Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Terrorism Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Do they finally have a pope with some attitude?
mustavaris    9/12/2006 2:59:24 PM
Who says the pope doesn´t need balls? Finally Catholic church got something somewhat straight. http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-12T181627Z_01_L12822669_RTRUKOC_0_US-POPE-GERMANY.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-worldNews-8 By Philip Pullella and Madeline Chambers REGENSBURG, Germany (Reuters) - Pope Benedict invited Muslims on Tuesday to join a dialogue of cultures that agrees the concept of Islamic "holy war" is unreasonable and against God's nature. In a major lecture at Regensburg University, where he taught theology between 1969 to 1977, Benedict said Christianity was tightly linked to reason and contrasted this view with those who believe in spreading their faith by the sword. The 79-year-old Pontiff avoided making a direct criticism of Islam, packaging his comments in a highly complex academic lecture with references ranging from ancient Jewish and Greek thinking to Protestant theology and modern atheism. In his lecture, the Pope quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who wrote in a dialogue with a Persian that Mohammad had brought things "only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." The Pope, who used the terms "jihad" and "holy war" in his lecture, added: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul". Benedict several times quoted the argument by Emperor Manual II Paleologos that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason -- "logos" in the original Greek -- was against God's nature. At the end of his lecture, the Pope again quoted Manuel and said: "It is to this great 'logos', to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures." "JUST AN EXAMPLE" Abbot Notker Wolf, head of the worldwide Benedictine order, said the Pope used Manuel's dialogue with a Persian to make an indirect reference to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Wolf, a commentator on Bavarian television for the Pope's visit, said the reference to a Persian "was a blatant allusion to Ahmadinejad" and said the Iranian leader had sent "arrogant letters" this year to President Bush and German Chancellor Angela Merkel urging a dialogue. "I have heard he plans to write a letter to the Pope," Wolf added. "I think this would be a good opportunity to take up the gauntlet, so to speak, and really discuss things." Papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said Benedict used Emperor Manuel's views on Islam only to help explain the issue and not to condemn all of the Muslim religion as violent. "This is just an example. We know that inside Islam there are many different positions, violent and non-violent," he said. "The Pope does not want to give an interpretation of Islam that is violent." Many Islamic leaders have denounced Muslim radicals for using violence, saying this perverts their faith, but a minority of extremists says the Koran commands them to use it. Last week, the Pope said no one had the right to use religion to justify terrorism and urged greater inter-religious dialogue to stop the cycle of hate and revenge. On Monday, he prayed for the victims of September 11 on the fifth anniversary of the attacks against the United States. At an open-air mass earlier in the day, Benedict told about 260,000 faithful that Christians believed in a loving God whose name could not be used to justify hatred and fanaticism At his university lecture, Benedict also appeared to criticize Protestant and some Third World theologians for not stressing the link between faith and reason clearly enough. Benedict stressed his criticism of empirical reasoning "has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age." "The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application," said Benedict, who later held an ecumenical service with Protestant and Orthodox clerics. (Additional reporting by Tom Heneghan in Munich)
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Thomas    mustavaris   9/12/2006 8:07:20 PM
Well nobody ever accused Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) of being spineless.
You should notice that in his accention sermon, he emphasised the re-cristning of Europe as one of the major tasks of his pontificate.
 
The interesting thing would be if he - or rather the congregation of faith - starts mumbling something about the apochryfical gospels of the new testament, which would really be the sort of move that would be Ratzinger and would put a cat among the bats in the belfry. (I know: Mixed metaphors)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    ?!   9/16/2006 4:28:01 PM
Doubts anybody????
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    When ISNT the Muslim Street NOT Angry?    9/16/2006 4:30:01 PM

popeqaeda.jpghttp://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/popeqaeda.jpg" width=393 border=0>

My friend Lorenzo Vidino, counterterrorism expert and author of al Qaeda in Europe, sent the above photo and this note:

Attached is a picture of the Pope that is circulating in Qaeda-friendly chat rooms and websites. Lovely (and predictable) that they call for his beheading.

The script in red calls for the Pope's beheading. The rest of the translation:

"Swine and servant of the cross, worships a monkey on a cross, hateful evil man, stoned Satan, may Allah curse him, blood-sucking vampire."

Will the dhimmis at the New York Times have anything to say about it?

Of course not.

***

Germany's Angela Merkel has stood up to support the Pope against the hate-filled, threat-implying jihadists.

What about the men of the West? Where are they? Hello, President Bush?

***

Here's Stephen Bainbridge's take on the Pope's speech. Lawrence Auster's is here. Paul Cella weighs in here. And commenter Dan McLaughlin at Red State sums it up:

Frankly, if it is controversial for the Pope to speak negatively about another faith, we're in trouble. As a matter of earthly politics, we expect our religious leaders to espouse tolerance; as a political strategy, it is sometimes prudent for people of many faiths to form alliances within free societies against secularists. But as a matter of propagating the faith - the first duty of the clergy - of course, the Pope is entitled to explain why another faith is false prophecy and leads to ill.

