Posted on 09/16/2006 12:01:58 PM PDT by neverdem
There is more than enough religious anger in the world. So it is particularly disturbing that Pope Benedict XVI has insulted Muslims, quoting a 14th-century description of Islam as “evil and inhuman.”
In the most provocative part of a speech this week on “faith and reason,” the pontiff recounted a conversation between an “erudite” Byzantine Christian emperor and a “learned” Muslim Persian circa 1391. The pope quoted the emperor saying, “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.”
Muslim leaders the world over have demanded apologies and threatened to recall their ambassadors from the Vatican, warning that the pope’s words dangerously reinforce a false and biased view of Islam. For many Muslims, holy war — jihad — is a spiritual struggle, and not a call to violence. And they denounce its perversion by extremists, who use jihad to justify murder and terrorism.
The Vatican issued a statement saying that Benedict meant no offense and in fact desired dialogue. But this is not the first time the pope has fomented discord between Christians and Muslims.
In 2004 when he was still the Vatican’s top theologian, he spoke out against Turkey’s joining the European Union, because Turkey, as a Muslim country was “in permanent contrast to Europe.”
--snip--
The world listens carefully to the words of any pope. And it is tragic and dangerous when one sows pain, either deliberately or carelessly. He needs to offer a deep and persuasive apology, demonstrating that words can also heal.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Let them issue another Fatwa like they did for Salman Rushdie
So we have a Pope who will tell it like it is. The problem with that is...?
I hope the NYT's circulation is continuing to decline. Their anti-religion, anti-America, anti-patriot views belong in the trash.
BIG TIME BUMP!
There's nothing new under the sun.
This idiot (although what can one expect from the NYT) did not read Benedict16's address. That's obvious from this rant.
Pity. The Times was once a paper of some note now reduced to a crapshoot, kneejerk, oppositional defiant screedling.
Once again, and not surprisingly, the point goes right through the Times building with no one getting it. Further, I wonder if anyone at the paper even bothered to follow up and read the Pope's entrie address to get the context of his remarks?
Maybe when mad muzzies come burn down the Times HQ with Pinch and MoDo and Frankie Rich in it, they'll have a glimmer of understanding before succumbing to incineration.
Of course both -- faith and reason -- are provocative to the New York Times. Probably reason especially. Liberalism is all about feeeeeeeeeeeeeelings.
Not only should the pope NOT apologize (and he has not - he has stated that he is sorry that people have chosen to misinterpet his words so as to be offended), but he should re-affirm that his speech should be read by all until they begin to understand the point he invited scholars to probe ("not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God's nature"). If a religion is so unreasonable as to have as its actual doctrine that people who won't believe should be killed simply because they won't believe, then that religion is contrary to God's nature. Think about it, people. Faith and Reason. Fides et Ratio. Thank you, Papa Benedetto!
"Jihad" does not mean spiritual struggle. Mohammed and his followers didn't use spiritual weapons to conquer Mecca, they used swords. After his death, the Islamists didn't rely on proselytization and missionary work to spread their "faith" across the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Europe, they used armies. The reason the Byzantine Emperor was having the aforementioned conversation with a Persian cleric was because the remnants of the Eastern Church were being assailed by the Ottomans at the time!
If Jihad is spiritual in nature, how are all the millions of practioners of this "religion" struggling today? Are they struggling in their communities and nations to free the minds of their children from hatred and bigotry? Are they counseling 14 year old boys not to strap bombs to themselves and commit mass murder? Are they denying refuge to the murderers and savages who "pervert" the way of Islam and reporting them to the authorities? I wish that these revionists would please show us the evidence that the majority of Muslims are peaceful people of conscience by giving examples of how they have acted accordingly. Otherwise Muslims are simply giving lip service to being decent and peaceful people.
Hey, NYT! Get your apology from the present day Byzantine Emperor!
Slaughtered by the Ottomans? No kidding? Wow. Who knew?
I'm glad to know that he didn't apologize. What he said is true, and every time a westerner tries to appease an Islamofascist, the Muslim's belief that he's right and the west is wrong is just strengthened. There is only one thing the Islamofascists respect, and that's strength. Until we convince them we're going to stop them, they'll continue their unholy war against us.
Yeah, especially the NYT.
Considering that islam means "submission," I guess we can safely assume that the NYTimes has converted.
So, is anyone questioning the validity of th statement? Or just condemning the Pope for repeating it?
What a rag the Slimes is.
Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
Why should anyone be surprised at this editorial? The homos and abortion fetishists who run the New York Times have long made it clear that they believe the Catholic Church is the most evil institution in the world. And they have made it equally clear that their heads are rooted firmly in the sand when it comes to the advance of Islamic fascism in the world. This editorial makes both positions crystal clear.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.