muslims PART 2

[Butterbeer]

Indeed, Hector. Where is the voice of the 'moderate muslims'?

Cum tacent clamant

[Spock]

[Butterbeer]

When they remain silent, they cry out

[Spock]

Tybb

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

The Pope did not say that. Did you read the address?

The pope didn’t “include comments about about muslims being violent and islam being barbaric in his speech”? Now did I qualify that as far as whether it was in a reference to another text or not Gwaimir?

To rule the Christian people, and ultimately to bring all people together. But what the hell would you know about the Pope? Or why would you care? I would wager you've yet to say a good word about him.

Well my dear boy if his role is as you say to “bring all people together” then you are agreeing with me then aren’t you. And again how does saying things, even things technically justifiable from an older text serve to that end? In fact it does just the opposite.

Why do you claim that?

Because you cant claim to be attempting to “bring all the people together” and yet say things that for whatever reason… justifiable or not… aggravates half the people.

This is an absolutely false characterization. Don't just vomit venomous generalizations, back them up.

Should we really get back into the dated "God's rottweiler" discussion? And frankly when we were talking about that back when he was first elected I was one of the ones saying well we should give him a chance at least. So please don’t lump me in with the church haters thanks…

The problem is that since his election he has shown to be very unlike John Paul in delivery if not in substance. And frankly when yer the pope its all about delivery. He chooses to speak directly TO different religions and philosophies in a way that characterizes them as being less then Christianity (or Catholicism) and not worth following:

"(The church has been shaken by) numerous ideological currents. The boat has been unanchored by these waves, thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, up to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and on and on. An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelty."

Frankly I take some offense in that myself thank you. You wouldn’t hear this kind of accusatory ‘us against them’ delivery from John Paul. He would come to the very same notion in a way that didn’t make you feel like he was belittling you and the way you think. THAT’S what Im talking about…

I'm guessing, "He'll deserve it".

Only from those brainwashed enough to actually think that.

[Butterbeer]

You wouldn’t hear this kind of accusatory ‘us against them’ delivery from John Paul

or Ringo neither.

*imagines ... if we had a church of england archbishop as pope .... *

yes, yes...Gwai .... i once had to explain (incredulously) to this really religious methodist mate ( nice bloke) in a pub what the whole thing about Rangers and Celtic was about ... (Glaswegian footie teams btw)

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The pope didn’t “include comments about about muslims being violent and islam being barbaric in his speech”? Now did I qualify that as far as whether it was in a reference to another text or not Gwaimir?

He did not say that they are. Now, he quote Emperor Manuel saying the former, but I didn't read "barbaric".

Well my dear boy if his role is as you say to “bring all people together” then you are agreeing with me then aren’t you.

On that point, though you drastically oversimplify.

And again how does saying things, even things technically justifiable from an older text serve to that end? In fact it does just the opposite.

Again, did you read the address.

Because you cant claim to be attempting to “bring all the people together” and yet say things that for whatever reason… justifiable or not… aggravates half the people.

1) Muslims are not "half" the people.
2) He did not, I expect, intend to aggravate.
3) The derogatory comments which were quoted, not agreed with (he specifically stated that he disagreed with Manuel), were all merely tools he used to get into the discussion of faith and violence, and to say that a "holy war" is contrary to God's nature. If you say something, intending to promote peace and condemn religious violence, and people take it as insulting, that's their problem, not yours.

Should we really get back into the dated "God's rottweiler" discussion? And frankly when we were talking about that back when he was first elected I was one of the ones saying well we should give him a chance at least. So please don’t lump me in with the church haters thanks…

It's clear that you are one now. In fact, as long as I've known you, you've had very little positive to say about the Church at all, whether or not you wanted to give Benedict a chance, to see if just maybe he would declare ex cathedra that Catholicism is actually false, and will everyone please go home.

The problem is that since his election he has shown to be very unlike John Paul in delivery if not in substance.

That's a problem? Even granted that John Paul's delivery was good (which I think it wasn't; it tended to be too ambiguous), that doesn't mean that it's the only good way.

And frankly when yer the pope its all about delivery.

And you know this from your long tenure as Pope? Or is it from your careful studying of the lives and careers of the Popes?

He chooses to speak directly TO different religions and philosophies in a way that characterizes them as being less then Christianity (or Catholicism) and not worth following:

Sorry Jack, that's dogma.

