Should the Pope apologize??

[LuvDuke]

Please; its clearly a matter of proportion. How many Christians have stormed the mosques and burned them to the ground. If it was only about whining, we could ignore it. Unless you don't think death threats against the Pope is going a bit far. Is there anything in fact that they can do that you would find offfensive?

So is the violence the "birth pangs" of democracy in the Middle East or the death knell of the neo-con fantasies?

It seems to me the ones shouting the loudest about Muslim violence are also the ones tooting the horn the loudest for Bush's not-so-excellent adventure.

 

[LuvDuke]

Statement from al-Qaida
Al-Qaida in Iraq and its allies issued a statement addressing the pope as “a cross-worshipper” and warning, “You and the West are doomed, as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere.

“You infidels and despots, we will continue our jihad (holy war) and never stop until God avails us to chop your necks and raise the fluttering banner of monotheism, when God’s rule is established governing all people and nations,” said the statement by the Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups in Iraq.

Looks like democracy's on the march in the Middle East.

 

[Teejay32]

Btw, given the extent of the escalating violence in the Muslim world, still think you're going to "stay the course" in Iraq and create a Jeffersonian democracy? It isn't looking good for that and I'd say the odds are going down faster than Bush's poll numbers. And if you do feel you will eventually create a Jeffersonian democracy in the Muslim world, any bets as to what century that'll be?

Do you alternate days where you'll argue they can't democratize and then "only a fraction of Muslims are violent", or do you just flip a coin?

 

[sodaseller]

The Pope will not have you beheaded if you decide to become a Southern Baptist. That is indeed a major difference between fundamental Islam and the Catholic Church.

No, the Church has moved beyond that. But not because of doctrinal superiority, but because of the same secularization (i.e. Enlightenment) of Western society that those like you fight against. If wise men and women hadn't rejected your values a few centuries ago, there would be little difference, and beheadings would be as common as torture in a Rumsfeld run DOD.

And today's Church does something far worse than beheading to the dissident - they excommunicate you. If you believe what you recite at least once a week, that consigns you to eternal damnation, not life - extra ecclesia nulla salus. Those in the Church that love power and dominance over fellow humans as you do are constantly calling for more

 

[DawnCt1]

No, the Church has moved beyond that. But not because of doctrinal superiority, but because of the same secularization (i.e. Enlightenment) of Western society that those like you fight against. If wise men and women hadn't rejected your values a few centuries ago, there would be little difference, and beheadings would be as common as torture in a Rumsfeld run DOD.

And today's Church does something far worse than beheading to the dissident - they excommunicate you. If you believe what you recite at least once a week, that consigns you to eternal damnation, not life - extra ecclesia nulla salus. Those in the Church that love power and dominance over fellow humans as you do are constantly calling for more

The purpose of the Church, any church is salvation. The purpose of the DOD is to kill the enemy and break their things. Excommunication separates one from the Catholic church, not from God. There are any number of other Christian churches that would embrace a former Catholic.

 

[LuvDuke]

Do you alternate days where you'll argue they can't democratize and then "only a fraction of Muslims are violent", or do you just flip a coin?

The only thing I'm flipping is someone's argument about a Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq, Islam, and Muslim violence.

I've always believed democracy is not a concept that's understood in the Middle East. And the only thing I've said regarding Muslims and violence is that I don't believe all Muslims are violent and therefore constitute a "fifth column" in the west.

Now run along and ask the Bushies the same thing you asked me and see what kind of answers you get.

 

[louie694]

Hell no, the Pope shouldn't be willing to accept the violence that's happening. Where in the hell did you ever get the idea anyone believed that?

What I did say is when someone is a head of state, they should understand that words have meaning and have consequences and they should take some responsibility for the consequences of their words. You can accept the fact that you may have caused a problem, but you don't have to accept those problems.

Btw, given the extent of the escalating violence in the Muslim world, still think you're going to "stay the course" in Iraq and create a Jeffersonian democracy? It isn't looking good for that and I'd say the odds are going down faster than Bush's poll numbers. And if you do feel you will eventually create a Jeffersonian democracy in the Muslim world, any bets as to what century that'll be?

sounds to me that you don't like the idea of democracy in iraq. perhaps you don't quite think that the arabs are "up to it"?

there would be a democracy in iraq already if there weren't a determined enemy that wants to prevent it. that is why this is called a "war".

