The non-apology apology strikes again:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060917/ap_on_...eu/pope_muslims

Why should he even apologize? First, he was quoting a Byzantine emperor. Second, his entire comments in context were 100% correct.

Benedict XVI hasn't done or said much in his short papacy--for whatever reasons--but his comments about the quote on Mohammed were right on the money. Personally, I don't think he should have apologized period.

Why don't Jews march in the streets and burn and pillage when someone says something bad about them? What about Christians--do we see them rampaging like violent monsters when someone dares to offend Christ (the Son of God and not just a prophet, BTW)? No. Buddhists? Mormons? Nope.

Only the Muslims. They scream and bitch and burn and pillage and destroy. So much for a "peaceful" religion.

[ September 17, 2006, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

Exactly. There's nothing to apologize for...The Islamics who went wacko over Dutch cartoons and are likely to go ballistic over this as well should do the apologizing. In fact, their reactions fulfill the impression that they're evil and unneccessarily violent. While this Pope is way too conservative in my opinion, at least he strongly preaches non-violence. Those who over-react to any kind of negative statement about Islam are the problem. How can people be so insecure about their faith?

The pope is the leader of the largest and oldest Christian faith, Roman Catholicism, and as such is seen as the most important international representative of Christianity, especially across the globe. As such, his words carry tremendous weight. Whether or not Christians (and BTW, Mormons ARE Christians), Buddhists, Zoroastrians or anyone else burns churches or temples in response to an attack on Christianity, the specifics of the Christian religion and the pope's leading world position require him to show great care in his statements. While his quotation of Manuel II Paleologos was part of a larger argument, it was inflammatory and he did not make it clear in Regensburg that he did not agree with it, as he has in his personal apology. If he did agree with it, however, he should realize that the response could be extremely negative, especially in our contemporary international context, in which radical Islam is empowered and continuing to spread across the globe.

And, of course, Christianity was never spread "by the sword."

If only Muslims around the globe and their painfully politically correct sympathizers in this country were half as outraged at the mass murder of thousands of innocents in the name of "jihad", perhaps Al Qaeda would be extinct by now.

So has Popey finally replaced Danish cartoonists at the top of the Muslim Hate Parade? And just wait until they find out the Vatican helped protect priests who were diddling little boys. Although, the whole turn a blind eye during the Holocaust might score them some pionts with the Muslims.

[ September 18, 2006, 05:37 AM: Message edited by: George Twins fan ]

Indeed it has, and popes have both criticized and apologized for this. IIRC, John Paul II did a retrospect on this, even apologizing for the stupidity of the Church's position with respect to Gallileo (or is it Galilleo?).

Regardless, I don't see Christians marching in the street, burning churches and effigies of an individual, etc. when someone says something bad about them. Hell, I didn't even see Jews burning effigies of Gibson or trashing DVDs of his movies when he went into a drunken anti-Semitic tirade this summer.

Why is it that Muslims feel as if their religion is so sacred that any--ANY--negative reference or connotation of Mohammed brings waves of violence? I am having serious doubts to the overall validity of Islam to begin with.

At the risk of sounding ridiculous, as someone who admittedly is not the most religious person in the world, I once in a while wonder if Islam is Satan's way of battling his nemesis, that being Christ, of course. Could Islam all these centuries have been nothing but a very subtle way of spreading evil through the world, often under the cloak of peace? (God! I'm sounding like my late grandmother!) I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but honestly, I have occasionally thought about this.

So...when Sinead O'Conner CDs were burned and destroyed after the SNL incident, that wasn't burning an effigy? Or the Beatles thing. Or how about the post-9/11 flip out where Muslims were attacked or had their homes damaged or their places or worship destroyed?

Or what about when those Dixie Chicks CDs were burned after they had the temerity to criticize God--er, Bush?

Oh, OK, in that case it was acceptable. We should do more of that. In fact, we might as well kidnap and behead some of them, too, you frickin' apologist.

[ September 18, 2006, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

You asked, I told. Don't attack me for sucessfully refuting your point.

