The Pope’s Words : Pope owes Muslims a “deep and persuasive apology”

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I harbor no hatred towards Muslims as a whole, infact I am engaged to a Muslim woman. However as for these Muslims that want a war with Catholics. I’m ready. I think every Catholic living in a Muslim country or in close proximity to Muslims should arm themselves for the sake of their families and their communities.:mad:
 
Well, that really doesn’t matter. The question is: were the Pope’s remarks wrong?
I agree that the question is: Were the Pope’s remarks wrong. (Answer: No.) But purpose of my response toThekla was to point out that we as Christians see apologies, when warranted, as a sign of strength. But the idea of apology is filtered differently through the Muslim mind. I can’t think of one example of a Muslim leader apologizing about anything. In any event, I believe they think requiring someone to apologize and getting that apology is a form of humiliation.
 
Have any of you actually read Benedict’s speech that has suddenly been made so highly controversial? The day after September 11, at Bavaria’s University of Regensberg, Pope Benedict describes Christian belief in a God whose words and acts are bound by reason, truth and the law of non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this with Islamic belief in a God not bound by anything including his own words. Benedict further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists who see reason as being completely unbound of God.

In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the Pope apologize. Benedict’s speech is a work of enlightened genius. (You really have to read the whole speech to appreciate his genius so I have attached it see below) He has clearly laid out the differences between Christian culture and Islamic culture and the basis of the clash of civilizations we now experience as the War on Terror. His analysis also explains the underlying cause of the alliance between the western Left and the Islamist Right.

Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech. Reaching back to 1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel II: “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.”

The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II’s 600-year-old point. The reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force our Pope to parrot the PC line on Islam. Since Islam need not be internally consistent and it is not bound by reason, it’s only objective can be to assert the power of a God who is so transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is created in God’s image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some Muslims to lie.) Islamists are not responding to any “offense” to their non-existent morality. They are asserting the only morality they have the will to power.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf
 
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”

In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “Show me just what Muhammad 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.”…

The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.

nytimes.com/2006/09/16/opinion/16sat2.html?ex=1316059200&en=55dd46982dc29167&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Sounds like typical liberal hogwash from the same paper that gives terrorists tips about government tracking programs.
 
  1. Read the Fascist Manifesto and see whether or not Islamists fit the profile of those who supported that political and economic position. There is, quite simply, nothing that is Fascist about ‘‘Islamofascism’’, as even a brief perusal of the Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle will conclusively demonstrate. For example, one rather doubts that the imams would stand for ‘‘The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations …’’
That’s the ridiculous thing. Picture, if you will, Osama Bin Laden in a cave, looking at pictures of 1920s Italy and thinking ‘ah, yes, Mussolini, that’s my ideal - that’s who I wish I was’.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Mike
 
That’s the ridiculous thing. Picture, if you will, Osama Bin Laden in a cave, looking at pictures of 1920s Italy and thinking ‘ah, yes, Mussolini, that’s my ideal - that’s who I wish I was’.

It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so serious.

Mike
When one looks up the definition of Fascism in the American Hertiage Dictionary, you find the following:

"fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
  1. often Fascism
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."
At least under the second definition, and possibly the first, Islamofascism is fascist.
 
When one looks up the definition of Fascism in the American Hertiage Dictionary, you find the following:

"fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
  1. often Fascism
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."
At least under the second definition, and possibly the first, Islamofascism is fascist.
No it isn’t. Fascist is probably the least appropriate label to put on what the radical Islamists want. Fortunately the people who run these forums know that this is the case (there was an excellent post by Karl Keating, unfortunately lost in the forum crash, which set out much better than I could manage why the term was ludicrous).

In the meantime, the forum rules wisely say that this non-sensical word is not to be used. People seem to be having a lot of difficulty with that; I’m not sure why. People managed not to abbreviate ‘neo-conservative’ when we were told that the abbreviated form was unacceptable, perfectly well.

Mike
 
When one looks up the definition of Fascism in the American Hertiage Dictionary, you find the following:

"fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
  1. often Fascism
    a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
    b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
  2. Oppressive, dictatorial control."
At least under the second definition, and possibly the first, Islamofascism is fascist.
PRECISELY 👍
 
PRECISELY 👍
You can say precisely as much as you like. It’s politics 101 that what the radical Islamists want is nothing to do with fascism.

Still, why let facts get in the way of an emotive term? What is truth, anyway?

Mike
 
You can say precisely as much as you like. It’s politics 101 that what the radical Islamists want is nothing to do with fascism.

Still, why let facts get in the way of an emotive term? What is truth, anyway?

