I wondered how long it would take the muslims to twig that actually, the Pope hadn't issued an apology at all.
Now they've realised and they want "a more personal apology". I fear they are doomed to bitter disappointment. I also fear they are doomed to have incurred the hatred of the world's 1bn Catholics and love and respect the Pope. I see this as a good thing.
September 17, 2006 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous
said...
Crusades anyone? This time with automatic weapons..
Coming to Fox news soon
September 17, 2006 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous
said...
Well World War 3's going to happen anyway, why not have it now?
I'm relatively young (34) fresh, and ready to go kick some ass, I'm fed up with our government pussyfooting round having to be "pragmatic" when dealing with the whingeing camel jockeys. If WW3 is gonna start, now's the time for me.
Sorry, was I ranting!
If I was the pope I'd tell the beardies they can go fuck themselves if they want an apology!!
Isn't everything in the news about Islam & Muslims nowadays. God I am so bored with it all.... zzzz
September 17, 2006 at 3:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
Verity's right; and so are you: does no-one else have an antecedent who fought in Afghanistan? Or has no-one read any history at all? The terrain and the tribal set-up make any war there unwinnable.
And as regards EU membership, hopefully this will fuck Turkey's chances royally. Or papally.
Bush didn`t exactly help by labelling his mis-adventure in Iraq "a crusade" did he?Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics. Of course the Vatican has no blood on it`s hands,has never had dealings with anyone remotely dodgy or taken any money from third-world peasants while wallowing in greed has it? How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist,the very actions and behaviour of those proffessing to follow him/it/whatever are surely proof enough of that.If there was a god surely corrupt,war-mongering,bigotted kiddy-fiddlers would be first on the list for a bit of smiting,"Christian Values" my arse.And I could accept much of the often valid criticism of Islam if those who directed it could refrain from such brainless labels as "rag-heads" e.t.c.Grow up for fucks sake.
September 17, 2006 at 4:28 PM
Anonymous
said...
moko - speaking of kiddie-fiddlers, wasn't one of the best known in history Mo himself? "Married" Aisha when the poor little thing was six years of age and was dragged away from her toys and had to run to keep up with her mother and was out of breath by the time they got to Mo's place. Poor little soul.
moko - do you know anything about Christianity? Why do you fantasize that non-Catholics would defend the Vatican? My only response to your accusations is a yawn and a "Ho hum."
"How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist". You know that for a fact, do you? Could you offer us proof? You add, "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics." And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on.
Islam has not had a modern reformation in much of the Muslim world, it remains stuck in the dark ages
Curious reasoning, Mr Fawkes. Are you saying the Reformation was a good thing? The Pope would certainly not agree, and to many, he, along with Islam, is still living in the dark ages.
Islam has not had a modern reformation in much of the Muslim world, it remains stuck in the dark ages.
My understanding of such things isn't too deep, but from what I am told, such a thing would never happen anyway, because of the fact that Muslims fundamentally believe that the Qu'ran is the direct word of Allah, and so there can be no diversion from his 'word'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, someone?
September 17, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Anonymous
said...
machiavelli's understudy - You're not wrong. It's not a revelation of God the way Judaism and Christianty are. It's the direct word of allah. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted. So they're stuck with it. This is how it was in 800 and it hasn't moved forward, backwards or sideways since.
September 17, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
Verity i think you will find that the good Mohammed actually waited until his bride was 12 years old before doing the nasty, so that's all right then. The solution to this is to banish anybody who will not renounce Mohammed from Europe/America and the Antipodes and rather than invade them ,trying vainly to impose our values and spilling valuable Christian blood we should just tell them that they are welcome to get on with their medieval ways as long as we can have the oil at a reasonable price, any argy bargy and we annihilate them man woman and child( and throw Israel into the bargain)
What I find so nauseating - and it's getting boring, as "anonymous" said - is the fact that one group/community/religion thinks it has the monopoly on the right to feel insulted.
September 17, 2006 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous
said...
True in a sense, Peter Hitchens. The reason he did not have a go at her sooner was "she was so small". Probably didn't want to do himself an injury.
I think we are working up to a mass explusion of islamics, but not under the socialists and not under Dave's social democrat conservatives. Anyway, Dave won't get in.
September 17, 2006 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous
said...
Arch Cranmer .."Was the reformation a good thing..?" The Popes may or may not agree from their propagation of Catholicism perspective. In the broader context of Western civilization the answer is yes. The Reformation was a catalyst for the Ages of Reason and then Enlightment. Islam did not have a similar parallell progression in its secular world. The religion and the 'state' remained to the great cost of the inhabitants of most Muslim states. Islam's clerics have throttled economic, democratic and social progress. Look at the statistics. Islam casts a dark shadow and the clerics are afraid to let in the light. The Pope's gaffe will demonstrate the veracity of the old Emperor's observation. Sadly.
September 17, 2006 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous
said...
prawn crackers - The Pope did not make a gaffe. He was speaking at an meeting of academics at a university. Who would expect an islamonut to be following events at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria? And why should the Pope tailor his reflections anyway?
Now that the islamoloonies are on the job, we can expect this to be even bigger than Motoon Rage. They're already calling for the Pope to be "hunted down". And, of course, they've gunned down a 70-year old Italian nun in Somalia - shooting in the back four times.
September 17, 2006 at 5:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Pope as head of the Catholic Church needs to understand the impact of what he says. His every utterance is recorded wherever made. He made a mistake in the sense that if he gave a similar lecture next year he would make sure that his words would not be used against him. His naievity led to a gaffe. I speak as one who deplores the reaction of the Islamic world.
September 17, 2006 at 5:59 PM
Anonymous
said...
What amuses me is that whenever someone accuses the muslims of being violent they respond by ... err ... getting violent. Is it just me, or are they all a bit thick?
September 17, 2006 at 6:07 PM
Anonymous
said...
His Holiness is naturally innocently surprised that anyone should take offence at his having reminded the world of the negative assessment made by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II of the value of Islam.
I doubt if he would be the slightest bit surprised to find himself in political hot water were he to suggest that Turkey should not be allowed entry to the European Union.
It is just as well then that the only part of his lecture that has attracted widespread attention is the quotation from the aforesaid Manuel Paleologos.
What it is lecture really about? It is about the relationship between religion and rationality and it celebrates the synthesis of the biblical message of christianity with the Greek heritage of philosophy and rationality.
"This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe. "
So, presumambly a state not founded on this heritage cannot rightly be part of Europe.
It looks as though the Pope's quotation of remarks made in the context of an ancient conflict in Turkey have diverted attention from the more topical and ptotentially more explosive implications for Turkey of other parts of his lecture. Downey Old Bird or what?
September 17, 2006 at 6:12 PM
Anonymous
said...
