Is the Pope right for speaking up about Islam as no one else has...

Christians have done horrendous wrongs in the past. Islam has done some horrendous wrongs in the past, yet continue to do them today. The difference is that the Christians went through the wars of democracy and learned tolerance while most of the Muslim world lived and continue to live in despotic governments where might meant right. As horrible as Iraq is, it may be the pressure cooker that squeezes out some new tolerant thinking in the Islamic world since killing each other is never ever going to work.

Christians still do bad things. The Nazis being the most recent Christian based mistake...though other Christian countries stopped them.

The new Muslim Nazis that are intolerant and wish to kill all that disagree have no other Muslim countries to put them in their place. So a Christian vs Islam confict is going to happen one way or another until some part of the Islamic world steps up and confronts their misguided followers.

All Islam is not bad, and I too have some great Muslim friends but the word has to be said that some Islamic factions need to grow up. Where is the Martin Luther (either one) to lead Islam to a more rational and peaceful way of life? Killing people that disagree with your religion is wrong. The pope is right...and he doesn't just have a right, he has an obligation to call it out and despise such behaviour as ungodlike. Just as others need to call out the pope and the Catholic Church's past evil doings. At least the Church is beginning to acknowledge their despicable past deeds, yet parts of the Islamic wold still live in a murderous mindset.

The difference is that SOMEONE HAS TO SAY IT! The UN does, the US does, Europe does, China, Russia....everyone has to finally stop playing possum with the Islamic world and tell them that they are not fitting into the modern world if they want to cut off people's heads or nuke those that disagree with them. Eventually it will come down to kill or be killed if some people don't wise up.

Ok people have views that Mohammad was OK overal.
Why do Muslim countries persecute or kill people who leave Islam? Send to jail Christians and other non believers and agree anyone who says anything about Islam like the cartoonists should be killed?

I guess during the rise of Islam if people did not convert they would they die? I think I am right...Or is it that you die if any word said against Islam which makes the wars that Mohhamad was involved in more ambigious in the the first place. So how can he say the complete Islamic word existed when he was at war when he has not finnished writing the Quaran? Tell me as I probably missed something.

So in a way that is what made Islam grow or was it down to great belief by Mohammads revelations? Are the nations practising the wrong teachings about persecuting people who turn away from Islam? Mohammad must have said something somewhere where he lacks tollerance he can not be a saint and say I speak in double standards lets be friends with Jews too welcome them to our lands.
If that was the case I think Islam would be democratic.
Either that or everyone in the middle east are being racist or illiterate and lack some undersanding of its own holy Book right down to the religious leaders. If I remember reading, the koran does say read the BOOK which is the Bible should to be read. Could be translations problems but I guess even Iran has its own version in translation.

Please correct this post if you like.




[edit on 19-9-2006 by The time lord]

Hi,

I agree with SpeakerofTruth's previous statement:

"All monotheistic religions have a history of violence. I am not downgrading any religion in particular, but they all have a history of violence. "

Not that there wasn't some truth in the pope's words about the current violence and Islam - something needs to give. However I also agree that this is definitely a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

The actions of Islamic extremists have obviously been violent, sometimes shocking, but it's a historical fact that the institution of Roman Catholicism has been one of the bloodiest and murdersome in history - if not the most violent. Very cruel murders, many of the victims Bible believing Christians (among other people who didn't fall in line with them.)

And please, there is no offense intended to anyone here. It's just a matter of historical fact. Condemnation of any religious group's violent methods via the RCC considering their history seems to lack credibility in my opinion, and that would probably be an understatement.

hi person above,

I don't mind truth even if I my family are Chatholic does not mean I am going to call the mafia.

The spanish Inquisition was a monarchy based also like a dictatorship of some sort, they killed Christians also known today as protestants. This lead to the theory that the Chatholic Church is the Babylon of Revelations and the beast system.
But as a believer of Babylon being situated and symbolised as modern Iraq it is probably wrong that it is the Chatholic church but American's strongly believe it symbolism is about Rome. The Chatholic religion is slightly different but not much, just traditional. All religions have done or has been used in wrongs but since then man has been to the moon and we have TV and admit their wrongful pasts and hope never to repeat it.

Hi Timelord,

Thank you for your reply. This may not be the place to discuss doctrine, I will just say that my understanding is that Mystery Babylon encompasses a lot of things. You mentioned traditions of the RCC - if you haven't (and I'm not saying you haven't) - research this on your own.

As far as progress in terms of getting along and civilization is concerned, I really don't think we've made any. I don't think putting a man on the moon and t.v. has helped that along (just look at current events.) I do respect your views though. From a historical perspective, the Holocaust was really not all that long ago. Hitler was a Christian about like the Spanish Inquisitors were Christians. They may have done their deeds under their own banner of Christianity, and under the sign of the cross, but one thing they all had in common is the fact that none of them were Christians. The doctrines and practices of the early church is nothing like what you see today. It has been corrupted.

Search out all things... Thank you again for your reply.

Let's see....

The Crusaders... Christians.
Most of the southern slave-owners in colonial America through the 1800's.
Most proponents of slavery in America were Christians.
The IRA bombers... Christians.
Timothy McVeigh... Christian.
Abortion-Clinic bombers... Christian.
Bush.... Christian.
Most members of the Ku Klux Klan... Christian.

Countless other examples.

And you think Muslims are the only violent ones? Please... that's a laughable argument that no serious scholar of religion would even consider.

Yes, firebat. And I'm certain many more examples could be given.

The ridiculous what has been passed off as Christianity does not = Biblical Christianity. There are consistent warnings about those who would pervert and corrupt the faith - throughout the entire Bible.

Originally posted by Atomic
The difference is that the Christians went through the wars of democracy and learned tolerance while most of the Muslim world lived and continue to live in despotic governments where might meant right

Lets not ignore that the reason why the middle east is living under despotism and horrors today is because of those 'recently reformed' world christian powers.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Atomic
The difference is that the Christians went through the wars of democracy and learned tolerance while most of the Muslim world lived and continue to live in despotic governments where might meant right

Lets not ignore that the reason why the middle east is living under despotism and horrors today is because of those 'recently reformed' world christian powers.

Agreed...to a point. The issue is that colonial expansion and the cold war has treated the mid-east as a gamepiece rather than as an equal. The cold war to me was something where the US is now paying the price for being the one left standing (and to blame) while Russia plays "poor me". Russia is just as responsible for how it too used countries and hurt people, but they lost so people around the world blame the US.

The Iranian Revolution could of demanded full blown democracy instead of what they have now...nobody manipulated them. The King of Jordan could implement democratic reform and Palestine does have a limited democracy.

The problem for the West is that some these future democracatic countries will vote in people like Hamas. Some want revenge. Some of it justified. Egypt has huge issues with bottling their radicals come every election.

The pope should not be the only voice in this. It is hypocritical. The rational Muslims should be demanding center stage and if necessary advertising their disgust with radical Muslims. They are the only hope.

the pope asked for the clemency of 3 Indonesian chrisitans

their only crime?

well, they led an attack on muslims that killed 70 people


yeah...

Link to story

[edit on 9/21/06 by madnessinmysoul]

[edit on 9/21/06 by madnessinmysoul]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
the pope asked for the clemency of 3 Indonesian chrisitans

their only crime?

well, they led an attack on muslims that killed 70 people

Also the story you linked says that the Muslims that were guilty of taking part in the 1,000 people that died between both religions only got 15 year sentences. Perhaps that is why the Pope thought the death sentence was a bit unfair?

Planting a bomb in the defense lawyer's house is also probably something the Pope might of had a problem with.

The 3 admited they took part but were not the masterminds...that doesn't matter to me, if you kill people then you accept that you could be put to death. They probably deserved to die...Why the Muslims got off with 15 year sentences is something I'd like to see answered.

Originally posted by The time lord
Ok people have views that Mohammad was OK overal.


[edit on 19-9-2006 by The time lord]

FACT: Mohammed was a fanatical terrrist of his age that murdered hundreds and molested children. He had a wife who was only 9 years old! Facts that arnt in dispute.

I dont consider that OK, and i cannot support any religeon based on that kind of a foundation.

Originally posted by firebat
Let's see....

The Crusaders... Christians.
Most of the southern slave-owners in colonial America through the 1800's.
Most proponents of slavery in America were Christians.
The IRA bombers... Christians.
Timothy McVeigh... Christian.
Abortion-Clinic bombers... Christian.
Bush.... Christian.
Most members of the Ku Klux Klan... Christian.

Countless other examples.

And you think Muslims are the only violent ones? Please... that's a laughable argument that no serious scholar of religion would even consider.

