Should the Pope apologize??

[Kendra17]

Point taken and duly noted. Right or wrong, different religions take offense to different things with different degrees of enthusiasm (remember Sinead O'Conner ripping up the Pope's photo). Putting aside for the moment the violent reactions, which we we all agree are disgusting and wrong, you are basically asking why we should allow the Muslims to get upset over something we don't find that important. Well, right or wrong, it is important to them and if we choose to ignore that fact, we are basically saying to them "Your religious beliefs are ridiculous to us and we won't cut you any slack for things we feel you are overeacting to". I don't think sometimes that we realize how different they percieve things. Most of us don't have a clue about their lives. They are very fervent people and trying to squash them into submission is just going to incite them more. Again, just mho. I would like to see a summit with serious dialogue with all the world's religious leaders. Forget political differences as being the world's greatest threat. I believe our religious differences are, and if WW III were to start, you can bet religion will play a big part.

Yes, I remember Sinead O'Connor ripping up the pope's photo. Aw, those were the good ol' days! (no offense to Catholics-- I'm joking pointing out the lack of violence after that event.)

I think we really do agree on a lot right here. I also don't think many of us realize how differently they perceive things either. But, this has to do (mostly, imo) with their belief that all goodness is Islam and the promotion of Islam, and our belief is that all goodness is life and the promotion of life, etc. I do believe there is a difference in value.

So, if we agree on that (yes, I worded this a bit differently than you) then we could at least discuss the next part reasonably.

I disagree with appeasing them to avoid offending them. Considering we agree on their views being different (so different to the point of violent behavior after a perceived offense), it's important ot NOT accept their responses as normal and it's important NOT to bend over backward to avoid offending them. JMO.

Why not have the expectation that THEY change to fit in our modern world rather than WE change to avoid offending them? We demand openness and tolerance and nonviolence from EVERY OTHER group out there. We demand tolerance and nonviolence in modern civilized society. To advance and to progress, we've learned self-criticize, learn, judge our past behaviors and strive to advance and better ourselves. Why can't we demand this of them, too, especially since they are not just confined to the Middle East and the Arab world anymore. Their conduct affects us.

I see your point. But, I'm not even sure that it is possible to "not offend" them, since-- for some of them-- our belief system offends them and incites violence.

 

[sodaseller]

I appreciate the intellectual discussion of this thread however, I think this goes too far. How has Benedict "dishonored" John Paul? By giving an academic speech? He wasn't even stating an opinion. He simply spoke about a subject and gave some quotes. I am honestly baffled by how this would dishonor his predecessor?

He has taken a long series of moves intended to separate himself from JPII's position on ecumenical issues, especially those involving Islam (it's not for nothing that Kasper was the only one to speak out against Ratzinger as the choice during the novemdiales). Assisi is a continued annoyance, as is the role of Islam in Europe. He also reassigned Fitzgerald (name from memory).

JPII was not a systematic theologian; he was more of a phenomenologist. But one thing is clear - he would never have uttered such a remark, and the desire to provoke (to be clear, I think he meant to provoke a debate between ecumenists, not what we are seeing), would be the opposite of JPII. This is Dominus Iesus

 

[Charade]

Point taken and duly noted. Right or wrong, different religions take offense to different things with different degrees of enthusiasm (remember Sinead O'Connor ripping up the Pope's photo). Putting aside for the moment the violent reactions, which we we all agree are disgusting and wrong, you are basically asking why we should allow the Muslims to get upset over something we don't find that important. Well, right or wrong, it is important to them and if we choose to ignore that fact, we are basically saying to them "Your religious beliefs are ridiculous to us and we won't cut you any slack for things we feel you are overreacting to". I don't think sometimes that we realize how different they perceive things. Most of us don't have a clue about their lives. They are very fervent people and trying to squash them into submission is just going to incite them more. Again, just mho. I would like to see a summit with serious dialog with all the world's religious leaders. Forget political differences as being the world's greatest threat. I believe our religious differences are, and if WW III were to start, you can bet religion will play a big part.

Sure, we all get upset to different degrees and what upsets you doesn't upset me. But we should all agree that a batter shouldn't go out an thrash the pitcher with his baseball bat because he said something the batter didn't like (right or wrong). If this were an normal case of aggressive behavior, we'd recommend anger management sessions. Since it's religiously based, we have to be more understanding and mindful of what we say.

 

[Kendra17]

This answers my questions and confirms suspicions. That imprint was clear. Label it honestly. You are quoting political polemicists, not exegetes or even amateur theologians.

No, there is no place in these arguments TODAY that I've quoted any political polemicist except for Muhammed, who I consider quite political and quite controversial (based on his own pronouncements and revelations). And, since he founded Sharia law, you can consider him political, as well.

If you don't like my side of the argument, take it up with Muhammed. I don't like it either.

 

[fabshelly]

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..."

Christianity is, and has been since before the Crusades, a bloody and violent religion.

"No it's not! The Bible says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill..."

"Now go shoot that abortion doctor..."

 

[mrsltg]

He has taken a long series of moves intended to separate himself from JPII's position on ecumenical issues, especially those involving Islam (it's not for nothing that Kasper was the only one to speak out against Ratzinger as the choice during the novemdiales). Assisi is a continued annoyance, as is the role of Islam in Europe. He also reassigned Fitzgerald (name from memory).

JPII was not a systematic theologian; he was more of a phenomenologist. But one thing is clear - he would never have uttered such a remark, and the desire to provoke (to be clear, I think he meant to provoke a debate between ecumenists, not what we are seeing), would be the opposite of JPII. This is Dominus Iesus

I suppose this is a potatoe - po-tah-toe issue. I don't see this as dishonoring because I generally see "dishonor" to be something done on purpose or something so severe it brings poor reflection on another. I see where you're going, but I don't believe it was a dishonorable reflection. JMO.

 

[Charade]

You are correct. The Hitler Youth charge is not fair

Hey, I got one right! I got one right!

 

[Fitswimmer]

He has taken a long series of moves intended to separate himself from JPII's position on ecumenical issues

Many mainstream Catholics believe that JPII's ecumenical activities went a bit too far. The Pope kissing the Koran was a bit much, the Koran is not a sacred relic in Catholicism and while it deserves respect, that was going a bit too far. There's nothing incorrect about Dominus Iesus either. It correctly states the primacy of Jesus for Catholics. Assisi is a Catholic shrine to St. Francis, it is not a Buddhist temple or a mosque and should not be made into one. There is a vast difference between acceptance of the existence of other faiths and relativism.

 

[fabshelly]

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.

The Muslims I'm friends with (in Egypt) discuss their religion quite well, actually. Why would you think they're not allowed to? They're even (gasp!) women!

 

[sodaseller]

Does the context even matter? Suppose they comments were isolated and deliberately delivered knowing the reaction they would get. Doesn't the reaction prove the statement to be true?

Are we having a "which came first, egg or chicken?" argument?

I think they were intended to provoke a robust and passionate debate like Dominus Iesus did, the 2000 encylical, that Ratzinger put out with great debate as to whether JPII really approved it, given that it seemed to directly undermine his signature Ut Unum Sint. That produced the proverbial firestorm among everyone interested in any ecumenical issues. This one produced the actual firestorm.

I still think that if he knew then what he knows now, he would have chosen other terms

 

[sodaseller]

Many mainstream Catholics believe that JPII's ecumenical activities went a bit too far. The Pope kissing the Koran was a bit much, the Koran is not a sacred relic in Catholicism and while it deserves respect, that was going a bit too far. There's nothing incorrect about Dominus Iesus either. It correctly states the primacy of Jesus for Catholics. Assisi is a Catholic shrine to St. Francis, it is not a Buddhist temple or a mosque and should not be made into one. There is a vast difference between acceptance of the existence of other faiths and relativism.

Believe me I know there were a lot of people upset about it - heck, we even had a schism. I'm not even weighing in on that whole controversy. I'm just trying to give a bit of context to these remarks. And I know what Assisi means. Despite Ignatian training, we're in a Franciscan parish, so even if I don't know before, I certainly have been unable to avoid the great Saint's legacy

 

[sodaseller]

I suppose this is a potatoe - po-tah-toe issue. I don't see this as dishonoring because I generally see "dishonor" to be something done on purpose or something so severe it brings poor reflection on another. I see where you're going, but I don't believe it was a dishonorable reflection. JMO.