"(The church has been shaken by) numerous ideological currents. The boat has been unanchored by these waves, thrown from one extreme to the other: from Marxism to liberalism, up to libertinism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague religious mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism, and on and on. An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelty."

Frankly I take some offense in that myself thank you.

What exactly do you find offensive? Can you give us something more concrete that a vague "us against them" delivery?

You wouldn’t hear this kind of accusatory ‘us against them’ delivery from John Paul. He would come to the very same notion in a way that didn’t make you feel like he was belittling you and the way you think. THAT’S what Im talking about…

As if you didn't belittle others. How hypocritical.

Originally Posted by BB

*imagines ... if we had a church of england archbishop as pope .... *

Ringo was an archbishop?

I'm a wee confused, BB; what exactly did you have to explain about the Celtic/Ranger debacle, and what is the relation to our current topic?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

oops...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think what YOU ignore is the fact that you cant make sweeping general statements about MUSLIMS as a single monolithic entity and turn around and complain when some get pissy and act like children and get riled up by extremists to the point of being foolish and loud. Not to mention lumping those same folks in with the burning of churches and the shooting of a nun.

1) You're right.
2) What exactly is wrong about lumping these extremists with the extremists who shot the nun, etc.?

[hectorberlioz]

[

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I believe my exact words were “superior hard ass popes who take digs at non Christians”. If you get the above from that wording youll need to work on your remedial reading skills I think.

I think not, Irex, since your mentality seems to be that whoever says it deserves it. And since the pope said it, he's obviously causing all this strife!, Right?

So you agree that they have been criticized then from this statement clearly.

Well let's see...there was a lot of violence and flag burning earlier this year...

But your contention is that despite that, they should use this as an opportunity not to react and keep quiet?

I'm saying that if they're so peace-loving, they're sure as heck doing a great job of showing it...

How convenient… But nevermind that hypocrisy. I think what YOU ignore is the fact that you cant make sweeping general statements about MUSLIMS as a single monolithic entity and turn around and complain when some get pissy and act like children and get riled up by extremists to the point of being foolish and loud.

I made the "sweeping" statements AFTER they "got pissy". And this too, why is it that if this violence is "just the terrorists", in Iraq why can't our guys get them? I'll tell you why!...Because they know them! If you didn't notice, the same Iraqis that we're helping out over there are the same ones who were cheering Hezbollah on! You always seem to want to splash gray when it's the evil US, but when it comes to Muslims, no, it's the black terrorists and White non-terrorists.

Not to mention lumping those same folks in with the burning of churches and the shooting of a nun. Blaming “MUSLIMS” for that is kind of like blaming “CHRISTIANS” for protesting against gays at military funerals. Guess what gets all the press…

Well, were the people at the funeral Christian or not? You seem to think that I can only condemn either the whole world or just some cute little nutcase.

Protesting? You are condemning them for protesting? For real? This from an American?

Well obviously now it's you who need the remedial! It's pretty obivous that the "protests" went beyond just that...but I wasn't going to lump ALL the protesters as violent , so I just settled for "Protesters"

Even if you feel they are mistaken or being over the top surely you cant really hold someone in contempt for marching and waving signs and protesting and such.

Shooting a Nun is freedom of expression, I understand .

Isn’t that a basic right here in ameirca? To protest even conceivable silly thing possible in the name of free speech? Do you really truly expect EVERY muslim to just shut up about it even if they (right or wrong) felt slighted by the speech?

Don't quote free speech to me when you've been critisizing the Pope for speaking the truth? He's evil now, for "free speech", but they...holy they...

what you should be condemning is the few barbaric incidents like the burning of churches and the killing of the nun. But THESE were done by extremist wack jobs and shouldn’t be labeled as standard muslim action which you are doing by lumping them all together.

What you say is that I should spend my whole time dancing the jig of political correctness.

The violence of the protesting, the vicious signs: they bring out what the Pope was talking about in the first place!!! Those whack jobs weren't real Muslims, I know...they didn't mingle with the real Muslims, I know. It's just BLACK & WHITE. But damn me for being so forthright!

He should absolutely worry about when he quotes a text!

Yeah, he really should. Allow me to rephrase: "he shouldn't have to worry about violence when he quotes a text, except in Muslim cases. For even though not all Muslims kill when they protest, some do."

Are you kidding? Hes the pope for godsake! Not some private citizen. He needs to wary of every single syllable of every single word he ever says because he is the very living symbol of a religion for better or for worse.

