Originally posted by AllianceWhy does he have to speak of Chirstian violence to be able to justify him speaking of Muslim violence? Sure, there are plenty of Christian atrocities throughout history to speak of, but the difference here is that Christians seemed to have, for the most part, stopped their violent ways. There are a select few psychos that still want to kill abortion doctors and whatnot, but the bottom line is the general Christian populace don't riot in the streets anytime anyone says or does something they disagree with.
I guess the bottom line is, Benedict didn't need to quote that passage...he never really spoke out against Christian violence. WHile I think the Muslime communities reaction is unjustified...I think Benedict made a poor choice.
Today's issue is not Christian violence, it's Muslim violence. So for him to address this issue by bringing up the flaws of Christianity, he'd be pussyfooting around the real issue at hand. Which is, apparently, what the Muslim world has come to expect.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I disagree, Sam. It's not everyones duty to watch their mouth so Muslims or any other group is not insulted. But that is a problem all religions have, the Islam just portrays it most obvious recently. I don't get how you can be one of the world religions, but still be offended all the time. It just sounds like no fun at all. Anyways, what the pope wanted to say (and if you are not a Muslim also did say) was very true and intelligent. Religious aggression from which side ever is not necessary or acceptable.The Muslims demanding an apology is ridiculous. Religion should be treated like everything else and as such also be subject to criticism.
Exactly....it's against Muslim Law to even portray Muhammed...one can get killed for that, and those extremists may send another fkn plane to hit another one of our New York buildings...
Sam, you know you and I are cool, however, in many parts of the Arab world, the extremism is so absurd, it makes Christian extremism look like a joke...(which it already is, but u know what i mean) 😉
question for everyone:
why do you think a lot of muslims are reacting like this?
Like, just as an example.. if someone was acting really defensive, what would you suspect is going on?
I mean, their is an explanation for what is happening here... its not like angry militant islam just appeared out of thin air.
This is something that I think the pope would or should be aware of... the history of the region, how things came to be.. how things perpetuate.... and how his words are going to be viewed.... I'm not saying nobody should ever say anything bad about islam, but I guess am having trouble understanding what exactly the purpose behind his words were...
If you want to make a point about how faith and violence do not go together thats all fine and dandy.. but it might not be so great an idea to single out another religion when your the pope...for one thing, I think we all know catholicism has no leg to stand on when critizing islam or any other religion for that matter about violence. Plus, look at whats happening in the world right now...wether you like it or not, thats reality...and a lot of muslims (understandably) are probably feeling very vulnerable right now... and when in a vulnerable place, human beings can be much more easily put on the defensive, be manipulated, victimized, and led along.....its common knowledge that in times of crisis people look for support. Often times people choose to join a religion or choose to be more pious...or perhaps join a religious group with a very extremist view point....can you really pass judgement on them for this?
So then you have the pope who decides to publicy pick out and criticize islam ... islam, the only support some of these people have in these communitys... just for example, after the ceasefire went into effect with isreal and lebanon, it was hezbollah that started rebuilding lebanons infrastructure and making sure people had water, electricty and so forth while the actual government of lebanon did very little.....
The pope really should understand this...his words are simply adding fuel to the fire...
If he really understood then he would not have said what he did IMO.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
Why does he have to speak of Chirstian violence to be able to justify him speaking of Muslim violence? Sure, there are plenty of Christian atrocities throughout history to speak of, but the difference here is that Christians seemed to have, for the most part, stopped their violent ways. There are a select few psychos that still want to kill abortion doctors and whatnot, but the bottom line is the general Christian populace don't riot in the streets anytime anyone says or does something they disagree with.Today's issue is not Christian violence, it's Muslim violence. So for him to address this issue by bringing up the flaws of Christianity, he'd be pussyfooting around the real issue at hand. Which is, apparently, what the Muslim world has come to expect.
Given the innate sensitivity of todays environment and his powerful role as a very public and obviously Christian leader. He needs to choose his words more carefully.
I live in the US, a nation that is 75% christian. Given loose correlation, 75% of religious crimes in the US are commited by Chirstians. There si still stuff to talk about, and it makes you seem much more correct and unbiased.