Mike
How so…what do they want Mike :confused:
 
No it isn’t. Fascist is probably the least appropriate label to put on what the radical Islamists want. Fortunately the people who run these forums know that this is the case (there was an excellent post by Karl Keating, unfortunately lost in the forum crash, which set out much better than I could manage why the term was ludicrous).

In the meantime, the forum rules wisely say that this non-sensical word is not to be used. People seem to be having a lot of difficulty with that; I’m not sure why. People managed not to abbreviate ‘neo-conservative’ when we were told that the abbreviated form was unacceptable, perfectly well.

Mike
The second definition is correct. “Oppressive, dictatorial control” is exactly what Bin Laden and other Islamo"whatever you want to call it" want. Terms and words evolve and they aren’t always subject to the same, strict definition first applied to them.
 
You may have something here. We are so busy trying to placate these folks and they know exactly what they are doing to gain influence throughout the world and at our expense.
We just need to be more vigilant and wise up to their tactics.
This is so true. Look at Spain, and France how they have caved in. Tuck their tails between their legs and run. As long as western goverments keep caving in this is just giving more fuel to the enemy.
 
The second definition is correct. “Oppressive, dictatorial control” is exactly what Bin Laden and other Islamo"whatever you want to call it" want.
…and of course, onlly a Fascist system covers that. So every oppressive dictatorship in history - there’s been rather a lot - has been Fascist, in your opinion? You would be very hard pressed to find anyone who has done any political theory to agree with you on that.
Terms and words evolve and they aren’t always subject to the same, strict definition first applied to them.
Oh, indeed. And some terms remind me of the teenager stamping his feet and calling his parents ‘fascists’ because he hasn’t learnt any better insults and knows that ‘fascist’ is the BIG BAD word.

Mike
 
It is important that the complete text of what the Pope said be shared.I hope everyone will copy and share with as many people as possible. It is clear that the pope was quoted out of context
 
…and of course, onlly a Fascist system covers that. So every oppressive dictatorship in history - there’s been rather a lot - has been Fascist, in your opinion? You would be very hard pressed to find anyone who has done any political theory to agree with you on that.

And what term would you prefer? As to every oppressive regime in history, definitions evolve with time. I’ll use whatever time appropriate word that was used for them. In this case, we aren’t just saying fascist, we’re saying Islamofascist, which implies an Islamic version of the system, even if you want to stick to old definitions. Or maybe you’d like to call it a fusion of the two systems? I’ve met Green Nazis before, so you can’t tell me you can’t combine two previously seperate political systems, even if the name appears as a contradiction, using old definitions. Regardless, the second definition wasn’t created by me, it was created by the American Heritage Dictionary. Take the political theory around it up with them, if you disagree so strongly with it.

Oh, indeed. And some terms remind me of the teenager stamping his feet and calling his parents ‘fascists’ because he hasn’t learnt any better insults and knows that ‘fascist’ is the BIG BAD word.

Not sure what you mean by this. Teenagers throw whatever they can at good ole ma and pa. I don’t think I ever used that term for my parents. Anyways, anything else?
 
No it isn’t. Fascist is probably the least appropriate label to put on what the radical Islamists want. Fortunately the people who run these forums know that this is the case (there was an excellent post by Karl Keating, unfortunately lost in the forum crash, which set out much better than I could manage why the term was ludicrous).

In the meantime, the forum rules wisely say that this non-sensical word is not to be used. People seem to be having a lot of difficulty with that; I’m not sure why. People managed not to abbreviate ‘neo-conservative’ when we were told that the abbreviated form was unacceptable, perfectly well.

Mike
Mike is correct. Admin. told us not to use the term Islamofascist. Why can’t we just call themj Islamic terrorists? Seems to me it fits.
 
Did the Pope apologize? I hope not. First off, its not his fault that they misinterpreted what he said… but even if his message WAS what they thought it was WAY TO GO ZINGER!!!

Why are we trying to politically correct here on the forum in the way we address Radical Islamists? Do we forget that they want to cut off our head?

The Pope’s words actually caused a reaction that speaks myriads about the true nature of Islam. There is no price too high for the truth for our Pope

Think about it. The Pope and the Catholic Church are constantly persecuted or ‘spoken negatively’ about. We might be hurt and upset BUT DO WE BURN DOWN CHURCHES, burn images of other religious leaders or threaten to kill other religious leaders? NOPE

Oh yeah and do we CUT PEOPLES HEADS OFF FOR not becoming catholic??? Nope
 
Mike is correct. Admin. told us not to use the term Islamofascist. Why can’t we just call themj Islamic terrorists? Seems to me it fits.
Very well, I’ll sugar coat it if that is what is deemed acceptable. Is Islamoterrorism more acceptable? Or maybe Islamotyranny? Or maybe just Islamism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top