Pope Sorry for Reaction to His Remarks

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: Aimster
In Islam there are two groups.

Group A is usually educated whereas Group B is lacking an education.

Group B has more power than Group A, but Group B is the minority. Why? Group A doesn't fight, whereas Group B will go around murdering people in mass numbers to get their way.

Of course.. I could be wrong. Just based on my observations.

Well, FYI, this matches the history of East and West Pakistan, from the perspective of the West Pakistanis being the armed and violent minority controlling the much less violent majority in East Pakistan; butchering them and especially their intellectuals. From some de-classified docs on the 1971 conflict, P=Nixon, K=Kissinger:

K: There?s nothing of any great consequence Mr. President. Apparently
Yahya has got control of East Pakistan.
P: Good. There?re sometimes the use of power is . . .
K: The use of power against seeming odds pays off. Cause all the
experts were saying that 30,000 people can?t get control of 75 million.
Well, this may still turn out to be true but as of this moment it seems
to be quiet.
P: Well maybe things have changed. But hell, when you look over
the history of nations 30,000 well-disciplined people can take 75 million
any time. Look what the Spanish did when they came in and took
the Incas and all the rest. Look what the British did when they took
India.
K: That?s right.
P: To name just a few.

Notably they went too far; if they hadn't been so brutal, they'd surely have held onto East Pakistan a lot longer.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: Shawn
who cares what the pope says anyway?

:thumbsup:

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole
To apologize for the proceeding furor, while implicitely standing behind the remarks is disingenuous and deceitful imo.

Why?

His apology was more of a "sorry to hear it, sorry you were hurt", rather than a genuine apology that takes responsibility for the hurt and the disrespect that he showed muslims with his comments.

And that's the definition imo of a disingenuous apology, and its deceitful to pretend (imo) to show compassion for the situation when he's not regretful for the dagger he himself delivered to muslims as a whole, who are already feeling disrespected by much of the world.

Well, muslims aren't exactly doing a whole lot to be RESPECTED by much of the world...

 

[CKent]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
there was nothing wrong with what the Pope said at all!1
The Pope was 100% correct!!!
The Pope should NOT have apologized!!

The pope has already apologized, and probably will again. He cannot continue to think that he's 100% correct and doesn't need to apologize -- he's already shown that he doesn't.

With the reputation of the Vatican at stake what he personally feels has no bearing on it. He's likely (and rightly) thinking they're a bunch of morons.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Amused
Since when is the truth an "assult?"

Oh, I see, you actually believe the quote as the truth. And you actually know all about Mohammed and Islam to back it up? You know for sure that Mohammed never did anything that was new and not inhuman?

When the basis of their evangelism is to convert or die as Mohammad tells them to spread the word by the sward... well... to deny it is to deny reality.

 

[Miramonti]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole
To apologize for the proceeding furor, while implicitely standing behind the remarks is disingenuous and deceitful imo.

Why?

His apology was more of a "sorry to hear it, sorry you were hurt", rather than a genuine apology that takes responsibility for the hurt and the disrespect that he showed muslims with his comments.

And that's the definition imo of a disingenuous apology, and its deceitful to pretend (imo) to show compassion for the situation when he's not regretful for the dagger he himself delivered to muslims as a whole, who are already feeling disrespected by much of the world.

He spoke the truth. Why should he apologize for that? It's not his fault radical Islamic nutballs were offended and decided to make his words even more true.

If the truth hurts them that much, maybe they should be trying to change it, rather than merely make it even more obvious.

I'm no Christian. I have no love for the Catholic church. But to blame the Pope for calling it as it is, rather than tap dancing around the obvious is absurd.

Hell, the words weren't even his. He was reciting historical texts of a Byzantine emperor.

There's way too many historical wrongs in the name of Christianity, not to mention ones directly initiated by previous popes, to single out Islam in this context. It's condescending and is the wrong time and place for the Pope to go there right now, whether or not the content of what he said had factual merit. Let Fox News and O'Reilly blow smoke about who's screwed up, but not the Pope.

The Pope should be one who unites based on common ground, not a divider based on what he thinks are differences. He should also simply focus on his religion and Jesus, and otherwise stfu.

 

[SophalotJack]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
He just chose to ignore that it happened.... and never wants to speak of it again. Just like every other German who lived at that time and saw what happened.

Not wanting to talk about it is not the same as ignoring it.

And yes, if you'd been through hell on earth like WWII was, I'm sure that you'd just love talking about it all the time. Just like how all those Vietnam vets love to talk about what happened to them and their buddies in the jungles of southeast Asia. I'm sure you'd especially love it when people brought it up constantly and associated you with actions committed by others that you personally disagreed with.

ZV

He is the fricken pope... he isn't applying for a job at McDonalds in Montana.

People care what he did and he won't talk about it. What kind of screening process lets a potential nazi even have a chance to be a pope. Especially one that has such a "mysterious" and unproven background as a youth.

 

[NatePo717]

So wait, Pope quotes some midieval text saying Muslims are evil and inhuman and then they go and burn down churches in retaliation to the remark...

