Pope Stops Short of Apology to Muslims

lets see there is a perception that the west is at war with islam. SO there is sorta a powder keg brewing. And rightly or wrongly when people are upset, you tend to have to wacth what you say arround them. People who otherwise wouldnt give a crap, do now because they ae pissed at the us and isreal. The pope was simply throwintg matches at a lit powder keg. ANd the Christains have forced peopel into their religion as welll, he could have easily used and example from christianity rather than islam.
And i am not so sure you can call the koran flushing mythical, we did many unsavory things at gitmo, is it such a strtch we may flush their "bible"? especially when so many of you prove that you think it is a book of hate and dont give a crap about it?

People who otherwise wouldnt give a crap, do now because they ae pissed at the us and isreal.

These people always give a crap. RE: Denmark

Um, what threats and violence has there been. I'm pretty sure the article just talks about a protest.

Read the article again LankaFool.

In West Bank attacks on four churches, Palestinians used guns, firebombs and lighter fluid, leaving church doors charred and walls scorched by flames and pocked with bullet holes. Nobody was reported injured. Two Catholic churches, an Anglican one and a Greek Orthodox one were hit. A Greek Orthodox church was also attacked in Gaza City.

A group calling itself "Lions of Monotheism" told The Associated Press by phone that the attacks were a protest of the pope's remarks on Islam.

Modern Muslims react with threats and violence after being incited by their imams at Friday worship. Haven't they just proven the Pope's point?

We've seen three completely irrational and foolish world wide outbursts: The mythical Koran flushing, the danish cartoons and now the Pope's words.

Uh, no.

Some crazies in palestine attacked three churches, with no injuries. The much more modern and rational Muslims:

The grand sheik of Cairo's Al-Azhar Mosque, the Sunni Arab world's most powerful institution, condemned the pope's remarks as "reflecting ignorance."

Rational, peaceful Muslims just called the remarks ignorant. And that was all.

So please notice- a few thousand crazies attack three churches. Half a billion other muslims do pretty much nothing at all. Thus, your characterization is way, way off. There is no world wide outburst. Just the usual nutcases doing what they do best, being crazy.

Also, The statement is also pretty hypocritical, btw, with the Catholic Church's long histroy of using the sword to spread religion (Inquisitions, trials of heresy, etc).

JoulesBeef

The pope was simply throwintg matches at a lit powder keg.

He wassimply stating and quoting a factual reference.

ANd the Christains have forced peopel into their religion as welll, he could have easily used and example from christianity rather than islam.

Yes he could have. However during these times who is it that is attempting to force conversion to Islam? (the radical variety)

And i am not so sure you can call the koran flushing mythical,

A lot of people are ignorant. I for example (one of many) is entirely ignorant of particle physics and why my attempts at making a cheese souflee always comes out flat as a sailcat.

However, JoulesBeef you are, all things considered, willfully ignorant.

He has said that he was sorry. That is the right thing to do, right? I am sure that this whole thing will blow over very quickly, right? Just a misunderstanding, right?

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2006/09/17/364885-pope-sorry-for-reaction-to-his-remarks

That's very true, come to think of it. These governments tend to use Islam as a means to unite a population behind them, by encouraging them to protest and so forth, when otherwise far more discontent would brew. As Marx said, religion is the opiate of the masses.

Just like how Christianity is used here. Exactly the same idea.

Yeah, there is probably some truth there.

The few crazies who do this type of stuff probably only have this channel to vent about their unhappiness.

The muslim faith is in vast need of some reformation to clear out much of the hardliners.

Yeah he should come out and say,

"I made the quote to show in context the fallacy and wrongness of the past. However, I am greatly disappoited that so many followers of Islam have instead chosen to show truth to such archaic ideas. I call on all Muslims to restrain themselves and act in peaceful ways, in accordance with god's teachings. I also ask that you read my full statements, in context, and not be fooled by misquotes in order to manipulate your ire. As we are taught, the truth shall set you free. And may god punish those who act with violence."

he would never do it, thew war swells the ranks of all religions.
In isreal non jews are treated like second class citizens, in the us many other religions would claim to be treated like second class citizens, especially arround christmas with the christains crying "war on christmas" or the intollerance of gays, the mariage law, that pretty much says that if you arent married, you are a second class citizen. The blue laws of my state, that says i cant shop or open a store on sunday until 2pm.
Sharias law main purpose is to get rid of vices, like drinking, drugs, homosexuality, sex, gambling..
The christians want the same kind of thing here in the US, and sur it may not have the death penalty attached(do you not think many christians would like the death penalty attached?) but may no mistake about it, extremists christains would like to force us all to be christians and live under their moral law.
They really arent much different

I agree with the pope, but christains have such a rich history of doing that, he could have easily found an example in his own religion rather than going to another.

extremists christains would like to force us all to be christians and live under their moral law.

