By reminding the world of the nun's murder, the Pope intentionally or unintentionally puts the focus back where it should be: not on those whose words hurt others, which includes all of us at one time or another, but on those who kill because they are hurt by the words of others. From the Telegraph via the New York Sun, with thanks to Ruth King:
ROME — Pope Benedict condemned the killing of an Italian nun in Somalia, whose death has been blamed on a backlash by Muslims offended by his contentious speech last week.Sister Leonella, born Rosa Sgorbati, 65, was shot in the back in Mogadishu last Sunday, a day after the Vatican issued a statement of regret for the worldwide uproar that followed the pope's decision to quote a 14th-century emperor who called Islam "evil and inhuman."
The pontiff said yesterday that Sister Leonella had been "barbarously killed" but expressed hope that her "spilled blood would become the seed of hope to build a real relationship between people." In a telegram of condolence to the nun's missionary order, Benedict XVI said he deplored "every form of violence" and that there should be more "respect for each other's religious beliefs."
Three people have now been arrested in Somalia for Sister Leonella's murder, although one accomplice is still on the run. The head of security for the Islamic party currently running Mogadishu, Sheik Yusuf Mohamed Siad, said the motive for the killing is still unclear.
President Bush and Secretary of State Rice underlined their support for the pope yesterday, as Western leaders rallied to defuse the crisis.
President Bush said Benedict XVI had been "sincere" in his apology, while Ms. Rice said the pope had a "love for humanity." She tried to portray the pope's use of the quote during a speech at Regensberg University as a naïve slip. "We all need to understand that offense can sometimes be taken when perhaps we do not see it," she said.
Of course he was sincere. He just wasn't apologizing for anything but that he had been misunderstood, and that those who misunderstood him took their misunderstanding to violent extremes.
But in any case, it is unseemly for Bush and Rice to be hastening to assure the Islamic world that the Pope's apology was sincere. In doing this they are both acting as if he did something that was actually wrong, which he did not, and that the Muslim response to his words was reasonable, which it wasn't. Instead, they should both be saying that the Muslim response of violent protests and killings is outrageous and intolerable, and that the protestors should find something more important to be upset about. Or even better, they should concentrate on trying to live productive lives as decent human beings.
Robert:
Indeed, they should both be saying that the Muslim response of violent protests and killings is outrageous and intolerable.
This reminds me of something very good you wrote the other day:
Of course, it's always all because of ignorance. If only we were enlightened, we wouldn't notice all the jihad violence all over the world every day.
Why is it that the 1 billion mohammedans know all about the west, christianity, judaism, hinduism, etc .., but the west, christianity, judaism, hinduism, etc are IGNORANT when it comes to Islam?
This whole situation is very reminiscent of the Soviet reaction to what Alexander Solzenitzen said in his comments re the Soviet system. The leaders of the USSR and many of those who held firmly to the Soviet belief-system were threatened by the facts. So the believers in the system accused those who asked questions of the Soviet system of being motivated by hatred of egalitarianism, of anti-Soviet bias, revisionism, etc. Those who asked questions were arrested, beaten, threatened, killed, exiled, etc. It was sick. The simple fact was that they could not handle the painful truth that the Soviet system stifled creativity and made everyone lie to keep it going.
Of course, of course it is - more investigation is needed, it may well have been a drug or gang related killing.
With every fresh utterance on this matter, Benedict sharply delineates those essential differences between the islamic world and the civilized world.
On one side, a very intelligent, scholarly theologian discusses the nature of divinity and reason, in nothing but a calm and scholarly way, on the other side what do we have? We have the mohammedans' big guns of theology, qaradawi, who comes up with ... a day of anger.
Didnt we have one of those before, joe? Is that really all you have?
If Solzenitzen had not had America to run to they would have killed him for what he was saying about the Soviet system.
Does anyone think as I do that the Pope is deliberately keeping this going for some as yet not-revealed reason?
I have a feeling he really knew what he was doing all the time. I think he is trying to make non-muslims aware of what they are up against.
This isn't a criticism: I think this is great!
The more outrageous these actions are, the sooner we are going to reach a "critical mass" of opinion favouring our own culture. Just my humble opnion.
Rice's arrogant belief that the Pope's statement was a naive slip fits perfectly with her repeated patronizing advice to Israel's leaders: that they should consider the consequences of how they respond to this or that attack, as though they normally act without thinking. If we combine Rice's conceit with Bush's display of ignorance before the UN, we have good reason to fear for our future. We are led by someone with such colossal conceit that she is sure she's smarter than the Pope and knows Israel's interests better than Israeli Jews do, and is the principal adviser of an unteachable President.
His endless repetition that the "Palestinians" should get a democratic country of their own shows he simply cannot grasp the simple fact that Islam does not recognize the legitimacy of man-made law and that therefore a government based on unchanging sharia cannot be democratic. All the lesser factual errors in his speech follow from that one basic failure of understanding.
“Instead, they should both be saying that the Muslim response of violent protests and killings is outrageous and intolerable, and that the protestors should find something more important to be upset about.”
Dear Robert,
If they did, wouldn’t it make them “holier then Papa”?
Assalamau Laikum all,
Hmm, I wonder if his holiness feels he has blood on his hands...that in a wierd way he is indirectly responsible for the nuns death.
Somalia certainly is weaker as a result of this nun's dedication to her peoples for most of her life. Red misted sub-humans murdered her falsely in the name of Islam.
If the pope had not uttered those words...she would be alive today...that much is certain.
I wonder if the pope shed a tear or two and felt "embarrassed and dirty" knealing before Jesus to ask for forgivness.
This has certainly hurt the pope ...his pristine reputation and aura of invincibility and "infallibility" have certainly taken a thundereous nose dive.
He needs to change his advisors and pray harder.
p.s. does anyone know if he was blond in his younger age?
Gramfan,
Benedict looks like a kindly old professor but he is no fool. I'm certain he is aware of what he is doing...he didnt choose the name Benedict for nothing!
He was well aware that any discussion of the irrational and violent nature of Islam would get a howl the first time round. His lecture was, in effect, an invitation for Islam to engage with others on a rational level making their reaction appear even more irrational.
But the real work comes after the howling stops because not even Moslems can keep up a rage over nothing for ever. Something more immediate is bound to come along!
The initial rage is therefore just 'going through the pain barrier' and he has done it without looking unreasonable. He is not popular with the Moslems but he can get on with bringing up the subject again...such as in this letter about the murdered nun.
We have to remember that his main interest is in convincing a sophisticated but anti-clerical western audience. What worked for Urban II will not work now but the Papacy has a long term perspective.
Robert,
I'm sure you can appreciate Solzenitzen as few people can. Imagine the guts it took for him to make his public criticisms of the Soviet belief-system.
'Hmm, I wonder if his holiness feels he has blood on his hands...that in a wierd way he is indirectly responsible for the nuns death.'~ naseem
Naseem, I am always please to see you post here, but today I have to have my say about your opening comment:
THAT IS TOTAL, ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT.
Hang in there.
Naseem says: Hmm, I wonder if his holiness feels he has blood on his hands...
ZY replies: I don't wonder. He has none whatsoever. The blame is on the Muslims, and their religion, totally.
Naseem: Red misted sub-humans murdered her falsely in the name of Islam.
ZY: And you'll be the first to tell them that, won't you, Naseem? And go underground afterwards, of course.
Naseem: If the pope had not uttered those words...she would be alive today...
ZY: "If she hadn't waked in the park dressed provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped..." Something you and the Leftists fail to understand: the circumstances of the perpetrator can explain his act, but they can't excuse it, nor can they transfer the guilt onto his victim. Cartoons of the Mohammad or the Pope's remarks made you Muslims angry? Boo hoo. Grow up instead of doing those temper tantrums every time. And if you, in your anger, kill non-Muslims, that pretext doesn't excuse you and put the blame on your victims--you ARE the perpetrators, the wrongdoers, the guilty party.
Naseem: I wonder if the pope shed a tear or two and felt "embarrassed and dirty" knealing before Jesus to ask for forgivness.
ZY: He would need much more forgiveness of G-d if he were to stay silent in the sight of his flock being persecuted by Muslims worldwide.
"Naseem":
I increasingly think you are just a provocateur, but since some people actually believe the radioactive nonsense you posted above, I thought I'd drop in.
The Pope has no blood on his hands. He didn't kill the nun, or call for her killing. The people who have blood on their hands are the Muslims who cold-bloodedly murdered her.
I'll give you an analogy.
If I say to you, "Sure is rainy today," and you hate rain and go kill someone in rage over my remarks, that has nothing to do with me. That is your problem -- your problem in reacting with irrational violence to something that was in no way an incitement to violence.
Cordially
Robert Spencer
When the day comes.... I will claim self defense, because as a Roman Catholic American, my life has been threaten by Islam, thus I must protect myself from their evil.
Naseem, of course the Pope has blood on his hands. He dared to bring up an oblique critique of Islam.
By your logic, didn't the Armenians have it coming? or the Jews?
Naseem's logic: Islam is so easily offended; let's be still, don't move and certainly don't utter a sound. Silence. Maybe if we're still enough and silent enough and say nothing provocative; maybe if nobody makes fun of the Prophet(PBUH), or lampoons him in cartoon . . . . maybe if we're still, silent, never to offend; maybe then Islam will not attack. But there are typically a few troublemakers like the Pope, like Falaci, or some pesky cartoonist expressing outdated freedom of speech: and when they provoke Islam--and Muslims respond--it's our fault.
Naseem: i have a two single word for you:Dhimmi.
Nasseem,
It had not occurred to silly old me that the Pope was responsible for the shooting of the nun. I expect that, with the help of the Vatican Secret Service (VSS), he had the whole thing planned out to try and pin the blame on some innocent Moslems…and make Islam look violent. Cleaver fellows at the VSS!
Come think of it, why were many of the protestors at Westminster Cathedral in masks? They were probably trying to hide their priestly ‘dog-collars’ in a dastardly plot, once again, to prove that Islam is a violent irrational ideology.
But I doubt if he shed a tear for the nun. He far too ruthless for such sentiment and he doesn’t want Christianity to descend down to being just another ‘Religion of Peace’ when there is a war to fight, crusades to organise and insults to concoct. Besides, there are thousands of nuns (some ready to blow themselves up) wandering the Middle East as part of a human target supply programme run by the VSS in conjunction with Mossad and the CIA.
Curious question about his hair colour? Funny you should ask…
…I have it on high authority that he has no hair and that the wig he wears used to belong to Manuel II Palaiologos. Spooky, Eh!
Don't these people ever get tired of being manipulated? If mussulman theologians had one iota of the intelligence of Pope Benedict, they would have noticed not the quote, but that the whole speech, his entire argument, was a rejection of islamic claims to divinity, a coruscating attack on the islamic view of god.
Of course, they haven't, so more pin-headed 'rage' and 'anger', more stamping around in the hot sun burning flags, effigies, cars, just about anything.
Marvellous answer to Benedict's reasoned argument.
The usual nonsense from our resident troll naseem but the p.s. "does anyone know if he was blond in his younger age" got me thinking what a typical racist piece of pakistani work 'it' is...
News tip:
Carey backs Pope and issues warning on 'violent' Islam
www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2366419,00.html
Countdown to flying sparks, 5... 4... 3...
(But in any case, it is unseemly for Bush and Rice to be hastening to assure the Islamic world that the Pope's apology was sincere. In doing this they are both acting as if he did something that was actually wrong)
Bush needs to stop being a globalist appeaser and start being an American.
Naseem: "p.s. does anyone know if he was blond in his younger age?"
Is there a hint of 'racism' in this trolling question?
Sorry tolerance is not always the answer.
I wonder why the Moslems never reacted in the same irrational way when Pope John II said in a speech in 1981 -" What the Koran teaches people is aggression; what we teach our people is peace. Of course, you always have human nature which distorts whatever message religion is sending.But even though people can be led astray by vices and bad habits, Christianity aspires to peace and love.Islam is a religion that attacks.If you start by teaching aggression to the whole community, you end up pandering to the negative elements in everyone. You know what that leads to : such people will assault us." Perhaps they've just got more sensitive over the years. " Such people will assault us." Papal understatement, I think.
Naseem,
Many of us are trying to show how bad Islam really is. Thanks for helping out.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=20646No doubt, by your logic, George Bush was responsible for that.
What a pity the Pope apologized. Why? When will the world face up to the fact that Islam is not a religion but a death loving cult? This cult brooks no argument, defies logic and answers any questions put to it with death threats and worse.
Can you imagine what the world would be like if every Muslim awoke one day cured of this mental disorder? I would think there would be a lot less mindless violence and mayhem in the world.
See my latest essay about "Saint Leonella" (Sister Leonella Sgorbati, the murdered nun) on my blog:
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/09/saint-leonella.html
(Open it in IE, not Firefox, for the closing visual that sums up the tribute.)
naseem posted: If the pope had not uttered those words...she would be alive today...that much is certain.
You are clearly delusional, that much is certian....
The scary thing is, yesterday morning on FOX and Friends E.D. Hill was essentially making the same argument. My jaw dropped as I was listening to her, hardly believing what I was hearing...
After which her and another reporter on that program began to bring up the crusades and how bad they were....
It gets tiresome listening to such ignorance, its something I would expect on CNN but not FOX, I was wrong... Just when I thought some in the press were starting to "get it", E.D. Hill proved most of the press, conservative and liberal, are ignorant of both history and islam.
Assalamau-Laikum Adobe,
Who is E.D. Hill? She seems like a very sensible widely read person. You peoples are carried away by your emotion...she is practical and unemotive about these things (a bit like me really).
Bravo Mss Hill.
Naseem...
You are suggesting that the Pope is guilty of a crime known as Murder by Omission.
Such means that the Pope had knowledge in advance of the murder and then failed to sound the alarm that such a crime was about to occur.
In my locale, the charge of Murder by Omission has been dropped and replaced by the crime of Murder by Negligence. Mainly because Murder by Negligence is slightly easier to prove.
It still requires the proof that the Pope had prior knowledge that the crime was to occur. Not that it would be reasonably forseeable that violence may result out of his allegedly insulting remarks...rather that specific factual knowledge of the crime was known to him personally prior to the murder,and that he was negligent in failing to stop the crime.
While there is no 'indirection' on his part, there certainly is 'misdirection' on yours. Why, Naseem?
You should know the difference between Right and Wrong. Murder is Wrong. Is that not an absolute value?
While Motive is not an Element of the Crime of Murder, Motive certainly can be -- within certain very tight limits -- an absolute defense to a charge of Murder, i.e. self-defense. Are you offering the idea that the dead, unarmed Nun was an imminent threat to her killers? Of so, please enlighten us as to the 'How'?
Or, are you suggesting another absolute defense, that of 'Judicial Homicide"? Where a person has been tried in a fair trial, found guilty, and sentenced to death by the State. His death certificate reads as to cause of death 'Judicial Homicide'. Did this Nun get Due Process? Did she get Summary Process? Did she get any Process? Did she know the charges against her? Could she point out her accusers in a crowd? What was the charge against her?
An eye for an eye? Who did she murder? Please inform us, Naseem.
Right and Wrong. With a Good Deed, all people will publicly take credit for the Deed. With a Bad Deed, no one will publicly take credit. People know the difference between Right and Wrong. Question Naseem...did the killers stick around after the Nun's murder to publicly take credit for the Deed, or did they run away to hide their shame and guilt in the Shadow of the Sword? Hopingly, never to be found out, to be publicly identified...to be hidden from the face of Man, indeed to hide from the Face of God.
I doubt it was Jesuits that killed her. Should the perpetrators be found to be Muslims, would you, Naseem, say that they are 'Good' Muslims or 'Bad' Muslims?
If, in your opinion, Naseem, they are 'Good' Muslims, then why the misdirection? Would you as a Good Muslim, also wish to take part of the acclaim heaped upon the killers as your own, take part of the credit...?
And if you say they are 'Bad' Muslims, again why the misdirection on your part, Naseem? Was this Nun not a Woman of God? Was she not a member of the People of the Book? Is this misdirection because of shame on your part over the actions of your fellow Muslims in this murder? Good, as a 'Good' Muslim, you SHOULD be ashamed. Shame on you, and Shame on all Muslims, 'Good' or 'Bad'...
[Note: If you are looking for "Naseem"-related posts, please skip to the next one]
Islam has provided millions of "seeds of hope" over the past 1,350 years. We've got so many effin' "seeds of hope" our garden is effin' strangling us out of house and home. We've got "seeds of hope" on our buses, on our airliners, in our pizzerias, in our skyscrapers.
With all due respect, an unarmed women in her 70's shot in the back is not the stuff on which "real relationships" are built.
Nassem,
...Was the Pope blond?
...Who is Mis E. D. Hill?
