Yes, there is an opportunity here. There is an opportunity to take a closer look at just what Muhammad's teaching were - and to find the similarities between what he taught and what Christ taught. (Invite some of the leaders in Islam to share with the Pope regarding their faith.) There is also an opportunity to look at how people of all faiths have fallen into evil actions such as resorting to "spreading by the sword" their faith - and to vow find a way out of that evil.

Yes, he should apologize for his remarks, perhaps spoken harshly without thought, and use this as an opportunity to admit his humanity and to help unify others.

Love, Kristin

Dear Mallika and Norm,
I believe that the higher the role and influence one individual has in the world, the more this same individual must exercise self-control in expressing any views. When the words of a Pope, or diplomat, may sound as inflammatory as those of radical individuals the world becomes a less safe place. A formal apology is in order.
Love,
Donatella

Norm, the reason why Christianity appears reasonably tolerant these days is because Christianity is politically fairly weak and toothless. We live in cecular societies where Church and state have been separated.

However, if you look back through history at the times when Christianity was leading political ideology you will find that Christianity was responsible for tens of millions of deaths and puts the current Islamic extremism in the shade.

The western tolerance is relatively new and we should be grateful that Christians don't have much of a say. It is the Christian Evangelical ideology so prevalent in Hicksville America which IS partly responsible for a lot of the injustice in the world today. It is these people who bankroll Israeli expansionism because they are desperate for the doomsday senario to unfold and that can only happen after the Temple of Sol;omon has been rebuilt and Israel has reclaimed all the lands it lost in the past 2000 years.

Coming back to whether the Pope should apologise or not, well that depends on whether his ego thinks that his rash and unintelligent utterings are more important than the innocent lives of good Christians who may pay the price at the hands of Islamic fanatics.

Personally, when Ratzo took charge at the papacy and so we had a former Nazi at the top of the Christian Church leadership, I just saw it as another convenient fulfilment of the prophesies.
Luckily, he is not a young man but he is definitely connected to the same dark and sinister powers that wield at the Whitehouse and the Pentagon these days. Someone like him does not speak public utterances without calculation and forethought.

Everyone wants to provoke Iran so that Israel can give us a more spectacular demonstration of self defense than they showed following the kidnapping of a handful of soldiers.

Dear Mallika

The Pope has shown an extraordinary lack of diplomacy and sensitivity in choosing that particular text, no matter what its historical context was. If he were a US executive, and made a similar faux-pas, he'd be out on his a-- right now. Being the Pope, he gets to stay.

Apologies won't be accepted easily, because if he meant what he said in his indirect apologies, or direct ones if he ever makes them, he'd never have made the mistake in the first place. People are not stupid.

Nice guys may forgive him, out of their very niceness. And meanies now have him by the collar, and will try to shake him up a lot.

Seriously, there is a lot of damage that can result from his heavy-handedness. I recall that, when he was elected, there was concern he didn't have the talent and experience to handle the human side of the job, and he was considered to be too legalistic and dogmatic. The assessments appear to have been correct. Outside the Catholic Church itself, general respect for him will diminish worldwide, simply because he was so graceless and narrow-visioned as to cause this furor.

Like an inconstant husband, yes, he should apologize, once a day, at least.

His opportunity is to learn what people think and feel outside Vatican City. He should have taken that course of study before he accepted his office. But while too late is often too little, one should also never say die. I hope he opens up to the rest of the world, as befits his office's stature.

But if he doesn't apologize as he should, and doesn't take the opportunity to learn, there can be subtle benefits anyway: Christianity itself has often come off as holier-than-thou, alienating those of other religions by the millions. What better way to erode that self-destructive, patronizing stance permanently, than to have the chief of the chief Christian sect act out in such a stupid way?

love, Heather

Dear Taomaster

Great comment, except I don't think direct Christianity-related deaths can be counted in the tens of millions. When Christianity was that strong, the world's local populations were not that big.

love, Heather

There are people who believe that "God" can only be good and merciful. That the things that happen which are evil and bloodthirsty are the responsibility of something other than God. The Devil. However, any notion of separation is an illusion. It isn't a personal God that does these things, it is Karma. Karma is determined by our own actions and we happen to be part of the Cosmos.

You should study the story of Job in the bible in this context, and I would recommend Jung's papers on this story which is something he gave a great deal of thought to.

When Islam was born, it was born as a reaction - a spiritual reaction if you like - a reaction to the dishonest and corrupt distortion by the Church of the Gospel stories and in particular the distortion which made Jesus into a God as the son of God. Any Spiritualist worth his salt knows the falsity of THAT claim in the way that it has been propagated. Islam was born in the 6th century AD as a reaction to the dark forces of Black Magic that had usurped and polluted the teachings of Jesus.

It wasn't God who was angry. It was an angry man who managed to make contact with "God" and the lies were revealed. When he discovered the truth he wrote about it. But it was Mohammed who was angry about it. Was he "chosen" as the instrument of Karma?

I think there is a bigger debate here, but who dare speak it.

Anon...

The pope is right in what he stated when he stressed that it was not his own opinion, but is clear historic evidence. Why should he apologize for telling the truth? If Muslims see it as blasphemous, then it means that they have a problem with their own religion. People should not be concerned with offending others when it gets in the way of telling the truth.

Let’s say assuming the Pope is wrong in quoting an obscure late Emperor by ascribing violence to the spread of Islam, but the Muslim world responded by burning churches in the west bank, killing a nun in Somalia, burning effigies of the pope and flags etc. What more evidence of violence is required to prove or show an evidence for the quote apposite?

It is also seemingly okay for a Muslim leader to deny or lessen the impact of the Jewish Holocaust. Portray Jews, Christians and other "non-believers" as pigs and infidels, but woe betide anybody who dares make the slightest negative comment about Islam. It is this utter hypocrisy that is just one of a long list of problems with extreme followers of Islam.

The people who demand the Pope to apologize have an Opportunity to self reflect and stop the mindless voilence. How many more opportunities do they need before they wake from their religious-spiritual slumber?

Josue
6:2; And the Lord said to Josue: Behold I have given into thy hands Jericho . . .
6:21; [And Josue and his men went into Jericho] And killed all that were in it, man and woman, young and old. The oxen also, and the sheep, and the asses, they slew with the edge of the sword.

Josue 10:1-43 is also a ‘story’ of God-ordered genocide without parallel. And so . . .

Deuteronomy
7:1 When the Lord thy God shall have brought thee into the land, which thou art going in to possess, and shall have destroyed many nations before thee, the Hethite, and the Gergezite, and the Amorrhite, and the Chanaanite, and the Pherezite, and the Hevite, and the Jebusite, seven nations much more numerous than thou art, and stronger than thou:
7:2 And the Lord thy God shall have delivered them to thee, thou shalt utterly destroy them. Thou shalt make no league with them, nor shew mercy to them:

I Samuel
15: 3; Now therefore go, and smite Amalec, and utterly destroy all that he hath: spare him not, nor covet anything that is his: but slay both man and woman, child and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

And so it goes . . .

Now about those ‘terrorists’ Norm. The WTC bombings of 93 and 01 (01 including the Pentagon and possibly White House) represented what exactly? Certainly the terrorists where not trying to destroy the United States military juggernaut with these attacks, nor was it exactly directly trying to kill massive amounts of people, b/c a Sunday morning NFL game could have killed easily 50 thousand more people than the 3000 in the WTC attack, and it did not even attack a Protestant church either.

So what was it I wonder? Let me see here. The World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the White House . . .

I wonder what possible connection there could be . . .

The World Trade Center represented Capitalism, or that is, ‘free’ trade that is built upon money (the ultimate oxymoron), unless you get your money free gambling that is, and I trust I need not go into the usual spiel about the profound Godlessness of capitalism.

The Pentagon, the directing agency of U.S. troops everywhere in the world, including and not limited to, well, hmm, in fact, I am hard pressed not to think of a country that has not had U.S. troops (or CIA covert operations) in it, except maybe Canada or some African nation that no longer has any resources to offer! I think Osama bin Laden has a beef with the puppet regimes the White House has installed/aided or abetted throughout Muslim nations for the last century: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, Turkey, Iraq, Indonesia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, the ‘colorful’ revolutions of the last decade—all of these nations, and more, have received large amounts of weapons directly from the good old United States of America at the direct behest of the executive branch of the U.S. government along with their military/industrial corporate sponsors.

There was also something about American troops on Saudi land Osama didn’t seem to like much . . .

And as far as Iraqi terrorists attacking the indigenous cooperators of the U.S. troops themselves that are in Iraq, well, if you cooperated with the Russians if they invaded the United States, I suppose a right-wing American ‘terrorist’ would attack you too.

Beyond that, the subway attack in London seems like it was a strain of disenchanted Muslim youths more than a strategically masterminded international plot. The attack in Spain seems to have been more politically motivated, and it worked.

It is U.S. troops and warplanes and ‘smart’ bombs that are killing untold amounts of Afghanis and Iraqis every day, and when one considers their 100 thousand plus deaths, as compared to our 5 thousand, who is the terrorist and who are the victims is quite plain to see . . .

Much like the British making a large crowd of unarmed Indians pass through a narrow alleyway as they practice their slaughtering technique . . .

Anyways, shouldn’t you be worried about building that fence along the U.S. Mexican border, after all, ‘high fences make good neighbors,’ and you would not want one of those free-riding Mexicans get in your way, you might just run them over and get their greasy blood all over those truck tires . . .

har har har har

I love you brother!

O and Justin Raimondo has a pretty good take on the Popes comments over at antiwar dot com: http://[delinker]www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709

Peace

Hi Mallika,

Nope...don't think the Pope should apologize. Frankly I get tired of people apologizing left and right for what they said. Who should the Pope apologize to? He was quoting a Pope from the 14th century...

What's more, where are all of the cries for apologies from the REAL political leaders of Islam in response to speeches calling for the complete destruction of Israel? These guys actually have real political power and they are calling for the complete destruction of a country and its people. There were leaders of Islam calling for murder because of a cartoon...no problem there...as long as it's not the Pope disagreeing with doctrine. He should apologize for that.

But we get all upset when the Pope even alludes to Islam in a negative way. He's the Pope...of course he doesn't agree with the teachings of Islam. I just don't know why that's a big surprise.

In my view I would rather have people speak their minds...especially those that are in the public. Then I can decide if it's stupid or not. Do we really want religious and political leaders hiding behind politically correct speech? Do we want them hiding opinions that are racist or classist or that just disagree with ours? I don't want that. If someone in power has ideas that I think are dangerous, I would much rather know about them.

I don't think the Pope should apologize...he said what he thought. Now we know where he stands.

Peace,
Scott.

Heather, the crusades aside, which most westerners have a very incomplete and romantic idea about, and which was responsible for deaths in the tens of thousands, we also have the wiping out of the Aztecs, the Incas and the Native American Indians, and if you include the passive nod which allowed Hitler to murder 6 million Jews and at least a million Gypsies, and Arabs, I think millions is appropriate.

Would Hitler have been able to do what he did to the Jews and had the support of the German people and many other nations, including millions of Americans and British, if the Papacy had roundly condemned it?

Great Post Craig. I guess if you replaced the word "Christianity" with Capitalism or Democracy, the people behind the ideology are ultimately the same.

Thank you Tao.

Regrettably I have to agree with your observation as well. But, I have been hitting some sites where I find like-minded Christian/Judaic brothers . . .

Tikkun is really kewl!

Peace

Dear InnocentVictim

Clearn historic evidence is not always something to be flaunted publically. When did the Pope balance the picture by being forthcoming about the wholesale murderous approaches to empire building and gold acquisition sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church during the European Middle Ages and Renaissance periods? He has plenty of material on those realities in his archives. Since he didn't choose to share the Church's socio-political sins, he should have kept that particular text out of the public eye. People interested in a single-sided view of history can go to the libraries of the world, and select their material according to their own personal biases.

A current-day leader of a church and a country cannot be that shallow and short-sighted and undiplomatic. Or, if he or she is those things, he or she must stand whatever results.

Just what was the purpose of his use of that text? I can't see any fair use of it, myself.

Dear Taomaster

Considering WWII, you are 100% correct, and I am wrong.

love, Heather

Churches were set ablaze, a nun is killed, violence continues, this because of the Popes words! If Christian radicals acted in the same manner, every time the Moslem leaders referred to Christians as infidels, there wouldn’t be many mosques left and many peaceful Muslims shall get killed.

The Moslem radicals seem to have double standards; on one hand they protest about western behavior towards Islam, but they continuously insult Christians and Jews in their press and in their schools and madrasas, breading another generation of hate, ignorance and encouraging violent means as the way of their religion.

AJ

Craig: All those texts are the problem I have with Christianity...or at least one of the problems. I am not a Christian, though that is my background.

Taomaster:We don't disagree as much as both of us probably think we do..it's all a mess!!

But to Mallikas post: Should the Pope apologize? Hell no!!

Should Deepak apologize for the hateful way he speaks about Bush?

Should Rex Weyler apologize for calling gwb a cokehead?

Should the New York times, you know...the 'paper of record' apologize to the administration for tarring and feathering Karl rove on the Plame case?? When he was innocent?

There is a template here: GWB and a lot of Repubs are Christians...therefore...anything remotely related to christianity, has to be castigated and made to appear immoral. Doesn't matter if it pulls the US down...as long as it defeats the right wing.

Heather said:"If he were a US executive, and made a similar faux-pas, he'd be out on his a-- right now." She's probably right. But....apply the same template to what she stated and let it be about Jesus, or the Pope....and you guys will be in there fighting for that person's right to keep their job!! you're all pretty transparent!!

OK< OK....i've spent way more time on here today than i meant to! Craig, capitalism is alive and well here in KY!! Having my best year ever!! It's called working!!! Hard!!

norm

Hey You Republican S@#$% Norm! You not only are here, but there's a blog now on your post. Wow, that means this place has reverted back to its place of freedom!! I think everyone should say sorry to everyone. LOL!! Sure way of achieving
F@%#$#%# Peace!! Get Osama babes now to say Sorry for the hell that he created to our Mighty America. What do you reckon Normy!!!

Well Norm; I will come work you you! I am starting to get kind of discouraged trying to help 'my' street people with lofty ideas, yet no power, NOR MONEY, to implement any of 'my' solutions . . .

And I really do not want to join them anymore . . .

I know you are a hard-working man Norm, and I have much respect for you; don't ever forget it.

As for me? What is a Christian Anarchist to do man, work for Wal-Mart (capitalist pig dogs: grrrr) . . .

couldn't resist

Peace

But Pope has already Apologized! What more they want? Touch the feet of Imams? And I want an apology from all those who criticised F@#$%$# Bush!! LOL!!

"Just what was the purpose of his use of that text?" ~heather

Pope's remarks are not anti-Islamic. At last somebody with a high stature takes a strong stand against Muslim violence. Muslims should apologise for the disrespect they show to the Pope and all non-Muslims.

Funny to see that every time someone says something about Islam, it is greeted with riots, arson and random violence.

Millions are starving and dying in Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia and other African countries why don’t all the Muslims worry about the dying "Muslim Brothers" in Africa. No one seems to care because they are so busy reading cartoons.

What the Moslem community is portraying with its fierce reaction to what the Pope said only tends to confirm the truth of the quoted remarks. Didn't Shakespeare say about, he who protests too much? The best reaction the Muslim community should have mustered was to ignore the whole thing as some saying by a medieval emperor which is not relevant to our day.

The Pope had his say and the rest is history repeating itself.

Oye, SI, you sound all excited, sir or madam. What's your position?

Pope’s speech and the violent reaction from the Muslim community that followed it illustrates one fundamental issue that time and again pop(e)s up the distinction between the Western thought and that of many Muslims:

The right to use reason to investigate and criticize the reality and the wholeness of our human experience including our belief systems without retorting to violence.

Paradoxically, it is this freedom of scientific thought that has brought the greatest advances in well-being to all humans of every religion on the planet earth.

dear InnocentVictim

The Pope's use of the text is defensible as fair and right only if he admits to the Church's past sins, too. I didn't hear him bring those things up, did you? For starters, read Taomaster's comments.

The Pope's wrongs don't make Muslim leaders' exaggerations and overreactions right, by the way. They just make the Pope wrong.

love, Heather

(dear and love to you, too, SI, forgot it, that's all.)

Heather, I've never understood how can anyone be so blind in assessing?? I think people love to wear the Spiritual Burkah(the black veil) to show how benevolent they are.

One small incident...they ask for Apologies, destroy buildings and what not. Those F&*%$#@ A#$%#@(Sorry using gotham's fav lang) they destroy buildings with planes and say what not about other Religions and other places of worship. We never ask them for apologies. We are sane enough to know, from whom to ask apologies.

Hi All,
It is the same old archetypes at play again.When will we human beings realise that all religious texts have been put together by human thought.There may be some truths here and there but majority is just reflections of our very own tribal mindset.

The problem is that people who see the truth of all these are branded atheists.

There can be real change only when people realise this truth that all religions have been put together by human beings for psychological security.

I think I'm with Norm here.

Religious texts have words in them that are incendiary in nature. They're awfully hard to avoid if you're not trying.

Furthermore if Moslems had a Supreme Caliphate who'd referred to something from the Bible that spoke of the injustice of the sword and resultant evil, I'd be apt to agree.

Sometimes it's impossible to believe that religion isn't the most perpetually evil force on the planet. It causes so many to be continually offended in the name of God.

Why do we doubt God's ability to take care of God's will? Is it because God lacks the power? Sad, sad God. Not much of a God at all.

What Mohammed and Jesus had going against them were chronic chroniclers.

I guess if everyone had simply written, "I guess ya just had to be there," all this would be a little easier to bear, and maybe we could spend more time finding more prophets among us.

"The Pope's use of the text is defensible as fair and right only if he admits to the Church's past sins, too."

Why don't we talk about the present world we live in. His comments have been misinterpreted, taken out of context of an academic and highly complex speech to suit the radical fanatics. The Pope is merely saying that peace has to come from two sides not just one.

The Catholic Church had apologized for many things they have been involved in the many past hundreds of years.

When will the Muslim spiritual heads do that for at least once?

No one from the Muslim community is commenting on the extreme uncivilized, violent over reaction! They are the one who need to apologize for a change for their violent ways which haven't changed much. Catholic Church doesn't encourage violence in the present day as the radical Muslims do quoting their religious book.

IV: Muslims and Apology?? Are you drinking too much of alcohol there? It's almost an Oxymoron. You want to debate with muslims?? Don't drink too much of alcohol. They will screw you and ask you for an apology!

Dear SI and InnocentVictim

Neither of you has convinced me that my assessment is wrong, that the Pope was insensitive and unwise in choosing that text.

On 13 Sep, last Wed., well before the Muslim world reacted, a NY Times reporter named Ian Fisher, reporting on the Pope's speech, wrote this:

"...And he used language open to interpretations that could inflame Muslims, at a time of high tension among religions and three months before he makes a trip to Turkey..."

The full article is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/13/world/europe/13pope.html

If a relatively unbiased reporter for the NY Times interpereted the remarks like that, how much more powerful would the effect have been within the Muslim world? Well, we've seen how much more powerful.

Here are two more quotes from the article, not by Muslim leaders or laity, but rather by a Church official and scholar, and an Italian Vatican reporter:

"The Rev. Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, said...of the quote from the emperor, “You clearly take a risk using an example like that.”"

"Marco Politi, the Vatican expert for the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, said that “the text reveals his deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam.”"

If this is how the Pope's use of the text was viewed by non-Muslims, again, why should we be surprised at strong reactions in Muslim societies?

Personally, I'm surprised at the cultural and social denseness, lack of diplomacy, and weak long-term strategy exhibited by the Pope.

love, Heather

Dear Dana

Your last sentence is very wise. Our debate here is kind of senseless, if we start looking at things like that.

love, Heather

Heather: Do you read at all the posts in the thread?? My post#18 tells you that. Someone of Pope's status saying it aloud is most definitely asking for trouble from those A@#$$$@#. Did you think Popes are any F@#$@#$@ better than Imams and Mullahs? More or less...people of Religion sail in the same boat. What IV and I were talking was about the other side. Oh! Forgot, You're reputed I guess from what I've read about you in sleeping, in not seeing the other side. Maybe we have to shake u a little to wake you up to see the other side, we were talking. I can tell you one thing, the world in this era is not going to keep quiet over their crap.

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

My respone to the statement by the Pope and the reaction by some in the Muslim World is a big YAWN. Why? The Pope said something that people considered disrespectful or ignorant, in some way. Nothing new there. Pope's views on birth conrtol (dumb), Women cannot be priests (dumb) molestation problem among priests (never admitted, allowed to continue, undisturbed by church authorities) (criminally dumb.)

Muslim anger, rage, when talking about the big M, well, nothing new there.

I, do not know, maybe, we have, here, a match made in Heaven ignorance meets rage and demands an apology, or else! YAWN

seriously, I tend to agree with Scott on this one,

Here is the deal, the Muslims that preach the total destruction of Israel need to apologize first, then the Pope, then the President of Iran, then the President of the US, then Tony Blair, then Mel Gibson, then Hezbollah, then Hamas, then
norm, then me, then stan, then Ambasteve, then Taomaster etc., etc.

I'm sorry, so sorry, for being such a fool, I didn't know LOVE could be so cruel...(a little Brenda Lee song)ruth

Dear Heather and All,
I used to work with diplomats and dignitaries in Chicago. Although my position was in cultural affairs, I learned a lot from some brilliant ambassadors and consuls general. You are absolutely right. This Pope -- who has been known for being a politician more than a spiritual leader -- knew precisely what he was reading. He deliberately chose that document.

He has advisors in protocol, history, ethics, etc. It's impossible that it was just a mistake.
I briefly worked as a consultant in customs and etiquette. The basic rules of etiquette are universal. We try not to offend each other and show consideration for others' differences. My yogic studies confirmed that the careful use of our language is of utmost importance to peaceful coexistence.
Love,
Donatella

The problem here is....

It realy is not a question of who said what or who done what.....

preventative measures exist in the nature of there being no us and them, religion has and still is the cause of hatred, war and violence the world over..

Understand that God....The divine nature of existence is not religion.

Religion is an idea, it uses the basic premise of god realisation to gain political strength, monetary strength, Religion has it's foundations rooted within human dominance.

Faith in God is unquestionable. Your very own awareness is testimony to the existence of God.

as Deepak asks......

Who is the thinker of the thought??

when you awaken each morning it is the divine you are first aware of before anything other as it was when you were first born.

Pay tribute to that....

be true that which is your vital breathe.....

That is God..

it is funny though.human behaviour as we understand it informs us that a difference in opinions a difference in beliefs leads to tention... and quite often between people the only way to resolve a problem is to....Have it out as they say

so maybe this is what we are seeing here....

the main dominating religions of this planet which are christianity, Judaism and Islam are at a stage where by they are so lost from the path of real god realisation that they are about to fight it out..

imagine the destruction and death that will cause??

another possibility

but a deadly one

The pope is just a man, he breathes, has fears, goes to the toilet, showers same as you and me....

we are god...not one individual...

every single person no matter if they are a tramp or a prince are to be respected as if they are the same as pope...for they are as god as you and I are.

The worst is yet to come it seams.......

If you look at the entire world...it is very much like ONE Life....as if the history of the world itself is quite simply A LIFETIME made up of billions of lifetimes...

for example

the Earth Formed and had a turbulant birth....

It's sea's and oceans have been for ever changing

The earth has suffered many highs and lows in it's time

it has experienced many different kinds of creatures upon itself...

like a person almost growing up through different stages and different experiences....

The dinosuares came and whent...

lots of change lots of different things happening...

very much like a human life don't you think???

and now in this earths life comes the exsistence of mankind.........

I bet mother earth didnt bargain on this kind of life??

There are no winners in war and conflict.....

what are we fighting for that we do not have already??

Life goes on...with or without mankind

you can be sure of that!

May Lord Krishna help us all when a sentence is taken out of context and blown out of proportion by the media. The Catholic Church has been despicable for their past actions but the Vatican has apologized more than once. Catholics accept their mistakes as a fact. They don't burn effigies and threaten death and destruction to others! Catholics do not use churches or schools to train innocents to hate in present day. The Pope obviously used the quote to advice against hate. The response of the Muslim world is no surprise at all. More hate.

The Muslim community worldwide can apparently be mobilized very fast and very efficiently when they feel their religion has been "insulted". This is in strong contrast with the almost total silence from the same Muslim community when terrorist groups carry out horrible attacks in name of their religion and quoting their holy book. Where is the outrage then?

“Pope was insensitive and unwise in choosing that text.” ~ Heather

Heather, obviously, the pope made an error in his speaking . . . he will need some lessons on that from his PR advisors . . . . As WhiteInk has so rightly suggested, there is no point to expect an apology or see a change in their violent ways with religion as the Pope wanted to with his speech. In this respect Pope made a bad judgment.
However, don't let the Pope’s words doubt your belief any longer, what you think about expands…. You know what is true. So let that be your only concern. Defending is unnecessary.

“I'm surprised at the cultural and social denseness, lack of diplomacy, and weak long-term strategy exhibited by the Pope.” ~Heather

And then, who knows…It may prove to be the wisest speech he had made. It may also be intentional with a huge foresight and a long term plan to unite the Semitic religions and then the bigger picture of Hinduism and Buddhism as well.

With the debate going on, the Muslims community in future may gain control over the radical fanatics and adopt peaceful means to solve issues which are material, religious and spiritual.

Reddy

Wow, I can't believe this but I agree with ALL of you guys, this is the first that has ever hapened.

Just one thing though, Muslims are not monolithic hence they don't have unified voice (a must need now a days of shrinking world) so the fall out is guaranteed to be lengthy and ugly. No, the OBL may be filthy rich but guess who is taking advantage of the millions of poor young people as rightly summarized by Deepak. Norm, you got to expand your horizon to understand the true nature of the other, but as I said, I find myself agreeing with everyone here so far, perhaps count me among the nice people.

I was kidding with you IV. Hope you took it that way. I'm again here..You mean fanatics taking over control of radical fanatics??LOL! How is that possible? They are all brothers no? I thought you understood their mentality very well. I didn't know you too sometimes get into hopeful thinking.

Take care!

Hi Everyone,

To understand this problem, it is first important to understand that there are four levels of abnormal energy here on the planet Earth.

The first and densest level is “dogma”.
The second is “bias, prejudice, and opinion”.
The third is “doctrine”.
The fourth is “philosophy” this being the least dense, but still an abnormal level of energy.

We find all the Muslim and Christian teachings along with all the other religions in the third abnormal energy level of “doctrine”. This energy level also includes ALL political parties, doctors, lawyers, corporations, and all other groups.

All of the wars ever fought in our history were born out of the first three levels of this abnormal energy, and until we rise above them, we can expect more and more of the same.

This energy covers the entire planet, and it is the glue of the social structure and the collective consciousness. It wakes us up every morning and puts us to sleep each night, and we cannot go to the 7/11 to buy a cup of coffee with out this energy taking control of us!

Debating about who should apologize to who, or which religion is better or worse or which political party will move us in the right direction is an exercise in futility. None of them will ever take us where we need to go!

Kind Regards,
Stan

Dr. Wayne Dyer, in one of his lectures,
said, somewhere,

'one of the most important decisions I've made, was to decide, wheter or not to live in a friendly or hostile universe'

freely recaptured, don't sue me, it's like the old quote,
Loving people live in a loving world.
Hostile people live in a hostile world.
Same world.
..the rest is politics..

Love, Passion,

Good thread. Lotsa 'stuff.' I believe we all want the same thing. PEACE!

I vote for every one of us to mediatea peace.

Simon and Scott are the spokespeople! With Deepak right behind them to keep us on track (Don't mind if me and Heather ski down the Alps real quick does anybody).

Peace all

"An intriguing part of the conversation between the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus and "an educated Persian" now made world-famous by Pope Benedict XVI, is that the Persian seems to have no name. There is no mention of it in the speech made by the Holy Father during his "Apostolic Journey" to the University of Regensburg on 9/12.

The Persian must have been an intellectual of some importance if he was good enough to merit an audience with an "erudite" emperor. Does his name exist in the original text, since it was "presumably the Emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402"? Was the name mentioned in the version produced by Professor Theodore Khoury, which the Pope has read, and which he used in a speech on a critical aspect of a sensitive theme at a time of conflict, on the Islamic doctrine of "holy war"? I ask because names lend greater credibility to text. Was the name omitted because Muslims of the educated kind preferred anonymity? Not at all. Imam Ghazali and Ibn Khaldun were household names at the time of this dialogue.

There are other uncertainties in the Pope’s speech, which purports to be about "Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections" in which he quotes Manuel’s ignorant, but, given the history of the early and medieval Church’s continual diatribe against Islam and its Prophet, predictable view. This discussion on "holy war" appeared in the seventh conversation and was "rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole". It is interesting that Pope Benedict should select what was "rather marginal" for emphasis and ignore the apparently more substantive issues that were discussed. What is genuinely disconcerting is that the Holy Father should accept Manuel’s taunting, erroneous and provocative depiction of the Prophet’s message without any qualification. Pope Benedict is not at all disturbed by phrases as insulting as "evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". This is utterly wrong, as even a cursory understanding of Islam would have made apparent. Are the Pope’s speechwriters equally biased or ignorant? The Pope treated Manuel’s observation and commentary as self-evident truth.