Joules, I agree that the US has it challenges with intolerance, and fundamentalism always wants to persecute others and change others to their way of thinking - but the difference is that the US has a constitution which is committed to correcting these injustices and allow their citizens to challenge the intolerance and inequalities on the very basis of the principle of Freedom of Religion despite the principle not being fully achieved in society (hence the healthy debate on gay marriage and government funding of faith-based initiatives), whereas the islamic-controlled governments do not; in fact, the full force of the Sharia governments are fully empowered not to allow any reform or even a call for reform. I suppose this contrast may be the very reason that the Pope choose the historic conversation between the Persian and Byzantine Emperor as a talking point in his full speech.

We have very few extremist christians here and its even rarer that they go violent. I am not christian and do not like organizard religion for many reasons, some of which are evidenced by current events.

As for having the death penalty attached to vices such as you mentioned, if they did want that then they are really not Christians are they? Jesus would not advocate that and he is the standard. Additionally, such blue laws as you mention are ridiculous but since they are already on the books it must be pushed to have them removed.

I agree with the pope, but christains have such a rich history of doing that, he could have easily found an example in his own religion rather than going to another.

You beat me to it. I read the whole speech, it makes some kind of sense. But that quote could easily have come from something that Christians or Catholics have done.

Context is the key here, isn't it? I think it's clear that there are groups and individuals who look for these panic buttons and use them to great effect, especialyl amongst current Muslim states that are more hard line. Countries with more moderate Muslims barely see a fraction of protests and violent actions when compared to other areas. The Pope's words were definitely taken out of context, but it gave a good soundbite with which to suggest anti-Islam sentiment.

The Danish cartoon saga is another good example. The originals were printed months before the protests (including an appearance in a Muslim-aligned Egyptian newspaper). Essentially Muslims have a big problem here. Their larger numbers are prone to overreaction, thanks tot he larger mob not actually knowing what the story is. They are being told "this is bad" and they subsequently riot. You can compare this to a few years ago when the British went pedophile-mad and some groups, inexplicably, attacked pediatrician offices. Reactionism is not the exclusive franchise of Muslim mobs, obviously, but at this point of history its the most prominenent amongst them.

Again, yes thats true. By people here did not riot, did not bomb things, and did not make threats of war and more violence.

I find it interesting that you fail to make such a distinction.

Again, yes thats true. By people here did not riot, did not bomb things, and did not make threats of war and more violence.

(does best impression of Kool-Aid man)

OH YEAH!

I find it interesting that when Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeni from a speech made in the 1970's about Israel, and then had his words mistranslated so that Khomeni, and by extension Ahmadinejad, appeared to say something that he actually didn't say (at least at that moment), there were certain factions here who were caterwauling and shrieking with self-righteous outrage...

Yes, mosques were firebombed in protest. Thousands marched in the streets...

Oh wait, that didn't happen.

Um, did I miss something, or have there been some churches firebombed, or some riots over the misappropriation of the Pope's words? Just checking, because I didn't read about that in this article.

Oh, wait - were you talking about some completely different incident that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand? I mean, I can understand that you would get a little confused, how can we be expected to differentiate between different incidents? Let's be reasonable here - what's important is that we all keep straight exactly who we're supposed to hate, right? After all, if they hate us, we have no choice but to hate them, do we? And once we know who to hate, we can simply use the same old talking points to counter any argument, or to describe any situation, because who cares if they are accurate as long as the result is that we hate the right people.

Is the important question who hates who first, or is hatred just as bad when it comes from one side as it is from the other? Just asking.

Heh, OK, so maybe I didn't read far enough ahead. Apparently there has indeed been some violence as a result of this protest. Alright, never mind my self-righteous outburst in the first two paragraphs above. I'll stand by the last paragraph, but I was obviously premature wrt the first two.