Dishonor is probably a poor choice of words on my part. Benedict is entitled to change courses and has done so. I just think he is doing so a bit radically given the esteem that "John Paul the Great" is held and how recently he passed to his Father's House. Santa Subito!

 

[Kendra17]

The Muslims I'm friends with (in Egypt) discuss their religion quite well, actually. Why would you think they're not allowed to? They're even (gasp!) women!

They are not permitted to criticize Islam or Allah or it's prophet, Muhammed. Yes, I believe some women and men do so in private, but they cannot do this freely and publicly, as you are well aware, for fear of being branded a blasphemist or apostate.

There has been some progress in Egypt, but women are still oppressed there. Take a look at this website: http://www.secularislam.org/newsletter/1/women.htm and this article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_51/ai_n9483888

I hope your friend has a progressive family and is not oppressed. I hope she is able to safely help those that are oppressed and subjugated.

 

[Charade]

Christianity is, and has been since before the Crusades, a bloody and violent religion.

"No it's not! The Bible says 'Thou Shalt Not Kill..."

"Now go shoot that abortion doctor..."

And it would just as wrong of an interpretation. But it would be an incorrect interpretation. The Koran literally calls for the death of non-believers. Even if the Bible literally called for the death of abortion doctors, it's a relief to know that only a teeny weeny portion of Christians actually kill abortion doctors. Christianity has reformed itself extensively so that those actions are not encouraged and are condemned.

Now it's Islam's turn.

 

[Charade]

I think they were intended to provoke a robust and passionate debate like Dominus Iesus did, the 2000 encylical, that Ratzinger put out with great debate as to whether JPII really approved it, given that it seemed to directly undermine his signature Ut Unum Sint. That produced the proverbial firestorm among everyone interested in any ecumenical issues. This one produced the actual firestorm.

I still think that if he knew then what he knows now, he would have chosen other terms

So let them debate. Not bomb and murder because they don't like the topic.

 

[Kendra17]

The website I posted before has an interesting page. These stories are written by those raised in Islam. They have REASONS for finding fault in it. They didn't leave because they had a political agenda. They left because they found it to be incompatible with their values. Even if you disagree with me, you might want to give their stories a read.

http://www.secularislam.org/testimonies/index.htm

 

[Laura]

Laura, it can be read in chronological order when it is read along with the sira which provides the historical context of the surahs. The historical context is quite clear and is an interesting history lesson in the history of Islam. Why not actually read the source material and then draw a conclusion instead of blindly supporting something you clearly know very little about?

Indeed, there have been agreements on the order of the surahs, as they can be ordered chronologically to an extent. But there is evidently no way to know for sure.
http://www.islamonline.net/english/Quran/2005/08/article02.shtml

You keep pointing fingers at others that you ought to point at yourself. I would say we are both poor scholars of Islam, Kendra. But every claim you make about Islam can be refuted. Personally, I do not support Islam or its tenets at all, at least no more than any other religion. Yet I have very, very easily found arguments against all the ignorant statements you have made against the religion, trying to incite hate and fear. It has been so easy, in fact, that I wonder where you are finding your information.

 

[Charade]

Are the Muslims claiming the quotes from the Pope are false?

 

[cardaway]

Big difference between reforming and and changing based on a shift in power.

 

[shrubber]

Here is my rant. Please do not read if easily offended.

Are muslims ever NOT "outraged" by something?

J C, muslims must be WAY too sensitive or something because it seems that Islamic countries are flooded with MASSIVE protests/demonstrations etc... every single time a less than flattering statement about Islam/Mohammed is uttered in public.

I mean seriously, don't these blanking people have jobs? How do they get all this time off work to go protest and burn crap at the drop of a hat? And what are they protesting anyway? Who cares what the pope said? They're not christians anyway so write him off as a kook and go back to work.

Hey dimwits, quit shaking your fist at everyone the looks at you funny and get on with your lives.