You refuted nothing, as usual. Where are these widespread marches, burnings, pillages, killings, etc.? You can't find them. Period. And no, bringing up the Sinead O'Connor example doesn't count, since that's a faulty comparison to begin with.

[ September 18, 2006, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: MIB ]

This about says it all:

But hey! Don't let Illini apologists and supporters stop them.

Illini_fan: I'm confused by your response. It does not seem that you have refuted anything, let alone successfully. The root of the question was concerning another violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world to words. Words. Do you think the reaction is appropriate? That churches should be bombed? That the Pope should be threatened and killed because he said what he did? I can hardly imagine that you do, but by engaging in only refutation rather than at least refuting and responding, you missed the opportunity to address the much larger question MIB posed.

That question and similar ones are part of the cultural clash we have between the West and the Islamic world. Violence in reaction to cartoons, violence in response to words. I have been and continue to be troubled by the nature of that response.

I'm not surprised that there are violent reactions to violence, such as in the US, or in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or in Sudan. Would that the violence wouldn't have occurred in the first place, or that the response could have been non-violent opposition. Unfortunately that world is so often not in evidence. It doesn't justify the violence, but it can be followed in a sense.

But these reactions are to words, to cartoons, to people's thoughts. What is your take on the Muslim world and why there is such wide-spread violent reactions to cartoons and words?

The examples you gave....I don't see how they fit. To take a position, Sinead O'Connor used her right of free speech to destroy a picture and some of her critics used their right of free speech to destroy CDs. Same type of thing with Canmark's example of the Dixie Chicks (although, as another Canadian friend reminded us on here, not everything that happens in the world is about the US) (and the roll eyes are misplaced because the Chicks were criticizing Bush. Not God, faith, or religion. Personally I admire their courage in speaking their minds. But I have no sympathy for them that it affected their record sales. When you're a singer but use your time at the microphone to make political statements, then welcome to the kitchen...where it's gonna get hot.) And what are you referring to regarding the Beatles that parallels this situation?

And even though I assume you are not saying this, just to be clear, are you saying that because of those examples that the violent reaction in the Muslim world is justified? If so, help me to understand that reasoning, because it is beyond me.

[ September 18, 2006, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Good Hands ]

Nor was there much of a post-9/11 flip out, unless President Bush's sudden addition of "Islamic" to "Judeo-Christian tradition" is the fruit cake that popped out of that pan.

Bottom line: the USA and the West in general have been remarkably - too much so, IMHO - patient with and forgiving of Islamic violence since 1948. Conversely, Islamic moderates have largely been silent and allowed Islamic radicals to recast the content of the Koran to their ends, to the extent they haven't gone farther and adopted it as well. Islam needs to be reminded - forcefully, at this point - that it is NOT the only religion on earth and that it is going to have to coexist peacefully if it is to coexist at all.

There wasn't? Then I must have imagined all the news reports about the spike in violence against Muslims and the arsons involving Mosques.

I do not understand the reaction of the Muslim world on this. The Pope was quoting someone, trying to make a point. Considering all the violence that has ensued, I think he succeeded quite handily. On top of it all, he nearly immediately apologized for any misinterpretation of the quote. Why all the violence? It makes the rest of the world have a very dim view of Islam. Is that what the Muslims want? I may not agree with the Pope, and quite frankly, I don't think he was the best candidate, but he is the Pope. As for the wise-cracks about the priests and little boys, lest you forget, Mohammad was 40 years old when he married a 9 year old girl. Two wrongs don't make a right, but hey, let's call a spade a spade when the title fits.

Sorry Good Hands, missed this the first time around. No, I'm not saying it's justified. In fact, I was just providing violent reactions to when something made Christians angry like MIB asked. I didn't say they were comparable on any scale, merely pointing out instances that MIB asked for.

I have to wonder if this is somehow a normal development in the course of a religion. If militantism is needed to ensure the survival of a belief system. 500-600 years ago, Christians were still carrying out mass violence to ensure their way of believing would dominate and spread. Islam is a few hundered years younger than Chirstianity, trying to survive on a massive geopolitical scale dominated by the western christian culture. Maybe this is their reaction to this pressure and an attempt to spread their religion or at least keep its hold.

