Isn’t it hilarious? Muslims are outraged that the Pope would link Islam with violence and react – with violence. Magnificent.
– James Waterton
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
Samizdata quote of the daySeptember 16th, 2006 |
 19 comments to Samizdata quote of the day |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
And perhaps we might just remember the fearless journalist Oriana Fallaci who died yesterday in Florence while being persecuted through the Italian courts for her essay on Islam, The Strength of Reason. After the indictment she said: “I have expressed my opinion through the written word, through my books, that is all”.
You too could be subject to shameful extradition for speaking out. Please be aware, although I hope most will be as brave about it as she was.
Yes, I was saddened to read she had died…harassed until the end for speaking the truth on Islam.
In a “secret” meeting with the pope’s former theology students, last september at the papal summer residence in Italy, somone there let it be known that Pope Benedict XVI believes that unlike other religions, Islam cannot be reformed and, therefore, is incompatible with democracy.
I don’t think the current Pope has a hardon for Islam, nor is in any mood to kiss Muslim ass.
I read somewhere that over 90% of the terrorism in the world today is either perpetrated by Muslims or done in the name of Islam.
For Ratzinger to equate Islam with violence is no more a revelation than stating that the sky is blue or that water is wet.
“Isn’t it hilarious? Muslims are outraged that the Pope would link Islam with violence and react – with violence. Magnificent.” – James Waterton
Precisely. Maybe that’s why he said it. The man is only saying what a great many people in the West think about Islam at the moment.
Quite!
Maybe I haven’t travelled the world enough, but I find it unbelievable how so many Muslims get out on the streets at the slightest provocation (or not, as the case may be) burning effigies/shooting AK47s etc.
Do these people not have jobs? Or are they hired by the BBC?!
Oriana Fallaci often complained of the cowardice of the representative of the institutions of Western civilization (including the Roman Catholic church) in their dealings with Islam.
A little while before the lady died she met the Pope. According to the Daily Telegrah obituary Oriana Fallaci gave an undertaking that what they discussed would not be disclosed – but it is hard to believe that Islam was not mentioned.
The Pope gave an academic lecture in Germany where he quoted a Byzantine Emperor – the Pope did NOT support the opinion of the Emperor, he gave the opinion as a an example of how far back religious debates (in the area of using force in religious conflict) went. Muslims (not just fringe Muslims, but the Parliament of Pakistan, and ministers from the ruling party in Turkey) denouced the Pope in the most ignorant terms (and, of course, there were the normal riots and bombings of Christian churches in the, for example, the “West Bank”).
And the Pope says how sorry he is to have caused offence.
I am sorry but this proves Oriana Fallaci’s point about the cowardice of the representives of the institutions of Western Civilization.
In case people think the above is an anti Catholic hit, the strongly Protestant George Walker Bush will not send the military into Pakistan to get O.B.L. – because that would offend the population there.
It is pathetic.
I apologise in advance for this being slightly off topic, but Sudan is a partly a Muslim country!
Blair and Bush seem to be suddenly getting agitated about the terrible situation in Sudan. Maybe to prove that they have wars which are not to do with oil?!
However, my favourite sentence from this BBC story
(Link)
is from Blair: “I will talk to other leaders to agree an initiative that sets out the help Sudan can expect if the government lives up to its obligations, and what will happen if they don’t.”
I think that sums up Blairs’ attitude to everything.
To be honest my initial reaction to Ratzinger was that he was an ultra-conservative who held fairly knuckle-dragging views on issues. Even so, he has gone up a notch in my estimation by stating the obvious about an aspect of Islam. How typical that the reaction of parts of the islamic world to his rather mild comments was the sort of heated nonsense that only proved his point.
It is high time, in fact, that the senior figures of the Catholic and Protestant branches of the Christian faith started to state what has been all-too obvious for a while: Islam has a violent strain within it, and if honourable Muslims are to cut themselves free from the strain of madness that has become part of their religion, they must deal with it.
The Pope has actually done honest Muslims a favour.
“The Pope has actually done honest Muslims a favour.”
Yes, I am sure they will see it that way.
Actually the Pope is a social democrat on economic issues.
As for theology – the Pope was a liberal (flexible) type, involved in the Vatican Two stuff. He had his opinions slightly changed by the student radicalism of the late 1960’s (they disrupted his lectures in the University he taught at and threatened him and others – for not bowing to the Marxist line).