Are you suffering from attention defict disorder ADD by any chance? Did you stare a lot out of the classroom while at school but just put it down to massive boredom with having to learn the Koran? Do you get distracted by the other boys at the Mosque?
remote,
Great article. I'd say it should be sent to the Vatican.
P.S. I have compiled the jihad verses from the Koran and have posted them in the Islam-Watch Forum under the section "Tools for...", see "Handbook Resources," the "Handbook Resources" thread.
SCV-
I don't like what you have to say. So I'll beat up Robert and then Naseem will blame you when I bash Robert with a baseball bat.
It's absurd. She's a piece of work.
Naseem:
Your words concerning the Pope are offensive.
Why do you wish to put blood on the Pope's hands?
Have you considered that in writing such slimey tripe, you are tacitly excusing the killer of that poor woman Sister Leonella, who was in Somalia helping your correligionists while you sit on your backside writing your rubbish, fearful of Moslems being persecuted here or there?
You do this by shifting the blame to the Pope, to someone whose remarks were not understood, indeed perhaps deliberately misunderstood by large numbers of the Ummah, by the bloodaholics thirsty for still more violence. In shifting the blame, do you realize that you encourage other murders of this sort, that indeed you may now have blood on your own hands, brought to you courtesy of your venomous insinuations typed out on your keyboard?
Admittedly, to try to put blood on the Pope's hands is well-within Moslem tradition. Isn't it prophesized by Moslems that Jesus Himself is to come back to break the cross and lead jiahd against all non-moslems? And this is the same Jesus who warned that to live by the sword is to die by the sword? Or was that part of the New Testament supposedly tampered with?
Bravo, "peaceful" Ahmadi! "Assalamau-Laikum" indeed! We all now know how sincere that greeting is.
Do you wish to stay with your lies and half-truths Naseem? Too bad for you if you do.
I wonder if the Muslim murders of a 70 year old nun shot in back, no less, feel "embarrassed and dirty".
This was a woman who had help educate, feed and care for Muslims for many many years.
After murdering the 70 year old nun by shooting her in the back, the Muslims ran away. Were they afraid a 60 year old nun would show up and dispense of them? Were they Afraid of some retribution dispensed by an all powerful GOD?
Were not these "brave Jihad fighters" carrying automatic rifles? Did they encounter armed resistance? Did they even know this woman? Have they ever encountered this nun or any other nun creating havoc or murdering Muslims?
How much courage does it take to sneak up on a slow moving 70 year woman and shoot her in the back.
Do other Muslims revere these killers as "heroes of the JIHAD"?. Are Muslims belonging to the terror groups in charge of this cesspool of a country see this shooting as an honorable act?
Are any of the Muslims in this cesspool of a country striving to create some form of agriculture reform to feed the people? Economic reform to build industry or create jobs? Engage in inport/export of worthwhile goods? provide security for the poor and indigent? create good relations with the rest of the real world?
Sadly , as I see it, they just want to kill.
I am only surprised they didn't rape the 70 year old nun before shooting her in the back.
But then it's mostly 9 year old little girls and children as young as infants that muslims relish raping and molesting or I believe the term is "thighing".
How sad and sick that muslims have refined child molesting to an art or science such that they have a distinct terminology for something most people can't even think about with out puking.
But, hey, they're just following Mohammad's example. If you are going to follow the example set by a liar, thief, slave keeper, torturer, rapist, murderer and a child molester, well then you are going to wind up lying, stealing, keeping slaves, torturing, murdering, raping and molesting children and you will fail to see anything wrong with it.
Assalamau Laikum Chatillon,
It is not my intention to offend but to ask questions which the polluted mind of the kafur may not ask.
The pope I am sure knows that he has a tremendous responsibility to catholics...many of whom believe everything the "infallable" one says.
It is my belief that the pope knew exactly what he was doing..which meant endangering many of his flock....don't YOU find that offensive?
Have you tried asking the family of the nun what they think about the words of the pope?....Do they find them offensive...do they think that the pope has blood on his hands?
Ofcourse it was wrong of the bloody sub humans to murder one who has served their country all her life...I have already said that Sudan is poorer in spirit because of it...and I condemn her killing completely.
I am not on the side of the sub-humans....but I am questioning the intentions of the pope and his crappy advisors.
Fedup....it's time to wake up now...take that flight to Pak...tell them who you really are!
Pope Benedict moves into the area of his speech that has sparked the controversy with this paragraph:
"I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on-- perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara-- by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was probably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than the responses of the learned Persian."
Pope Benedict then goes on to quote one particular. This is something the Byzantine emperor said to the Persian on the subject of Islam and jihad, or holy war.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."
Now remember ... these were not the words of the Pope. These were the words of some emperor over 600 years ago. The emperor evidently thought that Islam was a violent religion, and that it was the commands of Mohammed that made it so.
So ... how do Muslims react to the Pope's revelation that a Byzantine emperor 600 years ago thought that Islam was a violent religion? Why, with violence, of course? Muslims murder a nun in Somalia. They burn churches in Gaza, and they go on their grand marches and demonstrations reminiscent of the violence they spread after that Danish cartoon mess.
And so what is the inescapable conclusion that we're left with? Islam is a violent religion. Don't take Empereor Paleologus' word for it ... just watch Muslims!
Is it just me, or does it make sense to you that if Muslims didn't want the rest of the world to consider Islam a violent religion, they wouldn't get so violent every time someone say's they're violent? Come on, folks! How hard is all this?
OK ... I have one full day of vacation
The Pope's speech was a wily, "elegant" move as analyzed by an Intelligence Consulting agency. A copy of their report can be read here:
http://thepugilstick.blogspot.com/2006/09/papal-strategies.html
Naseem: Sometimes you have to say the truth no matter how much it hurts. You've proven that you're a moral imbecile.
Remaining silent in the face of all Islamic terror and violence is exactly what they want from us. The Pope should not be silenced.
Pope Pius XII was faced with a similar dilemma when he criticized the Nazi regime during WWII. Every time he opened his mouth the Nazis rounded up priests and nuns and executed them or had them sent to concentration camps. They also murdered more Jews in retaliation. Jewish leaders implored the Pope to remain silent in order to stop the retaliation. He did. Now, 60 years later, he is criticized for being "silent" during the atrocities.
"The triumph of evil requires only that good men do nothing"
Assalamau-Laikum Fedup,
I know you are fedup...but please read theURL from postee "ateling". Thank you "ateling"....shukria!
He pretty much agrees with all I have said....you see great minds think alike..with thoughtful analysis.
Those who are fedup...well the word tripe comes to mind. ha ha ha
Assalmau_Laikum Aethling,
How am I remaining silent? I am analysing the situation...and exposing a side that the Kafur does not go to.
Manuel II was obviously on the verge of defeat from the turks...he tried to drum up support from Europe to fight the muslims...and you didn't give him any.
A person on the verge of losing everything is bound to be biased...it doesn't mean he is completely right.
I don't standby and cheer muslim atrocities...you can read from my previous posts that I do condemn them. But I try to look at other angles too...those which Kafur like Fedup cannot or are unwilling to see.
Naseem:
The Pope is obliged to speak the truth, particularly when it comes to faith and morals. It is not an option but part of his office as the successor to Peter. His obligations may surprise you but remember, dissembling to prevent detection of one's interests is a Moslem technique, not Christian. The Pope is obliged to admonish those who do wrong, even while recognizing his own human shortcomings. He is certainly not to practice taqqiyah.
Moreover, all Christians have a duty to speak the truth to the face of injustice, to hunger and thirst for righteousness. And those with religious vocations know that such witness might result in martyrdom. Sister Leonella is one such martyr. Moslems have quite a different definition for martyrdom and largely do not understand the type of bravery exhibited by Sister Leonella.
As a kafur, Sister Leonella's mind was "polluted" only with her desire to serve those who were overlooked by their own kind, to hold a light in the gathering darkness of Somalia. Hopefully, someplace, somewhere there may even now be a Moslem noting this, seeing a truth and beauty in Sister Leonella's example and preparing to leave the hopelessness of jihad. Certainly there are Christians who are inspired by her example and will speak the truth: Jihad is another empty promise used to snare humanity.
When it comes to it, I'd be happy to have even a fraction of Sister Leonella's faith and fortitude and the courage to speak the truth directly to lies.
Naseem:
I'm not referring to you about remaining silent. I'm referring to the Pope (and other world leaders who have a responsibility to speak up against evil).
I think you've misunderstood the report. It does not confirm what you say, which is that the Pope's advisors were "crappy", indeed, it claims that the entire speech, motives, and outcome were politically and intellectually "elegant".
Tell me, what is a "kaffur"? Is that the same word as "kaffir"? If so, please refrain from using that term to describe others.
Chatillon:
Well put.
Naseem:
Chatillon has posted a very intelligent and concise response to your assertions. I hope you may see that there are marked differences between the Islamic and Christian perspectives, and that perhaps you might explore those of Christianity further.
The ultimate in hypocrisy
muslims protesting violence with violence.....
muslim "leaders" condemn his words without any attempt to refute what he said or the point he was making, very telling...
On another note, a great good is going to come out of this whole situation, and its starting now.
1. Slowly other religious leaders are speaking out in support and more will continue to do so. He got the ball rolling.
2. This entire event brings the question of islam and violent jihad into the mainstream media. Showing it for what it is, even to a greater extent than the whole cartoon flack. It has forced this issue into the general news cycle, raising awareness and giving the public in general another example of the real face of islam.
A side note to this, its been entertaining watching muslim "scholars" in the U.S. media stumble and fall trying to debate Catholic apologists over what the Pope said.
3. It is bringing this issue home to many Catholics around the world who have had their heads in the sand. It's now time to come to grips with reality.
Despite the attempts of many in the media to paint this as the Pope's fault, it's impossible to report this issue in any light favorable to the muslim response....
"It is bringing this issue home to many Catholics around the world who have had their heads in the sand. It's now time to come to grips with reality"
How about the others who have their heads in the sand? Like the liberals who think Christianity is a greater threat? Oh, wait, they have their heads up their a**.
(Re George W and Condoleeza Rice and their apologies for the Pope's apology)
Well, they're both not the most astute people around. Although she excelled academically and all that, she too often comes across as clueless (whatEver!)
As for George W . . .
well, he's George W . . .
. . . what else can you expect?
I'll have to call my bookie and find out what the morning line is in Las Vegas for two proposition bets...
1) What are the odds that the late Sister Leonella will be made a Saint in the Catholic Church by a future Pope?
Answer: Good to Very Good...they will take the bet if they can lay it off some...
2) What are the odds that Naseem will make it into Paradise? (And we are not talking Texas here...)
Answer: Vegas will not take the bet. I was going to bet against the idea but they feel they are already shut out, and they can't find anyone to lay it off on. So I guess that means the odds are zero.
Too bad, Naseem...not a winner. They have a name for people like you in Las Vegas. They're called losers.
"Of course, of course it is - more investigation is needed, it may well have been a drug or gang related killing."
[The killing of the poor nun]
--thomas ato
Yes, thomas ato, it also could be that the shooter was temporarily mentally unbalanced because of some family or relationship problem.
These things are never clear-cut cases where we can say:
"(A) happened so (B) took it upon himself to kill (C)"
(A) [the papal discourse] may not necessarily the underlying reason for (B)'s shooting (C) [a nun] in the back.
Perhaps social pressures made (B) and accessories (D,E&F) commit the act--which is to be regretted, of course.
What a crock! But the usual kind. We have that here in the US all the time:
"Was it a Terrorist Act or was the murderer upset because his underwear was scrunched up, reminding him of a Melvin he received when in grade school?"
oh, regarding the reply to thomas ato:
I forgot to mention that in the last instance, the underwear cutting into the perp's crotch or his privates, that this happened when he was in a Catholic school and the nuns did NOT punish the boys who did this to him.
Therefore, it is understandable that when he spotted a nun . . . you can fill in the rest.
Imagine the outcry if Christians started shooting muslim Imams, Mullahs and Clerics.
Bohemond, we could do the taquiya the muslims do...."oh, no, it had nothing to do with religion...he was having mental problems...his wedding was coming up...or he saw how the muslims were killing our men and women in Iraq....or there was a full moon...or...etc.etc.etc.
Whether it's beheading Indonesian schoolgirls, executing Margaret Hassan in Iraq or this shooting in Sopmalia - I get the impression tht Muslims have no problem about killing women in cold blood. The recent school shooting in Montreal prompted a lot of media commentators to recall the incident in 1989 when Mark Lepine (born Gamil Gharbi) shot 14 women. Needless to say there was no mention by any of them of any Muslim connection regarding the previous incident.