Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
kwlafayette





Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Posts: 6155
Reputation: 156.2Reputation: 156.2
votes: 28
Location: Saskatoon Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 11:00 am    Post subject: Islam and the Pope Reply with quote

"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence". Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam

Does anyone else see the irony of that statement? A tolerant religion would not be moved en masse towards violence by any remarks.

http://www.smalldeadanimals.co.....04618.html
PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

:lol: :lol:

idiots
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

...good people certainly do have an aversion to fault-finding - however - calling a thug a thug - is not fault-finding.

The truth is - within many many online 'religious and political' discussions - being known to be a 'hare krishna' [or hindu] - I have had more 'muslims' call me an idol worshipper etc., than have any christians and - in fact - thinking about it - i cannot recall that ever happening with jewish persons.

There is a serious issue with a lack of tolerance in Islam and - it's not limited to just extremists either!

To say such a thing - in a sincere discussion - isn't 'to cast aspersion' on Isalm.

In fact - in the same address the Pope knocked at the history of Christianity and - he at the same time - was honest about an important point regarding the absolute nature of God - here in this point:

"In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which ultimately led to the claim that we can only know God's "voluntas ordinata." Beyond this is the realm of God's freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done...For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding..

"listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity" - sounds like a pretty respectful and inclusive estimation of other faiths to me...

http://zenit.org/english/visua.....?sid=94748

Of course in their own words - the Islamic revolution has an agenda and plans - to exterminate all hindus and jews [whom they really openly despise] and they intend to push the "convert or die" program - on ALL others...including ALL moderate muslims - like the ones who are not helping the situation - by themselves being intolerant of other non-muslim faiths and even of the rights of those following diverse faiths to speak-out their own opinions on Islam - as they too express opinions on 'other' faiths.

Yes - there are intolerant persons within ALL faiths and - we need to see that - while we are many - God is One. We also must confront with rational dialogue - those in our own faiths about their intolerances - I do this - others do this and - it must become a trend.

Of course - in the absolute sense - for God - there is no such thing as "Muslim" or "Christian" or "Jew" or "Hindu" - or whatever.

Just like the sun. The sun is neither 'Hindu sun' nor 'Christian sun' nor 'Hebrew sun' nor 'Muslim sun' etc., the sun - is the sun. The sun is universal to our experience.

But if we say - if we think that - because when the sun is over the heads of muslims - therefore it's the “muslim sun” - then that is a mental concoction.

Sun is neither muslim nor christian nor hindu etc., - similarly - God - He’s neither exclusively for muslims nor christians nor hindus nor jews... He is for everyone.

The simplest definition of dharma [religion] is that dharma is the order of the Supreme Being. Since the Supreme Being - God - is One - His Order must be One.

How - then - can there be different dharmas? lt is not possible - it's only in our minds.

Different dharmas are created due to ignorance - which causes people to think in terms of Hindu dharma Muslim dharma Christian dharma this dharma or that dharma. No.

Gold is gold. If a Christian possesses some gold - does it become Christian gold? Gold is gold - whether possessed by a Hindu a Muslim or a Christian or - whomever.

In this same fashion - God is God and - the sooner the world of faith understands this - the better.

As a foot note to these points - there was this other point in the Pope's address:

"...The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and declares simply that he is, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates' attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy. Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: "I am".

The fact is - in the original Hebrew the translated "I am" - is more literally - "I am whomver I will be" - or - "I am whomever I want to be" - it's an interesting point to add about the broader implications of that text. God is "whomever He wants to be" - sounds pretty universal to me.


Last edited by don muntean on Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/Arti.....?hub=World

Quote:
The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."


Strange way to show that islam isn't violent and didn't spread their faith through violence...
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, although quoting an al-Qaeda linked group is not representative of Muslim opinion, the quote you posted does not refer to the spread of the faith by violence. Not at all. It actually discusses what it considers a defensive war (Iraq, Afghanistan) against non-Muslim Crusaders. So it is arguing that Christian (and presumably Zionist) forces are the ones invading countries and spreading their ideas by the sword. The statement is part of a broader ideology that Muslims should defend themselves against these invasions and attack the powers that continue to support them. What it specifically says is that non-Muslims remaining in the Islamic world would be forced to pay the non-Muslim head-tax. The only people who "convert or fight" is directed towards is the people supporting the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands and ultimately unwilling to accept Muslim hegemony over these lands.

What the Pope had said was that Islam added nothing to religion except violence, which was so absurd and ahistorical, especially coming from a Catholic, that the response was obvious.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Well, although quoting an al-Qaeda linked group is not representative of Muslim opinion, the quote you posted does not refer to the spread of the faith by violence. Not at all. It actually discusses what it considers a defensive war (Iraq, Afghanistan) against non-Muslim Crusaders. So it is arguing that Christian (and presumably Zionist) forces are the ones invading countries and spreading their ideas by the sword. The statement is part of a broader ideology that Muslims should defend themselves against these invasions and attack the powers that continue to support them. What it specifically says is that non-Muslims remaining in the Islamic world would be forced to pay the non-Muslim head-tax. The only people who "convert or fight" is directed towards is the people supporting the invasion and occupation of Muslim lands and ultimately unwilling to accept Muslim hegemony over these lands.

What the Pope had said was that Islam added nothing to religion except violence, which was so absurd and ahistorical, especially coming from a Catholic, that the response was obvious.


Quote:
We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."


that IS about spreading the faith... and that IS how islam was historically spread. Its only in the past couple centuries that their methods of conversion have changed. The comments may be put in the frame of defense, but they're still talking about forcing their views..

The fact that this organization is not mainstream means nothing - Its just another example of intollerance that is, unfortunately, widespread within the muslim faith.

The Popes comments weren't nearly as bad as what they have been made out to be... much like the mohammed cartoons weren't nearly as bad as they were made out to be.

Regardless - Its ridiculous for a group of people to get so upset about comments made about their religion - Christians/catholics, budhists, jews, hindus don't get upset and burn flags and throw firebombs when a leader of another religion trash talks their religion - they roll with it.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
that IS about spreading the faith...
Not really. It is an arguement about how to approach a power they believe has invaded their lands.
Quote:
and that IS how islam was historically spread.
Not really. Islam was quite tolerant of Christians and Jews, especially compared to the various Inquistions and widespread murder of non-believers in Europe.
Quote:
Its only in the past couple centuries that their methods of conversion have changed.
What specifically changed and where? If you mean that being a non-believer in some countries became more dangerous in recent decades, then I would agree.
Quote:
The fact that this organization is not mainstream means nothing - Its just another example of intollerance that is, unfortunately, widespread within the muslim faith.
I don't see the Islamic faith as a particularly intolerant. I think Christians and Muslims both have reactionary views on a wide range of issues. Of course, we tend to look at our own modern culture as essentially the product of rational abstract thought and therefore somehow permanent compared to the barbarity of the other, but this is not the case.
Quote:
The Popes comments weren't nearly as bad as what they have been made out to be...
The Pope used a few sentences to suggest that the entire Islamic faith is nothing more than a sham based on violence. It was clearly intended to ridicule Muslims. My reaction is more of the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" variety. Mr. Ratzinger is a seriously confused man who walks around his own city in fancy robes mumbling Latin. Any serious Muslim should take his comments with about the same weight as they would from a man in a less expensive asylum.
Quote:
Christians/catholics, budhists, jews, hindus don't get upset and burn flags and throw firebombs when a leader of another religion trash talks their religion - they roll with it.
Both historically and presently this is not true. There are widespread cases of violence, including terrorism, associated with almost every religion you noted.
don muntean





Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 2262
Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9Reputation: 34.9
votes: 8
Location: Saskatchewan

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Any serious Muslim should take his comments with about the same weight as they would from a man in a less expensive asylum..


Gee - kinda like I do yours? Mr. Hughes - why are socialists so intent on championing the Islamist cause?
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's like sharpening the guillotine's blade before taking your place under it ;)
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:
Quote:
that IS about spreading the faith...
Not really. It is an arguement about how to approach a power they believe has invaded their lands


So are you going to pay the head tax?
Dauphin





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 98
Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7Reputation: 41.7

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Donald Hughes wrote:

What the Pope had said was that Islam added nothing to religion except violence, which was so absurd and ahistorical, especially coming from a Catholic, that the response was obvious.


The pope said nothing of the sort. He quoted a christian emperor who held that view, a view he doesn't share. If you read his comments in context, it's clear that he meant no offence whatsoever.

These comments have been deliberately misinterpreted by islamic leaders in order to generate rage against the west.
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So are you going to pay the head tax?
It would depend on the situation. I pay different sorts of taxes right now for various sorts of rulers and their muscle, many of whom are engaged in violent reactionary warfare against innocent people like drug users and immigrants. I can imagine myself paying taxes in a Muslim country, even a particularly reactionary one. But you can imagine that they tend not to let people on the libertarian Left live very long, certainly not someone who is atheist. I would need to balance out humility with direct engagement in the construction of some alternative. I should add that I do think about this, I'm not trying to be flippant, if I can get the money together and feel confident enough I will return to Asia in May, maybe September to work on a language, and might consider going to somewhere like Iran. But that's a big "we'll see".

Anyways, I can appreciate their "logic" as being fairly consistent outside their religious leaps and not aggressive in itself. But if I were to become religious as a leap of Kierkegaardian absurdity, I would probably become a Sunni Muslim.
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

war on immigrants?

oh, you mean illegal immigrants - the people who come to our country and work and dont pay tax, then expect to stay when we find they haven't left. The people who have absolutely no legitimate claim to anything in this country, but expect to get it anyway?
I suppose we should let them vote too?

Drug users? come on... we've been through this - and as much as you may talk about the war on drug users. Wait, let me guess - you'll forget the war on gun owners, and somehow find some pathetic excuse to differentiate between the two..

You make it sound like we live under tyrants... If its that bad, you should go to iran, I'm sure you would be much happier..
biggie





Joined: 06 Sep 2006
Posts: 1738
Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44Reputation: 44
votes: 10
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's ok - when they take over, i'll be heading up the insurgency ;) let me know if you change your mind
Donald Hughes





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 166
Reputation: 16.2Reputation: 16.2
Location: Libertarian socialism

PostPosted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 9:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
You make it sound like we live under tyrants... If its that bad, you should go to iran, I'm sure you would be much happier..
What have I ever said that would suggest to you that Iran is an example of the kind of system I support?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 2

Goto page 1, 2  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Islam and the Pope

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB