You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

Posted by: John C at March 24, 2008 8:12 AM

How many death sentences can they pronounce? Somebody's has to make the money we keep sending them.

Posted by: tanstaafl at March 24, 2008 8:25 AM

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A Muslim author and critic of Islamic fundamentalism who was baptized a Catholic by Pope Benedict said on Sunday Islam is "physiologically violent" and he is now in great danger because of his conversion.

What does he mean, 'psychologically violent'?
He is in danger from 'psychological violence'?
That's an interesting way to put it.
and this:

He said he made his decision to convert after years of deep soul searching and asserted that the Catholic Church has been "too prudent about conversions of Muslims."...

It took him 'years' of soul searching, to realize that Allah had nothing to offer? Years? How many?
It only took me about ten seconds of soul searching to come to that conclusion.

Muslims are right, this whole conversion was a staged event to make Islam look bad and Christianity look good. The Pope pulled it off perfectly...I don't know who came up with the idea or wrote the script, but give that man a raise.
These kinds of events in public, are exactly what is called for. Next, I would like to see the Pope conduct mass conversions of Muslims to Christianity. Once that snowball got rolling down hill, there would be no stopping it...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 24, 2008 9:08 AM

What a brave man. And why shouldn't the baptism have been public, and celebrated?

Far better a public baptism than a public beheading!

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 24, 2008 9:09 AM

swami,

I understand "physiologically violent" to mean that the Umma as a collective mass, the body politic of Dar al-Islam is organically prone to violence; that Islam is, by its given nature, inherently violent.

Posted by: John C at March 24, 2008 9:22 AM

John C. I agree with that, I was commenting on how he used the term. The thought is the father of the deed, but I am not too concerned with those who limit to thinking. It's when they act on those thoughts things get interesting. I don't care what the lunatic thinks, but I do care about what he does. The psychiatric profession had an answer to that years ago but abandoned it as archaic, the pre-frontal lobe lobotomy. This severed the nerve between thought and action, where the lobotomized might want to kill you, but just can't make himself do it. It may have rendered the person harmless, but it did not change his thoughts any.
The Christian answer to this, and actually the best one, is the 'Golden Rule'. This in activation, severs the link between negative thoughts (psychological violence), and actions. Loving everyone does the same thing and has the advantage that less negative thoughts arise. In reality, 'The Golden Rule', and loving others eliminates the need for lobotomy's. It does not stop thoughts from becoming actions, but it elevates the actions to a positive level.
'Right action, sooner or later brings right results'. This is not necessarily religious, it
could be just plain good advice...Allah never saw fit to give this advice to muslims, which in the end is Islams downfall...Have a good day...

Posted by: duh_swami at March 24, 2008 10:20 AM

Not only does this Pope have the Muslims number down, he also has their act down pat and is proving that two can play the game. No wonder he is
now declared as the great enemy. What a pleasant change from the saccharine proffessions of the past.

Posted by: seeteufel at March 24, 2008 11:17 AM

Now Benedict needs to call all Muslims to renounce the heresy of the gnostic pretender, Mohammad, and return to Christianity, their original faith, which was distorted by the "prophet" for profit.

.

Posted by: profitsbeard at March 24, 2008 11:49 AM

The Christian answer to this, and actually the best one, is the 'Golden Rule'."
-- from a posting above

Not discussed, in all the justified brouhaha about his grandmother, and about the equating of the Rev. Wright's sinister rantings against "the whites" and America with the perfectly straightforward observation about the secret of Barack Obama's success made by Geraldine Ferraro, ("We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dimsissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias" is itself the sheerest demagoguery, delivered however in sober, furrowed-brow thoughtful fashion) there was this statement by Obama that I think has gone unremarked:

"In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world's great religions demand -- that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

Does Obama believe that anywhere in Islam one can find the Golden Rule? Does he believe that Muslims keeping millions of Christians in Saudi Arabia from having churches, or even reading, behind closed doors, the Bible, are "doing unto others" what has been done unto them, they who fund tens of thousands of mosques all over the lands where Christianity dominates? Does he think that the view of Unbelievers that Islam inculcates has room, anywhere, for "do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

When Ali Sina, that remarkable and tireless apostate who runs www.faithfreedom.org, decided he had to choose what was the very essence of Islam, the thing that most explained what, for him and other apostates, was so disturbing about it, he wrote that it was, above all, the absence in Islam of Christianity's Golden Rule.