Not saying it's justified, just a thought.

Edited to add: Just an aside, I really didn't want to expound on my debate with MIB when he went into insult mode. Most debates with him are pointless flame wars after that point.

[ September 19, 2006, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

I appreciate your follow-up to my post. And I understand if you were feeling flamed. But he did raise some thought provoking points. And, from my perspective your examples were inadequate to support the violent reaction we're seeing (of course, you weren't saying they did, but you didn't connect those dots in your response. Sometimes you have to do that for your readers so we don't put words in your mouth.).

I still don't get your examples of Sinead O'Connor, the Beatles, or the response to the actual attack on the US. That was in my previous post, so I won't repeat it here.

I too have wondered about the period of violence in Christian history and violence in Islam. The big difference seems to be that neither Christ nor the writers of the New Testament authorized violence as a means of spreading the faith. That was a creation of man, a human response that had elements of greed, avarice, and bigotry mixed in as well. It was justified by the worldly rulers, even those who were leaders of the faith.

I can see all those elements in the violent attacks and reactions among some Muslims. The difference being that Muhammad apparently did justify spreading the faith through conquest and violence. So I would wonder if those elements in Islam will "evolve" over time and recognize, as Christians finally did, that spreading the faith through violence is incompatible with that very faith. Or if they will not change perspective, even over time, because of the initial authorization by Muhammad (and thus, from Allah) to use the sword to spread the faith.

Of course, these violent reactions aren't about spreading the faith. They are in response to perceived insults. Again, to words. It's difficult to imagine that Muhammad justified attacking Christian houses of worship because of a perceived verbal insult, let alone attacking Christians (or Jews or others for that matter).

No, like the media, you just grossly inflated them. Perhaps you could cite the exact statistics on all this spiking and burning; your appear to be familiar with them and doing so should be no problem.

Your comment reminds me of Clinton's claim that he "remembered the burning of black churches in Arkansas while growing up." The Wall St. Journal did an excellent job of debunking that claim, as well as showing that the number of arsons against black churches was nowhere near what it was claimed to be during the '50s and '60s. That's not to excuse any of those that actually did occur, but to exaggerate them is equally offensive.

Not to lecture, but in all these posts about violence and Islam, in this thread and others, I'm seeing a LOT of disinformation that could easily be resolved by a read of Robert Spencer's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam." As I noted before, the book does a great job of comparing the teachings of Islam with those of the other faiths, and making it clear that Islam is NOT the "religion of peace" it and others would have it be. Thankfully, as the events and debate unfold in the news, we're starting to see its darker side, from the "head tax" to forced conversions and downward to the reestablishment of the caliphate. And this not from its critics, but its most vocal exponents!

Wow, I mean, who could have ever predicted that they would respond this way.

Does someone who is infallible need to make
apologies?

No disinformation or misinformation from me, but also, who made Spencer the authority on Islam? As I said in a prior post, I have not read his book, but did study some Islamic history, so if his book is grounded in the extensive scholarship on ancient and current Islam, then perhaps he is someone to listen to.

Back to the pope: the quote was inflammatory. I will say it again, but he did not make it clear in his speech that he disagreed with Emperor Manuel II Paleologos's statement, which specifically used the word "evil" in conjunction with Islam. He has since done so, and that was enough for many Muslims and Muslim leaders. But if it is the case that in fact he did agree with the quote, and with the misunderstanding, stated declaratively, of jihad, then he was well aware of the possible response. He surely realized that Christians across the globe, and especially Christian minorities, would be threatened as a result. Since he commands no army except the faithful, perhaps he understood that the provocation might lead to martyrdom, which, in the larger context of the Christian faith, could be, under certain theological understandings, justified.