Marquee Mark said... Then where will your various Gods be?
My God will be in Heaven where he has always been. The God of Abraham and Isaac is the same God that we Christians worship. We just do it differently witth different laws and values. At the time of the original Haille Selassie "The Lion of Judah" we used to be called the "children of the book."
We are now at a stage were we are about to enter into a war, not with a different religion but with irrational zealots who cannot see reason, lack flexiblity and cannot believe anyone elses way can be right. They are and will do Islam and ordinary law abiding muslims a great deal of damage.
My family sorted them out in the middle ages. Since then they (the irrational fub=ndmentalist zealots)have not changed or improved so it looks like we, regretfully, are going to have to teach them the same lesson again,
September 17, 2006 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous
said...
Mohammed actually waited until his bride was 12 years old before doing the nasty, so that's all right then
You're wrong, he waited till she was NINE YEARS OLD! (btw, he was at least 53 when they married.)
September 17, 2006 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous
said...
marquee - I am constantly baffled at the infantile level of comprehension of some posters.
You write: Verity says "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics. And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on."
Verity did not say. Verity was quoting - the clue was in the quotation marks - Moko, who said that "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics."
To which Verity RIPOSTED: "And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on."
In other words, Verity was being as dismissive about aggressive atheism as people like you are about Christianity and Judaism. Many atheists, such as yourself, are angry and shrill and I get sick of their shrieking.
You add with an air of quiet triumph, "At least, until we fast-forward fifty years - when the Chinese Red Army gets to kick the shit out of all religions."
Oh, the simplisme! Do you really, really think the Chinese Red Army will exist in 50 years? Do you really,really think the Chinese will be powerful enough to counter the military might of the United States and India? Do you really think the Chinese government gives a shit about the religions in other countries?
You are one confused puppy.
September 17, 2006 at 6:22 PM
Anonymous
said...
So is spreading faith by the sword an evil thing or not?
September 17, 2006 at 6:27 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous - You're right. She was nine. But he held off for three years! What a gent, eh?
September 17, 2006 at 6:32 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymong 6:27. Which century are you referring to, darling? A thousand years ago, or now?
I have never read so much ill-informed Islamaphobic clap-trap in all my life. Not just the comments either - the original post by Guido shows such a poor lack of understanding of the issues, I'm amazed people haven't pointed this out.
Guido, the Pope did not retract "his question" because he did not ask one. Go and read the speech, and you will find it is a detailed essay on his thinkings about the the future of theology. In fact, in his conclusions he actually asserts that his old department (who he was giving the speech to) should not limit themselves to a Socratic school of thought but should include theories from "all religious humanity", specifically Islam. He was specifically asking for greater dialogue.
If you can't be bothered understanding what his point was, and then decide to make a bunch of half-baked racist remarks, then allow a bunch of BNP bigots to hijack your comments section, can it be any surprise to anybody that in countries where literacy is much lower than here in "Great" Britain that his thoughts have been misconstrued.
I really am ridiculuously dumb-founded by your post, by the comments left here, and by the complete lack of understanding of what was being said. Today is the first day I realised that an 'average' IQ of 100 must mean a lot of incredibly stupid people must exist, and they clearly hang out here.
Read the speech. If you don't understand some part of it, ask a grown-up to help you. THEN make a comment about what was being said, and ideally try and find a way of explaining it's comment to somebody without your intelligence or literacy. Otherwise, please, do the World a favour and shut the fuck up. Dicks.
September 17, 2006 at 6:48 PM
Anonymous
said...
I have jusr seen some beared clown protesting outside westminster (insulting jesus) said that the pope should be killed , whats to bet he wont be arrested?
September 17, 2006 at 6:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
im beginning to seriously consider a 180% turnaround and start supporting Israel
September 17, 2006 at 6:52 PM
Anonymous
said...
"How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist"
I don't know, Moko, but I suspect at least one. I'm an atheist, but, to quote Perry de Havilland, "I do know who my enemies are".
I have a generally low opinion pf the Catholic Church, and it deserves criticism for much of its behaviour - whether with regard to child-molesting priests, appeasing the IRA, or on birth control in Africa. However, whatever their past - or indeed current - sins, the Roman Church, is more friend than foe at the moment. We face a greater threat and it is indeed time for a Judeo-Christian Atheist Alliance in defense of the West.
anonowog 6: He was specifically asking for greater dialogue and look at the "dialogue" he got in return. You fuck off you dick!
September 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous
said...
Verity - I was referring to any century. My question was eternal - as is The Church.
September 17, 2006 at 6:58 PM
Anonymous
said...
The Pope was quoting a text written almost a thousand years ago. He had a context for his quotation. He was not being incendiary or aggressive. Insisting that he only express himself - or, I guess, only quote from texts - in words pre-approved by Islam is, however, incendiary and aggressive.
You, anonymong 6:48, are lacking in literacy. Phobia is an irrational fear. It derives from the Greek phobos - a fear. To be wary of islam, which shows itself daily to be violent and mindlessly aggressive is not irrational.
The muslims have just put four bullets into the back of a 70-year old Italian nun in Somalia who had dedicated her life to serving the most hopeless of society there. I find this irrational. They have called for the Pope to be "hunted down". I find this irrational. Being extremely wary of irrational people is not irrational.
By the same token, you accuse people here of being "racists", the left's very, very favourite word of all time. Could you please explain? There are five races in the world. Islam is not one of them.
"Guido, the Pope did not retract 'his question' because he did not ask one. Go and read the speech"
His Holiness @ Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006 says
"Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?"
Guido says
End of argument. That Catholic education paid off - arguing with Jesuits.
September 17, 2006 at 7:44 PM
Anonymous
said...
Peter Hitchens said:
'we should just tell them that they are welcome to get on with their medieval ways as long as we can have the oil at a reasonable price, any argy bargy and we annihilate them man woman and child'
In retrospect perhaps 'collective punishment' would have worked better than regime change after 9/11. Our army wouldn't be so tied up for a start.
I mean Israel have managed since 1948 replying tit for tat, or rather 'BOOM BOOM tattertattertatter' for 'tat', instead of actually trying to deal with the root cause.
September 17, 2006 at 7:50 PM
Anonymous
said...
One supposes that it might be thought unhelpful (or racist, islamophobic, and generally not awfully nice) to point this out, but...
The very son (Constantine XI Palaiologos Dragases) of our much misquoted emperor (Manuel II Palaiologos) died on his own city walls as the peace-loving Muslims sacked Constantinople in 1453. So, down town, did about 25,000 other christians apparently.
German readers will be tickled to learn that the jolly chap behind this slaughter adopted the title "Kaiser". My, how they all laughed.
September 17, 2006 at 8:10 PM
Anonymous
said...
"Root cause" alert!
Steven_l above.
September 17, 2006 at 8:14 PM
Anonymous
said...
It came from Caesar, didn't it? This must make it the longest running word for ruler in the world.
You are all to pessimistic re Afghanistan. Most of the locals are quite behind the allied troops as long as we don't destroy all their poppies ( as has been said here bfeore, we should buy them for the NHS). U
The USA defeated the taliban at Tora Bora in 2003 and only our distraction in Iraq has alloed them to come back.
As for shooting nuns, poor form and may even get them a cross word forma socialist or too
September 17, 2006 at 8:30 PM
Anonymous
said...
What's black and white and red all over?
Seriously, these islamists are beyond parody.
I've just got back from the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds today (well worth a visit) and in the oriental section is a large collection of islamic weaponry, together with a brief commentary on this "militant religion" as the museum puts it (suprised there haven't been complaints)and even a cursory glance at the time lines and koranic verses inscribed on swords makes it quite clear that this religion did indeed spread at the point of a sword. Now, that ain't something to be ashamed of, today - what's done is done - but neither is it something that should be concealed.
I'm with the pope. He has the eyes of a killer, but these days that's no bad thing.
Oh, and anonyarse above - your shrill accusations would have a tad more credibility if you put your name to them. Not that, as a nun lies riddled with bullets, your accusations make much sense anyway. Oh, let me guess, Mossad shot her?
"Hardline cleric Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin on Friday told worshippers at his mosque to hunt down and kill whoever offended the Prophet Mohammed."
Now if he thinks being a non-Muslim offend Mohammed then his followers are going to be rather busy.
September 17, 2006 at 8:43 PM
Anonymous
said...
The other one that gets me is how they burn an effigy of the the Pope AND want an apology.
I mean, what would they do if some of Nick Griffins' fans decided to burn an effigy of Mohammed somewhere in Bradford? Can you imagine the reaction?
It comes to my mind that perhaps Islam, the life of the Prophet being under the full eye of historical scrutiny, has such fragile ethical foundings that it can only survive in this way.
By 'in this way' I mean Islamic leaders preaching to Muslims worldwide that 'they' are being attacked by Bush and Israel and that they 'all' must react accordingly.
I mean British Muslims, Saudi Muslims, Qatarian Muslims etc are not being attacked by Bush or Israel but too many of them seem to believe that 'they' are being attacked.
It's tempting to think 'bugger off to Afghanistan then' but that's the last thing we really want them to do isn't it?
September 17, 2006 at 8:47 PM
Anonymous
said...
"It's tempting to think 'bugger off to Afghanistan then' but that's the last thing we really want them to do isn't it?"
Au contraire if we woke up tomorrow morning to find that in the night every muslim among us had been carried off by the wind and dropped back down in Asia those remaining would breath an almighty sigh of relief and be seen dancing in the streets as if it were VE day.
September 17, 2006 at 9:56 PM
Anonymous
said...
anonymous 9:56. Exactly. There would be street celebrations, toasts to the Queen, knees-ups, and much good tempered revelry.
Take up the White Man's burden-- Send forth the best ye breed-- Go bind your sons to exile To serve your captives' need; To wait in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild-- Your new-caught, sullen peoples, Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden-- In patience to abide, To veil the threat of terror And check the show of pride; By open speech and simple, An hundred times made plain To seek another's profit, And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden-- The savage wars of peace-- Fill full the mouth of Famine And bid the sickness cease; And when your goal is nearest The end for others sought, Watch sloth and heathen Folly Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden-- No tawdry rule of kings, But toil of serf and sweeper-- The tale of common things. The ports ye shall not enter, The roads ye shall not tread, Go mark them with your living, And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden-- And reap his old reward: The blame of those ye better, The hate of those ye guard-- The cry of hosts ye humour (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:-- "Why brought he us from bondage, Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden-- Ye dare not stoop to less-- Nor call too loud on Freedom To cloke (1) your weariness; By all ye cry or whisper, By all ye leave or do, The silent, sullen peoples Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden-- Have done with childish days-- The lightly proferred laurel, (2) The easy, ungrudged praise. Comes now, to search your manhood Through all the thankless years Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom, The judgment of your peers!
September 17, 2006 at 11:01 PM
Anonymous
said...
Be aware that American rural trailer park trash= British council house tenent.
Western armed forces have always contained a magority of working class "cannon fodder". Did not do Wellington or Nelson any harm, so please have respect, for very brave people.
As Wellington would have said. One of the worst things that can happen to any armed force is to go to long without some action. Men get bored lazy and incompetent.
As long as a young mans chances of survival are very good, moral will stay very high. "Unfortunately" young men do like killing things more than we like to admit.
As for China the plan is to make them so busy making money out of the west they might just think its not a good idear to kill their best customers.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Or at least the best there is.
The trobble with the Muslims is they have our money and bugger all to do making it. Therefore the people gain represion rather then freedom from the oil wealth. As most of the material gain gos to their ruling elites.
We could start by making a better effort at making sure oil wealth in non-muslim countries first results in a better future for the underclass magority of the people.
This by finding ways of FORCING countries that get oil money to give it directly to the people.
Not via the local government but with their "permission". This by paying for infastructure and education directly. With a big print of uncle sam on the front. Trade and business will take care of the rest.
Imperialism has had a very bad press for a very long time.
However a new form of it always was going to be the only answer in the long term.
Thus ending the neocon lecture for the day.
September 17, 2006 at 11:40 PM
Anonymous
said...
marquee mark - I'm sorry; your post is too ill-informed to comment upon in full. And Guido's not running a blog on international politics.
But I'll point up one big mistake as a symbol of all the others:
You write: "Do you really think the Chinese government gives a shit about the religions in other countries?
"Try asking the Dalai Lama. He'll be able to tell you all about how relaxed the Chinese are about religion in Tibet."
1. The Chinese do, and always have, considered Tibet a province of China. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with religion. It's territory.
2. That invasion was 50 years ago! Everything has changed!
3. The hegemony of Tibet has never been about religion, which the Chinese government can take or leave. It has always been about the real stuff: territory. The Chinese have cemented, so to speak, their 50 year conquest of Tibet with their multi-billion dollar new skytrain for tourists, which is far more important to perceptions than dashing in and wiping out the Potala - which they never did, incidentally.
There are around 16m Christians in China. Bhuddism and Tao are on the go much larger. The government basically doesn't give a shit (unless they preach against the government, which they're not stupid enough to do). The glorious revolution's over and globalisation is the name of the game.
As to India. Doesn't have the will? What? When was the last time you were there? India successfully applies for more international technological patents than any other country in the world save the United States and Germany.
I won't go on because this isn't what Guido's blog is about. But China is not going to offend 2.1bn Christian customers in the worldwide marketplace.
Well I'm converting anyway. Good old Bennie XVI! errr...does he want an old drag queen from Brighton?
