Pope baptizes prominent Italian Muslim -- will Convert Rage follow?

The right of conversion is a universal human right, which must be rigorously defended.

A religion where you can not safely leave is a cult! Islam is a violent personality cult gone global.

It won't be Magdi Allam's conversion that will infuriate Muslims, it'll be the Pope's willingness to baptize him.

The Pope's actions will, no doubt, be taken as an affront and insult to Islam and its Prophet, It'll be taken as a statement by the Pope that Mohammad was no Prophet, and Islam is not the revealed religion of God.

Watch for Catholics in the Muslim world to suffer because of this.

I'm not a Catholic, but the Pope seems to be the only Western leader with any courage.

"The Union of Islamic Communities in Italy — which Allam has frequently criticized as having links to Hamas — said the baptism was his own decision.

'He is an adult, free to make his personal choice,' the Apcom news agency quoted the group's spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying. [...]"
-- from the article above

My, my.

We are expected to believe that Muslims believe that he, Magdi Allam, or anyone else for that matter who is born into Islam and "is an adult" is therefore "free to makehis personal choice."

This merely means that, for now, given the image problems Islam has been having, official Islamic groups in Italy are going to lie about what is permitted, for fear of alarming and angering the Infidels further. Magdi Allam is frequently on Italian television (the RAI), writes frequently in the most important paper, the Corriere della Sera, and furthermore, was baptised by the Pope himself, which puts the Vatican squarely front and center. If anyone still needed proof that Benedict has got Islam's number, whatever little pretend pieties about Interfaith-Healing may come out of the Vatican, this is surely it.

Muslims in and out of Italy are enraged, and what makes them more enraged is that this apostasy has been so public. For under the swagger and threats and arrogance lies a suspicion that Islam really isn't so wonderful, that Muslim states and peoples haven't done so well, and that maybe, just maybe, it is Islam that helps to explain the permanent backwardness, even paralysis, of many Muslim peoples. That is why Muslims so carefully keep score, noting every Western convert to Islam over the centuries -- then there was this French doctor, and then there was that Englishman Marmaduke Pickthall, and that Italian -- as if proving to the world and to themselves just how fantastic Islam must be. The list is slim, and of course filled mostly with the psychically marginal, of a type or types we all recognize.

But to be confronted with this articulate journalist and writer who was born into and raised within Islam, and even made the hajj with his mother, and who now openly becomes a Catholic -- this is cause for rage and fury that, for the moment, in official circles, has to be tamped down. God, it must have been difficult for Issedin El Zir to pretend that he really believes that Magdi Allam "is free to make his personal choice." Or perhaps what he means is not a statement of approval, but merely a statement of fact: "[Curses, in Italy, protected by the police and the army, Magdi Allam] is free to make his personal choice" [but think what we would do to him if we could].

A very important case, the significance of which is and will be under-appreciated in this country.

Tariq Ramadan, of course, will claim -- as he has tried to before -- that Magdi Allam was never a Muslim, was always a Christian (presumably a Copt). It's nonsense, but it is the only way Muslims will have to deal with his scathing, unanswerable criticism of Islam and of many Muslims, including his special scorn for the meretricious Tariq Ramadan (see the "Lettera Aperta a Tariq Ramadan" appended to Allam's penultimate book) and with his conversion to Christianity, since they cannot deal with either the way they would dearly like to, if they could only get their hands on him. Their only recourse is to pretend he was a Christian "all along" and the "Pope of the Vatican" engineered the whole thing, pretending to convert someone who was already Christian, because the Pope is "an agent of the Zionists." Etcetera etcetera.

Just watch and see if I turn out to be right.

Did the Pope baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or did he pour water over his head and say a cute prayer.

Does anyone know?

I don't believe that Vatican 2 absolutely positively requires a baptism in name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (although the Council of Trent does) - if so - this is not a case of the Pope standing firm against Islam, but is another form of his equivocating on all things distinctly Christian in the name of "tolerance" and "unity".

Just yanking Obama's chain.

Go Bennie!

Yeah, Hippo. I know. I watched it on TV. Rottwieler uttered the requisite words.

Way to go Padre.

Happy Easter.