***

Meanwhile, reporters bend over backwards to downplay any possibility that practitioners of the Religion of Perpetual Outrage had anything to do with yesterday's church bombings in Gaza:

A small explosion caused minor damage Friday in a courtyard outside a Greek Orthodox church in Gaza City, church workers said. The early morning blast appeared to have been caused by a small, homemade explosive device, which damaged a door and caused minor damage to the floor and walls, church workers said. No one was wounded.

A second explosion hit the church hours later and a concussion grenade was thrown near the church in the afternoon. Neither of those blasts caused any damage, but church officials worried that the attacks were retaliation for remarks that Pope Benedict XVI made Tuesday that angered Muslims.

"This is the first time this has ever happened to our church," said the church's priest, Rev. Artinious Alexious. "We don't know why they have done this. We are Greek Orthodox and have no relation to the Pope."

 

More church bombings today by "unknown" assailants for "unknown" reasons:

Unknown assailants threw fire bombs on Saturday at two churches in the West Bank city of Nablus, following a day of Palestinian protests against comments Pope Benedict made about Islam. No one was hurt.

Jabi Saadeh, a member of the Anglican Church in the city, said about four or five masked men in a white car threw several fire bombs at the wall of the church, without causing damage.

A similar attack on a Greek Orthodox church in Nablus set ablaze one of its walls, leaving part of it charred. George Awad, head of the Greek Orthodox church, denounced what he called "a childish act".

 

***

LGF gives the Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus       9/16/2006 11:04:08 PM
Rejecting apologies and burning churches down is not the most brilliant strategy to counter the notion that you are prone to violence and more inter-religion dialog is necessary.
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    More Things the Pope Could Have Said As An "Apology"   9/16/2006 11:29:42 PM
From Cliff May, national review:
 
interfaith dialogue? [Cliff May]
 No doubt the Pontiff and his advisors are considering what to do to next. What if he were to say:

 “Some of our Muslims friends have taken offense at my remarks. We understand that and we are distressed by it.

“We would hope our Muslim friends also understand that there are Christians and Jews who also may believe they have cause for offense at a time when there are Muslims who routinely justify mass murder in the name of Islam.

“And the other day in Gaza, two journalists, both Christians, were forced to convert at gunpoint. If there was outrage over this in Muslim communities, word of it did not reach our ears.

“We would ask that violence and anger subside and that serious dialogue begin.

“We are therefore planning to invite several leading Muslim religious leaders to visit us here in the Vatican where we can have detailed and inter-faith discussions"

“After that, we would like Muslim religious leaders to invite us to continue the conversation in their holy places: Mecca, Medina, Qum and Najaf for example. Our Jewish brothers should be invited to attend, too. And why not add in people of faith from the Buddhist and Hindu communities?

“This would, we believe, be both productive and historic.”


 No doubt the Pontiff and his advisors are considering what to do to next. What if he were to say:
 
swhitebull
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       9/17/2006 7:13:45 PM

I support the Pope. I’m a mediocre Protestant, but Pope Benedict is right. I realize that, certainly for modern Christian reasons, he will not make a call to arms, and that he must extend apologies for certain perceptions. But I think that it’s important to show that the media and politicians are wrong; his cause is right and just, and he has vast and wide-spread support.
The apologies, acts of contrition, and other nonsense demanded by the various Islamists are unacceptable. Hopefully the Pope knows that he is right, that very many people support him, and will choose to stand firm on his beliefs and principles.

I found this address (the Pope’s e-mail address) at Michelle Malkin’s website: benedictxvi-at-vatican.va

I’m still considering writing; I support the Pope in this cause, but I’m reluctant to sit safely at home while encouraging him to walk into danger. I voluntarily went to Desert Storm (before, during and after shooting), and I’m reluctant to encourage someone else to do something even more dangerous. 

 
However, I can slice up the MSM a bit, and maybe stick a few written bolts in them. Perhaps this will sway the opinions of later readers.

The intellectual giants at Newsweek published the following article yesterday, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14866559/site/newsweek/

The caption asks this question of the Pope, "What was he thinking?". The attitude of the article is clear.

From the article: "If the goal, in Lombardi’s words, had been to articulate "a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence," then Benedict failed."

Perhaps, from reading a transcript of the Pope’s words, the Pope’s intent was to discuss reasons that religion should reject violence. The article’s author and Newsweek seem to have failed, and their next 5 paragraphs highlight their failure.

News week wastes ink (or website area) by quoting William A. Graham, the dean of the Harvard Divinity School: ". . . . . . Islam has bloody borders right now, but Christianity has certainly been bloody . . .".

Are Graham and Newsweek genuinely unaware, in all intellectual honesty, of The Renaissance, The Reformation, the multitude of 17th-20th century European and American philosophers that are responsible for the Internal choice of Christianity to become what it is today?

Perhaps they can show a time when Islam had peaceful borders with a rich, but militarily weak, non-Muslim state.

The quote of Graham: "Islam spread far more thoroughly by proselytizing than by the sword," is expected from Harvard, politically correct, but not historically correct.