Originally posted by goatstradamus
question for everyone:
why do you think a lot of muslims are reacting like this?
Originally posted by Alliance
Because there is clearly an agenda to isolate the Islamic nations, consolidating government around Islam and removing the (often detramental) influence of "Western" nations.There is also a great percieved hatred of Islam by Christianity, likely due a lot to the US invasion. This sort os statement just reinforces that, its almost like they expect it.
Originally posted by Bardock42
But why is the view with less proof protected, while my believe in something really ****ing likely can be ridiculed all it wants? Why do I only get taken seriously if I believe in a ****ing invisible man that tells me what to do?
It probably protected because for thousands of years no being had an explantion for rain, wind, the simplest of elements. There was a time when people couldn't scientificly prove things. It was just some omnipotent being controlling things.
Originally posted by Zero25
It probably protected because for thousands of years no being had an explantion for rain, wind, the simplest of elements. There was a time when people couldn't scientificly prove things. It was just some omnipotent being controlling things.
So? Now we can explain thing sscientifically. We don't need to protect believes in invisible man. No need.
Originally posted by Zero25
Probably? But maybe its that lack of proof that god is a being that makes people want to see the scientific theory more and more.
Fair enough. I don't care if God exists or not. That'S not the point. The point is, why should some very unlikely belief be protected by our secular laws?
Originally posted by AllianceI live in the US too, however the Pope does not and it's given that he is speaking on a global scale in general so as far as he'd concerned, Muslim extremism is the most common. You can tie in the whole "hey, we're just as bad" speech in order to avoid offence if you choose to, however it is far from necessary to the point he was trying to prove. He chose not to make the formality of putting his own religion down to prove a point about another religion, and his point still stands. It's pretty much standard for people to say "well Christians are just as bad as Muslims" but on a whole they really aren't just as bad, not even close.
Given the innate sensitivity of todays environment and his powerful role as a very public and obviously Christian leader. He needs to choose his words more carefully.I live in the US, a nation that is 75% christian. Given loose correlation, 75% of religious crimes in the US are commited by Chirstians. There si still stuff to talk about, and it makes you seem much more correct and unbiased.
Maybe he didn't want to avoid offense. Perhaps the strongest point he made was in the reaction of the Muslim populace rather than in his actual words.
Originally posted by Afro Cheese
I live in the US too, however the Pope does not and it's given that he is speaking on a global scale in general so as far as he'd concerned, Muslim extremism is the most common. You can tie in the whole "hey, we're just as bad" speech in order to avoid offence if you choose to, however it is far from necessary to the point he was trying to prove. He chose not to make the formality of putting his own religion down to prove a point about another religion, and his point still stands. It's pretty much standard for people to say "well Christians are just as bad as Muslims" but on a whole they really aren't just as bad, not even close.Maybe he didn't want to avoid offense. Perhaps the strongest point he made was in the reaction of the Muslim populace rather than in his actual words.
HA. Then apparentyl both the Pope and you need a crash course in diplomacy. Muslim-Christian tensions are too high right now to be able to absorb this crap.
Originally posted by Alliance
HA. Then apparentyl both the Pope and you need a crash course in diplomacy. Muslim-Christian tensions are too high right now to be able to absorb this crap.
Bullshit. He points out something very true. No reason to shut up, jsut cause Islamists are indeed crazy killers. They behave the way he said people should not behave just proving what he said. Idiots.
Originally posted by Alliance
As a leader, you job is to be diplomatic. A direct attack will do nothing to imporve the situation.If he wants to be productive, he should meet with the Ayatollahs.
Yeah and to be diplomatic includes to confront where confrontation is necessary. It's not a "Oh my God they could be offended" job. You think it will do nothing...he apparently thinks different.
What for? That would accomplish...err...nothing.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah and to be diplomatic includes to confront where confrontation is necessary. It's not a "Oh my God they could be offended" job. You think it will do nothing...he apparently thinks different.What for? That would accomplish...err...nothing.
If the pope offends everyone, people won't think he's a bigot singling out/calling for the destruction of a specific religion.
The meeting would at least be symbolic. ANd you don't know if it would accomplish anything or not.