Pope Benedict XVI urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants Monday while also saying Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.

Europe has been too open, until now. How about the Pontiff just address the Islamic countries first - maybe send the message directly to the OIC, and make the second request, if at all, only after the first has been heeded?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2006 2:09 PM

Q: When will the first Christian church be opened for business in Saudi Arabia?

A: When pigs fly?
When Hell freezes over?
When the cows come home?
When they really find Elvis?

Posted by: JanuaryMan at May 15, 2006 2:11 PM

Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.

So Christianity is a suicide pact?

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 15, 2006 2:17 PM

Soon the pope will have fewer followers...with the liberal west in reverse gear when it comes to the faith of christianity...it is hardly surprising that he is frightened of Islam whose faith is growing stronger.

Always remember the two markers of Islamic superamcy. One in Europe & one in the US.

1) The flag of Islam is flying over the vatican. The dominant faith is Islam.

2)The flag of Islam is flying over the whitehouse occupied by the Caliphate.

Posted by: Naseem at May 15, 2006 2:25 PM

Naseem

How about the Star of David flying over Yathrib (Medina), and the Cross of St George, and the Brahmin "Om" flag flying over the Ka'aba?

And the Sikh arched swords flying over the Badshahi mosque, in your neck of the woods?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2006 2:31 PM

Like THAT'S going to happen.....

Not in a million years!

Posted by: pythagoras at May 15, 2006 2:43 PM

The Pope does not have followers. He is the shepherd of Christ's spiritual flock. Many of us, though, Naseem, are NOT sheep, and we will fight you Islamic Nazis to the bitter end.

"Finally, draw your strength from the Lord and from his mighty power.
11
Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil.
12
For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.
13
Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground.
14
So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate,
15
and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.
16
In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all (the) flaming arrows of the evil one.
17
And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. "

Ephesians 6:10-17

Posted by: Cheesel at May 15, 2006 2:49 PM

With the intolerance and woman-hating that the Islamic countries show, what non-Muslim in the their right mind would WANT to move to a Muslim country?

I mean, come on, here it is the 21st century, and some of them still have SLAVERY, for God sakes!

Posted by: Cheesel at May 15, 2006 2:52 PM

Enough with this eggshell-walking from Benedict and Bush!

Posted by: Television at May 15, 2006 3:05 PM

I don't seem to remember the Bible story about the shepherd 'dialoging' with the wolves.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 15, 2006 3:16 PM

Naseem: Islam is not a faith. It is legalized and institutionalized first-degree murder. Islam supplants "faith" with fear and horror and enslavement.

We westerners ARE getting over it.

Watch out.

Posted by: pythagoras at May 15, 2006 3:16 PM

Naseem,

This would suprise you very much that there will be in five Arab/Muslim countries the showing of the much talked about movie, "The DaVinci Code" in the movie theaters of those five nations mentioned in the URL article. There is a sixth nation, which suprised me, Isreal that will also be showing the above movie. So much for respect in the Muslim world for Jesus.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/middleeastreports/s_453828.html

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 3:18 PM

Naseem,

No need to worry about the pope losing members in the west, thanks to the global south, with Christians on fire for the Lord, you will see the biggest missionary effort take place because the global south will be sending missionaries.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 3:23 PM

Naseem, again, admit you are no woman in Pakistan, the men around you would beat you if you dared touching the internet connection, and anyway, you would not know how it is working, no-one would have shown you, because you belong into the kitchen doing the dishes, and when you are ready you can go out to the well and do the washing...
you are several young men (who love fondling each other) and from time to time you come out as this liberated Pakistani broad spilling the beans on the greatness of your islam...You have never been to Peshawar, or anywhere else up the frontier... you are some well-off young hoodoos who have no guts talking the real thing...but then you have to follow the instructions from the imam around the corner.... you must not forget, we westerners have invented all these toys, you are not even in the second row..
shame on you, shame, shame, shame.

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 15, 2006 3:38 PM

Benedict said Christians were called to "open their arms and their hearts to everyone," regardless of their countries of origin.

Ouch -- that really goes against my every instict, yet it is in accordance with Christ's teachings.

Pope Benedict must have enormous faith to trust so completely in God's providence.
The Pope has previously displayed awareness of the Islamic agenda so he must be aware of the consequences.

At times I have wondered if it is part of God's plan that so many Muslims are emigrating to western societies.
It just might be that according to God's logic if a few Muslims are saved from Islam it is worth our discomfort.

Scary stuff, not for the fainthearted.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 15, 2006 3:50 PM

well now, Naseem-entity succeeded in hijacking this blog by two well-targeted remarks...
Pope is speaking to muslim world? - need to sweetly insult those infidel bloggers, discussion will no more circle around pope, but be tit 4 tat with naseem...

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 15, 2006 3:55 PM

Assalamau Laikum all,

I have read your comments of bravados e.g Pythagoras says "Like THAT'S going to happen.....
Not in a million years!

The truth is that the West with the combination of dwindling christianity is a civilization that has lost confidence in itself and produces lots of peoples with a shallow sense of identity.

Good Ole Amrikans now replace their neighbors with “outsourced” foreigners and shop at “big-box” stores retailing Chinese-made goods, with hardly a pang of conscience...so why not replace your faith too but with one that has meaning too...hell Lind did.

Your Western individualism and rationalism, coupled with the rapid decline of Christianity; the curiosity of the Western mind, has indeed lost its sense of context as it has lost its religion;

It is constantly replaced by a fascination with things foreign that are not quite like any that has been seen in other civilizations has all contributed to the growth of a rootless, self-hating “adversarial culture"...AND DOES NEED RESCUING.

Western Peoples have lost respect for their saviour and now need to be rescued by the "new faith of Islam and the new saviour in the shape of the Caliphate who serves Allah SWT".

Let me reiterate his doctrines for you..
1)“Islam is a religion of peace,”
2) “Jihad means inner struggle against sin.
3) “Allah is the same God of the Bible.”

This together with the leveraging of political correctness to have Islam recognized as part of a “Judeo-Christian-Islamic” tradition...and why won't those lovely big flags of Islam proudly fly in the Western breeze.

...I mean how wrong can you be?....
At the vatican lookout for minertates and superior quality loudspeakers.

At the white house (the residence of the Caliphate) look out for the giant sign pointing towards Mecca....

Posted by: Naseem at May 15, 2006 4:04 PM

I think the Pope got this backward.
I think Christians (Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, etc...) should show islam the same "respect" it shows other religions.

I am all for "reciprocity", but since the muslims won't change their behavior, let's change ours.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at May 15, 2006 4:06 PM

This Pope appears to understand Islam.

It was Benedict who pointed out the difficuty facing Moslem reform, given the fact that Moslems view the Qur'an as the direct and literal transcription of the words of their supreme being, Allah.

Benedict's call for Moslem reciprocity is surely made with the knowledge that such reciprocity goes against the tenets of Islam. "Reciprocity" implies equality, not dhimmitude. It is already something for the Pope to say this. It is not enough, however, and hopefully Benedict will be ever more specific in his description of "reciprocity," including, yes, missionaries in Saudi Arabia.

For the time being, however, we would do well to prepare missionaries for the inner cities of the West.

Posted by: Chatillon at May 15, 2006 4:10 PM

Mike_W,

Could the reason Pope Benedict XVI has spoken what he has spoken because this will give Christians an oportunity to witness to the Muslims and bring more people to Jesus?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 4:11 PM

You must look at things in context. Not so long ago, one of the Pope's nearest right-hand-men, Archbishop Fisichella (who was promoted shortly after) released an interview about Islam that could have been taken, word for word, from the columns of this site. Then you have Cardinal Pell, one of the Church's most outstanding leaders and a man very much in tune with Pope Benedict, saying what he said - and half-dragging some of the Austrian pols along with him (which is a bloody wonder!). This shows what the Pope is really thinking and in which direction he is moving. He cannot do everything he would wish; for one thing, he has no confidence in much of the European episcopate. The exception, tellingly, is the powerful and victorious Italian episcopate, to whom he has recently said that they are called to a specific mission as the base for the renewal of the whole of the European church; and the Polish Church, which is also showing great - if somewhat unbridled - powers of growth. Of these two, the Poles have no Muslim problem, but the Italians have, and the Italian Bishops have been consistently and increasingly warning of the dangers of unchecked immigration and dhimmitude. The Italian Catholic press varies only by degrees, not by fundamentals, in its suspicion of and opposition to Islam, with the influential Sandro Magister - widely regarded as the dean of internatial Vatican reporters - being the firmest of all.

The Pope cannot be seen to preach war - not in this day and age, and not with so many secular powers eager to damage or destroy the Church. (And if you wonder what I mean, look at the deliberate attempt to use the paedophile scandal in the US to destroy the network of parishes and chase the Church from the territory. It is happening right now, with the support of legislators in California and judges in Oregon.) The strategy he has chosen is out of the Gospel: "Be as clever as snakes and as gentle as doves." He is simply saying: you have to give to us the same that you claim from us. This is a demand that Islam simply cannot accept. And while the Pope just states a principle of obvious, infantile justice, to which nobody can object, his followers are educating the populace. Considering that he cannot rely on a good third of the episcopate - infected by the worst kind of liberalism and relativism - I would say that nobody can possibly have done as much in such a short space of time. Thank God for Pope Benedict.

Posted by: Paolo at May 15, 2006 4:12 PM

Chatillon,

Also I do believe that Benedict is also is calling Christians to be witnesses of the faith in Christ and bring the Gospel good news to all, including Muslims.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 4:15 PM

Could the reason Pope Benedict XVI has spoken what he has spoken because this will give Christians an oportunity to witness to the Muslims and bring more people to Jesus?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 04:11 PM

That might very well be it, although even St. Fracis of Assissi stopped sending his Franciscan missionaries to convert the heathen Moors when he noticed they were all getting beheaded.

Islam and headless Christian missionaries go together like ham and eggs.
A natural combination.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 15, 2006 4:19 PM

"The Pope cannot be seen to preach war - not in this day and age..."
Posted by: Paolo

Can he at least preach self-defense?

I see your point though about the secular powers. Ironically, if islam were to come, their necks would be first on the block.

Personally do not believe in political correctness, or diplomat-speak. I would speak the unadulterated truth. We are already in a Holy War we didn't start it, but we had better finish it.

I guess it’s a good thing I am not the Pope.

Posted by: Mr Ape Pig at May 15, 2006 4:22 PM

Paolo,

Great comments. Also this pope is taking into consideration that he sees that more people, clergy and lay, in the west more and more are looking for voices in the Church that show leadership and a no-nonsense view on how the good news of the Gospel must be spread. Even in countries which had seen the horrors of the sex abuse scandel; there is a hunger for a spiritual renewel, a sign of hope. Even in the USA, there is a cable network, EWTN that when it presents programs with a voice of deep faith and a needed oasis. So what is going on is the need for the Church to be a light of Christ in a difficult and dark age.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 4:30 PM

Naseem,

"Western Peoples have lost respect for their saviour and now need to be rescued by the "new faith of Islam and the new saviour in the shape of the Caliphate who serves Allah SWT".

Let me reiterate his doctrines for you..
1)“Islam is a religion of peace,”
2) “Jihad means inner struggle against sin.
3) “Allah is the same God of the Bible.”

Would it suprise you Naseem that in the few days just prior to the release of the movie,
" The DaVinci Code ", there are people, many people in the west WHO ARE commited to their Christian faith and who are standing up for Christ and against the falsehoods that are in both the book and the soon-to-released movie. This is going to present a great opportunity to witness for the Lord.

Would it suprise you that there are a number of passages Koran and Hadith that bless war against non-Muslims. Also the term " jihad " is a word used to also mean war against non-Muslims.

Also I have question for you, Naseem, if Muslims worship the same God as the Christians and Jews, why is it that Muslims bow to worship a moon rock that is enshrined in Mecca?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 4:48 PM

Trying to get Muslims to show respect for anyone or anything is like trying to get a golf ball to roll freely through a garden hose. It ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Prickzilla at May 15, 2006 4:52 PM

Mike_W,

"That might very well be it, although even St. Fracis of Assissi stopped sending his Franciscan missionaries to convert the heathen Moors when he noticed they were all getting beheaded. "

Did'nt St. Francis of Assisi go and speak to the sultan during the course of his life? I have a back issue of "Catholic Answers", and it had an article if my memory is correct, written by Robert Spencer about why more Muslims do not become Christians. In it there is a story about the above saint speaking to a Muslim leader. I would have to look for the magazine.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 15, 2006 5:00 PM

In 1219, Francis went to the Holy Land to preach to the moslems. He was given a pass through the enemy lines, and spoke to the Sultan, Melek-al-Kamil. Francis proclaimed the Gospel to the Sultan, who replied that he had his own beliefs, and that moslems were as firmly convinced of the truth of Islam as Francis was of the truth of Christianity. Francis proposed that a fire be built, and that he and a moslem volunteer would walk side by side into the fire to show whose faith was stronger. The Sultan said he was not sure that a moslem volunteer could be found. Francis then offered to walk into the fire alone. The Sultan who was deeply impressed but remained unconverted. Francis proposed an armistice between the two warring sides, and drew up terms for one; the Sultan agreed, but, to Francis's deep disappointment, the Christian leaders would not. Francis returned to Italy, but a permanent result was that the Franciscans were given custody of the Christian shrines then in moslem hands.

excerpt from : http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/jek/10/04.html

Posted by: Mike_W at May 15, 2006 5:10 PM

I think Naseem doesn't realize that, whether Christianity appears to be waning or not, that doesn't mean anyone will turn to islam. Even freethinkers or athiests would NEVER turn to islam. What makes her think if people don't have faith in a God, that they would have faith in a despotic mentally deficient criminal?

She just doesn't get it. Christians and athiests and free people would stand together to defeat islam. You don't have to have a religion to know right from wrong.

Posted by: freewoman at May 15, 2006 5:19 PM

East Berliners Oppose First Mosque Kleinert said residents "fear an Islamaization of the area, a drop in property prices, and that there will be more traffic and even trouble."

In US, under current zoning laws, churches and other religious places fall in the same category as schools, and other family compatible places. However, mosques should be zoned in the same category as adult entertainment areas, such as brothels. That way, property values don't suffer.

But then again...

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2006 5:20 PM

Bigcatgirl13106:

Yes, you're quite right. The Pope is calling Christians to respond to the Moslems among us as Christians ought to: with patience, justice and perservance. It was said of St. Francis that he instructed his brothers to "Preach always. When necessary, use words." I think the Pope's words are congruent with those of Francis.

Mike_W's observations are also interesting, and sobering. The moral virtue of Fortitude is demanded once again, perhaps more now than ever.

Posted by: Chatillon at May 15, 2006 5:20 PM

The last Easter in the weak catholic France 156 muslims converted to catholicism, and 120 more were from islam-christian families, can you imagine in a christian Europe? with a Christian Europe, Islam wouldn´t be any menace, but, not it´s a menace sadly.
The renewal of catholicism in Europe and all Western is necessary if we want to be happy, free and getting better us, and the world.
Christ has to come back to Europe. Now!

Posted by: Franze at May 15, 2006 5:36 PM

Check out the post by Elendur on Jihadwatch, for an interesting approach to the dangerous task of proselytizing Islam, a task akin to putting one's head in a lion's mouth.

Posted by: Elendur at May 15, 2006 05:06 PM

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011444.php#comments

Interestingly, I recall reading in multiple places in Roman Catholic religious sources/prophecies that Christ has reserved the final victory over Satan to his Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 15, 2006 5:37 PM

The Pope may be onto something here. First he wants them to prove they can act like humans and not animals. He knows most will not and expects many to leave and head west. He might be planning on the ones who are smart enough to leave to convert once it is safe to do so. I don't have the faith the Pope does so, lets put them on a small island until we know the conversion is real and then invite them in.

Posted by: Ronin at May 15, 2006 6:04 PM

Naseem is posting at 2:35 or 3:30 am.
Go to bed Naseem - you have to run the furniture store in Lahore while your hubby is ill, remember?

You have better things to do than post on this site in the dead of your night. Remember, you're married, middle-aged and help run a business during daylight hours.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at May 15, 2006 6:18 PM

I don't remember the Pope during WW II recommending the welcoming of the Nazis with open arms.

Perhaps Benedict needs to re-read the Koran.

His idea that any but a few odd Muslim men would be likely to give up a triumphalistic earthly faith that allows them multiple wives (who they can beat at will) for a self-sacrificing otherworldly monogamous creed is somewhat naive.

Mohammad appeals to the basest animal instincts in all patriarchal morons. (Its appeal to women only demonstrates a latent masochistic streak in the uneducated female psyche as broad as the Amazon.) Il Papa's appeal is going to have to be a little more humanly appealing and spiritually profound than what he has said so far. Women should be the most receptive to escaping the Sharia shackles of Islam.

Benedict could start a Maria movement into Muslim lands, proclaiming its aim to be the raising of women in status from serfs and chattel and punching bags to beloved equals, daughters of the divinity, and free to challenge the even backwardness of the Roman Church, itself, when it comes to its feeble women's rights in the clergy.

You don't win converts with a less full-blooded creed than what believers already practice.

Pie in the sky doesn't quite compete with four in the bed.

Unless you are the other three who want to get out of the bed of Islam and find their own mates freely.

Muslim men will be a tough sell.

Muslim women are the Achilles heel of Mohammedanism.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 15, 2006 6:41 PM

Will of Amir al-Bakr the Camelfukker:

If everyone's here
And I'm surely am dead,
Then please listen up
Don't go jihading instead!

Of my daughter Khadijah
I order this mission:
That your clitoris be cut off,
In step with tradition.
That you also be married when you turn eleven,
And if you are being bad, then it will be seven,
And your husband must waive
The red sheets in the morning
As proof of prior pureness,
Or you'll face a stoning!

To my wife Mufeeda
Of the beaten, veiled variety:
I ask you be beaten
To the fullest entirety!
You might ask me why
I will answer here forth--
A woman is nothing
She is but two cows' worth.
And as a cow deserves
To be beaten into submission,
Therefore, you as well
Shall endure this condition.
Don't worry, my wife,
Did you not know me as kind?
Therefore, I ask
That the law be in mind--
The beater must note
According to sharia, indeed,
You can beat women senseless
But stop when they bleed!

To my first son Masood--
I heard that you're gay.
Needless to say,
That did not make my day.
Therefore I order you dragged through the streets,
For all your blasphemous and sickening deeds,
Then I order you shot
As you cry for your life.
How dare you be gay?
You dishonor our tribe!

To my next son Ahmed:
My suicide belt
Bring a blast to the Infidels
That they never have felt!
Sneak into Israel
And hopefully kill
As many infidels
As in Allah's will!

To my son Nawaz,
I leave you my cash
Under the camel's crap--
You will find my stash.
With it, go to Pakistan,
Where in the Madrassas,
You'll learn to hate Americans
In all of your classes.
Specifically, in chemistry you shall be taught
All the poisons and virii which humans have wrought.
And it you shall let loose on American soil
A chemical weapon that surely will spoil
Those arrogant infidels' ignorant lives!
Score one for Allah, for each one who dies!

To my youngest son Abdul-
My AK-47.
May you kill many Christians
And get into Heaven!

Faisal, my brother
For whom I have pride,
I have bought you a Jihad pass
Your choice worldwide!
You have your choice of countries,
There you'll fight with AKs or stones,
For our brothers have turned all these lands
Into a terrorist war zones.
Iraq, Turkey, and Pakistan,
Algeria, Philippines, Afghanistan,
Chechnya, Yemen, Kashmir, Palestine-
Everywhere those pesky unbelievers are dyin'!

And to my cousin Isa
A lover of travel,
I leave you a vacation
So you can unravel.
Also, take time to observe with great pride
The progress of 1400 since our religion's arrived:
Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iran, to name few,
All wonderful spots to vacation for you!

Then there's my old, one legged uncle Hajju
Who lost his leg while jihading the Jew
To you, I leave my nice walking stick
So you can now hobble around lookin' slick
And if you find a cartoonist who drew one of those pictures
Use that walking stick to kill him according to our scriptures
That walking stick has, on top, an embedded knife
Stick it in him and end his blaspheming life!

Then there is my beloved great uncle Eijaz
Two teeth, no shoes, and great hatred he has
For Christian, Jew, gay, and Baha’i,
Europeans and Americans, he hopes they all die!
And Israelis, specifically, he cannot stand
He wishes to slaughter each last one with his hand.
To Eijaz I leave my copy of "Elders of Zion"
It's like a hate-filled drug that you can get high on.
A historical truth about the wrath of the Jews
Kill them all, young and old, no time to loose!

To my sister Aisha
Of impeccable merit:
Take our mother's long veil
So now you can wear it!
It hides all your body and shows just one eye
And if you undress it, then you should die.
Moreover, if any deodorants or cosmetics
On you are found
I demand that you stoned to death
While buried half in the ground.
You may think me harsh
Bu this be our law
Blessed be Allah
He hasn't a flaw.

And finally to my female cousin Inas
I love you, but you have brought shame upon us!
Last month you had sex with a man from the city
You say you were raped, and if so, that's a pity
But now the family's honor is stained, and our custom is clear
I call for an honor killing for you, my dear.
A male member from our tribe that is noble
Will cut your throat for being so ignoble,
And if from this "rape" it appears that you're with child
We'll make the punishment a little more mild:
We'll wait nine months till the time after birth
And then we'll stone you buried half-way in earth!
Don't think of this as cruel, no, it's sublime -
It's just like Mohammed did in his time!

Mohammed, as you know, was Allah's Prophet, of course
And, indeed, what a glorious man he was -
While preaching peace and coexistence, he killed every man, woman, and child
Who found his rantings just a little bit wild
He married a six-year-old, no doubt the wedding was merry
He waited whole three years before popping her cherry!
He raised women's rights and now they live so well
Covered in black burqas in a sweltering hell
In court, their word is half that of a male
How happy they must be under that veil!
They can't keep their kids if they have a divorce,
Which is the husband's choice, since man's better, of course.
Yes, Muslim women live better at Mohammed's behest
I wonder why two-thirds are said to be depressed...

I wish all my family joy and farewell!
I have left a fair will
From what I can tell.
I've been a good Muslim--one can suffice,
Thus, I'll meet you all one day
In paradise!

There, with seventy two virgins I'll be
And they never age beyond thirty three!
They're light-skinned and blue-eyed and their breasts are shapely,
And I get to screw each and every, for free!
There, alcohol flows,
And you're allowed to partake,
But you never get hangovers
When you awake
And what's most amazing--
This I'll admit--
Is that I actually do
Believe in this shit!

-The author has chosen not to sign his name to this rhyme / because he wishes to
live out his time / without some crazy Muslims from near or afar / cutting off
his head with shouts of "allah u ahkbar!"

Posted by: charliechap at May 15, 2006 6:43 PM

Profitsbeard, I totally agree with you. I think the muslims male ego will deflate and their brains may explode but if there is any way to get to the women of islam, in a generation or two, the men might actually become human. You know, men and wine are similiar. You have to stomp the crap out of both of them to get them ready for the table.

Posted by: freewoman at May 15, 2006 7:14 PM

"Benedict said Christians were called to "open their arms and their hearts to everyone," regardless of their countries of origin.

Ouch -- that really goes against my every instict, yet it is in accordance with Christ's teachings."
Posted by: Mike_W at May 15, 2006 03:50 PM

Mike_W -

Laurence Auster has addressed this issue extensively at his blog. In this article at fontpagemag, "How Liberal Christianity Promotes Open Borders and One-Worldism", he sums up his thinking.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16157

You should read it all but because some people don't follow links, I am going to quote extensively:

"For Catholics, the ultimate authority for the idea of unconditional openness to foreigners is the pronouncements of Pope and the Church hierarchy. For liberal Protestants, it is the Bible, namely a literalist interpretation of certain scriptural passages. One of the most important of these is Jesus' parable of the Final Judgment in the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, when the Son of man comes and gathers all nations before him:

Then shall the king say to those who are on his right: Come, you who are the blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom which has been made ready for you from the beginning of the world. For I was hungry and you fed me, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink, I was a stranger and you took me in, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.
When the just people ask when they did these things, he answers:

Truly I tell you, inasmuch as you have done it for any one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it for me.

As author and immigration reformer Roy Beck has pointed out, a literalist reading of this parable gives Protestants the idea that every prospective immigrant to America—indeed every needy person in the world—is, literally, Jesus. I myself have seen evangelicals who, on hearing arguments for reasonable immigration controls, replied: "Would you turn away Jesus if he was at the border?" The notion that everyone trying to get into America is Jesus obligates Christians on pain of hell to give every prospective immigrant what he wants, or rather to get the U.S. government and taxpayers to give him what he wants, even though the great majority of immigrants come here not because of persecution or misfortune but simply because they desire the greater opportunities (and the cornucopia of government benefits) available to them here.

The parable of Matthew 25, like other difficult passages in the Old and New Testaments, becomes grotesque if taken in a literal sense, without reference to the full context of meaning in which it appears. For example, Jesus is certainly not telling his disciples to help law-breakers, yet liberal Christians take his words as a command to harbor illegal aliens—and not just an occasional illegal alien, but an ongoing mass invasion of them. Jesus is also not telling his followers to use the government to advance their ends. The Gospels show the way to eternal life in God through Christ. The supreme commandment is love of God and neighbor. Such love is intrinsically a voluntary, individual act, or the act of a cohesive group of believers, as when, for example, a congregation votes to send money to fellow Christians who have been devastated by a natural disaster. But what today's liberal Christians find in the Gospels is a political platform. Instead of minding their own business and practicing charity to their neighbor, they want to use the power of the state to compel their fellow citizens to hand over their country to foreigners, foreign cultures, and foreign religions—including religions and cultures that seek the destruction of Christianity and the West.

Another of the liberals' favorite biblical passages is God's command in Leviticus 19 concerning the proper treatment of foreigners:

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. But the stranger who sojourns with you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.

While liberals have often quoted this passage to provide support for an open borders policy, it has little to do with immigration. The text refers to one who "sojourns," meaning a temporary resident in the land, not an immigrant. It is telling us to treat such a stranger as a fellow human being, not to vex or persecute him. It is most decidedly not telling us to open our borders to a mass immigration of such strangers, so that they can change our society from what it is into something else. If you, taking a literalist approach, believe that it is telling us that, then you must also believe that Jesus' command, "Give to him who asks of you," means that we should instantly hand over our entire national product to leftist international organizations who are demanding the global equalization of wealth and income.

But what about that command—which we can't get away from—to "love the stranger as yourself"? The main Gospel authority concerning love of others is the passage in Matthew where Jesus, asked what is the greatest commandment, quotes two verses from the Torah: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt 22:37-39.)

The key to understanding this teaching is that love of God comes first. It is the love of God that disciplines us toward the good and restrains our self-aggrandizing impulses, including the impulse to display conspicuous compassion for others. An unconditional love of neighbor apart from love of God would lead us to mad acts of do-gooderism or self-sacrifice.

To this, a liberal literalist might say that since the first commandment is to love God with our whole heart, soul, and mind; and since the second commandment is to love our neighbor as ourselves; and since the second command is "like the first," therefore we're supposed to love our neighbor just as we're supposed to love God—unconditionally, with our whole heart, soul, and mind. In reality, Jesus tells his followers to love the neighbor as one loves oneself, not as one loves God. It would be an absurdity to say that God wants us to love ourselves unconditionally, with our whole heart, soul, and mind. Therefore we are not to love our neighbor that way either. We are commanded to love and follow God, and once we do that, we will feel and behave rightly toward ourselves and our neighbor as well.

Ironically, the very words, "you shall love him as yourself," which liberals take as commanding unconditional love for the Other, back up my narrower interpretation. Since it is only possible, at best, to love one person or a few people as one loves oneself, not an entire populace or the entire human race, the passage must be referring to a voluntary, personal relationship, not to some politically coerced process of national self-sacrifice."

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 7:16 PM

My favorite passage from the Auster article:

"The Christian belief in a common humanity under God should not tempt us to weaken or eliminate national borders. The division of mankind into distinct nations provides indispensable human needs, including stable social settings and systems of shared habit and culture. Equally importantly, national boundaries help keep human hatreds at bay. Common sense tells us that humanity tends to certain vices, and we should therefore not gratuitously remove the obstacles that impede those vices. It tells us that to adopt unconditional love as a political principle and to erase all boundaries on human behavior is to license unlimited aggression. But the liberal fundamentalists, having rejected the doctrine of man's innate sinfulness and even the cautions of ordinary common sense, cannot grasp these obvious facts. They condemn racism, while fanatically spreading the very conditions of unassimilable diversity that increase racial conflict.

ABSOLUTELY TRUE!

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 7:57 PM

And now to Auster's pointed criticism of the Catholic Church in particular:

"Yet the liberal Christianity of the 1950s was a model of reasonableness compared to the aggressive open﷓borders policy of the Roman Catholic Church under Pope John Paul II. Like any alienated liberal or one-world capitalist, the Pope sanctified non-Western immigrants while delegitimizing the Western nations he was ordering to include them. He deliberately undermined U.S. law when he came to Texas in 1987 and endorsed the Sanctuary Movement, a network of organizations that transport and hide illegal aliens who come here from Central America. Most appallingly, he repeatedly equated immigration restrictions with abortion, arguing that to refuse to admit a prospective immigrant into your country is as sinful as to kill an unborn child. Both acts, the Holy Father declared, are part of the "Culture of Death," which, he said, also includes such practices as contraception and euthanasia. His proposed "Ethic of Life" enjoined Christians to stand in "solidarity with society's weakest members"—the elderly, the infirm, the unborn, and the illegal immigrant.

In portraying immigration restriction as a moral crime, but only when it is practiced by Westerners, the Pope would have effectively denied Western countries any control over their own borders. In his trip to the U.S. in October 1995 he further intruded himself into American domestic politics, declaring that any attempt to control legal or illegal immigration or to ban public assistance to illegal aliens was a sin. Speaking of Third World immigrants who want to get into the West, he told American audiences that we must treat our neighbor as ourselves, and that "everyone in the world is our neighbor."
As immigration expert David Simcox summed up the Pope's policy, "Church pronouncements now affirm immigration as a virtually absolute right, while they have qualified the regulatory rights of states to the point where they are emptied of any legitimate scope of action." A Church official has written: "Catholic citizens are required to work to see that as far as possible the laws of their countries adhere to this universal norm [of open borders]."(5)

We can't help wondering, what does the Church's open-borders posturing have to do with Christianity? Jesus preached the Gospel to the poor in spirit, telling them to open their souls to the love of God. John Paul II preaches liberalism to materially prosperous Western peoples, telling them to open their pockets, their borders, and their national identity to foreign peoples. True, Jesus told a rich young man to give all his wealth to the poor. But he did not give that counsel to everyone he met. He said it to a particular individual, who, it is apparent from the Gospel text, needed that particular advice if he was to enter the kingdom of heaven. Jesus did not, as John Paul has done, tell an entire political society to sacrifice its goods, which in the modern context would mean the government sacrificing the goods of all the people in that society, whether they wanted their goods to be sacrificed or not.

Efforts by Catholic intellectuals to explain the Pope's open borders policy have only revealed how extreme it really is. The Catholic neoconservative George Weigel, after saying he agreed with immigration restrictionists that "national identity is important and that patriotism is a virtue," added the qualifier that "patriotism is not an absolute virtue and national identity is a secondary, if honorable, definition of one's self. Our national identity is subordinate to our identity as members of the Body of Christ, the Church." Weigel's remark that patriotism is not an absolute virtue seems unexceptionable from a Christian standpoint, until we realize that our "identity as members of the Body of Christ," which Weigel upholds as the highest value, translates in practical terms into his preference for open borders. "The general rule [concerning immigration]," he continues, "ought to be generosity." But if the general rule is generosity, what happens to the national identity that Weigel said is important? Under the existing open borders policy that Weigel supports, our national identity is not being properly subordinated to a higher value, it is being steadily eliminated by the mass intrusion of foreign cultures……

Contrary to the liberal and neoconservative strands of Catholicism which regard the nation as dispensable, traditional Church teachings acknowledge the desirability of organizing mankind into subsidiary units, the largest of which is the nation. The writings of the Church Fathers say nothing about an obligation of a national community to sacrifice itself for other national communities. As the Catholic historian Thomas Molnar points out, Catholic doctrine has long recognized that the nation, like the family, is an entity possessing inherent rights and serving indispensable functions. Like the family, the nation has special claims on the individual's love and loyalty, and promotes important virtues that can be promoted in no other way. And the nation, like the family, needs protection. The sovereign's first duty is the care of his own people. He must attend to the good of his own subjects before he concerns himself with foreigners. The idea that there is some unlimited right of foreigners to immigrate into a country is not in Christianity. "Unconditional love"—particularly unconditional love for all foreigners—is strictly a New Age concept.

Babel
The above thoughts lead to a surprising conclusion. Most liberal Christians today affirm that creating culturally diverse societies is the moral, Godly, and just thing to do—the more diverse, the more just and Godly. But if it is our purpose to discern God's purpose, doesn't it seem far more likely that God would oppose the creation of multicultural, majority-less societies? He would oppose them, first, because they rob human beings of the stable cultural environments and the concrete networks of belonging that are essential conditions of personal and social flourishing; and, second, he would oppose them because they lead to unresolvable conflict and disorder. In opening America's borders to the world, our political leaders are not following any divine scheme, but are indulging an all﷓too﷓human conceit: "We can create a totally just society," they tell themselves. "We can stamp out cultural particularities and commonalities that have taken centuries or millennia to develop. We can erect a new form of society based on nothing but an idea. We can ignore racial and cultural differences and the propensity to inter﷓group conflict that has ruled all of human history. We can create an earthly utopia, a universal nation."

All of which brings us to the biblical account of Babel. The comparison of multicultural America to the Tower of Babel has become such a cliché in the hands of conservative columnists over the last 20 years that a true understanding of this parable has been lost. Indeed, as I will show, the conservative, or rather the neoconservative, understanding of this parable is the exact opposite of its true meaning.

As told in the eleventh chapter of Genesis, the human race, in a burst of arrogant pride, attempts to construct a perfect human society purely by their own will—a tower "with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." Mankind hopes that this one﷓world society will prevent them from being divided into separate societies. But this is not what God wants. "The LORD came down to look at the city and tower which man had built, and the LORD said, 'If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach.'" God does not want man to build a universal city, because that would lead man to worship himself instead of God. So God confuses—that is, he diversifies—men's language so that they cannot understand one another, and then he "scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth."

It becomes clear that the Tower of Babel is not, as neoconservatives have often said, a multicultural society which breaks down because it lacks a common culture based on universalist ideals. On the contrary, the Tower of Babel represents the neoconservatives' own political ideal—the Universal Nation. And the moral of the story is that God does not want men to have a single Universal Nation, he wants them to have distinct nations. "That is why it was called Babel," Genesis continues, "because there the LORD confounded the speech of the whole earth." But that's not all. Having divided men's language into many different languages, God does not want these many languages to co﷓exist in the same society: "And from there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth."

Thus God rejects the universal society, where the whole human race lives together speaking the same language, and he also (implicitly) rejects the multicultural society, where the whole human race lives together speaking different languages. God wants the human race to belong to a plurality of separate and finite societies, each with its own culture and language. This providential system for the organization of human life allows for the appropriate expression of cultural variety, even as, by demonstrating that human things are not absolute, it restrains and channels man's self-aggrandizing instincts."

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 8:02 PM

To fellow posters: I apologize for the long cut and pastes, something that I normally find one of the most extremely annoying things on blogs. But as this immigration thing is coming to a head, and having noted several Christian posters above resigning themselves to the notion that all Christians are required to open their arms to all immigrants (as the Pope appears to be saying in this article), I felt it important to point to an alternative Christian persective on the issue.

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 8:06 PM

Seems they can't even respect themselves, your peeing in a fan pope.

Posted by: Denver at May 15, 2006 8:39 PM

"Soon the pope will have fewer followers...with the liberal west in reverse gear when it comes to the faith of christianity...it is hardly surprising that he is frightened of Islam whose faith is growing stronger.

Always remember the two markers of Islamic supremacy. One in Europe & one in the US.

1) The flag of Islam is flying over the vatican. The dominant faith is Islam.

2)The flag of Islam is flying over the whitehouse occupied by the Caliphate."

-Naseem

Excuse me, but Christianity is in decline - and has been - because people have lost faith in religion. Perhaps Pakistani brains have not yet evolved to the point where they can question anything. Perhaps it's the result of a poor diet. You cannot make Moslems replace Christians because Moslems too will leave their silly religion in droves.

Naseem, Moslems in the West will shed their faith. I am happy to report that they already are! Dearest Naseem, there is no christ, god or allah.

Those of us who are non-believers are quickly informing ourselves about Islam. We will fight you. Maybe a happier scenario would be for the pope will end up in bed with the "caliph"? Oh the horror of it all! What a happier world we would be if these religious nuts were gay. Both of them could get married in Holland and live happily ever after. Speaking of, I would like to develop a Taliban gay dating in Waziristan.

In order to show reverence to the "noble" Moslem faith, I want to make an allah dung statue. I can use pig's blood and plaster to bind the dung and make it malleable. It would make lovelier art than any piss-christ could ever be! I have thought about making this statue for some time. I am artistic and believe I can incorporate many najis things in the statue in fantastic ways. I will need semen, Kafir parts, blood and other “goodies” to add to the dung mix. You will love it! Unfortunately, I will have to create it and go nameless for fear of those "devout" members of allah's cult.

Ahmadis won't last long once the Talibs come for your heretical neck. Watch your neck and I’ll watch mine.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at May 15, 2006 9:48 PM

I am sorry...

I know that God loves the muslims, arabs and all of mankind..

I know that God wants all to repent...

but i also know that by following this logic..

The american church should have welcomed the SS and Gestapo as Advisors to americas churches..

I am sorry But i will not
Buy into this BS
Help the followers pushing this BS
Support Islamic countries who want this BS

I an all americans need now to stand up
AGAINST this BS called Islam and the pacifists who willing want to hand over our country to
the Islamic Whordes

Posted by: jingoist at May 15, 2006 10:23 PM

Bigcatgirl, yes, the Davinci Code will be shown and you will not see Christians running around screaming and rioting....

Posted by: Cheesel at May 15, 2006 11:13 PM

Caroline, I am a Catholic. I don't agree with everything the Pope says. the infallibility doctrine does not always apply. I am for legal immigration ONLY.

That said, I think that in these times and in this type of a forum we who believe in Judeo-Christian values need to stand together. Your post just points out the differences and, to me, that is a problem. To me, Catholics, Protestants and Jews all have the Bible ( or some portion of it) and that is what counts.

Posted by: Cheesel at May 15, 2006 11:18 PM

I thought this pope was supposed to be non-dhimmi.

But is he saying welcome the immigrants who are already in Europe, or is he saying welcome more immigrants? Bit of a difference there.

Posted by: traeh at May 15, 2006 11:20 PM

sofia, if illegal immigrants are so wonderful, why are 30% of California's most hardened criminals illegal aliens?

Some HAVE killed people here. Convicted felons come over the border, too, as well as people with infectious diseases.

We HAVE to know who is coming in this country. It is a matter of common sense and public safety.

Posted by: Cheesel at May 15, 2006 11:21 PM

AFAI see, the pope did not call for Muslims respecting Christians AS EQUALS. Hence, what the pope said doesn't amount to much.

chsw

Posted by: chsw at May 15, 2006 11:39 PM

Pope Benedict XVI urged Islamic countries to ensure religious rights for Christian migrants Monday while also saying Christians should continue welcoming Muslim immigrants with open arms.

The Bible does say to welcome in the stranger - BUT IT DOES NOT SAY TO GIVE THEM THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM (IN OUR CASE = VOTING RIGHTS/GOVERNMENT JOBS).

Dumb Christians (including the Pope in this case) read this and think, "Oh lets let them all in and give them the same rights as us plus more"; and will then wonder why our daughters are raped and turned into sex slaves, why our men are murdered, etc etc etc.

Christ did not tolerate evil. Neither should we. To allow evil to flourish, and then welcome it upon our children - well that makes us even more guilty of evil than the ones perpetrating the acts. God gave us a brain. Maybe the Pope should use his.

If the Pope even bothered to look at Europe he would have spoken out in support of the Dutch politicians, the Danish editors etc rather than grovel at the feet of his new masters.

And for those Catholics who think I'm harsh on the Pope - I'm sorry but isn't this the same Vatican church who had a revered leader kiss the Koran???? The same Vatican that dams Protestants (me) to hell, yet Muslims are, according to it - going to heaven??? The same Vatican that also says Hindu’s, Buddhists etc are all going to heaven, but a evangelical Christian believing in Christ as Lord and Saviour is going to hell? No way will I be part of the Vatican’s new world order of ecumenical prostitution.

Unless the Vatican Popes want to don on a Muslim cleric’s outfit, throw away their razors, and sleep with little kids (yes I know, many are doing so already - but at least the Western law punishes them - unlike Islamic law), then they better wake up and smell what they are shovelling.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 15, 2006 11:55 PM

"as this immigration thing is coming to a head, and having noted several Christian posters above resigning themselves to the notion that all Christians are required to open their arms to all immigrants (as the Pope appears to be saying in this article), I felt it important to point to an alternative Christian persective on the issue."

Posted by: Caroline at May 15, 2006 08:06 PM

Caroline, rather than resiging myself to the notion "that all Christians are required to open their arms to all immigrants" I am seeking clarification.
You say it yourself that this is what the Pope "appears" to be saying.
I have always held that unrestricted immigration and multiculturalism were Communist constructs designed to open up our societies to the scourge of Islam, so having the Pope promoting these issues rankles me.

Still, God works in mysterious ways and ultimately I believe things will work out for the best.
Dang, that smacks of Inshalla doesn't it :)

Posted by: Mike_W at May 16, 2006 12:20 AM

Hi there, this is my first time to post. I am in Sydney Aust and glad to share all your thoughts on this matter. I am increasingly concerned by the double standards we are experiencing here in Australia.

3rdtimelucky can u give me a reference for your statement

"And for those Catholics who think I'm harsh on the Pope - I'm sorry but isn't this the same Vatican church who had a revered leader kiss the Koran???? "

Thanks

Posted by: payingattention at May 16, 2006 12:24 AM

And for those Catholics who think I'm harsh on the Pope - I'm sorry but isn't this the same Vatican church who had a revered leader kiss the Koran???? The same Vatican that dams Protestants (me) to hell, yet Muslims are, according to it - going to heaven??? The same Vatican that also says Hindu’s, Buddhists etc are all going to heaven, but a evangelical Christian believing in Christ as Lord and Saviour is going to hell? No way will I be part of the Vatican’s new world order of ecumenical prostitution.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 15, 2006 11:55 PM

3rdtimelucky,

Where did you read this stuff?
Sounds like anti-Catholic propaganda to me.
There is soooo much bullshit going around about Catholicism.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 16, 2006 12:28 AM

MikeW - just google it all - there are statements by the Catholic Church made yesteryear that still stand today against Christians outside of the Catholic fold.

I will find a few links for you.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 16, 2006 12:34 AM

Yes, it's true that Pope John Paul II kissed the Koran
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33937377@N00/8316547/

however, I believe this was more a gesture of love and recociliation rather than an endorsement of Islam.

Still, the idea of the Pope actually kissing the Koran does make my skin crawl.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 16, 2006 12:35 AM

paying attention-

Welcome aboard; grab an oar!

(And pass me a Foster's!)

The 3rdtimelucky Papal Koran kiss refers to a photo of the late John Paul II giving a large (Lebanese?) gilt-and-leather, fancy-schmancy al-Qur'an a big wet one during some Middle Eastern visit.

I'm sure there's an image of it online.

It seemed odd that a book mocking Christians as heretical and delusionary infidels would be treated by a Vatican leader as if it weren't the ravings of an epileptic rapist pedophile, at best.

I don't remember Jesus giving the money changers in the Temple a kosher smooch.

All John Paul II needed to do was make the sign of the cross over the book if it were handed to him unannounced.

This would have subtly vexed the Muslims (the hated "cross") and put a hex on this warlord's diary by blessing it with a more peaceful power.

Personally, I prefer Lao Tzu.

Who would have simply hit Mohammad on the noggin with a wine bottle if he had interrupted the quiet flow of nature with his noisy ramblings about Gibreel and sanctimonious vendetta.

And who understood, 2,000 years before quantum physics, that we disturb to determine, and distort to define.

"The emptiness of the cup is as essential as the walls of the vessel."

Muslims never seem to be able to relax and grasp the value of emptiness.

Everything has to be chock full of Allah, Allah, Allah.

There's no room left for anything human.

Unless you count cringing.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2006 1:13 AM

MikeW -
Show me where the Vactican decrees are reversed - and if they are reversed - then surely the Pope is fallible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_Iesus

http://www.frontlinemin.org/ecumenism.asp

http://users.ev1.net/~damonm/catholic-chronicles/catchron4.html

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 16, 2006 1:26 AM

Mike_W-

Thanks for the JP II image link.

I've seen a more close-up photo, from a different angle, but it's the same big Koran.

Our posts crossed, and I'm working one another project simultaneously while checking JW/DW, so didn't have time to do a picture search.

Me, I'd rather kiss "Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson" (3 volumes) than the most elaborately-bound diary of the mad boy toy from Mecca.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2006 1:29 AM

A simple rhetorical question will demonstrate that Pope John Paul II was egregiously fallible and made a whopper of a mistake by kissing the Koran:

Would Pope John Paul II have kissed a copy of Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler, or the Manifesto of the Communist Party by Karl Marx?

P.S.: Time has already told that his successor may be a little better, but is not the cigar we need.

Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 2:20 AM

Since when did Benedict become so liberal in Catholic and non-Christian relations? he is completely self delusional if he thinks Saudi Arabia is going to grant tolerance to Christians.

BTW if you try to bring a Bible to Arabia, customs over there will confiscate it from you.

Benedict needs to knock off the chalice wine.

Posted by: abad at May 16, 2006 2:55 AM

Caroline,

Thank you very much for the link to the Lawrence Auster article. It made very interesting reading even to an agnostic. I think anyone, whatever his beliefs, would get a lot out of a well-written article like that.

I just put two passages on the clipboard, thinking to comment on them; but, checking back on what you quoted to be sure not to duplicate, I now find that the first of these was already quoted by you above. You describe it as "My favorite passage from the Auster article", and I think I'd say the same, because it is such a clear statement of what should be, be apparently isn't, easy to grasp.

I think what appears to be the current project on the books not just for the liberalized Christians that Auster argues so effectively against but for the West in general - Europe and its diaspora in North America and Australasia - is, indeed, as Auster says, an attempt to construct a Tower of Babel. The sequel is obvious. As William Lind put it, "The French Left is now painfully discovering that 'diversity' is a synonym for taking a swim in the shark tank". Can others not take warning and rethink their fundamental preconceptions before it is too late?

Another passage that interested me was this:

But what quality do human beings have that can stand in for God's transcendence, his quality as beyond and wholly other? Simply this, that other human beings are other and different from us. If we combine this divinization of man (which is already harmful enough) with the liberal belief in the equal freedom of all persons, or, even worse, if we combine it with leftist notions of Western guilt and multicultural equality, then the more "Other" the others are,—that is,, and the more we will worship them. In the most extreme form of this attitude (though it is terribly common today), secular or Christian liberals laud a terrorist murderer like Yasser Arafat and cast a sacred glow around everything connected with Islam, while reviling conservative Christians as a monstrous threat, simply because Arafat and Islam are radically Other from America and therefore seem to stand beyond the suffocating confines of our radically secularized society.

I really think he may be on to something here. This seems quite plausible to me as a statement in philosophical anthropology - i.e., as a statement about the nature of man. If the need for experiences that seem to point to something transcendant are an immovable part of human nature, then desacralizing human societies doesn't make that need go away. In that context it does seem highly plausible that people will look for something else "transcendant", and the "other" will seem that way, because he is outside our ordinary experience. Worse, as Auster says, "the more different, foreign, alien, incomprehensible, or even dangerous and evil they are—the more "transcendent" they will seem to us".

Posted by: Yojimbo at May 16, 2006 6:03 AM

Assalamau Laikum all,

A lot of peoples have commented about your pope being mentally weak and not saying enough.

BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE ONE...one who can speak for all the christians around the world.

I am sad, envious & a bit jealous that Islam does not have a similar figure.

We did have the Calipha upto 1924....it just seems the wrong thing to do to abolish such an important figure who could do a similar function to the pope but for Islam.

So once again the infedel has something & wants to ensure that Islam does not have it too...have an edge over Islam so to speak...why?...

The idea of the Caliphate must be resurracted...then he and his peoples can speak one-2-one with the pope and his people sort out a lot of misunderstandings between Islam & christianity.

I think you can see the merit of this...& the infedel should help bring about the rise of the calipha ...rather than oppose it.

Perhaps to start with, the infedel can help by having a calipha residence building in Italy close to the Vatican.

You could start to see the free exchange of information and heads getting togther to promote understanding and smoothe over misunderstandings very quickly.

Surely paople like Caroline, CosmicAvenger, Sophia can see the vast merits of this.

Please help me promote this wonderful idea

Posted by: Naseem at May 16, 2006 6:47 AM

Yojimbo - Glad you enjoyed the article. It's the long answer to the question you raised early in the thread.

No. Christianity is not a suicide pact!

Posted by: Caroline at May 16, 2006 6:48 AM

Naseem, you guys are confused, here are some quotes of your ealier statements:

"At the white house (the residence of the Caliphate) look out for the giant sign pointing towards Mecca...."

later:

"Perhaps to start with, the infedel can help by having a calipha residence building in Italy close to the Vatican."

White House a tough nut to crack?, going for Italy instead?, just hoping to sow some anger?,
don´t worry, we´ve got you sortet, and you know what?, you begin to become boring....

Posted by: cosmicAvenger at May 16, 2006 7:52 AM

Naseem,

The topic is the pope urging Muslims to respect Christians....not the establishment of a Caliphate which would be viewed as another step toward consolidation of Jihad.

This site is concerned with making public anything that is indicative of the spread, implementation and actions of jihad and dangerous actions by non-Muslims and Muslims that are or may lead to subjugation of non-Muslims by Islam weakening the ability of Non-Muslims to resist imperialist Jihad.

This is a resistance website...resistance against the spread of jihad and Islam imperialism, and your continual postings telling people to subjugate themselves to Islam by a) becoming Muslim b) allowing the Caliphate to be established c)instituting sharia law are not appropriate, consistant with the nature of this website or welcome. No one here is interested in becoming a Muslim, seeing the implementation of the Caliphate, being subjugated by a Caliphate, or living under sharia. Your repeated invitations and call to implement the fake utopian final solution of the subjugation of the world to Islam have been repeatedly and soundly rejected. The JW staff have been pretty clear about not using the site for proselytizing, yet you continue. Why are you here at all?

Posted by: Abby at May 16, 2006 8:01 AM

Naseem, Nassem!

Me thinks you are delirious and should go back to sleep. The idea that infidels would promote the rise of another caliphate is ludicrous to say the very least! Sweet dreams.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 16, 2006 8:01 AM

Abby says "Your repeated invitations and call to implement the fake utopian final solution of the subjugation of the world to Islam have been repeatedly and soundly rejected".

Assalamau-Laikum Abby...the embracing of the world to Islam has been rejected ...FOR NOW.
However, as time goes by though, this rejection will become smaller. France and Holland are prime examples of countries that will embrace Islam. Great heroes and Islamic saints will be buried there. You will only read of a Holland before Islam in history books. Are you so blind to these facts?....Remember Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan, ..all non-Islamic ...but have now soundly embraced Islam.

The JW staff have been pretty clear about not using the site for proselytizing, yet you continue. Why are you here at all?

I am here to make it easier for you! I have seen Pak moving to a more conservative Islamic country and want to share with you the freedoms this brings.

You and your childerns (perhaps; as infedels don't seem to bother much with them) will see the influence of Islam in the US. I will be there with you all the way, helping you to settle & integrate with Islam. In helping you this cn be a much less painful process...I am helping by preaching Dawa. This is what I was born for....and you should be grateful for free help.

Sofia...that's a muslim name...are you a muslima too?

Posted by: Naseem at May 16, 2006 9:32 AM

Yikes, the anti-Catholicism on this thread is frightening.

Regarding the Pope, he is infallible in teachings of Faith and Morals. In those areas his word is final, end of story. In other areas the Pope has his well formed opinion which should be respected; however it is not a matter of Faith to agree with him.

For example, I felt the Iraq war was a just war in light of 9-11. That was not the position of the Church, however I am respectful of their position, I just don't agree with it. It’s not a theological matter which I am obligated to agree with for my salvation, such as the teachings on anti-abortion or the Divinity of Jesus Christ. My support of the war may end up being wrong; certainly the way it is being handled up to now is a complete mess.

Secularism will NEVER be the answer to islam, liberal Christianity will NEVER be the answer to islam, a watered down faith is not Faith.

Some of the disagreements with the Pope on this thread seem to be nasty and at times ill-informed rather than respectful disagreements. I encourage those of you who don't agree with a tenant of the Catholic faith to search out the Church's position THEN make up your mind. Here are two good links:

Catechism of the Catholic Church:
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/index.htm

Dr Scott Hahn’s website:
http://www.salvationhistory.com/

It’s unfair and insincere to not even seek out Catholic reasoning on a topic before you bash the Church on it.

Posted by: adobe at May 16, 2006 9:47 AM

Nasneem, in response to your comments where you said:

"Soon the pope will have fewer followers...with the liberal west in reverse gear when it comes to the faith of christianity...it is hardly surprising that he is frightened of Islam whose faith is growing stronger."

The Pope follows Jesus and that's whom The Church then follows because he is the earthly representative of Christ and thus of God, so have no fear, there has always been, there is today, and there always will be many more followers of Jesus, even in your countries.

The Popes have lived through Roman tyranny which in essence is led by the same Evil One as Islam follows. It has survived the philosophies of the so-called enlightened age and protestantism, through Nazism and Communism.

Where is the great Roman Empire today? Where are the facists and communists? Inevitably, evil turns in on itself and destroys itself.

The Pope "frightened of Islam"? He has lived through the worst of which the last century had to dish out and secondly, he is German. No, you should be frightened of him as he holds the keys to which God Himself in the person of Jesus Christ gave to.

You have no idea who you are up against.

PJ

Posted by: PJ at May 16, 2006 9:51 AM

Thanks for those links adobe,

Dr Scott Hahn’s website:
http://www.salvationhistory.com/

has an excellent format and I intend to study the courses offered as I'm rusty on a lot of this stuff.

