Should the Pope apologize??

[Fitswimmer]

They are every bit as outraged at terrorists as I am, if not more because of people unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream.

The reason that the mainstream is so often linked with the fanatics is because the mainstream Muslim community is too often silent about the actions of the fanatics.

Just remember sinners is a relative term.

According to the Church, we are ALL sinners. Also, nobody is threatening to kill you if you aren't Catholic. If the laws of the Church are not something you can live with, then you don't have to be a member.

 

[mrsltg]

Amen.

Yes, he should apologize. I can think of a few other things the pope should do, but I'll leave it at that. I work with a number of Muslims. They are every bit as outraged at terrorists as I am, if not more because of people unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream.

As soon as they speak up and begin policing their own - disowning the actions, calling terrorism for what it is, having their leaders speak out LOUD and OFTEN, shutting down mosques that preach hatred, shutting down affiliated schools and making sure everyone knows this behavior won't be tolerated, that's when people will begin to take it seriously and seperate the fanatics. Until that time the silence is deafening.

 

[Kendra17]

It's amazing to me that some just don't see the irony of the comments of the Pope and the actions of the Muslim protesters.

"Muhammad is evil and teaches violence..."

"No he's not!!! Islam is a religion of peace!!"

"Now cut that infidel's throat..."

I see it! I see it!

 

[cardaway]

Just remember sinners is a relative term. I think someone who perpetuates discrimination against homosexuality, doesn't allow women to protect themselves against disease and aided pedophiles while they continued to molest children for decades is a sinner, yet that was pretty standard operating procedure in the church while under the leadership of JPII.

Agreed.

But with that being true, I don't think an apology is in order this time.

 

[Kendra17]

Amen.

Yes, he should apologize. I can think of a few other things the pope should do, but I'll leave it at that. I work with a number of Muslims. They are every bit as outraged at terrorists as I am, if not more because of people unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream.

Please clarify this. I am glad the Muslims you work with are outraged at the terrorists, too. But, what do you mean, "if not more because people are unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream"? I don't understand this. You are stating they may be more outraged than some of us are (like me), for instance? At what-- terrorism? They are more outraged at the terrorists than some of us are? What are they doing about it, then? They certainly aren't being as vocal as some of us are, for instance. Or, are they more outraged that they think some of us don't understand that there are moderates and fanatics? Are you saying they are more outraged at some of us for what they perceive to be our lack of understanding of this fact?

 

[Kendra17]

And it sounds like "I'm sorry people are upset with my speech" to me.

Just remember sinners is a relative term. I think someone who perpetuates discrimination against homosexuality, doesn't allow women to protect themselves against disease and aided pedophiles while they continued to molest children for decades is a sinner, yet that was pretty standard operating procedure in the church while under the leadership of JPII.

Thank goodness that's all he apologized for. Too bad he even did that, but I'm so glad to see it's that it's only an "i'm sorry people are upset with my speech" type of apology.

I don't understand your second paragraph. Clearly you are trying to point out how the Catholic church is all of these negative things you've mentioned. But, why don't I see any liberals condemn the mosques for being all of the above AND MORE? Why don't I see the liberals condemn Islam for being more than just discriminatory against homosexuality, for not allowing women to protect themselves in so many ways? For permitting women to be treated like chattel? For permitting corporal punishment against women when deemed necessary?

The Catholic church may not approve of some things some find controversial, but the Church certainly doesn't brand one an apostate under the punishment of death, and they certainly don't consider all the discussion about these things blasphemy, as Islam certainly considers these types of discussions.

Imagine a whole group of women attempting to demand equal rights including modernizing the Mosques and permitting women to become Imams. Do you think it would be under any discussion at all?

 

[LuvDuke]

Please clarify this. I am glad the Muslims you work with are outraged at the terrorists, too. But, what do you mean, "if not more because people are unable to separate fanatics from the mainstream"? I don't understand this. You are stating they may be more outraged than some of us are (like me), for instance? At what-- terrorism? They are more outraged at the terrorists than some of us are? What are they doing about it, then? They certainly aren't being as vocal as some of us are, for instance. Or, are they more outraged that they think some of us don't understand that there are moderates and fanatics? Are you saying they are more outraged at some of us for what they perceive to be our lack of understanding of this fact?

Let me see if I understand this: You see all Muslims, for one reason or another, as enemies. In other words, you think you have nearly 1.5 billion enemies in this world.

Question: Is it strictly ego that makes you believe you are so important in the scheme of things that every Muslim wants your scalp? Is it just plain delusion? Or is it just the usual "stream of consciousness" ruminating?

 

[Kendra17]

and the verbal diarrhea goes on and on.

The way you continually pepper so many of your posts with scatalogical, unrefined, and coarse references and insults is quite boorish and low-brow.

 

[DawnCt1]

Nope,your thread was about the Pope apologizing for his quote that applied to Muslims in general. Many of us took the savage comment to mean Muslims in general --- not a stretch at all.

I am so glad to have you to tell me exactly what I meant. Have you considered a line of work that would involve mindreading. You seem to think that you are very good at it.

