The Pope blows it big time...

[Higgly]

Well it is hard to find a way to piss off about a billion people but it seems that Benedict has done just that. According to him, the entire Islamic world should be viewed through George Bush's beer goggles. Where did he go wrong?

Now if I was a significant Moslem cleric, I would think about launching a law suit against the Catholic Church in a jurisdiction that supports such things and in which the Church has major capital holdings. Now let's see. Where could that be....

The other option of course is to point out all the damage done by Christians over the past 100 years or so. Let's see.... Timothy McVeigh, Adolph Hitler, Slobodan Milosovic..... of man. The opportunity. The Opportunity.

What a pity. The Catholic Church has missed a great opportunity to help build a peace between two warring worlds. What a very great pity. Shows you how important it is to pick leaders wisely - as if we needed more of that.

[sharkman]

Nothing like telling it like it is to cause knee jerk reactions all over cyberdom. What I'd like to know is what is being said from the pulpits of mosques the world over about Christians or Jews. Muslim clerics dare not be so honest as to reveal what they are boring into the brains of their congregations. Why else is there so much vile hatred coming from that side?

[Higgly]

O yeah. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Does this make all Christians terrorists? Pat Robertson issued a fatheadwah against Caesar Chavez. Does this make all Christians warmongers? Oliver North is a Christian. So is George Bush. And so was ... well why bother.

Get the picture?

[sharkman]

O yeah. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Does this make all Christians terrorists? Pat Robertson issued a fatheadwah against Caesar Chavez. Does this make all Christians warmongers? Oliver North is a Christian. So is George Bush. And so was ... well why bother.

Get the picture?

Typical knee jerk response, trot out your pet lists that 'prove' Christians are whatever the topic of the day is, and smugly settle back in your chair like you've accomplished something.

Once again, there has been very little revealed about what is taught behind closed doors of the mosques the world over. I submit, since there is so much hatred coming from that side of the aisle, that there is some hate speech going on against their two favorite topics of hate, Jews and Christians.

What the Pope said if nothing else is a valid opinion regarding Mohammad and what some of his own people in the 1300s thought of his using the sword to spread the word of Allah. If the Muslim world is going to pull another hissy fit over it(like they did with the cartoon 'controversy'), it's time they learn to be big boys and girls and grow up. Trying to stifle any opinion that they don't like smacks of a world wide dictatorship.

Where are the liberal types who cry 'free speech' any other time something controversial is said? I'll tell you where: they don't like the Pope so his free speech means nothing to them, it's only liberal free speech which is defended. Hypocrites. Either all speech is free or none at all is free.

[Argus]

O yeah. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. Does this make all Christians terrorists? Pat Robertson issued a fatheadwah against Caesar Chavez. Does this make all Christians warmongers? Oliver North is a Christian. So is George Bush. And so was ... well why bother.

Get the picture?

Your point seems to be "Well, yes, there are at least ten million crazed religious wackos in the Muslim world, including thousands and tens of thousands of their clerics, but there are at least three or four in the Christian world too - so we're just as bad."

That WAS your point, eh?

[Argus]

Well it is hard to find a way to piss off about a billion people

When those people are Muslims?

What planet have you been living on?

I could yawn and outrage a billion Muslims. Or draw a cartoon and have them gnashing their teeth, pulling out their beards, and promising to murder eveyrone in sight.

Now if I was a significant Moslem cleric, I would think about launching a law suit against the Catholic Church in a jurisdiction that supports such things and in which the Church has major capital holdings. Now let's see. Where could that be....

A lawsuit for - uh, what? For quoting an early Christian emperor in a dicussion on religious violence? I'm willing to bet you didn't even read what Benedict said either. Were the words too big? Are you waiting until they come out in X-box format or cartoons?

[gc1765]

What the Pope said if nothing else is a valid opinion regarding Mohammad and what some of his own people in the 1300s thought of his using the sword to spread the word of Allah. If the Muslim world is going to pull another hissy fit over it(like they did with the cartoon 'controversy'), it's time they learn to be big boys and girls and grow up. Trying to stifle any opinion that they don't like smacks of a world wide dictatorship.

mohammad used the sword to spread the word of Allah hundreds of years ago, just like many Christians used the sword to spread the word of God. Did the pope also condemn Christians who spread the word of God though violence? I thought the pope mentioned something about that in his speech, but now I can't find where it was said (if at all). If he condemned christians of the past for "using the sword" as well, then his comments were justified.