To Mr. Allam welcome to Christianity.

Couple this with news that Iranians are leaving Islam by the droves and the cracks in Islam are turning into big gaps. Certainly the fascist minded Islamists will resort to force, terror and persecution over this further vilifying the cult for what it is. Benedict is winning this chess game. Every action he seems to take shows the evil face of Islam for all to see.

Heads will be buzzing in Saudi Arabia tonight.

QuantumHippo,

I hope you are merely misinformed, otherwise you might be seen as disseminating disinformation. The Catholic Church zealously maintains both the timeless apostolic formula of baptism and the integrity of its spiritual significance.

This is clearly shown by official Church rejection of heteodox baptimal fomulae as invalid; and also shown by rejecting the spirit and doctrine of Mormon baptisms as likewise invalid, because the Trinitarian formula used by the Mormons is negated by the Latter Day Saints' vastly divergent understanding of Trinitarian terms and concpts

There are no more moving converts and witnesses to Christianity than those who convert from Islam. It's not just the ostracism and persecution they endure, what is so moving is when an individual soul experiences the true God of infinite love as opposed to Islam's vengeful, aloof, irrational strutting pompous ass of an 'Allah'.

FrankisGlass:

I strongly disagree that professions of faith or baptism of Moslems must be done in private. They should be public but without any otentation. Such acts will confront the Moslems with a duty to reflect on attractiveness of the Christian message of hope, love and forgiveness. For the imams, such acts will force them to compare Islam's theology with Christanity's and think why the latter attracts.

Sadly, as Hugh and other point out, it's so much easier to deny conversions from Islam and blame 'hatred', conspiracies and nefarious plots against Islam with ever bothering why the rest of the world is so reticent towards Islam.

xavier

Robert, Hugh, Marisol, And All the Catholic, Protestant, And Eastern Rite Catholics who post here:

A Blessed Happy Easter to all! Christ is RISEN, HE IS RISEN INDEED!

HALLUIAH!

I consider every person's call by God to accept faith in Christ as a "miracle" in itself. I have had attended a Holy Saturday vigil for Easter and a had seen a man get baptized into the Catholic faith. That and when those who have been Catholics for a long time get to renew their own baptism promises. It is great that a former Muslim comes to faith in Christ and is baptized. God Bless him and congrats!

I did not see the baptism, but my mother did see it on EWTN. God Bless Pope Benedict XVI, a man of true faith and courage.

"Did the Pope baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Or did he pour water over his head and say a cute prayer.

Does anyone know?

I don't believe that Vatican 2 absolutely positively requires a baptism in name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (although the Council of Trent does) - if so - this is not a case of the Pope standing firm against Islam, but is another form of his equivocating on all things distinctly Christian in the name of "tolerance" and "unity".

QuantumHippo,

I was raised a Catholic, but am not one now. I had too many problems with its doctrines and practices, which I believe are not exactly biblical.

However, its core beliefs about Christ are biblical. The Trinity, death and resurrection of Christ are the foundations of Catholic theology.

As for equivocating, the Catholic church is the least likely to equivocate on Christian doctrine of all the mainline Christian churchs, excepting evangelicals and Eastern Orthodox.

Misguided doctrines and practices or not, it was, and still is, a pillar of Western civilization.

I just saw this on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission) website, under this headline: 'Pope baptises famous Muslim convert at Easter Mass'. I sat back from my computer screen and recited the Gloria in pure delight.

The Martyrs of Otranto are celebrating in heaven. All the Saints and Martyrs and Confessors of Italy - not least, St Benedict - are celebrating. And perhaps Magdi Allam's long ago unknown and forgotten Christian Copt forefathers and foremothers are singing alleluias as they watch their child leaving the service of the dead warlord Mohammed and joining the company of the living Prince of Peace.

The ABC report included this complete paragraph from the public statement by the Vatican which announced Mr Allam's decision to join the Christians:

"For the Catholic Church, each person who asks to receive baptism after a deep personal search, A FULLY FREE CHOICE AND ADEQUATE PREPARATION, has A RIGHT TO RECEIVE IT."

In other words: Mr Allam has investigated this Faith, he has thought about it for a long time, he has not been threatened or bribed or deceived, he's been free to take his time and back out at any point, and he has the RIGHT to receive what the church offers, if that's what he wants.

Between the lines, this paragraph takes a good walloping swipe at Islam's use of violence both to make people become Muslims and to force them to remain thus.

All I can say is this: may God bless Mr Allam. May he live joyfully in newness of life; may he ever see the divine glory in the face of Jesus/ Yeshua of Nazareth.

This news was the most wonderful thing I could ever have heard, on Easter Day.

"... Church rejection of heterodox baptismal formulae ..."--I meant, for example, "inclusive language" substitution of other words, replacing "Creator" for "Father"; "Redeemer" or "Liberator" for "Son"; "Sanctifier" for "Holy Spirit."

This is what probably has all the ikhwan up in arms back in ye olde ummah:

Giovanni 3:19-21 Il giudizio è questo: la luce è venuta nel mondo e gli uomini hanno preferito le tenebre alla luce, perché le loro opere erano malvagie.
Perché chiunque fa cose malvagie odia la luce e non viene alla luce, affinché le sue opere non siano scoperte; ma chi mette in pratica la verità viene alla luce, affinché le sue opere siano manifestate, perché sono fatte in Dio".

Pascua Felice, Magdi!

"The Union of Islamic Communities in Italy — which Allam has frequently criticized as having links to Hamas — said the baptism was his own decision."
"He is an adult, free to make his personal choice," the Apcom news agency quoted the group's spokesman, Issedin El Zir, as saying. [...]

I'll bet they wouldn't make that statement to the Grand Mufti of Mecca. This was strictly for Infidel consumption.

You would think this news would end the Mo-tune riots. Isn't a celebrity conversion more significant and "insulting" to Islam than a cartoon? How does the Ummah choose when to be outraged?

I meant Mo-toon, not Mo-tune (although a snappy anti-jihad melody would be fine).

And you all can forget about that Saudi church construction license.

Jauhara quotes John's Gospel, 3:19-21

And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God.

Hugh said: "For under the swagger and threats and arrogance lies a suspicion that Islam really isn't so wonderful...".

Thus it usually is with the bully. His behaviour is compensation for deep feelings of inferiority. And how well justified are those feelings in the case of Islam!

I´m not Catholic, but this conversion is like spiritual rain on those parched for signs that freedom is not lost in Europe.

Hugh,

Didn't ancient Zoroastrian Persia become an intolerent State as a result of its conflict with Catholic Rome?

Could the West become a fundamentalist Christian society in its attempt counter the threat in the East?

Big Luke,

If the west comes back home to faith in Christ, consider it not only a miracle but a blessing because it will be made stronger against the attacks of Islam.

What type of Christianty, bigcatgirl?

I've lived in a divided society where neighbours have killed each other because they weren't the "right type" of Christain.

I suspect the dangers of fundamentalism aren't limited to Islam alone (although it is now THE most important one).

The continued separation of Church and State is still vital. I have yet to encounter an argument that will convince me otherwise.

Robert:
You mentioned in another post that his baptismal name is Cristano which is uncommon in Italy. Interestingly, it's a popular name in French (both male and female) and in Spanish and Catalan, the feminine variant is also very popular.
In any case, Magdi is also being quite pointed by the choice of his name.
I look forward to his future reflections of life as a convert from a Moslem upbrining.

xavier

Big Luke, who here wants anything to do with theocracy?

The separation of church and state, to a significant extent, comes from the New Testament, where the main figure says things like, "Give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God´s." Also: "My Kingdom is not of this world." And he tells his followers that he among them who would be great would not lord over the others, but serve them and wash their feet. These examples are hardly auspicious for the long term health of the theocratic concept.

That´s why for fifteen hundred years civilizations based on Christianity have had a struggle, of one sort or another, between the secular realm and the spiritual one: because they have always recognized, though for a long time very vaguely and imperfectly, that there should be two realms. Their messiah said so. But the evolution of consciousness takes centuries and millennia, and understanding a good and brilliant example like that of JC takes time.

