| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
The good folks at FrontPage gave this one the title "Pope Benedict XVI: Enemy of Jihad." I think that might be a trifle strong. Then again, I hope it isn't.
In choosing Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to succeed Pope John Paul II as Pope Benedict XVI, the Catholic Church has cast a vote for the survival of Europe and the West. “Europe will be Islamic by the end of the century,” historian Bernard Lewis predicted not long ago; however, judging from the writings of the new Pope, he is not likely to be sanguine about this transition. For one thing, the new Pope seems to be aware of the grave danger Europeans face: he has called upon Europe to recover its Christian roots “if it truly wants to survive.”For while his predecessor kissed the Qur’an and pursued a consistent line of conciliation toward the Islamic world, despite numerous provocations and attacks against Catholics in Muslim countries, the new Pope Benedict XVI, while no less charitable, has been a bit more forthcoming about the reality of how Islam challenges the Catholic Church, Christianity, and even the post-Christian West. He has spoken up for the rights of converts from Islam to Christianity, who live under a death sentence in Islamic countries and increasingly live in fear even in the West. He has even spoken approvingly of Christians proselytizing Muslims — a practice that enrages Muslims and is against the law in many Islamic countries.
The new Pope has criticized Europe’s reluctance to acknowledge its Christian roots for fear of offending Islam’s rapidly growing and increasingly influential presence in European countries — a presence which, as historian Bat Ye’or demonstrates in her book Eurabia, has been actively encouraged and facilitated by European leaders for over three decades. “What offends Islam,” said Cardinal Ratzinger, “is the lack of reference to God, the arrogance of reason, which provokes fundamentalism.” He has criticized multiculturalism, “which is so constantly and passionately encouraged and supported,” because it “sometimes amounts to an abandonment and disavowal of what is our own.”
He contrasts the modern-day resurgence of Islam with the enervation of Europe. In old Europe, he has said, “we are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one’s own ego and one's own desires.” Islam, on the other hand, is anything but relativistic: “The rebirth of Islam is due in part to the new material richness acquired by Muslim countries, but mainly to the knowledge that it is able to offer a valid spiritual foundation for the life of its people, a foundation that seems to have escaped from the hands of old Europe.”
In line with his call to Europeans to recover their own spiritual heritage, the new Pope opposes Turkey’s proposed entrance into the European Union: “Turkey,” he has declared, “has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe.” But his objection is not simply geographical — in fact, he opposes the geographical oversimplifications that underlie Turkey’s EU bid: “Europe,” he has explained, “was founded not on a geography, but on a common faith. We have to redefine what Europe is, and we cannot stop at positivism.” A Europe newly defined as in some sense a Christian entity may outrage secularists, but a secular and relativist Europe has so far proved powerless against the Islamization of Europe — despite the fact that that Islamization threatens cherished Western notions of the equality of rights and dignity of all people.
Europe, the new Pope has written, “appears to be at the start of its decline and fall.” It may be too late, as Bat Ye’or believes, to arrest that decline and fall. However, the first thing a physician does when he treats a disease is identify the problem. No healing can proceed from a misdiagnosis. It is heartening to see that Pope Benedict XVI has already, in various speeches and writings before his accession to the papacy, dared to speak more clearly about the threat that Islam poses to Western civilization than his predecessor — for all his many and remarkable gifts — ever quite managed to do.
Late in 2003 the semi-official Jesuit magazine La Civiltà Cattolica departed from John Paul II’s policy toward Islam and published a scathing criticism of the mistreatment that Christians suffer in Islamic societies. It represented the first indication that any Catholic officials recognized the dimensions of the religious conflict that jihadists are waging against Christians and others around the world. La Civiltà Cattolica pointed out that “for almost a thousand years Europe was under constant threat from Islam, which twice put its survival in serious danger.” Now, through jihad terrorism and demographics Islam is threatening Europe’s survival yet again — and it looks as if now there is a Pope who has noticed. Maybe in Europe the resistance is just beginning.
Posted by Robert at April 20, 2005 7:26 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Let's hope he keeps up the Heat.
Morning all!
Today’s Extras:
The Leftist Academia’s islam propaganda machine. It's the perfect Anti-Science: Mention only the facts that back you up, ignore contradictory data, vilify anyone that questions you, stamp out calls for reform, repeat the lies again and again, and eventually you will win. ~ kj
Muslim Mythology celebrated on Campus:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17775
Channeling Churchill:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17768
Divesting from Terror (One university gets it right!)
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/ramosmrosovsky200504190750.asp
From San Francisco U:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17763
Leftist Incoherence at Monmouth:
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17784
We are Raising History Illiterates:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/imprimis/
Is it any wonder I keep pushing for people to study history?
Posted by: Gary![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 20, 2005 7:35 AM
I am disappointed with the choice of the pope...but Christians say that he (no sign of "she" at the moment) is chosen through divine intervention ...so be it, the white smoke has risen, therefore the cardinals and "God" have spoken & chosen.
The Pope is conservative in his outlook. Instead of attcking Islam (which does have it's smaller problems) he needs to look more at far greater current weaknesses of the christian faith.
I have no doubt that a person is "stonger" all round if he/she follows spiritual guidance... whatever the religion.
But Church attendences have been falling year on year, with some christian folk going to church only at weddings, funerals and possibly christmas.
Schools no longer have any type of prayers, religious studies is not part of the core cirricilium in schools and general spiritual & levels of faith are down. So much so that when last in England I read on a church billboard
"Jesus saves" and someone had sprayed below
"but Beckham scores from the rebound".
Would you get that on other faith billboards...I reckon not.....the Pope needs to concentrate to strengthen these ties....christians back to God....and not really concentrate on faiths that he has little control over.
Let's hope he is successful, christianity could do with a lift, a strong & stable christian faith is good for all ....even Islam.
Posted by: Naseem at April 20, 2005 8:39 AM
This is a Test:
Contrast and Compare: (20 points)
A woman claims she is a Catholic Priest and leads Sunday services. A week later, the Pope holds a press conference and says: "Women cannot be priests. She is not, and has not ever been, a priest in the Roman Catholic Church." The woman lay-priest holds a press conference to call for women's rights in the Catholic Church. The New York Times runs the woman's call for priestly equality on the front page, vilifying the Roman Catholic Church.
