Middle East conflict

[Balta1701]

Me thinks you failed to actually read the quote which caused the controversy. I don't think anyone gives a damn about Constantinople versus Istanbul. Read it again. The problematic quote from Benedict is:

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's no body's business but the Turks.

[jackie hayes]

Me thinks you failed to actually read the quote which caused the controversy. I don't think anyone gives a damn about Constantinople versus Istanbul. Read it again. The problematic quote from Benedict is:

 

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, '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.'"

 

If you can't see how that would be insulting towards Islam, or how coming from the Pope that might get their cackles up, then you know little of religion.

 

And for the record, this to me is nothing like the whole cartoon controversy. That one was silly, IMO. This is the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence. And considering he was referring to actions around the Crusades, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Me thinks I read the whole speech, actually. And other articles which mentioned anger over the use of Constantinople. An AP article:

Few in Turkey, especially, failed to pick up on Benedict's reference to Istanbul as Constantinople _ the city's name more than 500 years ago _ before it was conquered by Muslim Ottoman Turks.

Apparently we should talk about the Aztecs' wonderful city, Mexico City.

 

He quoted someone, calls the statement "brusque" (at least, that's the English version), and points out that the source of the quote is certainly doctoring the dialogue to make himself look good. Beyond that, he doesn't judge the statement one way or another, perhaps because the speech has nothing to do with Islam or the accuracy of the quote. He's discussing the role of reason in Christianity, and uses the Emperor's quote as a jumping-off point -- the Emperor assumes that reason must be consonant with God; while understandable coming from someone with a 'Greek' outlook, is this something that we as Christians generally accept?

 

If I quote something without endorsement or criticism, in the midst of a philosophical discussion, that implies that I hold the same views? By what logic?

 

He's "saying" nothing about Islam. What he did was forget that he's no longer an academic, and must color every clause with all the requisite pieties, or else some demagogue f*** will inevitably compare him to Hitler.

[NorthSideSox72]

Me thinks I read the whole speech, actually. And other articles which mentioned anger over the use of Constantinople. An AP article:

 

Apparently we should talk about the Aztecs' wonderful city, Mexico City.

 

He quoted someone, calls the statement "brusque" (at least, that's the English version), and points out that the source of the quote is certainly doctoring the dialogue to make himself look good. Beyond that, he doesn't judge the statement one way or another, perhaps because the speech has nothing to do with Islam or the accuracy of the quote. He's discussing the role of reason in Christianity, and uses the Emperor's quote as a jumping-off point -- the Emperor assumes that reason must be consonant with God; while understandable coming from someone with a 'Greek' outlook, is this something that we as Christians generally accept?

 

If I quote something without endorsement or criticism, in the midst of a philosophical discussion, that implies that I hold the same views? By what logic?

 

He's "saying" nothing about Islam. What he did was forget that he's no longer an academic, and must color every clause with all the requisite pieties, or else some demagogue f*** will inevitably compare him to Hitler.

Constantinople is a side bar here. Its a small, unimportant piece of the issue. It isn't what people are upset about.

 

And before you say it, I do not defend the absurd comparisions to Hitler, or the violent reprisals that may come. This is not cause for such things.

 

As for the main issue, the use of that quotation, it was callous and stupid on his part, plain and simple. And I can see exactly why it might make people angry. Given some of our past discussions, I am not surprised that you would not. You and I see the conflict in the Middle East differently. I don't suspect we can have much other positive discussion on this.

[southsider2k5]

Me thinks you failed to actually read the quote which caused the controversy. I don't think anyone gives a damn about Constantinople versus Istanbul. Read it again. The problematic quote from Benedict is:

 

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," the pope said. "He said, I quote, '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.'"

 

If you can't see how that would be insulting towards Islam, or how coming from the Pope that might get their cackles up, then you know little of religion.

 

And for the record, this to me is nothing like the whole cartoon controversy. That one was silly, IMO. This is the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence. And considering he was referring to actions around the Crusades, I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

That's the one thing that bugs me about Islam... Everytime someone offends anyone, people start to riot and threaten everybody. Christianity faces its demons publicly and often. We hear the priest abuse sex scandal mentioned still all of the time, as well as things like the inquisition and the Papal holocaust ignoring/sympathsizing thrown back at Christians, and do you see people rioting in the streets and callling for Islamic leaders deaths and comparing them to Hitler? No. You see them on TV apologizing for the deaths carried out in God's name instead of on TV screaming for more blood to be spilled over no more than a percieved insult, meanwhile Islamic leaders preach death to America and Israel EVERY SINGLE DAY. Gee I wonder where people get the ideas that Pope Benedict spoke about? And believe me I know that not ALL Islam is like that, and guess what, not all Christianity helped the Nazis or Spaniards either during those killing sprees. And they also don't act insulted when those are mentioned.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Why did Constantinople get the works? That's no body's business but the Turks.

 

TMBG!

 

My kids' favorite band.

[southsider2k5]

TMBG!

 

My kids' favorite band.

 

That's nobody's business but your kids!

 

[jackie hayes]

Constantinople is a side bar here. Its a small, unimportant piece of the issue. It isn't what people are upset about.

 

And before you say it, I do not defend the absurd comparisions to Hitler, or the violent reprisals that may come. This is not cause for such things.

 

As for the main issue, the use of that quotation, it was callous and stupid on his part, plain and simple. And I can see exactly why it might make people angry. Given some of our past discussions, I am not surprised that you would not. You and I see the conflict in the Middle East differently. I don't suspect we can have much other positive discussion on this.

Hmm... Mind elaborating? If you mean that I don't take any slights to Islam seriously, then perhaps you can explain why, between the two of us, I was the only one who took the time to read enough to know that the reference to Constantinople is an issue to some.

 

Benedict voiced absolutely no support for the quote, but you simply assume that he endorsed it full-bore. ("...the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence.") He didn't say that, he didn't "essentially" say that, it was coincidental to the entire purpose of the talk. He didn't use the quote approvingly, as in, 'here's a reliable guy who supports me in my Christojihad against Islam', but as a jumping off point for examining attitudes within Christianity.

 

But it will be misread as forcefully as possible, because some people find anger useful.

[WCSox]

That's the one thing that bugs me about Islam... Everytime someone offends anyone, people start to riot and threaten everybody. Christianity faces its demons publicly and often. We hear the priest abuse sex scandal mentioned still all of the time, as well as things like the inquisition and the Papal holocaust ignoring/sympathsizing thrown back at Christians, and do you see people rioting in the streets and callling for Islamic leaders deaths and comparing them to Hitler? No. You see them on TV apologizing for the deaths carried out in God's name instead of on TV screaming for more blood to be spilled over no more than a percieved insult, meanwhile Islamic leaders preach death to America and Israel EVERY SINGLE DAY. Gee I wonder where people get the ideas that Pope Benedict spoke about? And believe me I know that not ALL Islam is like that, and guess what, not all Christianity helped the Nazis or Spaniards either during those killing sprees. And they also don't act insulted when those are mentioned.

 

^^^

 

Apparently some of these jihad freaks have begun burning Orthodox and Anglican churches. Perhaps somebody needs to tell these morons the difference. Oh wait, they don't care because all of Christianity is sinful in their eyes. Jihad! Praise Allah!

 

Or perhaps somebody needs to tell them that their decision to burn churches to the ground just proves Benedict's point.

[jackie hayes]

Or perhaps somebody needs to tell them that their decision to burn churches to the ground just proves Benedict's point.

That wasn't his point at all, actually.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hmm... Mind elaborating? If you mean that I don't take any slights to Islam seriously, then perhaps you can explain why, between the two of us, I was the only one who took the time to read enough to know that the reference to Constantinople is an issue to some.

 

Benedict voiced absolutely no support for the quote, but you simply assume that he endorsed it full-bore. ("...the leader of the Catholic Church essentially saying that Islam brought nothing new to the table aside from a certain variety and ferocity of violence.") He didn't say that, he didn't "essentially" say that, it was coincidental to the entire purpose of the talk. He didn't use the quote approvingly, as in, 'here's a reliable guy who supports me in my Christojihad against Islam', but as a jumping off point for examining attitudes within Christianity.

 

But it will be misread as forcefully as possible, because some people find anger useful.

Making yet another attempt to make this about a side issue isn't helping your arguments. The Constantinople thing is miniscule in importance, which is what my thought was upon reading about it. And your quote about it from the article, as with the rest of the article, makes it clear that it was just not a big deal. I am puzzled why you keep pointing it out.

 

Benedict did and said something really dumb. Your response is "he didn't say that". If you cannot acknowldge the existence of these words, there is little point in discussing this with you.

 

As for context, I didn't see that quote in the positive light you seem to you. Your saying it was there to examine attitudes within Christianity makes it seem he was trying to delve into the hatred between the two religions, and find some way to address it - which sure sounds good, doesn't it? Except I don't see that. I see instead a subtle attempt to further cleave the two parties and justify the actions of one side.