The distinction between state and religion is one that only rarely has been made by other civilizations. And it took many centuries for Christian communities to become somewhat clear what the prerogatives of each of the two realms should be. So during a long history both earthly and religious leaders in Christian societies overreached, sought to become dominant over areas of life that did not properly concern them. But the recognition that there should be two realms eventually led to the separation of church and state we see today in the United States. It also led to the religious freedom we see now in Europe, though tragically that freedom may all too soon be lost to a kind of fundamentalism utterly different from the Christian, relatively benign variety: an Islamic kind of fundamentalism that takes as its example a man who not only did not distinguish between Caesar's world and God's world, but himself became Caesar. Muhammad became the ruler of a theocratic state, and that is the prime example that Muslims have to follow.

In Spencer´s most recent book, Religion of Peace, Spencer looks carefully at all the charges that this or that Christian group wants to establish a theocracy in the U.S. Looked at with a cold and objective eye, it turns out there is really extremely little to back up the paranoia some have toward alleged Christian theocrats. It turns out that even the allegedly most theocratic of today´s Christian leaders does not want anything to do with forcing Christianity on anyone, or establishing a state religion. But read Spencer on this yourself, because he goes into details and backs this up brilliantly. In my view, what the paranoia about alleged Christian theocrats reveals is a profound lack of knowledge of the New Testament, which stuck a stake into the heart of humankind´s theocratic history. The thing took a long time to die, but among Christians it´s pretty dead by now.

I've lived in a divided society where neighbours have killed each other because they weren't the "right type" of Christain.
- Big Luke

Let me answer that one for BigCatGirl.

Sure, Christianist are stupid too. That's because being a Chritian doesn't automatically make you a better, or more moral, person than anyone else.

No human being (not even a Christian) is clean in the sight of God (Romans 3:23 …all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). So, we are ALL immoral and tarnished... but God gave his own son to save us from our iniquity - AS A GIFT.

Being Christian is not about being more moral, sinless or better than anyone else... it is about one thing only. Do you accept God's gift or do you reject it?

Every individual has to answer this for themselves... but don't blame Christian's - we're only human like everyoe else.

Thank you for taking the time to reply on behalf of bigcatgirl, Stefcho.

You seem to have misunderstood what I said. I wasn't singling out Christians. I was pointing out a wider danger with religion, as I noted with the example of Zoroastrianism. This is a real threat to the liberties and relative peace we take for granted and may ultimately be a greater threat than Islam.

I suspect both you and the previous poster are from the US? You've been protected from the horrors of sectarian violence that's blighted Europe's history, so far.

"Sure, Christianist are stupid too. That's because being a Chritian doesn't automatically make you a better, or more moral, person than anyone else."

I never implied that it did. However, stupidity has little to do with it. Human nature, the desire to belong and exclusion of "the other" do though. This is a real danger if we encourage religious fervour on a continent that has experienced so much violence in the name of God.

"No human being (not even a Christian) is clean in the sight of God (Romans 3:23 …all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God). So, we are ALL immoral and tarnished... but God gave his own son to save us from our iniquity - AS A GIFT."

You cite scripture as fact, but science has, and will continue to, undermine many of its claims.

"Being Christian is not about being more moral, sinless or better than anyone else... it is about one thing only. Do you accept God's gift or do you reject it?"

If that really is all Christianity is about then I have no hesitation, like Hugh, in rejecting it.

"Every individual has to answer this for themselves... but don't blame Christian's - we're only human like everyoe else."

As I noted above, I'm not specifically blaming Christians, Stephco. It is part of a wider problem with religion in general and human nature in particular. The men who drafted the constitution left god out for a reason.

When we survive the current threat (and I suspect we will) it would be a tragedy if we created a society tainted by the same intolerance and bigotry we thwarted.

Big Luke, All,

Remember that while Christians ARE NOT PERFECT, we are yet FORGIVEN as the saying goes, "not perfect, just forgiven".

A Blessed Happy Easter.

When it comes to the issue of "seperation of church and state", thank Jesus Christ, the Gospels, and the Christian Church for first promoting the idea and practice with the words "render unto Cessar's and render unto God's what is God's".

'When it comes to the issue of "seperation of church and state", thank Jesus Christ, the Gospels, and the Christian Church for first promoting the idea and practice with the words "render unto Cessar's and render unto God's what is God's". '

With respect I'm not sure this is correct.

