Pope Benedict's Poor Choice

gaby- you said-
"It think you are misunderstanding me. I do not have a problem with religion as such as long as it is moderate."

then later in the same post-

"I beg to differ. If I could, I would outlaw all religion."

that seems like 2 very confusing and opposite opinions-

if you dont have a problem with (moderate) religion- why would you propose ablosishing all of them?

youre still making the false aqccusation, based solely on sarahs incorrect assertion (no- there werent 'many other posters' go back and read it)

that ms khan was dishonest or misrepresented islam-

but you havent, in any way, proven such slander-

its very simple- sarahs said in god's estimation "piety and good works" would be rewarded-
ms kahn said "righteousness"

how do you find "righteousness" a "prettied up" version of piety and good works?

one is contained within the other- theyre basically the same thing-
and how do you conclude that it is dishonest in any way?

when people make accusations of dishonesty against each other- it really bothers me- especially if it is repeated- as if repitition were all that were necessary-

i dont need to refer to soja's post-
soja doesnt remember or pay attention to what i wirte-
ive already told her an extended story about the experiences i had in leaving the church, and the priests and people who came to my home to try to dissuade me(woefully inadequately)

she conveniently forgot that conversation, and makes unnecessary conjecture about me-

why should she mention me, or even care?

also, there is always the underlying accusation that the entire beauty of the qur'an is an inferior plagarism of the bible-

another distasteful and tacky accusation of dishonesty that doesnt merit any more repsonses-

i do get disguested at the bad manners on these boars-

why accuse people of lying? without proof especially?

i posted a long post on the 1 1/2 MILLION algerians who portested against terrorism, plus the 10s of 1.000s-

if that isnt good enough for you to make a rational assessment of muslims- i dont think any other appeal to reason will suffice.

i think that the islamophobia that is rampant in your home of germany- has found its counterpart in the islamophobia in america that has grown after 911-

and whether you admit it or not- i think that has colored your opinion about it-
soja also carries her own mild islamophobia from her home in india to her adopted home of australia- both areas bastions of that particular xenophobia.

she doesnt want to admit it either- but i think you recognize it in each other- hence your unequivocal (and illogical) support for each others views-

no prejudice is really justifiable-

i have an aversion to athesits because i find them without humane humility-

but i recognze that i have that precondition, and take it into acconut in my communcations with them-
and i dont insult them- or ever accuse them of being liars simply because of the thougts in their heads-

Hi Jihadist

You wrote: “And the Pope calls for churches to be build in Mecca and Medina. So, we can always ask for a Buddhist temple, a synagogue, a Hindu temple and a mosque to build inside the Vatican compound. It would be a diplomatic and religious quid pro quo. After all, the Vatican insisted all countries open up to the Catholic church, so why not the Vatican be open to all countries and faiths?…I thought it would be nice to have Buddhist and Hindu temples, synagogues and mosques sitting next to the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican don't you think? …”

Below, FYI a bit about the Vatican city from Wikipedia, so that you could consider how the mircostate, Vatican City, is to accommodate temples and mosques, when it cannot even accommodate most of its own employees (about 3000 of them), who live in another country and cross borders into the Vatican City everyday to work!

Best wishes
Soja
----------

Vatican City, officially State of the Vatican City (Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanae; Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano), is a landlocked sovereign city-state whose territory consists of a walled enclave within the city of Rome. At approximately 44 hectares (108.7 acres), and with a population of around 800, it is the smallest independent state in the world by both population and area.

Almost all of Vatican City's 821 (July 2007 est.) citizens either live inside the Vatican's walls or serve in the Holy See's diplomatic service in embassies (called "nunciatures"; a papal ambassador is a "nuncio") around the world. The Vatican citizenry consists almost entirely of two groups: clergy, most of whom work in the service of the Holy See, and a very few as officials of the state; and the Swiss Guard. Most of the 3,000 lay workers who comprise the majority of the Vatican work force reside outside the Vatican and are citizens of Italy, while a few are citizens of other nations.

-----Wikipedia

Again addressing the important issues in very few words:

"And the solution to it all:

"Deflaw" it all!!!!

And there would be no Mecca or Vatican or Jerusalem holy places or Mormon Tabernacle save for nice museums to visit!!!!!"

Frankly, I don't care if it's written or not, Ibrahim. I just think a lot of people could stand to have a hard look at what to me is an obvious fact:

There is no religion in compulsion.

Dave says:
"Which Koran are they citing? I suppose the same Koran that Victoria or Ms. Khan reads. I am slightly confused to say the least. There is this huge disconnect between what the Koran says (as quoted by cyber-Muslims here) and what many Muslims practice around the world."

The reason for this “disconnect” is because 69% of the Quran Chapters have contradictions (abrogation) in them. The verse that Ms. Khan quotes ”No compulsion in religion” was an early verse when Mohammed was in Mecca and he did not have many followers. Later when he moved to Medina he abrogated many of his earlier verses. He abrogated the above verse with the following;“Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission."(Quran 9:29). There are many more similar verses.

