<p>Based on his apology, I’d say it’s safe to assume the current Pope is quite intelligent and knows what he is doing now (and possibly when he made the statement). I stand by him for speaking his mind and pushing back at the accepted idea that Islamic militants are somehow justified, but he’s obviously no fool.</p>
<p><a href=“http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1619215.ece[/url]”>http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article1619215.ece</a></p>
<p>Look at it logically. It had to be a safe conclusion Islamic militants would react badly to the references in the Pope’s speech. We knew that based on their reaction to the Danish cartoons of a few months ago, issues with the Koran at Gitmo, etc… In addition to being the spiritual center of the Catholic Church, the Vatican is a smooth political machine and definitely not a bunch of bumblers. I think the Vatican got the reaction they wanted. Confirmation of exactly what was said in the Pope’s speech. </p>
<p>As brand_182’s link points out…the question is ‘why’? </p>
<p>Personally, I think the more the militants act out, the more world sympathy for them erodes, and the more pressure on nations who sponsor terrorism increases. Imho, the Vatican is going on the offense…and they are being quite slick about it.</p>
<p>Hitler wasn’t the only one who did horrid things in the name of religion…but his reign of terror was relatively brief compared to America’s and slavery…hundreds and hundreds of years, and it was often justified with the bible…and yes, I do think what we did to the slaves over hundreds of years, and even after slaverly was finally abolished was on par with Hitler…millions killed, locked up, without rights, in the name of God and Power…and saying that does not in any way diminish what Hitler did as an attrocity…one does not have to pick and choose which was more awful, it all was, and religion was used to justify and push forward both agendas</p>
<p>CGM,</p>
<p>Your logic gives me a headache.</p>
<p>how so…its true…some posters bring up Hitler as some sort of anomoly of misusing biblical teachings, and America leaders used biblical teachings to enslave generations of people</p>
<p>you also have posters who get all wound up when the bible and its teachings aren’t how THEY see it, but as I asked before, and no one can answer, who’s interpretation is the “correct” one?</p>
<p>can those that complain about errors in biblical interpreation tell me who is right in how the bible should be used, that would be helpful</p>
<p>The Pope is dangerous, Bush is the devil…what else is new.</p>
<p>HH, this isn’t about whether the Pope is dangerous, or Bush is the devil.</p>
<p>But words of holy books have been twisted for millenium. How, currently, can some Muslims say the Koran and Muhammed preach peace, while others find and utilize the words Jihad and holy war? Does the Koran speak of peace, or not?</p>
<p>The bible is also full of references that are unsavory to certain groups or peoples, and words that can be twisted to show hatred.</p>
<p>It isn’t disgusting, hateful, or bigoted to point that out.</p>
<p>“It isn’t disgusting, hateful, or bigoted to point that out.”</p>
<p>No it is just irrelevant and obfuscates a real today issue we are dealing with. In the current world we are NOW living in there have been few if any deadly attacks of radical Christians on other groups. I really don’t care if Hitler was carrying a bible at all times and slept with the Pope. It just does not have anything to do with the issue today and it certainly does not excuse Muslim extremist behavior, today.</p>
<p>cgm - there ya go again…pickin’ and choosin’. What about the abolitionists who found in the Word of God their conviction to see an end to slavery?</p>
<p>The point is Barrons, that extremists from ALL religions have been guilty of carrying out evil or deadly attacks. It doesn’t excuse today’s extremists, but to act as if no other religious people ever acted malevolently is just plain wrong.</p>
<p>
<a href=“http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/translating_the_pope.html[/url]”>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/09/translating_the_pope.html</a></p>
<p>You see how sensitive bright, rational people are when the words of their founders are perceived as contributing to irrational actions, to violence and evil, even violence and evil that occurred 60 years ago? Even people who don’t feel put upon today? Why would it be so hard to accept that a Lutheran chaplain, sent out by his national church, blessed the SS men who gassed most of my would-be relatives at Treblinka? How much worse it must feel to a bright, rational Muslim when it comes out of the mouth of a supposedly educated and intelligent leader who claims to be wearing the “mantle of peace”, but seems to be bringing “not peace to the world”, but a “sword”, even if but a verbal one.</p>
<p>Didn’t the Pope quote some fellow who said Mohammed brought nothing but evil to the world? How would it be if I wanted to make a point about usery (nothing to do with the Jews) but chose to quote Hitler, or Luther, to make my point?</p>
<p>Can you at least stop with the “my relatives.”
For all I know (and I don’t have the privilege of knowing) my relatives and my husband’s (Poles) were in concentration camps also.</p>
<p>Puzzling, isn’t it. </p>
<p>The reason that this is such an important discussion is that good, bright, rational, faithful people are threatened by historical acts of evil wrought by their religions, and fail to see that what is happening today is only a few degrees of separation from that.</p>
<p>And please, don’t call me any terrorist lover or supporter. The Islamic extremists all want me and my family dead quicker than most of yours; however, I still think ALL extremists are a danger, and to act as if other religions are so superior, and have not had their own dirty history, is a fallacy.</p>
<p>No one is saying that, AM.
The question is one of FAITH.
There is a difference.</p>
<p>HH, please explain.</p>
<p>
Apparently you equate Hitler’s genocide of the Jews, gypsies, etc., with slavery in America. Both were wrong and harmed many people but it is disingenuous to contend that they are morally equivalent events. Anti-semitism and slavery have existed since the earliest recorded times. We know from history, including from the Bible and other sources, that anti-semitism has existed for generations. Similarly, slavery has existed in every society dating back to the earliest times, and people of virtually every race and nationality/origin have been enslaved at some point in history.</p>
<p>In the Holocaust, Hitler used anti-semitism as a basis for the state-sponsored genocide of millions of Jews. By comparison, the Western nations of Britain and the United States abolished slavery at great cost in blood and money. Yes, the Holocaust and slavery are both bad. In my opinion, however, it is ludicrous to suggest that America’s failure to abolish slavery sooner is morally equivalent to Hitler’s genocide of the Jews.</p>
<p>Christianity and Catholicism have at some point in history embraced force to accomplish religious purposes, but that is not true of either religion today. Violence is currently an acceptable tactic to many Muslims. As long as Muslims accept that view, Islam will be a flawed religion in practice - just as Christianity was flawed during the Crusades and Catholicism during the Inquisition.</p>
<p>catholicism is a denomination in christianity.</p>
<p>catholics are christians.</p>