Should the Pope apologize??

JoyG said:
I find Kendra's description of the Muslim interpretation of the Koran to be dead on with what I read in this book:

Jesus and Muhammad: Profound Differences and Surprising Similarites

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Muhamma...ef=sr_1_2/102-5594252-6152938?ie=UTF8&s=books

This book was written by an ex muslim who grew up in a Muslim country. It appears that everyone in the author's community would be defined as a "radical fundamentalist muslim" by peope on the DIS...and I would hope that if the author was raised in the US he wouldn't have had some of those experiences. (For example when he told his father he was leaving the muslim faith his father put a gun to his head).

But it makes me wonder how many muslims in arab countries are really "moderates" and what percentage would we consider "fundamentals". It just seems like the author didn't encounter any "moderates" in his experiences.
It seems as if nobody will even READ this book because it speaks badly about Muslims and it's not written by a current Muslim who PRAISES Islam. Isn't that ironic that this is the viewpoint of supposed enlightened individuals?

As I mentioned earlier, I saw Brigitte Gabriel and Walid Shoebat speak last week. Brigitte was a Lebanese Christian who was forced to live in a bomb shelter from the age of 10 through 17 to stay alive in the face murderous Islamist attacks (even her moderate Muslim friends turned their backs on the Christians). Walid Shoebat said the same thing you say the book you're recommending said. EVERY SINGLE person he knew was raised to hate Jews sfn Christians and to do JIHAD (he is a former terrorist). He states over and over again-- and proves it in his book-- that the wars with Israel have NOTHING to do with Israel. They are NOT oppressed. They want the region to be free of Jews. Period. They hate Jews AND they hate Zionism. They do NOT differentiate in private. The lullabies his mother sung to him-- regular childhood lullabies ALL the mothers sung to their children-- were about decapitation and "rolling heads" and bloodshed.

His father disowned him, too (no gun to his head), and his own brother called to threaten his life and the lives of his children when he left Islam.

A summarized version of his story can be found on the link I posted earlier-- if they ever get the links back up. http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache...ing+islam+secularism&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7

Shoebat also worked extensively in the US and stated exactly what they are teaching in MANY many mosques throughout the country. And, it was exactly what they taught back in his own country.
 
eclectics said:
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.
At least we agree that this is an issue. Realistically, you must believe that a summit wouldn't change anything. Do you honestly believe that a summit full of world leaders or Western or Eastern leaders would be able to change the viewpoint of an Imam that believes Islam is the One True Religion and Muhammed is the Prophet and that Everything the Koran states is Beautiful and Perfect and WITHOUT error?

A summit would be nice if it could work. But, assuming you agree it wouldn't work, and assuming you still stand by the comment you made earlier stating you didn't have the answer but that we have to proceed with caution. . . well, what REALISTIC option can you come up with that could have a positive effect and actually end these frequent terror attacks perpetuated by a huge number of very religious Muslims who believe they are doing God's work?

I am really interested in knowing your response and am absolutely not baiting you. I think you are one of the more reasonable people from "your side". While answering, however, please remember that Islam is growing. Wahabism is growing. And, most of us want to leave a free world (not just up to our borders) for our children. We want them to be able to live in a free society that respects life and freedom.
 
louie694 said:
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.

The last few forays into democracy in the Middle East resulted in Hamas in Palastine, Hezbollah in Lebanon, a Shiite pro-Iranian government in Iraq, and nutjob fundamentalist in Iran.

Really, Kendra, get past the rhetoric.
 
louie694 said:
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.

Glad to see you are so admiring of Grand Ayatollah Sistani. But why so anti-Bush?
 

Laugh O. Grams said:
Uh-oh...now it's two of us going to hell! :rotfl:

Stop off in Purgatory first. I'll save you a seat at the bar.
 
Fitswimmer said:
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.

Where are you getting the idea my anti-religious opinion is confined solely to Catholicism or Christianity?
 
Charade said:
Now that was funny! :lmao:

When you stop laughing, maybe you can explain how these same violent Muslims you've been pontificating about for the last umpteenth pages are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Do you believe Islam is inherently violent or not? That's certainly the impression you've been giving.
 
LuvDuke said:
When you stop laughing, maybe you can explain how these same violent Muslims you've been pontificating about for the last umpteenth pages are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Do you believe Islam is inherently violent or not? That's certainly the impression you've been giving.

I thought I was very clear on that. Yes, I do believe it is.
 
Kendra17 said:
At least we agree that this is an issue. Realistically, you must believe that a summit wouldn't change anything. Do you honestly believe that a summit full of world leaders or Western or Eastern leaders would be able to change the viewpoint of an Imam that believes Islam is the One True Religion and Muhammed is the Prophet and that Everything the Koran states is Beautiful and Perfect and WITHOUT error?

A summit would be nice if it could work. But, assuming you agree it wouldn't work, and assuming you still stand by the comment you made earlier stating you didn't have the answer but that we have to proceed with caution. . . well, what REALISTIC option can you come up with that could have a positive effect and actually end these frequent terror attacks perpetuated by a huge number of very religious Muslims who believe they are doing God's work?

I am really interested in knowing your response and am absolutely not baiting you. I think you are one of the more reasonable people from "your side". While answering, however, please remember that Islam is growing. Wahabism is growing. And, most of us want to leave a free world (not just up to our borders) for our children. We want them to be able to live in a free society that respects life and freedom.