do you think that "jeffersonian democracy" is the ideal form of government or the only form of democracy? nope. we don't have a jeffersonian form of government. have you heard of the electoral college? well, the electoral college is in place to ensure representative democracy, not jeffersonian democracy. we do not have a direct democracy here, which is what jefferson wanted, rather we have a representative democracy. and it's a good thing, too.

jefferson supported the french revolution. did you know that? john adams didn't. adams knew that the reaction against the revolution and the depredations of the revolution itself would cause a massive "pendulum swing" in the other direction. and what was the result of the direct democracy of the french revolution that jefferson loved so well? the guillotine, death on a grand scale and finally the reaction: napolean bonaparte and europe totally engulfed in war. war of conquest and aggrandizement. so don't be so quick to tout jeffersonianism, it's not the only democracy and it doesn't generally work anyway.

i would like to see any form of democracy in iraq. we need to start somewhere and iraq is a great place to do it. the left complains now, "gee, why did it take less time to win ww2 than defeat the dirtbags in iraq?" this is essentially ignorance on display. is there a timeline for war? is every conflict comparable to every other? nope. more old decayed liberal bologna. very loud, very stinky, and very meaningless.

why democrats and leftists do not support democracy in iraq is very disturbing. is it because they are just anti-bush, and hate everything that bush does and supports? or is it because they don't believe that the united states is in the right?

arabs are just as desirous as any other group of people for freedom, equality, and opportunity. this is a grand attempt on our part to bring reform to a region that has been enslaved for a thousand years. we are at war because reactionary murderers don't want to see democracy or anything other than an islamic state and sharia.

you don't get it, and really, you don't want to.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

sounds to me that you don't like the idea of democracy in iraq. perhaps you don't quite think that the arabs are "up to it"?

there would be a democracy in iraq already if there weren't a determined enemy that wants to prevent it. that is why this is called a "war".

do you think that "jeffersonian democracy" is the ideal form of government or the only form of democracy? nope. we don't have a jeffersonian form of government. have you heard of the electoral college? well, the electoral college is in place to ensure representative democracy, not jeffersonian democracy. we do not have a direct democracy here, which is what jefferson wanted, rather we have a representative democracy. and it's a good thing, too.

jefferson supported the french revolution. did you know that? john adams didn't. adams knew that the reaction against the revolution and the depredations of the revolution itself would cause a massive "pendulum swing" in the other direction. and what was the result of the direct democracy of the french revolution that jefferson loved so well? the guillotine, death on a grand scale and finally the reaction: napolean bonaparte and europe totally engulfed in war. war of conquest and aggrandizement. so don't be so quick to tout jeffersonianism, it's not the only democracy and it doesn't generally work anyway.

i would like to see any form of democracy in iraq. we need to start somewhere and iraq is a great place to do it. the left complains now, "gee, why did it take less time to win ww2 than defeat the dirtbags in iraq?" this is essentially ignorance on display. is there a timeline for war? is every conflict comparable to every other? nope. more old decayed liberal bologna. very loud, very stinky, and very meaningless.

why democrats and leftists do not support democracy in iraq is very disturbing. is it because they are just anti-bush, and hate everything that bush does and supports? or is it because they don't believe that the united states is in the right?

arabs are just as desirous as any other group of people for freedom, equality, and opportunity. this is a grand attempt on our part to bring reform to a region that has been enslaved for a thousand years. we are at war because reactionary murderers don't want to see democracy or anything other than an islamic state and sharia.

you don't get it, and really, you don't want to.

Very well said. Bravo!

 

[Charade]

If it didn't I doubt many people here would even care about them at all. I'll say again, putting aside who is right and who is wrong, there should be some sort of world summit on religion to try to sort out this growing resentment. The more they resent us, the more we resent them for resenting us....and so on. It's not going to go away.

Why is there a need for a world summit!?!?! I can give you the solution in ONE SENTENCE right here from my PC.


Stop blowing things up, killing the people (or people that belong to the group) who offended you and stop issuing death threats when you're offended.

Problem solved.

Some things my friend are simply black and white.

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

The purpose of the Church, any church is salvation. The purpose of the DOD is to kill the enemy and break their things. Excommunication separates one from the Catholic church, not from God. There are any number of other Christian churches that would embrace a former Catholic.

So true!!

Excommunication . God gives up on no one and salvation is attainable to anyone prior to death by believing and confessing what Jesus did on the cross.

 

[Saxsoon]

I heard of a young girl who came to Christianity in the extreme parts of Islam, and she was hunted down by her family. Luckily, she made it out alive.

