Muslims Want Further Apology From Pope

Alas, similar sentiments apply to America. Except that I'd replace "inferiority complex" with "superiority complex".

Overthrow Saddam or we'll bomb your country to smithereens!

But it wasn't and hasn't been. We only attacked and destroyed areas near Baghdad, where there was resistance. The rest of the country is prosperous.

The good ol' USofA has actually built up thousands of projects including new hospitals, schools, roads, sewage plants, fresh water plants, electricity, just to start.

The rest of the country is prosperous.

Have you talked to a few soldiers who've, you know, been there? I have, and that's not what they say. While we did not bomb the country to smithereens, as you rightly point out, it is far from prosperous. Electricity production remains spotty, and no one wants to go the hospital when they are sick due to militiamen using patients as ready made targets for ethnic cleansing who wont fight back. Only in Kurdistan are we seeing the emergence of a semi-stable state, and they are still pretty much broke if you don't count the handouts from the US Treasury.

Of course, if you define how the average Iraqi lives as "prosperous" it would help with the argument that there is no poverty in the United States...

I was being sarcastic. When do protests and demanding an apology translate to the offing of heads?

Certainly there are a tiny majority of Muslims who advocate beheadings. There is also a tiny majority of Americans who advocate just bombing Muslim countries into submission.

Listen to Michael Savage on the radio sometime. According to Wikipedia:

In April 2006, Savage called for the killing of 100 million radical fundamentalist Muslims, saying, "Intelligent people, wealthy people...are very depressed by the weakness that America is showing to these psychotics in the Muslim world. They say, 'Oh, theres a billion of them (Muslims) and 10 percent or so are radical (Muslims).' I said, 'So, kill 100 million of them (radicalist Muslims); then there'd be 900 million peaceful Muslims left.' I mean...would you rather us die than them?...Would you rather we disappear or we die? Or would you rather they disappear and they die? Because youre going to have to make that choice sooner rather than later." In 2004, Michael Savage described radical Islamic fudumentalist Arabs as "non-humans" and "racist, fascist bigots" and advocated a nuclear attack on a "major Arab capital".

The same Wikipedia article notes that he has 10 million listeners on 377 radio stations.

Muslim news sources are a lot like the 'yellow press' that America had back in the 1800's.

You think the yellow press vanished in the US after the 1800s? How cute.

Do we have any but yellow press here anymore? Alot of it is so subtle most people dont even pick up on it. The words they use to describe scenes and actions can easily taint a users view and give people different perceptions of the same reality. Sadly so many dont understand this and allow themselves to be easily swayed. Not like us on here. We're the smart ones. :)

But, why did he neither agree nor disagree with the words? Why quote them without elaborating his own position?

Does he need to agree or disagree with what was quoted? Dennis, it is possible to make a point without stating your personal opinion about the subject. Is it not?

Why call the teachings of the founder of a religion "evil and inhuman," and not state your purpose for said quote? Yes, he blew it.

See, this is what you fail to understand. He did not "call the teachings of the founder of a religion 'evil and inhumane'". He quoted that from a source in the context of his discussion. There is a huge difference.

I think it would go a long way to understanding between the religions if he were to apologize for his words (they became his when he spoke them), and then address the question of violence and religion.

Oh, wait a minute. They become his when he spoke them. Are you serious??? You mean, anything you quoted in your life became your view and opinion? If I said "Islam must rise up and destroy the west", I am quoting. But according to you, I also believe that. Please. That makes no sense at all.

An understanding between religions is not solely the Pope's responsibility. He has done things in the past to open communication. What have the Muslim leaders done to reach out to Christians? They refuse to speak out against the terror that is done in the name of Islam. At least the Pope has refused to condone what mess Bush is making in Iraq.

Dennis, here is a transcript of his speech. If you have not already, please read it.

And a follow up:

The Pope pointed out that the most controversial passage in the speech was a quotation from a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, whose views "do not in any way express my personal thought."

Sounds to me like he disagrees with what was said by the emperor.

In this context, yes. Tell me, what was the purpose of quoting that text?

Perhaps you should read the context of the quote and see if the purpose is not made clear.

He would have done well to make that clear in the speech, doncha think?

Did you read the transcript??? It was perfectly clear what he was saying in context. Is the Pope supposed to be psychic? He was supposed to know, during the speech, that Muslims would take this out of context and start protesting? Give me a break, Dennis. That is absurd.

If you ask me, he should not have had to apologize for anything. But he did and that wasn't good enough for people who don't bother to fully examine the issue before they start blaming him for all kinds of things and then go ranting about it on Newsvine.

I still feel that the Pope was a bit vague as to his intentions, and someone in his position certainly has to consider the possible reactions, to everything they say, in advance.

If this were true, it would be a pretty sad world.

Of all the possible statements from history, he picked that one? Of all the things he could have quoted, or stated himself, he chose a quote that called the teachings of Muhammed "evil and inhuman," and didn't foresee a problem?

Umm, maybe it was to prove a point? Dennis, are you sure you read the speech? Positive?

Perhaps this guy shouldn't be the Pope.

Perhaps you should try to comprehend his speech a little better.

Imagine the leader of the Muslim religion, if there were such a person, quoting an old document stating that "the teachings of Jesus Christ were evil and inhuman," and then offering no reason as to why he even quoted it.

That's not fair. The Pope offered an explanation on why he quoted what he quoted, at the time that he quoted it.

It is a moving experience for me to stand and give a lecture at this university podium once again. I think back to those years when, after a pleasant period at the Freisinger Hochschule, I began teaching at the University of Bonn.
...

Once a semester there was a "dies academicus," when professors from every faculty appeared before the students of the entire university, making possible a genuine experience of "universitas"

...

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by professor Theodore Khoury (Muenster) 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.

The entire speech is available. It's hardly the Pope's fault if people trying to make mountains out of molehills leave out lots of the context.

He made his living as a bandit. He wiped out the jews in Medina (the same tribe that took him in). He treated non believers like animals.