may view it as such. Once again that is only one explanation and an opinion.

You asked if Christianity is a peaceful religion and based on my knowledge of the true teachings of Christianity I told you that I believe it is. I will once again stress that we have had our share of immoral and criminal people who claimed to be Christian yet acted opposite of the teachings of Christianity.

Now, why in your opinion can’t a religion be considered peaceful or violent based on its teachings and the actions of its adherents due to those teachings?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:

Depends on the circumstances. I have not heard that the Vatican did anything to stop the American bishops in the 19th century hijacking Catholic teaching on slavery. (Please note–my point is precisely that the Vatican did oppose slavery, but that the American bishops explained this away and thus condoned one of the greatest evils of human nistory.)

Hola Contarini,
This is merely a tu quoque argument. It is a plain fact that Muslims in general do support OBL and terrorism against America – thus I fail to see what 19th century Catholic bishops have to do with the present situation.

Or are you saying that because the Vatican failed to stop American bishops in the 19th century perverting Christian teaching, it gives carte blanche for Muslims to support evil acts against America?

Contarini:

Here’s a better example–many people on these boards defend the Inquisition and the Crusades, while not condoning (for instance) the massacre of civilians at the taking of Jerusalem in 1099. You believe that the Crusades were in principle just, but that atrocities were committed in the process. So you don’t jump on the bandwagon of “the Crusaders were evil,” which could easily be misinterpreted by malicious people as condoning the massacre of innocents.

Please don’t tell me that this is different because it happened 900 years ago. Truth and morality remain the same, and the Catholic Church claims to be unchanging.

I will tell you that the Crusaders were in principal just, although in practice they left a lot to be desired.

I say ‘just’ solely on principal of defending Christianity against Muslim aggression. I maintain Islam has no place outside Arabia. In fact, it has no place outside Medinah. One notes that the Christian waited 4 centuries before reacting to the Muslim aggression on the Holy Land. That, to me, says a lot about Christian patience with the Muslim menace.

Contarini:

The plain fact is that many Muslims throughout the world think that the U.S. and Israel are even greater criminals than Osama Bin Laden. That doesn’t mean that they think Bin Laden’s tactics are consonant with Islam. It means that they think he is resorting to unjustifiable tactics in an essentially just cause–opposing the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the imperialistic American actions supporting Israel and generally interfering in the Middle East.

How little you know about Islam. OBL is merely following Islam principles. He quotes Quranic verses in justification of his actions and no Muslim has yet to come out and say that he has misused those verses.

In fact, one looks at OBL’s behavior and that of false prophet and one can see great similarities – particularly in the use of violence as the solution to problems.

Regardless of the politics of the Middle East, it is morally unjustifiable to kill 3,000 people in New York who had nothing to do with America’s support of Israel.

And so what if America supports Israel? What is wrong with that?

Contarini:

It is immoral and dishonest to confuse this general opposition to Israel and the U.S. with a failure to condemn the slaughter of innocent people. That it seems to me is the move anti-Islamic folks in the West are making.

I don’t think we’re expecting Muslims to rise up in condemnation of OBL. Quite the opposite: we view the widespread support by Muslims, either direct or indirect, of OBL to highly ‘unhelpful’ and symptomatic of how diametrically opposite our views and standards are.

Contarini:

There are plenty of Islamic condemnations of 9/11 on record. The problem is that many Westerners discount them because they go along with opposition to the U.S. and Israel. Essentially the argument seems to be that Muslims can’t make moral objections to the actions of those who oppose the U.S. unless they stop opposing the U.S. themselves.

Really? I think they are few and far between.

Contarini:

To cite another analogy–this would be like saying that a citizen of the Allied nations during WWII couldn’t oppose the bombing of Dresden unless he also decided that Hitler was OK.

This is a false analogy: one that uses the direct opposite propositions.

1. the bombing of Dresden was in context to a total war. Are you saying we’re in a total war with Islam?
2. Let’s examine the syllogism:
   A citizen of Allied nations couldn’t oppose the bombing of Dresden unless he also decided Hitler was OK.

Compare with:

A Muslim couldn’t oppose the 9/11 terrorism act unless he also decided George Bush was OK.

Does that make sense to you?

Hasta luego,
Rodrigo

 

[pro_universal]

One notes that the Christian waited 4 centuries before reacting to the Muslim aggression on the Holy Land. That, to me, says a lot about Christian patience with the Muslim menace.

Three things:

1. By the time of the crusades, every follower of Constantinople had been excommunicated, as had every follower of Rome been excommunicated by the Patriarch.
2. It was 400 years before Christians were even capable of attacking the Middle East, because their economy and society were so backwards as to preclude the formation of anything resembling a colonial power.
3. They answered a specific call for aid from the Emperor of the Romans (ie, Byzantine leader), and then stole his land from him after he had made agreements with the Turks.

Some “morally justified” crusade you have there.

 

[manx]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Hola Contarini,

How little you know about Islam. OBL is merely following Islam principles. He quotes Quranic verses in justification of his actions and no Muslim has yet to come out and say that he has misused those verses.

In fact, one looks at OBL’s behavior and that of false prophet and one can see great similarities – particularly in the use of violence as the solution to problems.

How little you know also about Islam and Muhammad.

 

[Contarini]

Rodrigo Bivar:

Hola Contarini,
This is merely a tu quoque argument.

No, it’s a reductio ad absurdum. If your argument about Islam were valid, it could be used against Catholicism.

It is a plain fact that Muslims in general do support OBL and terrorism against America

Provide evidence for this. The evidence I’ve seen is the other way round.

Or are you saying that because the Vatican failed to stop American bishops in the 19th century perverting Christian teaching, it gives carte blanche for Muslims to support evil acts against America?

No. I’m saying that because a teaching is not enforced with sufficient firmness, that doesn’t mean the teaching doesn’t exist.

I would like to see Muslims all over the world cooperate with us in hunting down Al Qaeda. But they are unlikely to do this, because they see us as the enemy. You are trying to use that indisputable fact to show that they must be counted as supporters of everything Bin Laden does. I’m trying to show that that is a very bad argument.

My contention is that most Muslims worldwide think that the cause of opposing the U.S. and Israel (which is Bin Laden’s declared cause) is a just one, but that Bin Laden’s methods are reprehensible.

I will tell you that the Crusaders were in principal just, although in practice they left a lot to be desired.

I say ‘just’ solely on principal of defending Christianity against Muslim aggression.

Exactly. And that, I would suggest, is what most Muslims think about Bin Laden’s jihad. They think that defending Islam against Western aggression (and they think Israel is the most glaring example of such aggression) is a just cause. But they think Bin Laden is using unacceptable and un-Islamic methods in the service of this cause.

I maintain Islam has no place outside Arabia. In fact, it has no place outside Medinah.

Well, many Muslims would say that European Jews have no place in Palestine, and American soldiers have no place in Saudi Arabia (even if the government invites them). I think that their views and yours are about equally bigoted and false. Yours are, historically, perhaps even more preposterous. But either way, your opposition to Islam doesn’t mean that you condone the massacre of 1099. And the opposition of many Muslims to Israel and to U.S. military presence in Arabia does not mean that they condone any atrocity committed by other Muslims against the U.S. or Israel.

 

[Contarini]

How little you know about Islam. OBL is merely following Islam principles. He quotes Quranic verses in justification of his actions and no Muslim has yet to come out and say that he has misused those verses.

That’s utter nonsense. You can find refutations of bin Laden’s use of the Qur’an, as well as more general Muslim condemnations of Sept. 11, here. (You may find these interpretations of the Qur’an as “peaceful” highly unconvincing. That’s not the point. The point is that many Muslims condemn bin Laden and think he is perverting the Qur’an. Your statement is flatly false, and reveals your abysmal ignorance.) You can also find a Western scholar’s assessment of bin Laden’s Qur’anic exegesis here. And you can find another clear condemnation of bin Laden from a Wahhabi point of view (the point of view with which he is often identified–something this website argues is a serious mistake) here.

In fact, one looks at OBL’s behavior and that of false prophet and one can see great similarities – particularly in the use of violence as the solution to problems.

I really don’t care what your view of Muhammad is. As far as I know, you aren’t a scholar of Islamic history. You may not even know Arabic for all I know (I don’t know it either, which is why I’m not going to make dogmatic statements about Muhammad one way or the other).

The relevant point is that most Muslims differ with you. They think that bin Laden is not following the true teachings of their Prophet. You and I, as non-Muslims, have absolutely no business telling Muslims what the “authentic” version of their faith is.