This isnt about who to hate. We dont have them. Its about recognizing who hates us and figuring out how to deal with them. Its also about the double standard that is applied to Muslims. How they can riot and do terrible things and the world just lets it go, lets them feel they are right and justified in taking such actions in reaction to anything they dislike. If this is not the reality that we have been witness for the past few years, please enlighten me how I am misinterpreting it. Please show me where the world has taken action to punish those who have rioted and bombed. Where the world has done more than paid lip service to such overreactions?

This isnt about who to hate. We dont have them.

When you say "we," you mean "I" don't you? Are you claiming that nobody hates them, or just that you don't hate them? I'm pretty sure I've seen hatred of Muslims expressed around here before. Should I dig up a specific quote, or would it be enough for me to simply mention the initials "WMcD?"

Please show me where the world has taken action to punish those who have rioted and bombed.

I'm not sure exactly why you think that "the world" is somehow obligated to take action when people riot and bomb. Do you ask "the world" to take action when non-Muslims riot? If you want to know why more terrorists haven't been punished for bombings that occurred in the United States, perhaps you should be addressing your question to the President.

The perpetrators of the 1993 WTC bombing, for example, have been brought to justice. The same is true for the Oklahoma City bombing and the Unabomber bombings. Other countries have worked with the United States to bring terrorist bombers to justice, such as Yemen and Pakistan.

Although the person behind the second WTC bombing has never been captured, his location is pretty much known and he was very nearly captured in Afghanistan some years ago, but he was, for a time, felt to be less important a target than was a non-Islamist dictator who posed no threat to the United States.

As far as I know, the Iraqi government is responsible for bringing the people who are committing sectarian violence that has been taking place in Iraq recently to justice, and I believe that they are trying to do so.

As far as riots in general go, I'm sure you realize that they are a very difficult phenomenon to deal with. In the United States, very few people were ever punished for their actions during the Watts riot that took place after the verdict in the case of the police officers who appeared to beat Rodney King. It is difficult to prove actions taken by individuals in mob situations, and not everyone who participates in a riot is, in fact committing a crime.

Perhaps you'd like to think that the fact that you haven't seen more Muslims hanged for their hatred somehow indicates a worldwide conspiracy to aid and abet terrorism, but I'd have to suggest that perhaps your expectations with respect to "the world" might be slightly unrealistic.

Unfortunately, the fire and bullets have begun:

Four Christian Churches firebombed in mideast.

On the positive side, here is a great article that shows that everyday muslims and hindus in India are wising up to the "reactionary" strings that the extremists want to pull.

Many people feel the way you do, Naci, about the current Pope. JP2 is a hard act to follow.

Naci, I understand your perspective but I think the point of the Pope's speech was exactly what you are saying the world needs: dialog and communication. Here's a a link to an article that is the closest thing I can find describing the full talking points of his speech. An excerpt below:

The fact that the Pope cited the adjectives "evil and inhuman" was taken as evidence that he agreed with them.....In fact, the Pope was out to attack something different the contemporary, secular idea that faith is simply a matter of personal opinion. If he's having a go at anything, it's not Islam, it's the notion that religion is incompatible with independent thought.

The reaction from the Islamic world hasn't been what you might call measured. Admittedly, it was easy to take the Pope's remarks out of context, given that it takes a bit of effort to track down his address in full, or indeed to understand it. But not impossible yet few have made the effort.

.....The irony of this row is that it is the opposite of what the Pope was trying to achieve. Benedict ended his speech by hoping for a new dialogue between the sciences, religions and cultures "which is so urgently needed today".

It looks, from this miserable episode, as if you can only have a conversation that deals however remotely with Islam on Muslim terms. Not much of a dialogue, then.

Here's also a link to the Pope's position on the misunderstanding.

They could at least have the decency to confine their church burning to Catholic Churches.

Much as everyone here is quick to label all muslims as being the same, I'm sure those people assume all christians are relatively the same, as well.

He obviously qualifies who he is talking about. No one ever suggests this is the position or the fault of all Muslims. Trying to label someone as generalizing it to all Muslims when they are obvious not is very disingenuous. Whenever we are discussing these items and who commits them we are always discussing the very select group of terrorists and we shouldnt have to say qualify it every time without someone throwing down "well not all muslims, blah blah blah".