But, this is the same pope, let us not forget, who has inserted himself in both the US and Italian elections, and who as Cardinal Ratzinger, issued one of the most virulently homophobic documents of the late 20th century. Should you have forgotten it, it's called On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. This same document equates same sexual activity with "intrinsic evil." People who have sex with the same sex, according to Ratzinger/Benedict, are "intrinsically disordered" and practice an "intrinsic moral evil." And, agreeing quite heartily with the very Islamic fanatics he's upset, he declares, "A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally." Just read it. This man has shown himself to be a hatemonger cloaking himself in theology. No one should be surprised, therefore, when under the guise of a religious talk or treatise he issues provocative, insulting statements. I mean, his oration at Regensburg was in part an attack on secularization, which is another way of saying he's still fighting a rearguard action against the Enlightenment, a movement in world history that the Islamicists and most other fanatics (authoritarians, fascists, communists, etc.) are none too fond of either.

Lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgendered people will still not get an apology from this man even if Istanbul once again becomes Byzantium.

[ September 19, 2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The thing I can't get out of my thinking on this is that this was not an unrehearsed comment by the Pope during an interview. This was a line in a speech, deliberately written, approved and delivered by presumably smart people.

A very conservative and religious President Bush once called the war on terror a "crusade" and a very conservative and religious Pope Benedict quotes someone who refers to Mohammed as evil. Is it possible they see this as an inevitable holy-war? The long-awaited, much-prophesied final struggle between "good" and "evil"? Are they purposely adding fuel to a fire they believe is destined?

Here you go. There's a sampling for you.


I'd like to point out how we demand "moderate" Muslims to speak out and to apologize for such actions, nothing of that sort is ever required of Christians when a Christian does something, or white people when another white person commits some crime.

Edit:

Good Hands:

MIB was asking for a response that included burning an effigy. That's pretty much what the entire destruction of Sinead's CDs and merchandising was. The Beatles incident is in reference to the "bigger than Jesus" comment that led to the destruction of their merchandising.

I really didn't feel the need to add that I basically agreed with everyone in the thread, because I felt that added no value to the discussion, just took up space. But of course I should have known better, especially here, that people would put words in my mouth and then respond accordingly.

And while the new testament might not have authorized such means, we all know that Christianity picks and chooses what it likes to enforce out of the old testament (see: Leviticus). The Old Testament is extremely violent and more hinged on a vengeful God. Could this have been the justification for the Crusades/Spanish Inquisition/etc.?

[ September 19, 2006, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: Illini_fan ]

The Muslim community in certain parts of the world may be seen as less progressive than the Western World.

However, would the leader of the Islamic faith (if such a thing existed, which it doesn't) had said that Jesus's teaching were "evil" I think that Christians would have been torching buildings--had this happened in the past, and maybe even the present.

As it is, "Christians" are still burning Dixie Chicks CDs, harrassing (and killing) doctors who give abortions, and some are pronouncing that "God hates fags," despite the "progressive" society that we live in in the West.

But anyways...

To lighten this discussion, I point out this current article in the NY Times on Muslim speed dating in America. It shows how Western Muslims are caught between tradition and modernity.

Thanks, Illini. 177 prosecutions out of 742 reported incidents ... OK. How many of those post-dated 9/11, so as to be a "spike?" I'll assume all, for purposes of this discussion, but I'd like to know for sure. As I said, none of the actual incidents are to be condoned, but prosecuted and condemned. That is why it isn't necessary for Christians or "white people" (?) to be asked to apologize; they/we generally do it on our own. Dare I posit a higher morality as the reason why without being accused or ethnocentricity or racism?

FT, if you look into Spencer's book and background, you'll find he has done more than adequate research on his topic. I never said he's the authority, just a very accurate, courageous and readable one. Another is Bruce Bawer, whose "While Europe Slept," has gotten good reviews and is next on my list.

This Pope's fallibilites have been dwelt upon elsewhere as they relate to G&L issues; there's no need to interject and rehash them here. This is NOT a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." And given that I pretty much consider the Pope irrelevant to "our" issues, I'm not going to lose any sleep awaiting his "apology."

But we don't somehow offer some apology. I've seen many times on here "why don't moderate muslims speak out and/or issue an apology?" I just don't get it, why should we require those not responisble to issue some sort of formal apology when it's reasonable to assume they do not condone such actions taken by those of the same faith.

