MERGED-->The Pope insults Islam + Turkish official compares Pope...

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
melon said:
You're arguing apples and oranges here. The Bible makes no pronouncement on the ideal form of government...
You're probably glad that it doesn't. The Bible overall is pro-democracy, but anti-anarchy. Paul wrote about the role in government, and how it (as theocratic as it sounds) can be a servant of God when it is orderly.

melon said:
and if you are looking for even the slightest form, I guess you could say that Jesus supported despotism:

"They watched him closely and sent agents pretending to be righteous who were to trap him in speech, in order to hand him over to the authority and power of the governor. They posed this question to him, 'Teacher, we know that what you say and teach is correct, and you show no partiality, but teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. Is it lawful for us to pay tribute to Caesar or not?' Recognizing their craftiness he said to them, 'Show me a denarius; whose image and name does it bear?' They replied, 'Caesar's.' So he said to them, 'Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.'" - Luke 20:20-25
The context is that Jesus was asked on his views about paying taxes, regardless of how immoral he found the tax collectors to be. His wild accusers accused him of telling his disciples not to pay taxes, but yes, I think we have some common ground in regards to no absolute principle regarding the economy found in the Bible. However, Karl Marx hated everything about the Bible, he hated Creationism (and absolutely LOVED atheistic Darwinism, he hated religion because of the fact that people gave a tithe to the Church, and he wanted that money to go to the government instead for the cause of economic equality, regardless of the fact that some people work harder than others, some people think harder than others, and some people live with their hands out. So what I'm saying is that you have to see Marx as the first seed to see entirely why I would justify why The Bible is The Anti-Communist Manifesto.

melon said:
The Roman Empire was only remotely kind to those they deemed "Roman citizens," and there were plenty of slaves, not to mention that this same empire killed Christians for the following 300 years.

And yet, Jesus still refused to condemn the Roman Empire.

I'm not saying that we have to be complacent and support a terrible government in light of this passage. I'm saying that it was Jesus' intention to focus on spiritual matters, not worldly, political matters; and to call it "The Anti-Communist Manifesto" would be blasphemous, as I see it.

Melon
I agree that Jesus' intentions were non-political, and if you find it blasphemous, then fine. I don't because I see Marx as an anti-Christ. He was the aggressor that told us that religion is the opiate of the masses, and was rather hostile towards Christianity in particular. He wanted to change society to "biblical" proportions.
 
(AP) CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida militants in Iraq vowed war on “worshippers of the cross” and protesters burned a papal effigy on Monday over Pope Benedict’s comments on Islam, while Western churchmen and statesmen tried to calm passions.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei joined a chorus of Muslim criticism of the head of the world’s 1.1 billion Roman Catholics, calling the pope’s remarks “the latest chain of the crusade against Islam started by America’s (President) Bush”.
 
A notorious Muslim extremist told a demonstration in London yesterday that the Pope should face execution.

Anjem Choudary said those who insulted Islam would be "subject to capital punishment".

Should the Pope have apologised for his remarks? Vote here

His remarks came during a protest outside Westminster Cathedral on a day that worldwide anger among Muslim hardliners towards Pope Benedict XVI appeared to deepen.

The pontiff yesterday apologised for causing offence during a lecture last week. Quoting a medieval emperor, his words were taken to mean that he called the prophet Mohammed "evil and inhuman".

He insisted he was "deeply sorry" but his humbling words did not go far enough to silence all his critics or quell the violence and anger he has triggered.

A nun was shot dead in Somalia by Islamic gunmen and churches came under attack in Palestine.

Choudary's appeal for the death of Pope Benedict was the second time he has been linked with apparent incitement to murder within a year.

The 39-year-old lawyer organised

demonstrations against the publication of cartoons of Mohammed in February in Denmark. Protesters carried placards declaring "Behead Those Who Insult Islam".

Yesterday he said: "The Muslims take their religion very seriously and non-Muslims must appreciate that and that must also understand that there may be serious consequences if you insult Islam and the prophet.

"Whoever insults the message of Mohammed is going to be subject to capital punishment."

He added: "I am here have a peaceful demonstration. But there may be people in Italy or other parts of the world who would carry that out.

"I think that warning needs to be understood by all people who want to insult Islam and want to insult the prophet of Islam."

As well as placards attacking the Pope such as "Pope go to Hell", his followers outside the country's principal Roman Catholic church also waved slogans aimed at offending the sentiments of Christians such as "Jesus is the slave of Allah".

A Scotland Yard spokesman said of his comments: "We have had no complaints about this. There were around 100 people at the demonstration. It passed off peacefully and there were no arrests."

Larger Islamic groups in Britain said they accepted the Pope's apology. Inayat Bunglawala of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "The Vatican has moved quickly to deal with the hurt and we accept that.

"It was something that should never have happened - words of that nature were always likely to cause dismay - and we believe some of the Pope's advisers may have been at fault over his speech."

Yesterday's sermon by the Pope was the first time a pontiff has publicly said sorry.

He said he regretted Muslim reaction to his speech and stressed that the quotation did not reflect his personal opinion. Anger and violence - including attacks on seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza - have characterised one of the biggest international crises involving the Vatican in decades.

The Pope appeared determined to move quickly to try to defuse the anger but the fury of many radicals was unabated last night and there were fears for his safety.

Iraqi jihadists issued a video of a scimitar slicing a cross in two, intercut with images of Benedict and the burning Twin Towers.

The website run in the name of the Mujahedeen Army, used by extremist groups who have claimed responsibility for attacks in Iraq, was addressed to "You dog of Rome" and threatened to "shake your thrones and break your crosses in your home".

In a reference to suicide bombing, it said: "We swear to God to send you people who adore death as much as you adore life."

The threat of violence against Catholics and Christians was emphasised by the murder of an Italian nun in Somalia. Sister Leonella, 66, was shot as she walked from the children's hospital where she worked to her house in Mogadishu, a city recently taken over by an Islamic government.

A Vatican spokesman said he feared her death was "the fruit of violence and irrationality arising from the current situation".

Father Frederico Lombardi said he hoped it was an isolated event. "We are worried about this wave of hatred and hope it doesn't have any grave consequences for the Church around the world," he said.

The murder suggested that extremists are determined to use the Pope's embarrassment as an excuse for violence.

In Turkey, state minister Mehmet Aydin said the Pope seemed to be saying he was sorry for the outrage but not necessarily for his remarks.

"You either have to say this, 'I'm sorry' in a proper way or not say it at all," he told reporters in Istanbul.

There were fierce denunciations of the pontiff from Iran. The English-language Tehran Times called his lecture in Bavaria last week "code words for a new crusade".

The powerful cleric Ahmad Khatami told theological students in the holy city of Qom: The "Pope should fall on his knees in front of a senior Muslim cleric and try to understand Islam."

But the Turkish government signalled it was content and that the Pope's visit to the country in November can go ahead.

In his sermon yesterday at the Papal summer residence of Castel Gandolfo outside Rome, Benedict spoke amid strengthened security.

He said: "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of my address at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility of Muslims.

"These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought. I hope this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address."

No other Pope is thought to have made such an apology.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...s Muslim/article.do?expand=true#StartComments

Disgusting!!!
 
Rono said:
The niples off janet and a gay spongebob ? I remember also something about sinead oconner tearing a picture of the pope, what a negative reactions she got. O, and the latest, Madonna on the cross at the new worldtour,...some christians wanted to forbid that trough a court order.

Yes, but did Christians go and kill Madonna fans, the producers of Spongebob and Janet Jackson? No. The most Christians do is complain. They don't murder.
 
AEON said:


I am a firm believer that all ideas come from one of two sources: God or "the World" (i.e. Satan - laugh if you must, but this is what I believe and this is what the Bible teaches...and most importantly, it makes perfect sense). I try to place every idea into one of these two camps. It doesn't work all of the time, but it certainly does work much of the time.

It is easy for me to see where this laughable quote lands. If the Russian Revolution had never happened, Marx would’ve been long forgotten.

No we must wait another 50 or so years until he's forgotten.

Wanderer, I do agree with many of your posts. You seem like an intelligent and well-informed young man. However, your defense of socialism/communism seems a bit confusing to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. (I hope so)
It is not a defence of communism it is an appeal to anti-theism using a full quote that is generally taken out of context.

That ideas either come from the divine or the unholy is a stifling one and regardless of how much sense it makes to an individual it can only inhibit the potential of a society at large.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
You're probably glad that it doesn't. The Bible overall is pro-democracy, but anti-anarchy. Paul wrote about the role in government, and how it (as theocratic as it sounds) can be a servant of God when it is orderly.

Actually, knowing the trends of the Bible, if ancient Greek democracy or the Roman Republic had existed during the Biblical times, it would probably have been condemned as "pagan."

The Bible makes no pronouncement on the ideal form of government, and all of this just strikes me as an infusion of American nationalism into religion.

The context is that Jesus was asked on his views about paying taxes, regardless of how immoral he found the tax collectors to be. His wild accusers accused him of telling his disciples not to pay taxes, but yes, I think we have some common ground in regards to no absolute principle regarding the economy found in the Bible. However, Karl Marx hated everything about the Bible, he hated Creationism (and absolutely LOVED atheistic Darwinism, he hated religion because of the fact that people gave a tithe to the Church, and he wanted that money to go to the government instead for the cause of economic equality, regardless of the fact that some people work harder than others, some people think harder than others, and some people live with their hands out. So what I'm saying is that you have to see Marx as the first seed to see entirely why I would justify why The Bible is The Anti-Communist Manifesto.

First off, Karl Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1847, a whole 12 years before Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published, so there goes your theory that Marx was specifically out to target creationism.

The rest that you mention about Marx is nothing but irrational blather that looks like it should have come out of Eisenhower-era Cold War propaganda. The fact is that you owe Marxist philosophy for moderating American capitalism in the early 20th century. Otherwise, unless you're born of old money, you'd probably be living in a tenement, getting all your services from the single corporate monopoly. There'd be no health insurance, no Social Security, 12/7 work weeks with no labor laws, no minimum wage, and an abundance of child labor with no access to education. This is the kind of environment that Marxism arose from, and religion did nothing to stop these abuses.

Marx was probably correct in his time. The way things were going, a revolution was a matter of time. And religion was--and still can be--an opiate for the masses. There's still way too many people who let their ministers do all their thinking for them, and if you're part of the clergy that's doing well under an oppressive totalitarian state (such as the Roman Catholic Church under Franco in Spain), why would you encourage the masses to revolt?

If you have a beef with totalitarian atheist statism, take it up with Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. They're the philosophies that took Marxism to violent ends.

"The only thing I know is that I'm not a Marxist." - Karl Marx

Melon
 
No taunting please, folks.

Also I think that'll be enough of the Marx/Bible subtangent for now.
 
AEON said:


Comparing US soldiers to this kind of evil clearly shows that you really know little about the US military - and even less about the enemy.

uh .. o.k, but I didn't say US soldiers, specifically. Actually, this annoys me also, because there are also other military forces in Iraq, including Australians, who (IMO) have unfortunately been roped into this.

Sorry, I'm just a silly old pacifist. I find it disturbing that a whole group of people have been demonised because of the actions of a few. War and this kind of conflict is an evil act in itself .. it's hard to distinguish the good guys from the bad sometimes.
 
AEON said:


I am a firm believer that all ideas come from one of two sources: God or "the World" (i.e. Satan - laugh if you must, but this is what I believe and this is what the Bible teaches...and most importantly, it makes perfect sense). I try to place every idea into one of these two camps. (I hope so)

I am familiar with this line of reasoning.

I was brought up in an environment where this was accepted.

the idea of "privatizing Social Security" by President Bush probably came from God

and those who opposed it were 'of the World" i. e. Satan

they may not have realized they were opposing good and supporting evil.

I realize this is not on the same scale as genocide,
but even a small step in the wrong direction, is still wrong and supporting evil
 
shart1780 said:


Yes, but did Christians go and kill Madonna fans, the producers of Spongebob and Janet Jackson? No. The most Christians do is complain. They don't murder.
Even the LRA?
 
A_Wanderer said:
Even the LRA?
There are also the various Christian terrorist groups among the Naga in eastern India...but I think shart more had in mind violence in response to mere statements against one's faith.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0919/p01s01-wogi.htm
The reaction to Pope Benedict XVI's comments this week, drawing on sources who argued that there is something inherently irrational about Islam that can lead to violence, underscores the current depth of religious sensitivities - ones that extremists are quick to exploit.
..........
"Arabs and Muslims feel oppressed by the West. Afghanistan and Iraq are features, but most important is Palestine ... and all of this built-up anger then sometimes explodes,'' says Abdel Wahab al-Messiri, an Islamist thinker and professor in Cairo. "The anger at the West can't be expressed through the popular channels because of their own regimes, so they wait for something like cartoons or the pope's comments and their totalitarian governments can't stop them because that would be something un-Islamic."

Many prominent Muslim leaders like the Muslim Brotherhood's Mahdi Akef and Yusuf Qaradawi, an influential television preacher based in Qatar, have urged Muslims not to react with violence. The Muslim Brotherhood's spokesman at first said the pope's expression was sufficient, and then later backtracked and demanded a stronger apology. The group may have been responding to popular anger, and seeking to surf with it rather than go against it, analysts say. Mr. Qaradawi, on Al Jazeera Sunday, urged Muslims to protest Friday "to express their anger in a peaceful and rational manner." Qaradawi also linked the pope's comments to President Bush's recent statement that America is at war with "Islamic Fascists," saying the pope is "giving international cover" for Bush.

Mr. Messiri agrees with what is a widely held view in the region. "It was a bit opportunistic for the pope. He sees the war on terror going on and he wants to jump on the bandwagon and infuse some life into the church,'' says Messiri. "His comments exposed some ignorance. There are many rational schools in Islam. Many Muslims find concepts like the Trinity and incarnation irrational."
.............
Most Muslim doctrine rejects conversion by force, but some of the schools of the fundamentalist Salafi brand of the faith call for the execution of people who reject the faith. Others call for the murder of those deemed to insult the religion.

While outbreaks of rage were limited, they were a measure of the fact that some people respond to this kind of intolerant thinking. Over the past two days, seven churches in the Palestinian territories suffered arson attacks, a nun in Somalia was murdered in an attack that wire services speculated was linked to the pope's comments, and the pope was burned in effigy in Kashmir and in Basra, Iraq.
..........................
Coptic leader Pope Shenouda called on Pope Benedict to apologize in a more forthright manner. "I hope the remarks will not undermine interfaith dialogue,'' he said at press conference. "He knows exactly what he needs to do."
It's interesting that all the violent protests mentioned occurred in areas already experiencing extensive sectarian violence.

An altogether more bristling piece from today's Guardian:
Some say this was a case of naivete, of a scholarly theologian stumbling into the glare of a global media storm, blinking with surprise at the outrage he had inadvertently triggered. The learned man's thoughtful reasoning, say some, has been misconstrued and distorted by troublemakers, and the context ignored.

But such explanations are unconvincing. This is a man who has been at the heart of one of the world's multinational institutions for a very long time. He has been privy to how pontifical messages get distorted and magnified by a global media. Shy he may be, but no one has ever before accused this pope of being a remote theologian sitting in an ivory tower...He has long been famous for his bruising condemnation of those he disagrees with. Senior Catholic theologians such as the German Hans Kung are well familiar with the sharpness of his judgments.
..................
But while the Pope has tried to build a more appealing public image, what has become increasingly clear is that this is a man with little sympathy or imagination for other religious faiths. Famously, the then Cardinal Ratzinger once referred to Buddhism as a form of masturbation for the mind - a remark still repeated among deeply offended Buddhists more than a decade after he said it...