Sorry but this drives me nuts.

Oh and way to generalize right back:

I'm sure those people assume all christians are relatively the same, as well.

Those people? They all assume that huh?

Sorry but this drives me nuts.

Take a chill pill or something.

I was talking about religion denominations. Do you know the differences between Sunni, Shiite, and kharijite without looking it up? I didn't think so. Why should muslims in palestine know the differences between Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Angelican?

Oh and way to generalize right back:

I'm sure those people assume all christians are relatively the same, as well.

Those people? They all assume that huh?

The people who attacked the church. You need to relax.

Thats funny. Arent we told their leaders dont preach hate? That hatred and violence arent part of Islam?

Thats funny. Arent we told their leaders dont preach hate?

...and by "leaders," you mean "whackjob preachers," right? Because when I read that quote, I couldn't help but think of Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez. Because you have taken great pains to explain how much you hate it when people generalize, I'm quite certain that you are not generalizing the term "leaders" to refer to every intolerant bigot spewing hatred from behind a pulpit.

Right?

You know... I've begun to wonder if the Muslim leaders have any notion of participating in the actions they call for - you know, aside from calling for it. Do they even have a hand in the actual planning of the attacks and assassinations or do they delegate that down also. It's like a bunch of mini-presidents trying to up the other in violent actions. I can picture them sitting in a room eating dinner and boasting about who told what group to kill someone more important than the next, or debating over what pig to kill next as well as which pig is a bigger pig. What would Mohammad do? Better yet, how would Saladin approach this situation?

"their leaders" are the leader of the crazy very specific groups of muslim whackos that want our death. But actually you could use it to describe all whackjob leaders who spew hate. I dont have a very high opinion of Pat Robertson and his kinda either. They are pretty nutty as well.

"their leaders" are the leader of the crazy very specific groups of muslim whackos that want our death.

I see. I agree with that, but your original comment:

Arent we told their leaders dont preach hate?

Would seem to belie that. I don't recall anybody ever "telling us" that the leaders of the "crazy very specific groups of muslim whackos that want our death" don't "preach hate." Rather, I've heard that the real, legitimate leaders of Islam (who, by the way, are never quoted for a reaction to this kind of event, unlike "radical" clerics and leaders of known hate groups like this guy), "don't preach hate."

What more often seems to happen is that some crazies do something hateful and intolerant, then the press seeks out some whackjob Islamic preacher to get a reaction, which inevitably consists of hatespew, then they print that rather than seeking out a member of the other 99% of clerics whose answer would (predictably) not be nearly as controversial or hateful, or sell enough advertising. The nutjob's words get all the press, the rightwing gets up in arms and starts shrieking and claiming that these whackos are Islam's "leaders," and that Islam is a hateful religion. In the meantime, the rational, tolerant, and peaceful Islamic clerics and "leaders" are never sought out for their reaction, and the rightwing blames them for not speaking out, instead of blaming the press, which shows little interest in publicizing more tolerant (and boring) reactions which they could obtain by talking to Islam's true "leaders."

I sort of agree... all that happens when people say "Well... the Christians had the Crusades" and use that as some sort of "understanding point" when talking about some of the Muslims and their reactionary tendencies; is you end up justifying one bad action with another bad action and as you conclude - it'll self perpetuate. Neither side wants to give in - regardless of how much tolerance each preaches because each feels they are more right than the other, and one side will never ever agree that they can both be right at the same time. We're adults, too bog to have our noses put in the corner during recess... so handle it like an adult - either talk it out or slug it out... but make sure it only needs to happen one time.

It may not be fair, but life isn't fair, and you can't force life to be fair. That's part of what I think the overall world problem is. We're trying to force so much tolerance that people are becoming intolerant and feeling like "@!$%#es".

As I mentioned earlier - the Christians did have the Crusades, but not only was that a VERY long time ago, but the Third Crusades made a lot of Christians a very sad panda. Saladin took Jerusalem by force (and somehow managed to unite a large portion of the Muslim nations), and spared the people once captured (but in exchange Guy was imprisoned for... I think 20 years... I dunno I could remember it wrong). My point is - there is a way to wield the sword in such a way that no one gets hurt - use it for show and intent, but only use it if you have to. I don't see this as the modern case.