I don't hold all christians culpable for Fred Phelps nor should all white people be held culpable for KKK members. Why should we hold muslims responsible for the acts of terrorists?

And I highly doubt it's somehow a higher sense of morailty, as morality is subjective anyway.

Illini, I think the request for moderate Muslims, who actually are the majority--or were--to speak up is basically a request for them to claim the rhetorical space from the fanatics. India, Indonesia, Turkey, Malaysia, and Bangladesh have more Sunni Muslims, for example, than the entire Middle East nations combined (India in fact may have more Muslims than the entire population of its neighbor Pakistan), and traditionally these countries have not been sites of radical Islam or hosts to terrorists (though radical strains of Islam have taken root in Indonesia and Malaysia over the last few years). If moderate clerics in these countries spoke out more, I think the belief is that they might be able to mute the power of the radicals and gain greater influence. The reality, however, is that Saudi Arabia, dear friend of the US, has seeded radical Islamic schools all over the world, in some cases transplanting a far harsher version of Islam than what may have existed before, and we are seeing the results. You don't think Pakistanis are paying for those steadily proliferating madrassahs over there, which train students in radicalism, do you? And let's not forget, what country is Osama bin Laden from?

GMG, I mentioned the pope's prior statements because he has been known to utter and pen intemperate, extremely offensive remarks, in a spirit of supreme intellectual assurance. I cannot see John Paul II, or prior popes, uttering such remarks without specific qualifications--hell, John Paul II, whom I was no great fan of, repeatedly made overtures to Muslims.

Keep in mind, this is the same person who
raves about mAnn Coulter's "writings."

Good piece reprinted from "The Hill" on 9-19-06, on this issue. The final paragraph is the clincher. Link to op-ed.

FT, valid points re: JP2 and the Saudis. Just one more incentive for us to wean ourselves off our oil-dependent economy through a serious energy program. Unfortunately, we've yet to see it from anyone so far.

I guess we really should listen to what the Pope has to say. The Catholic Church is such the moral authority - ask about any alter boy.

Well put, Fantomas.

Exactly - Ratzinger is a former Nazi, who has never apologized for guarding the trains the took innocent Jews to their slaughter, and has proven himself to be one of the least enlightened public members of the Opus Dei cult. I have no doubt that Ratzinger knew exactly what he was saying, and how it would be interpreted, when the speech was written. The man, quite frankly, is scum.

More importantly, he is playing right into the hands of the very extremists he claims to be arguing against. For decades now, radical Islam has used the violent passages in the Koran, and the myriad ways in which the West has screwed the Middle East, to build up the hatred of all things West and adoration of all the alleged wonderful things about Islam (I'll go MIB's comment one further and acknowledge my own doubts about the validity of ANY organized religion, at least of the Islamic or "Christian" versions). Tyrannical governments (many of which are the "friends" of the US, at least in Bush-speak) have tacitly, and often explicitly, promoted this fanaticism in order to distract from their own trampling of any/all civil liberties. They want this exact kind of thing from Ratzinger, because it justifies their propaganda.

The more Ratzinger or Bush represent the alleged struggle we currently face as one of "Western modernity vs. evil Islam," the situation will only get worse. Whether one believes in the validity of Islam or not, in fact whether one believes that Islam is an inherently violent religion or not (and while the New Testament is largely devoid of violent instructions, the Old Testament cannot be held so harmless), the fact is we have millions of people in this world who have legitimate grievances, even if the current scapegoats for those grievances are wrong. Until we start addressing that, we will never get anywhere with most Muslims.

And unless we are advocating for genocide, we will have to find a way to live alongside all people who choose "religious lifestyles" that we find abhorent.

I am no fan of Joey Ratz aka Benedict -- and I consider myself a practicing Catholic -- but MIB certainly makes him seem rational and scholarly by comparison. (I wonder if MIB is just blustering, or knows that all religions are violent in one way or another.)

[ September 21, 2006, 12:25 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

This might not be the best thread for it, but the issue won't go away as long as people continue to be unrealistic, willfully or not, about the nature of evil, as so well-described here. Link to op-ed.

For those who differ, instead of attacking her couture, can we get some legitimate colloquy for a change?

Yes, let the Wicked Witch of the Worst Kind (aka: Ann Coulter) speak, gmg. She has the right idea. Let's surrender our own principles and our humanity to the animals (read: terrorists) that we claim to be better than. Let's sink down to their level. Let's violate treaties signed in good faith because it's convenient now to do so and it's the popular thing to do in the name of safety and security.

Then again, no, I have a better idea. I would implore our leadership not to sink to the level of those animals who are the terrorists. We're better than that. We can let them have their fair trial because the truth will come out and they'll be convicted. If it's not the truth, then justice will be served either way. Then, once convicted, we execute them forthwith. The Wicked Witch of the Worst Kind would have us drop down to the level of those animals, when the solution is to be who we are. We're Americans and we can give them their fair trial without bending the rules and STILL get justice. Thanks, gmg, for letting us see how the extreme right views this. Now it's time for common sense to prevail.

As for Pope Benedict, I loved his non-apology apology. "I'm sorry if anyone was offended..." At the same time, I loved the reaction of Muslims who claim to be peaceful and then react so violently to one idiot's message. Come on now!

[ September 21, 2006, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]

I'm frightened...I actually agree with her.

What Mr. Coulter (sorry, women don't have adam's apples) fails to recognize in her "thought" piece, other than what UCLAfan points out, are 1) torture does not work and 2) innocent people have been caught up in the web of horror that the Bush administration has created. We now know that many of the alleged plots that these "terrorists" confessed to under torture were made up, because men and women under torture will say anything they think the torturer wants, whether they are guilty or not (like the innocent Canadian who confessed only after being sent to Syria).

But I digress, we were talking about Pope Nazi after all, who is similarly unimpressed with the possibility that those with whom he disagrees (gays, secularists, Islamics) might have a valid point of view. I don't condone the violence or threats of violence that come from the Muslim community after comments like Ratzinger's, but I understand the frustration that leads people to turn to violence. After all, my ancestors were Irish Republicans, and one man's "terrorist" is another's "freedom fighter."

UCLA, you forget that these are terrorists we're dealing with, who revel in being unbound by the Geneva Convention, until it suits them for public opinion purposes, of course. We're not lowering ourselves to their level; they're being treated with all the dignity and respect they deserve and with which they mistreat others. We're not breaking any treaties since these renegades have no treaties with us to break.

CPT, I agree that the proceeds of torture may well be fruits of a poisoned tree as much as they would be in a coerced confession under criminal law. But I doubt that most of the detainees in Gitmo and elsewhere - a separate issue, BTW, whose legality I'm not at ALL sure of - are as innocent as you'd like them to be.

Also, let \"her\" shave.

So you advocate acting as judge, jury and executioner, without any legal proceedings or chance to prove innocence? So American values - hell, the values of the Western world apply only to those people you like? I think that is exactly the kind of thinking that got the Muslims pissed off at Ratzinger to start with - somehow they are lesser than everyone else (so he can ignore the violence inherent in Judaic and Christian writings, while condemning all Muslims with the violence in the Koran).

And it does not matter how many people are innocent at Gitmo (a place, let us not forget, where we imprisoned Taliban fighters, who were not necessarily terrorists, but could have simplly been defending their country). One innocent person tortured by the US is 1,000 too many.

What part about "don't put words in my mouth," don't you get, Doomster? Did it ever occur to you that some of us are not so cocksure as others and simply don't claim to have all the answers? Maybe it's a Beltway thing to do so, but I sure don't subscribe to that theory - and my posts try to reflect it as they're written, not revised.

To the extent that the prisoners in Gitmo are found to be terrorists, the murderers among them should be sentenced to life at extremely hard labor. Not executed, that'll only foster their martyrdom, within themselves and those who put credit in them. That's the one thing I'm now sure of and which I'll state. How we determine them to be terrorists and what happens to those who aren't remains to be seen. But I'm not at all convinced that any of these people in Gitmo merit the protections of an American criminal trial - cf. military tribunal - including but not limited to access to government secrets and counsel for preparing and presenting their defense.