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof.

It is important what you do and why you do it and what you know.

Anyone trying to cram God or any "holy book" down someone else's throat is wrong.

Does anyone else wonder why so many people use PC as a weapon against the "other"?

Could it be that Political Correctness appears to be easier to hide behind than honesty?

Jesus is God-Incarnate, not a second-rate prophet as satan would have you think, and contrary to what some people that call themselves "Christians" say, Jesus never forced Himself on others and He NEVER told anyone else to force Him on others.

It is so much easier to complain about what other people do or what they seem to do in your own eyes than to actually live your own life, is it not?

It is rather sad that the "Good News" that Jesus invited us to PROCLAIM has become so corrupted by so many people that know God's Name but don't seem to know anything else about Him.

Take care, be ready, see you [ALL OF HUMANITY] in the Kingdom [the new heavens and the new earth].

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PK Pippen was correct - this Pope was not noted for either his sympathy or understanding of other faiths historically. As my mother used to say, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

This was yet another blatantly political move by a Pope elected for his conservative political and theological tendencies. He has the same proclivities for promoting sainthood among contemporary Church personalities that would likely have a very positive response from the heretofore neglected 'faithful' among large Catholic populations, when one of their own becomes 'sainted'. The question is - Why?? Church politics.......and a grand tradition in the Catholic Church over the centuries.

As for the current sitting Pope, the world (and the Catholic world in particular) could have clearly used a superior intellect accompanied by a strong moral & politically progressive character - rather than a puppet for the conservative forces of the Catholic church that they now have.

And besides, why change one set of superstitions for another?? Where's the gain to be had for the convert??? The Church hasn't moved so far from the 12th century after all. Perhaps disgruntled but devout Muslim converts can find some comfort in that....

And the solution to it all:

"Deflaw" it all!!!!

And there would be no Mecca or Vatican or Jerusalem holy places or Mormon Tabernacle save for nice museums to visit!!!!!

See what I mean, though, J?

This whole thing is about Christians and Muslims getting *territorial,* not just about land, but, really, about any given individual they care to squabble about 'winning' from each other.

Platitudes aside, the both of you trying to 'win the world' by whatever justification you please.

And the bloodier it gets, the more Divine Commandments it takes to justify it.

Vatican wants to see a Pagan Solstice, they can bloody well ask nicely for once. :)

"Or how about a Pagan/Wiccan Solstice in the Vatican? Do you think the Pope/Vatican will allow that?"

They don't *allow* *nothing.*

They could park a battleship on whatever they think are my faith's holiest places, crewed by a thousand Popes thumbing their noses and throwing Bibles and it's *still* not given them to 'allow' nothing.

That's kind of the point.

Anyone tells you there's something about your soul they can take away by taking land only gets incentive to do just that.

Maybe the Church occupies certain land.

The Pope's got nothing of mine.

Maybe he'll get done with the real estate someday.

It's not his, either.

Hello Paganplace :)

This Pope ain't Pope John Paul II. That we know.

Of course I'm doing a silly tit for tat with the Pope/Vatican. They call on people of other faiths to do this and that.

And of course, they are not listening to anyone, even their own flock, including those holding on to liberation theology.

By my reckoning, they (the Vatican)now open the doors to their own faith in talking about other faiths.

I thought it would be nice to have Buddhist and Hindu temples, synagogues and mosques sitting next to the Sistine Chapel in the Vatican don't you think?

Or how about a Pagan/Wiccan Solstice in the Vatican? Do you think the Pope/Vatican will allow that?

And the Pope to host a Ramadan Iftar for Muslims.
Or he to attend one if and when invited.:)

Or is the Pope/Vatican only calling for all to open up to Catholicism but not on other faiths?

We will have to wait and and see........

Best regards as ever,

"J"

*chuckle*

Ok. Next time some missionary comes to my door with the challenge, "What happens when your Maker confronts you with a list of your earthly deeds?"

I might burst into maniacal laughter.

I'll be picturing, rendered in Bloom County comic strip style, the Goddess reading off a scroll:

"On March the thirtieth, ten-thirty local time, did you or did you not call 'dibs' on the Palatine Hill in interfaith discussion?"

*snicker.*

Sorry. :)

Understand, though?

'Why are you men of God so damned acquisitive?'

Or territorial, I might add. It's always 'justified' till it happens to 'you'.

Still, though, J. Just in case it were ever an issue, and cause I been called one too many names today:

Dibs.

:)

(Yes, this is my way of wondering how two or three religions that can't seem to stop blowing the crap out of each other over real estate get off saying my people are all degraded and stuff. :) )

Get a *room,* Concerned.

Better get the cable, too. YOu might lack for company.

Hi, Jihadist. :)

"And the Pope calls for churches to be build in Mecca and Medina. So, we can always ask for a Buddhist temple, a synagogue, a Hindu temple and a mosque to build inside the Vatican compound. It would be a diplomatic and religious quid pro quo. After all, the Vatican insisted all countries open up to the Catholic church, so why not the Vatican be open to all countries and faiths?"