 

[SophalotJack]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: SophalotJack

Originally posted by: SSP

Originally posted by: Shawn
who cares what the pope says anyway?

Apprently millons of muslims do.

I thought this pope and the muslims would get along.

I mean they both don't mind the extermination of the Jews.... isn't that a common ground they can build a strong relationship off of?

Lame. Bringing up the hideously overused "Nazi" argument on an internet forum in a poor attempt to get your point across.

Can't you get your point across in a better manner than digging up the decomposing corpse of a beaten horse and beating it some more? Uh oh, someone drops the "Nazi" reference on a forum! That must mean he has a point!

No.

-10 for you.

Ok, let's talk about why he incites violence amung the Muslim faith. We all know the Muslims are violence prone when we criticize them. But a man of faith and peace such as the pope should have more class than to publicly humiliate another faith. It just further etches into my mind how much of a bad pope he is.

 

[mattpegher]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole
To apologize for the proceeding furor, while implicitely standing behind the remarks is disingenuous and deceitful imo.

Why?

His apology was more of a "sorry to hear it, sorry you were hurt", rather than a genuine apology that takes responsibility for the hurt and the disrespect that he showed muslims with his comments.

And that's the definition imo of a disingenuous apology, and its deceitful to pretend (imo) to show compassion for the situation when he's not regretful for the dagger he himself delivered to muslims as a whole, who are already feeling disrespected by much of the world.

He spoke the truth. Why should he apologize for that? It's not his fault radical Islamic nutballs were offended and decided to make his words even more true.

If the truth hurts them that much, maybe they should be trying to change it, rather than merely make it even more obvious.

I'm no Christian. I have no love for the Catholic church. But to blame the Pope for calling it as it is, rather than tap dancing around the obvious is absurd.

Hell, the words weren't even his. He was reciting historical texts of a Byzantine emperor.

There's way too many historical wrongs in the name of Christianity, not to mention ones directly initiated by previous popes, to single out Islam in this context. It's condescending and is the wrong time and place for the Pope to go there right now, whether or not the content of what he said had factual merit. Let Fox News and O'Reilly blow smoke about who's screwed up, but not the Pope.

The Pope should be one who unites based on common ground, not a divider based on what he thinks are differences. He should also simply focus on his religion and Jesus, and otherwise stfu.

I agree but I can see the pope's origional point. The world community need to work with Islamic clerics to "rewrite" the Koran to eliminate some of the violent edicts. Unfortunately the pope chose a public forum to discuss this instead of an enlightened group of clerics. The first problem with all religion as a whole is that questioning it has always been a dangerous proposition. The next major problem is that islam has no centralized leader or group of leaders which the world can count on to quide the religion. Hell, if I get enough people to follow me I could probably call myself an Imam and call Jihad on anything I want.

 

[TheWart]

I agree but I can see the pope's origional point. The world community need to work with Islamic clerics to "rewrite" the Koran to eliminate some of the violent edicts.

The chances of that happening are somewhere between 0 and 0.

The Quran is seen as literally the words of God, as spoken through Muhammad. It is different than the Bible in that it must be taken literally and there is little room for interpretation. It is not as if Muhammad summarized what God told him, but rather the text is a verbatim script of what God actually said. This lends much more weight to the Quran and that is why it is treated with such respect, etc. Unfortunately, this also leaves less wiggle room for interpreting the "harsher" passages in a more agreable manner.

Taking the example of the "violent" passages (like convert or die, don't befriend the christians and jews, kill the indidels, etc), it is an especiall y thorny issue because the Quran does not have a single message in these regards. For instance, at the beginning of the Quran (the Quran is ordered from longest chapters, or suras, to shortest ones, with most of the shorter ones appearing at the end but actually being older in terms of date), Muhammad's message is that one should treat Christians and Jews equally and fairly. Some speculate that this is b/c he was weak in terms of political clout and he needed all the allies he could get.

However, later in the Quran, we have more violent verses which suggest that Jews are inherently evil and that non-believers should be killed (or at the very least taxed unlike Muslims). It is these kinds of contradictions that make it difficult to interpret. Thankfully, most Muslims, like Christians, ignore/explain away the unpleasent verses but a large number do subscribe to them for various reasons (socio-economic, historical, and of course religous).

I think the saddest thing in all of this is the fact that moderate Muslim groups have not spoken up or tried to call a halt to the violence. Whatever the reason (some say fear, indifference, or even tacit approval), it is not right imo.

 

[dawheat]

Originally posted by: Madwand1

Originally posted by: Amused
Since when is the truth an "assult?"

Oh, I see, you actually believe the quote as the truth. And you actually know all about Mohammed and Islam to back it up? You know for sure that Mohammed never did anything that was new and not inhuman?

----------
Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels," he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "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 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 is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably ("syn logo") 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 practice idolatry.

---------

I think its unfortunate that his comments are being taken out of context in what was an academic lecture at a university. The very line following the now infamous quote is:

"The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable."

This was the entire point of the pope's lecture - unfortunately he chose to use some medivial quotes throughout his discourse, of which these protestors are intentionally or ignorantly choosing to ignore.

