Some surprising statements on the Catholic Answers website.

[Contarini]

Semper Fi:

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.

You’re too hyper-sensitive, and so you missed my point.

When have Anglicans been the objects of nativist prejudice?

My point is that Protestants used the same propaganda against Catholics that CA is using against Muslims.

Edwin

 

[Liberalsaved]

It lost me in the third line or so when it decided to pigeonhole people.

 

[Shadowcry]

George Waters:

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?

Because how would you know?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Contarini:

You’re too hyper-sensitive, and so you missed my point.

When have Anglicans been the objects of nativist prejudice?

My point is that Protestants used the same propaganda against Catholics that CA is using against Muslims.

Edwin

Edwin, I didn’t realize that and I apologize. I just get sick and tired of hearing people talk about the Crusades… without putting it in the context of the centuries they were fought in. Also without conceding that hundreds of millions of Catholics were forced to convert to Protestantism. I apologize. I’ve been up for 18 hours and just got home from a 12 hour shift (time for some sleep soon).

 

[pro_universal]

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.

The situation with Iran and Iraq was not a simple case of giving a dollar to a butcher. It’s more like giving arms training and an anatomical “how to” to a serial killer before he gets off on his way.

The US provided arms and training specifically for the purpose of making war and torturing dissidents, and that’s where a lot of the hatred comes from. It wasn’t suicidal, but it was certainly malicious or at least callous on the level of terrorists attacking civilians.

As for Israel…there is no such consideration for civilians whatsoever. Dropping a bomb on an entire apartment building to kill one terrorist is most definitely not “attempting to reduce collateral damage.”

 

[pro_universal]

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.

While I can see how you’d get this impression, you would be hard pressed to name a single country that has been attacked by the Arab terrorist groups which hasn’t had its fingers in the politics of the middle east.

I’ve seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the fighting in Indonesia is anything other than long-standing tribal animus, where the tribes coincidentally are of different religions. And this makes sense…when have you heard of an indonesian group coming to america to commit acts of terror?

 

[LatinCat]

pro_universal:

While I can see how you’d get this impression, you would be hard pressed to name a single country that has been attacked by the Arab terrorist groups which hasn’t had its fingers in the politics of the middle east.

I’ve seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the fighting in Indonesia is anything other than long-standing tribal animus, where the tribes coincidentally are of different religions. And this makes sense…when have you heard of an indonesian group coming to america to commit acts of terror?

Oh yes. and because those countries have ties to middle eastern politics, their innocent citizens should be blown up. More wisdom brought to you by the “religion of peace”.

 

[pro_universal]

Oh yes. and because those countries have ties to middle eastern politics, their innocent citizens should be blown up. More wisdom brought to you by the “religion of peace”.

Who drew that link? I didn’t, and I think you read Contarini’s piece you’ll see a good analysis of this claim that you’re making.

Bin Laden’s methods are certainly evil, pretty much everyone seems to agree. Whether or not the US has in fact attacked and continues to attack muslims unjustly in their home countries is a different matter.

 

[Petergee]

Liberalsaved:

It lost me in the third line or so when it decided to pigeonhole people.

Huh?
The first six lines are:
“Jihad.
It was once a word unfamiliar to American ears. But in recent years it has become all too familiar. The actions of Muslim militants and terrorists have seared the word into American consciousness.
Yet even with thousands of innocent civilians killed on American soil by Islamic terrorists, the full significance of the Muslim concept of jihad has not been grasped by the American public.
In the days after September 11, 2001, American leaders rushed to portray Islam as a peaceful religion that had been “hijacked” by a fanatical band of terrorists.”
So far, nothing but indisputable facts. There are certainly parts later in the article where I would disagree with its hostile tone and its US chauvinism. But how on earth do these first few lines “pigeonhole people”?

 

[Petergee]

pro_universal:

While I can see how you’d get this impression, you would be hard pressed to name a single country that has been attacked by the Arab terrorist groups which hasn’t had its fingers in the politics of the middle east.

France for one, despite vehemently OPPOSING from start to finish the US’s idea of invading Iraq. But I suppose you’re going to claim that EVERY couyntry has “had its fingers in the politics of the middle east” in some way.

I’ve seen absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the fighting in Indonesia is anything other than long-standing tribal animus, where the tribes coincidentally are of different religions. And this makes sense…when have you heard of an indonesian group coming to america to commit acts of terror?