Regardless of the politics of the Middle East, it is morally unjustifiable to kill 3,000 people in New York who had nothing to do with America’s support of Israel.

First of all, it’s not true that the people in the WTC had nothing to do with America’s support of Israel. If the U.S. economic structure were crippled, Israel would lose a lot of its support. That is the harsh reality of total war. (That is why “total war” is always immoral, because it makes it impossible to distinguish between civilian and military targets.)

Second, you seem to miss my point entirely. I’m arguing that most Muslims agree that 9/11 was morally unjustifiable, even though they oppose U.S. policies in the Middle East.

And so what if America supports Israel? What is wrong with that?

I think we should support Israel (though I think we should encourage Israel to seek a peaceful solution). However, many Muslims (especially Arabs living in the Middle East) would say that the very existence of Israel is an act of imperialistic Western aggression. I’m not interested in debating this position, since I don’t agree with it. But this is what many of them think.

I don’t think we’re expecting Muslims to rise up in condemnation of OBL.

Well, but the evidence is that Islamic clerics all over the world did just that. I have given you a link that shows this.

Really? I think they are few and far between.

I’ll make it easy for you. I’ve given you a link to a number of Muslim condemnations of bin Laden. Can you find me as many statements supporting 9/11, issued by mainstream Islamic clerics? If you can’t, then your claim is empty and is based on ignorant bigotry. Your ignorance is culpable because it is wilful (you are setting yourself up as someone who knows something about Islam when you clearly don’t).

1. the bombing of Dresden was in context to a total war. Are you saying we’re in a total war with Islam?

I’m saying that that’s what bin Laden thinks. Fortunately, most Muslims seem to disagree with him. But that doesn’t mean that they like us or our policies in the Middle East.

1. Let’s examine the syllogism:
   A citizen of Allied nations couldn’t oppose the bombing of Dresden unless he also decided Hitler was OK.

Compare with:

A Muslim couldn’t oppose the 9/11 terrorism act unless he also decided George Bush was OK.

Does that make sense to you?

My point was that both these propositions are equally ridiculous. You are saying that if Muslims think that opposition to the U.S. and Israel is in principle legitimate, then they are necessarily bound to support anyone engaging in such opposition, whatever their methods.

Or are you not saying that?

Edwin

 

[CSN]

inJESUS:

correct, these were lies. Whatdo you call a lie?

why don’t you write the same article in a “better” way and then we’ll send it to them?

why Christians? what about jews or buddhist? muslims have problems with anything non-muslim. Look at Christians everywhere where muslims are dominant : persecution and killing.Ok fine, you’ll say: not all muslims kill…ok, good…how can we differentate? howcan i make sure that this or that doesnt want to kill me like “I have been ordered to fight the people until they bear witness that there is no one worthy to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and they establish the Salaat and give the Zakaat. If they perform such actions then their wealth and their blood has protection from me except by the Right of Islaam and their account is with Allaah .” Bukhaari

How do i make sure when their religion is not peaceful? what will happen of the million muslim terrorists? what if they dominate you and consider u a dhimma and subjugate you according to quran?what peace should WE give them when they cannot give you the same peace?

maybe because Christianity does not follow this?

and what are we doing? persecuting them like they do? and how can you forget about the millions who are blood-thirsty and basing it on quran? why is it that always Christians have to do something?? our Bible told us what to do, what about THEIR book? why don’t THEY try to live in peace with humanity instead of creating terror wherever they go?

you can refute it…you cannot make intolerance look good can you?
its not OUR fault…its theirs…they should learn how to live in peace.

dude, the worst posts are the ones that try to pick apart every single line a guy says, point by point, and of them all, this is the most brutal post ever.

 

[inJESUS]

Come on now, let’s be honest. The western powers have done a whole lot more than make fun of Muhammad over the past 50 years.

make fun of mohammad? people made fun of Jesus for thousands of year…why don’t we kill? why don’t you learn not to kill? or is it that you should kill in this case?