Liberation Theology (really Marxism pretenting to be Christianity) is not something the Pope likes – but then he is a Christian, he believes in the real existance of a being called “God” and that death does not have to be the end of our existance. Why should he not be a little irritated with people who believe in none of these things – but hold high positions in the Church (use its resources and so on).
On social issues, the Pope is a Catholic – he opposes the idea that women are the same as men (which is not the same as holding that men are better than women) and he opposes artificial birth conrol and abortion (as part of his view of what love and sex are about – he has written rather openly about these things). He also opposes homosexual acts.
None of this means that he wants people put into prison for (for example) homosexual acts – he accepts the seperation of Church and State and that Church moral teachings are not (and should not) be the same thing as the criminal law. He accepts that there is a difference between a sin and a crime.
By the way I am not a Roman Catholic. I do not agree with some of the Pope’s (or Bishop of Rome’s) theological views (for example I rather dislike Augustine – one of the Pope’s most valued influences), but he is a serious scholar (both a theologian and a philosopher – as John Paul II was).
Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.
But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.
By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.
Here is what one liberal blogger posted.
http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html
“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”
Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.
Pope Benedict XVI was very courageous in saying what needs to be said in regards to Islamo-Fascism. And he hasn’t apologized for what he said. He just said he is sorry that the Muslims were offended.
But, I guess the Muslims can’t handle the truth.
By the way, leftists have come out and renounced the Pope’s comments.
Here is what one liberal blogger posted.
http://melt212.livejournal.com/171321.html
“I feel empathy for the muslims who just got bitch slapped by the pope because I had a boyfriend like that once. ”
Spoken like a true member of the Democratic Party base. Treats foreign affairs like it was the Jerry Springer show.
From what I’ve read about the Pope’s “apology,” it wasn’t an apology at all. He regrets that some were offended, but does not regret what he said. As another commenter stated, he merely quoted the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologus II at one point to provide historical context. He did not endorse the quote. Considering that the speech was of the sort that isn’t very “sound byte”-able, it is no surprise that many in the media and elsewhere have had trouble with understanding and reporting what he actually said.
From an LA times article (found here), “When giving the speech, the pope stressed that he was quoting the words of a Byzantine emperor and did not comment directly on the “evil and inhuman” assessment [of Muhammed].” Unfortunately, in no small part because of poor reporting, the damage has already been done, and the irony is lost on those who violently protest so-called “intolerance.” Those who dislike Catholics (and Christians in generally, usually) have heard a nasty provocation of kind, faithful, Muslims — exactly what they wished to hear.
I considqer myself liberal, but am careful not to confuse the personal with the political, and I agree that a discussion, no an admonishment is long overdue regarding Islam
PM: “On social issues, the Pope is a Catholic”
I wonder what Paul Marks can tell us about bears in the woods? Or would it only apply to social bears?
Yes, alecm I noted that howler in Paul’s otherwise good post. I think Paul makes the point that Benedict XVI is a scholar. Well, yeah. He was back at his old university delivering a speech primarily on the importance of the role of reason in religion. I read the whole thing and it is reflective and quite engaging and absolutely not a call for a new crusade.
It is beautifully ironic that the Koranimals reacted in their usual manner.
PS. Jeff, that made me chuckle.
There was a link here to the Pope’s written speech, more or less what he delivered, from Newsmax.
You will note both the Byzantine quote — not necessarily his opinion — and (a pleasant surprise) the opinion expressed that the abandonment of reason was a departure from holiness.
Whether the old quote is true or not could have been dealth with easily, by an honest Muslim, of which surely there must be at least one. Let them simply adduce one (important) thing introduced to the world by Muhammadun that was also new and, also central to the quote, good or at least benign, i.e. not evil. Whether the learned emperor, closer to those times, erred would then, in that conceivable case, be known to the world.
But IMHO the more important and relevant part of the speech was not the quote, but rather the more general topic of reason. Ignore, for the sake of argument, the illiterate and semiliterate Ayat”ollah”s, the blind censors, the prejudiced judges, the book burning, and the lords of lies’ betrayal of their own children to falsehood and destruction. Do Muslims wish to declare themselves to the world as irrationals, aimed unwittingly at evil, declaring in their presumed fidelity to Muhammad that he was of the same ilk?