He is the leader of the Catholic Church....there is no way he was ever supposed to be the leader of world religion. You aren't suggesting that because of someone's extreme popularity that they are the leaders of that in the whole world, are you? Bin Laden is leader of the entire Islamic World?

More so then any president or prime minister or ambassador what the pope says is crucial and impactful beyond degree in this world. He needs to think

---‘you know, even though I don’t agree with this sentiment Im not going to say this because it will only give extremists and fundamentalists fodder to do exactly what it is Im striving against’----

Roundabout way of saying he's not going to say it

. He needs to use his head and realize that every common man around the world is not a clever intellectual who will study the speech and hear what he is saying but will get information second and third hand by people with an axe to ground and motivation to wreak havoc and will react in a bad way.

So you're admitting...?

Perhaps you want to call this being politically correct and perhaps to you being able to say what you want is worth the threat of an all out global conflict between the east and the west where millions could die.

This is the real nonsense. It's quite the opposite, it's the political correctness of our age that is bringing us into the hands of radical Islam in the first place! This is how they're winning! You keep saying that as soon as we think something Bin Laden is going to mind read us; well I submit to you, he doesn't have to: He's playing the PC media up over the "death of civilians", the alleged ruthlessness of our soldiers ---and glory of glory? They conveniently don't allow autopsies ...and we're forced, through political correctness to "value their culture" ...and we're left not proving for sure that one our soldiers raped her! And yet they dare to call for his death!---

It's Bin Laden's game all right...

Personally I don’t feel that way. I think you should be the bigger man if you have the opportunity. Even if it means ‘giving in’ a little and being careful what you say or do. I think winning a point in a debate at the at the expense of others lives makes a person a small minded selfish fool.

Dancing frantically to please the enemy is only going to amuse them...I don't ever recall it working in other wars...

Ive hardly lumped all the blame on the pope. I think I have faulted the pope for not being careful about what he said and faulted the extremists for being hypocrites and murderers and lunatics deserving of annihilation.

Umm...no. I think you have. Remember, he started it all...he who says it, deserves hell.

Now please explain to me how that is “lumping all the blame on the pope” exactly?

Simple, you simply make all muslims out to be innocents who don't have a temper, and then you make the pope say something naughty to upset poor baby...and when poor baby gets upset...

Oh that’s right if I mention ANYTHING about the popes actions in this it means Im giving him ALL the blame in your eyes… I forgot…

Hey, it's kinda how I feel when you say I'm generalising ALL muslims etc...

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Ringo was an archbishop?

I'm a wee confused, BB; what exactly did you have to explain about the Celtic/Ranger debacle, and what is the relation to our current topic?

the Church of England hushed it up ... he was once overheard muttering (with albeit impeccable scouse delivery) something about ... " well - ya never knows ... maybe there is a god, like ..."

now this would have opened up a can of theological worms for the Church of England ...

Celtic = catholic ... Rangers = protestant -tis the sectarian divide (hence i was saying, yes gwai ..i know .... a C of E Pope isn't gonna happen ... )


Related to the topic?

You got me there! But like all sequels, they tend to go down hill anyway ...

what exactly is this thread about anyway? (seriously)

best, BB

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The pope didn’t “include comments about about muslims being violent and islam being barbaric in his speech”? Now did I qualify that as far as whether it was in a reference to another text or not Gwaimir?

What Gwai meant, and it should be fairly clear: was that the Pope was reading someone else's opinions. He had also said they did not reflect his own...but don't tell that last bit to the Muslims world, or CNN won't have anything to cover!

Well my dear boy if his role is as you say to “bring all people together” then you are agreeing with me then aren’t you. And again how does saying things, even things technically justifiable from an older text serve to that end? In fact it does just the opposite.

Tell us how...

Because you cant claim to be attempting to “bring all the people together” and yet say things that for whatever reason… justifiable or not… aggravates half the people.

I'm really wondering about Turkey now...why don't they just outright condemn the pope and cancel his speech tour?
Heck, why don't we just nab Ahmadinjihad when comes over here? Komeini too while we're at it...and maybe Jiminiy Carter too.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

If you haven't heard any 'voice of moderate muslims' by now, I take it the media has not found those quite so interesting as people shouting death threats.