A woman leads the Friday afternoon prayers at a Muslim mosque. Before the end of Friday prayers, an angry Muslim crowd has gathered outside the mosque. Angry Muslims picket the mosque calling her names and the picket signs read "Evil Woman!", "Allah will see you burn in hell!", "Whore!". Before the next dawn she receives death threats from Muslims at home and abroad. The New York Times ignores the story.
at April 20, 2005 8:55 AM
BillR
Catholics can even talk about it without shooting at each other.
Posted by: Beagle at April 20, 2005 8:58 AM
"For one thing, the new Pope seems to be aware of the grave danger Europeans face: he has called upon Europe to recover its Christian roots “if it truly wants to survive.”
Science indicates that the religious impulse is a primal part of the human condition (for many)so isn't it better for people to believe in Christianity, Buddhism etc than have a void that is later filled by a intolerant alternative religion? The Pope is saying that too many people think that western religion has no value. Yet (in its most prevalent and modern form) it has resulted in and protects a secular society...what is more valuable than that? The chicken (secular democracy) and the egg (western religion) it came from should be equally valued. Otherwise both will end up in the fox’s chicken salad.
at April 20, 2005 9:05 AM
A hopeful article on the new Pope - thanks.
As a secularist, it may surprise some that I believe the Pope can play a large role in the fight against our Islamist enemy. However, I think he can be most powerful by being subtle – by focusing on the plight of Christians living under Islamic rule. This is a human story – about individual conscience and courage – that should resonate with everyone. And, of course, it will expose the nature of Islam just as a similar focus exposed the horrors of communism. I wrote more on my blog, today: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Posted by: JasonP at April 20, 2005 9:23 AM
Candidly, I am hopeful but concerned. As many of you know I am an anti-Jihad advocate, but I also don't believe that terrorism ends with Jihad. We have seen increasing anarchist and Nazi terrorism, and yesterday was the 10 year anniversary of the Nazi terrorist attack on the United States at Oklahoma City.
It is troubling that an individual was chosen as Pope who had any Nazi background. I realize that is terribly unfair to the German people. But the German people did bring that burden upon themselves.
Pope Benedict may indeed be a very good man.
But I think Nazis get a sense of tolerance from this. As Nazis continue to expand their efforts in trying to connect with Jihadists, I don't think that having a former Nazi in such a position of power does help the immediate fight against Jihad. Jihadists may (incorrectly) believe that Nazis have more acceptance and influence.
We can only hope that Pope Benedict will be a strong supporter of his faith and that is the best that he can do for everyone.
However, in my opinion, to select a new person as pope with a history as a former Nazi, on the very anniversary of the Nazi terror attack on USA in Oklahoma City was tactless.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 9:41 AM
Dear Jeffrey Imm:
I have great respect for you and your links are an invaluable help to me at Jihad Watch, but I must say that your comment here is outrageously unfair.
Pope Benedict XVI was never a Nazi. He was forced to become a member of the Hitler Youth, as were all German boys at that time. That doesn't make him a Nazi unless you believe that all Germans were Nazis. Certainly many, indeed most, Germans supported Hitler. However, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote years ago of how his Catholic faith helped him see through Nazism on matters including anti-Semitism. He never joined the Nazi party.
In his long career he has written a great deal that shows that there is nothing Nazi or anti-Semitic about him. To take just one of many possible examples, in 2002 he wrote: "The example of Paul in Rm 9-11 shows that...an attitude of respect, esteem and love for the Jewish people is the only truly Christian attitude in a situation which is mysteriously part of the beneficent and positive plan of God."
Hardly the words of a Nazi, wouldn't you say?
Cordially
Robert Spencer
at April 20, 2005 9:51 AM
BillR:
One little thing about your analogy. The Muslima prevailed over services that had to be held in a church, not a mosque.
Posted by: waterdragon52 at April 20, 2005 10:09 AM
Is it too much to hope that he'll reply in the following fashion when asked to apologize for the crusades? By the way, this is the best example of of historic anti-dhimmitude I've ever seen;)
Sultan Mahmud IV to the Zaporogian Cossacks:
As the Sultan; son of Muhammad; brother of the sun and moon; grandson and viceroy of God; ruler of the kingdoms of Macedonia, Babylon, Jerusalem, Upper and Lower Egypt; emperor of emperors; sovereign of sovereigns; extraordinary knight, never defeated; steadfast guardian of the tomb of Jesus Christ; trustee chosen by God himself; the hope and comfort of Muslims; confounder and great defender of Christians -- I command you, the Zaporogian Cossacks, to submit to me voluntarily and without any resistance, and to desist from troubling me with your attacks.
--Turkish Sultan Mehmet IV (1648-87)
(Ya know, the one that got a good whoopin' outside Vienna by the Polish king Jan Sobieski)
The Cossacks of the Dnieper to the Sultan of Turkey:
You Turkish Satan, brother and companion to the accursed Devil, and companion to Lucifer himself, Greetings!
What the hell kind of noble knight are you? The Devil sh*ts and devours your army. Never will you be fit to have the sons of Christ under you: your army we fear not, and by land and on sea we will fight you.
You scullion of Babylon, you wheelwright of Macedonia, you beer-brewer of Jerusalem, you goat-flayer of Alexandria, you swineherd of Egypt, both the Greater and the Lesser, you sow of Armenia, you goat of Tartary, you hangman of Kamenetz, you evildoer of Podoliansk, grandson of the Devil himself, you great silly oaf of all the world and of the netherworld and, before our God, a blockhead, a swine's snout, a mare's c**t, a butcher's cur, an unbaptized brow, May the Devil take you! That is what the Cossacks have to say to you, you basest-born of runts! You are unfit to lord it over true Christians!
The date we write not for no calendar have we got; the moon is in the sky, the year is in a book, and the day is the same with us here as with you over there, and you can kiss us you know where!
--Cossack Head Ataman Ivan Sirko and all the Zaporogian Army.
at April 20, 2005 10:11 AM
Robert -
I also respect your comments as well.
However, I think on principle any individual - wittingly or not - who was at any time a member of the Hitler Youth or fighting in support of the Nazi party should have such a position.
My comments were not and are not about the Pope's career or his actions as a Catholic or his role as a priest.
I don't think that the current Pope is a Nazi today, I have read that he was not "enthusiastic" in his role in the Hitler Youth. No doubt such involvement was mandatory to Germans at that time. Is it unfair to criticize Germans for their history? I blame the Germans for this, not the rest of the world.
In any other non-leadership role, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
But my point is that - on principle only - we should not have people who were a member of any Nazi organization in such leadership positions. I don't agree that deviating from such a principle really helps the fight against Jihad.
The tolerance we show now for individuals who were part of groups that supported Hitler and/or Nazism, may become tolerance 30-40 years from now for people who supported Jihad and/or Osama Bin Laden.
We set the bar very high on these issues. By showing such tolerance, we increase the likelihood that there will be those who misinterpret forgiveness for acceptance. That is the danger we see with both Jihad and Nazism.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 10:19 AM
Jeffrey Imm and Robert:
I haven't yet read a complete biography on Pope Benedict XVI but as Robert stated, all German boys were inducted into the Hitler Youth automatically. From the brief bios I read yesterday, he was later assigned to an anti-aircraft battery (apparently common for boys too young to fight in the army). When he was later forced into the army, he apparently deserted early on. While the information I read yesterday was sketchy, this isn't the sign of a Nazi.
Posted by: johnb at April 20, 2005 10:21 AM
Typo in my last posting:
However, I think on principle any individual - wittingly or not - who was at any time a member of the Hitler Youth or fighting in support of the Nazi party should NOT have such a position.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 10:21 AM
I have to agree with Robert here, and not only because he lets me live in his poolhouse.
The past of this cleric as an automatic inductee into the Hitler Youth is meaningless, really. I'm given to understand that NOT being inducted would have been more remarkable in the period that actually being so drafted. In the same way that Kerry's being drafted into the Army during the Vietnam War (and, Gary, before you get started, I'm not comparing anyone in the Vietnam War to the Nazis, nor Kerry to the pope, as he is clearly a politician, and thus, like all politicians, scum, but merely using this as the only reflective comparison that strikes me ATM) does not reflect his support for that war, so neither does Ratzsinger's draft into the Hitlerjugend mean anything in the way of rational choice either (again; RANDOM comparison, not reflective of higher-order correlation, so don't plaster me with posts). He is not a Nazi, and never really was. If we want to get technical, frankly virtually every single male member of German society, government and even the Army core (officers and men) was part of the Hitler youth at one time. Should they also be discounted from holding office? Even as part of a benevolent association? This seems a bit sweeping to me. What, if anything did Ratzsinger do during the war anyway? Run around through obstacle courses in his khaki shorts and tie? Hell, so did Brandenburg.
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 20, 2005 10:28 AM
Hey Frederick,
are there any Cossack regiments still operational? If so, I don't think we'll have to worry about an Islamic takeover anytime soon west of the Urals...
Go Ivan and the Zaparogian Cossacks!
Posted by: FulmenSeptentrionalis at April 20, 2005 10:31 AM
Mr. Spencer-
From what I can find from Ratzinger's own book "Milestones- memoirs 1927-1977", at 16 the former cardinal served for about 2 years in the German Army, after conscription, first into an anti-aircraft battery in 1943, and then the 'Landsturm' a year later (the young people's 'fatherland defense corps'), so he has something serious to atone for through his papacy.
That he 'deserted" the army in 1945... when this act was as common as ants fleeing a burning log... doesn't clean up his early image much.
Whether he officially 'joined' the National Socialist Party will come out (it seems unlikely, since he was only 17-18 years old at the end of the war), but, by accepting conscription into a totalitarian, anti-semitic death machine, he demonstrated an early existential cowardice in the face of evil. An monstrous regime that others in Germany openly opposed- although admittedly most of them died for their valor, like the courageous German brother and sister "White Rose" anti-Nazi resistence movement.
I can understand that a young man like Ratzinger did not want to be hung from a lampost -as an example to the other young men in the neighborhood who might have had thoughts about trying to elude service- but he should now exhibit some profound humility, from his own experience, about human weakness in the face of despotic inhuman terror.
And let's hope he rises in opposition to its current incarnation -in radical jihadist Islam- better than he did against the Hitlerian version.
Hope springs eternal.
But keep your ammo dry.
at April 20, 2005 10:35 AM
John - I agree with your comment.
But that really isn't my point.
I don't think Geoff is getting my point either.
I am not debating when or how the Pope left the German army under Hitler. Again I am certain many Germans were forced to support Hitler.
(Although I might also add many Germans did NOT.)
And really my point is terribly unfair to a generation of German people.
And frankly I think that is tough.
But I don't think it is appropriate to have anyone in an international leadership position who has any history whatsoever with any Nazi organization.
Today is Hitler's birthday. There are untold Nazis in this country right now celebrating this sick "holiday". Some Nazis will be praying with a cross next to Swastika flag. Today. Yesterday, Nazis celebrated their attack on the US 10 years at Oklahoma City.
I am not critizing Pope Benedict. I am criticizing the process and the lack of concern about the perception in tolerance of anyone with any type of Hitler or Nazi involvement as leaders of any international organization.
at April 20, 2005 10:36 AM
"If we want to get technical, frankly virtually every single male member of German society, government and even the Army core (officers and men) was part of the Hitler youth at one time. Should they also be discounted from holding office? Even as part of a benevolent association?"
Yes.
Wouldn't we expect the same of anyone involved with any type of Jihadist organization?
You know we would; hey - we do now!
Is it sweeping and unfair? Maybe.
Whose fault is that? Ours? I think not.
at April 20, 2005 10:40 AM
Worth reading: Michael Novak on Pope Benedict XVI in today's New York Times' Op Ed: http://tinylink.com/?e1dc9B3e9L
Posted by: JasonP at April 20, 2005 10:40 AM
(Ya know, the one that got a good whoopin' outside Vienna by the Polish king Jan Sobieski)
On 9/11 1453.....Coincidence?...or ageless grudge?
Posted by: Infidel One at April 20, 2005 10:59 AM
Jeffrey:
Re: "But I don't think it is appropriate to have anyone in an international leadership position who has any history whatsoever with any Nazi organization."
Valid point but should it apply to someone who was "coming of age" in this environment? What choices did he have - it's not like an opportunist who joined in the late 1930's. Unfortunately your position would disqualify pretty much any male in his age group. I would be concerned if there had been even a whiff of anti-semitism in his record but from postings I have seen today, Jews apparently pleased with his appointment (hardly a scientific poll though). I'm not a Catholic and aren't qualified to judge his worthiness. I just hope that he recognizes the challenges ahead, one of the most important being Islamic agression.
Posted by: johnb at April 20, 2005 11:55 AM
In a speech in March 2002, the then Cardinal Ratzinger "praised Islam for upholding the values of monogamous marriage and the dignity of women which undoubtedly demonstrates a cultural superiority"
This is from an article entitled
'Ratzinger denies Christianity is superior to Islam', on this link:
http://www.cathnews.com/news/203/19.php
Posted by: Silvester
at April 20, 2005 12:07 PM
I think that the new Popes ancient history of Nazi ties, forced or not, is irrevelent unless he carrys those ideologies with him and will enforce them in his papacy. This is basically guilt by association, and in this case no one knows just how deep his association was.
To insinuate that the very touch of Nazism contaminates one forever is a little extreem. We are supposed to recognise evil when we see it and withdraw from it, or grow out of it. When someone does that we should admire them and congratulate them, not continue to castigate them for yesteryear. Unless of course we can prove criminality. We can watch the new Popes actions and if any of them appear Nazilike, then there may be some reason to complain...
at April 20, 2005 12:08 PM
Hey ya'll
I'm Jewish and on the face of it Ratzinger seems a good choice. I've only skimmed his ties to the Nazi regime and it appears he only did what others did to survive.
I'm big on Israel and my Jewish people, this guy seems OK and better than many other choices. I was worried about a 3rd world Pope sending the Catholic church into a death spiral some as Kofi Annan has done the UN
Posted by: dennisw at April 20, 2005 12:23 PM
Frederick///
jeffrey, jihadist aren't forced to fight for Islam. It's their choice.
Untrue. Jihad is commanded by the Koran and is the unstated 6th pillar of Islam
Posted by: dennisw at April 20, 2005 12:26 PM
Israel Praises Pope Despite Past Nazi Ties:
Apr 20, 9:38 AM (ET)
By PETER ENAV
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli politicians and rabbis on Wednesday praised new Pope Benedict XVI for his strong condemnations of anti-Semitism despite the pontiff's ties to the Nazi Party as a youth.
Benedict's appointment received mixed reactions from Arabs in the Holy Land. Muslim leaders urged him to take a more active role in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, while Greek Orthodox officials voiced hope he help unify various Christian denominations.
As a German, Benedict sets off alarm bells for many Israelis, whose memories of the Nazi murder of 6 million Jews remain painfully vivid. Many wondered whether he would embrace Jews as warmly as his predecessor.
"There are good relations with him," Oded Ben-Hor, Israel's ambassador to the Vatican, told Army Radio. "Israel can certainly coexist with him. But the real test will come over the course of time."
Israelis widely admired the late Pope John Paul II for his unstinting efforts to promote Jewish-Catholic reconciliation. John Paul won many Israeli hearts during a trip to the Holy Land in 2000 by apologizing for Roman Catholic wrongdoing over the centuries. He also was praised for promoting interfaith dialogue, establishing diplomatic relations with Israel and aiding Polish Jews during the Nazi era.
As a young man, the new pope served in the Hitler Youth - compulsory for young Germans at the time - and during World War II was drafted into a German anti-aircraft unit, although he says he never fired a shot. Though Benedict has been a leading voice in the church in battling anti-Semitism and fostering Jewish-Catholic relations, his past raised suspicions in the Jewish state.
"White smoke, black past," said the headline in the mass circulation Yediot Ahronot. "From the Nazi youth movement to the Vatican."
Nonetheless, Jewish leaders said they were encouraged by the special interest by the new pope, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in coexistence.
"Though as a teenager he was a member of the Hitler Youth, all his life Cardinal Ratzinger has atoned for the fact," said Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish group that battles anti-Semitism. Foxman himself was saved during the Holocaust by his Polish nanny, who had him baptized and raised him as a Catholic, until his Jewish parents reclaimed him at the end of the war.
Moshe Zimmerman, a professor of German history at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, played down the importance of the new pope's membership in the Hitler Youth.
"He was 18 years old when the war ended, so everything that he had to do with the Nazi regime was as a very young man," he said. "I don't believe that there is any room for doubt that (the pope) of today is very different than the days he belonged in the Hitler Youth."
In his book, "God and the World," published in 2000, Ratzinger tried to combine his belief in Christianity's ecumenical message with his views on the special role of Judaism.
"That the Jews are connected with God in a special way and that God does not want that bond to fail is entirely obvious," he wrote. "We wait for the instant in which Israel will say 'yes' to Christ, but we know that it has a special mission in history now ... which is significant for the world."
Tel Aviv Chief Rabbi Israeli Meir Lau - a Holocaust survivor and a former chief rabbi for Israeli Jews of European backgrounds - said his many meetings with Benedict while he was a cardinal have convinced him of his good record on matters of concern to Israelis.
"(The last meeting) was last year, in New York, in the Museum of Jewish Heritage of all places," Lau told Israel Army Radio. "There was a meeting of two or three rabbis with some 20 cardinals .... His entire speech was given over to a condemnation of anti-Semitism, in the strongest and most unambiguous terms."
Writer Zvi Gil, also a Holocaust survivor, said he expects Benedict to continue John Paul's favorable attitude toward Jews, precisely because of his German past.
"His attitude to Jews in Israel will to a very significant extent be influenced by that of his predecessor John Paul II, whose steps are well known to us," Gil told Army Radio. "And as a German I don't think he will want to move backward from these steps toward Israeli Jews."
Commentators say the new pope's theology mirrors that of many Jewish religious leaders, and should not be seen as a sign of prejudice.
"He's much more traditional, and his positions are a lot tougher than Jewish law," said Lau. "And Jewish law is my law."
A top Muslim leader, meanwhile, urged Benedict to follow John Paul's efforts to promote interfaith relations and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"We hope that the new pope will give the church more roles in trying to solve the problems that the world is facing," said Adnan Husseini, director of the Waqf, or Islamic Trust. "We hope that he will continue the policy of John Paul II, who opposed the wall around the Palestinian territories and called for peace between the two peoples."
Bishop Theophilos, the top Greek Orthodox official at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, called on Benedict to repair relations among Christian denominations, though he said he was skeptical.
"I hope that he can help promote unity of the Christian churches, especially between the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin," he said.
"The real obstacle to the unity of the church is the office of the pope," he added. "If ever the pope had the courage or the will to say he is the bishop of Rome, not the vicar of Christ, then the road to unity is opened. As long as the office of the pope remains untouchable, the Christian Church remains divided."
Posted by: Cross at April 20, 2005 12:27 PM
It would be a great boost to all of us, from atheist to zionist, for the Pope to declare his readiness to see Islam for what it is, and to act accordingly; I believe I heard this morning on a Fox news report that he had spoken of reaching out to all religions, which would presumably include Islam, so I will have to take a "wait and see" attitude towards him with my fingers crossed.
Naseem, dear, religion is not the sole purveyor of spirituality.
Spirituality is an attitude which is derived from one's moral code, then translated into action. A moral code is a set of values chosen to guide one's thoughts and behaviors.
All moral codes are derived from one's philosophy. The philosophy may or may not be incorporated into a religion; since most people are religious, their spirituality--their attitudes and actions--are, naturally, colored by their religions.
For example, one can easily see how the values chosen by Islam to guide its followers' thoughts and behavior color their spirituality.
Naseem, I do believe you, personally, deviate from the "standard of the good" as found in the Koran. You genuinely seem to want a gentler, happier, more productive world than the one Mohammad did.
I am so sorry you weren't born into a society where that particular attitude, with its attendant behaviors, couldn't be freely acted upon.
Posted by: cubed at April 20, 2005 1:00 PM
Dennis -
I agree with everything you wrote. But that really wasn't my point. My point was more general regarding perception and principles of how to address post WWII issues. I don't think anyone connected to a Hitler or Nazi organization at any time should be any international leader. That is a perception and principle issue, not any condemnation about Pope Benedict himself or anything he did/did not do. I am sure he is a fine and moral man. I am sure he will be a good leader.
Again that is not my point. My point is that I think Oklahoma City should remind us what happens when we perceive to be tolerant towards anyone with any involvement with Hitler and Nazism. Therefore, we need to be extreme on this issue. Our tolerance may kill us some day.
I have also heard from many Jews who are shocked and disturbed over the papal appointment, but I think their concerns are unfounded, and that Pope Benedict will be a good leader for Catholics. But my point is one of principle and perception, not whether this man will do a good job.
Let me also point out for those might believe that being concerned about Nazism is a Jewish issue. My Hungarian and British family would say otherwise, as would my American uncles who fought against Nazis. Nazis did not check to see how many Jews were in Oklahoma City building 10 years ago. Nazism is a threat to all of us - and its growing ties to Jihadism is a double threat to all of us.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 1:00 PM
so isn't it better for people to believe in Christianity, Buddhism etc than have a void that is later filled by a intolerant alternative religion
I don't think so. It doesn't seem very honest to me. You're saying that it is better to believe one lie than another. How can that be ... good? Even so, I admit that I would rather have someone not feel compelled to behead me by their superstitious beliefs no matter what the reason.
It would be much better for everyone if every individual's belief system were based on truth rather than superstitious beliefs and the supernatural. Why? Because pretentious and power hungry men have been claiming that their authority comes from a divine source throughout history. That is how we inherited the misogamist, intolerant, cruel, and patriarchal systems of social control that we have today. Preferring the lesser of two evils, as in one religion over another, is just intellectual dishonesty among other things.
On the Pope’s Nazi past; the fact that the Pope was once in the Hitler Youth doesn’t disturb me as much as the fact he wants people to believe he was personally chosen by a supreme being who controls their universe and eternal destination rather than a bunch of old guys wearing dresses and funny hats, which of course was the case.
f.g.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction".Blaise Pascal
Posted by: f.g. at April 20, 2005 2:34 PM
For while his predecessor kissed the Qur’an and pursued a consistent line of conciliation toward the Islamic world
Amazing. Pope John Paul kissed a book that consistently calls for the murder of Christians and Jews. Well, lets hope that Pope Benedict XVI can find some other use for the qu'ran. Though I must warn that D C Watson has accepted, after much thought, that he cant think of any use for the qu'ran.
Posted by: DP111 at April 20, 2005 3:06 PM
As an afterthought, may I recommend a post on LGF on Pope Benedict XVI, by someone who knew him.
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15532#c0179
Well worth a read.
Posted by: DP111 at April 20, 2005 3:09 PM
Geoffrey (correct spelling): "If we want to get technical, frankly virtually every single male member of German society, government and even the Army core (officers and men) was part of the Hitler youth at one time. Should they also be discounted from holding office? Even as part of a benevolent association?"
Jeffrey (incorrect spelling; for shame):
"Yes.
Wouldn't we expect the same of anyone involved with any type of Jihadist organization?"
What, the Wehrmacht too? Everyone? Are we accepting that every single German in that society was the willing and knowing arm of the Nazi regime, or are we (excuse the appeal to common authority) accepting the long-held (and slightly less conservative) notion that many Germans simply didn't know a damn thing about what was going on, and thus weren't in any sense collaborating with that evil system. We can hardly compare the average Johann-of-the-street with the sort who liked the tight black leather; frankly the Hitlerjugend did not relate in any way to the SS of any stripe, really.
I mean, under your proposed system, Jeff (misspeller of Christian names; how perverse thou art! but Allah sees), then the Germans virtually still shouldn't be in any system of self-government; all governing bodies, all governmental officers and all German organization (East and West back when that mattered) should have been occupied by Brits and Americans and Russians. Are they meant to be an effective colony still?
I prefer the system of semi-almost trust that presently exists, maleficious though some see it. We cannot resign them to a colonial status based on a complulsory past; else there would have been no Willy Brandenburger, no realpolitik, JFK would not have had the political opportunity to extend a hand to an independent West Berlin by declaring himself a jelly doughnut, and, of course:
There would ne'ermore this day
Be Governator i' Califor-nie-yay.
I leave you with the following Sura from the 'Book of Geoff', Chapter 7, verse 9, O' malefactor of names:
"Fight until the infidel submits and all spelling is Geoff". =)
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 20, 2005 3:43 PM
Nasseem: Schools no longer have any type of prayers, religious studies is not part of the core cirricilium in schools and general spiritual & levels of faith are down.
Linda: Yes little nasseem, this is due to the islamic and PC/multicultural influence of your worshipped pals at CAIR (Counsel for AntiAmerican Islamic Rhetoric) and the ACLU.
Nasseem: the Pope needs to concentrate to strengthen these ties....christians back to God....and not really concentrate on faiths that he has little control over.
Linda: Yes, little nasseem the Pope WILL concentrate on strengthening his flock, and through wisdom and guidance he will publicly expose islam for what it is (something our PC politicians can't do for fear of CAIR, ACLU and votes), enabling the Western World to FINALLY call your cult a cult, and heap it into the dustbin where it belongs with the KKK, Communism, etc.
Posted by: Just_Linda
at April 20, 2005 3:58 PM
JeffreyImm: It is troubling that an individual was chosen as Pope who had any Nazi background. I realize that is terribly unfair to the German people. But the German people did bring that burden upon themselves.
Linda: At least a "Nazi" (he was exposed to Hitler's regime and was an unwilling participant in Hitler's Youth campaign) can see that islam is also a form of Nazism, but islam is just hidden under a religious cloak or ahem... burqua. Time to take off those sheets and reveal the truth about the cult of death and destruction that is a/k/a islam. The time has finally come.
Posted by: Just_Linda at April 20, 2005 4:05 PM
Well, lets hope that Pope Benedict XVI can find some other use for the qu'ran. Though I must warn that D C Watson has accepted, after much thought, that he cant think of any use for the qu'ran.
Posted by: DP111 at April 20, 2005 03:06 PM
I have found a great use for the koran. It's in my emergency supply kit to be used as toilet paper after the next islamic terrorist attack on the USA.
at April 20, 2005 4:26 PM
Naseem posted: Would you get that on other faith billboards...I reckon not....Instead of attcking Islam (which does have it's smaller problems)
No. The perpetrator, in countries such as Pakistan, would be hunted down and torn limb from limb.
Indeed - Islam has a few minor problems.
at April 20, 2005 4:39 PM
As an Agnostic am cautiously optimistic about choice of new Pope. At least we may expect him NOT to be seen kissing the Koran in public! At this crucial moment in Europe the Catholic Church
needs a strong leader 'with balls' enough to stand up to threat of Islam. Too bad about other issues such as contraception, condoms, women priests etc. Personally think it is absurd that Catholic Clergy aren't allowed to marry - if this obstacle was removed they could merge happily with Greek and Russian
Orthodox guys and be a formidable force indeed and save on all those millions in payouts for priestly buggery.
But it ain't a perfect world so we must seek alliances where we can to defeat common foe -Islam.
P.S. Liked the replies of those Cossacks but that was before PC speech was enforced upon us...
PPS Read terrific article by Melanie Phillips on Little
Green Footballs about 'Gorgeous George Galloway' getting his comeuppence. Yes folks, our Hero of Respect Party [and Saddam's friend] fled cowering to his car after being threatened by unfriendly Islamists who denounced Georgie as a 'false prophet' and said they would hang him for daring to incite Muslims to vote...Hizb ut Tahir are on the warpath and George needed to be rescued by police. As Melanie says 'this couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.'
at April 20, 2005 4:51 PM
I'm not as hopeful as some. Being Cardinal and being Pope have different rules. To me, seeing is believing.
And who cares if he was a Nazi boy?
Note this from:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/003338.html
In 1965 Pope Paul VI, as part of the work of the Second Vatican Council, issued a noble document, Nostra Aetate (In Our Time), in which the Church recognized the common patrimony of the Jewish and the Christian religions and rejected the idea that the Jewish people were responsible for and should be punished for the Crucifixion of Christ. However, alongside its good and sensible parts about Judaism, Nostra Aetate also had some very foolish and dangerous things to say about Islam:
"Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."
So, the Pope and the assembled bishops counseled the world of Christendom, we must forget 1,400 years of history, as though they never happened! We must forget that the very mission of Islam is to conquer and convert the whole world and impose on it the totalitarian shariah law. We must write off a thousand years of Moslem aggression as mere "quarrels and hostilities" that have "arisen," as though there weren't an actual entity, the Moslem religion, whose divinely appointed task it is to wage holy war against all non-Moslems. No wonder Europe forgot. The historic core of Europe, the Catholic Church, told it to forget.
Nostra Aetate was proclaimed on October 28, 1965. On the 3rd of that same month President Lyndon Johnson, in a ceremony at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, signed the 1965 Immigration Act, granting to the people of all nations the numerically equal privilege of immigrating to the United States. At the moment when the West officially forgot what Islam is, the leading Western nation opened its borders to a mass immigration of Moslems.
Posted by: crusader rabbit at April 20, 2005 4:52 PM
Geoff -
My parents gave me my name, not me. So if you think it is misspelled, go to Pennsylvania and tell them.
But on this subject, I reiterate that I do wish the best for Pope Benedict and hope that he is successful. Truly I hope he is a great leader.
As to my real point, which is the ostracism of Germans serving Hitler or Nazis from positions of international leadership, I am standing my ground on that. As to Willie Brandt, he was a German leader, not an international leader, and his anti-Nazi resistance and work with the anti-Nazi underground is well-known (I could elaborate if necessary).
The United States worked very hard to defeat communism, and then promoted the reunification of Germany. But wasn't that only 15 years ago? And aren't Nazis growing in both Europe and USA? New Nazis hold public office in Germany today. Shouldn't society overextend to make certain there is no signal of tolerance - no matter how indirect or inaccurate - towards Nazism?
I also was a severe critic of former UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, who was a Nazi war criminal. This former Nazi also receives a pension of $124K, 25% of which was paid by US taxpayers. But then again most Americans view the United Nations (comprised largely of dictatorships and totalitarian nations) as an organization which merits little respect.
Now I would never compare Pope Benedict to the wretched Kurt Waldheim. My point is about principle only. Clearly these are very different men. Pope Benedict does not deserve to be in the same sentence as Kurt Waldheim, I realize that. However, the anti-Hitler, anti-Nazi standard in international leadership groups should be retained - consistently - even if it is unfair to very qualified and very deserving individuals.
