Indigo Jo Blogs

The reaction, which once again makes us all look like senseless rabble, has done Islam a far worse disservice than anything Ratzinger has said, either in Regensburg last week or in his entire career.

That senseless rabble image is becoming rather 'fixed' don't you think?

Since it happens EACH AND EVERY TIME some retrograde lunatic gets 'offended', perhaps it's not so outlandish to question who ,in fact, controls the situation here.

Somehow I don't think it's you or the 'moderates' who continutally keep saying that these neo-barbarians are merely a 'small fringe'.

What the Catholic Church did in the past was 500 years ago, Islam is doing TODAY. 500 years is more than enough time to SMARTEN UP. Or it would be if the culture was not trapped in aspic, and doomed to live the same epoch forever. Islam appears to be the Bill Murray character in 'Groundhog Day'.

Without the laughs.

Get a grip on the cult, or as everyone can plainly see now, somehow a grip will be imposed.

No-one wants that Clash Of Civilizations. But it's coming. The question is" Can It Be Prevented ?"

Based upon this latest farcical Islamic Stupidity, I think the smart money would have to go with a 'NO' bet.

Islam is demonizing itself. Can't the 'militants' see that? Can't anyone?

It seems to be the same "rent-a-mob". I bet none of them have read what the Pope actually said.

"a misconception that Islam was spread by the sword, which in terms of Islam as a set of beliefs rather than as a political system, it was not." What is the difference?

Dougf; perhaps it's not so outlandish to question who ,in fact, controls the situation here

How do you suggest that should be done, doug? I'm sure that Indigo Jo and the 'moderates' who continually keep saying that these neo-barbarians are merely a 'small fringe' would love to control the neo-barbarians, but that's easier said than done for members of any religion that doesn't have the option of establishing an inquisition and handing people over to the secular arm when necessary, is it not?

Irshad Manji has stepped in revealing to everyone that the Pope's speech was actually about interfaith dialogue.

http://www.muslim-refusenik.com/news/cbsnews-2006-09-18.html

Everyone else (including the church) had described it as being about faith and reason. Apparently she knows better.

What makes this really odd is that he has publically stated that he doesn't believe interfaith dialogue is possible with religions other than Judaism.

This might help clarify the focus and context.

As a young man, the new Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth (HJ).

Regensburg, where the Pope made his speech, was the site of a World War II concentration camp, a subcamp of the larger Flossenbürg concentration camp. Today nothing remains and there is no memorial of the Regensburg camp.

Muslims who ask "Why should I care about the European state genocides?" might try an exercise in imagination. Before World War II, there were few Muslims in Europe. By the 1960s, there were millions of Muslims permanently resident in Europe.

If Muslims had been living in Germany and German-occupied Europe in large numbers during the Hitler years, what would their fate have been? Would the Nazis have viewed them warmly as fellow Aryans?

Most of this post and thread concentrates on the Muslim world's reaction to the Pope's speech, and where the reaction is violent, appropriately condemning it. I condemn all violence, too, and to date have a pretty perfect life record of No Violence.

But non-violence should be chosen in an adult, educated, informed context. Non-violence is not likely to be or to become an important force in the world if the first and last we hear of it is a kindergarten lesson against punching our classmates.

Ealier the new Pope expressed his opposition to the inclusion of Turkey into the European Union, and made it clear that his opposition stemmed from his belief in Europe's fundamental and historical Christian identity -- which partnering with majority Muslim Turkey would threaten or undercut. The Pope has said he sees his Papal mission as strengthening Europe's Christian identity and traditions.

Which may be nice in theory, but his vision for Europe seems to imply loss for the valid aspirations of Muslims in countries neighboring to Europe, and second-class citizenship or residency for Muslims already in Europe -- who were invited and lured to Europe to provide the cheap labor for Europe's postwar economic miracles.

If this is all about Non-Violence, you got my vote, that's a No Brainer.

But if the Pope gets any kind of Free Pass for his remarks, in the Regensburg speech and in many other of his comments since assuming the Papacy, I think that's a serious mistake.

There's already violence. In Berlin you can see signs on street doors that say EMERGENCY ENTRANCE (in several languages). The doors are there for Muslims/Turks to seek safety if they're being chased through the streets by a racist mob.

Good article, it pretty much sums up how I feel. I'd like to add that the some of the reactions are far more offensive and insulting to Islam and the Prophet (pbuh). Isn't there a way to make those Muslims aware how offensive and damaging their actions are to Islam and Muslims, that instead of defending the Prophet (pbuh) they actually do the opposite?

Check the bloody history of Catholicism: Then remember the Pope said Islam was spread by the sword. What’s the word I’m reaching for here? Hypocrisy perhaps, even though it never quite made the Seven Deadly Sins. Impossible to even estimate the deaths and suffering Mother Church was responsible for. "Inquisition" is all you need say and even that’s not the whole story. If Christianity were judged by its history, who would be Christian? But I ask you, how else should it be judged. Now step back: The coming conflict will be Christianity and Islam. Radical Muslims literally shot themselves in the foot by over reacting. Threatening to kill the Pope: Now that’s guaranteed to get all Catholics on side. Nice one Your Holiness. Shame about the "infallibility" part, but Vatican policy makers must have surely realised that this piece of Mediaeval BS needed updating. Remember, in politics nothing happens by accident.

Check the bloody history of Catholicism

The Catholic Church has acknowledged its own bloody history. In fact the last Pope apologised for the Crusades.

Muslims do not seem willing to acknowledge Islam's own violent past.

Yusuf, I just became aware that Hamas did condemn the attacks on Churches in the West Bank, saying that Palestinian Christians 'are full fledged citizens and partners in sorrow and happiness' and that Hamas will not allow any violent action against those Churches or Palestinian Christians. They've urged the PA security to provide protection to the Churches. Why doesn't this get reported at the same time as the news of the vandalism?

Well this ultra-conservative Catholic website did report the Hamas story.

http://www.romancatholicreport.com/index.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060917/wlmideastafp/vaticanpopeislam_060917141110

Really pRickler? whats that about acknowledging violent past? I guess thats the reason you supported terrorism against the people of Iraq. BNP scum.

His comment that Islam "simply does not have the separation of the political and religious sphere that Christianity has had from the beginning" is true about Islam and false about his own religion, which has for centuries, in fact most of its history as a Roman rather than Semitic religion, been deeply politically involved.

Except in the field of intolerance of non-believers, Islam is far more political than Catholicism. If you selected a pre-20th century Catholic country at random the chances are it would be governed by some variant of Roman law (of pre-Christian origin), while a randomly selected pre-20th century Muslim country would probably be governed by Shari'ah law.

Also, Catholic Christendom traditionally separated religious governance (the Pope) from secular governance (the Holy Roman Emperor). The Islamic Caliphs on the other hand combined both these roles in one man.

You don't mitigate your own guilt by pointing out the greater guilt of other. But with over six hundred years of Inquisition involving the most hideous tortures, followed by execution (including burning at the stake) on Catholicism’s rap sheet, claiming that Islam carries the greater guilt burden, takes an unmitigated gall. We are talking of hundreds of thousands of victims here, possibly millions. Compared with Catholicism, the Third Reich was a collage hazing party that got a little out of hand. You really believe an apology wipes the slate clean? Not in my book it doesn't. Besides, you were trying to decimate the greatest deception in history, and murder anyone that disagreed. A religion of love, tolerance and forgiveness? Give me a break.

Weren't many Islamic conquests only made possible by Christian intolerance?

The Muslims won the Battle of Yarmuk thanks to the defection of the Monophysite Christian Ghassanids (brutally persecuted by the Greek-Orthodox Byzantines).

The Jews of 8th-century Spain, literally enslaved by the Visigoths, became a very handy fifth column for the Umayyad invaders.

Catholic intolerance towards Orthodox Christians - illustrated so brutally by the 4th Crusade - led to "better the turban than the mitre". The Orthodox decided that keeping their faith - even as dhimmis - was preferable to forced conversion to Catholicism.