Add "slam is a religion of peace" to the list of inaccuracies uttered by Mr Bush.
First the muhammed cartoons. . . . now this.
This constant uproar and civil unrest proves the pontiff's talking points to be true.

"Muslim fury grows at Pope's speech"

The furore over comments made by Pope Benedict about the Islamic concept of Holy War continues to grow. Today British Muslims joined in, fiercely criticising his remarks.

The pontiff was accused of falling into "the trap of bigots and racists" with the comments he made on a visit to Germany.

Last night Vatican officials were scrambling to defend the comments, saying the Pope had never intended to offend Muslims.

During a speech, he quoted a 14th century Byzantine emperor who said the prophet Mohammed had brought "things only evil and inhuman".

But Britain's Ramadhan Foundation, a youth organisation based in Rochdale, reacted angrily to the comments, comparing the Pope unfavourably to his predecessor John Paul II.

In a statement it said: "If the Pope wanted to attack Islam and Prophet Muhammad teachings he could have been brave enough to say it personally without quoting a 14th century Byzantine Christian emperor.

"The late Pope John Paul II spent over 25 years to build bridges and links with the Muslim community. He showed the world that its perception of Islam was false and that we are peace-loving people.

"The Ramadhan Foundation is disappointed that the current Pope has not followed the example of his predecessor; it is essential in today's world that we link together and encourage a wider understanding of our different faiths, celebrating our religious differences is essential in a ever expanding world."

Muhammad Umar, chairman of the foundation, said: "This attack on Islam and Prophet Muhammad by Pope Benedict is recognition that he has fallen into the trap of the bigots and racists when it comes to judging Islam on the actions of a small number of extreme elements."

The Pope's speech quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the Pope said.

"He said, I quote, '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'."

Benedict described the phrases on Islam as "brusque", while neither explicitly agreeing with nor repudiating them.

Pakistan's parliament condemned the "derogatory" remarks today and demanded an apology. The country's foreign ministry said they were "regrettable" and claimed they would encourage violence.

Vatican spokesman the Rev Federico Lombardi issued a statement defending the speech after Pope Benedict returned to Rome. "It certainly wasn't the intention of the Pope to carry out a deep examination of jihad (holy war) and on Muslim thought on it, much less to offend the sensibility of Muslim believers," he said.

He insisted that the pontiff wanted to "cultivate an attitude of respect and dialogue toward the other religions and cultures, obviously also toward Islam".

But Turkey's top Islamic cleric Ali Bardakoglu asked Benedict to apologise and made a string of accusations against Christianity, raising tensions ahead of a planned papal visit to the country in November.

He said he was deeply offended by the remarks and called them "extraordinarily worrying, saddening and unfortunate".

The 57-nation Organisation of the Islamic Conference, based in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, said it regretted "the Pope's quote and for the other falsifications". Militant Islamic websites also attacked the Pope.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Find this story at http://www.dailyma...38&in_page_id=1811
©2006 Associated New Media

So, you're offended that Muslims were offended because the highest official of the Catholic church quoted something that can definitely be considered offensive?

That offends me. Prepare to die, pig.

And this makes the Muslims not peaceful how? Because they complain about something that offends them? It's not like they're trying to whack old Benedict or anything.

One can't say every Muslim is a violent SOB because of the statements and actions of a few. This is akin to saying all Christians are idiots because of Fred Phelps.

The West has been very busy framing Islam as a violent religion for the past forty (plus) years. The West has been framing Christianity as a peaceful religion for eons. Ironically, Christianity has been terribly violent for as long.

Who's right?

NEXT...

Posted by Father Maurice Lester One can't say every Muslim is a violent SOB because of the statements and actions of a few. This is akin to saying all Christians are idiots because of Fred Phelps.

You're either with Fred or you are with the sodomites.
SAY YOU LOVE JESUS!
SAY IT!
Now go wash your hands again.

Posted by DevilC You're either with Fred or you are with the sodomites.

Ted Haggard?

Posted by Asher Archive Ted Haggard?

Like Phelps, another hypocritical turd in the porcelain bowl of right wing religious lunacy.

Posted by KublaKhan Who's right?

What a play on words that could be.

People who are Christians do commit violent acts, but not because they are Christians or because Christ moved them to violence.

People who are of the Islamic faith commit violent acts specifically because they are Muslims and specifically because the prophet and Allah command them to do so.

Posted by DevilC What a play on words that could be. People who are Christians do commit violent acts, but not because they are Christians or because Christ moved them to violence.

I can't believe I'm actually doing this but ...

That's not totally true.

There are plenty of Christians who have commit violent acts because they are Christians.

There are countless examples throughout history of say... witch trials because people were Christians and the bible says 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'

that's just off the top of my head, I know there are more.

But I do agree that Christ never moved anyone to violence:

Matthew 25 v50-52 NIV Bible Then the men stepped forward, seized Jesus and arrested him. With that, one of Jesus' companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. "Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.

Or would he?

"Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it." (Matthew 10:34-39 NAS

I could say here that that's a metaphorical sword, or that Jesus came to bring a sword to the earth but love to his people. But instead I'm just going to say that above all Jesus preached love.

Matthew 22 v34-40 Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Posted by journeylady I could say here that that's a metaphorical sword, or that Jesus came to bring a sword to the earth but love to his people. But instead I'm just going to say that above all Jesus preached love.

One could say that it is metaphorical, but if that were to mean anything they'd have to examine the metaphor in terms of the culture. Metaphors, after all, go far beyond simple literary devices. Our plain ol' conceptual systems are metaphorical in nature, and concepts play a large role in what and how we perceive and act. What I'm getting at is that they can be rather distinctive to a culture. That said, you could argue the same for any other faith or any other violence in any text.

Saying that it could be metaphorical doesn't answer what it is a metaphor for, it doesn't justify the notion that Christianity is peaceful, or more peaceful, than any other religion. It isn't. People are willing to admit to the large atrocities -- the Crusades or various Inquisitions -- but forget about the countless individuals like Anne Askew who suffered horrible and unjust fates at the hands of Christians in the name of their religion. Or how about something modern: Rwanda, look it up, its just as fucking horrible.

Maybe every reference to anything violent in the Bible and every other Holy book is metaphorical. Or maybe, as most scholars believe, it's loosely based on historical events.

There are many great passages that refute the notions in the ones that you've posted, you can find them on Google, if you're interested. This whole "my God is better than your God" stuff is really very painfully outdated, and the bigotry that is accepted because of these religious conflicts makes me ill.

Posted by Asher Archive There are many great passages that refute the notions in the ones that you've posted, you can find them on Google, if you're interested. This whole "my God is better than your God" stuff is really very painfully outdated, and the bigotry that is accepted because of these religious conflicts makes me ill.

If you look back at what I was originally posting you'd see I'm not saying that Christians haven't done the things you've said. big or little. Us sinful Christians have done some horrible things. I know it and I'm ashamed of it.

I wouldn't say we've done any better or worse than any other category of people out there.

What I in fact DID say was that:

posted by Journeylady There are plenty of Christians who have commit violent acts because they are Christians. There are countless examples throughout history of say... witch trials because people were Christians and the bible says 'thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.'

aside: Thanks for telling me I can find passages on Google but I'm sure I can use one of my Bibles or my concordance, or my catechism or my bible study guides.

Posted by journeylady If you look back at what I was originally posting you'd see I'm not saying that Christians haven't done the things you've said. big or little. Us sinful Christians have done some horrible things. I know it and I'm ashamed of it. I wouldn't say we've done any better or worse than any other category of people out there.

I realize that you did not say that Christian's have not committed countless acts of violence, what I am addressing is the broader notions in this thread. Saying that "Islam" isn't a peaceful religion implies that that others are, and they're not. However, the otherness of Islams in a Christian nation allows people to stereotype, make sweeping generalizations, and ignore facts. This is not new, by any means, but it is certainly unacceptable.

aside: Thanks for telling me I can find passages on Google but I'm sure I can use one of my Bibles or my concordance, or my catechism or my bible study guides.

Perhaps you've misread what I said: I was suggesting that if you had any inclination to view that particular religious text from a different, perhaps non-Christian, perspective, then you may wish to search for some new material. Google can help you find some great links to sites that address these issues. Unless, of course, your Bibles and such are going to list the contradictions for you, and more importantly, not give you only the Christian interpretation of these.

Posted by Asher Archive I realize that you did not say that Christian's have not committed countless acts of violence, what I am addressing is the broader notions in this thread. Saying that "Islam" isn't a peaceful religion implies that that others are, and they're not. However, the otherness of Islams in a Christian nation allows people to stereotype, make sweeping generalizations, and ignore facts. This is not new, by any means, but it is certainly unacceptable.

Ah yes well with that I have to agree with you. I don't think that Islam as a religion is any more violent than Christianity or any other.

Perhaps you've misread what I said: I was suggesting that if you had any inclination to view that particular religious text from a different, perhaps non-Christian, perspective, then you may wish to search for some new material. Google can help you find some great links to sites that address these issues. Unless, of course, your Bibles and such are going to list the contradictions for you, and more importantly, not give you only the Christian interpretation of these.

And yes I did misread that.

Sorry.

I don't know why I'd want to look at my bible as something other than Christian.

It seems to me that looking at it as 'loosely based on historical events' or from another perspective other than Christian for me would be similar to you looking at a science textbook as an interesting fiction story that has bases in real science.

or perhaps that's a bad analogy.

Either way, I do appreciate the suggestion.

Posted by journeylady I don't know why I'd want to look at my bible as something other than Christian. It seems to me that looking at it as 'loosely based on historical events' or from another perspective other than Christian for me would be similar to you looking at a science textbook as an interesting fiction story that has bases in real science.

Looking at anything in your life from a perspective other than your own will always provide some kind of new insight. A science text book does not have to be read according to its intended purpose; it could be read as a cultural artifact, historical account, or even a literary work. I'm thinking of something more like Origin of Species for literary work, as opposed to a Halliday, Resnick, Walker style text. Looking at the Bible as historical accounts can help to put into context many of the values that it offers up. It can also be studied as a literary work, in the same vein as Milton's Paradise Lost, and it often necessary for the sake of understanding a lot of the intertextuality of Western literature. I doubt that when John Richardson wrote Wacousta he thought that anyone would do a feminist reading of it, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Looking at other perspectives is a great way to attack and destroy a lot of the bigotry that surrounds religion, and culture. I think that it would be particularly helpful for this kind of perception of Islam.

Posted by Asher Archive Looking at other perspectives is a great way to attack and destroy a lot of the bigotry that surrounds religion, and culture. I think that it would be particularly helpful for this kind of perception of Islam.

I think that is the LAST thing modern Muslim scholars would want us to do!
If you study Muhammad as a historical figure he ranks right next to Ghengis Khan, Joe Stalin, and Napoleon as one of the best and most ruthless empire builders in world history.
The man was a military and political genius who just happened to forge a religion.

Posted by DevilC I think that is the LAST thing modern Muslim scholars would want us to do! If you study Muhammad as a historical figure he ranks right next to Ghengis Khan, Joe Stalin, and Napoleon as one of the best and most ruthless empire builders in world history. The man was a military and political genius who just happened to forge a religion.

That's not the point at all. You are not even addressing my suggestion, you're just creating a fictitious argument based on a generalization of a massive body of individuals that you seem to know nothing about.

Posted by Asher Archive That's not the point at all. You are not even addressing my suggestion, you're just creating a fictitious argument based on a generalization of a massive body of individuals that you seem to know nothing about.

fictitious argument?
Nothing I said was incorrect madame.
How many years have you spent living in the Middle East?
How many years of your life have you spend devoted to this problem set?
I would venture an educated guess that few, if any, who post here have the background knowledge on this topic I have.

If you look at the religion and its leaders in a purely historical context you get a more negative picture of the Islamic faith.