The Terrorism Of Intolerance

an capall

an capall

Senior Jockey
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
5,591
Location
Dalkey
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

- Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus

------------

Let me confess that I am at a loss as to how the leader of my church can hope to engage young Catholics with arcane and dense sermons in which quotes from 1391 texts are central. Secondly, the quote itself is a little rich given that Christianity had just spent 300 years hacking off Muslim noggins.

But having said that, I find the rush to be offended in the Muslim world increasingly annoying. I am a pluralist but the more I see of these recreational offendees the more I am inclined to think "Fcuk 'em Il Papa. Don't retract."

I find the terrorism suppressing ideas much more scary than the bomb kind.
 
The sad thing is what Pope said is absolutely right.

The Denmark affair is also close to this and I find shocking how Muslin reacts against us and how some of us try to understand them, defend them and or justificated them.


I sincerily hope the Pope does not step down any of the words he has said and mantein them.
 
I agree with An's last sentence but spreading a faith by the sword sounds like Catholicism in South/Central America to me. :confused:

The words 'glass', 'house' and 'stones' come to mind.
 
Yes
Catholic and christian people are very agressive and we dont dont know how to behave with these lovely and peaceful muslims..... :lol:
 
Neither religion has a history glorious for its toleration of opposing ideas, so there's little point in trying to out-piss one another on that score. There are thousands of examples littering the centuries of sanctioned cruelty and brutality, but all of it was perfectly fine because both, and a few other beliefs along with them, knew that they were doing it for the good of those being burnt, flogged, crucified, beheaded, torn apart by horses, broken on the wheel, hung in irons, hung on hooks, walled up alive... indeed, Christianity and Islam both have contributed enormously to every sadist's wildest dreams, let alone any amount of entertainment.

The context of the discussion was, apparently, holy war, something which is not unknown to either the Catholics or Muslims, both having set about boxing each other's ears during the Crusades and other spectaculars. I'm sure the Pope intended the quotation to shore up a view of jihad = wrong, crusade = right, as it was at the time. It's a small quote from a longer quotation and, as usual, given that they know they're in the Press for all the wrong reasons these days, the more radical Muslims must take to the streets to demonstrate firmly that they are not all crazed, Christian-burning, bomb-throwing, intolerant lunatics unable to view a historical rebuke in the context of the time. They've expressed this by becoming crazed, effigy-burning, RC-school burning, intolerant lunatics unable to ....

So predictable all round, really.

Suny, if you don't think that today's Christians are capable of intolerance and lunacy, may I commend you to watch tonight "The Doomsday Code" at 7.00 - 9.00 pm on UK's Channel Four? It discusses Revelations from the Bible: according to a 2002 poll, 59% of Americans believe that these prophecies will come to pass. Many have powerful friends in the White House and their opponents are convinced that they are actively trying to ENSURE THAT THESE EVENTS OCCUR. The presenter, the well-regarded Tony Robinson, meets those who believe that Israel will fight a nuclear war with the Islamic world, that the Secretary General of the UN (your favourite politician) is the Antichrist, and that the world will end with the Battle of Armageddon.

I don't know about you, but armageddon tired of all these goddam fanatics!
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Sep 16 2006, 09:52 AM
I sincerily hope the Pope does not step down any of the words he has said and mantein them.
Click to expand...
Would appear that he has. It remains to be seen whether it placates the radicals?.

Context is all critical in this one. Radical preachers have come out with more inflamatory speaches, but they are after all fringe contributors, the Pope isn't. Also there has to be doubt as to whether you can legitimately take someone elses quote and then defend yourself by selective attribution. They really should have foreseen that taking a quote can easily be construed as passing an opinion by proxy. Having said that, I haven't read the full speech (translation) and suspect that seizing bits out of context can equally be massaged to fit what ever it was you want to present.

Oh don't you just love religion :cry:

I should also say, some of those effigies looked decidely homogenous. I'm grateful to the BBC for telling us who they were supposed to be, since I'd never have recognised them as being the Pope. In fact they looked more like that sort of thing I used to make every November and try and solicit 10p for.
 
Krizon


I dont mind what christians did 500 or 1500 years, as I dont see german people today responsible about the Hitler years.