Not all Imams are radical and yes, I really think it would help. At least it wouldn't hurt. How does anyone know until something is tried? Getting the moderate Muslims to at least keep an avenue open for discussion would be a start and better than what we have now. Putting pressure on governments like Saudi Arabia to open discussions with their clerics will also help. Bush seems unwilling to apply any pressure to the Saudis to do anything and that is unfortunate. I am open to anything other than threatening weaponry and military involvement as I believe that will only make matters worse. Trying to come to a peaceful truce is not the same thing as "cowtowing and bowing to their demands" as some have insinuated. It's just common sense to try to find a non-violent way to calm things down. Some just want to bomb the crap out of them and be done with it. They have no idea the ramifications of such an action. All I can say to those who advocate such action is "at least WW III will be a short one".
 
Charade said:
I thought I was very clear on that. Yes, I do believe it is.

Well, it's always best to be direct. So now that you've been direct on the second part of the issue, how about you tackle the first.

How is it you believe Islam is inherently violent and still believe these inherently "violent" Muslims are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Hmmmm ..............
 
LuvDuke said:
When you stop laughing, maybe you can explain how these same violent Muslims you've been pontificating about for the last umpteenth pages are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Do you believe Islam is inherently violent or not? That's certainly the impression you've been giving.

I think Islam is inherently violent, but Muslims aren't. If they were, I think we'd have seen a lot more bloodshed in Iraq than there is now - getting an actual civil war off the ground took effort on the part of instigators. So no, there is nothing about Iraq that says to me that a representative democracy is just wishful thinking. I don't have the same confidence in Afghanistan. Actually I have no expectations for Afghanistan, but the religion of the people doesn't deserve all the blame there.
 
eclectics said:
Not all Imams are radical and yes, I really think it would help. At least it wouldn't hurt. How does anyone know until something is tried? Getting the moderate Muslims to at least keep an avenue open for discussion would be a start and better than what we have now. Putting pressure on governments like Saudi Arabia to open discussions with their clerics will also help. Bush seems unwilling to apply any pressure to the Saudis to do anything and that is unfortunate. I am open to anything other than threatening weaponry and military involvement as I believe that will only make matters worse. Trying to come to a peaceful truce is not the same thing as "cowtowing and bowing to their demands" as some have insinuated. It's just common sense to try to find a non-violent way to calm things down. Some just want to bomb the crap out of them and be done with it. They have no idea the ramifications of such an action. All I can say to those who advocate such action is "at least WW III will be a short one".

But the Pope didn't advocate violence, or military involvement, or anything of the kind. And look where that led.

I don't see anyone on here saying we should bomb the crap out of them and be done with it.

But I do see a lot of people sticking their heads in the sand and saying the Pope should be more careful with his (scholarly and non-violent) words with nary a critcal peep about the Religion of the Perpetually Outraged.
 
Did y'all decide if the pope needs to apologize?
If so, do y'all think Rosie should apologize now?
:lmao: Sorry, I'm just tired and I should be
gettin' it together, WDW in 8 days!!! :cool1:
 
LuvDuke said:
Well, it's always best to be direct. So now that you've been direct on the second part of the issue, how about you tackle the first.

How is it you believe Islam is inherently violent and still believe these inherently "violent" Muslims are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Hmmmm ..............

I want to help you out on this one because it is a valid question. There is a perfectly good and clear answer that I will make very brief so that your limited attention span can attempt to grasp it.

Here it is:

Ready:

WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTION!!!


Changing a debased barbaric culture that has been propagandized for generations does not happen overnight, nor does it happen in 3 years. Your lack of historical context and lack of patience on these matters of global importance is truly impressive.

I always complain about the lack of moderate voices in the Islamic world, well, guess what, they're all in Baghdad trying to form a democratic state with our help!!

We have no option. None. We cannot change them from the outside, and they have no interest in changing from the inside. All they want to do is conquer us, convert us, kill us, etc. We can't negotiate with such people as there is only one negotiation that can occur and has always failed.

Here is the negotiation that has always failed.

USA: Please stop blowing us up, please stop killing our civilians, please stop attacking our planes and interests around the world. Gosh, we'll even help you build infrastructure in your failed states so that your people won't want to overthrow all of you dictators and tyrants.
Arab/Islamic World: No. Allahu-akbar!

So, you see, I think, if you have the capacity to see anything, that the situation leaves us with few options.

Go ahead, repost! Ready!
 
Speaking of heads in the sand:

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.
September 18, 2006


TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.
 
bsnyder said:
Speaking of heads in the sand:

Bump up.

i am not at all surprised that the silence from the liberals on this article is deafening. they've really nothing to say about this article because this guy is one of them and lays it out so painfully clearly.
 
LuvDuke said:
Well, it's always best to be direct. So now that you've been direct on the second part of the issue, how about you tackle the first.

How is it you believe Islam is inherently violent and still believe these inherently "violent" Muslims are going to somehow transform themselves into models of democracy. Hmmmm ..............

Reformation.

From within. Obviously it can be done.
 
He should not apologize.

Why is it that Muslims are the only group that when someone says something they perceive as negative, the first words out of their mouths are jihad. I think there are good people who practice Islam, but their is a very large majority who promote violance in the name of Islam.

I think the majority of Muslims who do not feel this way need to speak up against the violence.

The same way I speak up when an abortion activist does something crazy to an innocent doctor or patient in the name of their religion.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom