I am confused by the reaction.... - statements by the Pope....

punkeemunkee'smom wrote: I am confused by the amount of anger that the Pope's address has ignited. He simply quoted a historical conversation that seems to be proven out in the fact that all he said is Muhamad spread his religion by the sword. Now the Muslims are angry and saying that they will take over the west and if you don't convert to Islam you will 'die by the sword...' It doesn't sound like the Pope said anything that was untrue...If you as a religon have a 'head-tax' that you charge to conquered people or you behead them...why is it surprising or angering if someone points that out??? They say on the one hand Islam is non-violent but yet in the statement issued warns of nothing but violence Am I missing something? Did he say something else that this article does not mention? I heard about the controversy this weekend but have yet to hear that the Pope said anything that should have brought on this kind of reaction.


Jihad will go on.

jem0622 replied: It's unfortunate, but some groups within various religious sects feel that if you do not convert to their faith then nothing else is acceptible. I do think there are Muslims who did appreciate the Pope taking that step in acknowledging mis-steps and recognizing suffering and trial amongst the Muslims. He tried to be as neutral as possible.

jcc64 replied: I think we've learned right here in our tiny little corner of the universe that speaking about someone else's religious beliefs is an opportunity for controversy, right or wrong. You also have to keep in mind that there are many people involved in these jihads that are heavily invested in fanning the flames of Western hatred- who knows if the Pope's exact words were delivered to the masses accurately, kwim?
I freely admit that I know practically nothing about Islam. I read a fascinating article in The New Yorker last week that addressed the issue of the call to violence in the Koran, and how that can be reconciled with the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. It requires a pretty sophisticated knowledge of the history of Muhammad, and his vastly different revelations in Mecca and Medina. I would implore anyone interested in the subject to pick up the Sept 11 issue of the New Yorker. The article is called "The Modern Martyr" by George Packer. I learned ALOT about this very subject, but the article is very dense, 10 pages long, and there's no way I could do it justice.
Suffice to say- it's pretty easy to see how the call to arms is the conclusion many end up drawing- but I'm not sure that was the original intention. Make any sense?

CantWait replied: These are muslim extremistes. Precisily the reason our troops are having such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan.

amynicole21 replied: While it's true that those weren't the Pope's words but an ancient emperor that he was quoting, I can see where this would anger Muslims:

"He said, I quote, '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,'" he quoted the emperor as saying."

He could have picked a less inflammatory quote in my opinion.

luvbug00 replied: IMO I think in thease times the muslim community is still fighting the sterotype after 9/11 and all the harm from the extremeists and This I would see would be seen as a set back ( if you will) to them. No reason to harm anyone but reason to be angry.

mom2my2cuties replied: I think the reaction to what the Pope said - is that your "average" muslim family is fighting against prejudice left and right because of 9/11 and extremists and they are the ones who are hurt the most by statements like this. The jihadists, they don't take so much offense, but they do use it to fuel thier cause because the average muslim family is hurt by it. (personal opinion there)

That being said - The Pope DID apologize.

CantWait replied:
You know I would see that they would be angry, they have every reason to be, but I don't think it's the average muslim that is taking it out of text. If that were the case then churches in muslim countries wouldn't be being burned as we speak.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: I know that the extremists in any group (religious in nature or not) are the ones who seem to yell with the loudest voice and therefore garner the most attention. Yet I also feel that in the case of such brutality (the beheadings and suicide bombings,etc.) that there should be a greater outcry of abhorance from the Muslims who do not condone such actions. Just like I can not say why the pope chose this quote,I do not know his heart, I can not see why the statement that was issued in response threatened mass violence. I think it is hard for us to realize in our country that the extremists want nothing more than a repeat of Sept.11 over and over again. That is not how our minds work here(in most cases) We as a nation do not always agree with our neighbor but it is not the usual response to behead them ...



ITA with that! The masses may not hear the truth of what was said...I have often wondered that very thing. Do we know for sure that the translation is correct? I am sure that things have been added or left out in translation many times before...Thank you for the article info too. I will read it!

jcc64 replied: One of my very best gf's is married to an Algerian gentleman, who keeps in touch with the old country via his digital cable system, which has more than one Arabic station. I can tell you with certainty that the news on those channels is NOT reported the same way it is here. Alot of public opinion, on both sides of the equation, is influenced by inflammatory delivery of the "news".

punkeemunkee'smom replied:
Oh I have absolutely NO doubt that the media machine on both sides of the line is to blame for many a 'misquote' on not so accident!

Nina J replied:

I think there probably are alot of Muslims who are opposed to such violence, but people are being informed by the media (mostly). A story about the violence is going to sell more and be viewed by more people. I think there are alot of Muslims who don't condone the actions we're seeing, we just don't get to hear there opinions. I think they should get together and show there disapproval as a larger group, it would gain attention.

But, I don't think it would stop the fanatic's from doing the things they are.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: All I have to say is: If you hate the West, its practices and religions, then STAY IN THE EAST.

jcc64 replied: Yeah, but Rocky, the whole reason Osama bin Laden went after us in the first place is explicitly b/c we went THERE. They oppose our military presence in their holy lands. They want us out of there. They don't want to come here, and they don't want us there. I am by no means defending him, or radical Islam or jihadis, or anything of the kind. But we at least have an obligation to understand the root of the conflict.

mom2my2cuties replied: Jeanne - They do oppose us being there, no denying that. But I don't think it maters about that so much, they have ALWAYS hated the West and the western teachings, and have never denied that from the beginning, they have felt that it is thier duty to kill western influences (and Amercian's in particular)

jcc64 replied:

I think this is a vast understatement, Tish. While there is a long standing contempt of Western ideology in general (the Crusades will do that to you, along with some inflammatory and easily exploited passages in the Koran), our military presence in Saudi Arabia, site of the holiest of their shrines, is cited as the main reason for al Queda's war against the US. There are of course a host of other issues, but you cannot minimize this one point. It's central to the conflict.

mom2my2cuties replied: I think you misunderstood what I was saying I know our being there fuels the jihadists fire. I do believe they have hated us however, long before desert storm, long before our bases were there, long before Operation Freedom.

I believe Al Queda (forgive me if I spell that wrong - there are so many different spellings that I'm not sure which is correct) will use any excuse available to justify the killing of Americans. Not only our presence over there, but anything they can find.

jcc64 replied: I don't think we can ever overestimate the depth of their hatred of us. Some of it we have no control over, but some of it we do. Our hands are not clean either, is all that I'm trying to say.
I think we more or less agree, anyway.

mom2my2cuties replied: I think so...I don't think the US is completely blameless, mostly because of that old saying about the finger pointing thing.


I had an instructor once, who was talking to us about the jihadists. (He had family members active in the Taliban) and he provided some interesting insights into thier beliefs, and honestly though, some of it is pretty twisted.

jcc64 replied: I will never accept or understand how religion can be perverted into an instrument of death and destruction, but it's been happening that way since the beginning of time. Very few organized religions are exempt from that tendency- which is basically why I don't belong to one.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Jeanne~You are correct in the fact that many religions have been twisted and used people used as pawns in the desire for power,land,money.etc ... It is the bane of human exsistance-the hunger for power...I can look (and have) to people in the churchs of today and use their hypocracy as an excuse as to why I do not attend a service regularly. The base fact still remains for me that God is not changed by the way people use His teachings to futher their own carnal desires. I think any time we look to people for pure examples of the teachings (I will speak about Christianity,since that is my belief) of Jesus we will be disappointed. All have commited sin-nobody is exempt from that- it saddens me that so many people have been hurt by people in church and take them as an example of the church as a whole-but here in the failable mind/body we all have things we wish we could take back or things we wish we had done or said kinder or better-I know you have said several times that you have tried to make yourself buy what the church is selling (loosely paraphrasing you ) I sincerely hope that in the journey you are on, the hurts of the past do not over ride the love and acceptance that I know many churchs out there do offer!

Hillbilly Housewife replied:
The US went there. Canada was obliged to follow, in order to support the US military as an ally, and to help keep the peace, since we're the "Peacekeepers". I've had many discussions about this with my dad...he's retired from the Canadian Air Forces.

If they want to come to Canada as refugees...great. Why not? I mean...they're entitled to a huge monetary supplement, free training for employment, employment opportunities since they're considered a minority, preferential treatment as to not offend and have them cry "prejudice"...

I just have a problem with them saying that they're going to "take over the West". If they don't like the way the West is... there's nothing forcing them to come here. Sure the US went there, and they want the troups out... I can't say that I blame them one bit. It's a vicious cycle of bull. One reason I don't, and never will, support Bush and his stupid war. But that's a whole nother topic.

jcc64 replied: Thank you for that, Abbie. I really appreciate it.

CantWait replied:
Canada was not obliged to go.

24 Canadians died in the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001. That is reason number 1 why we are in Afghanistan right now.

Reason #2 is the fact that many terrorist cells our using our country as their hideaway.

Canada is in Afghanistan right now to protect our way of living, our freedoms, and to make sure that we don't need to worry about who our neighbours are.

Secondly, Canada is NOT a peacekeeping nation. Our role has been strong as peacekeeper in the last 50 years, but just because you don't hear of those soldiers that are currently spread thin across the world right now doesn't make us a non-fighting country. Let's not forget the beaches of Normany, our enemies feared us in WW2, and other past wars, not as a peacekeeper but as the fighting military that we are today.

Hillbilly Housewife replied: Sorry Marie to have offended you... we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject though... we have a huge difference of opinion on the topic of military participation and I value our friendship too much to get into it.

redchief replied: How interesting this topic degenerated into a Christian vs. Islam dialogue. That had absolutely nothing to do with the Pope's speech. The quote that enflamed the Muslims was a reference to Byzantine Emperor Manuel II's dialogue with an unknown Persian debater on the reasonableness of God, and how violence in the form of jihad is contrary to that reasonableness.

The quote was used to point out that arguments over God's reasonableness or lack thereof have been debated for centuries (the quote came from a manuscript they debated back when he attended university; the Pope believes the writing dated to 1391).

The Holy See went on to speak, in very complex speech to a very intelligent group of German theologians and professors on the unreasonableness of the secular tendencies of the west... that's right, us; the liberal and overwhelmingly protestant/agnostic/atheist US and Canada. So perhaps we should be the ones raling at the Pope's speech. It was directed toward western protestant theologian insistence on dehellenizing the bible to "purify" it. The Holy Father theorized how unreasonable that was since the original manuscripts of the Bible were hellenistic on purpose, because Greek thought and language had matured at the time of St. John's writing of the New Testament's manuscripts. The quote was a good analogy, and in some ways, it was extremely timely since the whole point of the speach was to solidify the Christian tenet that God is both reasonable and loving, and his Word was not given by accident, nor was it accidental that the New Testament of the Bible was a synthesis of Greek thought and religion.

Recently, renowned protestant theologians have been increasingly attempting to advance the idea of dehellenization of the New Testament to make it "pure." The dehellenization of the Bible is the latest in a two-step series of protestant moves first set forth by Brigham Young. The Pope says this is an unreasonable conclusion for God knew of the completeness of Greek thought and language in that time, and had intended that the New Testament be understood in synthesis with Greek thought.

Pope Benedict apologized to the Muslim community because he never intended they take any offense to the referenced quote. He did not apologize, however, for using the quote as an analogy of how long discussion over God's reasonableness has been ongoing in the modern world. A full read of the speach's text reveals that the Pope believes that the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur'an (at least it's early parts) are in agreement; God is reasonable.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Thank you Ed! I was unsure as to why the quote brought about such anger from the world at large and of course the whole of his speech was not shared on the evening news I did not think that it was an inflamatory comment in the first place but your explination has cleared up any questions I had I did not post the topic to start the Christian/Muslim debate but I was hoping that someone would shed some light on the Pope's analogy and how it had gotten taken to such lengths. Thank you again

redchief replied:
What else is new?

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Oh I know -Honesty would not garner ratings but one would think when the lack of it would inflame the already rampant bloodlust they would at least give it a shot. Of course I suppose an exact read of his words would be too close to prostalitizing on national television-we can't have that

redchief replied:
Worse, I am increasingly of the mind that MSM (the media) is creating news. I don't even want to get into how angry that makes me.

punkeemunkee'smom replied: Don't watch the BBC or other European networks in that case because with the differences in some pretty major stories at times-someone is not reporting the full story and Bill and I have become more and more aware that it is not on that side of the pond where the fabrications lie...