Why is Pope Benedict supporting the UN's 'anti-racist' hatefest against Israel?

[maggiemay2u]

Surely part of the problem is that no one group or sect speaks for all of Islam – there is no Pope of Islam. I suspect (but can’t prove) that in Western countries the Islam practiced has accomodated itself somewhat to the norms that we consider “civilized,” so they are the ones most likely to condemn terror and anti-semitism (and probably some have). But even if they did, what would it prove? Most Muslims live in Muslim countries in Asia or Africa, and their point of view is probably closer to the “nutballs” on many issues even if they don’t agree with their methods.

I understand your point, though: it would reassure us if there were such loud public condemnations that Islam follows the same global norms that we do with respect to scientific rationality, women’s rights and religious tolerance. I think that at the moment in the Muslim world this would be seen as a capitulation to the West, unfortunately.

Ah, but several Islamic organizations exist that condemn any action seen as critical of Muslims. CAIR is probably the best known, Center for Muslim-Jewish Engagement of Los Angeles, a group I began supporting after 9-11, is another. Neither jumps into the MSM arena to condemn the actions of nutters and extremists. Individual Mullahs should be on the vanguard of condemnation, too, just as our bishops and cardinals often are.

Just because there’s no Islamic “pope” is a poor excuse for the failure to condemn the extremists and call for protection of all, even dissenters. There may not be a “pope”, but there are lots of Islamic "bishops’ and “priests”. Hiding behind the lack of a “pope” is disingenuous at best.

Okay, what’s the topic again?

 

[maggiemay2u]

In your original post you did not say you were talking about Sharia law in the US.

From my original post…
A cry from American mosques to condemn the policies of Muslim leaders… I followed a thread of thought throughout the post. I did not introduce a global interpretation as a separate thought.

But it really doesn’t matter in the big picture, IMHO. Are you saying Sharia Law is good anywhere? Women treated as chattel to be disposed of at will and dissenters killed? This is good with you? It’s something that merits being taught and followed in civilization?

 

[reggieM]

But it really doesn’t matter in the big picture, IMHO. Are you saying Sharia Law is good anywhere? Women treated as chattel to be disposed of at will and dissenters killed? This is good with you? It’s something that merits being taught and followed in civilization?

According to the principles of religious liberty and democratic processes, Sharia Law would be defended as an expression of that unique culture. It is part of the religious tradition of those lands and ethnicities and therefore should be preserved.

… at least, that is consistent with the multi-culturalist view that is dominant in U.S. politics today.

Probably the U.N. would condemn Sharia law, but on what moral basis? The same basis that supports abortion rights, pornography, gay marriage, etc. for Western nations?

We do have the certainty of God’s law as given to His one, true Church. But that is always compromised in politics.

 

[maggiemay2u]

According to the principles of religious liberty and democratic processes, Sharia Law would be defended as an expression of that unique culture. It is part of the religious tradition of those lands and ethnicities and therefore should be preserved.

… at least, that is consistent with the multi-culturalist view that is dominant in U.S. politics today.

Probably the U.N. would condemn Sharia law, but on what moral basis? The same basis that supports abortion rights, pornography, gay marriage, etc. for Western nations?

We do have the certainty of God’s law as given to His one, true Church. But that is always compromised in politics.

Then again, it might be prosecuted under RICO or hate crimes. It’s one thing to teach a historical perspective, it’s another thing entirely to teach active participation in the subjugation and killing of those with whom you disagree, as an appropriate response.

 

[NewYorker]

From my original post…
A cry from American mosques to condemn the policies of Muslim leaders… I followed a thread of thought throughout the post. I did not introduce a global interpretation as a separate thought.

But it really doesn’t matter in the big picture, IMHO. Are you saying Sharia Law is good anywhere? Women treated as chattel to be disposed of at will and dissenters killed? This is good with you? It’s something that merits being taught and followed in civilization?

I think we all would hope to live in a state that follows Catholic principles and have the legal system based on Catholic thought.

Why would you deny that to Muslims?

How do you propose to stop them from using Sharia law?

 

[reggieM]

Then again, it might be prosecuted under RICO or hate crimes.

Those are concepts that we’ve developed in the U.S. If multiculturalism is to be consistent, Sharia Law is for nations that have different cultural norms and therefore we shouldn’t impose Western judicial rulings on them.

It’s one thing to teach a historical perspective, it’s another thing entirely to teach active participation in the subjugation and killing of those with whom you disagree, as an appropriate response.

I guess it depends on what kind of values we (or you or whoever) is going to promote and enforce elsewhere.