*ahem* Well, really, do you have *any* idea what the back-rent on where they built St. Peter's Basilica would come to? Great Mother.

(Really.) :)

Sok, though, whenever the 'kingdom not of the world' can get that back to us, yaknow. Best not to get all testy about it. Plenty of room for everyone. :)

Oh there "Reality Challenged" and Obfuscating Jihadist,

Your attempts to distract us from the ills of Islam continue to amaze.

As I noted intitially:

"Daisy, (and now also the "Obfusing" one),

"Actually there was no need for Magdi Allam's Baptism since there is and was no original sin so your point is mute just like the Pope's Baptismal words were.

An update on current Catholic theology as taught in many Catholic university graduate classes:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original Sin therefore is only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism therefore does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

As soon as Mr. Allam shook off the brainwashing of Islam and accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church, he became a Catholic.

However, as has been noted many times, the Catholic Church is almost as flawed as Islam and Mr. Allam is simply trading one hallucination and myth based religion for another."

Ms. Daisy Khan,

Hello.

I see that some are still going on here in this thread. All this fuss over the Pope and the Vatican. He is head of a church, a spiritual leader and a head of state.

I believe many are under-estimating the anger of many Muslims who cared to know on what is up with the Pope and the Vatican.

As a spiritual leader, Muslims are rightly wary of the Pope.

As head of a church, Muslims are rightly prudent in considering what he said and what he actually do.

As head of state, Muslims are rightly suspicious of him interfering in the internal affairs of states from politics to social issues.

And come to think of it. It was unmarried men who elected an unmarried man to be Pope. All of whom surely don't have quite a good idea on how the other half (women) live. And women don't get the vote within the church on whom to be Pope.

As we Muslims are not of the same faith as the Pope, nor do we vote for the Pope, we are thus not represented in the church, nor do we have any say, nor are we obliged to listen nor do what he has to say. No vote, no voice, no obligation. And I have not come to matters of related to faith as yet and he has nothing to say to us that we can use - not on racism, not on sexism, not on family planning, not on stem cell research, not on inter-faith dialogues.

And the Pope calls for churches to be build in Mecca and Medina. So, we can always ask for a Buddhist temple, a synagogue, a Hindu temple and a mosque to build inside the Vatican compound. It would be a diplomatic and religious quid pro quo. After all, the Vatican insisted all countries open up to the Catholic church, so why not the Vatican be open to all countries and faiths?

As you know, the Vatican has a seat in the United Nations as an Observer, and Holy Sees are in many countries, and many countries has diplomatic missions to the Vatican.

The Vatican cannot have its cake and eat it too. It has to be treated as one would as a state, perhaps as a theocratic one too, operating within states as substates.

The Pope can espouse platititudes from the Vatican and take actions that may please his flocks, but he is deeply mistaken in assuming people on the ground does not know what is happening on the ground. But of course, the Vatican and the summer palaces of the Popes are lovely and sheltered places.

I am still angered by what this Pope and as Ratzinger too, said about Judaism, Buddhism and, of course, Islam. But then, he don't recognise other Christian churches as being "true" too. What is one to make of his leadership for over one billion people in the name of God and for God?

I, for one, has many mistrust of the Pope still. As for misunderstandings, what is there to misunderstand on his pronouncements that his minions sought to sugar-coated in explaining what he said and what he meant?

The Pope may be spiritual in his own way, and more of a theological intellectual of his church, but he is no statesman. I give the Pope the benefit of my many doubts on him and those who elected him.

If the Pope chose to speak on other faiths, then we of other faiths, and Muslims too, have every right to speak on his faith. It is not a one way street.

All the same, I laud the valiant Muslim scholars who calls for a dialogue with the Catholic Church to diffuse the global Muslim anger at this Pope and the Vatican.

Salam, thanks and regards
"J"

"When the time comes and your community is threatened with the darkness of evil- you must choose to stand in love or run."

Now, I don't run around calling people of other religions 'darkness' or 'evil,' but if you think anyone threatening anyone on *my* beat ever saw the state of my bootheels, you're much mistaken.

(OK, well, *maybe* I did the "Hey, chase *me!* dance a few times, when I was the quickest, but you see what I mean.)

Or do you.

Not talking metaphors or vague notions of 'threat' here.

Clearly, you've assumed that 'courage' only comes from *your* ways, or the competition between two religions, that, as many real and good people I know of both, each casually say and do things which scare the heck out of me in the exact same ways.

And that's the problem.

Too many in both religions treat goodness like some abstract competition, which competition could justify or condemn *anything or anybody* whenever circumstances permit or seem to demand.

I may not believe in 'The Devil' or call a lot of people *evil,* but don't you *dare* assume my people have no courage. Or care for our communities.

People who didn't exactly think much of us till 'darkness' showed up on the block and they saw us deal for them have found out otherwise.

