What is wrong with this statement?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fergal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fergal

Guest
“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,”

This was the repsonse of Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam to the Popes supposedly upsetting remarks on Mohammed.
 
Fergal said:
“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,”

This was the repsonse of Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam to the Popes supposedly upsetting remarks on Mohammed.
Click to expand...
One thing that’s wrong with it is that its meaning can be conveyed by saying, “We won’t tolerate anyone who says we’re intolerant.”
 
I’m really curious. Do they not see the irony in their violent responses to a statement that their religion has violent undertones? I’m really baffled.
 
I see it as a threat. Holy Father said no such thing. So, it is a threat and a lie.

Just like that faith is. A threat to the world, and a lie not truth.
 
To paraphrase, ‘Islam is a tolerant religion, anyone disagreeing with the prior statement will receive a severe beating’.
 
T1Catholic said:
I’m really curious. Do they not see the irony in their violent responses to a statement that their religion has violent undertones? I’m really baffled.
Click to expand...
I find it baffling, too - because it seems illogical and therefore wrong. The Holy Father’s speech includes the following:

“But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

So, perhaps these Muslims’ response is not as bafflling as it first appears.
 
Fergal said:
“Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence,”

This was the repsonse of Pakistani Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam to the Popes supposedly upsetting remarks on Mohammed.
Click to expand...

It’s not universally valid.​

Besides, Catholics (like many other Christian groups) have done some vile things in the past, which cannot be sufficiently condemned. If we are going to criticise Islam’s violence, we must also own up to the violence in Christianity. We after all are supposedly a peaceful religion - but Christianity has been the cause or the occasion of a great deal of bloodshed.

For example: the Rwanda genocide of 1994 is a bad advertisement for Catholicism either way - if it wasn’t caused by it, there is still the problem that, in that case Catholicism seems to have had precious little effect on those who were supposedly Catholics. What does that say for the ability of Catholicism to alter character for the better, as Christian faith ought to ? Not much. Either it causes genocide - or it is too weak to prevent it.

None of this justifies the appalling behaviour of Islam down the centuries - but they have no monopoly of violence or barbarity or rebellion. Nazism & Stalinism both grew up in supposedly Christian countries, and they both borrowed from the accumulated centuries of Christian lies against the Jews. The blood libel was not invented by the Islamofascists, although they propagate it. The Nazi yellow star which Jews had to wear was prescribed by Lateran IV.

It’s as well to know these things. ##
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top