Should the Pope apologize??

[Kendra17]

"Many Muslims disagree...."
That was my point. Sorry you missed it, Kendra. What's more, you may know the organization of the Qur'an, but you didn't explain here what the organization of the surahs are. You don't want to go into how there are multiple interpretations of the Qur'an, you just want to freak us all out by "informing" us that all Muslims are of like mind and want to slaughter us.

http://thetruereligion.org/modules/wfsection/article.php?articleid=63

http://muslim-canada.org/quran_interpretation.html



Step by step, it's easy to show you haven't a clue how to interpret the Qur'an. (Me, I leave that to the Muslims.) What's more, you don't seem to have any basis for your interpretation. You see what you want to see.

Imagine a novel written with many different chapters. Now, imagine that someone decided to organize the chapters by length only-- not by chronological time. That is how the Koran is organized. It was written chronologically but it is organized by length. This doesn't matter in this discussion, though, Laura, because one would still read it chronologically. One can still read the Koran chronologically despite it's organization.

I don't know about your personal feelings. But, would you only ask a religious Christian about Christianity? Some here seem to criticize Christianity a bit. Would a Christian be the only person you would use for information? Or, would you read some scholarly criticism about the bible and religion for a more well-informed and well-rounded view?

Likewise, reading material by nonIslamic scholars, reading the SOURCE MATERIAL itself (while reading the pages you provide stating its perfection), and reading those that were raised in Islam, yet left Islam, can be beneficial, too. One wouldn't want to be misled by just getting only the party line.

Ironically, most Christians and Christian institutions and Jews and Jewish institutions welcome intelligent analysis, criticism, and inquisitiveness. One does not necessarily find this same welcoming criticical attitude in Islam.

One cannot just read the Koran alone. One must also read the sira and the hadiths. That is the true picture of Islam.

edited to add: do you get all your scientology information from Tom Cruise and the guys up at the scientology kiosk at the mall? Or, do you read critical literature, too? Your sources should be more varied, scholarly, and critical.

 

[Fitswimmer]

There is a verse in the Bible which says, in essence, "By their fruits, ye shall know them."

Unfortunately for the Muslims who do NOT believe in violence against the infidel, the actions of those who do are the ones that we hear about. I understand that it is difficult to be considered guilty by association. According to the media and many on the left, all Catholics are ignorant and bigoted. Some are, some aren't, just like some Muslims are terrorists and some aren't.

I feel it is part of my responsibility as a Catholic to show a different face to the world than the one the media presents and speak out against intolerance for others. Why do we not hear the voices of Muslims doing the same thing??
Their complaints about the Pope would carry more weight if denunciation of the violence committed went along with it.

 

[LuvDuke]

When you can truly discuss the content and dual ethics, maybe you will actually make an intelligent debate partner. Until then. . .

If I wanted an intelligent debate partner, and not just a punchline, I wouldn't open your posts as they are a neverending source of punchlines. For a truly intelligent debate partner, there are any number of debaters, who really are intelligent and not just legends in their own mind, to choose from.

You have outted yourself again and again as seeing all Muslims as the enemy. You have outted yourself, again and again, as not knowing anything beyond the most superficial, about Islam. Your hysterics reinforce that with every word and continue to prove a quote from Martin Luther King:

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. "

No amount of backpedaling is going to change a record that is front and center.

This horse is not only dead but unrecognizable pulp. There is nothing I can say that would do any more damage to your argument and lack of intellectual prowess than what you are doing to yourself.

Take the hint: You're in a hole. Stop digging.

 

[Charade]

No, this thread's subject is whether or not the pope should apologize. You want to make it something bigger because it suits your political philosophy.

IMO, the Pope as the representative of over 1 billion Catholics, no longer has the luxury of being provocative because what he says has consequences. How a seemingly intelligent man like Pope Benedict could not see that is beyond me. Or maybe he did see and he did it anyway? I can't look into the man's heart and neither can anyone else.

As a former Catholic, I don't really give a crap if he apologizes or treats his local Muslim cleric to a weekend in Las Vegas. My point is he should never have said it all.

Now why is that so hard for you to grasp?

You have yet to realize that having a different opinion is not the same as "not grasping something".

Sure, the main point of this thread asks should the Pope apologize for what he said. You can't have an honest discussion (unless you're taking a simple yes/no poll) without talking about the context of his comments.

I asked you before (I think on this thread) if you felt when people on your side open their mouths they should be prepared for the consequences? If so, do you feel the consequences that arose from the Pope's comments were justified? Or were they "disproportionate"?

Obviously you do give a crap about it otherwise you wouldn't have posted on this thread.

 

[dcentity2000]

I find it ironic that the muslims are using violence to protest a comment made by the Pope that Islam uses evil and violent means to spread their religion. What does that say about the accuracy of the Pope's statement?

I too find it daft that there are extremists who would demand peace and respect without offering the same back, as the majority do.

A good example would be the picture of the Prophet with a bomb on his head.