I hear *so* often from Christians that we should put up with the threats of professed Christians, who seem the Muslims suddenly 'take over,' (I still don't understand what view of the world believes that's *possible,* mind you, never mind worse or more likely than what radical Christianity threatens... a lot of em talk like not being Christian in America is going to result in like Syria pulling some Red Dawn kind of thing in central Wisconsin, thus justifying all manner of real and present injustice.)

'Maybe the dark is from your eyes.'

*No* religion, not even mine, is a *substitute for or arbiter or predictor of human courage and kindness.*

Not a one.

Don't go equating yours with the only courage in the world. That's how people end up getting snippy about 'scores.' :)

Victoria,

It think you are misunderstanding me. I do not have a problem with religion as such as long as it is moderate. I do have a problem with fundamentalism as is inherently leads to violence. The Christians who bomb abortion clinics are as guilty as Muslims who murder people over depictions (cartoon or film) of their religion.

You said:

"why would you accept without reservation, the poster Sarah saying it is a misquote?

but dismiss without consideration the translation preferred by ms khan?"

I do not without reservation accept what poster Sarah is saying. Ms. Khan was called on the carpet by a number of people who cited the quote in the Koran as written rather than the watered down (prettied up) version of Ms. Khan.

You also stated that no one would hold Christianity responsible for the acts of abortion clinic bombers. I think you are wrong. I for one hold the religion responsible for it as do many others. And moderate Christians would do well do openly denounce such actions in no uncertain words. Moderate Muslims would do well to denounce all clerics who hold the view that suicide bombings are a holy act to defend the honor of Islam. If that were so, then maybe they should go and blow themselves up, if only to show the populace they are speaking the truth. But no, they find some gullible, brainwashed people who do it for them. Just like the pastors in the Christian churches can hide behind their doctrines while the sheep go and do the dirty work for them.

You also said:

"however, i notice even in your critiques- they are very mild in regards to the religion you are familiar with-

i think it is the foreigness of islam- the alien, and fear of the different- that strikes more discord in your heart-"

I beg to differ. If I could, I would outlaw all religion. But just as you can't force religion an anyone, you can't outlaw it either. It's been tried and failed miserably.

No, it's not the foreigness of Islam that strikes discord in my heart. It is the insanity that I get presented almost daily on the news, the fervor of thoudsands of people, the Theo van Goghs like murders, the teddybear stories, the fatwas issued against anyone daring to speak against Islam, the suicide bombings, the riots because of a cartoon, the mutilation of women in certain societies, Muslim (Shiite) versus Muslim (Sunni), etc. etc.

You speak in of generalities about your religion, I speak specific acts in the name of your religion.

As far as Muslims in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, etal. They moved there and I would humbly suggest that they need to adapt to their new country's standards instead of trying to mold it to their old one. No one is denying them their right to worship as they wish, but Muslims need to learn that there is such a thing as freedom of expression without fear of persecution. If they can not abide by the laws of their new environs then by all means go back from whence you came.

I am an immigrant to America. I had to adapt to many things that were foreign to me and some things that I did not agree with. But since I chose to come here, I take my new country warts and all. And that is as it should be.

By the way, please read Soja's blog, she hit the nail on the head.

Ms Khan:
Five times have your filter blocked my posts just this morning. I reviewed the "full rules" of your posting standards and I have not violated any of them. Unless you consider what is not to your taste as a violation.

Religion is irrational hocus pocus.

As far we know gods do not and never did exist.

The fight is always about what imaginary gods demand.

It is so tenth century.

Only when we drop this absurd nonsense will we be free.

The truth liberates. The dogma stifles.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Again you fail miserably in addressing the major issues i.e. the flaws and errors in Islam. Once again, here are the first four:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

Dear Ms Khan

I'm just as happy as you are that Catholics and Muslims are making great efforts to understand each other better. Christians and Muslims have much in common when one considers much of the Quran can be traced back to the Bible. I look forward to bridges being built based on what we share in common in our Scriptures. Islam has done much good and the world should never forget the good and never fail to give credit where credit is due. The world should never forget that millions and millions of Muslims are peace loving and live exemplary lives all over the world.

However what I find disconcerting is that one is forced to walk on political eggshells when it comes to any religious issue concerning a Muslim if it involves something that the Muslim majority does not approve of. There are many different religions in the world for a reason. People convert from one religion to another for their own reason, and this is the most fundamental of human rights. Why should this most fundamental of human rights be even something that a Muslim like you should take an issue with? Does not a religious leader, in this case the Pope, who is the head of a Christian denomination with a billion followers worldwide, have the right to baptise publicly anyone he chooses? Why does he have to fear a political fallout from Muslims for accepting anyone into his faith? All the others who were baptised at the same time were also converts from other religions, and yet we do not hear complaints from members of any other religion asking why the pope chose to baptise the previous members of their particular religious beliefs publicly.

Victoria, the resident Muslim blogger on the On Faith forum, is a convert to Islam from Catholicism. I doubt if any Catholic raised a hue and cry about her leaving the Catholic church. The Pope would not have raised objections even if Victoria had chosen to take her Islamic vows in front of camera in Saudi Arabia initiated into Islam by the most famous Muslim cleric there.

Maybe you should consider the fact that this is what makes Islam unique as a religion. Everything seems to have a political connotation with serious consequences for those who don't tow the Muslim line. Are we really discussing the relationship of a human being with his/her Creator here? If so why the worldly political fallout? If not, what is it that we are really discussing - worldly politics?

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

gaby- why would it make a difference what allam was not?

and what makes you think ms khan misquoted anything?
“ There is no superiority of an Arab over a non Arab, of a non-Arab over an Arab, of a white man over a black man or of a male over a female.

The only merit in God’s estimation is righteousness.”

"except by piety and good action.”

why would you accept without reservation, the poster Sarah saying it is a misquote?

but dismiss without consideration the translation preferred by ms khan?

do you really find some major incongruity between righteousness, and piety and good action?

it is not clear to me why you would accuse me of "overlooking atrocities"
when i posted a long post specifically relating such atrocities-

go and read what was posted-

i am not going to misrepresent my religion to appease what others think it is- when they are the ones who have no deep knowledge about it-

i dont believe it is islam in particular you have critiques of-
it is religion (or how its adherents act in it's name) that is what distresses you.

however, i notice even in your critiques- they are very mild in regards to the religion you are familiar with-

i think it is the foreigness of islam- the alien, and fear of the different- that strikes more discord in your heart-

also, in germany- the problems encountered with absorbing the turks and muslims by the germans are stretching their own limits of tolerance- and they are facing their own hypocrisies-

what group is less or more hypocritical than any other group?

it is a human reaction- not a german, or muslim one- to fear what is different-

now- having expended waaay too much energy on personal observations of myself-

this pope just isnt john paul.

who i loved-

he just has tacky manners and questionable motives in his actions-

his faults were well known by the college of cardinals before his ordination-

but his advanced age assures the cardinals that he wont be pope for very many years-

(did anyone really imagine they were going to elect the charismatic priest from south america with his revolutionary liberation theology?)

he is VERY young- 30s i believe- with the potential for a good 5 decades of papal authority in front of him.

so we have ratzinger- warts and all.

i wonder how many people the pope has invited to vatican city for a personal baptism?

it seems unlikely he is so obtuse that he had no awareness of the effect of his actions-

or has no advisors to warn him-

no- it seems deliberately provocative-

did you know that he rejected the letters of peace compiled by 138 muslims scholars from all over the word requesting an interfaith dialogue and petitioning the pope to work towards peace together?

well, hes not John Paul II- thats for sure

the simple analogy provided by kris thomas was very apt.

there seems to be enough uncouth behavior to go around in this incident-

so- im at a loss- but enjoy our discourse-

but you have to admit- i never try to convert anyone-

i try sincerely not to denigrate others beliefs to promote my own-

i simply express what i find right about my own belief- which- affects me and only me-

islam is the ideology of justice, and peace.

i welcome any questions you have on it-
if you like, that is.

otherwise- im liking reflecting on each other like this
peace

Allam is no gentleman, and the pope showed his fallibility in showcasing what he perceived to be his triumph.

Allam not only has the right to change his religion, he also has the right to divorce his wife if he so chooses. However, if he chooses to badmouth his previous wife and sing praises to his new wife at that time, he is engaging in unethical behavior. The pope deserves a slap on the wrist for encouraging this type of uncouth behavior

Dave and Perspective:

I agree with both of you.

What I can't understand is that people like Victoria, who appears to be a genuinely since person, can overlook all the atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

Neither do I understand Christian fundamentalists who seem to think they have eaten wisdom with a silver spoon and try to convert everyone to their point of view.

Organized religion must be one of the most evil things ever invented by mankind.

Why??? What is the purpose??? So you can hang out with people who are like-minded? So you never have to question??? So you can have a clear conscience when committing crimes because you can slaughter people in the name of "god"???

Don't these people understand that all they are doing is following in another man's (not God's) footsteps????

The "holy" books are not "holy" at all, they are holey. One can read into them whatever one wants to. They are not clear and concise....they are full of "parables" that one can interpret any which way.

But then of course we need the preacher (of whatever religion, I am not singling one out) to tell us the true meaning of the "word". So maybe religion is an economic need from way back when...If you have no other skills you can always preach and get paid for it.

IF, and only IF, there is a god of the Abrahanic religions, it surely would have had the foresight to communicate so that there is no misunderstanding. It would not have had numerous "prophets".

Explanation of "prophet" by Encarta Dictionary:

1. Muhammad, the founder of Islam

2. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints

3. Somebody who claims to interpret or transmit the commands of a deity

4. Somebody who predicts the future

5. Somebody who advocates a cause or idea

6. Somebody considered to be an inspired leader or teacher

What is it about humans that make them believe in the unbelievable...????