I have a further question: Why didn’t the Pope quote the Persian scholar’s answer to Manuel? It was a conversation, after all. Are we to believe that the Persian gave no answer, that he did not challenge such a rant? He could not have been much of a scholar in that case. If he did not reply he justifies his anonymity.

I am not erudite enough to have read the dialogue in the original Greek, or Professor Khoury’s edited version of it. I can only go by the Pope’s speech in Germany.

Some uncertainties can be explained by the distance of six centuries, as for instance the sentence that the conversation took place "perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara". The fact that we are reading Manuel’s record, rather than the Persian’s, also explains why it lays more stress on the emperor’s view of theology.

What is aggravating is that the Pope has been free with assumptions, and liberal with its first cousin, innuendo. The peaceful piety of Manuel becomes an indictment of Islam, which is held to be violent in preference and doctrine. The innuendo is cleverly expressed, indicating that some effort has been taken to be clever. The famous verse of the Quran, that "There is no compulsion in religion", is juxtaposed with the proposition that "According to the experts, this is one of the Suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat". The implication is that when he was not under threat, he drew out his sword and went on a rampage. This is the kind of propaganda that the Church used to put out with abandon in the early days, adding gratuitously comments about believers and "infidels". This is the line that those who have made it their business to hate Muslims, use till today. But the Vatican had stopped such vilification, and it is unfortunate that Pope Benedict has revived it.

If he had consulted a few experts who understood Islam, he might have been better educated on "holy war".

It is absolutely correct that no war verse was sent down to the Prophet during his Mecca phase. Despite the severest persecution, to the point where he almost lost his life, he never advocated violence. There are innumerable verses in the Quran extolling the merits of peace, and a peaceful solution to life’s problems — including a preference for peace over war. The Quran treats Christians and Jews as people of the Book, despite the fact that they did not accept the Prophet’s message. It praises Jesus as "Ruh-Allah", or one touched by the spirit of Allah (this is the best translation I can think of). Mary, mother of Jesus, is accepted as virgin, although the Quran is equally clear that Jesus is a man, and not the son of God.

The war verses are sent to the Prophet only when he has been in Medina for some time, and has become not only a leader of the community but also head of a multi-faith state. War, in other words, is permitted as an exercise in statecraft, and not for personal reasons, including persecution. Further, it is circumscribed with important conditions. Surely no one, including Pope Benedict, believes that a state cannot ever take recourse to war? Indeed, the history of the Vatican is filled with war. The Quran’s view of war, as an answer to injustice, certainly merits more understanding than censure.

Manuel’s view is better understood in the context of his times. He was monarch of a once-glorious but now dying empire. The Ottomans had been slicing off territory for centuries; the first Crusade had been called by Pope Urban II three centuries before to save the Byzantines from Muslim Turks. The heart of the empire, Constantinople, was now under serious threat. If Tamerlane (another Muslim) had not suddenly appeared from the east and decimated the Ottomans, Constantinople might have fallen during that siege which so depressed Manuel. It was hardly a moment when the Byzantines could have the most charitable view of an Islamic holy war. What is less understandable is why Pope Benedict should endorse a fallacy.

The present Pope is not a successor to the great and wise John Paul II. He is heir to predecessors like Pope Nicholas V who issued "The Bull Romanus Pontifex" in January 1455. This Holy Father sought "to bestow favours and special graces on Catholic kings and princes, who ... not only restrain the savage excesses of the Saracens (that is, Muslims) and of other infidels, enemies of the Christian name, but also for the defence and increase of the faith vanquish them..." He then praises King Alfonso for going to remote places "to bring into the bosom of his faith the perfidious enemies of him and of the life-giving Cross by which we have been redeemed, namely the Saracens and other infidels..."

And so on. This was the philosophy that created the Inquisition in which Muslims and Jews were killed and driven out of Catholic kingdoms in Spain and Portugal after the Christian reconquests. Do note that Muslims did not have any exclusive copyright over the use of the term "infidel".

I have no particular desire to introduce 16th century dialectic into contemporary attempts to bridge inter-faith misunderstanding, but it is pertinent that Nicholas V became Pope some sixty years after Manuel’s conversations with the unnamed Persian. Equally, there is no point in quoting from, say, Dante’s rather bilious descriptions of the Prophet and Hazrat Ali for that language belongs to a different world.

A suggestion to those who believe in an "international outcry". Hyper-reactions tend to suggest nervousness. Islam is not a weak doctrine; it is built on rock, not sand. Reason is a more effective weapon than anger."

http://www.mjakbar.org/mjblog.htm

I'm with Mr. Akbar. Much respect sir! Thank you.

Craig

This editorial (LA Times/NY Times) from Sam Harris should get some people's attention:

Head-in-the-Sand Liberals
Western civilization really is at risk from Muslim extremists.
By Sam Harris, SAM HARRIS is the author of "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason." His next book, "Letter to a Christian Nation," will be published this week by Knopf. samharris.org.
September 18, 2006

TWO YEARS AGO I published a book highly critical of religion, "The End of Faith." In it, I argued that the world's major religions are genuinely incompatible, inevitably cause conflict and now prevent the emergence of a viable, global civilization. In response, I have received many thousands of letters and e-mails from priests, journalists, scientists, politicians, soldiers, rabbis, actors, aid workers, students — from people young and old who occupy every point on the spectrum of belief and nonbelief.

This has offered me a special opportunity to see how people of all creeds and political persuasions react when religion is criticized. I am here to report that liberals and conservatives respond very differently to the notion that religion can be a direct cause of human conflict.

This difference does not bode well for the future of liberalism.

Perhaps I should establish my liberal bone fides at the outset. I'd like to see taxes raised on the wealthy, drugs decriminalized and homosexuals free to marry. I also think that the Bush administration deserves most of the criticism it has received in the last six years — especially with respect to its waging of the war in Iraq, its scuttling of science and its fiscal irresponsibility.

But my correspondence with liberals has convinced me that liberalism has grown dangerously out of touch with the realities of our world — specifically with what devout Muslims actually believe about the West, about paradise and about the ultimate ascendance of their faith.

On questions of national security, I am now as wary of my fellow liberals as I am of the religious demagogues on the Christian right.

This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

A cult of death is forming in the Muslim world — for reasons that are perfectly explicable in terms of the Islamic doctrines of martyrdom and jihad. The truth is that we are not fighting a "war on terror." We are fighting a pestilential theology and a longing for paradise.

This is not to say that we are at war with all Muslims. But we are absolutely at war with those who believe that death in defense of the faith is the highest possible good, that cartoonists should be killed for caricaturing the prophet and that any Muslim who loses his faith should be butchered for apostasy.

Unfortunately, such religious extremism is not as fringe a phenomenon as we might hope. Numerous studies have found that the most radicalized Muslims tend to have better-than-average educations and economic opportunities.

Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism.

At its most extreme, liberal denial has found expression in a growing subculture of conspiracy theorists who believe that the atrocities of 9/11 were orchestrated by our own government. A nationwide poll conducted by the Scripps Survey Research Center at Ohio University found that more than a third of Americans suspect that the federal government "assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East;" 16% believe that the twin towers collapsed not because fully-fueled passenger jets smashed into them but because agents of the Bush administration had secretly rigged them to explode.

Such an astonishing eruption of masochistic unreason could well mark the decline of liberalism, if not the decline of Western civilization. There are books, films and conferences organized around this phantasmagoria, and they offer an unusually clear view of the debilitating dogma that lurks at the heart of liberalism: Western power is utterly malevolent, while the powerless people of the Earth can be counted on to embrace reason and tolerance, if only given sufficient economic opportunities.

I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals.

Given the mendacity and shocking incompetence of the Bush administration — especially its mishandling of the war in Iraq — liberals can find much to lament in the conservative approach to fighting the war on terror. Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are.

Recent condemnations of the Bush administration's use of the phrase "Islamic fascism" are a case in point. There is no question that the phrase is imprecise — Islamists are not technically fascists, and the term ignores a variety of schisms that exist even among Islamists — but it is by no means an example of wartime propaganda, as has been repeatedly alleged by liberals.

In their analyses of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy, liberals can be relied on to overlook the most basic moral distinctions. For instance, they ignore the fact that Muslims intentionally murder noncombatants, while we and the Israelis (as a rule) seek to avoid doing so. Muslims routinely use human shields, and this accounts for much of the collateral damage we and the Israelis cause; the political discourse throughout much of the Muslim world, especially with respect to Jews, is explicitly and unabashedly genocidal.

Given these distinctions, there is no question that the Israelis now hold the moral high ground in their conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah. And yet liberals in the United States and Europe often speak as though the truth were otherwise.

We are entering an age of unchecked nuclear proliferation and, it seems likely, nuclear terrorism. There is, therefore, no future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors for us. Unless liberals realize that there are tens of millions of people in the Muslim world who are far scarier than Dick Cheney, they will be unable to protect civilization from its genuine enemies.

Increasingly, Americans will come to believe that the only people hard-headed enough to fight the religious lunatics of the Muslim world are the religious lunatics of the West. Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

While liberals should be the ones pointing the way beyond this Iron Age madness, they are rendering themselves increasingly irrelevant. Being generally reasonable and tolerant of diversity, liberals should be especially sensitive to the dangers of religious literalism. But they aren't.

The same failure of liberalism is evident in Western Europe, where the dogma of multiculturalism has left a secular Europe very slow to address the looming problem of religious extremism among its immigrants. The people who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses to Europe are actually fascists.

To say that this does not bode well for liberalism is an understatement: It does not bode well for the future of civilization.

Steve

This should not be "Headline" news.

It belongs in Saturday's review of church services.

.

Have you ever wondered about those who belong

to a religious group, as far as who's who?

I used to do that in church...judge the 'brethtren'.

I was but a young teen, prone to discriminate.

Who here is really a Christian? Can I spot even one?

Oh, this guy and that gal, well, maybe...

they all will say, "I am a Christian".

What makes them think so?

Because they are a member of the church?

Because they tithe and pray and act 'good' on Sunday?

Because they were sprinkled with Holy Water or

immersed fully(baptised) in a big bath tub?

Because they believe that Jesus was the one and only Son of God?

(Btw...that is the only unforgiveable sin)

Why, there are so many rules...there was only one Perfect One...

only one who had NEVER sinned...

you expect us to act like Him?(Apologetics)

Oh, we don't have to. We just ask to be forgiven,

once a week, for all of last weeks transgressions.

You see, it's really easy to say,

not so easy to do.

"What would Jesus do?" Who cares, I'm not Him.

I wonder if the followers of Islam have such 'questioning' minds.

Be honest with yourself if you claim a group identity.

If you can't agree with it All...

throw the baby out with the bathwater

and produce a better doctrine for yourself.

That is...if you can ever figure out just who you really are!

AmbaSteve . . .

Now just what exactly does Israel have to do with AMERICAN foreign policy? . . . .

O! Whoops. That is right, forgot there for a second.

You can quote Prager ceaselessly, and you can quote a boy like Harris, forsooth, he knows where the next check comes from, after all, he does live in Hollywood (or is that New York) right . . .

Give us some of your own input brother! Alas . . .

Get AMERICAN troops out of the Middle East, and I know we could work things out just fine.

But that is not going to happen now is it?

The only question is after the Iranians, who next? The Chinese? The French? Germans? Scandinavians? Or do 'we' just keep 'whittling away' and take out the Venezuelans and Koreans first . . .

Well, let us get the show on the road, I'll vote for Specter or Feingold.

Writing on the wall brother.

Peace brother Steve

Craig

Isn't it high time ppl realize that there will be others who disagree with them?
Not that Pope-hood has been any saintly in the past, but the Pope does have the freedom of speech.
I totally don't understand the concept of forcing someone to apologize, how does it matter? Not that his thinking will change even if he gives a formal apology. Its like saying "like me or I'll kill you".

Brother Craig,

How art thee? I've been too busy to post, started a new job and can't be online during the day and at night , well, couldn't resist quoting the darling of the rational set, Sammy Harris.

So I just read how Syria is being attcked by Jihadist, now tell my bro you think if Americans leave the land of Islam it will be a hoot of difference to the terrorists? They are going after the Syrian govt!!!!! How is Israel or the US part of that?

At this point it don't make no matter what the pope says, Iran wants more and more papal protest, they are just looking for an excuse to pick a fight, and I believe it's because the leadership needs justification for it's existance. Come on, this is so stupid to protest something that most didn't even bother to read. You know that, we all know this.

It's the same ol' same ol' Craig, the pope is tough and smart, he aint going to back down.

Someone has to do the heavy lifting.

OK back to my cave, hope you are doing well and Happy Jewish New Year!

Peace,

Steve

just saw the movie "The name of the rose" ...

the exceptional brutality of religion beliefs from medieval times ....

disturbing on how today religion is still used to support man's dominance over others ...

should the Pope apolagised ?

what intention would it serve ?

more of us versus they???

or rather

what can we do differently that brings us together ???

Muslim reaction is alarming ...

Popes' words unconcious and disconnecting ...

how do we bridge the gap???

the law of attraction playing out ...

asking us to learn...

rather than pointing fingers at each other ...

for 3 years I have faced intimidation as I decided to fight issues of corruption...

where do I go from here ??? I ask myself often

How do I overcome my fear rather then lashing out???

How do I live my truth without throwing myself to the wolves ???

oh yes...

the story of the mystic ...when she accepted a lift from a criminal mind ...

she touches him ...

while telling him "I feel safe with you .. so safe I will take a nap and pray for you "

an alchemy that led this man to follow her for 7 years " to protect her..."

The alchemical language we need to learn...

to focus in forces and thoughts that brings us together rather than that which keeps us apart ...

Ghangi's gift ...

Nelson Mandela's ...

noticing how many separating thoughts I have ...

me versus they ...

who wins???

possibly the greatest source of humiliation I have witnessed ...

being treated as inferior ...

kicked out like a dog ...

when inside ...

there is nothing left ...

oh yes ...

"The pianist" ...

the voice of compassion ...

in unity ...

that brings us all together ...

my hope for humanity ...

which I know ...

starts with me ...

in this resistance I do have ...

to fully forgive ...

and to be ...

in unity ...

ah ...

the power of duality ...

necessary for the learnigns ...

to grow and to rise above ...

in this yearning ...

we all have ...

Yeah,

Methinks the pope and the Islamic militants leave a little to be desired.

Just the same, get the Amerian boys out of there, and let them deal with it, they may mess with Israel a bit, but once Iran gets nuked everybody will back off . . .

i don't even think China could go toe to toe with Israel.

Anyhoo, something has got to happen to dispel this G-dless mytho about capitalism (preying upon your fellow man, give me a break)!

Peace bro

Craig

So you think the Afghani who rode his bike into the middle of a crowd of Canadian soldiers handing out pens and notebooks to excited and happy children was thinking, please leave my country so I won't be forced to bomb little children?

TONY EASTLEY: It was a small moment when the campaign to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan was working. Canadian soldiers were handing out pens and notebooks to excited children in a village in the country's south, a day after NATO had declared the area free of Taliban insurgents.

Then, a suicide bomber rode up on a bicycle into the middle of the crowd, and detonated his device. Four soldiers were killed, and dozens of the children were injured.

I agree with Scott. The Pope has showed us all his true colors. He can apologize, but the cat is out of the bag.

If he wanted to have a dialog about violence and religion, he certainly chose a clumsy way to approach the whole subject.

All the world's major religions, at one time or another have been the inspiration for murderous conquerors, or has been the imposed religion of one culture overriding another earlier culture.

Christianity was itself a victim of extreme prejudicial violence, then in Medieval Europe it became a propagator of extreme prejudicial violence. Then it split up as Protestants and Catholics, which in some places are still warring today.

And there is a wise, non-violent side of Christianity as well. There are even Christian mystics (such as St Francis).

Likewise, Islam has had both a violent and peaceful history, and also has mystical offshoots (such as Sufism).

Each is a huge religion, with billions of people, in thousands of sects, groups, and affiliations.

Therefore, trying to ascribe a few epithets to the entire religion is basically futile and meaningless. You launch into endless debates, each side quoting holy scripture and citing historical examples to prove their point. It makes for vibrant discussion, like in this thread. I have never seen so many hashed symbols in a single thread on this blog before!

But back to the original question, should the Pope apologize.

The Pope is responsible for what he said.

The Pope is not responsible for the murder of a nun. The murderer is responsible for that. The Pope is not responsible for the burning down of a church. The arsonists are responsible for that.

However, the Pope has agreed to be in a position of high authority and responsibility, so he has to take responsibility that his words may have a powerful impact around the world.

Now what exactly does the Muslim world want as an apology? Do they want the Pope to say "I am sorry. I was wrong. Islam is a religion of Peace. It is the religion of God the merciful and compassionate."

That would be the nice thing to say, and it would probably go a long way toward ending the row.

Would that be truth? Well yes and no, as I explained before.

The case could certainly be made that, in terms of healing the rift beween Christianity and Islam, it would help if each religion publicly proclaimed that it acknowledged the other to be a religion of peace and wisdom, and treat the violent parts of their history as abberrations, and treat the extremist interpretations of their religions as such too.

This would at least unite the peacemakers of each religion, and together they could start the work of ending hostilities.

It is hard to prove what the "Truth" is, and it is useless to simply continue an unresolvable theological battle.

In terms of the practical, there are certainly certain viewpoints and certain kinds of public discourse that encourage peace, and certain other viewpoints and styles of discourse that encourage violence.

And the leaders of each religion do have a responsibility for choosing how the public discourse between the two faiths is going to be shaped.

Whether those leaders can rise to the challenge remains to be seen.

Dear Simon,

Very lucid!

Dear Marek,

You too!

:) xx

Some comments are assuming this is a purely a religious issue. It's not.

The Vatican is a country. The Pope is a head of a state, which, though small in area, is immensely wealthy and has a constituency of millions.

If Bush had read out that text, what would you think?

love, Heather

Dear Donatella

Exactly (ref your 32)!

love, Heather

What ever happened with, "Behind closed doors"?

One on one...stick 'em in a room, let 'em hash it out!

They don't get out until they negotiate and compromise.

.

One day we will look at each other, eye to eye,

one on one, instead of looking at letters on a page.

This is easy...say anything...what repercussions?

You get kicked off for a couple days, big deal.

Would I talk as I write if I had a microphone

and could see you 'Live'?

I'm afraid I cannot say, "Yes!"

Whether or not it's front page news(Hello Heather!),

what lesson can WE learn from this?

"Those who talk, don't know."

"Those who know, don't talk."

So then we'll just stare at each other...

and accomplish what?

Yogi babes: If you think anyone is painting the whole of the religion or the community with epithets, you're grossly mistaken. You seem to lack a sense of humor. Do you ever laugh?? Or just totally Immersed in yoga? LOL! People here have that much sense to know there is good bad everywhere, just the %varies. This is not a bloody Islamic website to think in the "All" style. Next time you'll see more of $. LOL!

Does anyone really believe that the Pope didn't know his words would create a storm in to-day's context? This was no off the cuff remark but made at a prepared speech he was delivering. I think my first reaction when I read the statement( before the reaction set in) was similar to that of most others - that this will create more trouble and to question the need to come up with this kind of statement. It would add fuel to fire. If thats how it struck me, Im sure it struck the Pope and his secretariat too, much before he made his words public. The fact remains that they still went ahead and did it.

The reaction was as expected, an apology has already been made, apparently to no avail. My guess is that the real reaction will set in after prayers on Friday when the clerics have had their say. A bad situation will continue to get worse.

People keep mentioning Samuel Huttington's Clash of Civilisation theory and nod in wise agreement that it is coming true. I get the feeling that it is actually as if some people are hell bent on trying to prove this theory right. They seem to be using it as some kind of text book as a basis for their actions and words.

The longer this scrapping goes on the more certain the outcome appears - there will only be losers in this fight.

For most of my life, I've always been baffled by World War I and what exactly transpired (beyond the obvious) to start it. It was probably the most senseless war in history. Years later, my grandfather died an untimely death of lung cancer, surely from having been mustard gassed. Bad way to go, lung cancer.

These past few years have given me a good idea what's behind war and to whose advantage it's waged.

Google "war is a racket".

Karl Marx claimed that religion was the opiate of the masses. I always thought he was talking about euphoria. It now occurs to me that he was addressing unremitting craving and the IOUs piling up.

Hello Mallika and Everyone

Ambasteve I find Sam Harris's editorial to be, pretty much, full of it, like most who have hit the jackpot of talk whatever tv, radio, print- to go on and on about the liberal vs conservative crap.

he writes..This may seem like frank acquiescence to the charge that "liberals are soft on terrorism." It is, and they are.

I consider myself a liberal and most of the people I know consider themselves liberals and they are not "soft on terror."

What we do have a problem with is this Administrations determination to -uck with our Constitution, with our Laws, with our Rights as citizens to our privacy, free speech, with our right to know just what the hell our government is doing, in our name.

We will fight terror, but we will not give any President the blank check to do as he pleases without his having to answer to our Legislative branches of Government or the Laws of the Land.

Liberalism has brought about the most intelligent, humane, visionary changes in our Nation, it is a term to be proud of no matter how much this Administration's political strategists have tried to make it otherwise. Liberalism is the rock that holds this Nation together, it pulls us out of wars that waste the lives of young men and women, it marches on Washington to end segregation, it gives Women and minorities their rights as equal citizens, it makes sure the separation of Church and State stays that way..separated.

There is nothing anyone can do to Liberalism to defame it, to lessen it's effect on this Nation's history, Liberalism is a very good thing.

If the future of civilization is on the line, here, and I do not think it is, then it will be liberalism that will ultimately save the day, why? because we realize that it takes two to tango and until we know and understand without a shadow of a doubt, we will give the benefit of the doubt to the other, but make no mistake, that is not a weakness, that is our strength, that is our supreme confidence in knowing how much our freedoms mean to us and that we will fight to win if necessary, but only if necessary. We liberals would rather hand out flowers to soldiers, would rather sit in a field and chill to the music of the day, make peace, not war, hey, we love chillin, will choose it anyday over the fight, but fight we can do, have done, and we know it is there, as a choice, always, if needed.

up with liberalism..ruth

don't get me wrong, I am sure the conservatives have some good points, too. (haha)

Sadly, I believe that if every nation in the world had a two year mandatory military conscription, there'd be far fewer wars and far less rustling over words.

Steve,

The Harris article was a good one. Thanks for that.

These young people that are committing these terrorist acts are products of thousands and thousands of hours of conditioning. Conditioning that is designed to dehumanize a particular group of people; they're spoon-fed hate from their earliest days. To defeat this conditioning would take a tremendous force of will on their part...but more importantly, it takes a hint of the fact that their current thoughts just might be erroneous; tough to do in a culture that is currently steeped in this type of thought. We all experience a certain level of this, but most of us live in cultures that allow questioning of the information that we are being "fed". We live in cultures that allow freedom of expression. Many of these people do not...even though at many levels they are well trained and well educated.

Being educated does not necessarily immunize one from conditioning (as the Harris article pointed out). In the U.S. , we have plenty of fundamental Christians that are well educated, SMART people. However, they live in a time when Christianity is not calling for the death of others due to their beliefs. Certainly there was a time when Christian political leaders DID call for the conversion or death (the Inquisition, the Nazis, the Crusades etc.) However, if Christian children were taught in Sunday school and at home that the highest sacrifice to God was killing Buddhists then you would have a higher percentage of people that would kill Buddhists and what’s more, you would have a high percentage of the Christian population that supported the behavior even if they did not participate in it. I guess what I'm saying is that a religion itself is not more or less violent then another (Islam vs. Judeo/Christian), it is the emotions that become attached via conditioning to the natural human desire to please God. Any doctrine can be used for violence. Those seeking to control the populations’ perceptions have always used religion and sex as a tool. At this time Islam is being used as a tool for murder. We must accept that and deal with the reality of that situation be it militarily or whatever, but not allow ourselves to think that we are somehow different or our beliefs are somehow superior; for his would be an invitation to become exactly that thing that we fight against.

It's possible to be compassionate but still take the actions necessary for the higher good of the worlds people. I've used this quote before, but I believe it's worth repeating: There are reasons that people do things and so we can have compassion, but reasons are not excuses and those that take those actions are still responsible for them.

Peace,
Scott.

Good points Scotty and Ruth. Can't refute those points of yours Scotty on nursing hatred in the madrassas. Should it be madasses without an r. LOL!!! It's apt.

RELIGION IS ON IT'S LAST LEG

RELIGION BECAME AN INSTITUTION OF THE EGO

As sure as I AM, all that born of ego, shall perish, and that born of spirit shall rise from the ashes.

Religion is being engineered out of existence using the Internet as we speak, by gravity, not by force.

Minds Remastered Recoded.

Being unencumbered by ignorance and ego, empowered by intelligence and wisdom they move as One Mind.

Shambhala, from whence I come, follows.

Judging by the passionate debate going on on this thread......religion does arouse passions among people and it is surely the opium of the masses.
Religion is an offshoot of Politics.

The Pope's comments were intended for exactly this effect. This blog is just a microcosm of what's happening in the rest of the world. Islam was gaining ground and Christianity was in danger.....hence came the Pope's deliberate comments.......to make all the Christians of the world rally around the church.

I agree with Richard that Religion is on its last leg. It's on its way out. The intolerant religions of the world will be wiped out along with the people who make it a matter of life and death. The death knell has rung.

And who shall remain?...............

The *meek* shall inherit the Earth.

Cheers!
Navin

here I am ...

after a very intense and deep massage ...

I ask myself...

what do I really know

in the mystery of the flow ???

should the Pope apologise???

How deep does it go???

The mystery of the gap ….

The embodyiment...

Necessary to understand …...

This voice...

that takes no sides ...

So that in stillness

I learn ...

how to bow …

who is here ???

What do you need from me ???

oh ...

the power of spiritual truths ...

that brings us together ...

not as an intellectual expression...

but as a living experience

that knows ...

WE ARE ONE!!!

a bridge…

between Heaven and Earth …

right and wrong …

dark and light…

calling me...

to see ...

the beyond ...

I close my eyes...

I let myself go …

I allow ...

This witness that I am

to glow ...

as I suddenly hear ...

words ...

I have always known ….

“ Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing or rigthdoing there is a field …

I will meet you there …

When the soul lies down in that grass

The world is too full to talk about …

Ideas , language , even the phrase each other

Doesn’t make any sense “

I then realize ...

There is nothing to fear …

In this emptiness

I am blessed ...

In this feeling

I am everything …

there is no reason to apolagise ...

Post number 8 by Craig points us toward this URL

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=9709

I believe it is a must read in regards to the context inwhich the out of context statement of the Pope was made.

WHo hold the moral high ground? Let us hear it from the horse's mouth, though I concurr with Yogi that it will be a long debate with no end, as both parties will be able to cite examples to prove their case :

Guess whose words these are:

"Starting this war was a scandal...It was possible to solve the problem of the missiles in South Lebanon by diplomatic meansThe offensive of the last two days of the war, in which 33 soldiers were killed after the cease-fire resolution had already been accepted, was a spin of the Prime MinisterThe Prime Minister, the Minister of Defense and the Chief-of-Staff must resign"

Right, it was Gush Shalom, the Israeli peace group.

But that's not new. What is new is that yesterday, the former Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Ya'alon, repeated these statements, almost word for word.

"Bogie" Ya'alon is the very opposite of Gush Shalom. Nobody could say that he belongs to a "marginal group". He comes from the very center of the establishment. He is a Rightist. He was responsible for some of the most cruel acts of the occupation.

There is another difference: Gush Shalom spoke out when the events were actually happening, in the midst of the war, when it was still possible to save the lives of those 33 soldiers. At that time, these statements were unpopular in the extreme, bordering on treason. Because no Israeli medium was prepared to publish them, the Gush had to pay for them as advertisements. Now Ya'alon comes and repeats them, after the wind has changed and they have become popular.

Ya'alon's motives are not important. (As will be remembered, Ariel Sharon removed him from office and replaced him with Dan Halutz a year ago, in order to ease the way for the "Disengagement"). What is important is that the things have now been said by a person with supreme military credentials. When such a person declares that 33 soldiers were sacrificed for no military purpose, for the personal interests of Ehud Olmert, that the war itself was quite unnecessary, and that the problem of Hizbullah's rockets could have been solved by diplomatic means - these things carry weight.

This is not important only in regard to what happened a few weeks ago, when the leadership spoke of a terrible danger looming on our northern border, but even more so today, when the same leadership is warning of an even more acute "threat" somewhere else.

* * *

IN THE corridors of power in Jerusalem the cry is going up: "Help! Peace is upon you, Israel!"

A terrible enemy is conspiring to impose peace on us. He is advancing against us from two sides, in a giant pincer movement.

One arm of this offensive is the Palestinian Unity Government that is about to be set up.

The other is the decision of the Arab League to revive the Arab Peace Plan.

From the point of view of the Government of Israel, this offensive is far more dangerous then all of Hassan Nasrallah's rockets put together.

* * *

THE PALESTINIAN Government of National Unity is designed to solve, first of all, domestic Palestinian problems.

Since the Palestinians elected Hamas, a state of anarchy has prevailed on the Palestinian street. The constant clashes between the President, who is the head of Fatah, and the Prime Minister, who belongs to Hamas, have created a state of paralysis, just when the Palestinian people need unity in the face of existential challenges.

Fatah has dominated the modern Palestinian national movement since its foundation by Yasser Arafat almost 50 years ago. It is not resigned to defeat. But a people fighting for its very existence cannot allow its two main factions to fight against each other, instead of cooperating in the struggle for national liberation.

To this must be added the blockade imposed on the Palestinian Authority by Europe and America, by order of President Bush. This is an unprecedented attempt to literally starve a whole people into removing its democratically elected government.

The National Unity Government is designed to restore public order and to break the international blockade.

For this to happen, the government must circumvent several obstacles. For religious reasons, it is difficult for Hamas to recognize Israel officially. This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism, as alleged, but with the fact that according to Islam, Palestine is a "Waqf" (religious endowment) belonging to Allah (similar to the Jewish fundamentalists' belief that God has promised us the country, so that giving away any part of it is a mortal sin.) But the Muslim religion opens a back door here by allowing for a long-term "hudnah" (truce) that can last for decades or even centuries.

The way to solve this problem is to get the Unity Government, headed by Hamas, to declare that it is committed to the "prisoners' document", the UN resolutions, the agreements signed between Israel and the PLO and the Arab peace plan - all of which are based on the recognition of Israel. That should suffice for anybody who really wants to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace.

As far as our government is concerned, there precisely is the rub.

* * *

THE SECOND arm of the peace offensive is the renewal of the Arab Peace Plan.

This plan was originally devised by Abdallah, then the Crown Prince and now the King of Saudi Arabia. It was adopted by the summit meeting of the Arab heads of state in Beirut in March 2002.

This plan says, roughly: the entire Arab world will recognize Israel and make peace with it, if it withdraws to the 1967 borders and makes it possible to establish the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

The government of Israel has rejected the initiative, as the Hebrew expression goes, "on the threshold" (every peace initiative is rejected "on the threshold", so as not to allow it, God forbid, to put a foot in the door.) The plan was consigned to a pigeon hole and has been collecting dust ever since. Now the evil Arabs have decided to dust it off and slap it back on the table.

* * *

AGAINST THIS danger of the Arab peacemongers, the Olmert government is calling up all its forces. In spite of the fact the entire political and military leadership is now busy fighting for its survival after the Lebanon fiasco, it is uniting in the face of this frightening menace.

Tzipi Livni was sent head over heels to the United States, in order to avert the danger. She went to convince President Bush (who happened to "pass" the room when she was talking with Condoleezza Rice and who calls her "Tsiffi") to use the deadly American veto against any Security Council resolution that might support peace. She is going to meet with some 20 heads of governments and foreign ministers to enlist their support against this menace.

For this, she took down from the Foreign Office attic a diplomatic rag called "the Road Map". It has never even entered the mind of the Israeli government to carry out this agreement, whose sole purpose was, right from the beginning, to create the impression that President Bush has achieved something in the Middle East. From its inception, all the parties knew that this was a document that cannot be implemented.

Israel and the US will, therefore, declare that the Arab peace plan is damaging peace, because it contradicts the Road Map. The Palestinian unity government, when it is set up, must be boycotted, because it does not explicitly state that all its members recognize the State of Israel (as if all the members of the Israeli government were prepared to recognize the State of Palestine and its government, not to mention foreswearing violence and accepting all the existing agreements.) Therefore, the blockade of the Palestinian population must go on, until it sinks to its knees.

* * *

WHY DOES the peace offensive frighten the Israeli government?

If somebody had come to us on June 4, 1967, and told us that the entire Arab world was ready to make peace with us within the borders existing on that day, and that the Palestinian leadership, too, was prepared to declare an end to the historic conflict, we would have felt that the Messiah had come.

But on June 5, 1967, we started a war that changed everything. We were soon in control of the whole of Palestine and huge additional territories. We declared that we were holding them temporarily in order to trade them in, but, as is well known, appetite comes with eating. We started to annex territories (East Jerusalem with its surroundings and the Golan Heights), and to cover the West Bank with settlements.

In the eyes of the Israeli leadership, the peace initiative - any peace initiative - is nothing but an evil conspiracy of the peacemongers to rob us of these territories. It would compel us to put an end to the settlement enterprise - which has not stopped for a moment since 1968, and which is even now in full swing - and to dismantle the existing settlements.

The pincer movement of the peacemongers could gather momentum and generate international pressure that would be difficult to withstand. That's the reason for the panic in Jerusalem.

http://www.counterpunch.com/avnery09182006.html

I don't understand why the head of one religious organization has to condemn another. It is bound to arouse hostility. This clearly shows a lack of what J.krishnamurty calles a "religious mind". It is also said that religions are many but religion is one and such conduct clearly reveals that nobody follows real religion.

Let’s consider a hypothetical situation; I am come up with a brilliant idea of a religion of my own. My idea of this religion is based on practicing violence, war, and destruction of the innocent as a means to spread my religion (although it is advertised as a religion of love). I am ultra rich. I find myself a following of 100 people. I start my campaign in a war torn Africa, converting the unhappy Christians and Moslems there. In time my religion spreads to many countries. My followers brutally murder those who criticize my religion and use violent means against the followers of other religions. They carry out senseless terrorist attacks. They are highly intolerant to the way of peaceful co-existence. They justify their action by claiming that they are merely following their religion.

In this world, do you think anyone including the Pope should not criticize my religion? Well, I am flattered.

“I don't understand why the head of one religious organization has to condemn another.” ~Hiren

Who condemned whom? Is there a head for the Muslim organization?

“This clearly shows a lack of what J.krishnamurty calles a "religious mind". It is also said that religions are many but religion is one and such conduct clearly reveals that nobody follows real religion”~Hiren

J. Krishnamurti is against all organized religions. Certainly his teachings don’t support violent means by the followers of a certain religion. The fact is that many people in the world follow some kind of organized religion. People go to war based on religions. In the present day, the followers of Islam in particular have carried out brutal attacks and are spreading more hate based on their religion. It is time to condemn such acts and condemn the religious community which breeds such intolerance.

Reddy

So now people are saying that the Pope condemned another relgion. I would like to see some proof of this.

Why am I not surprised at this statment.

Thanks Scott for your clarity and rationality, nice!

Steve

Mr. Akbar; you are the man bro! And thanks to Uri Avnery for the nice article.

I was thinking. Since the United States possesses such overwhelming firepower, why do we not just go in and literally ‘kill them all.’ I mean, it is not as if that would bother your average American in the least (it would be just like another video game or war movie), and it is not as if the international community could do anything about it. So what is stopping us I wonder?

There has got to be a reason we do not just go in and frag them all.

And I am thinking if we just seriously bombed to oblivion Afghanistan and Iraq, then what would the war industry and the fear-mongering alarmists then do? I can go to the defense department’s own web site and see that we have more than enough weapons to do the job . . .

So why don’t they . . .

Three reasons:

1) Outright genocide would betray the Anglo-Americans for the greedy capitalist brutes that they are

2) There would no longer be an ‘evil’ other to keep the common man preoccupied with (until the Chinese or Russians ‘got out of line’ again); and then we might actually start demanding universal health care, more equitable distribution of ‘the cash,’ and a secured living for all

3) ‘Nuking’ them may put the oil out of reach for a little while, and though we still have by far more than enough conventional weaponry to still slaughter ‘them’ all, we do not have the physical bodies, and there may be a problem if the draft was re-imposed, because I do not think we have 20 million hucksters and ‘Christian’ soldiers who would go for it, consequently, another civil war could then become a viably pressing issue . . .

War is a racket I have heard. Fear will get the masses to literally ‘sign away’ their rights, for the sake of their own security of course . . .

And war, having an ‘evil’ enemy to mortally battle ‘until the job gets done’ (i.e.: forever!), just seems to be suiting SOMEBODYS’ (enter name of defense contractor of your choice here) bank accounts just fine . . .

So we just set up another U.S. friendly government, keep soldiers and military bases over there, and make them open up their oil fields to our oil giants to privatize, and . . .

hmm . . .

(Meanwhile the local senator asks for, and gets, another 5 hundred million for ‘border security’) . . .

Very strange

Peace

Hiren says: I don't understand why the head of one religious organization has to condemn another.

If an educated person like Hiren who has read J.Krishamuty is ill informed and makes such ignorant claims, no wonder the illiterate people on the streets can be enraged and pushed to do violent things after the quote by Pope is blown out of proportion!

Without our war economy, then where would America be?

Without weapons no oil, w/o oil no weapons: vicious 'little' cycle heh . . .

Or, in other words, cut our oil supply in half tomorrow, and we would be in the darkness--literally!

Peace

Way to go Norm. Haven't read the comments but just want to add my two bits and apologize if this has already been addressed. I think that the remarks of the Pope provide us with a wonderful opportunity to discuss the issue concerned, and to really examine whether Islam spread through force, as he claims. Of couse the knee-jerk response is to clamor for an apology before anything else. Why is an apology more important than addressing the core issue? Of course, the Pope, as head of historically the most virulent reiligion on the planet is in no position to call the kettle black but that does not mean that the primary issue should not be discussed. In fact, the manner in which many Muslims have reacted to this and other issues confirms the validity of what the Byzantine Emperor said at the time. Recent historical events confirm the fact too. In fact there is a line of continuity from the time of Mohammad to the present day which validates the comments of the Pope. If an apology is called for, perhaps it should be along the lines of an acknowledgement that Christianity has even more blood on its hands, so yes, he should apologize for his audacity but nothing more.

The Christianity as well as the Islam both have a very violent history in spreading their beliefs as Divya says. The pope cited the excerpt of his speech in the context that no violence should be used from either religion as it does only harm and no good. However, he should have shown more wisdom in not using this citation. He apologized for the misinterpretations of his speech and the voilence that followed from it. Moslems should be satisfied with this apology. After all it was just a citation for emphasizing his opposition to violence.

But the reaction to his apology shows that there was no point in apologizing. If pope's effigies were burnt and Churches were desecrated, what he quoted still holds.

If it was the other way, Mosques looted and effigies of prophet burnt then imagine how peaceful the reaction from the Moslem community would be.

Norm: Nice work, my friend! What do I mean by that?

You're the only one who's been able to get our beloved friend, Divya, to speak up in some time!

You've grown even stronger, like Divya, as you both are willing to swim against the current, and with that wonderful freedom that comes exercising both your inalienable and unalienable rights--divine rights endowed by no man or government--rights that are truly everyone's birthright--however much we individually, and collectively, disregard with such tenacity and vehemence, and for sooooo.....long.

Good on you, Norm--I miss Divya's voice when she is quiet and contemplative--or simply, "elsewhere!"

A big cyber-hug to both of you--Much Love, Dave

For me, this looks like a survey.

Fidel Castro did it a few months ago. Some people want to say: "hey do not forget me, I am here too! I am important too! Take attention at me!".

Blogs can easily serve as "actuality action/reaction meters". Some big leaders are out, but they hopelessly still continue to spread their "importante" words.

I hope we will be strong enough to put our attention to Inner more importante realities.

I think, we have to wake up from this old black way of creating confusion, from this black way that make loose our time and energies. We have a lot of better things to do!

I agree with Richard #62 and Navin #63

Wake up Jean!

Hey David - thanks for the warm welcome. But I thought you were in on the secret that Norm and me have been secretly engaged for a while ;)

Divya: Sooooooo........., is it Ken-tuck-kee, or NYC for the two of you, or both?! Dave

Oh goody! A full on debate about Islam (again!). Well, my initial reaction to Ratzinger's (a.k.a Pope Benedict XVI's) speech was not one of a surprise element (as being a hardliner, I think most people were waiting for his first humdinger faux pas), and boy did he deliver good. I think obviously in the extremely sensitive political situation of today, his lack of tact was actually quite ridiculous. However, having read what he said, I have to agree that essentially he was saying that the use of violence in religion was not founded. To this everybody agrees-but to single out Islam (and he is known for his hatred of Islam)-in today social climate was just asking for a serious backlash. He could have been more articulate and more sensitive, for now, we have an even more religiously polarised 'war on terror', just as bridges were being built and discussions on the subject were becoming more measured and sensible.

I often feel very sad about the blanket statements being made regarding Islam these days. Not only are Muslim men and women being targeted for practising their religions, but also for believing in their faith. It is thoroughly irresponsible for a religious leader to publicly criticise a religion and minimise its ethos to a narrow minded interpretation-which is not the way it is interpreted by many practicing Muslims in today’s world. John Paul II was an outright homophobe, anti-abortionist, and racist, Ratizinger is his protégée. When the conclave made the decision to elect Ratizinger, many friends of mine who are Catholics were in great shock. They were even shocked at the hypocrisy of revering John Paul II at the time of his funeral (who they themselves could not empathise with as Catholics).

For a religious faith that was attempting to 'modernize' and clean up its act, and be a political player on the world map-it has now gone back to square one. He is not only fuelling anti-Muslim sentiment, but contributing to its misunderstanding.

What next from the Pope? That all Indians and Chinese should be castrated to stop the population explosion?

I think we all know that when religion and politics go hand in hand-the end is nigh! (tongue in cheek).

Kamini: Maybe it is the inner workings of the mind of this Pope that would especially lend credence to the idea that maybe this Church indeed would practice what it so deeply preaches.

Maybe this Pope would extend an invitation for all religions, all nations, and all peoples to utilize the Church's track record as grist-for-the-mill regarding "practicing what one preaches"--ie. Forgiveness not only for those who have trespassed against us; but rather, and especially, forgiveness from those we have trespassed against!!!!

Just noticed you had another piece in Kavita's E-Magazine; I look forward to reading it--Dave

Why do muslims always need apologies??? Be it pope, danish cartoon etc etc....

Islam was spread across the world by the blade of the sword. Billions were massacared....

Why are these people holding the entire world to ransom.....all they need to loot, plunder and kill people are small excuses like this.

What the pope said or the cartoonist expressed is not important. But what is important is the fact that the global islamic community has always been in the reactive mode to even the most trivial issues. Look back in history for just 20 years and you will find that they only need an excuse to start jehad.

regards

Amit

Good to see you back again Divya, been missing your thoughts. If I were Norm, Id be reading up law on 'breach of promise' and related subjects ;)

Hope alls well with you and yours.

David thanks!! We can't decide whether it's Newucky, or Kentorkcity....but we're working on it!! Kinda be like 'beauty and the beast!!' :)

Divya, great to hear from you...I miss you and Krish...nobody could go at it like you two!!

Everybody on here, including me, needs or needed to read the link that Craig provided in #8 and that LPB highlights in #66. The pope did not screw up, he owes no apology, unless he feels the need to give one in order to save his life from these idiots....