September 17, 2006 at 11:57 PM
Anonymous
said...
History has taught us the lesson of appeasment We appeased Hitler, and look where that got us So why the hell do we appease those bloody War Mongers Why the fuck did those Muslims outside Westminster cathedral not get arrested? I am sure if i did that outside a mosque, or burnt an effigy of Mohamed , Knacker of the Yard would bang me up pretty quickly
What the Fuck is going on? Why can't we have the Australian approach, if you don't like our culture- please leave the country
September 18, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Anonymous
said...
There has to be a law, probably private member's, passed fast obtaining against appearing on a British street with face masked or disguised (other than make-up, darling, and that is for the wellbeing of wearer and observer).
Masking one's face must be made into an arrestable offence.
The obscenity of this muslim garbage parading around outside Westminster Cathedral and shouting at worshippers coming out of Mass with vicious poster, masked, must not happen again.
You want to protest, fine. Let's be having you. Let's see who you are, mohammad. These islamic women must not be allowed their burqas in public places. Islamic women must be bare-faced, not a pretty prospect, but a sacrifice the British public must bravely be prepared to make. And the wannabee desert warriors must not be allowed the keyiffah on their heads and faces. Let them wear it as a fashion statement around their wrists. (But don't let them near the London Zoo! The boy camels may think they're cute!)
September 18, 2006 at 12:09 AM
Anonymous
said...
Steady on there verity. I lost a large quantity of my mouthful of wine when I read that last paragraph of yours. Now I need a new keyboard, and my monitor required a cleaning well before it's monthly dustdown.
September 18, 2006 at 12:15 AM
Anonymous
said...
Actually, Slagella, as a drag queen and provider of entertainment to lighten the spirits, I am sure you'd be most welcome!
Let's see how this plays. I think it will play well for the Catholics as the Pope is a fearesomely intelligent and educated man and has the number of the little jihadi morons and moronettes outside Westminster Cathedral.
Let's see. My bet is on the Catholics. First time in my life I've defended a Pope, but there you go.
September 18, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Anonymous
said...
Got your theological knickers in a twist I'm afraid Guido. Islam has had a very similar history to Christianity with schismatic and heretical movements and its very own reformation.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and even the Taleban are products of the Wahabi/Salafist/Deobandi Sunni sects whose ascetic doctines not only mirror Calvinistic Christianity but curiously came into being shortly afterwards for pretty much the same reason (as a reaction to idolatry).
At the moment it's convenient for Islamists to portary their faith(s) as a single, homogeneous movement.
The reality is that there is no Islamic movement - only national, political interests.
September 18, 2006 at 2:53 AM
Anonymous
said...
"moral equivalency alert!"
Just above! Help! Moral equivalency coming out of the sea onto a beach full of women and children who are screaming!
All of the above a good argument for atheism, on all sides. Islam has several schools of law (non-compatible) and several major schisms, yet non-Muslims continue to treat it as an integrated phenomenon. In that sense, the Saudi-funded Wahhabists have succeeded in substituting their views (and those of their adherents) for the rest of the Islamic community. He who shouts loudest etc. But the over-simplifications and prejudices expressed above provide little comfort there is informed thought on the other side of the fence either -- eg, the age of Mohammad's wife was probably not such an issue 1400 years ago and was probably the norm. I deeply resent what went on yesterday, outside Westminster Cathedral and internationally but that does not translate into blanked condemnation of Islam per se. And while it is more than just depressing that the police will probably do nothing against those demonstrators, unless we can identify and pursue dialogue -- on all sides -- we are pretty much ensuring escalating interreigious tensions in this country.
September 18, 2006 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous
said...
unless we can identify and pursue dialogue -- on all sides -- we are pretty much ensuring escalating interreigious tensions in this country.
Biederman & die Brandstifter by Max Frisch is an excellent play........I suggest you read it or view it........very educational
Rick - I am not saying (apropos of Biederman & die Drandstifter) there is no threat from radical Islam. However, what troubles me are commentators who appear to see all Muslims as evil radicals, or all Muslims that disagree with Western foreign policy as bomb-throwing extremists, which is the ultimate way to create the self-fulfilling prophecy. There was a time when, perhaps, resolution of some of the issues impelling radical Islam - such as settlement of the Palestinian issue - may have muted the movement. I was hopeful, post 9/11, we were moving towards that whilst tackling militarily what needed to be done vis a vis the Taliban. In the event, we floundered on both issues in favour of the Iraqi invasion, creating more instability and further radicalisation of muslim communities. Easy answers? Nope.
September 18, 2006 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous
said...
Here we are in the 21st Century surrounded by medieval thoughts and superstitions. Only the other day I read a serious article about the problems astrologers face becase Pluto is no longer a planet. It seems the further we go into the future the deeper these crazy beliefs and superstitiouns take root. Religion is a business. Always has been, always will be. Think about it...
A business that produces absloutely nothing. Where the customers stay loyal and don't switch brands. A product that cannot be seen , touched or used. The customer pays for this product by slavishly strongly defending it against other rivals. A business where retribution and death are threatened if you leave the business. A company where the people in charge dress in funny clothes, stand on a pedestal and make dictorial statements, and assume a mythical all powerful appearance. The cost... A lifetime of devotion, and of course as much money and effort the business can force out of the customer.
Was it Henry Ford who said "History is bunk"? Substitute the word religion for history and we will be a lot nearer the truth.
September 18, 2006 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous
said...
Belief or make believe there is no difference, fortunately whatever is true remains true and is not altered by any kind of belief in any way. The minds of people are somewhat different and are swayed mostly by the groin and stomach. The world is a poorer place for both religion and politcs.
September 18, 2006 at 10:37 AM
Anonymous
said...
Fuck!
"Masking one's face must be made into an arrestable offence."
Verity's just banned halloween and motorcyclists!
September 18, 2006 at 11:06 AM
Anonymous
said...
Tipping point? Hope so!
September 18, 2006 at 11:31 AM
Anonymous
said...
This comments section is nothing more than illiterate, non-sensical jibberish. I'm particularly surprised at Guido for not understanding the difference between a question and a quote - if the rest of his reporting is that sloppy, it's no wonder he can't make it as a real journalist. And yet you criticise the Beeb? Wow... at least somebody at the BBC actually went and read the speech and understand what quote marks are for.
I strongly advise all of you to go and take a look at the original transcript of the speech and understand the context of what was being said. The central premise of the speech was an attempt to ask whether theology - as an attempt to make faith a 'reasonable' pursuit in the face of rationality - could be accepting of a non-Socratic school of thought, specifically accepting of the transcendtal nature of God as perceived by Muslims (as opposed to the 'reasonable' nature of God as perceived by Christians and Jews).