And, no during the crusades, a time when you had to speak Latin I believe to read the Bible, the Pope called for the Crusades. He said if you die in battle against an infidel (sound familiar) you will go to heaven. The thing is, that is preached not once in the Bible, Quran, it does. Christ even said that those that live by the sword, will die by it.

The Crusades were started because a bunch of greedy old men wanted to have a few Muslim spices and materials, and probably very little to do with the Holy Land. I do not agree with the Crusades, or the Spanish Inquisition, or any other church flaw for that matter. If I saw a bunch of Christian terrorists going out and killing their spiritual leaders and blowing up the mosques, I will be the first one to yell at the outrage. By the way, my Methodist church has a female associate pastor who gets over 60% of the church in her services.

Well, I am off to to see my doctor. . .if you know what I mean.

Wink wink, hint hint, say no more say no more.

 

[Charade]

Do you alternate days where you'll argue they can't democratize and then "only a fraction of Muslims are violent", or do you just flip a coin?

Now that was funny!

 

[eclectics]

Why is there a need for a world summit!?!?! I can give you the solution in ONE SENTENCE right here from my PC.


Stop blowing things up, killing the people (or people that belong to the group) who offended you and stop issuing death threats when you're offended.

Problem solved.

Some things my friend are simply black and white.

And you're the one to tell them that are you? Don't you think if say... maybe the world's religious leaders sat down together with a few Imans that the rank and file would listen to what was said a little more intently than a demanding edict from the United States?

 

[JoeEpcotRocks]

Why is there a need for a world summit!?!?! I can give you the solution in ONE SENTENCE right here from my PC.


Stop blowing things up, killing the people (or people that belong to the group) who offended you and stop issuing death threats when you're offended.

Problem solved.

Some things my friend are simply black and white.

Agreed!!

Did any world summit ever solve anything? Muslim extremists are not interested in negotiation -- only death -- and ANY excuse will do.

Why don't the moderates of this religion of peace hold a world-wide protest against the extremists?? Good luck!! Perhaps the CAIR could do something useful beside whine about stereotypes.

 

[Charade]

And you're the one to tell them that are you? Don't you think if say... maybe the world's religious leaders sat down together with a few Imans that the rank and file would listen to what was said a little more intently than a demanding edict from the United States?

It wouldn't be an edict from the US. Just from a fellow human being.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Excuse me, but my opinion is just that, an opinion. My right to express my feelings about religion is found in the 1st amendment in the Constitution. I don't have to respect anyone's religious belief. I just have to respect their right to have on. And if that offends you, well this is still America where you have the right to be offended but not put out my eye or cut out my tongue.

I never said you didn't have a right to your opinion. You have a right to your opinion, I have a right to be offended. I'm Catholic, my faith teaches me to forgive those who offend me if I expect to be forgiven for any offense I may have caused. That's only one difference btw Christian teaching and Islam. We are called to forgive and move on when offended, not look for firearms.
Have many Catholics fallen short of the ideals of the faith, including our clergy-you bet. However, I don't see that as a failing of the faith, rather of the weakness of humanity in regards to pleasure and power.

I don't expect everyone to be Catholic, or even like Catholics. However, I do expect that all Christians should be treated with the same respect that Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Agnostics and athiests receive. The broad painting of all Christians as ignorant bigots by the media and others on the Left, is NOT respect or even tolerance. Just because you do not like the opinions or actions of some Christians does not mean that you can judge all by the actions of those few. That's been the whole point about the Muslims on this thread, hasn't it? That we should not judge all of Islam by the actions of a small minority?? If that's a response that we should have for Muslims, it should work for all faiths.

 

[eclectics]

It wouldn't be an edict from the US. Just from a fellow human being.

Noble thought, but I believe you get my point. Your side keeps saying something has to be done. Well, okay, that was my idea. Joe would probably like to use weapons of some sort, I'm sure. So what is your answer, other than an email to an Iman.

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

Oh good God, now it really goes down the crapper. You had to do it! You had to bring Hitler into this!

You are a .............

It was either that or ask if he has finally apologized for his fashion sense. You'd think after all of these years, the man might get a dress that shows a little leg!! At least come into the 19th Century, sweetheart!

 

[Charade]

It was either that or ask if he has finally apologized for his fashion sense. You'd think after all of these years, the man might get a dress that shows a little leg!! At least come into the 19th Century, sweetheart!

At least he as one priority in order!

 

[Laugh O. Grams]

At least he as one priority in order!

Uh-oh...now it's two of us going to hell!