Muslim anger grows at Pope speech

15 September 2006

A statement from the Vatican has failed to quell criticism of Pope Benedict XVI from Muslim leaders, after he made a speech about the concept of holy war.

Speaking in Germany, the Pope quoted a 14th Century Christian emperor who said Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world".

The Vatican said the Pope had not intended to offend Muslims.

"It is clear that the Holy Father's intention is to cultivate a position of respect and dialogue towards other religions and cultures, and that clearly includes Islam," said chief Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi in a statement.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5347876.stm

Hey Ratzie, what did the Nazis bring to the world? Hitler was a catholic after all.

probably a holdover from the Hitler admin. (ok to the freepers this is what is known as a sarcastic comment - please don't turn me into drugRush. See it's funny because the pope was actually born - oh never mind you wouldn't get it anyway.)

how Muslims could have been offended:

Muhammad had brought the world only "evil and inhuman" things.

What could they possibly have found offensive about that? I mean the Pope was only quoting some 14th century emperor......its not like he was stating his personal opinion or anything.


:sarcasm:

Well, I think the Pope just assured that Italy and Germany are going to become targets of jihad in the very near future. What was he thinking????? that the Muslim world would look at this as some kind of compliment?!

Way to go!

Uh, let's just bring out some terribly insulting quote, then act surprised when people are insulted. Yeah. Then deny that you meant it to be insulting. Then deny that you said it. And then apologize "I'm sorry you were offended."

Gag.

that emperor. But, as usual, the context changes the meaning, at least somewhat.

"In his speech at Regensburg University, the German-born Pope explored the historical and philosophical differences between Islam and Christianity, and the relationship between violence and faith.


Stressing that they were not his own words, he quoted Emperor Manual II Paleologos of the Byzantine Empire, the Orthodox Christian empire which had its capital in what is now the Turkish city of Istanbul.

The emperor's words were, he said: "Show me just what Muhammad 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."

Benedict said "I quote" twice to stress the words were not his and added that violence was "incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul".


I think it was valid for him to address the issue of ANYONE wanting to spread a faith by a sword. That's what he should have done -- not quote someone who was slurring all Muslims.

to go along with my righteous indignation. Jeez, comments without context.


Good post...

of clicking on the links, reading the whole thing.

It often gets me in trouble.

:hi:

splinter in your neighbor's eye, but the beam in your own". Any fair reading of history is at least as unkind to Christianity as it is to Islam.

On the other hand, I have heard that Benedict is a scholar, and a scholar is often easily criticized through the careful selection of statements, which might be placed in a thoughful context which is easily abused. I would give him the benefit of the doubt, knowing nothing more than the statement of the article.

by the bushbots.

Her message "Kill the Muslim leaders and convert their followers to Christianity, by the sword, if necessary".

The Pope forgets about the Christianfascists on the jihad path here.

they are justified.

What the pope said is beyond ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler/temp_religious_beliefs

"Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents. According to historian Bradley F. Smith, Hitler's father, though nominally a Catholic, was a freethinker,<1> while his mother was a practising Catholic.<2> According to historian Michael Rissmann young Adolf was influenced in school by Pan-Germanism and Darwinism and began to reject the Church and Catholicism, receiving Confirmation only unwillingly. A boyhood friend reports that after Hitler had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.<3> Georg Ritter von Schönerer's writings and the written legacy of his Pan-German Away from Rome! movement, which agitated against the Roman Catholic Church at the end of the 19th century, may have influenced the young Adolf Hitler.<4>"

SNIP

"Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon the education was to be forbidden. Hitler proposed to reduce vocations to the priesthood by forbidding seminaries from receiving applicants before their 25th birthdays, hoping that these men would marry beforehand, during the time (18 - 25 years) in which they were obliged to work in military or labour service. Along with this process, the Church's sacraments would have to be revised and changed to so-called "Lebensfeiern", non-Christian celebrations of different periods of life.<29>
"The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion, because Hitler still firmly believed, that religion and belief in God was something "the simple people need." But since the "laws of evolution" - upon which a new religion would have to be founded - were not yet precisely researched, according to Hitler, it was decided to keep these changes and laws on hold, pending the final victory.<30> Hitler and Goebbels also recognised that such changes might create a third front of Catholics against their regime in Germany itself. Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the indirectly or actively resisting Catholic clergymen (who wore black cassocks). <31>"

was a member of the Hitler Youth.

14 year old.

but there were some even at that age that risked their lives against the Nazis.

While I don't necessarily view his association with them as the greatest concern, it makes me wonder what beliefs he has held over since then...

Either way, he's clearly trying to shift the church even farther to the right. I don't particularly even view Muhammad as a particularly peaceful figure historically, but I think Ratzinger is a Goddamn idiot if he can't see why his statements would be viewed offensive and inciteful.

As the mother of a 13 yr. old, however, I just can't blame Ratstinker for being forced to serve in the Hitler youth.

There's so much else to blame him for -- as a Catholic, I'm full of grievances against him and his ilk -- but I don't blame him for that.

The German tree, while not Jewish, smuggled Jews out of the country whenever they could, the children refused to participate in the evils of Nazism, wholeheartedly. They died in the camps, some were shot, none survived, better to have died while living up to your principles than to lay in bed with evil.

Other than that, how's the former Nazi Youth Pope doing?

the Muslims super pissed off at Ratzi, and the GLBT crowd too, man, he's batting 1.000!!!

Oh, yeah, I believe it was Jesus Christ...

Let's not even start on the Holy Inquisiton (which mechanism is still in place to this day)...

Remember this?

Pope appeals to Muslims on terror

Pope Benedict XVI has appealed to Muslims to help combat the "cruel fanaticism" of terrorism.
At a meeting with Germany's Muslim leaders in Cologne, the pontiff said Islamic teachers had a "great responsibility" to educate the young.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4168042.stm

How about Christian teachers having a "great responsibility" to educate the young, the Christian values? And not to molest them?

The changing face of Papal trips
(...)
It's not like the Good Old Days when we roamed the world with John Paul II.
(...)
Pope Benedict is a more formal, and a much older, man than his zestful predecessor Karol Wojtyla when he started his ambitious worldwide pilgrimages in the already distant days of the Cold War.
(...)
Benedict's foreign journeys are going to be fewer, more focused, shorter.

This one lasted all of 26 hours.

The white-clad Pope did appear briefly before take-off at the curtain dividing the business class seats occupied by his 20-person entourage from our section of the plane.

He made a short statement for the TV cameras which few reporters could actually hear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5163682.stm

Now, who else do we know that go on quick trips for convenient photo ops? :shrug:

And spouts controversial comments, meant to divide people?

I HAD AN ABORTION


too bad Rat face can't control his pervert priests who Punk little boys in the rectum

even in the most Catholic region of Bavaria. Not as many faithful turned out as hoped. Church needs to get with the 21st century. Ratsnest is a pimple on the ass of progress.

:rofl:

From one theocrat to another, eh?

by the media.

The pope was giving a dry academic type lecture during the course of which he quotes a LONG DEAD BYZANTINE EMPEROR!!! as having said this. The entire speech is available on the bbc website.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/15_09_06_pope.pdf

page two is the bit referred to. If you're not too lazy, a little effort will show you that this is someone else stirring the shit big time and that this is not just a nasty Bush style sound bite.

If you are too lazy, then just relax and switch off your brain, as you are sucked into the ever increasing spiral of hatred.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read... 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.

In the seventh conversation...the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Muhammad 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, after having expressed himself so forcefully, 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," he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably 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."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/5348456.stm

BTW, Norway was christened by sword, by Olav the Holy.

Irmos: I heard report of Thee, O Lord, and was afraid; I understood Thy dispensation, and glorified Thee, Who alone lovest mankind.

Exulting in soul at his baptism, the holy Olav understood the dispensation of the Lord Who loveth mankind, and he glorified Him.

Over all Norway, O glorious king, didst thou wisely spread report of the one God, recounting unto all how He loveth mankind.

Proclaiming the dispensation of the Lord and the salvation of man, O blessed king, thou didst bring the light of glory to thy people.

Theotokion: Let all the hosts of heaven now join with us to form a single chorus, glorifying the pure Mother of the Lord Who alone loveth mankind

Ode V

Irmos: O Lord our God, take us for Thy possession. O Lord, besides Thee we know none other; we call upon Thy name. Shine forth light upon all.

Ever invoking the name of the Lord thy God, O most pious Olav, thou didst shine forth the light of the Christian Faith throughout thy realm.

Exalting Christ above all, Olav the king abolished the vile sacrifices and laws of the pagans, for he acknowledged none other God than the Lord.

Thou didst take possession of Norway, which was given thee by the Lord our God, O holy one, that His light might shine forth upon all thy people.

Theotokion: Enlightened by the grace whereof thou art full, O holy Queen, we call upon thee, the fount of loving-kindness: Shine forth the light of God upon us all!
http://www.orthodoxengland.btinternet.co.uk/servolav.htm

'didst thou wisely spread report of the one God' should here be read as: beat the hell out of any dissenting voice.
'thou didst shine forth the light of the Christian Faith throughout thy realm' should be read as: snipped off the head of anybody not having the correct beard length
'Thou didst take possession of Norway' should be read as: more or less operated out of the very undemocratic principle that one has the right to kill all dissent because ... one has the right

If anyone's interested:

http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?fk_files=25354&pageno=1

Religious tolerance is something you don't see on this board unless you discuss islam.

when the pope's church was burning scientists.

The Byzantines, who had been subjected to a number of Muslim jihads and been on the wrong end of the Fourth Crusade, never really accepted the concept that waging war against your fellow man was a route to salvation. Maybe Paleologos had a point. It is a shame it has taken the Catholic Church nearly a thousand years to recognise this fact.

it just seems like a one-sided attack on Islam and did not mention violence in other religions.

Personally I think it's time for there to be presidential type debate between major religious leaders.

In re Debate

just like in a presidential debate we could find what out the stances are of various religions on different issues - first-hand.

but isn't the nature of a debate trying to prove &/or disprove certain issues?
It'd be interesting to see delineated what each religion held as tenets, especially comparatively, but wouldn't --if they actually happened-- this just cause more turmoil in the "I'm right, you're wrong" arena?

I'm not tryiny to be argumentative, the idea is fascinating... it's just that in reality it probably wouldn't have a very happy outcome :/

Take care! :)

They were not above waging brutal wars nor were they unwilling to fight to defend their religion. What they did not accept was the concept of 'Holy War' in which killing those of a different faith somehow offered a speedy route to paradise. These ideas seem peculiar to the Crusading ideology of the Catholic West or the concept of jihad in Islam.

on this one. I don't really know enough about the Byzantines or the concept of Jihad to speculate.