If you don't understand what the speech was about, you are as ignorant as the people screaming for the Pope to be hunted down.
As for Islam's past, yes, it's murky. So is Christianity's, so is Europe's, so is England's, in all likelihood so is your own family's. However it is irrelevant. What matters is the actions of the majority today. The vast majority of muslims in this country understand the pope's words in their true context, whilst you remain blinkered. The vast majority of Christians understand the ease with which a hundred or so people can be stirred to anger, whilst you stereotype and attribute the behaviour of the few to the mindset of the many.
All of you, Guido in particular, should be ashamed of yourselves. Demonstrate your "superior intellectual prowess" if you wish, but perhaps it would be more impressive if you read the speech, understood it and then found a way to explain it in a way that is accessible. Until then, you are merely bigots.
66 comments:
I wondered how long it would take the muslims to twig that actually, the Pope hadn't issued an apology at all.
Now they've realised and they want "a more personal apology". I fear they are doomed to bitter disappointment. I also fear they are doomed to have incurred the hatred of the world's 1bn Catholics and love and respect the Pope. I see this as a good thing.
Crusades anyone? This time with automatic weapons..
Coming to Fox news soon
Well World War 3's going to happen anyway, why not have it now?
I'm relatively young (34) fresh, and ready to go kick some ass, I'm fed up with our government pussyfooting round having to be "pragmatic" when dealing with the whingeing camel jockeys. If WW3 is gonna start, now's the time for me.
Sorry, was I ranting!
If I was the pope I'd tell the beardies they can go fuck themselves if they want an apology!!
Isn't everything in the news about Islam & Muslims nowadays. God I am so bored with it all.... zzzz
Verity's right; and so are you: does no-one else have an antecedent who fought in Afghanistan? Or has no-one read any history at all? The terrain and the tribal set-up make any war there unwinnable.
And as regards EU membership, hopefully this will fuck Turkey's chances royally. Or papally.
Guido have you read this article by John Le Carre
www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-middle_east_politics/lebanon_lecarre_3856.jsp
Bush didn`t exactly help by labelling his mis-adventure in Iraq "a crusade" did he?Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics.
Of course the Vatican has no blood on it`s hands,has never had dealings with anyone remotely dodgy or taken any money from third-world peasants while wallowing in greed has it? How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist,the very actions and behaviour of those proffessing to follow him/it/whatever are surely proof enough of that.If there was a god surely corrupt,war-mongering,bigotted kiddy-fiddlers would be first on the list for a bit of smiting,"Christian Values" my arse.And I could accept much of the often valid criticism of Islam if those who directed it could refrain from such brainless labels as "rag-heads" e.t.c.Grow up for fucks sake.
moko - speaking of kiddie-fiddlers, wasn't one of the best known in history Mo himself? "Married" Aisha when the poor little thing was six years of age and was dragged away from her toys and had to run to keep up with her mother and was out of breath by the time they got to Mo's place. Poor little soul.
moko - do you know anything about Christianity? Why do you fantasize that non-Catholics would defend the Vatican? My only response to your accusations is a yawn and a "Ho hum."
"How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist". You know that for a fact, do you? Could you offer us proof? You add, "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics." And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on.
Islam has not had a modern reformation in much of the Muslim world, it remains stuck in the dark ages
Curious reasoning, Mr Fawkes. Are you saying the Reformation was a good thing? The Pope would certainly not agree, and to many, he, along with Islam, is still living in the dark ages.
Islam has not had a modern reformation in much of the Muslim world, it remains stuck in the dark ages.
My understanding of such things isn't too deep, but from what I am told, such a thing would never happen anyway, because of the fact that Muslims fundamentally believe that the Qu'ran is the direct word of Allah, and so there can be no diversion from his 'word'.
Correct me if I'm wrong, someone?
machiavelli's understudy - You're not wrong. It's not a revelation of God the way Judaism and Christianty are. It's the direct word of allah. Therefore, it cannot be interpreted. So they're stuck with it. This is how it was in 800 and it hasn't moved forward, backwards or sideways since.
Verity i think you will find that the good Mohammed actually waited until his bride was 12 years old before doing the nasty, so that's all right then.
The solution to this is to banish anybody who will not renounce Mohammed from Europe/America and the Antipodes and rather than invade them ,trying vainly to impose our values and spilling valuable Christian blood we should just tell them that they are welcome to get on with their medieval ways as long as we can have the oil at a reasonable price, any argy bargy and we annihilate them man woman and child( and throw Israel into the bargain)
MU: nope you are not wrong.
In fact Islam did have a reformation of sorts a few hundred years ago and it didn't go well. Or rather the counter-reformation won.
What I find so nauseating - and it's getting boring, as "anonymous" said - is the fact that one group/community/religion thinks it has the monopoly on the right to feel insulted.
True in a sense, Peter Hitchens. The reason he did not have a go at her sooner was "she was so small". Probably didn't want to do himself an injury.
I think we are working up to a mass explusion of islamics, but not under the socialists and not under Dave's social democrat conservatives. Anyway, Dave won't get in.
Arch Cranmer .."Was the reformation a good thing..?" The Popes may or may not agree from their propagation of Catholicism perspective. In the broader context of Western civilization the answer is yes. The Reformation was a catalyst for the Ages of Reason and then Enlightment. Islam did not have a similar parallell progression in its secular world. The religion and the 'state' remained to the great cost of the inhabitants of most Muslim states. Islam's clerics have throttled economic, democratic and social progress. Look at the statistics. Islam casts a dark shadow and the clerics are afraid to let in the light. The Pope's gaffe will demonstrate the veracity of the old Emperor's observation. Sadly.
prawn crackers - The Pope did not make a gaffe. He was speaking at an meeting of academics at a university. Who would expect an islamonut to be following events at the University of Regensburg in Bavaria? And why should the Pope tailor his reflections anyway?
Now that the islamoloonies are on the job, we can expect this to be even bigger than Motoon Rage. They're already calling for the Pope to be "hunted down". And, of course, they've gunned down a 70-year old Italian nun in Somalia - shooting in the back four times.
The Pope as head of the Catholic Church needs to understand the impact of what he says. His every utterance is recorded wherever made. He made a mistake in the sense that if he gave a similar lecture next year he would make sure that his words would not be used against him. His naievity led to a gaffe. I speak as one who deplores the reaction of the Islamic world.
What amuses me is that whenever someone accuses the muslims of being violent they respond by ... err ... getting violent. Is it just me, or are they all a bit thick?
His Holiness is naturally innocently surprised that anyone should take offence at his having reminded the world of the negative assessment made by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II of the value of Islam.
I doubt if he would be the slightest bit surprised to find himself in political hot water were he to suggest that Turkey should not be allowed entry to the European Union.
It is just as well then that the only part of his lecture that has attracted widespread attention is the quotation from the aforesaid Manuel Paleologos.