There is no innate human hierarchy - everybody lives and everybody dies. That's the truth that comes before all human cognitive fabrications. Religious authority is non-existent. The Pope is as base as any human when he is divested of his holy trappings.

The pomp and circumstance of religion is total nonsense and always has been. Why does this this delusion persist?? Because humans are faced with an evolutionary conundurm - their business as an evolving creature is far from finished - they seem to think otherwise and always approach the mystery of their existence as a finished project.

Religion has been static for centuries upon centuries while time moves on. That is the most revealing definition of religion - mired in the muck while the facts are otherwise. In the meantime, change is the only constant.

"There is no compulsion in Islam". Here we go again.

The other verse should be:

"There is no consistency in Islam"--that is between what the Koran says in some places (I emphasize the word, some) and what Muslims practice. If there is no compulsion in Islam, why are they bent on executing those who convert away from Islam?

Which Koran are they citing? I suppose the same Koran that Victoria or Ms. Khan reads. I am slightly confused to say the least. There is this huge disconnect between what the Koran says (as quoted by cyber-Muslims here) and what many Muslims practice around the world.

Victoria,

I just re-read my post and it sounds a little agressive...

I just want to assure you that it is not meant that way.

But, please to respond....

You know, Victoria, you are very good at making excuses for Islam.

Why don't you read what your fellow Muslim Asim Ma has to say.

"No true Muslim would ever leave his faith-and this apostate was never a Muslim in the first place-he is craving for attention and publicity-that is all."

And which Muslim faith would that be??? Sunni, Shiite, or whatever other sect exists?

Daisy Khan loses credibility when she doesn't even quote her own religious text accurately, as she did on the other blog.

Thank you Michael for sharing the beautiful story of the seven Monks of Tiberhine.

They were an example of love for all.

Victoria, Victoria, Victoria,

Your keyboard is not your major issue. The flaws in Islam are. With your new keyboard, please address the first four flaws/errors in your hallucination, myth-based religion. Once again, they are:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies".

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a dishonest living for said imams and clerics.

that was victoria that posted the last one-

i wanted the post to be judged for its content- not the perosn who posted it-
i dont post anonymously

asim did make a decent point-

it wasnt answered -

the death of the monks- and the 10s of thousands of algerians- are not representative of the religion of islam-
they are the actions of politically motivated religious extremists- denounced by their own countrypeople, who DO represent, in incomparable numbers- the religion of islam.

how many abortion doctors have been slaughtered by extremist religous in america?
no one would dream of holding all christians responsible for their actions-

the numbers are comparable.

this in no way diminishes the brutality of any of these acts-

rather, it point up the brutality- and makes us recognize that we are all diminished, as humans- by these outrages against humanity.

it should read 1.5 million algerians march in protest- my keyboard really sticks- im looking into getting anew one but cant decide on one-

3 years before the beheadng of the monks by the GIA_

May 1,1993-

Algerians are gradually voicing their outrage over the continuing political violence affecting the country. An estimated 1.5 MILLION Algerians held huge RPTEST MARCHES in Algiers and other large cities On Mar 22, 1993 to express their weariness over the struggle between the armed forces and the outlawed Islamic extremist movement. However, the demonstrations only forced the already repressive government to TOUGHEN ITS STANCE AGAINST ISLAMIST EXTREMSITS..

1996
The internal security situation in Algeria has improved since 1994, but the incidence of domestic terrorism, which is among the world's worst, remained high. At least 60,000 ALGERIANS-Islamic militants, civilians and security personnel have been killed since the insurgency of 1992

Government security forces made substantial progress against the Islamic Salvation Army (AIS)-the reported military wing of the Islamic Salvation Front-that primarily attacks government related targets. The government was less successful against the Armed Islamic Group (GIA), the most radical of the insurgent groups, which continued terrorist operations against a broad spectrum of Algerian civilian targets in 1996, including women, children and journalists.

The GIA continued to target foreigners in 1996 and killed at least nine, a sharp decline from the 31 foreigners the group killed in 1995. The total number of foreigners killed by the GIA since 1992 exceeds 110. Most were "soft" targets, including a former Bulgarian attachŽ, who was found beheaded in a forest in mid-November. Although no claims were made for his murder, Algiers blamed the GIA for his death. In August the GIA claimed responsibility for the murder of the French Bishop of Oran, who was killed by a bomb placed outside his residence.

Earlier in 1996 the GIA kidnapped and later beheaded seven French monks from their monastery near Medea. The GIA issued a communique claiming that the monks had been killed BECAUSE PARIS HAD REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE with the insurgent group. Algerian extremists are suspected in an explosion in a Paris subway on 3 December that killed four and wounded more than 80. The bomb used in that attack was similar to those used by the GIA in its bombing campaign in France in 1995.