Perhaps Graham does not count the Muslim Conquest of North Africa, Persia, and eventual expansion into Central Asia, India and the Balkans, all done with the sword. Ibn Battuta (1304-77), the noted Arab traveler and historian, mentions, while in Indonesia, that some of his co-religionists are battling the Infidel.

Of what pre-20th century land does Graham speak?

The article by Time, http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535432,00.html?cnn=yes shows that the writers at least read the Pope’s words. They end their fourth paragraph with "Benedict had decided to use a key speech at a German University to explore the differences between Islam and Christianity, and the risk of faith-based violence." This seems a worthwhile topic of academic / clerical discussion; who objects?

They, too, telegraph their bias in their caption ". . . Benedict's provocative comments . . .". Somehow Pope Benedict’s words are worthy of harsh judgement before the writers analyze them.  Interestingly, they don't seem to show "why" the comments are provocative, only that certain othr cultures use tham as an excuse for violence.
The death of Father Andrea Santoro in February, and the murder yesterday, by being ambushed and shot in the back, of Sister Leonella Sgorbati (in her 60s), seem only worthy of sad mention.
 

The harm the reporters and editors and owners do, by writing articles this way, is not trivial. In a subtle way, these articles could cause the undecided to choose against their best interests, or those with opposing views to loose confidence, possibly even give up.

If they counsel wrongly, either by intention or omission, will the reporters and editors and owners make things right? 
Exposing the media is a very poor 4th or 5th choice, compared to the Pope’s choices, but at the moment it is the best I can do.
 
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       9/20/2006 9:40:54 PM


I support the Pope. I’m a mediocre Protestant, but Pope Benedict is right. I realize that, certainly for modern Christian reasons, he will not make a call to arms, and that he must extend apologies for certain perceptions. But I think that it’s important to show that the media and politicians are wrong; his cause is right and just, and he has vast and wide-spread support.

The apologies, acts of contrition, and other nonsense demanded by the various Islamists are unacceptable. Hopefully the Pope knows that he is right, that very many people support him, and will choose to stand firm on his beliefs and principles.

I found this address (the Pope’s e-mail address) at Michelle Malkin’s website: benedictxvi-at-vatican.va

I’m still considering writing; I support the Pope in this cause, but I’m reluctant to sit safely at home while encouraging him to walk into danger. I voluntarily went to Desert Storm (before, during and after shooting), and I’m reluctant to encourage someone else to do something even more dangerous. 


 

However, I can slice up the MSM a bit, and maybe stick a few written bolts in them. Perhaps this will sway the opinions of later readers.

The intellectual giants at Newsweek published the following article yesterday,http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14866559/site/newsweek/" target="_blank">link


The caption asks this question of the Pope, "What was he thinking?". The attitude of the article is clear.


From the article: "If the goal, in Lombardi’s words, had been to articulate "a clear and radical rejection of the religious motivation for violence," then Benedict failed."


Perhaps, from reading a transcript of the Pope’s words, the Pope’s intent was to discuss reasons that religion should reject violence. The article’s author and Newsweek seem to have failed, and their next 5 paragraphs highlight their failure.


News week wastes ink (or website area) by quoting William A. Graham, the dean of the Harvard Divinity School: ". . . . . . Islam has bloody borders right now, but Christianity has certainly been bloody . . .".


Are Graham and Newsweek genuinely unaware, in all intellectual honesty, of The Renaissance, The Reformation, the multitude of 17th-20th century European and American philosophers that are responsible for the Internal choice of Christianity to become what it is today?


Perhaps they can show a time when Islam had peaceful borders with a rich, but militarily weak, non-Muslim state.


The quote of Graham: "Islam spread far more thoroughly by proselytizing than by the sword," is expected from Harvard, politically correct, but not historically correct.


Perhaps Graham does not count the Muslim Conquest of North Africa, Persia, and eventual expansion into Central Asia, India and the Balkans, all done with the sword. Ibn Battuta (1304-77), the noted Arab traveler and historian, mentions, while in Indonesia, that some of his co-religionists are battling the Infidel.


Of what pre-20th century land does Graham speak?

The article by Time,http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1535432,00.html?cnn="yes"" target="_blank">link shows that the writers at least read the Pope’s words. They end their fourth paragraph with "Benedict had decided to use a key speech at a German University to explore the differences between Islam and Christianity, and the risk of faith-based violence." This seems a worthwhile topic of academic / clerical discussion; who objects?


They, too, telegraph their bias in their caption ". . . Benedict's provocative comments . . .". Somehow Pope Benedict’s words are worthy of harsh judgement before the writers analyze them.  Interestingly, they don't seem to show "why" the comments are provocative, only that certain othr cultures use tham as an excuse for violence.

The death of Father Andrea Santoro in February, and the murder yesterday, by being ambushed and shot in the back, of Sister Leonella Sgorbati (in her 60s), seem only worthy of sad mention.

 

The harm the reporters and editors and owners do, by writing articles this way, is not trivial. In a subtle way, these articles could cause the undecided to choose against their best interests, or those with opposing views to loose confidence, possibly even give up.


If they counsel wrongly, either by intention or omission, will the reporter
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics