Pope Islamophobe I: Religion must never be used to promote hatred and violence, declares Pope Benedict

Islam IS hatred and violence - until all muslims convert to Christianity there will be NO peace - they cannot get along with anyone including themselves.

"The Holy Father affirmed that the Catholic Church is committed to pursuing peace through dialogue."

...dialogue with Muslims does not work....

“will be spread especially in those areas of the world where tensions prevail, freedoms are denied, and where men and woman suffer the consequences of intolerance and incomprehension.”

...well, one such area would be dar-al-islam. I'm interested to see how this would pan out. I really would like to see missionary work in the Middle East, really, because frankly they could stand with a good dose of religious exposure and tolerance.

“The Catholic Church intends to continue follow the path of dialogue to encourage understanding between different cultures and religious traditions.”

Is a death cult a culture or a religion? I would argue, neither.

Yep! I love it!

Xtianity has been tamed in this the 21st (?) century.

(We all know it's much later than that in calendar time, eh?)

More confusion and contradiction of the Scriptures coming from Rome. The Scriptures provide ample evidence of justified hatred and violence against evil people(s). Hatred and violence in and of themselves are neither good nor bad -- what matters is how and to whom they are applied. The Pope's message effectively condemns entire books in the Bible as constituting nothing more than hate speech, and effectively labels the great prophets of the Bible -- Zechariah, Amos, Ezekiel, Isiah, Jeremiah, et al -- as fascists, racists and warmongers.

Salvation shall not come from the Vatican.

I always thought hatred and violence WERE the primary components of the 'religion' of Islam...

"Jewish, Muslim, Orthodox and Protestant leaders"....from headline.

Jewish / Muslim / Orthodox / Protestant

Which ONE is the bad apple?

What does one typically do with a bad apple?

Exactly.

"...religions must never be exploited to promote hatred and violence.”

Does yelling out "allahu akbar" while sawing someone's head off count? How about those Friday prayers in the mosques, and the Palestinian childrens' shows encouraging and celebrating jihad?

The time for dialogue is long past.

Hello could somebody relay the Pope's message to OBL? Kthxbye.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21422874/

"Some of you have been lax in one duty, which is to unite your ranks," bin Laden purportedly said in the audiotape. "Beware of division.... The Muslim world is waiting for you to gather under one banner."

US Infidel:

One can certainly disagree in good faith, Catholic or non-Catholic, with the Vatican, the Pope or the Catholic Church, about this or anything else, but it is unfortunate
that your post is really about your anti-Catholic views and not about Jihad, other than as a pretext.

Precisely because Christianity (unlike Islam) is, genuinely, a religion of peace, means that Christian leaders such as the Pope not only have to at least attempt peaceful means of resolving conflict with enemies but be definitely seen to be attempting them for a reasonable period of time before committing themselves openly to war. It was, after all, the example of Jesus Christ, passively enduring painful execution and demonstrating an attitude of forgivness and reconciliation throughout, who laid this down as the norm (I hope you and I can at least agree on that). That the immitation of that patient endurance is, for the moment, the proper policy, is even more clear owing to the fact that since at least early 19th century, most of the Christian world of these last two hundred years had not experienced any significant threat from Islam thanks to Western hegemony over the Islamic world. We assumed, wrongly but not without compelling reason, that that problem had been licked.

For the moment this is still the paradigm from which the Pope must operate, but don't worry, this will change when it must. We've seen it before. In 1059, Pope St. Gregory VII wrote to Muslim leaders in tones reminiscent of today's talk of "dialogue" affirming the shared roots of Christianity and Islam and the worship by followers of both of the same One God. Only a few years later (1095) Pope Urban II announced the First Crusade. It is only reasonable and prudent that Benedict first appeal to the Islamic world on the basis of peace and reason. To do otherwise by being as belligerent as your comments suggest you would have him do would probably shake apart the now slowly emerging resistance to Islam's aggression rather than strengthen it. How do you think that would play in today's MSM and with what effect?

As for your mention of the Old Testament, you are reading a great deal into both the Scriptures and Benedict's interpretation of them. Yes, they are the word of God, but also the (all too human) word of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Hezekiah, etc, etc, not too mention numerous scribes, translators and editors, and much passed into them that came through, and reflects, not the Eternal Word, but the particular and personal experiences and limitations of these persons and a particular historical context differing in numerous significant ways from todays. In the end though, the Biblical message IS peace, forgiveness, reconciliation and - yes - dialogue.

In all events, the anti-Islamist cause is not primarily a religious conflict. It is a conflict between one particularly menacing religious movement and everyone else's freedom; liberty, not competing dogmas. What is important is what Benedict and his aides say about that, not your age old Protestant/fundamentalist grudge against Catholicism.

Templar,

Thank you for your very eloquent reply to US Infidel.

I know that Pope John Paul II was a very popular world figure, but Pope Benedict may go down in history as one of the greatest.

And this from a Unitarian Universalist........

I am glad the Holy Father did not dignify the missive from the 138 so-called "scholars" with a response. Scholars who claim to want dialogue but can't even get a basic doctrine like the Holy Trinity straight.

Tiptoeing around the elephant doesn't impress the pachyderm named Islam.

Peacefully calling on Muslims "to return to the true faith" is Benedict's job.

Enough of the tapdancing and pussyfooting with the Mohammedans.

There are nukes in their plans, not encyclicals.

Benedict's heart is clearly in the right place.

Now he needs to get his spine there, too.

Tell them that they are an early heresy.

And need to come back to the Truth.

A loving God, not a Despot.

Put down the sword.

Take up the Light.

it is unfortunate that your post is really about your anti-Catholic views and not about Jihad, other than as a pretext.

In all events, the anti-Islamist cause is not primarily a religious conflict. It is a conflict between one particularly menacing religious movement and everyone else's freedom;

US Infidel:

If I've mischaracterized your earlier comments I regret that. I was simply reflecting on your statement about Rome "confusing and contradicting the scriptures", which did strike me as sounding very much like the traditional language of Protestant polemics against the Catholic Church. I assure you though that I have no intention of being a "Catholic ADL" or anything of the sort. I have no problem with criticism of Catholicism per se, and certainly in regard to Jihadism and Islamic-Christian relations there are many Catholic officials, such as Cardinal Martino and the Netherlands' notorious Tiny Muskens, who richly deserve to be pilloried at this site. I just took your statement as detracting needlessly from what I'd call a significant anti-Jihadist statement from a notable Catholic authority - one who is much smarter than the latter two. However, if your point is that Benedict's statement is not strong enough, that is a criticism that is at least relevant to the issues at Jihadwatch and deserves to be considered here, even if it is one with which I would disagree, so, again, if I missed your point, or read something into it that you didn't intend, I apologize.

In any case, though, my own religious beliefs are really not the issue for me. If the Dalai Lama had said what Benedict has I would have welcomed that statement even though I'm not a Buddhist and, as a Catholic, could - theoretically at least - be critical of Buddhism.

You do have a point though, in noting that for the Islamists this is very much a religious war. My point about the role of religion is simply that all those resisting Jihadist aggression must stick together in defence of constitutional freedom, democracy and human rights, and not be distracted by old rivalries or other unrelated issues.

Well I hope that clears things up. Best regards!

pythagoras wrote:-

I always thought hatred and violence WERE the primary components of the 'religion' of Islam...

Certainly seems that way. If it barks like a dog etc. What always makes me laugh is the way we see islamic violence all over the world but people still think that islam is a peaceful religion. It's time islam realised that it had it's day and must now drag itself kicking and screaming into the modern world. Sadly it is trying to drag the modern world nback to a dark age.

I admire the absolute "guts" of this Pope.
Not much was made of the repeal of the Heresy charges against the Crusaders, the Knights Templar on Oct. 13, 2007.
700 years later the day that gave us the superstition of Friday the thirteenth has been corrected and it barely made the News.
Although I am sure it was important to the Islamics.

Aunt Bea:

I was wondering if I'm the only person who thinks that's significant. I remember leaving a comment here over a year ago, in which I speculated that the Church is beginning the process of rehabilitating the Crusade. Since then I've often thought that notion was an exaggeration. But the vindication of the Templars just at this time in history, by this particular Pope, and viewed against the background of recent events such as Regensberg, if coincidental, is certainly striking. Clearing the name of such an important institution of those times can easily be seen as one very important step the Church might take if it wants to position itself to prompt the Christian world toward a reevaluation of the era of the Crusades, shining a more positive light on them.

There is also various other activity, some well known, some less, suggesting that the Church is definitively changing its relations with the Islamic world, such as the canonization process described in the link below, from a news agency with an uncanny insight into the operation of the Holy See.

http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/161401?&eng=y

Interesting times.

DaveMate:

If you are suggesting that the statements that have come from the Church during Benedict's papacy uphold the view that Islam is a religion of peace, I can assure you that that is not true. On the contrary they are meant to put Islam under the spotlight. To the non-Muslim world (and to sensible Muslims who oppose Jihadist ideology and other forms of Islamic extremism, of which I still would prefer to think that there are some) they make the point that religion is SUPPOSED to be about peace ... that it OUGHT to be about peace... so ... (the question is implicitly raised), what's wrong with this religion called "Islam"?