Kurt Waldheim is a good reason why. The new Nazis in Germany holding publicly elected office is a good reason why. The growing Nazi threat in our own country is a good reason why.
I also reiterate it was really tactless, on the 10th anniversary of the Nazi attack on Oklahoma City, to nominate any world leader with any Hitler past. The reason why few were outraged with such timing is the enormous denial and ignorance of the Nazi terrorist threat that continues in the USA and Europe today. Where were the stories in the press yesterday reminding us about the Nazi threat or even of the growing Nazi allegiance with Jihadists? Just silence for the victims of Oklahoma City.
at April 20, 2005 5:43 PM
Jeff,
I hope Benedict's a great leader too; he has the right name - a great Colonial war hero! (J/K - I'm a Brit, so perhaps I see differently to you guys. =) )
(Well, actually he was a hero even to the American side for some time...interesting character. Although I digress, he wasn't a Nazi either, so he's hardly pertinent to the debate.)
Whoops - Willie Brandt. Man. My recent German history is fairly awful, it seems. Sorry about that.
Yes, the reunification was only 15 years ago, but there's no doubt at all that the US would have certainly pushed for it sooner. Are new Nazis holding office in Germany today? Sure. Of course. And so are secret anarchists, and communists, and totalitarians of all stripes. We can't ban everyone. Of course "real" Nazis - SS and Gestapo types should be banned - but Benedict was neither of these, nor a member of the Nazi Party. We can argue about "signals" of intolerance, but the truly irrational (i.e. Nazis) aren't going to care about signals anyway, if indeed one could call Ratzenberger a 'signal'. Seriously, who's going to jump into the Catholic church all of a sudden because he thinks: "Heeeyyy, that Ratzenburger guy was a Nazi. Well, he wasn't really a Nazi, but he met some Nazis, and maybe his mum was a Nazi, so the Catholic Church's the place for me, ah reckon, yep." The link is pretty tenuous, I'd say - to say nothing of the fact that he ISN'T a Nazi, and never was.
I would, of course, utterly join with you in criticism (and, frankly, the sentencing and subsequent shooting) of dear old Kurt, there. (Shurki, let me know if this conflicts with sharia, okay? I'll promise to pretend to care.) How in the hell this freak (Waldheim, not Shurki) ever got to his position being what he was utterly escapes me. What was the excuse: 'hiding in plain sight'? Ah, cunning, those Nazi-Secretary-of-the-UN-types. Devious. Totally ludicrous; I'd be curious to see who sponsored him and who voted for him. (Frankly, I've no idea how much was known about that beforehand: if nothing, then while I'd still be surprised it would explain much about how he pulled it off.)
I agree with you that Kurt Waldheim is no Benedict and vice-versa. But what 'principle' is it we're applying here? That Kurt was guilty and didn't deserve his postings, and that correspondingly Benedict was innocent, and doesn't deserve his posting? This is, ultimately, what we're talking about: guilt vs. innocence. I'm all for using a "100% Nazi-free" standard in international or even national leadership - but Benedict wasn't a Nazi. The standard doesn't apply to him; consistent application of it would exclude him.
You say you don't and won't put Benedict in the same category as Waldheim; good, and I agree. They are in different categories. But you seem to want to put Benedict back in the same category as Waldoheim after all, when you specify that it was "tactless" on the 10th anniversary of the Nazi attack on Oklahoma City to elect a world leader with a "Hitler" past.
Good God, man, even Kurt Waldheim wasn't directly bloody associated with Hitler (except for that one night, involving a sheep, a dress and a barbed-wire fence, but such tales may be strictly apocryphal), but now you're implying Benedict was. He didn't have a 'Hitler past', and if you're convinced that his being in the Hitler Youth means that he did, then we might as well go back to my concept of good governorship in Germany - no Germans in federal or state office, period - and never elect a German president of anything until about 2080; since, God knows, Hitler's poolman's son's ex-roommate might be alive until then, and we can't take any chances. It's starting to sound like a Monty Python sketch.
I do certainly agree that the Nazi-Jihadi connection isn't sufficiently reported - then again, what really is? I'd chalk this up to general political bent, sheer ignorance and well-wishing before I'd call it ignorance of the Nazi threat.
In conclusion: Kurt Waldheim, in his own light, is a great reason why. But why should reason put Benedict in the same light?
Geoff
PS: M-o-o-n spells "Geoff", laws yes, and I dare you to prove otherwise, infidel. (Stephen King quote; I quite liked "The Stand").
"Always 100% Nazi-Free"
Posted by: Geoff at April 20, 2005 6:39 PM
PS: "Pennsylvania"? What's that, one of those little mountainous Eastern European countries? Parents evil communists, are they? Hah; explains you, mate.
=) J/K
GeOfF
Posted by: Geoff at April 20, 2005 6:41 PM
PPS: Morgane, awesome posting. Laughed my arse off. Galloway, what an idiot. Ugh. Without getting into invective, it sounds a lot like "Gallowsway".
Geoff
Posted by: Geoff at April 20, 2005 6:45 PM
Geoff-
Actually my family is British/Hungarian. All sides, including American family, fought against Nazism and also Germans.
I realize my comments seem ridiculous to you, and you have the right to your opinion. I am perhaps feeling quite raw given yesterday, and how readily my fellow Americans have forgotten the Nazi menace that murdered 168 women, children, and men. The Oklahoma City Nazi babykillers are really a disgusting and infuriating story.
I would imagine had there been a relatively recent Nazi attack in say Liverpool, Birmingham, or elsewhere in the UK that killed quite a lot people and demolished a United Kingdom government building - the subject would seem more current than 60+ years ago.
I don't know how many Nazis have recently been arrested with cyanide bombs or trying to obtain nuclear material for terrorism in the UK - but they certainly have done so here in the USA.
The Nazis are not gone and they have plotted quite serious terrorist attacks in this country over the past 2 years.
What is an international leader really - other than a SYMBOL? I say that such international symbols of leadership need to be chosen with utmost care in making certain that they are not interpreted the wrong way. And I say that any international leader should not have a swastika anywhere in their personal history. I think that is truly a reasonable standard.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 7:43 PM
I still remember the films that one of the parents took of their children in the Oklahoma City Federal Building daycare center on April 19, 1995. All those poor little children who did nothing to no one. Murdered in an instant. I would ask anyone who thinks Nazis are ancient history to watch the films of the small children murdered by the Nazi Terrorist McVeigh 10 years ago.
OK maybe I am totally unreasonable about anyone who has a swastika in their past. But maybe we should have been unreasonable 10 years ago and those kids would have gone to high school, had birthday parties, had a chance at life. And maybe we should be unreasonable now - before the next terrorist attack occurs.
And as the rest of world observes silence, the Nazis applaud.
Posted by: jeffreyimm at April 20, 2005 7:54 PM
Nasseem: Schools no longer have any type of prayers, religious studies is not part of the core cirricilium in schools and general spiritual & levels of faith are down.
Linda: Yes little nasseem, this is due to the islamic and PC/multicultural influence of your worshipped pals at CAIR (Counsel for AntiAmerican Islamic Rhetoric) and the ACLU.
Posted by: Just_Linda at April 20, 2005 03:58 PM
Just_Linda,
The real reason that government schools don't have a religious curriculum goes back much further than PC etc., all the way back to a pre-Revolutionary author named Robert Molesworth. His writings and those of three of his friends, later called "Cato's Letters," were pivotal in justifying the American Revolution.
Molesworth studied totalitarian states, including particularly Denmark's absolute monarchy, and concluded that religion should not be used by education as a means of teaching submission to government, and that government and religion should always be separate entities.
His reason for thinking this was that if religion and government were fused, as they are today in Islam, then government could be considered an agent of God, rather than a product of human effort.
Were such a fusion of religion and government the case, then criticism of government could be interpreted as a sin, and not as honest intellectual disagreement.
Molesworth's thinking on this matter led to the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Up to the mid 1800s, only a few government-run school systems existed in America. They were small municipal systems which had existed since the earliest Colonial period.
There was an unwitting experiment with respect to the wisdom of Molesworth's ideas in the mid 1800s, when the government-run schools were first established on a widespread basis.
Horace Mann, America's best known professional "educationist" was the most enthusiastic proponant of a nation-wide government schools sytem, and was in essence the founder of our present system. Horace ignored the fact that schools, under this system, were a branch of government, and he included religion as part of the curriculum. His thought was that if all children had the same belief system, then society would be stable and predictable. That had been the goal of the municipal systems in his ancestral Massachusetts Bay Colony, and he agreed with it.
Mann was a Unitarian who had converted from his family's Calvinism, and the religion taught in the government schools was a reflection of this.
Thousands upon thousands of Catholics were coming into the country at that time, and the Catholic parents were very unhappy with the religion being taught in the government schools, so much so that they called them the "Protestant Schools." Thus it was that Mann's dream of teaching a single belief system that would produce a stable society backfired; Catholic parents took their children out of the government schools and created their own school system, which exists to this day.
Molesworth thought that to ensure the freedom of the individual to choose what and what not to believe, the government per se must be secular, that is, it must not endorse or forbid any particular belief. If government were to become fused in any way with religion, we would have our own version of the Islamic system, where we see precisely the kind of problem Molesworth wanted us to avoid.
In Islam, no criticism is possible, because the Koran is the immutable word of Allah, and is the constitution and the source of all law. To suggest any change of Islam is a sin; to leave Islam is a sin; to criticise Islam is a sin. To promote innovation is a sin.
Molesworth didn't want that for our country, and fortunately, George Mason, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson agreed with him.
Today, of course, we have much fragmentation of society vis a vis what should and should not be taught in the schools. For example, fundamentalist Christians want no part of evolution, while many others find Creation a rejection of reason.
Much like the Catholics before them, many fundamentalist Protestant parents have withdrawn their children from the government system and created their own private system.
As Andrew Coulson, author of "Market Education" points out, the only school system that will satisfy everyone is a totally private one, and that's as it should be.
Unfortunately, the postmodernist Left has had its way with most of the population, and would have us believe that a totally private system is not possible, that too many children would remain without an education.
Poppycock.
Posted by: cubed
at April 20, 2005 9:13 PM
As the People ran to the Sq my heart was beating Fast then came the Band and it was the Carbinari band not a high school band . My heart beat faster then came the colors on the balcony and I still was not sure?
Then came the Man I had never seen before and then the name came Ratzinger the tears flowed in the hope given to not only Europe but also Israel then his words of you must repent and the tears Flowed in Joy in the that the Truth will be Known and no longer hidden I pray for this mans load to be light and his Strength to be that of a Bull!!
The MSM has missed it once again but the Mulsums Understand look at our Silly woman nasseem??
The lie is in the Open and The New Pope says he has chosin his name after the XVth and we must remember it was him who choice Joan of Ark to be a Saint!!!!
Even Knowing it would make waves!!
Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage to stay the course to Destroy ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them Open the Worlds Eyes to their Threat let not the World be Deceived by them Amen
at April 20, 2005 9:21 PM
The Pope, how many divisions does he have?
Posted by: Jakester at April 20, 2005 11:24 PM
School prayers were banned long before CAIR or multiculturalism were around!
Posted by: Jakester at April 20, 2005 11:26 PM
Just an aside on Ratzinger's desertion from the German army:
Does one desert when the other side is more willing to take prisoners (say, 1945 and most of the action is over)
Or
Does one desert when both sides are actively shooting at each other? And cross highly dangerous terrain for days on end, until they reach their goal?
Which would the sensible person do?
Posted by: Gary at April 21, 2005 5:56 AM
Like a practising catholic, you think that many catholics don´t die for the catholicism for converting muslims now, we don´t have enough faith, only with good pastors and a re-awakening in the western of the catholicism, this is possible, I have to remember that Ratzinger was against the entry to Turkey to EU. And many times he has said that all the religions aren´t the same, the Catholic Church, a bimilenarian church, evolutionate, but few to few, and you have to know that the Catholic Church made his first crusade 250 years later that Saint Peter´s was profanated by the followers of the religion of peace.
In resume, I am happy. Very happy. I have hope. God doesn´t leave us.
at April 21, 2005 6:20 AM
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Jihad Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)