You clearly know very little about Indonesia. Thousands of Moslem militants, whipped into a frenzy of hatred by Moslem “clerics”, volunteered to travel thousands of kilometres from Java to Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua, for the specific purpose of killing Christians, just because they were Christians, and urging the Moslem minority of those islands (whom the Christian majority had allowed to live peacefully among it for centuries) to join them in the killing spree. Not to even mention Timor. Or Bali.

 

[pro_universal]

You clearly know very little about Indonesia. Thousands of Moslem militants, whipped into a frenzy of hatred by Moslem “clerics”, volunteered to travel thousands of kilometres from Java to Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua, for the specific purpose of killing Christians, just because they were Christians, and urging the Moslem minority of those islands (whom the Christian majority had allowed to live peacefully among it for centuries) to join them in the killing spree. Not to even mention Timor. Or Bali.

I’ve got quite a bit of contact there, actually. But personal experience isn’t going to convince anyone, so, I’ll ask again:

When have you heard of an indonesian terrorist attacking another country in the name of islam?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

First of all, please show my charge of tu quoque is a reduction ad absurdum. So you know a latin phrase, but do you understand it?

Thanks for showing you don’t understand what a tu quoque means with your ‘If your argument about Islam were valid, it could be used against Catholicism’ quip.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

I used to live in a Muslim country and I do know from speaking to people and from countless polls. What have you got?

See those people dancing in the streets? They weren’t celebrating Eid, I can tell you.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

Let’s get back to the original claims, shall we? 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? Isn’t that a tu quoque?

Or do you think my charge of tu quoque is a reduction ad absurdum?

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

First of all, they are wrong in thinking that defending Islam against “Western aggression” is a just cause because what Western aggression is it we’re talking about? If it means supporting Israel’s right to exist?

Secondly, I seriously think you’re wrong when you say, ‘they think Bin Laden is using unacceptable and un-Islamic methods in the service of this cause’. Most Muslims I have spoken to think OBL is doing the right thing according to the tenets of Islam.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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).

Au contraire. This ‘European Jew’ polemic is a lie and unsupported by genetic studies. The Jews are a closed community and even the Ashkenazis are very close genetically with the ME Jews, more so than the Arabs. But you wouldn’t know anything about the genetic studies, do you?

Secondly, this ‘American soldiers in Saudi’ is a preposterous argument – how many soldiers are there in SA? And why aren’t they allowed there? Don’t you think SA being off limits is a tad bigoted? As you conceded our troops were invited there. If you have an issue take it up with the Sauds.

Contarini:

I think that their views and yours are about equally bigoted and false.

I’m telling the truth and by definition the truth cannot be bigoted or false.

Contarini:

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.

I freely admit the Crusaders were cruel and barbaric. Does that make you feel better now that you can use your tu quoque arguments, or think you can?

What were we talking about? I’m getting side-tracked by your tu quoques.

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

Okay, let’s examine the verses. Bring them and let us talk about them?

Why don’t we start with this?
Sheikh al-O’Taibi, chief of al-Qaida operations in the Arabian Peninsula: Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, or hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger, Nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, from among the people of the book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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’re talking like someone who’s totally defeated before he has started. You know I know Islamic history more than you, and you know I will defeat you on any discussion we’re going to have on Muhammad’s history.

Contarini:

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).

If you don’t know Arabic why do you even bring up the subject of knowledge of Arabic?

Contarini:

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.

You keep saying that if it makes you feel better, bud. I’m not sure your opinion is backed up by the facts.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.)

Who said anything about total war? Did you declare total war on us? Or did you just declare it with a sneak attack on innocent civilians who were merely trying to make a crust to feed their families?

Contarini:

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.

You keep saying that if it makes you feel better, bud. I’m not sure your opinion is backed up by the facts. A credible poll would be nice.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

Well they think wrong, don’t they?

cont

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

A few clerics here and there. I think you’re generalizing.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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).

How many do you have?

BTW: calling my claims empty and based on ignorant bigotry is merely an ad hominem. And I won’t even entertain your other ridiculous charges.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

You keep on saying ‘Most Muslims seem to disagree with him’ if it makes you feel better, bud.

I think you should look at the polls done soon after 9/11.

Contarini:

Rodrigo:

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.

I really don’t know what you’re trying to say as your syllogism is rather garbled. Please try again.

Contarini:

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?

No. I am saying that either Muslims believe OBL did the right thing or they don’t. So which is it?

Hasta luego,
Cid

 

[onesimplemind]

pro_universal:

When have you heard of an indonesian terrorist attacking another country in the name of islam?

Foreign embassies are considered sovereign territory. To answer your question, muslims stormed the Danish embassy in Indonesia because Danish newspapers dared to defy the precepts of Islam. The people who stormed the embassies might not be official terrorists but, I can see the similarities.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

onesimplemind:

Foreign embassies are considered sovereign territory. To answer your question, muslims stormed the Danish embassy in Indonesia because Danish newspapers dared to defy the precepts of Islam. The people who stormed the embassies might not be official terrorists but, I can see the similarities.

They are small terrorists, who terrorize people practice their own religions, terrorize christian whose churches have no legal permit, terrorize people with pornography’s issue, terrorize people who talked ‘minus’ about Islam, decreeing death fatwa to some reverends as they criticism Islam, terrorize american embassies for many issues like Israel-Palestine, Muhammad’s Cartoon, United State’s domination in muslim country, United State’s involvements in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other part of the world (lol).

 

[Petergee]

Quote:
You clearly know very little about Indonesia. Thousands of Moslem militants, whipped into a frenzy of hatred by Moslem “clerics”, volunteered to travel thousands of kilometres from Java to Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua, for the specific purpose of killing Christians, just because they were Christians, and urging the Moslem minority of those islands (whom the Christian majority had allowed to live peacefully among it for centuries) to join them in the killing spree. Not to even mention Timor. Or Bali.

I’ve got quite a bit of contact there, actually. But personal experience isn’t going to convince anyone, so, I’ll ask again:

When have you heard of an indonesian terrorist attacking another country in the name of islam?

LOL. I can’t believe you’re seriously asking this question again. I won’t insult other readers’ intelligence by posting links to the thousands of reports of the atrocities in East Timor in 1999-2000, or the mass bombings in Bali in 2002 and again in 2003 which the bombers and their “clerical” leaders stated repeatedly were deliberately targeted at Western Christians in the name of Islam. Maybe your “contacts” in Indonesia have been hermits in a cave for the past 7 years.

And yes I concede that Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua are legally recognised as part of the Indonesian empire after the Javanese military forcibly incorporated them (which btw the supposedly anti-Moslem US successfully convinced the rest of the world to allow). But if the indigenous Christian inhabitants had their way they would certainly be “another country” de jure instead of just de facto.

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Petergee:

LOL. I can’t believe you’re seriously asking this question again. I won’t insult other readers’ intelligence by posting links to the thousands of reports of the atrocities in East Timor in 1999-2000, or the mass bombings in Bali in 2002 and again in 2003 which the bombers and their “clerical” leaders stated repeatedly were deliberately targeted at Western Christians in the name of Islam. Maybe your “contacts” in Indonesia have been hermits in a cave for the past 7 years.

And yes I concede that Sulawesi, the Moluccas and West Papua are legally recognised as part of the Indonesian empire after the Javanese military forcibly incorporated them (which btw the supposedly anti-Moslem US successfully convinced the rest of the world to allow). But if the indigenous Christian inhabitants had their way they would certainly be “another country” de jure instead of just de facto.

Peter… pro say … ‘another country. .’ means regardless how bad they attacked their own country, as long as it is not ‘another country’ then it countless …although I agree with onesimplemind and you here.

 

[inJESUS]

Shadowcry:

Because how would you know?

what is it you fail to grasp? to know about something, you must know about its founder…read about Jesus’ teachings and behavior…not only Jesus, but his disciples as well who lived with him, and Paul who used to kill Christians and how he was transformed. Do you think these people taught something violent like kiling, slaughtering, massacring, terrorizing, subduing,humiliating ecc? no. Did these people apply the peaceful teachings they were preaching ? yes. So did these people teach peaceful teachings and did they apply them in their lives? yes.
Clearer now?

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

pro_universal:

When have you heard of an indonesian terrorist attacking another country in the name of islam?

You obviously haven’t heard of Hambali and Jemaah Islamiah. The JI network committed terrorist attacks in Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. Hambali also helped the 20th 9/11 bomber Zacarias Moussaoui, and so was indirectly involved in the 9/11 attack.

rotten.com/library/bio/crime/terrorists/hambali/

Hasta la vista, baby,
Rodrigo