Personally, I defend and support the teachings of the Catholic Church because I believe that they represent God’s will. We will be blessed if we promote the teaching of the Magisterium.

If it’s a question of promoting the secularist morals of liberal democracies … a Catholic will end up promoting evil, and will suffer the consequences.

With that in mind, I do not see how liberal-secularized-Godless democracies have any moral standing to criticize Islam. As I see it, this is precisely why Islam is a threat to such democracies - because there is no fixed, objective moral law that liberal Western nations adhere to in order to defend themselves. As Catholics, we do have that fixed moral law. That’s really what we should use to discern where Jewish or Islamic states are built on false principles.

 

[maggiemay2u]

Those are concepts that we’ve developed in the U.S. If multiculturalism is to be consistent, Sharia Law is for nations that have different cultural norms and therefore we shouldn’t impose Western judicial rulings on them.

I began by noting I didn’t want Sharia Law in the US or taught in the US as a viable means of correcting errant citizens. Following your logic, however, apartheid was okay as was the disposing of 6 million pesky dissidents. Different cultural standards, right?

I guess it depends on what kind of values we (or you or whoever) is going to promote and enforce elsewhere.

Personally, I defend and support the teachings of the Catholic Church because I believe that they represent God’s will. We will be blessed if we promote the teaching of the Magisterium.

I wouldn’t want written into civil or criminal codes failure to believe what the Church does, or heaven forbid, become a Buddhist is cause for execution. Nor would I, with or without civil penalty, write laws for citizens to espouse Catholic teachings.

If it’s a question of promoting the secularist morals of liberal democracies … a Catholic will end up promoting evil, and will suffer the consequences.

With that in mind, I do not see how liberal-secularized-Godless democracies have any moral standing to criticize Islam. As I see it, this is precisely why Islam is a threat to such democracies - because there is no fixed, objective moral law that liberal Western nations adhere to in order to defend themselves. As Catholics, we do have that fixed moral law. That’s really what we should use to discern where Jewish or Islamic states are built on false principles.

I think godless or not, all societies have the responsibility to condemn the subjugation of women and the slaying of individuals who simply voice dissent. If you think that condemnation of atrocities is a fluid event, based on who’s in charge, then I guess we have little room for dialogue.

The failure of Muslims in America to roundly and continuously condemn the atrocities committed worldwide in the name of “the religion of peace” has resulted in a breakdown of trust towards members of their faith. The failure of Muslims to condemn the hate filled rantings of the madman of Persia others to cast a wide net. If the Pope had stood up and said the priest scandal was fiction it would be news 24-7 forever, or until the Pope recanted and made reparation. The same should be true of this little vulture.

 

[JReducation]

Because Israel is a Racist and Predjutice Country. The Catholic Church is persecuted in Israel.

That is not true. The Franciscans have had free access to the Holy Land since the 13th century. The Order had a treaty with the Muslims that was later ratified by the State of Israel. The Orthodox Church also has free access to the Holy Land that was ratified with a treaty with the Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Together with the Israeli government the Secular Franciscan Order runs one of the largest ministries to Israeli families in the country called Franciscan Family Ministry under the Franciscan Commisariate of the Holy Land.

The Secular Franciscan Order is the only religious organization that has a permanent committee in the UN. This was established by an agreement between the Holy See, the Franciscan Ministers General and the Secretary General of the UN.

The Holy See has always had good diplomatic relations with the United Nations beginning with Angelo Roncali and Giovanni Montini who later became Popes John XXIII and Paul VI.

Cardinal Roncali was part of the orginal commission that worked on the creation of the State of Israel. To this day, the Holy See defends Israel’s right to be a Jewish State and seeks to protect the Jewish faith from oppression. The Church has also pushed for the creation of a Palestinian State and the protection of the Muslim faith. Pope Benedict XVI founded the Vatican’s commission on the Islam to protect the Muslims and to open the doors of dialogue when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger. He also has protected the Jews from anti-semitic attacks from within the Church, such as Bishop Williamson.

I don’t see the alleged persecution of Catholics by Israel or the alleged hostility of the Church toward the Jewish and Muslim faith.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[NewYorker]

I think godless or not, all societies have the responsibility to condemn the subjugation of women and the slaying of individuals who simply voice dissent. If you think that condemnation of atrocities is a fluid event, based on who’s in charge, then I guess we have little room for dialogue.

The failure of Muslims in America to roundly and continuously condemn the atrocities committed worldwide in the name of “the religion of peace” has resulted in a breakdown of trust towards members of their faith. The failure of Muslims to condemn the hate filled rantings of the madman of Persia others to cast a wide net. If the Pope had stood up and said the priest scandal was fiction it would be news 24-7 forever, or until the Pope recanted and made reparation. The same should be true of this little vulture.