I’d say supplying bombs to Israel (which uses them to kill scores of Palestinians and to launch “pre-emptive strikes”) and giving money and arms to the worst

torturers the middle east has ever seen (Saddam Hussein and Shah Mohammed Reza Palavi) count as attacking Muslims. so anything seen as “attacking” muslims trigers war…so world politics should be in accordance to islam? in other words, if poltics are agaisnt islam then war and terror…billions must be subjugated to islamic point of view? amnot saying that world politics is good or fair…but am asking : either according to islam or killing? this means a 100% sure WW3.

Terror attacks on innocent people are absolutely immoral and disgusting, and all those who participate should be punished with the most extreme means available.

but according to the example i gave, it was ok and mohammad himself is the biggest example of intolerance.

I think the WTC attack was absolutely disgusting, but it’s just plain dishonest to pretend that the US and other western countries have not done any similar thing to the muslims.

did they do it for religious purposes or political one? or is it the same for you? so any country that gives arms ti Israel, you should terrorize it? where will this lead to?

 

[inJESUS]

CSN:

inJESUS:

dude, the worst posts are the ones that try to pick apart every single line a guy says, point by point, and of them all, this is the most brutal post ever.

thank you…i was looking for answers…can you help?

 

[pro_universal]

inJesus,

Are you claiming that it’s better to kill for politics than for religion?

My point is simply that western powers have attacked and killed many, many more muslims than terrorists have killed christian people in the west. Hence, the claim that only muslims kill is false.

It’s also untrue that the cartoon riots happened out of the blue. I think having attacked a people for 50 years by supporting dictatorships and war against them, and then insulting their religion on top of it, will generate a harsh response no matter which religion you pick.

 

[inJESUS]

inJesus,

Are you claiming that it’s better to kill for politics than for religion?

no…no killing at all and no arms at all is the ideal…but the problem is that muslims take it personally; that is, the kuffar and insulting us so kill the kuffar…if a war is done , yes sure muslims will answer back…but if a country is giving arms to Israel, or if America or Europ’s politics do not agree with islam, muslims should start killing? this will lead to war which nobody wants…

My point is simply that western powers have attacked and killed many, many more muslims than terrorists have killed christian people in the west. Hence, the claim that only muslims kill is false.

i did not say only muslims kill…but muslims should differentiate between politics and religion…if the West’s potitics do not agree, it does not mean it is Christians plotting agaisnt muslims…it is politics and it should be dealt with as such…and am not defending politics but anticipating what would happen to our planet if muslims decide its a war from kuffar agaisnt muslims.

It’s also untrue that the cartoon riots happened out of the blue. I think having attacked a people for 50 years by supporting dictatorships and war against them, and then

insulting their religion on top of it, will generate a harsh response no matter which religion you pick. i’m not talking about religions…when you attack France, no one thinks : hey kafir muslims are attacking Christianity!..only muslims think as such coz they cant differentiate…leave aside state and religion…

 

[pnewton]

pro_universal:

My point is simply that western powers have attacked and killed many, many more muslims than terrorists have killed christian people in the west.

What in the world are you talking about? If you are talking about the war on terrorism, then I sincerely hope so and that we have and continue to do so. That is how one wins a war, by killing enough of the enemy, so that they can not kill you.

Am I the only one here that remembers what it felt like on September the 11th? Thousands of our fellow citizens were living through hell and dying before our eyes because of the hatred stirred by Islamic holy men. How about the USS Cole, the US embassy, the marine barracks. Almost all the terrorism and murder in the world today is done under one banner, that of Islam.

How many Christian suicde bombers and training camps are you aware of? Isn’t it always some Muslim fanatic that is running into a room of innocents and snatching their lives as a sign of devotion to Allah? How blind do you have to be not to see the pattern. A large section of the Muslim world hates with a hatred born from the depths of hell all others who are not Muslim. They would kill each and every one of us, all our women and children, if they could. Our elected leaders have the moral obligation to protect the citizenry from this menace to the extent possible.

Once again, remember 9-11? It was not an isolated incident. It will happen again.

 

[Contarini]

inJESUS:

make fun of mohammad? people made fun of Jesus for thousands of year…why don’t we kill?

But Christians did kill for hundreds of years. Some still do–though not nearly as commonly or as viciously as Muslims.

why don’t you learn not to kill?

That’s a very good question. That’s why I’m so opposed to Christians quoting the Qur’an to “prove” that Islam is inherently violent. That’s for Muslims to decide. Let’s hope and pray that they decide it the right way, and let’s cheer on those Muslims who are moving in the right direction instead of deriding them as not being “authentic” Muslims.