What I see is what is happening with islamist nowdays and there are 2 chances:
to allow them to continue behaving in this way against occident or not allow it, it is our choice how to face this fanatic people.



Can you imagine how would they have reacted if something similar of what happened in NY or London would have happened in one of their countries and made by an occidental terrorist.



What is happenning is that some elites of those countries have found the way to blame occident of all their problems and in that way they can lead their countries ,steal money and have the power in other way they would not be able to reach.



Some of that people have been studying and living with us(occident) on know how accomadated is our society and that we dont want to have conflicts but is only a matter of time the conflict will arrive, they will not stop .
 
suny, there are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world. They represent about 22% of the world's population. They are the second largest religion in the world. Only Christianity is larger, with 33% of the world's inhabitants. How many of them do you blame for acts of terrorism?
 
I am not able to give you a number
but most of them defend it and accept it morally and much more than we think are completely in favour of it.



What solutions do you apport with this affair to solve the problem?


Just to give you another example of how they are winning the battle in all the fronts.

The spanish soldiers are now in Libano and are not allowed to look at the eyes of the women there, they are not allow to drink wine there!!!!


In that way what we are showing is how weak are we defending our style of life.



Can you compare the reaction of films against Christ in comparation with the cartoons of Denmarks



Or what happened to Salman Rusdhie



Trying to dialogate with this people is a complete waste of time and time will prove it in a short future.
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Sep 16 2006, 06:28 PM
I am not able to give you a number
but most of them defend it and accept it morally and much more than we think are completely in favour of it.
Click to expand...
How do you know?
 
Originally posted by sunybay@Sep 16 2006, 06:28 PM
Can you compare the reaction of films against Christ in comparation with the cartoons of Denmarks
Click to expand...
Yes. Are you not aware of the reaction in many parts of America against Martin Scorsese's film "The Passions Of The Christ"?

I hold no brief for extremist fanatics of any political, religious or national persuasion but neither do I believe in condemning millions of people because of the actions of a few. Which, sadly, is what happens in the mountains on the Afghanistan/Pakistan borders and in that big house on Pennsylvania Avenue.
 
And here was me thinking it was an oblique reference to the American oil giant of the same name that the Bush regime is so keen to support in their attempts to take over Columbia and Venezula.
 
I thought the Muslims of Kashmir took the news rather well meself

_42093952_kashmir-ap416.jpg
 
Me thinkz you've got that wrong Euro. Thats a standard Pakistani LBW appeal for crying out loud :P
 
This is the context in which his holiness's remarks were made:
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature.
Click to expand...

What we have here is an attempt to explore the history of the remarks of antecedents.

That fundamentalists should seize upon the remarks says more about them than about either the Pope or Christians, or - for those who would disassociate themselves from the papacy - Catholicism.

In an era in which dialogue and understanding appear the keys to progress, we have a minority seeking to stir up unrest and conflict among ecumenists.

Then we have the media - anxious to piggyback, if not twist, anything that will sell their precious commodity - exacerbating the unrest among their otherwise disinterested or apathetic audience and/or readership and before you know it we are in the throes of an unholy war.

How these morons sleep at night is beyond me.

I would also have to ask the question, where is the voice of moderate Islam in all this?
 
Thank you for that DO. As I beleive I stated earlier, context is all important, but in our cases we live in a media investigative world where surgical dissection and interpretation is readily available, and most of us aren't beaten into a line of believe from an early age. What ever the limits of our education system, (and that of America), we are at least able to judge with a sense of what was said (I hesitate to use the words to be honest) as I'm consciuous of how silly our buildings, robes, and rituals look elsewhwere. They look silly to me any way, and no less silly than those of the mad mullahs.

Before some of you who have witnessed my previous posts in this forum think differently? I'm not an apologist for radical Islam, you'd be wrong. Those of a more perceptive observation will have worked it out :D

Peace, Land, Bread :D
 
Originally posted by Desert Orchid@Sep 16 2006, 11:40 PM
I would also have to ask the question, where is the voice of moderate Islam in all this?
Click to expand...
In the same place as the voice of non-sectarian Rangers and Celtic supporters - it's there but it's not news.
 
Back
Top