So everyone should be like us?

How are you going to make that happen?

 

[reggieM]

I began by noting I didn’t want Sharia Law in the US or taught in the US as a viable means of correcting errant citizens. Following your logic, however, apartheid was okay as was the disposing of 6 million pesky dissidents. Different cultural standards, right?

Actually, I was arguing from two different points of view, so it’s not “my logic” that is being evaluated here, but the logic of multiculturalism and the logic of Catholic orthodoxy. As I said, my logic aligns with Catholic orthodoxy, not multiculturalism. But Catholic orthodoxy causes a paradox since Vatican II because we (supposedly) have to accept that there can be no Catholic state and we have to accept religious liberty in states. So I will admit that my logic, aligned to Catholic orthodoxy, does not fully make sense (yet). I haven’t understood the meaning of Vatican II’s social teaching fully, but I do accept it for what it is.

But yes, following the logic of multiculturalism, the “disposing of” 40 million children per year is “okay” as is the establishment of a racial/ethnic based state that grants special privileges to those of one racial group. Thus, to be consistent, other things like Sharia Law should be equally “okay” on the same basis. What moral foundation does liberal democracy have? The will of the people? If so, then Islamic states are “okay” since the people want them.

I think godless or not, all societies have the responsibility to condemn the subjugation of women and the slaying of individuals who simply voice dissent. If you think that condemnation of atrocities is a fluid event, based on who’s in charge, then I guess we have little room for dialogue.

I think that the dominant world-view, as represented by our current U.S. president views atrocities like the murder of unborn children as a “fluid event”. Thus, to be consistent, other atrocities should be acceptable also.

I wouldn’t want written into civil or criminal codes failure to believe what the Church does, or heaven forbid, become a Buddhist is cause for execution. Nor would I, with or without civil penalty, write laws for citizens to espouse Catholic teachings.

What moral basis would you use to write your laws?

The failure of Muslims in America to roundly and continuously condemn the atrocities committed worldwide in the name of “the religion of peace” has resulted in a breakdown of trust towards members of their faith.

I can’t deny that. But I don’t think the people who attack Muslims alone are being consistent.

 

[barb_finnegan]

Uh…prove it?

Ireland is anti-abortion and the UN doesn’t hate us. Or Malta.

I don’t have ‘facts’ to ‘prove’…I just don’t like the UN…PERIOD!

 

[grampben]

I don’t have ‘facts’ to ‘prove’…I just don’t like the UN…PERIOD!

Exactly.

 

[chosen_people]

Why should the British have evacuated their military headquarters?

It seems the Americans in the Revolution fought in organized army units on open battlefields against British forces.

To me political assassinations and bombings by irregular forces are terrorism.

“First, Jews are a people not a race”

“Walking onto a bus and killing all the men, women and children there because they are Jewish is terrorism and racism.”

How is it racism then?

I’m afraid this is the only answer I have to your various questions and to this thread.

Who can understand the Jews?

Why would anyone phone the military headquarters of the British Mandate after you went to all that trouble to plant the explosives? Isn’t the whole idea to kill as many people as possible, to cause the most extensive damage? Why warn them so they can evacuate all the people to safety, if they had only listened, and perhaps even find and diffuse the bomb?

Who can understand the Jews?

My great grandparents fled Russia to escape the religious and governmental anti-Semitic persecutions against the Jews, the deadly pogroms. A few hundred meters from my courtroom window is a Russian Orthodox Church. The great grandson of persecuted Jewish Russian refugees, sits in his courtroom making sure the the Russian Orthodox Church is protected, it adherents free to practice their religion.

Who can understand the Jews?

My cousin ,a med student, boarded a bus in Tel Aviv on his way to classes. A Palestinian Arab terrorist blew up the bus killing my cousin. His family agreed to donate his organs. They were assigned according to medical need. All the donor recipients were Palestinian Arabs.

Who can understand the Jews?

No other democracy has had to deal with terror on the level that Israel has. The Israel Supreme Court agonized if, in order to extract information that might immediately save lives, it might be permissible to moderately shake, without causing bodily harm, a terrorist suspect.

Who can understand the Jews?

Our enemies teach their children to hate us. To make them dream of being martyrs against us. Israeli doctor’s and nurses created a humanitarian organization called Save a Child’s Heart that gives free heart operations to children, many of whose parents are declared enemies of Israel, whose countries and people would seek to destroy us.

Who can understand the Jews?

 

[NewYorker]

There were plenty of British soldiers and civilians killed in Palestine by the Jews.

You seem to forget about that.