There was certainly a lot of blood spilled despite the 'render unto Ceaser' quote.

A cursory review of European history indicates that the church will always attempt to gain access to political power. That's one of the reasons the drafters of the US constitution framed it the way they did.

Also:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion." 1797 the treaty of Tripoli, signed by President Washington.

There is more evidence to substatiate this point.

I'm not being anti-Christian, I simply wanted to point out the dangers inherent in religion and human nature that we need to be aware of. The lesson of past human behaviour clearly indicates what can happen if we are not vigilent.

Anyhow, a sincere Happy Easter, Bigcatgirl.

...An Easter gift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4jJNb7qHlo

Ecco numero undici...il libro migliore:

Settantasette ricette perfette. Spiegate per filo e per segno, nessuno può sbagliare
Allan Bay
Brossura | 195 pagine | Feltrinelli | 2006
Spedito normalmente in 1 giorno lavorativo
Prezzo di copertina: Euro 14,00

Ho fame.

Oops, wrong thread. Sorry. I thought I was posting to Hugh's thread where he listed all the Magdi Allam books and where you can buy them....from Europe in Euros. I think I'll wait. But on the topic of Christian fundamentlism. I have no problem with being called a fundamentalist Christian, since we are talking about foundational beliefs. It is only if you live within the confines of the television set that you have to worry about being stoned to death or blown up by Christianist fundamental illnessnoids.

True, but historically this wasn't the case.

The legacy of sectarian hatred is still being played out in Northern Ireland.

It still isn't possible for the monarch to marry a catholic in the UK.

I think in the case of Northern Ireland, it is allegiances. Britain vs. Ireland. As an Irish American, I prefer to be Italian in these matters, since the food is way better. And so is the music. And the language. The men are somewhat better looking too. And the women.

and the cars. Ireland doesn't look like a kick-ass boot, either.

Italian movies are better, too. In spite of Roan Inish.

Pope baptises prominent Italian Muslim.

Great. Let' hope there's a stampede out of Islam by other Muslims now.

Jauhara Al-Kafirah, you might like this, or you might not.

In Heaven,

Italians make the cars.
Germans run the trains.
the British are the police.
the French do the cooking.

In Hell,

the French make the cars.
the Italians run the trains.
the Germans are the police.
and the British do the cooking.

It would be a good idea for everyone to take off their rose-coloured glasses and set aside their euphoria for a moment.

I'm as glad as anyone here to see such a prominent defection from Islam for the sake of the free exercise of conscience, but everyone, including Pope Benedict, ought to be thinking about a larger picture.

As a Catholic, I welcome him to the Church as well, of course, but I strongly disagree with the assumption that the symbolism and propaganda value of Brother Allam's baptism by the Pope outweighs the costs that it may exact in lives of vulnerable Middle Eastern Christians in the orgy of Islamist rage that may follow. The vast majority of converts entering the Church are received by their parish priest, and Mr. Allam's baptism would be just as powerful a sign of the mystery of faith that it manifests if it had been given by such a lesser figure instead; this is its true power - not the fame, prestige or blunt political influence of its minister.

No one needs to see the Supreme Pontiff in order to become a Catholic, and the involvement of the Pope adds nothing necesary to the meaning and effect of the Sacrament. In fact, Benedict's gesture risks legitimizing the use of the Sacraments as a platform for political statements.

Benedict's proper role in this struggle is to continue to defend the freedom of conscience in religion, to denounce the use of violence and religious terror, and most importantly, to make clear statements defining the proper relations between the Church and Islam and the proper theological response to Islam's challenge to the Christian faith. In that role, calm, lucid, reasoned and convincing statements, marked hopefully by a high degree of prophetic insight and theological clarity, have primacy over dramatic gestures.