If the Pope ought to be upset, it is over learning that evil has a far stronger grip on the world than he had conceived, that his desire for mutual respect at the religious level is vain and in error. Whatever the irrationalities in his own speech, the Pope, were he to show the courage of the historical Jesus, would shed his personal upset, forgo attempts at apology, and aim for respect at the personal level — that is, try to appeal directly to the better nature of those in thrall to Islam.
These Muslims are such fucking children. The Pope said something they didn’t like (and didn’t understand, needless to say) so they riot. They are immature fools who need a bloody good spanking.
Mind you, if they follow a religion founded by a killer who married a nine year old what can you expect? Not much of an example is it? If you invited Jesus round for dinner, he’d probably bring loaves and fishes, and turn the water into wine for good measure. Mohammed would be more likely to kill you and rape your wife. No wonder his followers tend to be a little unstable.
I did not make any mistake in writing that “the Pope is a Catholic” – many “Catholics” oppose the basic doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Organizations like “we are the Church” (American I believe) – or the paid administrators who dominate the “Bishops Conferences” in nations like Britian are “Catholics” not Catholics.
Whereas the Pope is a Catholic not a “Catholic”.
As for “of course the Pope is a Catholic”.
Actually many “liberals” went into a demented rage when he was elected Pope – because they did not want a Catholic Pope.
Why (say) a supporter of abortion would want to be Pope is not difficult to understand – a high position is a high position (the doctrines of that position can be disregarded).
After all – it has been a long time since the majority of the Supreme Court beleived in the Constitution of the United States. The last major stand for the principles of the Constitution was in the mid 1930’s (and even then only four Justices could be relied upon).
Holding a postion does not mean one needs hold the principles of that position. Remember the Liberation Theology people long held the dream that an athiest would become Pope.
These people are not yet totally defeated – and nor are they confined to the Roman Catholic Church.
Don Cupid (spelling?) was a fanatical athiest (he held that anyone who believed in God was basically sub human) and he was for many years the main “theologian” at Cambridge – instructing many people who are now in high positions in the Church of England.
This is an old story – in German theology (Protestant anyway) there were many theologians who were interpreting God out of existance as far back as the turn of the 18th-19th century.
In France the infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church was even more blatent (helped by the weakess of Papal control in the Church in France, and the destruction of the Jesuit order in 1773) indeed Louis XVI raised eyebrows by vetoing a choice of Bishop of Paris on the grounds that the man did not believe in God – what did that matter?
No wonder that almost half the priests in France went along with the Revolution. Although (I admit) the fear of death may have made some honest priests go along with things (giving in to fear of death might be argued to show weakness of faith – but it is easy to ask other people to lay down their lives for their faith).
As for the English speaking world – remember the “Honest to God” book craze from the early 1960s onwards. That book basically interpreted God out of existance.
As for the Muslims, the Pope’s (or Bishop of Rome’s) apology (first written and, this morning, verbal) has not appeased them. As, for example, the murder of an elderly Nun shows – this was not an example of the random violence in Somalia (the order to kill Catholics came from the relgious authorities in the local area).
This is not an extreme fringe of Islam – the governments of Pakistan, Turkey, Morocco (and so on) have all acted in a disgusting way.
Whether they are acting out of their own beliefs or to appease Islamic opinion no longer interests me. As for what is the main interpretation of Islam – for Sunni Muslims that is decided by the main theological university in Cario, and for Shia Muslims by the religious authorities in Iraq and Iran.
Neither interpretation is anything like the “tolerant Islam” concept that the B.B.C. (and other media) present.
Almost needless to say, the B.B.C. (to judge by coverage on the B.B.C. 24hour news service) regards the present dispute as the Pope undermining himself in the eyes of the Islamic world (that there might be something wrong with that world is something that a few discussion programmes might touch on – but not the news broadcasts, as far as the news is concerned the reaction to the Pope is reasonable).
One small example, the B.B.C. reported the murder of the nun when the news first came over the wire – but once they had time to think they went quiet about it.
Reason has been central to Catholic belief for a very long time. I do not always agree with the conclusions produced by Catholics using their reason (I am an agnostic after all) but I have never thought the Catholic flavour of Christianity was incompatable with reason.