What it is lecture really about? It is about the relationship between religion and rationality and it celebrates the synthesis of the biblical message of christianity with the Greek heritage of philosophy and rationality.
"This convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe. "
So, presumambly a state not founded on this heritage cannot rightly be part of Europe.
It looks as though the Pope's quotation of remarks made in the context of an ancient conflict in Turkey have diverted attention from the more topical and ptotentially more explosive implications for Turkey of other parts of his lecture. Downey Old Bird or what?
Marquee Mark said... Then where will your various Gods be?
My God will be in Heaven where he has always been. The God of Abraham and Isaac is the same God that we Christians worship. We just do it differently witth different laws and values. At the time of the original Haille Selassie "The Lion of Judah" we used to be called the "children of the book."
We are now at a stage were we are about to enter into a war, not with a different religion but with irrational zealots who cannot see reason, lack flexiblity and cannot believe anyone elses way can be right. They are and will do Islam and ordinary law abiding muslims a great deal of damage.
My family sorted them out in the middle ages. Since then they (the irrational fub=ndmentalist zealots)have not changed or improved so it looks like we, regretfully, are going to have to teach them the same lesson again,
Mohammed actually waited until his bride was 12 years old before doing the nasty, so that's all right then
You're wrong, he waited till she was NINE YEARS OLD! (btw, he was at least 53 when they married.)
marquee - I am constantly baffled at the infantile level of comprehension of some posters.
You write: Verity says "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics. And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on."
Verity did not say. Verity was quoting - the clue was in the quotation marks - Moko, who said that "Christian fundamentalists are every bit as dangerous as Muslim fanatics."
To which Verity RIPOSTED: "And just as toxic and irritating are atheist fundamentalists bleating on and on."
In other words, Verity was being as dismissive about aggressive atheism as people like you are about Christianity and Judaism. Many atheists, such as yourself, are angry and shrill and I get sick of their shrieking.
You add with an air of quiet triumph, "At least, until we fast-forward fifty years - when the Chinese Red Army gets to kick the shit out of all religions."
Oh, the simplisme! Do you really, really think the Chinese Red Army will exist in 50 years? Do you really,really think the Chinese will be powerful enough to counter the military might of the United States and India? Do you really think the Chinese government gives a shit about the religions in other countries?
You are one confused puppy.
So is spreading faith by the sword an evil thing or not?
anonymous - You're right. She was nine. But he held off for three years! What a gent, eh?
anonymong 6:27. Which century are you referring to, darling? A thousand years ago, or now?
More Kipling on Afghanistan:
Arithmetic on the frontier
I have never read so much ill-informed Islamaphobic clap-trap in all my life. Not just the comments either - the original post by Guido shows such a poor lack of understanding of the issues, I'm amazed people haven't pointed this out.
Guido, the Pope did not retract "his question" because he did not ask one. Go and read the speech, and you will find it is a detailed essay on his thinkings about the the future of theology. In fact, in his conclusions he actually asserts that his old department (who he was giving the speech to) should not limit themselves to a Socratic school of thought but should include theories from "all religious humanity", specifically Islam. He was specifically asking for greater dialogue.
If you can't be bothered understanding what his point was, and then decide to make a bunch of half-baked racist remarks, then allow a bunch of BNP bigots to hijack your comments section, can it be any surprise to anybody that in countries where literacy is much lower than here in "Great" Britain that his thoughts have been misconstrued.
I really am ridiculuously dumb-founded by your post, by the comments left here, and by the complete lack of understanding of what was being said. Today is the first day I realised that an 'average' IQ of 100 must mean a lot of incredibly stupid people must exist, and they clearly hang out here.
Read the speech. If you don't understand some part of it, ask a grown-up to help you. THEN make a comment about what was being said, and ideally try and find a way of explaining it's comment to somebody without your intelligence or literacy. Otherwise, please, do the World a favour and shut the fuck up. Dicks.
I have jusr seen some beared clown protesting outside westminster (insulting jesus) said that the pope should be killed , whats to bet he wont be arrested?
im beginning to seriously consider a 180% turnaround and start supporting Israel
"How many more wars do we need to have over a god that dosn`t exist"
I don't know, Moko, but I suspect at least one. I'm an atheist, but, to quote Perry de Havilland, "I do know who my enemies are".
I have a generally low opinion pf the Catholic Church, and it deserves criticism for much of its behaviour - whether with regard to child-molesting priests, appeasing the IRA, or on birth control in Africa. However, whatever their past - or indeed current - sins, the Roman Church, is more friend than foe at the moment. We face a greater threat and it is indeed time for a Judeo-Christian Atheist Alliance in defense of the West.
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/2006/09/calling_all_def.html
anonowog 6:
He was specifically asking for greater dialogue
and look at the "dialogue" he got in return.
You fuck off you dick!
Verity - I was referring to any century. My question was eternal - as is The Church.
The Pope was quoting a text written almost a thousand years ago. He had a context for his quotation. He was not being incendiary or aggressive. Insisting that he only express himself - or, I guess, only quote from texts - in words pre-approved by Islam is, however, incendiary and aggressive.
You, anonymong 6:48, are lacking in literacy. Phobia is an irrational fear. It derives from the Greek phobos - a fear. To be wary of islam, which shows itself daily to be violent and mindlessly aggressive is not irrational.
The muslims have just put four bullets into the back of a 70-year old Italian nun in Somalia who had dedicated her life to serving the most hopeless of society there. I find this irrational. They have called for the Pope to be "hunted down". I find this irrational. Being extremely wary of irrational people is not irrational.
By the same token, you accuse people here of being "racists", the left's very, very favourite word of all time. Could you please explain? There are five races in the world. Islam is not one of them.
This confuses me. I thought the pope was supposed to be anti Islam. Surely that's his job!
brakerod
maybe he also just fuck off!
Anonymong @ 6.48 says
"Guido, the Pope did not retract 'his question' because he did not ask one. Go and read the speech"
His Holiness @ Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg Tuesday, 12 September 2006 says
"Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God's nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true?"
Guido says
End of argument. That Catholic education paid off - arguing with Jesuits.
Peter Hitchens said:
'we should just tell them that they are welcome to get on with their medieval ways as long as we can have the oil at a reasonable price, any argy bargy and we annihilate them man woman and child'
In retrospect perhaps 'collective punishment' would have worked better than regime change after 9/11. Our army wouldn't be so tied up for a start.
I mean Israel have managed since 1948 replying tit for tat, or rather 'BOOM BOOM tattertattertatter' for 'tat', instead of actually trying to deal with the root cause.
One supposes that it might be thought unhelpful (or racist, islamophobic, and generally not awfully nice) to point this out, but...