 

[DawnCt1]

As soon as they speak up and begin policing their own - disowning the actions, calling terrorism for what it is, having their leaders speak out LOUD and OFTEN, shutting down mosques that preach hatred, shutting down affiliated schools and making sure everyone knows this behavior won't be tolerated, that's when people will begin to take it seriously and seperate the fanatics. Until that time the silence is deafening.

Well said!

 

[Kendra17]

Let me see if I understand this: You see all Muslims, for one reason or another, as enemies. In other words, you think you have nearly 1.5 billion enemies in this world.

Question: Is it strictly ego that makes you believe you are so important in the scheme of things that every Muslim wants your scalp? Is it just plain delusion? Or is it just the usual "stream of consciousness" ruminating?

You obviously absolutely do not understand anything, because that's not what I said at all. I am asking for clarification from the poster of the comment I quoted. I want to understand what is outraging the Muslims she works with.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone's theology at all. I don't care what a person believes. That is anyone's personal right. What I do have a problem with is political Islam. Political Islam is dangerous and its adherents are not just my enemy, but your enemy, too-- despite the fact you may or may not want to recognize it.

Denying truth is delusional. Recognizing truth is rational.

Furthermore, what you and yours continually deny is that Muslims believe in the Koran LITERALLY. They believe (ask them, they will tell you this is factual) that Muhammed is perfection, that everything he did was correct-- approved and encouraged by Allah. Criticism of these statements is not permitted and criticism of Muhammed's pronouncements, deeds and beliefs is not permitted.

I find some of Muhammed's pronouncements, deeds, and beliefs very disturbing, as you would, too, if you were a reasonable person. And, even more disturbing is the fact that discussion of these disturbing pronouncements, deeds, and beliefs is seemingly off-limits by the Left and Muslims.

 

[declansdad]

The UN cannot rescue anyone. Our allies have been almost worthless with one exception, Israel-- and to a lesser extent, Britain. After Blair leaves, Britain will likely be in the camp of the enemy for all their lack of assistance to us and themselves.

If we must do it alone, we will. There are no other options.

I will make sure that our troops in Aghanistan know how you feel.

 

[yeartolate]

I am so glad to have you to tell me exactly what I meant. Have you considered a line of work that would involve mindreading. You seem to think that you are very good at it.

I have no clue what you meant - but your words in context of your thread title are misleading at best. Again in the context of the Pope apologizing for general comments why would I assume that your savage remark was meant for a select subset? It is YOU that want ME to be the mind reader.

 

[Galahad]

Furthermore, what you and yours continually deny is that Muslims believe in the Koran LITERALLY. They believe (ask them, they will tell you this is factual) that Muhammed is perfection, that everything he did was correct-- approved and encouraged by Allah. Criticism of these statements are not permitted and criticism of Muhammed's pronouncements, deeds and beliefs are not permitted.

??

I am a Christian and I believe that Christ was perfect and that everything he did was correct. Why shouldn't Muslims believe Muhammad was correct? It is not true that all Muslims understand the "literal" Qur'an in the same way. Otherwise there would not be divisions among Muslims (Shiites, Suni's etc). Calling on mainstream Christians to denounce abortion clinic bombers, for example, is an imperative. Calling on Muslims to denounce terrorism is also imperative. Failing to do so may mean they have feet of clay but it doesn't mean they are supporters of terrorists (Actions or inactions by nation-states notwithstanding).

 

[tiff211]

I think an apology wouldn't hurt. He obviously offended a lot of people, regardless of his intent. I think his orginal message was lost in his choice of poor quotes.

 

[cardaway]

I have no clue what you meant - but your words in context of your thread title are misleading at best.

At best indeed.

 

[Fitswimmer]

am a Christian and I believe that Christ was perfect and that everything he did was correct. Why shouldn't Muslims believe Muhammad was correct? It is not true that all Muslims understand the "literal" Qur'an in the same way. Otherwise there would not be divisions among Muslims (Shiites, Suni's etc). Calling on mainstream Christians to denounce abortion clinic bombers, for example, is an imperative. Calling on Muslims to denounce terrorism is also imperative. Failing to do so may mean they have feet of clay but it doesn't mean they are supporters of terrorists (Actions or inactions by nation-states notwithstanding).

I have no problem with Muslims believing that Muhammad was correct, it's their choice. It's also my choice to be Catholic and believe the teachings of my Church are correct. I could take offense when people criticize my Church, and I do, but I don't believe that it is my place to choose for others. I can clarify Church teaching to the best of my knowledge and lead people to websites or clergy that can help them further, but in the end it is their choice how to respond. That's the difference between most rational believers and the people burning churches and killing.

 

[Kendra17]

??

I am a Christian and I believe that Christ was perfect and that everything he did was correct. Why shouldn't Muslims believe Muhammad was correct? It is not true that all Muslims understand the "literal" Qur'an in the same way. Otherwise there would not be divisions among Muslims (Shiites, Suni's etc). Calling on mainstream Christians to denounce abortion clinic bombers, for example, is an imperative. Calling on Muslims to denounce terrorism is also imperative. Failing to do so may mean they have feet of clay but it doesn't mean they are supporters of terrorists (Actions or inactions by nation-states notwithstanding).

