I gotta stay out of those "Pope" threads

Can't even give a straight answer and before you know it, the sky is falling.

My fingers have itched to hit the keyboard, but I don't want to go there. Impossible to discuss
it reasonably.

His comments don't appear to have been well thought-out on that one, and there was bound to be
a reaction from many quarters. It's certainly given heaps of fuel to the anti-Catholic brigade.

I must admit, I don't know what he thought he was going to achieve.

YOu say anything that might be taken the wrong way and the muslims hit the streets and start burning churches and synagogues. What a shame when innocent people die because of a misspoken word or phrase.

Not the best time to make such a comment (not that there would be any appropriate time what-so-ever.)

He may be infallible but he sure made a boo-boo.

You're probably all sick of hearing about it by now, but reading the actual text is an option I didn't find in any other paper. See the following link.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pope/story/0,,1873277,00.html

There are several things about this that particularly bother me. In the global sense, the riots do no good to the Muslim world, one way or another. Secondly, the pope is being criticized -- and violence is threatened -- for quoting another person, not for making a statement indicating agreement with the quote. Thirdly, I really can't help but think much of the reaction was whipped up, as happened with the Danish cartoons (though in that case, the riots followed long after the actual publication of the offensive material).

Once you mention something, they always come back to the crusades and the Inquisition like they happened, just, yesterday.
Ninety percent of it is just, plain, anti-Catholic diatribes, saying the same thing over and over again.

I think I'll stay out of those threads from now on.

If you want to read a more nuanced approach, check out these two op-eds from The Washington Post today. I should note that E.J. Dionne is both a Catholic and a liberal. Both of them make some good points, with Applebaum in particular noting some inconsistencies in the Muslim world (and elsewhere) regarding what is truly hate speech/propaganda. This could help you frame your arguments/discussion.

Anne Applebaum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800992.html

E.J. Dionne:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/18/AR2006091800993.html

I understand where Benedict was coming from, but I think perhaps because he himself takes a purely
intellectual approach, he expects that everyone else will too. Unfortunately, I think many Muslims
react from the gut, and the people on the street are very easily lead by their mullahs into taking
action without any comprehension of the issues.

Given the highly inflammable situation all around the ME at this time, Benedict's remarks were an
error of judgment on his part, while being essentially true. And we can't deny that the Catholic
Church itself does have a history of intolerance, violence and bloodshed - it does make it hard to
argue the point with those who have an anti-Catholic bias, so I resisted the temptation to try.

with links to Benedict's speech and other articles.

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=84185&eng=y

I've read and re-read his speech, and I still think it was an error of judgment on his part, but I
wonder how much of the trouble really comes from the fact that in Islam, there is no room for
religious philosophy as we understand it, because religious leaders contend that all truth is
contained in the Quoran, is absolute, and is therefore not open to debate. Even respected Islamic
scholars have been attacked by the mullahs throughout history for opening up debates that offended
the sensibilities of the religious leaders.

Wikipedia has a good section on Islamic Philosophy, although it's limited of necessity:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Philosophy#Main_protagonists_of_falsafa_and_their_critics

I'm a long way from truly comprehending it, but it seems to me that the Islamic religious leaders
still exercise the kind of control that the Church used to exercise over its flock, in the days
before universal education. Is it coincidence that Iraq, which under Saddam had the highest
standards of education in the Muslim world, was a secular Islamic society? Saddam never allowed
the mullahs to exercise the kind of power they now enjoy, and that seemed to suit the people too.

Perhaps the Pope was genuinely trying to open up a dialogue and misunderstood the dynamics operating
within the Muslim religious hierarchy, or perhaps he was being deliberately provocative for some
reason. He's certainly not a fool, so I really don't know what to make of it.

And what other reaction did he and the rest of the world expect? Why throw one more match on the spilled gasoline? I just saw on LBN that Pell in Australia is saying, "See? This is EXACTLY what the Pope was talking about," in reference to some in the religion calling for a jihad. This DU criticism, while falling back on the old anti-Catholic rhetoric, is wholly justified, in my opinion.

Not a stellar moment in Benedict's papacy, at the very least.

As for me, I'm finding it hard to stay out of another LBN thread about John Kerry professing his faith in a speech at Pepperdine University. I see nothing wrong with his comments whatsoever.

according to some far lefties on Du. Its seems we have the complete opposite of the far right, on this board.