 

[Madwand1]

The previous pope had gone a long way towards having such dialogs, and this is seen as a "major setback".

http://today.reuters.com/news/articlene...sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage1

Marco Politi, author and Vatican expert for Rome's La Repubblica newspaper, said the Pope, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had set back a quarter of a century of efforts by his predecessor John Paul to improve ties with Islam.

Politi said that John Paul, while making clear that using God's name justify violence was wrong, "was respected and listened to by the Muslim world as a spiritual leader" who was never seen as an enemy of the west.

"All this, tragically, has been ruptured by the Regensburg speech and it remains to be seen if the Pope and his secretary of state can manage to crawl out of this," Politi wrote.

 

[forfor]

I think someone like the Pope, who represents millions (or billions) of Christians (i am not one) should be more careful of what he says. Yes, sure, we all support freedom of speech and thought but his thoughts affect way too many people.

 

[Madwand1]

Originally posted by: TheWart
I think the saddest thing in all of this is the fact that moderate Muslim groups have not spoken up or tried to call a halt to the violence. Whatever the reason (some say fear, indifference, or even tacit approval), it is not right imo.

I agree with this. The fact is that some of them have accepted the apology, quite firmly, and said that the matter should rest. The biggest basis for this is this part:

These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought.

However, the media appears to like publishing quotes from terrorist groups better, and many, including myself, got caught up in previous parts about apologizing for the effects and not the material.

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200609171860.htm

Softening their stance on Pope Benedict's remarks on Prophet Mohammad, prominent Muslim clerics here said the issue should be considered 'closed' in the wake of the apology tendered by the holy father and called for inter-faith dialogue to promote understanding between different religions.

"Now that the pope has tendered an apology, the Muslims should also forgive him," Naib Imam of Idgah Maulana Khalid Rashid Firangimahali told PTI here today.

"The issue should be considered to be closed after the pope's apology," he said.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: NatePo717
So wait, Pope quotes some midieval text saying Muslims are evil and inhuman and then they go and burn down churches in retaliation to the remark...

Yes, and it is all the Pope's fault. The Muslims that have murdered a nun, burnt down churches, and performed other acts of violence have no blame whatsoever.

Seriously, some of these posts putting the blame on the Pope sound like the stereo-typical rape victim blame game...."She should have known better than to dress like that."

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: jjsole
To apologize for the proceeding furor, while implicitely standing behind the remarks is disingenuous and deceitful imo.

Why?

His apology was more of a "sorry to hear it, sorry you were hurt", rather than a genuine apology that takes responsibility for the hurt and the disrespect that he showed muslims with his comments.

And that's the definition imo of a disingenuous apology, and its deceitful to pretend (imo) to show compassion for the situation when he's not regretful for the dagger he himself delivered to muslims as a whole, who are already feeling disrespected by much of the world.

He spoke the truth. Why should he apologize for that? It's not his fault radical Islamic nutballs were offended and decided to make his words even more true.

If the truth hurts them that much, maybe they should be trying to change it, rather than merely make it even more obvious.

I'm no Christian. I have no love for the Catholic church. But to blame the Pope for calling it as it is, rather than tap dancing around the obvious is absurd.

Hell, the words weren't even his. He was reciting historical texts of a Byzantine emperor.

There's way too many historical wrongs in the name of Christianity, not to mention ones directly initiated by previous popes, to single out Islam in this context. It's condescending and is the wrong time and place for the Pope to go there right now, whether or not the content of what he said had factual merit. Let Fox News and O'Reilly blow smoke about who's screwed up, but not the Pope.

The Pope should be one who unites based on common ground, not a divider based on what he thinks are differences. He should also simply focus on his religion and Jesus, and otherwise stfu.

This, and the last Pope have addressed the PAST wrongs of their own church many, many times. Can he not also address the CURRENT ONGOING wrongs of Islam?

And as twisted as Christians have made Christianity from time to time, it's core tenets are NOT based on forced conversion. Islam's are.

The basis of the Pope's speech, if anyone would read the entire speech, is violence and ALL religion. Not just Islam.

 

[slsmnaz]

Originally posted by: Amused

This, and the last Pope have addressed the PAST wrongs of their own church many, many times. Can he not also address the CURRENT ONGOING wrongs of Islam?

And as twisted as Christians have made Christianity from time to time, it's core tenets are NOT based on forced conversion. Islam's are.

The basis of the Pope's speech, if anyone would read the entire speech, is violence and ALL religion. Not just Islam.

Yeah I wonder how they got the idea he meant them?

 

[UDT89]

maybe one day Islam will build a bridge and cross it.

i mean cmon. people attack other peoples races, beliefs, countries, etc everyday.

why is it ok for Islam to threaten people when it happens to them?

 

[JulesMaximus]

Typical muslim response...bomb and kill innocent people.

 

[moshquerade]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Typical muslim response...bomb and kill innocent people.

really. we don't agree with you saying we are violent... so we will protest with violence.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: moshquerade

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Typical muslim response...bomb and kill innocent people.

really. we don't agree with you saying we are violent... so we will protest by killing some people who may or may not agree with you but who we are sure you care about.

Fixed for clarity.