On another note, if I were a moderate muslim I'd also be sick as hell by now of constant having to defend my religion against people of other faiths because some terrorists try to hijack my religion for their own agenda.

How deeply ironic, non-Americans think our media is baised... the other way around!

Actually Earniel, if you know our media, they usually try to overbalance balancing. They'll get one conservative who sounds like a dolt, and ten liberal professors to "give both points of views".

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

in the same way that the Christians are all peodophile priests, is stating a fact?

Is the fact that pedophile priests are christians, undeniable? It is. Is the fact that Muslims get violent, in word or deed, undeniable? It is.

But most people seem to think that I mean can condemn only the whole world at one time...

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Falagar

Oh, they're around. They just don't get or crave so much screen-time.

Well it's darned time they start!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Is the fact that pedophile priests are christians, undeniable? It is. Is the fact that Muslims get violent, in word or deed, undeniable? It is.

But most people seem to think that I mean can condemn only the whole world at one time...

Is the fact that not ALL christians are pedophile priests undeniable? It is.

Is the fact that NOT ALL Muslims get violent, in word or deed, undeniable? It is.

not a biggie this Hec , but i think it is worth being clear ... else, meant or not it looks exactly like the hatred and intolerance pedalled by the islamic fascists against the west.

You are saying (in the current form that you continue to put it) that my Muslim work colleague is a violent zealot - and he is not, nor his wife nor kids ...you imply if you actually do not bother to rephrase it that Serenoli is as well.

I see no evidence of Serenoli threatening you with violence.

I'd say just be careful to taint everyone with the same brush - Did not Hitler do the same to the jews? Just because fanatical muslims may do it does not make it right.

Nor ubiquitous.



best, BB

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Well it's darned time they start!

Well, "I think violence isn't the solution" just doesn't quite compete with "Kill the Pope! Kill all Catholics! This is another attack from the american-zionist-Santa Claus-conspiracy in their crusade against the Prophet's people" in our media-world.

Her's a list of various reactions.

Considering there are 1 billion muslims around and only a few of them have burned any churches yet, I think it's safe to assume most muslims aren't that inclined to violence.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How deeply ironic, non-Americans think our media is baised... the other way around!

No, actually, both ways.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

[...]While the response of first-world Muslims has been more mild, this does seem to be largely true of the third-worlders.

I always wondered whether it had anything to do with how those people are informed. Some regions barely have any international news broadcasts but they'll know who insulted the islam again before the day's done. We may know that the pope was quoting somebody else, but how was the news brought on the many different islamic channels. I'm betting some part of those protesters hardly knew the context of the speech. And I bet some were just looking for any excuse to kick up some dust.

A sarcastic part of my mind is waiting for the moment someone's gonna stand up and declare to the world that all muslims are short-tempered, have no sense of humour and are prone to over-react. It would be... interesting to see the hotheads' reaction. I can already imagine one jumping up saying: "That's not true! Hang the infidel! We demand apologies, we... oh, wait a sec..."

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

How deeply ironic, non-Americans think our media is baised... the other way around!

Actually Earniel, if you know our media, they usually try to overbalance balancing. They'll get one conservative who sounds like a dolt, and ten liberal professors to "give both points of views".

No offence, but I'm getting rather tired of being pushed in the 'non-american so doesn't know what she's talking about corner'. I'm open for debate, not gratuit judgements on what I may or may not know or think. I had hoped we had moved on beyond that point.

And on a personal note, Hector, given all the mails we traded, I kinda had expected better from you.

So before you go accusing me of anything, I'll haver you know that I was including my own national media in my statement. You used the word bias, not me. If there is any bias of the media I had in mind, than it was the preference of ANY media to go for the sensational topics, not the quiet, rational ones. Do you disagree with me on that?

[EDIT: Merged with existant thread of same name]

[Gwaimir Windgem]

now this would have opened up a can of theological worms for the Church of England ...

Yeah...no wonder they hushed it up...

Celtic = catholic ... Rangers = protestant -tis the sectarian divide (hence i was saying, yes gwai ..i know .... a C of E Pope isn't gonna happen ... )

I'm aware that Celtic was Catholic, and Ranger Protestant... are you saying you had to explain there WAS such a divide? That Catholic and Protestant are not the same thing?

Related to the topic?

You got me there! But like all sequels, they tend to go down hill anyway ...

what exactly is this thread about anyway? (seriously)

Currently, the Pope's comments regarding Muslims.