Christians are also permitted to discuss Christ and criticize Christianity, Galahad. Muslims are NOT permitted to do this with Islam and create an environment where it is impossible for the rest of us to discuss it, too.

The number of people that bomb abortion clinics is so very small it would almost be inconsequential except that they've been successful and caused damage at times. The number of people that have perpetuated these terror attacks and murders in the name of Islam is not quite so very small and not quite at all inconsequential.

Further, Christ didn't advocate eradicating entire peoples. His final pronouncement before death wasn't that the world should have only one religion. He didn't believe that one should kill all the Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. He didn't believe in one set of morals and ethics for one people and another set for another people.

Christ didn't believe that using violence and threats against non-Christians was okay. He didn't encourage violence for failure to submit to Christianity. Artists and intellectuals that offend Christians aren't killed or threatened. Christ didn't advocate this. All art and ideas must submit to Islam, Galahad, according to Muhammed. Christ didn't command this.

All religions must submit to Islam, according to Muhammed.

Treaties with nonMuslims and agreements with nonMuslims are considered invalid and it is not necessary to keep promises with nonMuslims, according to Muhammed. This is not Christ's view, not the view of Christianity.

According to Islam and Muhammed, Sharia is supreme. NonMuslims are considered second class citizens and all people are not equal before the law.

Islam is the only religion that advocates and encourages stealing the wealth and treasure of nonMuslims. Christianity does not do this.

If Christianity advocated these things (I'm an agnostic, btw-- my arguments aren't from a Christian perspective), this would be a different discussion.

Western ideals include a definition of morality that tends to support life (even if we disagree with what life is sometimes). Western definition of immorality tends to be anything that does not support life.
In Islam, morality is is anything that tends to support Islam and the spread of Islam. Immorality is anything that tends to impede Islam or the spread of Islam.

These are fundamental truthful differences. And they are important to recognize.
__________________________
Edited to add: You also mentioned the warring between Muslims. I'm not sure this proves your point. This means that these people just do not accept any dissent. Christians accept dissent and do not threaten and murder those that have different beliefs. Yes, some Christians have done this in the past, but it was not based on scriptural references. It was done in the name of Christ, but it wasn't something Christ advocated. Muhammed advocated this and, as you may or may not know, there are Suras, sira, and hadith to support this position.

 

[LuvDuke]

You obviously absolutely do not understand anything, because that's not what I said at all. I am asking for clarification from the poster of the comment I quoted. I want to understand what is outraging the Muslims she works with.

I have absolutely no problem with anyone's theology at all. I don't care what a person believes. That is anyone's personal right. What I do have a problem with is political Islam. Political Islam is dangerous and its adherents are not just my enemy, but your enemy, too-- despite the fact you may or may not want to recognize it.

Denying truth is delusional. Recognizing truth is rational.

Furthermore, what you and yours continually deny is that Muslims believe in the Koran LITERALLY. They believe (ask them, they will tell you this is factual) that Muhammed is perfection, that everything he did was correct-- approved and encouraged by Allah. Criticism of these statements is not permitted and criticism of Muhammed's pronouncements, deeds and beliefs is not permitted.

I find some of Muhammed's pronouncements, deeds, and beliefs very disturbing, as you would, too, if you were a reasonable person. And, even more disturbing is the fact that discussion of these disturbing pronouncements, deeds, and beliefs is seemingly off-limits by the Left and Muslims.

Finally, you out yourself as being a clueless demagogue with this: "Muslims believe in the Koran LITERALLY." And here's the definition of a "demagogy" if you don't know what that definition is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demagogue

"a political strategy for obtaining and gaining political power by appealing to the popular prejudices, fears, and expectations of the public — typically via impassioned rhetoric and propaganda, and often using nationalistic or populist themes."

I'll let the peanut gallery decide if this fits like liquid latex or not.

FYI, not all Muslims believe in the Koran literally, just like not all Christians believe in the Bible literally. There's a myriad of opinions as to what each teaches and what each individual chooses to believe.

As far as you deciding who's a reasonable person and who isn't, please, let's not give the peanut gallery something more to laugh at.

The fact is, demagogues like you should be the last people responsible for the decision making regarding terrorism and radical fundamentalist Islam. You paint everything in black and white and force people on the other side to choose between your lunacy and their own fellow Muslims. People like you leave no room for dissent within the Islamic community and force people to the fringes with your rhetoric.

And if for one damned I believed that anything you espouse is for the good of the country or humanity in general, I might just give it a second thought. It isn't for the good of the country or humanity, but for your own ego and political fringe radicalism. Your ravings are self-serving hysterics at best, and at worst, downright dangerous when they're used as the basis for decision making.

 

[Galahad]

You also mentioned the warring between Muslims. I'm not sure this proves your point.

I did? Where?