As an aside, I still have the picture of the Prophet with a pizza on his head - reminds me to keep petty earthly politics in check



Rich::

 

[eclectics]

No, this thread's subject is whether or not the pope should apologize. You want to make it something bigger because it suits your political philosophy.

IMO, the Pope as the representative of over 1 billion Catholics, no longer has the luxury of being provocative because what he says has consequences. How a seemingly intelligent man like Pope Benedict could not see that is beyond me. Or maybe he did see and he did it anyway? I can't look into the man's heart and neither can anyone else.

As a former Catholic, I don't really give a crap if he apologizes or treats his local muslim cleric to a weekend in Las Vegas. My point is he should never have said it all.
Now why is that so hard for you to grasp?

That's exactly what I wondered. Like Sharon in Jerusalem entering the Muslim holy place. They both should have known what the reaction would be. . Wether or not it's their right to say and do as they please isn't really the point. Of course they have the right. And I, in no way, am condoning the reaction both events wrought. But, should they have known better is the question I am wondering.

 

[dcentity2000]

No, this thread's subject is whether or not the pope should apologize. You want to make it something bigger because it suits your political philosophy.

IMO, the Pope as the representative of over 1 billion Catholics, no longer has the luxury of being provocative because what he says has consequences. How a seemingly intelligent man like Pope Benedict could not see that is beyond me. Or maybe he did see and he did it anyway? I can't look into the man's heart and neither can anyone else.

As a former Catholic, I don't really give a crap if he apologizes or treats his local muslim cleric to a weekend in Las Vegas. My point is he should never have said it all.

Now why is that so hard for you to grasp?

I agree.

There are many issues here that need to be addressed and this is one of them. Why he ever said such a thing so guaranteed to generate trouble without even a hope of benefit is beyond me.



Rich::

 

[Laura]

Imagine a novel written with many different chapters. Now, imagine that someone decided to organize the chapters by length only-- not by chronological time. That is how the Koran is organized. It was written chronologically but it is organized by length. This doesn't matter in this discussion, though, Laura, because one would still read it chronologically. One can still read the Koran chronologically despite it's organization.

I don't know about your personal feelings. But, would you only ask a religious Christian about Christianity? Some here seem to criticize Christianity a bit. Would a Christian be the only person you would use for information? Or, would you read some scholarly criticism about the bible and religion for a more well-informed and well-rounded view?

Likewise, reading material by nonIslamic scholars, reading the SOURCE MATERIAL itself (while reading the pages you provide stating its perfection), and reading those that were raised in Islam, yet left Islam, can be beneficial, too. One wouldn't want to be misled by just getting only the party line.

Ironically, most Christians and Christian institutions and Jews and Jewish institutions welcome intelligent analysis, criticism, and inquisitiveness. One does not necessarily find this same welcoming criticical attitude in Islam.

One cannot just read the Koran alone. One must also read the sira and the hadiths. That is the true picture of Islam.

edited to add: do you get all your scientology information from Tom Cruise and the guys up at the scientology kiosk at the mall? Or, do you read critical literature, too? Your sources should be more varied, scholarly, and critical.

I said I leave interpreting the Qur'an to Muslims. I also leave interpreting the Bible to the Christians. I can learn about the religions' histories and social impact from many sources, but for me to listen to a non-believer's interpretation of a particular line of Scripture? It doesn't seem to me it would be the best way to learn the beliefs that are a result of the particular Scripture.

No doubt Islam has issues, and the political ambitions and violent tendencies of the radicals need to be addressed by Muslims. But you're painting a false picture that depicts all Muslims are alike, which is not the case with the followers of Islam any more than the followers of other religions. As I said, you see what you want to see, Kendra. You're dismissing the moderate point of view in favor of what you've read about the noisier radical factions.

 

[cgcruz]

Im the last guy to defend christiany, but when will we admit that their is a savage religion out there? These muslims cannot take any kind of critism. They automatically resort to violence. They killed a nun! They burned churches! Argh! Now the pope apologized (which he shouldnt have) and they are still not satisfied. The muslim religion is just too darn violent.

 

[LuvDuke]

You have yet to realize that having a different opinion is not the same as "not grasping something".

Sure, the main point of this thread asks should the Pope apologize for what he said. You can't have an honest discussion (unless you're taking a simple yes/no poll) without talking about the context of his comments.

I asked you before (I think on this thread) if you felt when people on your side open their mouths they should be prepared for the consequences? If so, do you feel the consequences that arose from the Pope's comments were justified? Or were they "disproportionate"?

Obviously you do give a crap about it otherwise you wouldn't have posted on this tread.

This is the last time I'm going to try and explain this to you. For old time's sake, here we go again: I don't have an opinion either way whether he should apologize or not. I don't particularly care.

IMO, he should've known better than to say it at all. End of story.

However, since we both know this is not the end of the story, IMO everytime I read stupidity such as who's taking offence at what was said, who's rioting over a cartoon, who's throwing a bomb in Belfast, etc. I'm reminded, once again, that religion is not a solution, but a problem. That is my opinion and it's reinforced everyday.

 

[Galahad]

Should have known better, probably. But in the context of the entire speech - and audience, the excerpt in question may have provoked but I don't think it was "provocative". It's pretty easy to take a line or two from any speech had make something out of it. Just look at the debacles that are our political campaigns. Perhaps it is that his transition from academic (which is really what he was before) to figurehead or leader is not going as planned.

 

[sodaseller]

The Pope's remarks were ill chosen. The issue is overlaid by a lot, and no summaries do it justice. This statement was did not arise ex nihilo, and was not inadvertent. I don't think he thought it would be circulated outside academic circles, which was the intended audience

As for the OP, consider "For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.

 

[LuvDuke]

Should have known better, probably. But in the context of the entire speech - and audience, the excerpt in question may have provoked but I don't think it was "provocative". It's pretty easy to take a line or two from any speech had make something out of it. Just look at the debacles that are our political campaigns. Perhaps it is that his transition from academic (which is really what he was before) to figurehead or leader is not going as planned.

ITA! As far as making the transition, maybe it hadn't really hit him until now. It could just have been an honest mistake. Or it could've been deliberate? I don't know what's in the man's heart.

However, I truly believe in the old adage:

"Never attibute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[rie'smom]

This is like the relative everyone is worried about upsetting but this same relative can go around criticizing w/out fear of being called down. Unfortunately,in this case the "relative" doesn't criticize,he bombs.
I'm 48 years old and am so sick and tired of 'political correctness'. It's time to stand up for what's right. I remember when it was ok to say something was evil if it was evil and not worry about hurting the so called feelings of an unfeeling terrorist.
The pope apologized and ya know what-if the pope had never said anything,those same terrorists would have come up with an excuse to justify their actions.
I'm Julie and I approved my message!

 

[DawnCt1]

Im the last guy to defend christiany, but when will we admit that their is a savage religion out there? These muslims cannot take any kind of critism. They automatically resort to violence. They killed a nun! They burned churches! Argh! Now the pope apologized (which he shouldnt have) and they are still not satisfied. The muslim religion is just too darn violent.

We can't admit it because we would be seen as not politically correct, intolerant, mean spirited. In the meantime, an Imam in Boston, Massachusetts, USA is demanding the the "Pope resign". I didn't hear that he called for the end of violence, for the murderer of the nun to be brought to justice. Nope, he wants the Pope to resign. The outrage is far louder than calls for peace from the Muslim community......if I have heard any at all.

 

[dcentity2000]

We can't admit it because we would be seen as not politically correct, intolerant, mean spirited. In the meantime, an Imam in Boston, Massachusetts, USA is demanding the the "Pope resign". I didn't hear that he called for the end of violence, for the murderer of the nun to be brought to justice. Nope, he wants the Pope to resign. The outrage is far louder than calls for peace from the Muslim community......if I have heard any at all.

*Slightly* off topic, but can the Pope actually resign? I don't think that he should, I'm just curious?



Rich::

 

[sodaseller]

John Allen covers the Vatican and will be about as deferential and defensive of Benedict as humanly possible, though I think it comes froma good place with John. Here is his apologia

Yet he brought up the dialogue between Paleologus and the Persian to make a different point. Under the influence of its Greek heritage, he said, Christianity represents a decisive choice in favor of the rationality of God. While Muslims may stress God's majesty and absolute transcendence, Christians believe it would contradict God's nature to act irrationally. He argued that the Gospel of John spoke the last word on the biblical concept of God: In the beginning was the logos, usually translated as word, but it is also the Greek term for reason.

The lecture, titled "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections," ran to almost 4,000 words (more than a half-hour of speaking time), and its main concern was with what Benedict sees as an artificial truncation of human reason in the West. Since the Reformation, he argued, Western thinkers have come to regard theology and metaphysics as unscientific.


That is problematic, Benedict said, on two counts.

First, it leaves reason mute before the great questions of life and death, questions about why we are here and how we should act.

This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, the pope said, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Second, its logically self-defeating for science itself, which depends upon the assumption of order and reason in the universe, but cant explain why things should work that way in the first place.

The question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought to philosophy and theology, the pope said. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding.

Ultimately, Benedict argued, a form of reason which rejects religious and philosophical thinking cannot promote dialogue with other cultures.

In the Western world, it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid, he said. Yet the world's profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures.

I'll see if I can find another discussion of relevant context

 

[Laura]

However, since we both know this is not the end of the story, IMO everytime I read stupidity such as who's taking offence at what was said, who's rioting over a cartoon, who's throwing a bomb in Belfast, etc. I'm reminded, once again, that religion is not a solution, but a problem. That is my opinion and it's reinforced everyday.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[sodaseller]

*Slightly* off topic, but can the Pope actually resign? I don't think that he should, I'm just curious?



Rich::

That is an open question among canonists.

 

[eclectics]

*Slightly* off topic, but can the Pope actually resign? I don't think that he should, I'm just curious?



Rich::

I think his vow is until death or irreversible incapacitation, but I'm not 100% sure.