Indeed, Barack Obama, or his advsisers, or anyone at all who is interested, has only to google "Ali Sina" or to poke around at his site (again: www.faithfreedom.org) to find that essay, and to discover just how wrong Barack Obama is, in his easy equivalences, both when he pretends that Geraldine Ferraro and Rev. Jeremiah Wright are morally equivalent, and when he claims (possibly not pretending, but genuinely ignorant) that "all
the world's great religions demand" that "we all do unto others as we would have them do unto us."

Or perhaps I have gotten Barack Obama wrong. Perhaps I have underestimated him. Perhaps he is not as sentimental about "the world's religiions" or about "religions" as is George Bush, and he has indeed understood the nature of Islam. And perhaps what he meant to say, without saying it, is: I don't consider Islam to be "one of the world's great religions."

But I doubt it. I was only trying to give him the benefit of another, prior doubt.

Posted by: Hugh at March 24, 2008 12:38 PM

So where's the outcry from those great and devout believers like Goerge Bush, the Reverend Wright (since Hugh mentioned him), etc who profess their faith and then spew out pablum that Islam is a great religion, a peaceful one when simply converting to another of the three great Abrahamic religions is a death sentence?

And when the Pope is invited and actually arrives (and departs alive) in Mecca then I might begin to think ther is some hope for Islam, but until then...

To paraphrase George Orwell: all religions are equal, just some more so than others.

Posted by: HOV Dummy at March 24, 2008 2:00 PM

The Pope is being entirely responsible in this matter:

The moslems want a low profile baptism and a low profile execution because they envy the guy with balls that escapes the chains of Islam.

Now he has had a high profile baptism, should the envious moslems kill the escapee to freedom, it will be a high profile execution, and no timid journalists will stop it being high profile.

Then they will fear that this guy will balls will inspire many other moslems that freedom is better, even freedom when killed by the envious moslems.

Posted by: exposesithlords at March 24, 2008 4:20 PM

In case anyone is interested here is a link to his conversion story.

http://www.zenit.org/rssenglish-22151

Posted by: magnoon at March 24, 2008 5:10 PM

Benedict is "Da Man"!

As I posted once before, I am Catholic, and never heard of Paleologos before Pope Benedict quoted him.

Pope Benedict definitely "gets" the threat of Islam. I am unaware of any other current heads of major religions drawing a line in the sand against the many negatives of Islam, (can anybody name some/any?) ... but Pope Benedict will most certainly do for starters.

Posted by: Paleologos at March 24, 2008 5:15 PM

Exposesithlords:

Really? I disagree entirely and I will not join the bandwagon of those cheering and applauding this until I hear a convincing response from Robert Spencer, and/or others with strong ties to Middle Eastern Christian communities, to the concerns of the Assyrian community in this article:

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

I have never condemned Benedict for his Regensberg address, and in fact I've been one of his consistent supporters at this site throughout and an equally determined defender of that speech, but I think he should have reconsidered his bluntness after the murders of nuns, clergy and laity that followed from that address.

There are at least two far more meaningful and effective things (and probably far more) that the Pope can do to undermine Islam:

1. Reverse the Holy See's insistence on the territorial integrity of Iraq, which prevents the Assyrian Christians from having their own safe homeland and call for outside intervention to protect this entity, and;

2. Take concrete, visible measures, such as issuing his own statements or documents, countering the potential drift of the Church into the Islamist orbit which could result from the agreement that Cardinal Tauran signed in Cairo with the president of the dialogue group of Al Azhar University.

