The Pope blows it big time...

[Argus]

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

I think perhaps, Muslims are IN their dark ages now.

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

I don't think you can easily get a crowd of Christians in a killing mood, much less get hundreds of thousands of them into the street baying for blood because someone half a world away drew a cartoon.

There is no convincing argument that can be made justifying the creation of the cartoons,

I think you have things confused. I don't need to "justify" what I draw or write or sing or say to anyone, and certainly not to a bunch of goat herders half a world away.

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.

So anything someone else in the world is offended by becomes hate literature? Nice commitment to freedom you've got there, son.

[Remiel]

I was not making a generalization, here. I think there is a very strong possibility that the person who commissioned the cartoons did so out of a disdain or hatred of Muslims, not because they wanted to explore freedom of speech. That is why I would say it is a hate crime, or at least could be a hate crime.

[jbg]

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?

Fortunately, I happened by this thread before posting a third "Pope Thread".

This "snapback" links this response to the other thread, and have linked my response on that thread to this post.

If anyone took the trouble (and it was a fair amount of trouble, admittedly) to find an English or Canadian translation of the Pope's remarks, and actually read it, you would find that the Pope was telling the truth about Islam. Now, you will read that the Pople was merely quoting Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus (the "Byzantine Emporor") in Constantinople, and thus was not expressing his own opinion.

I do not agree. I think the Pope was "telling it like it is", something that upsets radical Islam and their Western apologists, as well as the jihadi elements (link) quite a bit. The relevant excerpts from the the Pope's address (link) are as follows:

This profound sense of coherence within the universe of reason was not troubled, even when it was once reported that a colleague had said there was something odd about our university: it had two faculties devoted to something that did not exist: God. That even in the face of such radical scepticism it is still necessary and reasonable to raise the question of God through the use of reason, and to do so in the context of the tradition of the Christian faith: this, within the university as a whole, was accepted without question.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur'an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three "Laws" or "rules of life": the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur'an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of "faith and reason", I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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 emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, we would even have to practise idolatry.

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God.

*snip*

The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur - this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. "Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

Thus, Pope Benedict is expressing the truth the Islam's spread is not achieved through intellectual force, but rather through violence. The execution of apostates tends to reinforce this view.

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....

For telling the truth about a death cult?

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.

There are no mainstream Christians that support the atrocities of those individuals, with the possible exception of Slobodan Milosovic.

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.

Dhimmitude?

[Argus]

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."

Oh well, if it's a newspaper headline then it MUST be true.

[Argus]

I was not making a generalization, here. I think there is a very strong possibility that the person who commissioned the cartoons did so out of a disdain or hatred of Muslims, not because they wanted to explore freedom of speech. That is why I would say it is a hate crime, or at least could be a hate crime.

So if there's a possibility someone commissioined some cartoons out of "disdain" then it's a hate crime?

What exactly is a hate crime? Do you know? Have you ever looked at the law? Do you know anything about it at all? The definitions?

I'm betting... noooooooo.

[Charles Anthony]

I have a simple take on this sort of thing.

I have no idea about the Pope's obligations with respect to speaking engagements. In general, I believe the Pope (along with all other politicians) should get into the habit of talking less. If he has something to say, say it short and sweet. That way, there is less opportunity to either misunderstand or misrepresent.

[Remiel]

Since when has knowing Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code ever stopped you from repeatedely referring to people at goat herders, which seems to be pretty obviously meant to be a derogatory insult meant to promote discrimination against a group? Definitions seem to have little bearing on many of your comments.

[Argus]

Since when has knowing Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code ever stopped you from repeatedely referring to people at goat herders, which seems to be pretty obviously meant to be a derogatory insult

You're so perceptive.

meant to promote discrimination against a group? Definitions seem to have little bearing on many of your comments.

Meant to do what? It's not meant to do anything but express my snobbish contempt for these ragpickers who are holdovers from the dark ages. The idea we all should watch what we say or do or draw because a bunch of medieval rag pickers will jump up and down and pull on their beards and burn their own cities is kind of silly.

Say what we want, do what we want, draw what we want. If they don't like it, blow the hell out of them.

See how easy that is?

[Rue]

I believe what you have all established is that organized religion is nothing but hippocracy that creates and fuels intolerance and justifies the savage primal human instinct to kill.

The irony is the Muslim reaction proved exactly the point the Pope was making.

[M.Dancer]

I believe what you have all established is that organized religion is nothing but hippocracy .....

hippocracy?

Rule of the horses?

[Remiel]

I can't say that I am a big fan of organized religion. Or rather, I could say it, but it would be a lie.

[Black Dog]

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.

The thing about the Pope's comments (you can throw the Danish cartoons in there as well) is that its just so pointless. What does stuff like that accomplish except inflame those prone to being offended by such and piss of those who would ordinarily be more receptive? It's like poking a hornet's nest with a stick just because you have a stick in hand. Of course speech should be free, but why do some people feel it should be cheap?

[Argus]

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.

The thing about the Pope's comments (you can throw the Danish cartoons in there as well) is that its just so pointless. What does stuff like that accomplish except inflame those prone to being offended by such and piss of those who would ordinarily be more receptive? It's like poking a hornet's nest with a stick just because you have a stick in hand. Of course speech should be free, but why do some people feel it should be cheap?

Who gets to judge what is and isn't cheap? What is and isn't important? Important to who? To you? I would never have suspected a few cartoons in a backwater Danish paper would inspire riots and embassy burnings and deaths. Why would they have?

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should. You'd be outraged at the idea the media and public figures must be careful in what they write and say so as to not offend the Christian Right. You don't give a damn what offends the Christian Right. But you want people to self-silence on behalf of medieval wackos on the other side of the planet.

Maybe the Christian Right should be more violent, eh? That way they'd get more respect - like the Muslims apparently enjoy.

[newbie]

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should.

We have laws on hate speech (re Keegstra, Zundl). And we can't yell fire in a theatre. Why would we want to incite a group of people we know would be outraged to the point of causing damage to people and property?

[scribblet]

As I said in the other thread, people are missing the most important part of the Pope's speech, that is, a call for dialogue and reason. Guess that went over the heads of the Imams.

[jbg]

Since when has knowing Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code ever stopped you from repeatedely referring to people at goat herders, which seems to be pretty obviously meant to be a derogatory insult meant to promote discrimination against a group? Definitions seem to have little bearing on many of your comments.

I don't agree with you at all that it's derogatory, unless the "Sound of Music" (link to lyrics) is a hate show. Lyrics below:

====================================================================

The Sound of Music Soundtrack Lyrics

Maria and the Children - The Lonely Goatherd Lyrics

[Maria:]

High on a hill was a lonely goatherd

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

Loud was the voice of the lonely goatherd

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

Folks in a town that was quite remote heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

Lusty and clear from the goatherd's throat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[the Children:]

O ho lay dee odl lee o, o ho lay dee odl ay

O ho lay dee odl lee o, lay dee odl lee o lay

[Maria:]

A prince on the bridge of a castle moat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

[Kurt:]

Men on a road with a load to tote heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[the Children:]

Men in the midst of a table d'hote heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

[Maria:]

Men drinking beer with the foam afloat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

One little girl in a pale pink coat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

[brigitta:]

She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[Maria:]

Soon her Mama with a gleaming gloat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hee hoo

What a duet for a girl and goatherd

Maria and the Children:

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[Maria and the Children:]

Ummm (ummm) . . .

Odl lay ee (odl lay ee)

Odl lay hee hee (odl lay hee hee)

Odl lay ee . . .

. . . yodeling . . .

[Child:]

One little girl in a pale pink coat heard

[Maria:]

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hoo hoo

[Child:]

She yodeled back to the lonely goatherd

[Maria:]

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[Maria:]

Soon her Mama with a gleaming gloat heard

Lay ee odl lay ee odl lay hmm hmm

What a duet for a girl and goatherd

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[Maria and the Children:]

Happy are they lay dee olay dee lee o . . .

. . . yodeling . . .

Soon the duet will become a trio

[Maria:]

Lay ee odl lay ee odl-oo

[Maria and the Children:]

Odl lay ee, old lay ee

Odl lay hee hee, odl lay ee

Odl lay odl lay, odl lay odl lee, odl lay odl lee

Odl lay odl lay odl lay

[the Children:]

HOO!

[Black Dog]

Who gets to judge what is and isn't cheap? What is and isn't important? Important to who? To you? I would never have suspected a few cartoons in a backwater Danish paper would inspire riots and embassy burnings and deaths. Why would they have?

It's cheap because its unproductive. The Pope can say what he wants to say, but no one could be so foolish as top not anticipate the consequenses. Just because we know that people shouldn't respond by rioting or shooting churches, we cannot be so naive as to not realize that's exactly what would happen.

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should.

Well its a goddamn good thing I suggested nothing of the sort.

[jbg]

[

The thing about the Pope's comments (you can throw the Danish cartoons in there as well) is that its just so pointless. What does stuff like that accomplish except inflame those prone to being offended by such and piss of those who would ordinarily be more receptive? It's like poking a hornet's nest with a stick just because you have a stick in hand. Of course speech should be free, but why do some people feel it should be cheap?

No, it points out the fallacy of any claim that they're a "religion of peace" as opposed to a "religion of pieces". Is the best way to prove that you're non-violent to threaten to kill anyone stating to the contrary? An example is at this link, excerpted below:

==================================================================

"You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.

"You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God's rule is established governing all people and nations...."

[Argus]

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should.

We have laws on hate speech (re Keegstra, Zundl). And we can't yell fire in a theatre. Why would we want to incite a group of people we know would be outraged to the point of causing damage to people and property?

What would outrage those people? Do you know? Let's have a wager. I'm betting the idea of men marrying each other would outrage them. Now, suppose they started rioting and killing because they heard Canadian men are marrying each other. Would you agree to change the policy then? Just what are you willing to give up to please crazy people on the other side of the planet?

Yes, we have hate speech laws - unfortunately. But even they don't have so broad an application as to punish people for merely outraging others, or insulting them. The standard is considerably higher to meet, one where actual incitement to wholesale violence is taking place. Likewise in a theatre, the idea is not one of free speech but inciting mischief. There has to be incitement and it has to be pretty glaring. Even that, I regard as a dangerous infringement on free speech, but so be it.

The standard you're setting is so low that any number of your posts would qualify. After all, it doesn't take much to get some Muslim wacko yanking at his beard and screaming for his handy firebomb kit.

Someone did a play where Jesus and his disciples are all gay. It's called Corpus Christi. It outraged Christians, but was the darling of the chic left. Nobody seems to care about outraging Christians. Oh, one problem, apparently Jesus is considered a "messenger of God" by Muslims, so an Islamic group has issued a "fatwa" sentencing the playright to death. Apparently, if he ever sets foot in a Muslim country, he actually risks being arrested and executed. Irony of Ironies.

How about the movie "Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter?" Should that be banned because it highly offends Christians?

It appears to me that some of you people who would sneer in contempt at the thought things which offend Christians should be banned are now demanding we submit to the religious believes of medieval Muslims from the other side of the planet, and I don't quite get how you're wrapping your minds around the hypocrisy.

[Argus]

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should.

Well its a goddamn good thing I suggested nothing of the sort.

Sure you did. You might not have outright suggested we make it illegal, but you're suggesting people should self-censor, and there's more than a hint in there that if they won't do that someone ought to do it for them.

[WestViking]

The point is that you can't put a choke-hold on people's freedom to speak and express themselves on behalf of religious wackos half a world away. And it's hypocritcal for you to even suggest we should.

Well its a goddamn good thing I suggested nothing of the sort.

Sure you did. You might not have outright suggested we make it illegal, but you're suggesting people should self-censor, and there's more than a hint in there that if they won't do that someone ought to do it for them.

Why get excited? Muslims attending colleges in North America have learned that it is a mortal sin to offend anyone and if they are offended, the culprit must be dragged in front of a Human Rights Tribunal and forced into eternal penance for his political incorrectness. Since we are not quick enough to deal with the Pope to suit them, they will hold a riot or few to pass the time while they wait. The threats issued are intended to spur us on into doing what is politically correct.

[jbg]

Why get excited? Muslims attending colleges in North America have learned that it is a mortal sin to offend anyone and if they are offended, the culprit must be dragged in front of a Human Rights Tribunal and forced into eternal penance for his political incorrectness. Since we are not quick enough to deal with the Pope to suit them, they will hold a riot or few to pass the time while they wait. The threats issued are intended to spur us on into doing what is politically correct.

Surely you must be exaggerating. But still, good points. Welcome aboard. I hope we'll be seeing more of you.

[geoffrey]

Since when has knowing Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code ever stopped you from repeatedely referring to people at goat herders, which seems to be pretty obviously meant to be a derogatory insult meant to promote discrimination against a group? Definitions seem to have little bearing on many of your comments.

Sections 318 and 319 don't apply to calling people from one area of the world goat herders. The motivation behind the law is to protect against the incitement of violence against a discernable group.

If I call you a goat herder, I don't think that encourages my neighbour to kill you.

If the cartoon was made in Canada, 318 and 319 wouldn't have applied. And they didn't apply to the journalists that published the material.

[Remiel]

So, out of curiosity, even if someone resorts to derogatory insults against a certain group with the goal of making people think they are worthless, in order to make it more acceptable to launch military campaigns against them, then that still does not fall under inciting violence?

[Black Dog]

Sure you did. You might not have outright suggested we make it illegal, but you're suggesting people should self-censor, and there's more than a hint in there that if they won't do that someone ought to do it for them.

If you want to call giving a thought to the consequenses-both positive and negative- before you speak "self-censorship", then yeah, I can see how you'd interpret my comments the way you have. But I wouldn't call it that. I'd call it common sense. Let me put it this way: If you want to call a group of bikers " a bunch of fags" then that's your right and I would not support any violent retribution upon your person. But I won't have much sympathy for you when such retribution is enacted, given that a baseball bat upside the head is the all too predictable result of your excercise in free speech.