I think we should all consider this opinion from the Assyrian community and any others like it from Christians - and those sympathetic to them - on the ground in areas where Islam predominates. They're the ones who are going to suffer the violent and viscious backlash of Pope Rage 2 if it comes.

http://www.assyriatimes.com:80/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3312

I'd like to hear from Robert Spencer and others with strong connections to Middle Eastern Christian communities on their response to what Assyriatimes has to say on this before I start cheering and applauding for Benedict over it. I certainly admire the courage of Magdi Allam, and I've often admired Benedict's courage as well, but it's easy to be courageous with someone else's blood and Benedict is, of all the people with a stake in this event, the safest by every measure. His gesture may prove to be not so much courageous as foolhardy and irresponsible.

Big Luke,

Since there has not been any news reported as of late of Northern Ireland, could it be because there has been a peace agreement signed a few years back?

The good news about all this is that the Gospel is going out to all the nations and its people, and truly that is an Easter miracle.

The Pope is simply obeying the command of Jesus at the end of the Gospel of Mathew to go out and preach the Gospel and to baptize all.

Templar wrote: " His ( Pope Benedict XVI ) gesture may prove to be not so much courageous as foolhardy and irresponsible."

Where is your faith Templar? I can't see it very well.

Pope Benedict XVI is an extremely intelligent and faith filled Christian leader who understands full well the potential backlash that could result from a public baptism of a prominent Muslim.

To suggest that Pope Benedict XVI should make baptisms of Muslims a "secret rite" in hopes of not offending upset Muslims in the Middle East is misguided and short-sighted.

Magdi Allam's Roman Catholic faith is dear to him. Despite facing death threats, Mr. Allam is willing to put his life on the line to be baptized in a public setting by Pope Benedict XVI.

Appeasing to Muslims' potential hurt feelings to avoid potential conflict and backlash is not the way to lead the Christian world closer to Jesus Christ, a spiritual savior who made sacrifices for the greater good of the world.

Quoth Pelayo:

"In Heaven,

Italians make the cars.
Germans run the trains.
the British are the police.
the French do the cooking.

In Hell,

the French make the cars.
the Italians run the trains.
the Germans are the police.
and the British do the cooking.

Given the sorry state of the British police in response to complaints of ordinary citizens who report on Muslim crime, (they get threatened with being arrested and charged with race hatred or upsetting "social cohesion") I would nominate another European country for the job.

"Magdi Allam's Roman Catholic faith is dear to him. Despite facing death threats, Mr. Allam is willing to put his life on the line to be baptized in a public setting by Pope Benedict XVI"

Posted by Johnathan

As was the faith of the many early Christian, including martyrs and confessors - many of whom did indeed turn the Sacraments into secret ceremonies and mystery rites for that very reason or to avoid allowing them to be held up to ridicule by uncomprehending and hostile pagans - and as are the very lives of the Assyrian and other ME Christians (whose communities may be completely extinguished in a few years in any case).

Naturally I admire Mr. Allam's willingness to suffer martyrdom for his faith, but he need not rush headlong into it, and word of his conversion would certainly have come out in time in any event, providing plenty of opportunity for it in any case.

Have you bothered to read the editorial from Assyriatimes, Johnathan? I think you should.

I really would have thought that after the murder of nuns, clergy and lay people in the wake of the Regensberg speech, the Pope would have wanted to do everything reasonable and possible to avoid providing any pretext for more of that sort of reaction if he could.

I've been, as you may recall, one of the most determined defenders of Benedict XVI at this site as he is, without a doubt, one of the few leaders of the Western world who understands the Islamist threat and has the courage to stand up to it, but this is simply not, in my humble opinion, one of his better decisions.

If he wants to catch the attention of the Islamists, a better way for him to do it, in line with his role in safeguarding the correct doctrine and proper practice of the Christian faith, would be to take steps to limit Cardinal Tauran's policy of making common cause with the Islamists in statements like the joint declaration signed in Cairo with officials of Al Azhar University covering, among other things, the issue of curtailing "insults against religion". While I don't defend insults against religion, Christians undoubtedly would have a different perspective on this - and a different set of responses - than Muslims would, and the Pope needs to detail these, explain and clarify the moral considerations underlying the whole issue, and define the limits to Christian cooperation with Islam on this.