And Mulims flew four heavily laden planes into two packed buildings, yes i see christians are more violent.

I can't see that anyone who has replied to this thread 'supports' any religion with a foundation of violence, or perhaps it would be better to state that no one is condoning violence (as far as I can tell) regardless of the source. I would personally be the last to defend the Moslem religion. But then I'm not a proponent of religion, I'm a proponent of Biblical faith. I have a problem with anybody who would strap explosives to their children's bodies and send them into civilian packed areas, regardless of whether it's in the name of 'Allah' or in the name of the tooth fairy. I share your disdain at anybody who would indiscriminately target civilians by flying airliners into high rise buildings.

I have the same problem with men, women and children being tortured to death in the name of Christ. I especially have a problem with murderers calling themselves 'Christians', and being confused by the rest of the world as 'Christians.' Not to mention claiming (and milliions of people actually believing) that the pope over the institution of the RCC is the 'vicar' of Christ himself. The reaction to his comment may have quite possibly been a case of considering history (recent history included) and considering the source.

Just as the pope doesn't represent me, perhaps Atomic made an excellent point in the statement that the rest of the Moslem world should be more vocal in their denouncements of the actions of radical Islam.

The Popehas invited Muslim ambassadors to the Vatican, seeking to defuse the anger across the Muslim World following his remarks.

Pope Benedict XVI is to meet the ambassadors of Muslim countries in the Vatican on Monday.

He will also play host to leaders of the Muslim community in Italy amid the uproar over his remarks seen as linking Islam to violence.

"We welcome it and are definitely going to participate," said Iran's deputy ambassador to the Holy See,

Well now nothing like given someone an opportunity to kill him, who is hell bent on getting revenge, when they meet, Betcha security around the pope that day will be intense. Man I hope nothing happens and this will be defused.

Source

The silence of muslim leaders on the extremist situation is deafening.I dont know if it may be a case of this maybe not being allowed to make news for some reason but I have not heard of any prominant muslim religious leaders, presidents etc coming out and decrying these extremist scum.

They should be in the news everyday condeming these people and promoting Islam for the peaceful religion it is supposed to be.

Originally posted by breano
The silence of muslim leaders on the extremist situation is deafening. [...] They should be in the news everyday condeming these people and promoting Islam for the peaceful religion it is supposed to be.

Look around the net and you will find them denouncing terrorism. As for them coming on the news everyday...it's something I don't see news agencies allowing. We're lucky to get even 5 minutes of air time to decry these attacks on air.

Fact is, when news agencies report on Muslims condeming terrorism, people say the agencies are trying to spread the Muslim faith. When Muslims aren't given a chance to condemn terrorism, people say we support it for not condeming it on air. It's almost a no win situation for us.

[edit on 21-10-2006 by DJMessiah]

maybe the problem is just religion in general

when you start telling people that illogical beliefs are fine to have, they start to have more and more of them

eventually, someone with illogical beliefs will get violent illogical beliefs, and convince the already weakened minds of the other followers of a certain religion to believe the same

and then you get religious violence

Originally posted by rustiswordz
And Mulims flew four heavily laden planes into two packed buildings, yes i see christians are more violent.

The quote above appears to refer to 911, and if not, then this is not relevent. The WTC attack was horrific, criminal, and tragic, and I condemn it totally. That does not change, even if the details do. The buildings were not packed, they were far from full at the time, luckily, and most of the people got out in time. The planes were not heavily laden, with passengers anyway. They did have a lot of fuel onboard, but they were quite a ways less than half full of passengers.
As for Christians being more violent... that could be argued either way, and never proven one way or the other. There are violent Christians, and passive ones, as any group contains both.

Originally posted by The time lord
Is he right or wrong?

The pope made the comment he did then the heat got turned up on him from the muslim community and he tried to get out of what he said a little. Not as much as he could have but a little.

There are only 2 people I have knowledge of that didn't back down from their statements about Islam being bad/wrong/evil. They are Franklin Graham and his sister Anne Graham Lotz.

Franklin Graham called Islam evil after 9?11, the heat got turned up on him, and he was asked if he meant what he said. He did not back down and said he meant what he said.

Yes, people need stop burying their head in the sand, or try to find a middle ground on this. Their is no middle ground. Those muslims who really study the koran know what it says. It says to convert by force if need be. And they also know that the only guarantee the have of heaven for eternity is to die while killing non-believers.