The measures proposed on the matter of containing "defamation of religions" in that document are hair-raising. I do not uphold an unimpeded right to blasphemy or irreverence, but the Christian response to such things and the moral assumptions that underline the consideration of such things are far different in Christianity than they are in Islam and the Pope could do a great service, that would help to preserve the heritage of free expression in the West, if he were to clearly define these matters, including the limits that circumscribe that freedom and characterize appropriate Christian response in culture and in law to offensive speech. The current status of the document leaves the Church adrift toward cooptation into an ugly and menacing agenda.

You can check the joint declaration yourself here if you are unaware of its contents:

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

As far as the conversion of Mr. Allam is concerned, I welcome it, and as a Catholic I welcome him into the fold of the Church, but there is no reason whatever why someone with as high a public profile as the Pope had to be the one to preside over his profession of faith and his baptism. If its a question of making a statement to the Islamic world about religious freedom, this would have been just as effectively done if Mr. Allam had been received by his parish priest instead, because word would have gotten out soon enough in the Ummah, but without the burning intensity of the dramatic and provocative symbolism of this papal gesture that will almost certainly result in the spillage of the blood of defenceless Christians throughout the Islamic world. If Benedict needed to identify himself with that conversion he could have done so through some other gesture, such as a personal letter of welcome and congragulations to Mr. Allam.

Until we in the West are prepared to defend the security of an Assyrian state with our own blood and treasure, and until Pope Benedict and his Church are prepared to bless that initiative, neither we in Western civil society, nor the Holy See, have any business provoking the martyrdom of helpless Middle Eastern Christians.

Posted by: templar at March 24, 2008 5:47 PM

I am surprised that there has yet to be a loud reaction to this. Some Italian Islamic group's spokesman grumbled about it being purposely high profile when it could have been done at a local parish - like they need to schedule the Vatican's business. But no loud protests, no riots? Is the Western Islamic community getting wise or just tired?

It works either way. If Muslims call for death it keeps the issue of apostasy in the public consciousness and negatively reflects on Islam, even in the eyes of many thoughtful, young and impressionable Muslims. If little fuss is made it still keeps the issue current while emboldening other potential apostates.

And yes, it can take years to leave Islam. People are born into it, constantly indoctrinated by it and kept incompletely educated about it. Leaving requires admitting that you have been enslaved all your life, everything you believed was a lie and all your family, friends and community will see you as a traitor. It is easy to just concentrate on the repetitive rituals and prayers and live in denial.

Posted by: Saul Wall at March 24, 2008 9:29 PM

I've been rereading Catch-22 as of late, and have become convinced that it is one of the single most relevant pieces of literature to our current situation. One line sums up the entire book, and I think our age, perfectly (as you read it, please recall that all the characters in Catch-22 are U.S. military personnel serving in Italy during WWII):

"The only thing going on was a war, and no one seemed to notice but Yossarian and Dunbar. And when Yossarian tried to remind people, they drew away from him and thought he was crazy."

I am Yossarian.

Posted by: FidesEtRatio at March 25, 2008 3:45 AM

It seems the Mr. Allam's employer, the big Italian daily Corriere della Sera, is trying to distance itself from him.
http://www.corriere.it/cronache/08_marzo_25/allam_magris_5c2317fc-fa34-11dc-b669-00144f486ba6.shtml
I guess it's getting a little too hot for them, so they want to make sure only he gets killed.
The criticism in today's editorial is very typical, implying that the Christian should be the silent, invisible yeast in the secular-Islamic dough. Their disdainful disappointment at the Pope's involvement is quite evident throughout.
They even suggest that it was somehow unchristian of Allam to criticize Islam or remind the Church of its mission to reach out to members of the Umma. They commit the common error of failing to distinguish Islam itself from well-intentioned individual Muslims.

Posted by: ppeter at March 25, 2008 6:37 AM

Of course his life is in danger. Islam knows it is on its last legs. The cat's out of the bag.

Anyone with any intelligence knows that when your argument fails, when you knwo you are wrong you revert to violence. Islam has been using violence to protect its lies for 1400 years. It's based on a lie hence the violence started right from the word Mo.

Posted by: DaveMate at March 26, 2008 12:31 PM