Since I have posted that document on two other threads relating to Mr. Allam's conversion, I suppose I might as well provide it here as well.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/interelg/documents/rc_pc_interelg_doc_20080226_cairo-declaration_en.html

This would provide enough of an affront to the Muslims, without using the Sacraments - of all things - to do this, something that should never happen! And I'm surprized that a Pope who has done as much to restore and renew the Liturgy as Benedict has done in any number of his initiatives would do that, or again, for that matter, put at such grave risk the lives of some of the most vulnerable Christians in the world.

@Bigcatgirl,

"Big Luke,

Since there has not been any news reported as of late of Northern Ireland, could it be because there has been a peace agreement signed a few years back?"

The walls between communities have not come down (literally) rather they have been built up and reinforced.

Both sides have conceded they can't win so an uneasy compromise has been reached.

There are still "punishment beatings", eg thieves, joyriders, people who get it together with someone from the opposite side of the divide.

I have family there, and the poison of religion and the intolerence of the clergy - catholic and protestant - is very much at the heart of this.

The Zoroastrians in the mid-7th c. Had been at constant war with the Romans for several hundred years. Constantine moved the Roman capital from Rome to Constantinople in order to be closer to the threat. Their capture of the emperor Valerian was a serious insult to Roman pride.
Kings Sapor and Chosroes of the Persians martyred the Christians of their empire. The Martyrology is replete with their names.
The Persians conquered the Holy Land in the 600's and destroyed all the Constantinian basilicas in Jerusalem and the surrounding area, saving only the basilica of the Nativity at Bethlehem, reportedly because of the mosaics of the Magi on the walls who were in Persian dress. This was in 614
In conquering Jerusalem, the also captured the relics of the True Cross and carried them off as booty. It was the Roman emperor Heraclius who defeated the Sassanid Persians and returned the relics of the True Cross to Jerusalem.
The previous centuries of war between Rome and Persia left them so weak that when the Mohammadans came on the scene they easily conquered the Persians and then the Romans, thus bringing Persia/Iran and the Holy Land under their rule. When the Muslim Arabs attacked Syria and Palestine 634, Heraclius was unable to oppose them personally, and his generals failed him. The Battle of Yarmuk in 636 resulted in a crushing defeat for the larger Roman army and within three years, Syria and Palestine were lost again. By the time of Heraclius' death, most of Egypt had fallen as well.
Did the Persians persecute Christians? Yes. But I'm sure a captured Persian after a battle didn't have much fun either. The Romans did not kill people to become Christians. However, the Persians did martyr many Christains before they were overcome, first by Heraclius, then by our friends from the desert.
One thing that it's always important to remember is that the ancients, and most folks,even up into early modern times had no idea that you could not have a country in which everybody worshipped the same gods. And even the Romans, who accomodated all religions in their empire, still demanded that those of whatever other religion in the empire still had to worship the gods of the state. The only ones exempt were the Jews, and the Christians, until they were expelled from the synagogues and were no longer perceived as Jews.

Hi Subimonk,

"However, the Persians did martyr many Christains"

Sadly the Romans also "persecuted" Zoroastrians.

When a Christian clergyman gained power within the Persian Empire he set about an orgy of destruction similar to what the Persians did in Jerusalem.

"One thing that it's always important to remember is that the ancients, and most folks,even up into early modern times had no idea that you could not have a country in which everybody worshipped the same gods."

If you read up on Persian history they were initially far more tolerant of "other" religions than the Romans/Byzantines.

No one seems to have appreciated what I was attempting to say in my first post. The rise of intolerance, which I noted in my first post, was due to the oppression from the Romans in the East.

Hi Subimonk,

"However, the Persians did martyr many Christains"

Sadly, the Romans also "persecuted" Zoroastrians.

When a Christian clergyman gained power within the Persian Empire he set about an orgy of destruction similar to what the Persians did in Jerusalem.

"One thing that it's always important to remember is that the ancients, and most folks,even up into early modern times had no idea that you could not have a country in which everybody worshipped the same gods."

If you read up on Persian history they were initially far more tolerant of "other" religions than the Romans/Byzantines.

No one seems to have appreciated what I was attempting to say in my first post. The rise of intolerance, which I noted in my first post, was due to the oppression of non-christians by the Romans.

Correction:

The rise of intolerance, which I noted in my first post, was due to the oppression non-Christians by the Romans.