The very son (Constantine XI Palaiologos Dragases) of our much misquoted emperor (Manuel II Palaiologos) died on his own city walls as the peace-loving Muslims sacked Constantinople in 1453. So, down town, did about 25,000 other christians apparently.
German readers will be tickled to learn that the jolly chap behind this slaughter adopted the title "Kaiser". My, how they all laughed.
"Root cause" alert!
Steven_l above.
It came from Caesar, didn't it? This must make it the longest running word for ruler in the world.
You are all to pessimistic re Afghanistan. Most of the locals are quite behind the allied troops as long as we don't destroy all their poppies ( as has been said here bfeore, we should buy them for the NHS). U
The USA defeated the taliban at Tora Bora in 2003 and only our distraction in Iraq has alloed them to come back.
As for shooting nuns, poor form and may even get them a cross word forma socialist or too
What's black and white and red all over?
Seriously, these islamists are beyond parody.
I've just got back from the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds today (well worth a visit) and in the oriental section is a large collection of islamic weaponry, together with a brief commentary on this "militant religion" as the museum puts it (suprised there haven't been complaints)and even a cursory glance at the time lines and koranic verses inscribed on swords makes it quite clear that this religion did indeed spread at the point of a sword. Now, that ain't something to be ashamed of, today - what's done is done - but neither is it something that should be concealed.
I'm with the pope. He has the eyes of a killer, but these days that's no bad thing.
Oh, and anonyarse above - your shrill accusations would have a tad more credibility if you put your name to them. Not that, as a nun lies riddled with bullets, your accusations make much sense anyway. Oh, let me guess, Mossad shot her?
Drinkign from Home has a good post on this - my favourite bit (appart from the photos) is this quote:
"Anyone who describes Islam as a religion as intolerant encourages violence" - Pakistan Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam.
Or via the Al Beeb - of all places - the following:
"Hardline cleric Sheikh Abubakar Hassan Malin on Friday told worshippers at his mosque to hunt down and kill whoever offended the Prophet Mohammed."
Now if he thinks being a non-Muslim offend Mohammed then his followers are going to be rather busy.
The other one that gets me is how they burn an effigy of the the Pope AND want an apology.
I mean, what would they do if some of Nick Griffins' fans decided to burn an effigy of Mohammed somewhere in Bradford? Can you imagine the reaction?
It comes to my mind that perhaps Islam, the life of the Prophet being under the full eye of historical scrutiny, has such fragile ethical foundings that it can only survive in this way.
By 'in this way' I mean Islamic leaders preaching to Muslims worldwide that 'they' are being attacked by Bush and Israel and that they 'all' must react accordingly.
I mean British Muslims, Saudi Muslims, Qatarian Muslims etc are not being attacked by Bush or Israel but too many of them seem to believe that 'they' are being attacked.
It's tempting to think 'bugger off to Afghanistan then' but that's the last thing we really want them to do isn't it?
"It's tempting to think 'bugger off to Afghanistan then' but that's the last thing we really want them to do isn't it?"
Au contraire if we woke up tomorrow morning to find that in the night every muslim among us had been carried off by the wind and dropped back down in Asia those remaining would breath an almighty sigh of relief and be seen dancing in the streets as if it were VE day.
anonymous 9:56. Exactly. There would be street celebrations, toasts to the Queen, knees-ups, and much good tempered revelry.
Meanwhile, outside Westminster Cathedral.
Kipling wrote other poems Guido.......
Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No tawdry rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things.
The ports ye shall not enter,
The roads ye shall not tread,
Go mark them with your living,
And mark them with your dead.
Take up the White Man's burden--
And reap his old reward:
The blame of those ye better,
The hate of those ye guard--
The cry of hosts ye humour
(Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
"Why brought he us from bondage,
Our loved Egyptian night?"
Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloke (1) your weariness;
By all ye cry or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent, sullen peoples
Shall weigh your gods and you.
Take up the White Man's burden--
Have done with childish days--
The lightly proferred laurel, (2)
The easy, ungrudged praise.
Comes now, to search your manhood
Through all the thankless years
Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
The judgment of your peers!
Be aware that
American rural trailer park trash= British council house tenent.
Western armed forces have always contained a magority of working class "cannon fodder". Did not do Wellington or Nelson any harm, so please have respect, for very brave people.
As Wellington would have said. One of the worst things that can happen to any armed force is to go to long without some action. Men get bored lazy and incompetent.
As long as a young mans chances of survival are very good, moral will stay very high. "Unfortunately" young men do like killing things more than we like to admit.
As for China the plan is to make them so busy making money out of the west they might just think its not a good idear to kill their best customers.
Sounds like a good plan to me. Or at least the best there is.
The trobble with the Muslims is they have our money and bugger all to do making it. Therefore the people gain represion rather then freedom from the oil wealth. As most of the material gain gos to their ruling elites.
We could start by making a better effort at making sure oil wealth in non-muslim countries first results in a better future for the underclass magority of the people.
This by finding ways of FORCING countries that get oil money to give it directly to the people.
Not via the local government but with their "permission". This by paying for infastructure and education directly. With a big print of uncle sam on the front. Trade and business will take care of the rest.
Imperialism has had a very bad press for a very long time.
However a new form of it always was going to be the only answer in the long term.
Thus ending the neocon lecture for the day.
marquee mark - I'm sorry; your post is too ill-informed to comment upon in full. And Guido's not running a blog on international politics.
But I'll point up one big mistake as a symbol of all the others:
You write: "Do you really think the Chinese government gives a shit about the religions in other countries?
"Try asking the Dalai Lama. He'll be able to tell you all about how relaxed the Chinese are about religion in Tibet."
1. The Chinese do, and always have, considered Tibet a province of China. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with religion. It's territory.
2. That invasion was 50 years ago! Everything has changed!
3. The hegemony of Tibet has never been about religion, which the Chinese government can take or leave. It has always been about the real stuff: territory. The Chinese have cemented, so to speak, their 50 year conquest of Tibet with their multi-billion dollar new skytrain for tourists, which is far more important to perceptions than dashing in and wiping out the Potala - which they never did, incidentally.
There are around 16m Christians in China. Bhuddism and Tao are on the go much larger. The government basically doesn't give a shit (unless they preach against the government, which they're not stupid enough to do). The glorious revolution's over and globalisation is the name of the game.
As to India. Doesn't have the will? What? When was the last time you were there? India successfully applies for more international technological patents than any other country in the world save the United States and Germany.
I won't go on because this isn't what Guido's blog is about. But China is not going to offend 2.1bn Christian customers in the worldwide marketplace.
Well I'm converting anyway. Good old Bennie XVI! errr...does he want an old drag queen from Brighton?
History has taught us the lesson of appeasment
We appeased Hitler, and look where that got us
So why the hell do we appease those bloody War Mongers
Why the fuck did those Muslims outside Westminster cathedral not get arrested?