 

 

That's the one thing that bugs me about Islam... Everytime someone offends anyone, people start to riot and threaten everybody. Christianity faces its demons publicly and often. We hear the priest abuse sex scandal mentioned still all of the time, as well as things like the inquisition and the Papal holocaust ignoring/sympathsizing thrown back at Christians, and do you see people rioting in the streets and callling for Islamic leaders deaths and comparing them to Hitler? No. You see them on TV apologizing for the deaths carried out in God's name instead of on TV screaming for more blood to be spilled over no more than a percieved insult, meanwhile Islamic leaders preach death to America and Israel EVERY SINGLE DAY. Gee I wonder where people get the ideas that Pope Benedict spoke about? And believe me I know that not ALL Islam is like that, and guess what, not all Christianity helped the Nazis or Spaniards either during those killing sprees. And they also don't act insulted when those are mentioned.

I pretty much agree with all of this. Although, I do think you may overstate the ability of the church (meaning the papacy and the Catholic church in this case) to face its demons. It does horrific wrongs, and generally tends to stick to its guns until centuries later. Certainly, Christianity on net balance does a much better job trying to right its own wrongs.

 

But all else I agree with. I am not in this thread, nor have I ever, defended the violent and out-of-hand reactions of extremists within Islam towards these incidents. The only thing I was defending was the anger, and frustration, and calls by governments for Benedict to explain himself. Given the statement, AND ITS CONTEXT, I'd say he owes them that.

[samclemens]

I have to say that I'm a bit dissappointed in Pope Benedict for giving any ground on his comments. What kind of Pope says he is "deeply sorry" for reading scripture (that was what he was reading right?)

[NorthSideSox72]

I have to say that I'm a bit dissappointed in Pope Benedict for giving any ground on his comments. What kind of Pope says he is "deeply sorry" for reading scripture (that was what he was reading right?)

What he was reading isn't what I would call "scripture". It was a quote from a Christian Emporer of Byzantium.

 

And he didn't give any ground on his statements, it would appear. He said he was sorry for the reaction. Didn't apoligize for the use, or tone, of the quote. At least not in what I read this morning, though I only saw a snippet about the statement as of yet.

[jackie hayes]

Making yet another attempt to make this about a side issue isn't helping your arguments. The Constantinople thing is miniscule in importance, which is what my thought was upon reading about it. And your quote about it from the article, as with the rest of the article, makes it clear that it was just not a big deal. I am puzzled why you keep pointing it out.

 

Benedict did and said something really dumb. Your response is "he didn't say that". If you cannot acknowldge the existence of these words, there is little point in discussing this with you.

 

As for context, I didn't see that quote in the positive light you seem to you. Your saying it was there to examine attitudes within Christianity makes it seem he was trying to delve into the hatred between the two religions, and find some way to address it - which sure sounds good, doesn't it? Except I don't see that. I see instead a subtle attempt to further cleave the two parties and justify the actions of one side.

"Existence of these words"? Christ, yes, obviously the words exist, that's obviously not my point. It's not HIS statement. I can quote someone in an academic context and not have it be identified with MY beliefs. How hard is this for you to understand?

 

Have you read the entire speech? No, he's not trying to address any such "hatred". He's not addressing Islam or the divide betwen religions or cultures. He's speaking from a Christian perspective to Christians. The use of the quote is twofold -- First, to set up one Christian's response to violence and reason, as he is to explore the natural Christian response to these throughout the rest of the speech. Second, to demonstrate that this is not a universal response -- the Emperor's objection to Islam is based on a misunderstanding of its basic philosophy, one which may be natural for someone with a 'Greek' outlook, but is not in any sense necessary.

 

As for Constantinople, you initially said that noone cared at all, not that it was only a minor issue. But however small you think it is, it's still interesting that such a ridiculous objection even gets mentioned.

 

Finally, whatever you think of the Catholic Church in general, and however often you shout out "stupid!", if you would ever have looked at his record, you would see that he has been quite interested in learning about Islam and undoubtedly knows a great deal more about it than any non-Muslims on this board. He will certainly be more willing to emphasize the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam, something that many predicted about his papacy from the start. But to say he's "stupid" is laughable.

Edited September 17, 2006 by jackie hayes

[NorthSideSox72]

"Existence of these words"? Christ, yes, obviously the words exist, that's obviously not my point. It's not HIS statement. I can quote someone in an academic context and not have it be identified with MY beliefs. How hard is this for you to understand?

 

Have you read the entire speech? No, he's not trying to address any such "hatred". He's not addressing Islam or the divide betwen religions or cultures. He's speaking from a Christian perspective to Christians. The use of the quote is twofold -- First, to set up one Christian's response to violence and reason, as he is to explore the natural Christian response to these throughout the rest of the speech. Second, to demonstrate that this is not a universal response -- the Emperor's objection to Islam is based on a misunderstanding of its basic philosophy, one which may be natural for someone with a 'Greek' outlook, but is not in any sense necessary.

 

As for Constantinople, you initially said that noone cared at all, not that it was only a minor issue. But however small you think it is, it's still interesting that such a ridiculous objection even gets mentioned.

 

Finally, whatever you think of the Catholic Church in general, and however often you shout out "stupid!", if you would ever have looked at his record, you would see that he has been quite interested in learning about Islam and undoubtedly knows a great deal more about it than any non-Muslims on this board. He will certainly be more willing to emphasize the doctrinal differences between Christianity and Islam, something that many predicted about his papacy from the start. But to say he's "stupid" is laughable.

Every post you have made in this thread has misquoted me. I didn't call anyone stupid. I called HIS STATEMENT dumb... because it was. It was poorly thought out, and someone in his position needs to know the consequences of that type of thing, even if its someone else's quote.

 

The fact that it was someone else's words doesn't magically make it OK for others to say, anyone more than it makes it automatically not OK. But the context, and know his weak attempt at an apology, make it even worse. If he had quoted it and was then referring to the rift, then it would make sense. In the sense he used it in, looking at the rest of the speech around it, it was not a positive in any way.

 

Of course he knows more about Islam, and all major religions, than all of us here combined. That should go without saying. But that does nothing to alleviate the problems caused by his statement.

 

 

An additional thought...

 

I have been reading about the apology. On the one hand, I was glad to see him make a specific distinction between the quote and his beliefs. That is good. But his apology for "the reaction" is of course no apology at all. In fact, its putting blame elsewhere. I just wish this leader of people would have the courage to stand up and say he made a mistake. I'm tired of leaders who equate stubbornness with strength, when the opposite it true.

[samclemens]

What he was reading isn't what I would call "scripture". It was a quote from a Christian Emporer of Byzantium.

 

And he didn't give any ground on his statements, it would appear. He said he was sorry for the reaction. Didn't apoligize for the use, or tone, of the quote. At least not in what I read this morning, though I only saw a snippet about the statement as of yet.

 

if what you say is true, then i still am dissappointed with the Pope for saying he was sorry for anything. im sick of muslim riots every time someone doesnt kiss muhammed's ass. meanwhile, their clerics can all sit around and talk about pushing israel into the sea and zionist pigs, etc. gee, i hope im not the victim of an honor killing for saying this.

[jackie hayes]

Every post you have made in this thread has misquoted me. I didn't call anyone stupid. I called HIS STATEMENT dumb... because it was. It was poorly thought out, and someone in his position needs to know the consequences of that type of thing, even if its someone else's quote.

 

The fact that it was someone else's words doesn't magically make it OK for others to say, anyone more than it makes it automatically not OK. But the context, and know his weak attempt at an apology, make it even worse. If he had quoted it and was then referring to the rift, then it would make sense. In the sense he used it in, looking at the rest of the speech around it, it was not a positive in any way.

 

Of course he knows more about Islam, and all major religions, than all of us here combined. That should go without saying. But that does nothing to alleviate the problems caused by his statement.

An additional thought...

 

I have been reading about the apology. On the one hand, I was glad to see him make a specific distinction between the quote and his beliefs. That is good. But his apology for "the reaction" is of course no apology at all. In fact, its putting blame elsewhere. I just wish this leader of people would have the courage to stand up and say he made a mistake. I'm tired of leaders who equate stubbornness with strength, when the opposite it true.

Bull. It is definitely "OK" to quote someone else, no matter how offensive. If you don't say, 'I think this is a good statement...' then it shouldn't be perceived as your view. It doesn't matter that "it was not a positive in any way." It was simply a statement of fact, and was therefore neutral.

 

Btw, I haven't misquoted s***. That's the same lame excuse that posters here use when they say, 'That post was the most puerile, moronic piece of s***-toast stupidity I've ever been disgusted to hear, but that's not meant to apply to you, I'm sure you're a wonderful, uncannily intelligent individual.' Not to mention, you also said that he "did" something "dumb" (and distinguished that from what he "said").

 

You talk about misquoting after saying that I claim some words never existed? That's f'n hilarious...

[Rex Kickass]

Although the discussion regarding correct attribution of other posters remarks are indeed interesting food for thought and possible further discussion; this isn't the place.

 

Thanks.

[WCSox]

He said he was sorry for the reaction. Didn't apoligize for the use, or tone, of the quote.

 

Nor should he. The remarks were taken out of context by fundamentalist Muslims (and the demagogues that keep them poor and ignorant) who are simply looking for a fight.

[Balta1701]

[samclemens]

not much progress, i must say

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/22/...reut/index.html

 

I think Isreal is going soft. This asshole is allowed to go out in public and call them out. Why on earth didn't they cluster bomb this "victory rally" and whack this s***bag?