And is terrorism ok if you only blow up buildings? And warn the occupants to leave?

 

[white_sheep]

What a loaded way to phrase this question. I expect the Pope to go to such meeting and stand up for what is right. If Achmadenijab gets up there and says the best solution is to kill the Jews I hope the Pope doesn’t walk out. I would hope that he would have the wisdom and the courage to stand and fight and find the words to fire back.

 

[Darryl1958]

So everyone should be like us?

You are not like maggiemay2u and she is not like you.

There is no ‘us’.

 

[Darryl1958]

What a loaded way to phrase this question. I expect the Pope to go to such meeting and stand up for what is right. If Achmadenijab gets up there and says the best solution is to kill the Jews I hope the Pope doesn’t walk out. I would hope that he would have the wisdom and the courage to stand and fight and find the words to fire back.

Did he find the words and the wisdom and the fire in his belly to speak out against the hatred in Mahmoud’s speech?

Or did he sit there silently?

 

[pnewton]

Let us take a lesson from history: The Korean War

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War

United Nations Security Council Resolution 82

The United Nations Security Council was convened in a few hours and passed the UNSC Resolution 82 condemning the North Korean aggression unanimously. The resolution was adopted mainly because the Soviet Union, a veto-wielding power, had been boycotting proceedings since January

The Soviet Union could have vetoed this had they been there. After this, they never again walked away.

 

[chosen_people]

Here’s a strange thing. As Catholics, since Vatican II, we no longer profess that there can be a Catholic-specific state. The teaching on Religious Liberty abolished that notion (athough that point is debatable). From the perspective of the status quo Vatican teaching, we are opposed to religious/ethnic states as being against Catholic doctrine. We can’t establish a Catholic state and the last remaining Catholic states in the 20th century were abolished.

But then, for some reason, we have Catholics passionately supporting the religious/ethnic state of Israel. But they should be denouncing that state as being against Catholic teaching (even Vatican II’s teaching). But a double-standard is being used. People will reject the teaching of the Magisterium, even the liberalized teaching of Vatican II that abolishes religious-states, in favor of Israel.

Why? I think it’s a Protestant sola-scriptura attitude that many Catholics have. Maybe they were converted from the Protestant church and stick to this belief against the Magisterium (or as a fall-back position).

I can see that many feel rightfully very sorry for what happened to the Jewish people during WWII and they want to compensate for it. But we shouldn’t go against Catholic doctrine in order to make reparations. Actually, people think that they’re going to change Catholic doctrine, perhaps. Certainly, the idea that the Mosaic covenant is “still valid for the Jews” is a major change that goes beyond anything Vatican II taught. It actually dismantles the entire need and purpose of the Catholic Church and Christ’s sacrifice itself.

It’s like when someone is mourning the death of a loved one and decides to show sorrow by killing himself.

The suicide is not going to bring back the loved one. It’s not pleasing to God either.

Destroying Catholic doctrine to show that we’re sorry to the Jews is the same thing. It’s not the teaching of Christ that is evil, but the people who hated Jews and wanted to kill them that was the evil. There’s no support for that kind of thing in Catholic doctrine.

The first thing would be to study Papal laws concerning Jews in the Papal states and the treatment of Jews under those laws. You can start with Pius IX (the Jews of Rome as “howling dogs” and Mortara for example) and work backward.

You may want to make a comparison between the Papal laws and the Nuremberg laws.

You may want to study the status of the Vatican under international law.

I would also mention that the Vatican and Israel have diplomatic relations and that the Pope will be visiting Israel next month.

However from your post it appears the real problem you have with Jews and Israel is how you equate the meaning of the regaining of Jewish independence over their land in relation to the Catholic faith. Indeed if the Jews are guilty of “rejecting God”, punished and cursed for “deicide”, forced to eternally wander with the mark of Cain upon their heads, then the regaining of their independence over the land promised to them by God, our ability to hold a mere one per cent of the land of the middle east and to be surrounded by a billion enemies but to be seemingly so strong as to be deemed an “aggressor”, the minuscule number of Jews who make up a mere one quarter of one per cent of the world’s population making such massive contributions to society since they were allowed to begin integrating into general society some two hundred years ago as to be deemed to “control the world”, then something has apparently gone out of kilter with the cursed Jew. If I understand you, Israel shouldn’t exist and Catholics shouldn’t support them for to do so is, to your way of thinking, somehow to support Judaism and reject Catholicism.

 

[Walt_Oliver]

The entire premise of this thread, including the title, is faulty and it has degenerated into blatant anti-Semitism on the part of some participants, which is not allowed at CAF. The thread is now closed.