Edwin

 

[pro_universal]

What in the world are you talking about?

I am talking about the reason we have so many enemies in the middle east. Shah Reza Palavi in Iran was one of the worst human rights abusers the region has ever seen, as was Saddam Hussein…both US supported. The US supplied arms and support to both sides of the Iran-Iraq war so that they could wear each others’ armies down…there you have almost a million deaths. Then there’s also support for the string of dictators in Egypt, who haven’t been quite as bad as Saddam and the Shah.

Add to this unwaivering support for Israel (and a total blindness to the idea that the Israelis might be part of the problem), and you have attacks which have killed thousands of muslims.

Am I the only one here that remembers what it felt like on September the 11th? Thousands of our fellow citizens were living through hell and dying before our eyes because of the hatred stirred by Islamic holy men. How about the USS Cole, the US embassy, the marine barracks. Almost all the terrorism and murder in the world today is done under one banner, that of Islam.

I remember it alright, and it was a crime. I also pray that no similar things will ever happen to other people, including muslims. In terms of deaths, our weapons and funding have killed several orders of magnitude more people than those planes did on September 11th. Now can you imagine why so many people in that part of the world think the US is evil?

How many Christian suicde bombers and training camps are you aware of? Isn’t it always some Muslim fanatic that is running into a room of innocents and snatching their lives as a sign of devotion to Allah?

We don’t use suicide bombers to kill. But that doesn’t mean we don’t kill. It’s no worse to me if a person kills himself than not, if the object of the killing is to take out a bunch of civilians.

A large section of the Muslim world hates with a hatred born from the depths of hell all others who are not Muslim.

This is what I am saying is not the case. Just try to name a non-muslim country that has been attacked without having its fingers in middle eastern politics. The reason these militant groups have grown up is that their governments are corrupt to the core (supported by US aid), and their people have been treated like cogs for the oil machine for most of the 20th century.

Once again, remember 9-11? It was not an isolated incident. It will happen again.

How many people died in US bombing raids into Iraq? How many “collateral casualties” have there been in the Israeli attacks on palestinian militants?

The idea that the US has never been involved in the middle east or treated these people badly in the past is pretend-history. When a particularly evil enemy rises up on the other side, I guess it’s easy to forget our own role in helping spur him to action.

 

[George_Waters]

pro_universal,

It is one thing to attack a particular country for political reasons, but Islamic militants typically attack the citizens of countries for religious reasons. They have clouded the difference between a political struggle and a religious struggle. Those girls beheaded in Indonesia were killed not because of politics, but specifically because they were Christian. Just an observation.

 

[pnewton]

pro_universal:

How many people died in US bombing raids into Iraq? How many “collateral casualties” have there been in the Israeli attacks on palestinian militants?

The idea that the US has never been involved in the middle east or treated these people badly in the past is pretend-history.

I never said that we didn’t support people who turned out to be murderous. I agree that happened. If I give money to a pan handler and he uses to buy a knife to butcher a family in their sleep, it is not the same as butchering that family myself.

As far as the bombing raids; never in history has any country tried so hard to avoid collateral damage. And, yes, muslims have died. That is what happens in war. It is why flying planes as kamikaze bombs into another country’s territory is to be avoided.

I would love to see peace with the muslim world, but that peace can not be unilateral. As long as large groups of Muslims are intoxicating themselves with a murderous bloodlust against America, the blood of the innocents that die is on their hands.

 

[manx]

pnewton:

I would love to see peace with the muslim world, but that peace can not be unilateral. As long as large groups of Muslims are intoxicating themselves with a murderous bloodlust against America, the blood of the innocents that die is on their hands.

I suggest we review also the policies of America and its “sweet” relationship with brother Israel.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

Well, there’s a long history of victims of prejudice showing prejudice.

Change “Muslim” to “Catholic” (and alter the other historical specifics accordingly) and this stuff sounds like it came right out of a 19th-century nativist playbook.

Muslims are the new Catholics.

Edwin

And change Catholic to Anglican: Reformation period. Forced conversion of Catholics, etc. etc. Difference is, during the Crusades, we had a valid reason to go to war: to defend our formerly Christian lands which Muslims invaded.