Where are the liberal types who cry 'free speech' any other time something controversial is said? I'll tell you where: they don't like the Pope so his free speech means nothing to them, it's only liberal free speech which is defended. Hypocrites. Either all speech is free or none at all is free.

The pope is free to say anything he wants. People on this forum are free to criticize, or praise, the pope all they want. Either all speech is free or none at all. Where is the problem?

[sharkman]

The pope is free to say anything he wants. People on this forum are free to criticize, or praise, the pope all they want. Either all speech is free or none at all. Where is the problem?

You completely missed my point. I wasn't talking about this forum or the posters here. I was talking about Muslims who threw a hissy fit during the muslim cartoon controversy who now seem to be throwing another hissy fit over free speech by the Pope. I was saying they are trying to shut up anybody who says anything they don't like. And I was saying this is wrong.

[gc1765]

The pope is free to say anything he wants. People on this forum are free to criticize, or praise, the pope all they want. Either all speech is free or none at all. Where is the problem?

You completely missed my point. I wasn't talking about this forum or the posters here. I was talking about Muslims who threw a hissy fit during the muslim cartoon controversy who now seem to be throwing another hissy fit over free speech by the Pope. I was saying they are trying to shut up anybody who says anything they don't like. And I was saying this is wrong.

Oh I see. Then why did you criticize liberals for not defending free speech? I assumed you meant liberals on this board. I'm a liberal, and I believe the pope should have the right to free speech. I don't think there are any liberals on this forum who are saying that the pope should not be allowed to say what he wants. There are people on this forum, however, who criticize what the pope said, and they should have that right to do so.

[sharkman]

But like I said, liberals only defend free speech when it's the kind of speech where Howard Stern is doing something on the radio sexually explicit, not when the Pope is being shut down by Muslim extremists. That's Muslim extremists, not liberals.

[Higgly]

Still bitter, Argus?

A few Christian crazies? Hitler? Milosovic? You are a forgiving chap.

So Moslems threw a hissy fit over the cartoons of Mohammed. Tsk tsk. But then of course the Holocaust cartoon contest went without notice.

We all have our sacred cows.

The last Pope was into building bridges. This guy has stumbled big time. I see that he has now issued a retraction, but this might actually put him in even deeper doo-doo. The Roman Catholic Church has a doctrine of papal infallibility. This means that the Pope cannot make a mistake. Now that he has issued a retraction, he is owning up to a mistake.

If this happened in Parliament, he'd be forced to resign.

[geoffrey]

Again, another case of how the Muslim world is completely controlled by a few radical clerics.

Churches firebombed, nun's murdered. Sounds like a free and peaceful society hey?

The Pope shouldn't have even apologized for the misunderstanding. I'm starting to join Argus in his belief that the Muslim religion in general inherently creates a multitude of radical elements. Of course though, the media turns up their anti-Christian hate, blames the Pope for the reaction (how stupid) and supports their favourite women oppressing, violent Islamic religion.

All these calls of hate speech, my ass. When someone quotes a historical document and get's accused of hate speech, I draw the line there. The leaders in the Islamic world need to get a head on their shoulders and smarten up. I'm truly sick of their violent responses and evidence of their hatred of freedom and other religions.

And Higgly, he never admitted a mistake. He apologised for the misunderstanding, not the words he said. He shouldn't have, he's merely apologising for the ignorance of Muslim clerics. What he was doing is trying to protect the multitude of Christians that will be killed and Churches that will be burned because of the typical Muslim reaction to Western academic speech.

We really can't be responsible for the childish attitudes of these people. When they grow up, and realise that violence is the way to respond to something you don't agree with... then I'll take them seriously when they say the Pope was wrong. These people are EXTREMELY violence in nature, and the Pope was right on quoting this passage, despite his insistance that it was merely a historical reference.

[Argus]

What the Pope said if nothing else is a valid opinion regarding Mohammad and what some of his own people in the 1300s thought of his using the sword to spread the word of Allah. If the Muslim world is going to pull another hissy fit over it(like they did with the cartoon 'controversy'), it's time they learn to be big boys and girls and grow up. Trying to stifle any opinion that they don't like smacks of a world wide dictatorship.

mohammad used the sword to spread the word of Allah hundreds of years ago, just like many Christians used the sword to spread the word of God. Did the pope also condemn Christians who spread the word of God though violence?

I don't think Christians do that any more. However, religious violence seems to be quite fashionable in the Muslim world these days.

[Argus]

Still bitter, Argus?

A few Christian crazies? Hitler? Milosovic? You are a forgiving chap.

I think you are (again) misunderstanding things. This is quite a habit with you. I would say it was deliberate, but I think that would be an undue compliment.

We are speaking of religiously inspired violence, not merely violence by people who are tentatively identified with a particular religion. Hitler and Milosovic were secularists who were inspired by power, not religion. Their opponents or targets may well have belonged to different religions - or not. But religion was really not a factor in their motivation. Thus we don't bring into consideration the deaths in the uncountable wars involving Muslims over the past century unless they were inspired by religion.

And, in any event, we're speaking of the here and now, not the past.

So Moslems threw a hissy fit over the cartoons of Mohammed. Tsk tsk. But then of course the Holocaust cartoon contest went without notice.

Muslims murdered people, burned down buildings, attacked embassies, etc. in response to a few cartoons none of them had even seen in a small country most had never even heard of. The response to the deliberately provocative and insulting cartoon contest was mockery and criticism. Period.

Apparently the difference between the two reponses eludes you.

The last Pope was into building bridges. This guy has stumbled big time. I see that he has now issued a retraction, but this might actually put him in even deeper doo-doo.

Again, you continue to sputter away without much knowledge on the subject you're trying to discuss. And something you might consider remedying - if that's possible. What the Pope actually did was express his regret for the reactions. The quote here is "At this time, I wish also to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims."

Thus the pope said, in effect, "I'm sorry those people are all upset" but did not apologise for saying what he did.

If this happened in Parliament, he'd be forced to resign.

In a parliament of politically correct zealots, perhaps. Fortunately, we don't have one of those, as people like you tend not to vote.

[gc1765]

What the Pope said if nothing else is a valid opinion regarding Mohammad and what some of his own people in the 1300s thought of his using the sword to spread the word of Allah. If the Muslim world is going to pull another hissy fit over it(like they did with the cartoon 'controversy'), it's time they learn to be big boys and girls and grow up. Trying to stifle any opinion that they don't like smacks of a world wide dictatorship.

mohammad used the sword to spread the word of Allah hundreds of years ago, just like many Christians used the sword to spread the word of God. Did the pope also condemn Christians who spread the word of God though violence?

I don't think Christians do that any more. However, religious violence seems to be quite fashionable in the Muslim world these days.

True, but the pope's comments were about mohammad, who used violence to spread religion hundreds of years ago. mohammad is not spreading religion by violence anymore either (even though some of his followers are).

[geoffrey]

I don't think Christians do that any more. However, religious violence seems to be quite fashionable in the Muslim world these days.

True, but the pope's comments were about mohammad, who used violence to spread religion hundreds of years ago. mohammad is not spreading religion by violence anymore either (even though some of his followers are).

No, the Pope's comments were a historical citation. Some people would rather just believe history is a lie... or in the case of many Muslims, follow that history until someone points out the error in their ways.

[gc1765]

No, the Pope's comments were a historical citation. Some people would rather just believe history is a lie... or in the case of many Muslims, follow that history until someone points out the error in their ways.

Ok, it was a citation about islam/mohammad. It was still the pope saying those words. I don't believe the pope's apology that he doesn't agree with what he was saying. Why would you quote something in a speech if you didn't believe it to be true? History shows that back when mohammad was slaying people, so were Christians (luckily things have changed).

[Higgly]

The Pope shouldn't have even apologized for the misunderstanding.

OK. Here's the title from Saturday's (Sept 16 Page A17 - continuation of page 1 article) Globe and Mail article on the matter "Scholarly Observers say Pope simply goofed."

[geoffrey]

The Pope shouldn't have even apologized for the misunderstanding.

OK. Here's the title from Saturday's (Sept 16 Page A17 - continuation of page 1 article) Globe and Mail article on the matter "Scholarly Observers say Pope simply goofed."

And?

[Remiel]

I do not believe for a second that the first cartoons were not meant to be deliberately provocative and insulting. You cannot say that such a person who would do such a thing truly believes in our so-called " civilized culture of respect " .

Perhaps one of our members in the know could tell us if it is actually contrary to their *religious* beliefs to make drawings or cartoons mocking the tragedy of the Holocaust, or if it is simply against their moral and ethical beliefs.

If you can't live your life without purposefully violating peoples most sacred religious beliefs for no reason than your own hubris, then I can't really say I have much sympathy for you if you suffer their wrath.

[geoffrey]

If you can't live your life without purposefully violating peoples most sacred religious beliefs for no reason than your own hubris, then I can't really say I have much sympathy for you if you suffer their wrath.

As I don't expect you to follow my religious beliefs, I shouldn't be expected to follow Muslims'. If I want to draw a 200 foot tall portrait of Mohammed, I will, I refuse to be oppressed by a dark ages culture. Just as I'm sure you (if your non-Christian) have no problem with not praying before a meal.

Should I go out of my way to provoke them? Absolutely not, it just makes no sense.

And about suffering wrath. Am I ok according to your moral compass from attacking bookstores violently that carry The Da Vinci Code because it portrays Jesus as having sex with a prostitute?

The Da Vinci Code is more blasphemous to Christians than what the Pope said to the Muslims. You don't see us burning Chapters and Indigo to the ground.

It seems like your ok with Muslim violent intolerance of others, but are very quick to condemn Christians that speak out.

[Higgly]

And?

Spend a penny and read the bloody article. Do we have to do everything for you?

As I don't expect you to follow my religious beliefs, I shouldn't be expected to follow Muslims'. If I want to draw a 200 foot tall portrait of Mohammed, I will, I refuse to be oppressed by a dark ages culture.

Oh really? And what would be your opinion of a guy like Jim Keegstra who preached to schoolchildren that the Holocaust never happened?

[geoffrey]

And?

Spend a penny and read the bloody article. Do we have to do everything for you?

Ah, I thought you were saying something about how the title resolves your argument. I'll go pick up a copy this evening.

As I don't expect you to follow my religious beliefs, I shouldn't be expected to follow Muslims'. If I want to draw a 200 foot tall portrait of Mohammed, I will, I refuse to be oppressed by a dark ages culture.

Oh really? And what would be your opinion of a guy like Jim Keegstra who preached to schoolchildren that the Holocaust never happened?

Keegstra is a little different. People in positions of authority over youth are much more problematic. I have no authority over anyone. What does it matter what I say?

[Remiel]

I am not commenting on the Pope's comments. I am commenting on the repeated use of the cartoon incident as some sort of justification for a Muslims as animals argument. And you yourself say that you will not go out of your way to provoke them, which contradicts your 200 foot portraiture comment.

Also, unless I am mistaken, Mohammed came *after* the Dark Ages, so how do you suppose they Muslims have regressed since then?

Have there been no occassions for which a Christian has killed someone for " offending God " in the last century?

There is no convincing argument that can be made justifying the creation of the cartoons, other than a person doing it in ignorance, and even then we have the maxim in our society that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The person commissioning the cartoons knew exactly what they were doing.

In my opinion, the cartoons were a form of hate crime, as were the counter cartoons. That should make them equally illegal in this country.

I would of liked to be a member of these forums back when this happened, when the debate was likely all out here.

[geoffrey]

I am not commenting on the Pope's comments. I am commenting on the repeated use of the cartoon incident as some sort of justification for a Muslims as animals argument. And you yourself say that you will not go out of your way to provoke them, which contradicts your 200 foot portraiture comment.

I'd build the 200 foot representation if it benefited me in some way. It doesn't, so I won't. No one's religion would stop me though, I can tell you that much.

Also, unless I am mistaken, Mohammed came *after* the Dark Ages, so how do you suppose they Muslims have regressed since then?

The Middle-East (main area of Islam) has never progressed far out of the Dark Ages in culture. Sure, they have some nice cars, nice buildings, mostly built on Western interest in their oil, but hey, their culture is very primative. That may have been where civilization began, but it's hardly where civilization progressed.

Have there been no occassions for which a Christian has killed someone for " offending God " in the last century?

Likely. Some abortion related assassinations come to mind. The difference? Christian religious leadership condemns such again, most high ranking Islamic clerics support the primative 'death to America/the West' cry. Holy War is an essiential part of Islam, this is what the Pope is against. He simply said violence and religion aren't compatible. I tend to agree.

There is no convincing argument that can be made justifying the creation of the cartoons, other than a person doing it in ignorance, and even then we have the maxim in our society that ignorance of the law is not a defense. The person commissioning the cartoons knew exactly what they were doing.

Maybe he thought they were funny. Or a political caricature of our time. Both likely. I could care less if someone got offended, it's an essiential aspect of freedom, one day, your going to get offended. Suck it up.

In my opinion, the cartoons were a form of hate crime, as were the counter cartoons. That should make them equally illegal in this country.

Your opinion is flawed. Why was it hate speech? No violence was suggested in any way, it was a joke. If all politically incorrect jokes are hate speech, society is going to look awfully drab. Again, their religious rules don't apply to me, and I'll ignore them at will. Do you grow your beard out? Better start, as not to piss of the Muslims.