Published: Sunday September 9, 2007

Tens of thousands of Algerians protested against terrorism Sunday after two suicide bomb attacks in recent days claimed by an Al-Qaeda offshoot killed at least 52 people.

Demonstrations were held in Algeria's major cities, including the capital Algiers, where participants gathered in a sports arena, displaying banners saying "no to violence and crime."

Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem was among politicians attending the rally, where speakers denounced suicide attacks as "contrary to the values of Islam."

Messages of support poured in from around the world, led by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon who said he was "deeply shocked and saddened by the escalation of terrorist violence in Algeria."

The latest attack occurred Saturday when a blast ripped through a naval barracks in the port town of Dellys, 70 kilometres (45 miles) east of Algiers.

Most of those killed were members of the coastguard, but the interior ministry said three civilians also died and many of the 47 wounded were also civilians.

On Thursday, 22 people were killed and more than 100 wounded when a man exploded a device in a crowd waiting to meet President Abdelaziz Bouteflika in the eastern city of Batna.

It was an apparent assassination attempt against the president but the attacker was reportedly discovered by the crowd and set off the bomb before Bouteflika arrived.

Political parties, unions and civil society groups called for Sunday's protests with the theme: "No to terrorism. Stop instability. Don't touch my Algeria."

********************

Pope Benedict was not known for his sensitivity to or understanding of other faiths before he became pope so why would you expect him to have developed that type of understanding after he because pope?

Daisy Kahn,

Actually there was no need for Magdi Allam's Baptism since there is and was no original sin so your point is mute just like the Pope's Baptismal words were.

An update on current Catholic theology as taught in many Catholic university graduate classes:

"The story of Adam and Eve is only symbolic.
This story was composed in the 900s BCE and functions as an etiology (explanatory myth) . In the 900s Israel was self ruling, under King David
and Solomon. The people were no longer at war and the question" Why are we not happy?" may have been asked. The short answer is sin. (Look at 1 Kings 11 for some clues into why the story depicts Eve sinning first and then tempting Adam [Solomon]).

Original Sin therefore is only symbolic of the sins of our origins -- in our
families and in the broader society, both of which affect each person
profoundly. The "sins of our origins" approach helps to account for certain
patterns of sin in particular families and societies.

Baptism therefore does not erase original sin since the sin does not exist. The old "laundry of the soul," approach to Baptism is no longer
accepted.

As soon as Mr. Allam shook off the brainwashing of Islam and accepted the teaching of the Catholic Church, he became a Catholic.

However, as has been noted many times, the Catholic Church is almost as flawed as Islam and Mr. Allam is simply trading one hallucination and myth based religion for another.

Salem Daisy's choice of words, "miserable soul" when referring to Magdi Allam speaks volumes....

Pagan-

These men chose to live among the poor in Algeria:

"Proselytizing is forbidden in Algeria, but the monks did not have to go out in search of souls. The souls came to them. The monks gave the local Muslims, who lacked a mosque, part of the monastery to use for daily prayer. They helped them read letters and learn French, they delivered babies, provided employment, and treated them at their clinic.

To the Arab and Muslim alike, providing hospitality to strangers is the supreme act of courage and love. To their Algerian neighbors, the monks were "true Muslims" — hospitable, devoted in worship and without hypocrisy. They chose to risk death out of solidarity with the local Muslims, who had nowhere to flee and who risked death by associating with them."

When the time comes and your community is threatened with the darkness of evil- you must choose to stand in love or run.

These men stayed.

The Muslims they ministered to loved them and their death was condemned in Algeria.

"We must water the seeds bequeathed by our monks," a Muslim woman wrote to the archbishop of Algiers after their murder. "Our duty is to pursue peace, love God and respect people who are different."

I dunno, Michael, but it's a little uncomfortable living among a lot of religions that seem to cheerfully act like the world's all about getting 'martyred' by each other.

Maybe it's not about who martyred more of who, but... How bout finding why and how *not?*

--yer lovable neighbors.

Asim asks-

"Where and when did Muslims massacre those Christians?"

In my experience:

It was on May 21, 1996 in Algeria.

"During the night of March 27-28, 1996, seven monks of the Cistercian Monastery of Our Lady of Atlas, near the village of Tibhirine in Algeria, were abducted by Islamic fundamentalists. Their abduction was claimed by a radical faction of the GIA (Groupe Islamique Armé) in a communiqué dated April 18, 1996 and published on April 27. In a second communiqué, dated May 23, the GIA announced that the monks had been beheaded on May 21, 1996. Their remains were identified and their funeral Mass was celebrated in the Catholic Cathedral of Algiers on Sunday, June 2. They were buried in the cemetery of their monastery at Tibhirine on June 4, 1996."

They were true men of love and peace.

Please read the letter Christian left to be read:

"If it should happen one day - and it could be today - that I become a victim of the terrorism which now seems ready to engulf all the foreigners living in Algeria.."

http://www.ocso.org/HTM/testc-vv.htm

Asim Ma,

The prophet Jesus would have likely said a few workds to the prophet Mohammed. Unfortunaly, he was already dead.