In fact, Pope Benedict XVI's short papacy has marked a significant departure from the previous pope's stance on interreligious dialogue. John Paul II made some dramatic gestures to rally world religious leaders, the most famous being a gathering in Assisi of every world faith, even African animists, to pray for world peace. He felt keenly the terrible history of Catholic-Jewish relations, and having fought with the Polish resistance to save Jews in the second world war, John Paul II made unprecedented efforts to begin to heal centuries of hostility and indifference on the part of the Catholic church to Europe's Jews. John Paul II also addressed himself to the ancient enmity between Muslims and Catholics; he apologised for the Crusades and was the first Pope to visit a mosque during a visit to Syria in 2001.

In contrast, Pope Benedict has managed to antagonise two major world faiths within a few months. The current anger of Muslims is comparable to the disappointment felt by Jews after his visit to Auschwitz in May. He gave a long address at the site of the former concentration camp and failed to mention anti-semitism, and offered no apology - whether on behalf of his own country, Germany, or on behalf of the Catholic Church. He acknowledged he was a "son of the German people" ... "but not guilty on that account"; he then launched into a highly controversial claim that a "ring of criminals" were responsible for Nazism and that the German people were as much their victims as anyone else. This is an argument that has long been discredited in Germany as utterly inadequate in explaining how millions supported the Nazis...Even worse, in his Auschwitz address, he managed to argue in a long theological exposition that the real victims of the Holocaust were God and Christianity. As one commentator put it, he managed to claim that Jews were the "themselves bit players - bystanders at their own extermination. The true victim was a metaphysical one." This theological treatise bears the same characteristics as last week's Regensburg lecture; put at its most charitable, they are too clever by half. ..

But if his visit to Auschwitz disappointed many and failed to resolve outstanding resentments about the murky role of German Catholicism, this latest incident seems even worse...Even the most cursory knowledge of dialogue with Islam teaches - and as a Vatican Cardinal, Pope Benedict XVI would have learned this long ago - that reverence for the Prophet is a non-negotiable. What unites all Muslims is a passionate devotion and commitment to protecting the honour of Muhammad. Given the scale of the offence, the carefully worded apology, actually, gives little ground; he recognises that Muslims have been offended and that he was only quoting, but there is no regret at using such an inappropriate comment or the deep historic resonances it stirs up.

By an uncanny coincidence the legendary Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci died last week. No one connected the two events, but the Pope had already run into controversy in Italy by inviting the rabid Islamophobe to a private audience just months ago. This is the journalist who published a bestseller in 2001 which amounted to a diatribe of invective against Islam...comments such as "Muslims breed like rats"...At the time of her papal audience, Fallaci's ranting against Islam had landed her in court and there was outrage at the Pope's insensitive invitation. The Pope refused to backtrack and insisted the meeting was purely pastoral.

Put last week's lecture in Bavaria and the Fallaci audience alongside his vocal opposition to Turkish membership of the EU, and the picture isn't pretty. On one of the biggest and most volatile issues of our day - the perceived clash between the west and the Muslim world - the Pope seems to have abdicated his papal role of arbitrator, and taken up the arms in a rerun of a medieval fantasy.
 
The Guardian piece there sums him up well. As I said earlier in this thread, in his past life as "Cardinal Ratzinger," he quite openly showed his disdain for ecumenism, both with non-Christian faiths and non-Catholic Christian faiths.

I don't believe that he directly intended to cause this firestorm, but you can't hide your subconscious thoughts forever, and I think they reared its ugly head in that tactless speech he made. Couple that with the notoriously deficient "Vatican apologies," which lack all the typical humility that you'd expect from anyone else, and I can see why Muslims don't believe his apology to be sincere. That's because it isn't.

Melon
 
No matter what the context, at a time like this in history that is so sensitive and critical you just can't say things like that without there being repercussions. It is insensitive and irresponsible. I certianly would never disagree that violence is no way to promote or spread any religion, but the fact remains that not all Muslims are violent.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0609/18/pzn.01.html

DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN FAITH AND VALUES CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is part of a -- of a speech in a much larger context.