Y'all have a great day...
norm

Hi David,

I just feel that when you are in such a position of power and influence you have a responsibility-even more so when you are the Head of a relgious faith in today's polarised religious climate. I agree. Oh, did you read my other stuff on Kavita's magazine?. Hope you enjoy them. They're very much a demonstration of the flippant side of my personality.....:-)

Amit-bring it on-was wondering when we were going to start another exchange! ;-)

K

Are our gods so vulnerable that they can be rocked on their thrones by a mere comment? If they are, they can’t be much of the gods anyway. By carrying placards that read “Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion”, don’t we actually vindicate the accusations?

And I always thought God was a big boy (or girl) who could take care of himself!

Sanjeev

Norm: You call brethren muslim Idiots! You're painting the whole of it with a broad brush. How can you call F$#%$#$ Muslims that way? Their maybe some, but it's there in all religions, though it is true that it's the max in F@#@%$#$ Islamic community. No wonder Bush calls it a war against Islamic Fascists.

No Sanjeev, God is not a big boy or a big girl. It needs lot of protection. How dare anyone call Allah or muslims anything? You khafirs. I'll behead everyone oh! I mean the Most Intelligent community of all on this Earth will behead everyone who mocks at the Prophet or God. Everyone must apologize now, for all the harm they have done to Osama&Gang and their F&^%$$^% most liberated, most open minded ancestors!!

Hello Sanjeev, please let me know where you saw that placard? Or did you just made one up? There's an open season on "muslims" to associate all kinds of creative violent ideas on their history and civilization, so I understand and empathize with your inner feelings. The inner God of each one of us is most likely not genuine if he/she gets easily troubled over by the Gods of others, after all, that oneness can't just be your own oneness, if it is, then it needs to be better understood as for what it is, a duality.

I know this is a great blog when Divya joins in.
Hope you are doing well, we all have missed you.

Boy I hope the Pope doesn't quote 14th. century texts anymore, it's just not worth the aggrevation.

In fact some people here would rather he just smile and wave to the crowd on Sundays.

Steve

Or did you just made one up? There's an open season on "muslims" to associate all kinds of creative violent ideas on their history and civilization,

90. Posted by noname on September 20, 2006 06:43 AM

That's quite a mistake. You never use the past tense with did. As did itself is past. It should be "Did you just make one up?" Open season on muslims?? Are you also drunk now? Do those words go with them Open and muslims?? Open minded Jihadis!!LOL! Howz that for lightening up!!

Extract of wikipedia:

Greater and lesser jihad

Nearly all Muslims believe that the non-military jihad is the "greater jihad" and the military jihad is the "lesser jihad."[citation needed] The Sufis as well as the traditions of Hadith (sayings of the Holy Prophet) are particularly known for supporting this tradition, though some Sufis prefer to use the Arabic word mujahada instead of "greater jihad ...

------

It's strange that we have to fight for religions. The "Hole" used to pass to the other side has no name. Nobody is the owner. If you look closely at the door, you'll see the footsteps of Mohammad, Jesus, Buddha, Lao Tzu, Krishna...

Thich Nhat Hanh, a master zen buddhist, has wrote a book: "Living Buddha, Living Christ". This could be an example that we have to stop fighting. We are talking and hoping about the same thing.

Don't change your clothes. Let's go for the adventure. Let's ride the horses!

Hello Mallika and Everyone,

Actually, if the Pope was as intelligent and "infallible" as his followers would love to believe he is, I think the first thing he would have to do, being that "infallible" and intelligent would be to fire himself and admit the truth of the matter, and since that is not the case, and will never be the case, you have to accept the fact that he would probably do more good if he just smiled and waved to the crowd once a week, since his position really offers nothing new to mankind in terms of inspiration, enlightenment or forward momentum of any kind. I, personally, look forward to the day when the Pope loses his position of "infallibility" and power in the Church because then that would mean there has been some growth, some movement, some fluidity of thought, word, and deed for this outdated and backward religion.

I quess what I am saying is that Islam is not the only religion with deep, ingrown problems when it comes to the ability to change and grow and be a living inspiration for their followers. The Pope needs to look within, I think he can find "reason" lacking in his own dogmas.

Let me say this:

I DON'T think the majority of Muslims are troublemakers, or jihadists. I think they are ordinary people, living ordinary lives, trying to feed their kids, earning a living, and hoping to go to heaven.

I DO think, the Muslim world has a big problem on it's hand's, though, with these fanatical yahoos holding the world hostage...and they are holding the world hostage.

An artist, can submerge a crucifix in urine, and the New York Times and the majority of you on this blog, will call it art...knowing that well over 50% of this country is outraged, but also knowing the outrage will only be expressed at the polls, and in letters to the editor.

The pope, can refer to a centuries old conversation, that cast the big Mo in a bad light...y'all wanna hang him, because "it's just in bad taste...or it might cause problems."

Bullshit!! The moderate muslims had better get a handle on their religion, and quick, or they will all be painted with the same brush, and then all hell will break loose!!

The world is being held hostage to those AK 47 waving freaks, and right now there seems to be only one man in the free world who has the cajones to stand up to them...GWB!!

Go ahead, keep calling for the pope to apologize. Keep kowtowing to the fanatics...
I look at Mallika's picture at the top of this page...she is beautiful...but we wouldn't know that for sure if she were wearing a burkha, would we?

You conspiracy theorists with your outlandish 9/11 claims.....well...this is as outlandish as anything you'll ever hear me say...but if somebody doesn't stand up to them, my grandkids will be livning under 'sharia' law...

norm

Ruth,

I've got way too much to do to be on here, but this is a little addictive!!

You're right, all relgions have big problems...BIG PROBLEMS!! But there is a difference....they don't try to blow up everyone else who disagrees with them....that's quite a difference...

anyway...always good to hear from our firebrand!!

norm

Norm: you Repuuubbblican!! Your grandkids under the Shariah law!LOL! I can Imagine that, you being an old man and they telling you not to F$$#%#&$ smoke the hell out of the pipe and if you do, you'll be hung by your balls and beheaded. That's what Shariah law does. They are very progressive and modern in their outlook.

Waylay: Are you laying the way? How Vassst is that majority? Is it as Vast as the African continent? Or as Deep as the Marina trench of the Pacific Ocean? Your post had some good points but the last one...fanatical few?? Awesome joke!! It's not few my son!!! It's not few! that's the problem on the hand. It's quite a chunk!

Take care!

Dear Mallika,

It is silly for the Pope to bring up this issue and then be shocked that muslims reacted this way. I am sure he knew exactly what he was doing. One must wonder at his (and his handlers') motivation.

There are skeletons in every religious cupboard, of that there is no doubt. The reason is quite simple really. Humanity is an evolving phenomenon, there can't be a fixed set of rules for everyone, at all times and at all places. Most people intuitively or intellectually realize this, including muslims. What sets muslims apart in today's world, is their clinging to their Book, written in 7th Century Arabia, adapting it like it is the REAL word of God, and mixing spirituality with morality and legality and expecting everyone else on the planet to agree with them. Muslim intellectuals have lost courage (unlike the ones in the medieval times) and become muslim apologists (M J Akbar is a good example). Call spade a spade for heaven's sake, and most of Islamic ills will disappear.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Hi Norm,

Good to hear from you!

I think you're right concerning the problems religions have. The problems (internally) are all identical. And YES Islam is being painted with a broad stroke these days.

This is an opportunity for the Pope to engage in dialogue concerning the teachings of Islam, but it's also an opportunity for Muslims to take back their religion. The "face" of Islam has been hijacked by these violent, murderous creeps. It's really time for the masses of Islamic peoples to take center stage and show the world something about the beauty of their beliefs. The silence from every day Muslims has been deafening frankly.

My son's fiance' is a Muslim and she is the sweetest gal you could imagine...I know that an enormous majority of Muslims are just like her. But you don't hear from them.

Kamini -

I know that you believe that much of this viewpoint is media created, but when a small percentage of Muslims murder a nun and blow up churches because an old man quotes another old man...that is NEWS! Of course that's going to be on the front page. Where is the outrage from Islam concerning the murder of an innoccent person? The destruction of a place of worship?

I think it's time for the common people to take back their religion from these Kooks. I think it's time to be outraged at the actions of killers and bombers rather than stupid old men that are set in their ways.

Peace,
Scott.

Kamini,

It was waylay that thought this was media driven...my apologies.

Scott.

It's really time for the masses of Islamic peoples to take center stage and show the world something about the beauty of their beliefs. The silence from every day Muslims has been deafening frankly.

100. Posted by Scott Masterton on September 20, 2006 08:08 AM

You and Norm sometimes display the American Ignorance quite well Scotty! when it comes to such topics. why are the masses silent?? Don't you have that much sense to know? The masses themselves are deep into the 7th century holy book. Most of them deep down support most of them. Their silence is defeaning, you got that part well though. Sing songs of peace and love while they screw ur American A@#$$# from the back.

Does the Pope have any hope? Or is he like the typical religious who is on dope?

Just remember, Pope Benedict XVI is no Pope John Paul II. Never will be.

Had an African been elected, I believe we would've been in the presence of someone who could say something of value about Islam and who could blaze a path toward (not to, but toward) reconcilliation.

And we'd have been beneficiaries of yet another saint.

We need a lot of saints just now.

Dear waylay

I've been looking for a text of the address for a few days -- do you know of a link to it?

love, Heather

Why should the pope apologise. How many muslims apologised for 9/11, spain, london blasts, India parliment attack. Time and time again the muslims prove they want violence. This religion was created out of violence and has spread by violence. Mohammed went about converting people using the sword. This is history not a tale spun by the christians.I am sure the hindus, the jews and the parsies would agree with me. It is the responsibility of every non-muslim(hindus, jews, christians and all others) to stand up against the Islam, which has destroyed the peace of human beings.

Dear waylay -- thanks so much.

Hi noname,

Re your # 90. You wanted to know where I saw that placard? Here's the link:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=326580&highlight=%28curse+be+upon+him%29

Sanjeev

Divya:

I'm sorry that our kidding around led Ravi to write a spoof about you in such grotesque terms. I love spoofs, pointed humor, and really don't mind a putdown once in a while directed at me. But I hate to see someone else mocked in such a sick manner because they've been friendly with me....really sorry about that.

Ravi, the pig part and all that was sort of funny, but the rest of it wasn't. Maybe you'd better stick to poetry.

norm

Yaawwwnn.....

I am too sexy for this blog.

Cheers!
Navin

Yes, the pope has to apologise to the christians for offending them by thrice apologising to the Muslim world.

Did anyone else notice, I am beginning to suspect that the above post by Navin is by an imposter who wants to malign him.
Why would Navin say that he is too sexy? and why does his profile say, I am so pretty? I smell a rat.

In the raat there is a rat... (the yawn sounds familiar to me)

Navin: I think you're too sexy for the site:)

Normy You Repub S#$$@: Ravi must have felt exactly the same way as you did, when you wrote that spoof. It was funny you know, but some parts were not about him. I think you should stick to your pigs in your farm. What goes comes around! Learn that. You got what you sent! That's the law of the universe. If you don't want that coming at you, don't send. Simple law of the Universe.

Are Popes like Pops?
With Unhealhty sugar
Nothing but sugar
Like a coke pepsi or mirinda?

Or are they of any hope?
Some may think who are on dope
Others will perhaps say nope!!

LOL,
LOL, me too Navin!, that, and there is this Polish Princess on my roofterras right now,
I got better things to do..;)

Love, Passion!

I'm Too Sexy

I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
Love's going to leave me
I'm too sexy for my shirt too sexy for my shirt
So sexy it hurts
And I'm too sexy for Milan too sexy for Milan
New York and Japan
And I'm too sexy for your party
Too sexy for your party
No way I'm disco dancing
I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I do my little turn on the catwalk
I'm too sexy for my car too sexy for my car
Too sexy by far
And I'm too sexy for my hat
Too sexy for my hat what do you think about that
I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk
I'm too sexy for my too sexy for my too sexy for my
'Cos I'm a model you know what I mean
And I do my little turn on the catwalk
Yeah on the catwalk on the catwalk yeah
I shake my little touche on the catwalk
I'm too sexy for my cat too sexy for my cat
Poor pussy poor pussy cat
I'm too sexy for my love too sexy for my love
Love's going to leave me
And I'm too sexy for this song

Cheers!
Navin

PS: Dear Curious & Heather, calm down....it's me! LOL! Can't I have a little fun sometimes! Only Marek knew it was me. (and maybe SI) Just wanted to cool this blog a little with one of my all time favourite songs. :)

Pope should apologize for sounding too academic for the average person of faith.

Yeah, someone wrote Rollo Tomassi spoof calling Ravi all sorts of names and thoroughly abused by Spence. Well, everyone had a great laugh and no one complained. It is anyone’s guess who could be Rollo Tomassi and how he gets away calling names and bashing others so humorously, pleasantly and so aptly justifying his pseudonym.

Navin, that was funny, but your typekey profile looks like that of an imposter?

Dear Curios,
You are right! I just clicked on the typekey icon of my last message and saw the "I'm so pretty" message! Comment #113 was posted by me but the message on my Typekey Profile was written by the hacker! This means the imposter has access to my Typekey??? Could Mallika pls look into this URGENTLY.

There must be some loophole in the interface between Intentblog and Typekey sites, because I can still access my Typekey account and I just changed my password.

Dear Imposter,
That was cute!

Cheers!
Navin

Hey guys...I knew when I hit 'post' that I should just let it go...but I didn't.

I understand that what goes around comes around, and I don't at all mind being spoofed or made fun of...usually i laugh as hard as anyone!!

I just felt that this spoof was unusually nasty toward someone else, simply because of me, and I reacted....I still don't like it....still find it distasteful...but hey....I guess that's what free speech is about huh?

norm

read all the comments (wow, they were a lot)... Waylay, thanks for the link to the full text of the Pope's speech.

I maintain that the Pontiff must make amends for the unwise choice of text. To be more specific, the choice was not unwise, in my opinion, but deliberate. I wonder why he would choose, from the vast Vatican archives, such a passage. I don't think his was an exercise in textual interpretation. even though he was addressing an audience at his old university. Philology had nothing to do with it. I believe that the Pope's choice was dictated by an unspoken political strategy.

To my knowledge, except for Pope John XXIII -- who was known as a reformer and honored even by several Protestant organizations -- the other Popes have pretty much declared themselves 'men of reason' but have accepted -- in their totality -- the dogmatic teachings of the Roman Catholic Church -- based on the fact that there is no salvation outside this religion. Pope Benedict's stance seems to me like an involution in comparison to the work done by John Paul II, who despite his appeal to ultraconservative groups, had a somewhat more unifying role by traveling more than any of his predecessors.

Seeing the troubles caused by religious doctrines today and in the past, I wonder why we need religions at all. What do these religions have to do with God? And it's even understandable how some sceptics like AJ and WW might even suggest that there is no God at all -- given the horrors that humanity carried out in God's name.

While I am not giving up on God anytime soon, I am inclined to say that most (if not all) religions are a means to control the immature masses. I like what philosopher Immanuel Kant said: "Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another."

Peace,
Donatella

Excerpt from today's speech by the Pope.

"Volevo invitare al dialogo tra le religioni nel mondo moderno. Ho anche invitato al rispetto profondo per le religioni e in particolare per i musulmani, con i quali adoriamo l'unico Dio e collaboriamo per difendere diritti, pace. Confido quindi che dopo le reazioni del primo momento, le mie parole possano costituire una spinta e un incoraggiamento a un dialogo positivo, anche sia autocritico, tra le religioni".

"[with my speech] I wanted to promote dialogue among the religions in the modern world. I have also made an appeal to deep respect for all religions and in particular for all Muslims, who like us worship one God and with whom we collaborate in defending human rights and peace. I hope that after the immediate reactions, my words can become an incentive and an encouragement for promoting positive dialogue, and even self-analysis, among religions."

I like these words much better.
Love,
Donatella

Spiritual?? Waylay, are you drinking too much alcohol again??(kidding with you ok?) Don't use that word with Religious heads for God's sake. Religion and Spirituality have a huge gap between them. The moment religion comes into picture, pure spirituality is gone. You've understood the human mind so well, don't you know all this stuff Waylay? It's always a perpetual thing in religion.
But, yes one thing is clear it was all planned. Pope the planner! But as always in religion it backfires.

Dear Waylay,
I agree. A religious leader of his stature must show respect for ALL religions.
Love,
Donatella

I'm Surprised at your understanding waylay. I thought you knew it very well. Loosely used, most certainly yes. Do you know Osama is called Spiritual leader? Don't you know the understanding of the people who are followers of Pope waylay? When you break the barrier of religion, you enter into the realm of spirituality. There's a saying:

Religion is for those who are afraid of hell!
Spirituality is for those who have already seen hell!!

I've high regard for your understanding waylay. Hope you know that well. Your posts in this thread have been very good!

Kamila, Magda.., ah, guys, from my point of view..

What was first, love or religion?

"The greatest achievement is selflessness.
The greatest worth is self-mastery.
The greatest quality is seeking to serve others.
The greatest precept is continual awareness.
The greatest medicine is the emptiness of everything.
The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways.
The greatest magic is transmuting the passions.
The greatest generosity is non-attachment.
The greatest goodness is a peaceful mind.
The greatest patience is humility.
The greatest effort is not concerned with results.
The greatest meditation is a mind that lets go.
The greatest wisdom is seeing through appearances."
~Atisha.

"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity"
~Albert Einstein

Anyhow, I'll let the girls, go for tonight,
another night, another dream, but always..

Love, Passion!

Dear SI,
I didn't know the saying, but I like it.
Donatella

Hindu, you say, he, that sure has the fun factor in psychology, archetypes and such, still, while I'll drink my beer, should I call or sms this, female, ;)

Kindness, people, the rest are..

deatails.. maybe.. politics, quote that in front of a judge,

in a court of,

Love,

Now, I'll tell you a fine point. Buddhism and hinduism at its core are spiritual. So a true hindu or a true buddhist is spiritual. Spiritual means "All embracing". It's quite a topic actually. Deepak says this beautifully when he talks about religion. They are all spiritual at its core, pointing towards One Source!!! The problem arose when our lovely human brothers... our own species "homo sapiens" started to mend the religion to their convenience and their outlook. The rest Oh boy! you know the History!!!

Sorry for digressing.

If morality and spirituality have no relationship, then we will have enlightened persons who can't be trusted to be a baby sitter! Is that what we aim to achieve by spirituality.

Anyway, what is meant by 'man created'? Can man create anything, if everything is One, which is what is said be the core of spirituality?

Marek: Very much like your post (#130)--have a good one--worshipping at the altar of the feminine principle incarnate; genuinely spiritual, vs. worshipping false gods, that is! Dave

Ref. 135. "If morality and spirituality have no relationship, then we will have enlightened persons who can't be trusted to be a baby sitter!"

Wow. Gonzaga University just had a pretty good scandal about one of their ex-priests recently, it is like, 'we hate gays, but we are gay.' Or something like that . . .

There is some really Freudian stuff going on with these 'right-wingers.' Even our mayors’ say, 'I am a pro-family man,' and yet, 'hey little boy wanna play . . .'.

Yeah. It must be just another facet of their compassion . . .

Seven-of-Nines husband was a little kinky too I hear, Swaggart, who, where . . .

Ahh, but let me not cast the 1st stone . . .

grrr . . .

Dear Naj,

Even though you have chosen to make a comment without specifically addressing me, I take it that it was directed towards me, and hence go ahead and answer your question.

Spirituality to me means awareness of the connection that exists between all humans and the universe in general. This connection is not a human invention. In this connection lie, most of our unaswered questions about life, humanity and the universe. These questions can not be answered, at least not by today's technology and science. This spiritual realm is not about individual relationship with others; it is about the relationship between an individual and the rest of the universe. It is about the one-ness of the individual and the rest of the universe.

On the other hand, morality is clearly a human invention. No one has incontrovertible proof of it being anything but human origin. For every moral, there is an exception, even though that exception may happen in extreme circumstances. If any moral were to be divine, it would have been universal and applicable to all the situations. But this is not so.

Does that mean morality is not required? I never meant to say that. Morality is required as much as we need civilization. We need to establish a code of conduct so that we can live together. Legality, morality, ethics are different facets of this same coin.

However, we definitely don't need religion to tell us about morality. That's the central theme of my belief. If we need religion at all, it is to answer those tough questions and these questions are between you the individual and the creator, if you believe there is one. There is no scope in this relationship for any agents, priests, prophets or otherwise self proclaimed guardians of God's word.

I hope that answers your question.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Norm (#112),

Please be clear about which Ravi you are addressing. People may think it is me, as currently I am the only Ravi in this discussion.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Did you know that Ratzinger's car was sold on e-bay?? ha,ha!!! I guess he didn't need it anymore because he's got his super dooper popemobile...nice

K

P.s. Scott no problem.

Ravi Kulkarni: Your distinction between morality and spirituality nicely echos the same principle as it is taught in a book called "The Nine Faces of Christ"--my personal favorite on the matter--excellent post!--Dave

Kamini: What kind of car did Ratzinger drive, and how much did he bag for his cruiser?

Just getting ready to "cruise" Kavita's E-Mag. some more--will peruse your pieces further as well as my favorite section--"The Young Writers"--some brilliant young ones on there--they sure don't seem like children--they often considerable out excel us, here on Intentblog, with their "clean lines!" Dave

Hi David,

It was a second-hand Volkswagen Golf sold for 188,938 euros ($244,800) to a U.S. buyer. I don't think it had spoilers or fluffy dice hanging on the mirror-:-)

Or a sunscreen on the back window-saying Pope Rocks-or Pope's the man! ha,ha......(enough frivolity)

I know about the young writers, really does put my literary attempt to shame! Maybe they're all really much older-but Kavita's not telling!

Hi Ravi,

"This spiritual realm is not about individual relationship with others; it is about the relationship between an individual and the rest of the universe."

Is there a contradiction here? doesn't the 'rest of universe' include others?

"However, we definitely don't need religion to tell us about morality"

May I know the reason?

I think we need to define morality before we continue any further this discussion. IN the simplest terms, for me, this is the vehicle to reach the destination. As per my understanding, generally, one will need to adhere to certain discipline, to get to There. And that is called morality. Then, there is no reason why religion should not talk about morality.

"If any moral were to be divine, it would have been universal and applicable to all the situations. But this is not so"

Not necessarily. It depends on where you are. Even in science, there is some ambuiguity, some exceptions.

"There is no scope in this relationship for any agents, priests, prophets or otherwise self proclaimed guardians of God's word."

What is the proof?

Norm,

Getting completely away from my metaphysical post # 37

I now have to take a little issue with your # 96.

First, I don’t think the majority of us here on IB would call a crucifix submerged in urine, Art.

Secondly, the only reason I can find that you think the world is being held hostage to AK 47 waving freaks, is that GWB and company want you to believe it, and have worked their asses off to get you to believe it!

It just ain’t true!

They do not have anywhere near that kind of power! The more likely reality is that the world is being held hostage by a nuclear super power who wants to remold it, in its own image!

Speaking of the world, it would be a hell of a lot better off if GWB, had smaller balls and larger brains!

Relative to your fear that not standing up to the conspiracy theorists will eventually put us under Muslim law ; is not only outlandish, but borders on a paranoia that would even put the conspiracy theorists to shame. While I agree that Muslim law is not my cup of tea, neither is being under the constant bamboozling of big brother!

I believe in the inner strength of our country, not the manipulated preemptive warmongering generated by the hidden agendas of our current administration, but this too will soon pass.
People are really beginning to see exactly what is going on, and they are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it much longer! Bush will lose the majority he has in congress this November, his buddy Blair is stepping down, and eventually with any luck, ( go ahead call me a dreamer) someone who really cares about America and the rest of the world will come to power, and we can put this greedy ideological, racial, religious nonsense behind us. From my keypad to GOD’S ears.

Kind Regards,
Stan

Kamini, does his new one have airbags?

Actually the Pope was dogging out the Protestants more than anything! By God's grace, and through our faith in Jesus Christ, our REASONING can show us the way!

O yeah baby!

The Holy Spirit works through our capacity to reason, so we can understand just how a dove glides through the air!

And who concocted the 'big' Islamic outburst towards the Pope!

The same media that does not show us the images of mangled Iraqi bodies on the daily news, but instead feeds us perpetual images of Paris Hilton perhaps . . .

Peace

Ok. Well first HEY girl!!!

Good to hear from ya Diva.

Secondly.

I got three things to say and they might even contradict each other but what the hey.

1.

I am not a Muslim basher. I dislike hearing anything negative said about Muslims.

Or for that matter about jews, christians, Hindus, bitches, niggers or honkeys just to name a few.

I just don't like conversations when a group is singled out and spoken of in a negative light.

With that said I'm starting to get really annoyed with the way the non-muslim world is being polarized by the reactions of a few fanatics over a "quote".

My daughter and her schoolyard disputes hold more weight then what this thread shows is an obvious clash of reason.

Apologize? Please.

As has been said, if nothing else this is a golden opportunity for Muslims themselves to take back there religion.

As much as I may despise America right now, FREEDOM of SPEECH baby.

2.

Norm alluded to it in his # 96 post and Waylay spoke directly to it in his # 94 post.

We all might want to consider taking what David defines as a "fast from the media" on this subject.

How many millions of Muslims are there? I don't know. The average television screen is small and can create the illusions of "the whole wide world" very easily.

People protest. And sometimes violently. Although I'm not a

"faithful follower of Brother John Birch"
~Jonny Cash

I do remember people burning the American flag on national television and at the time "my" perception was of violent and even terroristic action. Freedom of speech. "Burn baby burn".

Let's not forget that the boob-tube and it's cousins have been compared to an opiate.

I work with many Muslims at my job. From Congo, Ghana, Turkey, Lebanon and Syria, These guys don't give a hoot about the subject.

Yes we talk about it over morning coffee and during our one hour lunch break.

They are more concerned with doing a good days work and feeding their kids.

They are just not as fired up as the media would like us to believe the whole Muslim world is.

In fact these guys I work with are more peaceful then most Christians, including my own ex-christian booty ever were.

3.

And I am going against some long held beliefs of my own here.

And I'm also opening myself up for a beating here on IB. Craig please forgive me in advance.

For some reason unknown to myself at present, I have been looking at this idiot of a leader we have, you know the one that couldn't string ONE sentence together before he had an opportunity to speak about terror, and thinking, "my god, at least someone isn't throwing in the towel and allowing the "terrorists" to win." Pretty scary eh?

I mean I know the guy is making many mistakes. He ain't perfect but I ain't throwing no stones at this point.

Leave Iraq? stay?

Hell I don't know and am sure glad I'm not in the position to have to make that choice

But while I watch so many of us fold under the pressure of a quote, I feel ok that GWB is not telling the Pope he needs to apologize.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

Dear Naj,

Thanks for your response (#144).

Contradiction?

There is no contradiction. When I refer to a connection between myself and another individual I am referring to our social connection; I know his or her name, I have probably met that person, have a few ideas about view points etc. Social connection is obtained by the use of our five senses. The other kind of connection is the spiritual connection. Spiritual connection was not obtained by the use of five senses, it has always existed and will continue to exist. So when I speak of individual relationships I am talking about the social connection.

Why religion should not tell us about morality

God is unknown and unknowable in the physical realm. Therefore anyone who talks about having a direct communication channel with God is fibbing. Given that, how do we know what God holds to be morally correct or incorrect? Seeming contradictions in the religious books that claim to have come directly from God are enough to convince even a half wit that these are not works of God. They have human influence written all over them. Religion’s purpose has always been to answer tough questions about our existence and mundane things about everyday life have been satisfactorily answered by human institutions for millennia. Therefore it does not befit the exalted position of religion to deal with mundane things such as how I wash my hands.

Let’s look at the definition of morality (www.m-w.com)

Main Entry: mo·ral·i·ty
Pronunciation: m&-'ra-l&-tE, mo-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
1 a : a moral discourse, statement, or lesson b : a literary or other imaginative work teaching a moral lesson
2 a : a doctrine or system of moral conduct b plural : particular moral principles or rules of conduct
3 : conformity to ideals of right human conduct

As you see, all these definitions are about human conduct. When I conduct, whom do I affect? My fellow beings of course, not God. So morality is a human invention because we wanted to live as a civilized species and wanted the best opportunity for all of the species to prosper and grow.

"If any moral were to be divine, it would have been universal and applicable to all the situations. But this is not so" ~Ravi

“Not necessarily. It depends on where you are. Even in science, there is some ambuiguity, some exceptions.” ~Naj

You are proving my point. Science is an approximation of what is really out there. No scientist claims to know the universe as it is; it is only through observations, hypotheses and logic he or she constructs a model of the universe. The model is a model not the real thing. So the approximation that it is, it can not say with 100% certainty that a particular rule is applicable to every circumstance. The main point to be observed here is that the scientific model is a human invention and therefore it is imperfect. Similarly morality or a model code of conduct is a human invention and therefore it is imperfect. If it was divine it would have been perfect and there would have been no dispute.

Proof that middlemen have no scope

This is easy to address. God is unknowable, therefore anyone’s claim to the contrary is unverifiable in the physical realm. Everybody has a direct link to the universe, and by extension, to God as well, but this awareness happens in a very few people. Those people can not bring this awareness directly to other people as spirituality comes only by practice of non-doing. A spiritually aware person can not teach others how to do it, because by definition spirituality is beyond the five senses. So the middleman is phony and opportunist.

Let me summarize the benefits of this distinction between spirituality and morality:

- No need to trust anyone who makes outrageous claims
- No need to give up your personal religious beliefs
- You can always change certain rules of the game if you don’t like them (provided there are sufficient number of “you” out there) or if they don’t work well
- Religion ceases to be an emotional issue
- No one can divide people on the basis of their beliefs, because their beliefs no longer guide their daily behavior
Possibility of a single constitution for the entire world, created by a democratic process

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

LPB?

Is this the same Laurence Peter Brown?

Hi Ravi,

"When I refer to a connection between myself and another individual I am referring to our social connection; I know his or her name, I have probably met that person, have a few ideas about view points etc. Social connection is obtained by the use of our five senses"

- Here you are limiting the scope of relationship between two 'individuals.' Personally, I have seen relationship beyond this level. (One example from history is between Shamsul Tabriz and Rumi) and even in such relationship there exist certain code.....

"As you see, all these definitions are about human conduct. When I conduct, whom do I affect? My fellow beings of course, not God. So morality is a human invention because we wanted to live as a civilized species and wanted the best opportunity for all of the species to prosper and grow"

- Let us leave the academic definitions. Good behaviour - intention of which is to live harmoniously and for the material and spiritual uplift of oneself and the rest of the members of the society - can be taken as the manifestation of certain attributes. These attributes, generally are acquired by continuously pondering or contemplating over it, conciously or unconsciouly. Where is the source of these attributes ? - I do not agree with the concept of 'nirguna parabhrama'.

So even if our acts do not 'affect' God, the factors that determine how we act is connected with something else, which can be called as God.

"God is unknown and unknowable in the physical realm"

- There are different degress ofconsciousnes. (if it sounds patronising, then I am sorry, never intended so)

"Therefore it does not befit the exalted position of religion to deal with mundane things such as how I wash my hands. "

- To me, there is no exalted and mundane separation. You see, when one wants to excel in the art of carpentry, first he starts with his hands and his mind may not have the fine concepts of the art yet. As he devotes himself more in the art by continuously dirtying his hands, something moves towards his heart. Then as he contemplates about it, it gains a seat in his heart. From heart, then, it moves back to the hand again. Once that happens, he will produce excellent pieces of carpentry.

You start with the external things making it beautiful, the beauty of it then diffuses to heart, making it beautiful too. Then back again, it travels to external aspects, manifesting in beautiful expressions. It affects the entirety. Btw, what is important is washing, not how. However, having a well defined system is always better.

"The main point to be observed here is that the scientific model is a human invention and therefore it is imperfect. Similarly morality or a model code of conduct is a human invention and therefore it is imperfect."

- I am not an expert in the philosophy of science but I feel it is not correct to say so. It seems to me that we do not really invent anything, we only dis-cover things. If it is revised later, that is only because of the lack of precision of the technology used or the lack of the ability of the observer. As I said earlier, there are certain attributes that determine a good character or define morality and these attributes, as far as my understanding, have not changed. Only how it is expressed has changed. That is quite acceptable and understandable.

"God is unknowable, therefore anyone’s claim to the contrary is unverifiable in the physical realm. Everybody has a direct link to the universe, and by extension, to God as well, but this awareness happens in a very few people. "

- Is there a contradiction here? If God is unknown, how is it possible for, (even if it is very few) certain people to have an awareness about it?

"A spiritually aware person can not teach others how to do it, because by definition spirituality is beyond the five senses. So the middleman is phony and opportunist."

- Here again you are limiting the faculties of human beings and potential abilities of man. How do you confirm spirituality is beyond the five senses? In fact, even in the deepest spiritual experience, a man needs his nerve system for him to experience it. (Incidently, even the most superficial mudane act will have a spiritual aspect to it and I think that is why, in that movie, Deepak said if you believe in rocks, you believe in God) In that case, to say that spirituality is beyond the realm of physical senses, is not exactly correct. Since, needless to say, your premise is not correct, your conclusion about the teachers is not correct too.

Dear Naj,

Thanks for engaging in a debate with me, there is no doubt I need to further refine my half baked theories. I know that I need to express myself better. I know somethings sound contradictory. Let me conclude by saying that I agree with you about one thing: spiritual awareness could make a person better in a moral sense and in fact in most cases it does. There are exceptions like Osho, but they are only that: exceptions.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

Hi Dara,

I'm sure the popemobile has the latest airbags-after all safety is paramount-especially now. He probably has the latest modcon CD player and 'The best pop album' in the world ever, everest!! :-)-do you think he likes Kylie Minogue?

Naj, and Ravi Kulkarni: One thing is certain here--and that is the high-quality example you two set regarding the notion of DK's "Socratic Dialogue!"

It's a true pleasure to be an "Observer" of the highly moral social exchange between the two of you--again, an excellent example for the rest of to follow while sojourning through this world, in search of "the Unknowable" One's direct connection--Dave

Regarding my question above in #150, which has gone unanswered for an extended period, I will assume that the real LPB is no longer blogging here and that the current LPB is someone else?

Mr Akbar, what do you think of the "The Mitzvah of Dinim"

The history of the Noahide Laws in world consciousness during the centuries of exile shows at each juncture how the times tended towards the Redemption, as well as how it was held back. During the Second Temple era there were large communities of Noahide observers living in association with the Jews all over the Roman world, Greek-speakers in the eastern half and Latin-speakers in the west. After the Destruction their children could no longer obtain instruction so easily, and so they tended to assume that Christianity with its admixture of Torah concepts would serve them well enough.

The mediaeval era, with its intense repression and wars between Christianity and Islam, was lacking in any overt opportunity for Noahide practice, but both these sides saw the appearance of the "Judaizing heresy," where quasi-rebellious movements arose to demand that the established forms of worship be replaced by greater conformity to Jewish truth. Jews could do nothing to assist or correct such movements while their own lives were at risk, and it was not until the Reformation came to challenge church domination on a more educated level, due to the invention of printing, that renewed interest began to emerge.

The purely religious results of this development were more evident than had been the case in the mediaeval time, but there was still confusion, and the Protestant leadership itself moved to reassert Christian concepts decisively before very long. On the civil side, however, corresponding to the Mitzvah of Dinim which obligates the nations in constitutional government, the level of collaboration remained high, all the more so when absolutist kings such as Louis XlV of France strove to repress freedoms for immoral reasons in the wars of the Counter-Reformation. Protestant states began to look seriously at Noahide relations with Jewry as a means of strengthening their statehood against this threat, especially as American developments gathered momentum with the likelihood of influencing all of Europe in their turn.

The Dutch Republic was first in line for this, as the pioneer in American enterprise, and its West India Company had founded New Amsterdam. The only hope for Protestant states to match the vast wealth of the Catholic kingdoms was to extend trading into America, and as the Dutch developed corporations to trade overseas and attract investors, the Jewish community and its Rabbanim were brought into the arrangement on a well-established footing. Since the Torah was then still officially recognized as the law for the Jews in Holland, under the Rabbinic autonomy which ruled throughout Europe and the Moslem world until Napoleon, this was a matter of actual treaty agreement between the autonomy and its host state, since the proper legal terms had to be in place for a bilateral relationship to function. In this way the foundations were laid for the corporate structure of today’s world and the Jewish place within it, based around American realities then as now. The arrangements which the Dutch pioneered were later taken up by the English when they admitted the Jews to the country and its colonies under Cromwell’s Republic, though with the difference that they did not establish the Rabbinic autonomy. They had already disestablished the Church of England, in a manner later taken up independently in America, and this fulfilled a criterion of Noahide acceptance.

A limited-liability corporation is an entity which can hold property, conduct transactions, and sue and be sued, and the Jewish Beit Din has no power to create such an entity. Only the non-Jewish government can do so, and this only because of a decision in the Noahide Mitzvah of Dinim giving it a such a capability from the Torah. There is a dispute among the poskim on this point, over an opinion that there is no such power, and that if it is done the property is being illegally held, but the halakha is decided in accordance with the first view. The arrangement is empowered for Jews after the fact through dina d’malchusa, the Torah principle d’oraysa which allows the non-Jewish state to make laws for the Jewish people on economic matters, once they are deemed acceptable to the Torah’s own norms. Even at this, though, corporations have no halakhic existence of their own, but are merely fictions for the government's capacity to hold assets, through the power to enact corporate law awarded to it by the Torah. For this reason the Rabbanim do not address themselves to corporations for morality, even though they seem to be making all the decisions, but only to individuals and to the government.

Before the Napoleonic abolition the Jewish communities in Europe were themselves incorporated by the governments under which they lived, paying "corporation" tax collectively, not as individuals. In this they resembled the American colonies of that time, which were chartered as British trading corporations, occupying territory and administering populations, and regulated from London by the British Board of Trade. The slogan "no taxation without representation" referred to a similar collective tax payment, and the Americans considered that their governing organization should not be regulated or taxed in this way by another country, and so their Revolution took a form where the "corporate" colonies acceded to statehood. They recognized the Jewish corporation as another "socio-religious" trading entity like their own, though not incorporated by London, or indeed by any other single regime. The idea for Jewry to acquire an identity in the American corporate world by founding a State of Israel was thus following a similar pattern; that the corporate entity which had been challenged by Napoleon should reconstitute itself by acquiring territory in its own ancestral land, and then accede to a statehood of its own.

From the Torah’s point of view there is nothing wrong with any of this, as long as the terms of the arrangement conform to the constitutional specifications of Torah law, both Jewish and Noahide. Non-Jewish powers have no capacity beyond this economic priority to decree forms of organization on the Jewish people, and if the form should be a commercial entity located in the Land of Israel, then it must control all the territory which the Torah allocates to the Land. Its spiritual autonomy and integrity must be completely assured, without any infringement from the Jewish or non-Jewish sides, and it cannot be assigned any identity in non-Jewish terms beyond the economic needs for which the non-Jews have a Torah-based control.

In addition to this basic structure, the government is enjoined under Mitzvat Dinim to regulate the activities of corporations in the public interest, restraining them from unfair or restrictive practices or from harming the general well-being, and bringing them to justice where necessary. The morality involved is therefore Noahide morality, which includes all provisions relating to the needs of Jews themselves, and thus the Torah is brought through the non-Jewish government's responsibilities into the basis of corporate operations. Fascist and Communist states deriving from Napoleon’s revolution were wrongly constituted in this respect, since they abolished the corporate regulation altogether and allowed immoral practices, and though Western countries establish their corporations correctly, the actual regulation does not always operate as well as it should. Public issues over corporate morality thus return to the government as the sole source of these otherwise 'soulless' entities, and so governmental consciousness of Noahide law emerges as the solution to all such questions, just as it did when the original terms were devised between the Dutch government and its Rabbinic autonomy.

All business activity exists to carry the world from its origin to its destiny, supplying its needs, and fulfilling the Torah laws which are ‘enclothed’ in the transactions. For this to take place in the modern corporate world a dual consciousness is required; that individuals remain obligated by personal morality even within a corporate setting, and may not hide behind the anonymity of ‘the firm’, and that management are required to fulfill the considerations of public morality which the government enjoins upon them out of its sovereign responsibility, without attempting to bend the sovereign power to their own designs.

The American colonies were not a treifah medina," nor was the United States at its inception, and its relations with the Rabbinic autonomy in Europe were good. It only later became so through the influence of the French Revolution, especially though Germany where most of the early Jewish immigrants came from. Now that large numbers of religious Jews have become settled in the United States, and the Chassidic movement transferred along with them, consciousness of the Noahide Laws is spreading rapidly, and this can bring about a re-emergence of favorable aspects which have been present in America since its earliest foundation.
http://[delinker]www.schuellerhouse.com/noahdin.htm

Sounds rather ominous to me actually . . .

Peace

13 principles of faith, the 10 commandments, the 7 commandments, Maimonides . . .

all very very interesting 'stuff' . . .

Peace all

Yes Ron it's me.

As you might remember I', anywhere from 6 to 9 hours away from you Americans and since I now have employment I can't blog endlessly into the night.

How are you and how is your family? I'm prepared for a delay in answer.

Well, my dear friend, I am happy to know that you are still here. The family is doing well....(thanks for asking), I will have a more detailed response, later. Our van needs to be taken in to the "shop" for repairs, which is likely to take all afternoon.

So long for now!

Dear David (#154),

Thank you for your kind words. Much appreciated.

Regards,

Ravi Kulkarni

David,

Thanks! However, I must say that sometimes I too make unnecassry noises!!

Hi अग्नि,

I don't know if MJ Akbar reads this blog! But if it was meant for me, I have not read about the subject before. So it is better I do not make any opinion now.

Ravi,

A correction is due, I think.

You may be correct to say spirituality is beyond the senses.

What I wanted to say is it is not beyond the field of 'trained senses'

Thanks & Regards

Naj. Sorry. For some reason I was under the impression you were/are Mr. Akbar.

Holy Moly, my bad!

Well, you still post some excellent stuff; keep up the good work!

Peace

It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims that Islam would not have millions of adherents all over the world, if it had not been spread by the use of force. The following points will make it clear, that far from being spread by the sword, it was the inherent force of truth, reason and logic that was responsible for the rapid spread of Islam.

1. Islam means peace.

Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to Allah (swt). Thus Islam is a religion of peace, which is acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of the Supreme Creator, Allah (swt).

2. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace.

Each and every human being in this world is not in favour of maintaining peace and harmony. There are many, who would disrupt it for their own vested interests. Sometimes force has to be used to maintain peace. It is precisely for this reason that we have the police who use force against criminals and anti-social elements to maintain peace in the country. Islam promotes peace. At the same time, Islam exhorts it followers to fight where there is oppression. The fight against oppression may, at times, require the use of force. In Islam force can only be used to promote peace and justice.

3. Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary.

The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8):

"History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."

4. Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years.

Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.

5. 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians.

Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.

6. More than 80% non-Muslims in India.

The Muslims ruled India for several hundred years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.

7. Indonesia and Malaysia.

Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"

8. East Coast of Africa.

Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"

9. Thomas Carlyle.

The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."

10. No compulsion in religion.

With which sword was Islam spread? Even if Muslims had it they could not use it to spread Islam because the Qur’an says in the following verse:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion:
Truth stands out clear from error"
[Al-Qur’an 2:256]

11. Sword of the Intellect.

It is the sword of intellect. The sword that conquers the hearts and minds of people. The Qur’an says in Surah Nahl, chapter 16 verse 125:

"Invite (all) to the way of thy Lord
with wisdom and beautiful preaching;
and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious."
[Al-Qur’an 16:125]

12. Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984.

An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?

13. Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe.

Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?

14. Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson.

Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson rightly says, "People who worry that nuclear weaponry will one day fall in the hands of the Arabs, fail to realize that the Islamic bomb has been dropped already, it fell the day MUHAMMED (pbuh) was born".