1115.org

Comments

1. sac wrote:

   This would be a good response from the Pope.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 10:18 am ¶

2. sarabeth wrote:

   No, it wouldn’t, because that’s absolute bullshit.

   There’s no comparison between the leader of the Catholic Church saying what he said, and the fact that “there are Muslims who routinely justify mass murder in the name of Islam”. Or the fact that two Christian journalists were forcibly converted to Islam by kidnappers.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 12:13 pm ¶

3. InTheMiddle wrote:

   Islam extremists…taking their bible a little too literally in killing people who are not muslim…..

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 12:54 pm ¶

4. sac wrote:

   Have you read the speech in question? It’s here.

   As an agnostic, I’m wary of any institution proclaiming to have knowledge of existence, but I do respect the power that religion has with many people. From what I read of the speech, the Pope seems to be arguing that religion without reason is useless, therefore the concept of a Holy War is not in keeping with religion. Of course, the Crusades were the most famous holy wars in history, led by the very church that Benedict is head of. I’m pretty sure the Vatican has aplogized and condemned those acts since then. I’m certain that current Vatican law and policy condemns almost any use of violence, has condemned US activity in Iraq, has condemned Israeli treatment of Palestinians, and has condemned things like suicide bombers, etc. That’s the Catholic Church the world deals with TODAY. Disagree with them on contraception, etc., you have to hand it to them when it comes to their position on warfare.

   The Islam the world deals with today is more complex in that there is no central authority, which is admirable in a lot of aspects, but it does make it more difficult to get a feel for the “official” Muslim perspective on one issue or another. As far as I can tell, there is no such thing in Islam. Again, a perfectly valid approach. But the various Muslim leaders also are rather tight with their condemnations of acts of violence from their own people, from suicide bombers claiming to be dying for Allah, to the Iranian prez calling for the destruction of Israel. We get some calls for peace from Western Muslim leaders on the local level, but that’s about it.

   So on one hand we have official condemnations of violence perpetrated by all sides from the head of the largest (I think, possibly 2nd largest) church on earth, and on the other hand we have nada from the various leaders of Islam. That’s the reality of the two religions we are dealing with TODAY.

   So, do Muslim leaders condemn the use of violence in the name of religion, or do they not? In that same speech, the Pope calls for inter-faith talks with religious leaders around the world. Has the Muslim world offered anything similar (don’t say the Iranian prez’s call for a debate with Bush, despite what many people think, Bush ain’t a religious leader and dialogue is not what Iranian prez is after)? It may not have been a wise strategic move for the Pope to use that quote as the catalyst for an academic discussion, but he’s made it clear that he respects the Islamic religion personally and officially.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 12:57 pm ¶

5. sac wrote:

   Here’s a speech from the Pope given last year regarding the peaceful coexistence of Christianity and Islam. An excerpt:

   How many pages of history record battles and wars that have been waged, with both sides invoking the Name of God, as if fighting and killing the enemy could be pleasing to him. The recollection of these sad events should fill us with shame, for we know only too well what atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

   The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other’s identity.

   It is completely consistent with his more recent speech condemning acts of violence in the name of religion.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 1:18 pm ¶

6. sac wrote:

   btw, the Dems would do well to pick up on the actual message of the Pope’s speech, which is condemning religious fundamentalist violence regardless of where it’s coming from, and run with it. This is the type of muscular liberalism I want to see from the Dems.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 1:29 pm ¶

7. sac wrote:

   I meant aligning themselves clearly with the Pope on this. Of course we’re all against violence, blah blah. But I think the Democratic Party vocally supporting the Pope on this would be an interesting and effective strategy. A lot of liberal Catholics out there, and they can agree with the Vatican on this case and still disagree with them on abortion, contraception, etc.

   Sorry for the comment torrent today. Hopped up on caffeine and kind of slow at work.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 1:40 pm ¶

8. sarabeth wrote:

   None of this changes the fact that when you went “This would be a good response from the Pope”, the post that you linked to was absolute bullshit.

   Also, no one is disputing that the pope’s speech was a good speech. His use of that quote was still absolutely stupid, and the Democrats would do well not to follow the Pope’s example by making good speeches that contain suicidal sound-bites.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 2:18 pm ¶

9. sac wrote:

   I disagree that my link is bullshit, but I’ll agree he could have chosen a less inflammatory quote, although the quote he used is academically valid as a jumping-off point for his speech.

   The real issue, though, is why this quote, contained within a highly academic speech and not meant as a policy speech, considered so inflammatory? Why is the reaction of many Muslims to this speech so predictable and vehement? We have witnessed Muslim leaders call outright for the death of an entire people, and yet the Pope can’t make an academic point without more calls for violence. THAT is bullshit. Walking on eggshells is not a valid policy. Clear condemnation of violence paired with calls for inter-faith talks is a real policy. Calls for more accountability within Muslim leadership is a real policy.

   The Democrats should absolutely take this issue and run with it. Piggyback on the Pope’s call for inter-faith talks with calls for serious talks with Syria, Iran, the Palestinians, etc. Be the party of dialogue, for chrissakes. Absolutely steamroll over the Bush policy of “you first” by initiating the dialogue. Don’t even acknowledge the Bush policy, in fact.

   Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 2:44 pm ¶

10. sac wrote:

    The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: “For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.”

    That was the point of including the controversial quote. I’m not a scholar of Islam, so I’m open to assertions to the contrary.

    Posted 18 Sep 2006 at 2:52 pm ¶

Post a Comment