I suppose Magdi Allam's disgust about Islam depends on the fact that he was condamned to death by radical Muslims when he still was a moderate Muslim.
And I agree with the publik form of his baptism: it could help all the Muslims who are afraid to apostate from Islam because of death penalities. How many Muslims can choice to change religion in Islamic countries or even in immigrant communities in the West? The Pope is defending freedom of conscience.

In other words if you want respect you need to give respect. It's a two way-street.

Ms. Khan,

I don't believe you are being entirely truthful here. Your claim that that Muslims believe "There is no compulsion in religion." has been proven wrong many times.

Maybe Allam was not baptized in his home town because he had to fear for his life. There certainly has been precedence set by Muslim all over to scream "Off with his/her head", for the simply leaving the Islamic faith.

I think if anyone demonstrates lack of caution and sensitivity, it's your average Muslim in the middle and far east. Talk is cheap actions, speak louder than words.

You laud the Dutch Prime Minister for trying to squash a film about Islam. Could it be that he swayed to do so purely because the riots, deaths threats, and political unrest that ensued over a cartoon by an unruly Muslim mob?

The murder of Netherland film maker Theo van Gogh in 2004 by Muslim Mohammed Bouyeri also comes to mind. At his trial the murderer said to Theo's mother: "I don’t feel your pain. I don’t have any sympathy for you. I can’t feel for you because I think you’re a non-believer." and that he would have done it again. Bouyeri also argued that "in the fight of the believers against the infidels violence is approved by the prophet Muhammad".

And you talk about lack of caution and sensitivity over a baptism.

While I certainly agree that Muslims have the right to denounce whatever they wish in their own countries, I do not agree that Western societies should be gagged by Muslims' religious or ethnic sensitivities.

There is an old saying: "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." Maybe that is something Muslim immigrants need to remember when they settle in the free, industrialized countries of Europe as well as in America.

MJ:
Where and when did Muslims massacre those Christians? was it:

1// During the Inquisition imposed on Muslims and jews? or the forced conversion of Muslims by the catholic church in Spain during and after 1492 AD?
2// Or was it During the Crusaders and especially when Muslim Jerusalem was stormed by Crusaders and thosuands upon thousands of Muslims were put to the sword?
3//Or was it during the recent genocide of the Bosnian Muslims in the heart of civilized Christain Europe??
4// Or the ongoing holocuast of the Palestinain People for the last sixty years??
5// OR during and as a result of NEOCON/Israeli inspired and promoted war on Iraq:over one million iraqis dead and four million refugees and an Iraq bombed back to the stone age??

6// Or was it the Muslims who murderd six million jews in the holocuast??

The Pope was telling those who kill Christians in the name of Allah, come after me.

It was very brave of His Holiness to do this, many Christian priests, nuns, and minsters have been killed by Muslim fanatics. It is against Sharia law to convert a Muslim (apotasy), punishable by death.

I hope Ms. Kahn will acknowledge the current massacre of Christians by Muslims around the world.

"He once said, for example, that “I was forced to see that, beyond the contingency of the phenomenon of Islamic extremism and terrorism that has appeared on a global level, the root of evil is inherent in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictive.”"

"Any thinking person would regard these comments as not only offensive, but blatantly wrong."

Frankly, I'd have to say no. Not in context of his own changing of religion, at least. (Frankly, I'd be honest in my own mind, if impolitic, to say much the same of the religion he converted *to,* having been raised to it. I don't believe in 'evil' in the way Christians and Muslims say, but the violence and conflict of monotheist religious history is obvious, and still causes many terrible things today. )

But, for the same reason that when talking to a Christian or a Muslim or a bigot against either, it becomes almost impossible to distinguish between groups and wrongs and personal things, whatever suits... it's to be expected, sadly.

All that said, yeah, the public spectacle sounds pretty tacky, but we're talking about a couple of religions that *both* think religion itself is some kind of contest, so what do you expect?

And, all that aside, really cool name you got there, Ms. Khan. :)

Salam Daisy,
This guy, the pope, just can never rise to the occasion nor to the position he is supposed to hold as the head of the Catholic Church.He did it before when he quoted offensive and baseless remarks about Islam from a false "historical document" and pretended to apologize for his blunder to help his visit to Tureky.

No true Muslim would ever leave his faith-and this apostate was never a Muslim in the first place-he is craving for attention and publicity-that is all.

The intended message of the pope is recieved loud and clear by over 1.5 billion Muslims:he hates Islam and Muslims and lacks the sensetivity which he never learned from Prophet Jesus, the son Meriam-May God bless their souls.

The pope really shot himself in the foot:he only harms himself and the little credibility he still does not have. I think Muslims should boycott him not because of that miserable soul he baptized but because he does not qualify as a partner for peace and dialogue.he should be ignored all together.

Thousands upon thousands embrace Islam every day without fanfair-for their own salvation and not for cheap publicity.