And I think, in fact, if you read just one line down from that, you will see what he was trying to get at with that quote. Let's take a look. "Spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God."

So, that's really the crux of what he was trying to get at, at least in this first part. He then goes on to talk about the use of reason in religion and so on. But, in the reference to Islam, what he's trying to just point out is, you know, is this something rational? Is the use of violence a rational way of pleasing God? Is this a good thing?

That's his whole point.


ZAHN: Vali, do you think this pope is anti-Muslim?

VALI NASR, AUTHOR, "THE SHIA REVIVAL": Well, his comments come also against the background of having argued that Turkey should not become a member of the European community, because Turkey's religion is incompatible with western values.

But I also think that it was an unfortunate choice of a -- of a quotation by the pope, when you're trying to make a point about rationality of religion, and not using violence to promote it, that you choose a quote from a crusader figure from the 14th century, without clarifying where you personally stand on that issue. And, therefore, it can be -- very easily be read out of context, and lead to the kind of reaction that we see.

ZAHN: Do you think this kind of reaction is justifiable, Vali?

NASR: No, it's not justifiable. But you're -- at a time period where the Muslims believe that West has embarked on a war on Islam -- this, we have been hearing for a number of years. Anti-Westernism and anti-Americanism is at a fever pitch. And Muslims feel a sense of siege. So, when the most important spiritual authority, in their eyes, in the West, the head of the Catholic Church, rather than acting as a bridge-builder, they see, he's adding fuel to fire, they very quickly succumb to the kind of violence -- and there are many political figures and militant forces that try to make hay out of this by taking advantage of it for their own reasons.
 
http://hnn.us/articles/29989.html


"For, in the view of some Muslims, it is not unreasonable to spread their religion by violence, for two reasons: 1) it is the final revelation of God to humanity and 2) the Qur’an enjoins it. To paraphrase Dr. Henry Jones (Indiana’s father): “goose-stepping morons like yourselves should be reading your holy book instead of burning churches.” If they did, they would discover that:

* Surah Muhammad [47]:3 says “When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads….
* Surah Anfal [8]:12 says “I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the tips of their fingers.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:74 says “Let those who would exchange the life of this world for the hereafter, fight for the cause of God….”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:56 says “The true believer fights for the cause of God, but the infidel fights for the devil.”
* Surah al-Nisa’[4]:101 says “The unbelievers are your inveterate enemies.”
* Surah al-Ma’idah [5]:51 says “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.”

Only in a truly Bizarro world can those passages NOT be an incitement for some to violence, to “evil and inhuman” acts. Are there other passages in the Qur’an mitigating these? Yes.4 But many of these more benevolent passages are also considered by many Muslims to have been abrogated by the more martial ones."
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


No, it wasn't something he said about some of Mohhamed's perspectives, he said

ONLY evil and inhuman.

I never met Mohhamed.

Have you met Hitler ? , MLK ? Gandhi ?, George Bush ?
 
melon said:
The Bible makes no pronouncement on the ideal form of government, and all of this just strikes me as an infusion of American nationalism into religion.
It's considered "nationalism" by those who live to impress the international community. But there are anti-Marxist principles found in the Bible, such as if you don't work, you don't eat. And in Deutoronomy (sp?), we are told that the poor will always exist. Marx had good intentions to override this, but it only led to the equal distribution of poverty.



melon said:
First off, Karl Marx wrote "The Communist Manifesto" in 1847, a whole 12 years before Darwin's "The Origin of Species" was published, so there goes your theory that Marx was specifically out to target creationism.
Not specifically, but it served as a major tenant of Marxism. If I made the claim that the Communist Manifesto itself was an advocate of Darwinism, I was incorrect. However - consider this quote that were found after The Communist Manifesto was written.

"Although it is developed in the crude English style, this is the book which contains the basis in natural history for our view."

- Marx to Engels, on Origin of Species

melon said:
The rest that you mention about Marx is nothing but irrational blather that looks like it should have come out of Eisenhower-era Cold War propaganda. The fact is that you owe Marxist philosophy for moderating American capitalism in the early 20th century. Otherwise, unless you're born of old money, you'd probably be living in a tenement, getting all your services from the single corporate monopoly.
The child labor period, unsafe working conditions, and monopolies were all tied to Corporate Socialism, rather than capitalism. I disagree with you, FDR and many challengers before him would have revised the system regardless of whether Karl Marx became a relevant philosopher or not. We still see some forms of Corporate Socialism to this day, such as the outsourcing of jobs and the illegal hiring of illegal workers for illegal wages. Also, Teddy Roosevelt did a lot for anti-trust legislation, and he wasn't exactly a pinko for doing so. He broke monopolies into several different companies so that they could compete against each other, and competition is what capitalism is all about.

melon said:
There'd be no health insurance, no Social Security, 12/7 work weeks with no labor laws, no minimum wage, and an abundance of child labor with no access to education. This is the kind of environment that Marxism arose from, and religion did nothing to stop these abuses.
James warning rich oppressors of their judgement day comes to mind... The problem was not religion per se, it was the people who chose not to practice what they claimed to believe in.

melon said:
Marx was probably correct in his time. The way things were going, a revolution was a matter of time. And religion was--and still can be--an opiate for the masses. There's still way too many people who let their ministers do all their thinking for them, and if you're part of the clergy that's doing well under an oppressive totalitarian state (such as the Roman Catholic Church under Franco in Spain), why would you encourage the masses to revolt?
I agree that there are plenty who don't put any time into studying what they claim to believe, that's inevitable. In all the theological diversity there is out there today even within the Christian religion, it's important to know where you stand so that your branch of Christianity doesn't hoodwink you. Religion becomes the opiate of the guillible masses when people rely on religious authorities to do all of their thinking for them.

melon said:
If you have a beef with totalitarian atheist statism, take it up with Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, and Maoism. They're the philosophies that took Marxism to violent ends.
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Zedong, Pol Pot, and Castro explain perfectly why I despise Marx. Their very existence led to the needless slayings of over 125 million people. Non-biblical Christianity in its extremity is Christianity taken out of context by biblical revisionists who claim to have faith, but have no reason to believe that it is the word of God. That's where false prophecy becomes the opiate of the masses. Christophobia in its extremity leads to blood and guts. That's where Marxism became the opiate of the masses.

melon said:
"The only thing I know is that I'm not a Marxist." - Karl Marx
Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Zedong, Pol Pot, and Castro all put their own spin on Marxism. But in the end, the road to hell was paved with "good intentions."
 
If the Koran really does have contain such passages breeding unimaginable evil as toscano provided (and Muslims in general believes in the Koran), then I condem Islam and everyone that believes in it. Fuck tolerance, I'm more than happy to tolerate Islam but how can you when the Koran explicitly condones actions that are totally contrary to the whole notion of tolerance.

In that case there was much veracity to the Popes comments and shouldn't publically retract his conviction about the issue.
 
Macfistowannabe said:
These scriptures are downright terrifying.

But I'd be careful. Many may use the revised, watered-down version of the Koran to "prove" you "wrong."

Oh so they conveniently change the Koran so it would become more acceptable and people would not percieve it as a stupendously evil religion that strongly encourages subjugation by force and voilence (more specifically 'beheading of infidels')?

I believe that is what Islam is at its core irrespective of what artificial changes they make to the Koran when it suits them.
 
lennon-john-imagine-4900118.jpg


:sigh: maybe someday...
 
Irvine511 said:
isn't it weird how all religious text seem to contradict themselves?

Not when you subsequently realize that this indicates religious texts aren't divinely inspiried by a God, rather they are written by people whom are inherently flawed and make mistakes.
 
[q]Papal Bull
Joseph Ratzinger's latest offense.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 18, 2006, at 11:40 AM ET


[...]

Attempting to revive his moribund church on a visit to Germany, where the Roman congregations are increasingly sparse, Joseph Ratzinger (as I shall always think of him) has managed to do a moderate amount of harm—and absolutely no good—to the very tense and distraught discussion now in progress between Europe and Islam. I strongly recommend that you read the full text of his lecture at the University of Regensburg last Tuesday.

After the most perfunctory introduction, Ratzinger goes straight to his choice of quotation, which is taken from 14th-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II. This potentate supposedly once engaged in debate—the precise time and place is unknown—with an unnamed Persian. The subject was Christianity and Islam. The Byzantine asks the Persian to "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." (On the face of it, not a very open-ended inquiry.) But, warming to his own theme, the purple-clad monarch of Constantinople allegedly added that "to convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death."

Now, you do not have to be a Muslim to think that for the bishop of Rome to cite this is the most perfect hypocrisy. There would have been no established Byzantine or Roman Christianity if the faith had not been spread and maintained and enforced by every kind of violence and cruelty and coercion. To take Islam's own favorite self-pitying example: It was the Catholic crusaders who sacked and burned Christian Byzantium on their way to Palestine—and that was only after they had methodically set about the Jews, so the Muslim world was actually only the third victim of this barbarity. (Sir Steven Runciman's A History of the Crusades is the best source here.) Yet of all the words he could have chosen, to suggest that religion might wish to break its old connection with conquest, intolerance, and subjugation, Ratzinger had to select an example that was designed to remind his hearers of the crudest excesses of the medieval period. His mention of Manuel II was evidently not accidental or anecdotal. He refers to him repeatedly and returns to him again in the closing paragraph, as if to rub it in.

[...]

To read the bulk of the speech, however, is to realize that, if he had chanced to be born in Turkey or Syria instead of Germany, the bishop of Rome could have become a perfectly orthodox Muslim. He may well distrust Islam because it claims that its own revelation is the absolute and final one, but he describes John, one of the apostles, as having spoken "the final word on the biblical concept of God," and where Muslims believe that Mohammed went into a trance and took dictation from an archangel, Ratzinger accepts as true the equally preposterous legend that St. Paul was commanded to evangelize for Christ during the course of a vision experienced in a dream. He happens to get Mohammed wrong when he says that the prophet only forbade "compulsion in religion" when Islam was weak. (The relevant sura comes from a period of relatively high confidence.) But he could just as easily have cited the many suras that flatly contradict this apparently benign message. The familiar problem is that, if you question another religion's "revelation" and dogma too closely, you invite a tu quoque in respect of your own. Which is just what has happened in the present case.

The Muslim protesters are actually being highly ungrateful. When the embassies of Denmark were being torched earlier this year, Rome managed a few words of protest about … the inadvisability of profane cartoons. In almost every confrontation between Islam and the West, or Islam and Israel, the Vatican has either split the difference or helped to ventriloquize Muslim grievances. Most of all, throughout his address to the audience at Regensburg, the man who modestly considers himself the vicar of Christ on Earth maintained a steady attack on the idea that reason and the individual conscience can be preferred to faith. He pretends that the word Logos can mean either "the word" or "reason," which it can in Greek but never does in the Bible, where it is presented as heavenly truth. He mentions Kant and Descartes in passing, leaves out Spinoza and Hume entirely, and dishonestly tries to make it seem as if religion and the Enlightenment and science are ultimately compatible, when the whole effort of free inquiry always had to be asserted, at great risk, against the fantastic illusion of "revealed" truth and its all-too-earthly human potentates. It is often said—and was said by Ratzinger when he was an underling of the last Roman prelate—that Islam is not capable of a Reformation. We would not even have this word in our language if the Roman Catholic Church had been able to have its own way. Now its new reactionary leader has really "offended" the Muslim world, while simultaneously asking us to distrust the only reliable weapon—reason—that we possess in these dark times. A fine day's work, and one that we could well have done without.[/q]
 
Good grief, how much can a speech do? I was just on my home page and there's an unbelievable amount of venom going on over this stuff. I've been on this forum for three years and I've never seen anything like it.
 
Back
Top Bottom