This is a very important move in that it defines a moral basis for drawing a line in the sand. It is essential that the West clearly understand and define its moral purpose if it is to take on an enemy like this pernicious militant Islam. Besides that, the matter of evaluating the method for dealing with Islam that many posters at JihadWatch would prefer - by way of the sword - is a very delicate one for the Church. It raises troubling questions about the meaning of committment to the non-violence seemingly taught by Jesus Christ. As well, the notion of a war against a religion, or fought with any religious or counter-religious ideation, has traditionally seemed contrary to the basic assumptions of liberal democracy, the sea in which the Church has been swimming for over two hundred years and in which it has had to learn how to swim through so much painful struggle, so the Pope can not simply come out with a proclamation of a new Crusade on a moment's notice (not - in today's context - without risking the loss of all of his public influence). The secular state, the only entity which can legitimately raise an army in this day and age, first has to be gotten on board and made to understand that its assumptions about religion are not always correct. But consider also that this is a movement that could easily backfire against all religion, including the Church. Think of the popularity these days of the ideas of people like Samuel Harris and Richard Dawkins. Benedict and others leading the Christian world walk a very fine and hazardous line here.

Keeping in mind also, that there are, for now at least, numerous obstacles, both moral and political, to military action against Islam, such as the shortage of protagonists in state to state relations (the only Islamist government(s) overtly targeting the West or its allies and interests for now being Iran, and possibly the Palestinian Authority if one counts that as a government) and the slow pace of other measures that need to be implemented in the policies of non-Muslim states such as repression of Islamist and extremist activities, or the cessation of commerce with Islamist regimes such as the termination of Western trade for Middle Eastern oil, there is still some ways to go before direct military action, should it ever have to come to that, can easily be sold to skeptical western publics. Until such measures as alternative energy strategies resulting in a Western boycott of Middle Eastern oil are implemented and their results known (hopefully they'll reduce the Islamic world to the stone aged condition it deserves to be in and defuse its ability to harm us, thus rendering its citizens much more pliable to either jettisoning or transforming - if that’s possible - the Koran and Islam) and/or (God forbid) more governments like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan come under direct Al Qaeda/Taliban rule, or (again God forbid) terrorst attacks become a daily fact of life in the West, it would be extremely difficult to mobilize public opinion to favour military action on a large scale to defeat this menace.

In light of all this, it is crucial at this point that Christian leaders be seen to do everything reasonable to try to facilitate a peaceful solution to Islam's challenge. Naturally, Benedict hopes, as all of us should, that the Islamic world will change its ways for the better, but his words, by putting the onus on Islam to respond favourably, do set the stage for the Church, whether this is Benedict’s intent or not, to give its blessings to tougher action in the future, if Islam does not cease its violent rampage around the world and the miserable oppression it institutes everywhere it takes hold.

The suggestion has been circulated by someone posting on this site that the Christian faithful ought to petition the Pope to draft a major encyclical precisely outlining the relationship between Islam and Christianity, including delineating the errors and deviations of Islam, and inviting the Muslims to abjure the errors of Mohammed and reenter the Christian fold.

I entirely concur and am planning to carry out this excellent suggestion, which I believe is even more important in the aftermath of the letter of the 138. For what it's worth, I would encourage all Christians who post at Jihadwatch who are able to, Catholic and otherwise, to do the same.

I first want to start by thanking templar for his courageous defense of the faith!!!

I want to address some things:

The Scriptures provide ample evidence of justified hatred and violence against evil people(s).

The crucifixion and resurrection is the climax, the source and summit of faith for all Christians. The "justified" hatred and violence you speak of in the Old Testament needs to be read within the context of when it was written. Check out the book "Reading the Old Testament" for further info:

http://www.amazon.com/Reading-Old-Testament-Lawrence-Boadt/dp/0809126311/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0130152-7564904?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1193191546&sr=8-1

Hatred and violence in and of themselves are neither good nor bad -- what matters is how and to whom they are applied.

I cannot imagine any circumstance in which hatred is good. Regarding how and whom they are applied, sounds a lot like relativism... Lots of room for individual interpretation as to the "how" and "whom".

The Pope's message effectively condemns entire books in the Bible as constituting nothing more than hate speech, and effectively labels the great prophets of the Bible -- Zechariah, Amos, Ezekiel, Isiah, Jeremiah, et al -- as fascists, racists and warmongers.

Please check out the book I listed above, it is an excellent resource on Old Testament interpretation.

These comments sound much like that of the Jewish faithful during the time of Our Lord Jesus Christ who rejected him as the messiah because they were waiting for a warrior messiah such as King David to defeat the Romans.

Remember, Jesus Christ willingly allowed himself to suffer the Passion and Crucifixion. Think about that, pray over what that means. Our ultimate example of living a Christian life is Jesus Christ, lesser examples are the Old Testament prophets.

Salvation shall not come from the Vatican.

I would caution you to be careful in considering yourself judge and jury as to the eternal destination of anyone's soul.

What are you, the Catholic version of the ADL?

You got very angry when templar said your post was anti-Catholic. Your posts easily reads that way.

I cannot speak for templar, but I assume they would not of made that accusation if your post was based on a good natured theological disagreement...

Adobe:

I happen to have a copy of that book too. You've provided US Infidel with some very worthwhile information. My thanks go out to you as well.

Cheers!