I am sure if i did that outside a mosque, or burnt an effigy of Mohamed , Knacker of the Yard would bang me up pretty quickly
What the Fuck is going on?
Why can't we have the Australian approach, if you don't like our culture- please leave the country
There has to be a law, probably private member's, passed fast obtaining against appearing on a British street with face masked or disguised (other than make-up, darling, and that is for the wellbeing of wearer and observer).
Masking one's face must be made into an arrestable offence.
The obscenity of this muslim garbage parading around outside Westminster Cathedral and shouting at worshippers coming out of Mass with vicious poster, masked, must not happen again.
You want to protest, fine. Let's be having you. Let's see who you are, mohammad. These islamic women must not be allowed their burqas in public places. Islamic women must be bare-faced, not a pretty prospect, but a sacrifice the British public must bravely be prepared to make. And the wannabee desert warriors must not be allowed the keyiffah on their heads and faces. Let them wear it as a fashion statement around their wrists. (But don't let them near the London Zoo! The boy camels may think they're cute!)
Steady on there verity. I lost a large quantity of my mouthful of wine when I read that last paragraph of yours. Now I need a new keyboard, and my monitor required a cleaning well before it's monthly dustdown.
Actually, Slagella, as a drag queen and provider of entertainment to lighten the spirits, I am sure you'd be most welcome!
Let's see how this plays. I think it will play well for the Catholics as the Pope is a fearesomely intelligent and educated man and has the number of the little jihadi morons and moronettes outside Westminster Cathedral.
Let's see. My bet is on the Catholics. First time in my life I've defended a Pope, but there you go.
Got your theological knickers in a twist I'm afraid Guido. Islam has had a very similar history to Christianity with schismatic and heretical movements and its very own reformation.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Al Qaeda and even the Taleban are products of the Wahabi/Salafist/Deobandi Sunni sects whose ascetic doctines not only mirror Calvinistic Christianity but curiously came into being shortly afterwards for pretty much the same reason (as a reaction to idolatry).
At the moment it's convenient for Islamists to portary their faith(s) as a single, homogeneous movement.
The reality is that there is no Islamic movement - only national, political interests.
"moral equivalency alert!"
Just above! Help! Moral equivalency coming out of the sea onto a beach full of women and children who are screaming!
All of the above a good argument for atheism, on all sides. Islam has several schools of law (non-compatible) and several major schisms, yet non-Muslims continue to treat it as an integrated phenomenon. In that sense, the Saudi-funded Wahhabists have succeeded in substituting their views (and those of their adherents) for the rest of the Islamic community. He who shouts loudest etc. But the over-simplifications and prejudices expressed above provide little comfort there is informed thought on the other side of the fence either -- eg, the age of Mohammad's wife was probably not such an issue 1400 years ago and was probably the norm. I deeply resent what went on yesterday, outside Westminster Cathedral and internationally but that does not translate into blanked condemnation of Islam per se. And while it is more than just depressing that the police will probably do nothing against those demonstrators, unless we can identify and pursue dialogue -- on all sides -- we are pretty much ensuring escalating interreigious tensions in this country.
unless we can identify and pursue dialogue -- on all sides -- we are pretty much ensuring escalating interreigious tensions in this country.
Biederman & die Brandstifter by Max Frisch is an excellent play........I suggest you read it or view it........very educational
Rick - I am not saying (apropos of Biederman & die Drandstifter) there is no threat from radical Islam. However, what troubles me are commentators who appear to see all Muslims as evil radicals, or all Muslims that disagree with Western foreign policy as bomb-throwing extremists, which is the ultimate way to create the self-fulfilling prophecy. There was a time when, perhaps, resolution of some of the issues impelling radical Islam - such as settlement of the Palestinian issue - may have muted the movement. I was hopeful, post 9/11, we were moving towards that whilst tackling militarily what needed to be done vis a vis the Taliban. In the event, we floundered on both issues in favour of the Iraqi invasion, creating more instability and further radicalisation of muslim communities. Easy answers? Nope.
Here we are in the 21st Century surrounded by medieval thoughts and superstitions. Only the other day I read a serious article about the problems astrologers face becase Pluto is no longer a planet. It seems the further we go into the future the deeper these crazy beliefs and superstitiouns take root. Religion is a business. Always has been, always will be. Think about it...
A business that produces absloutely nothing. Where the customers stay loyal and don't switch brands. A product that cannot be seen , touched or used. The customer pays for this product by slavishly strongly defending it against other rivals. A business where retribution and death are threatened if you leave the business. A company where the people in charge dress in funny clothes, stand on a pedestal and make dictorial statements, and assume a mythical all powerful appearance. The cost... A lifetime of devotion, and of course as much money and effort the business can force out of the customer.
Was it Henry Ford who said "History is bunk"? Substitute the word religion for history and we will be a lot nearer the truth.
Belief or make believe there is no difference, fortunately whatever is true remains true and is not altered by any kind of belief in any way. The minds of people are somewhat different and are swayed mostly by the groin and stomach.
The world is a poorer place for both religion and politcs.
Fuck!
"Masking one's face must be made into an arrestable offence."
Verity's just banned halloween and motorcyclists!
Tipping point?
Hope so!
This comments section is nothing more than illiterate, non-sensical jibberish. I'm particularly surprised at Guido for not understanding the difference between a question and a quote - if the rest of his reporting is that sloppy, it's no wonder he can't make it as a real journalist. And yet you criticise the Beeb? Wow... at least somebody at the BBC actually went and read the speech and understand what quote marks are for.
I strongly advise all of you to go and take a look at the original transcript of the speech and understand the context of what was being said. The central premise of the speech was an attempt to ask whether theology - as an attempt to make faith a 'reasonable' pursuit in the face of rationality - could be accepting of a non-Socratic school of thought, specifically accepting of the transcendtal nature of God as perceived by Muslims (as opposed to the 'reasonable' nature of God as perceived by Christians and Jews).
If you don't understand what the speech was about, you are as ignorant as the people screaming for the Pope to be hunted down.
As for Islam's past, yes, it's murky. So is Christianity's, so is Europe's, so is England's, in all likelihood so is your own family's. However it is irrelevant. What matters is the actions of the majority today. The vast majority of muslims in this country understand the pope's words in their true context, whilst you remain blinkered. The vast majority of Christians understand the ease with which a hundred or so people can be stirred to anger, whilst you stereotype and attribute the behaviour of the few to the mindset of the many.
All of you, Guido in particular, should be ashamed of yourselves. Demonstrate your "superior intellectual prowess" if you wish, but perhaps it would be more impressive if you read the speech, understood it and then found a way to explain it in a way that is accessible. Until then, you are merely bigots.
You are a bore.
This has got all too boring, don't any of you have any gossip.
Comments Closed