Posted by: Mike_W at May 16, 2006 11:03 AM

"The idea of the Caliphate must be resurracted...then he and his peoples can speak one-2-one with the pope and his people sort out a lot of misunderstandings between Islam & christianity. "

The truth of the matter is that to bring back a caliphate would not work because it belongs to a time when there were empires and empires are simply passe. Even I view the pope like a view my local parish priest, like a spiritual father and not a leader of an empire.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 16, 2006 11:52 AM

Naseem,

I addressed the above for you.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 16, 2006 11:53 AM

PJ,

Thank you for your excellent posting. Just want to add that the really fastest growing faith is the Christian faith. Weither they be Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, or even evangilical Prostestant, the fact is that the good news of the Gospels is going out to many more people worldwide. So much so that folks from the global south are now doing the missionary work in the west to plant the seeds once again in order to bring about Christian revival to the part of the world that first sent missionaries to the global south so many years ago.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at May 16, 2006 12:00 PM

My hope is that Benedict XVI will part ways with his predecessor, who seemed to have an obsession with "Hippy-Jesus;" Long hair, sandals, "peace, man." JP-II was a lovely man, but a one-dimensional Pope. Christ left, "Love one another," as his most important commandment, but not his (God's) only commandment. While Benedict XVI is enough of a holy man to recognize that Deus Caritas Est, he is (thankfully) not as Kumbaya-ish as his predecessor. He seems much more willing to embrace HIS Church than everyone else's. He seems to reailze (somewhat) that those who were closest to Christ, during our Church's first few centuries, may actually have "known better." This Church must be defended, not surrendered, as is done by smooching the Koran (real slip of judgement on JPII's part) or by the Judification of the new and everlasting covenant with God. Benedict's calling will (as is its intent) shed light on the impossible intolerance of Mohammedanism. Trust me; I attempted to attend Mass in Alexandria, Egypt once. The gates of the Church were shackled shut with a rusted padlock and the Church beyond them was barely visible due to the overgrowth of weeds and untended plants. The Catholic church in Alexandria (once a great Archdiocese) was a sad site in the ruins of forced neglegt in the heartland of the religion of tolerance.

How sad that Naseem (if she is not actally a JW/DW plant) should have to stand in the place of Pontius Pilate and ask, "What is truth?" The truth is Christ himself, standing before you, but you have yet to remove the scales from your eyes. Remember, Naseem, the shortest part of eternity is the life you live here on Earth. A question for you, Naseem: If you believe that Allah is all powerful and omnipotent, then why do Muslims believe He needs so much of their pathetically flawed assistance? Why would an omnipotent God who created the entire universe need one of his humans to strap on a bomb and blow himself up in order to fulfill His will? Perhaps the Ummah overestimates itself and underestimates the all-powerful God whom they believe requires their assistance with things like suicide bombings.

When will the Muslim world look inward onto itself; please be so self-critical as to at least share with me your thoughts on Mohammed's betrothal of a six year-old girl and of the wives of his relatives and comrades. Please, aside from "because he said so," square with me his decrees to "smite their necks" and "kill the unbelievers wherever you find them" and how these actions will bring about the peace of which you speak. And if Sharia will bring about this peace, then whose Sharia? Yours? The Taliban's? The Ayatollahs'? Zawahiri's? Qutb's? Will humans be able to sustain sharia? If so, then do they really need God, Christ, Mohammed, salvation? This is where Islam is flawed. You at once believe that God is almighty, but apparently not so almighty that he can't get by without a bunch of us cutting off heads and hands and doling out beatings and stonings as if they

I pray for your eternal soul, Naseem, as I do my own.

May you find the fullness of God in Christ, His only begotten Son. Read the Gospels of Christ. They speak only of peace, charity, and hope for the eternal salvation of our souls.

Posted by: Knight4AO at May 16, 2006 1:18 PM

TO CONTINUE MY THIRD TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH:

...beatings and stonings as if they were God's equivalent of kissing babies and shaking hands during a political campaign.

When Christ spoke of the sword, it was in parable; he came to divide the body of the Jewish people into believers and non-believers (a pre-destined occurance of which He, as God, was aware). Unlike Mohammed, he was not referring to slicing people's throats open. He healed the separated ear of one of the very arresting party that came to put Him to death.

I pray for your eternal soul...

Posted by: Knight4AO at May 16, 2006 1:23 PM

Knight4AO, Naseem won't answer your questions. She/he never does. Only rhetoric. It also may be shift change in the boiler room.

Posted by: freewoman at May 16, 2006 2:12 PM

BUT AT LEAST YOU HAVE ONE...one who can speak for all the christians around the world.

The Pope only speaks for Catholics - other Christian sects either have their own head, or none at all.

Would a Caliph, if you got one, recognize you as a Muslim? Also, more seriously, if a person converts from Ahmadiya to an Infidel religion, like your favorite Sikhism, would they be hunted down by the Pak authorities the way a Sunni or Shia would be?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 16, 2006 2:16 PM

Naseem wrote :
Remember Egypt, Indonesia, Sudan, ..all non-Islamic ...but have now soundly embraced Islam.

My Reply :
Naseem, don't be so proud for that. I want to tell you the secret about what was happened with Indonesia before Islam came in. Indonesia was first dominated by Hinduism and Budhism. But soon after Islam come to here, every old Hinduism and Budhism kingdom destroyed by moslems. Moslem armies forced and attacked Hindus kingdom to accept Islam or pay taxes, otherwise will be killed or destroyed. This is like what Iran President has just done to USA president by sent him a letter to accept Islam.

Some of Hindus escape from moslems army attacking, live and made a defence in Bali against moslems attacked. That's why you see Bali is still dominated by Hindus.

After Bali bombing 2002 by Islamic jihaders, Hindus Bali once again wakeup and realize that Islam is still attacking them.

More and more non moslem will wakeup and realize this. We as Indonesian non moslem will fight if moslem want to establish Islamic Caliphate in here. Naseem and you others moslem, will see Bali, West Papua, North Sulawesi, Central Borneo, and other non moslem dominated provinces will declare independence. Remember, Indonesia without these provinces is not Indonesia.

Posted by: Mohammed_Pedophiles_Club at May 16, 2006 2:32 PM

I think that orthodox, catholics and evangelicals( the european protestantism is lost) have to be joined in evangelizing muslims, there are a lot of work, and this is the unique answer to the current problems, Christ says to us, very clearly, go and preach the gospel!!

Posted by: Franze at May 16, 2006 4:13 PM

Jesus said "Get thee behind me Satan". As a Christian I believe that the Mohammed of Islam is
a satanic force. His followers have defiled the holy places of Christ,killed Christians,persecuted Christians,and continue to do so. Evil is as evil does. Mohammed may have been the AntiChrist. During the 500 years
prior to the Mohammedian hordes, Christians had developed a strong and basically peaceful culture of Byzantium.

Posted by: DONVAN at May 16, 2006 5:33 PM

It’s unfair and insincere to not even seek out Catholic reasoning on a topic before you bash the Church on it.

Posted by: adobe

adobe - show me where the Vactican has reversed it's ruling/decree that those outside of the Catholic faith (eg evangelicals/protestants) don't have an anathema upon them? The previous Pope DID kiss the Koran - with not so much a squeak out of the current Pope. The previous Pope DID have ecumenical services/gatherings where he prayed with Muslims Hindu's etc. So too have some Protestant leaders. They are/were wrong - just as the Pope is WRONG this time. There was only ONE perfect human - and that was Jesus Christ - a Jew from Israel, not a European from Europe.

I say the Vactican gets some things VERY right (abortion/ gay marraige etc) - but I'm sorry - the Pope is not Christ, he is just another fallable man - and fallable man makes mistakes.

Which is why the final word should be the Bible and the Holy Spirit - not some man living in the lap of luxury in the Vactican.

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at May 16, 2006 6:44 PM

3rdtimelucky, and I quote:

"Which is why the final word should be the Bible and the Holy Spirit - not some man living in the lap of luxury in the Vactican."

You said a lot within this sentence which would take volumes but suffice it to say that The Bible you refer to did not exist in its canonical state for the first few centuries.

Where did the "final word" come from then?

The Holy Bible was finally ratified by The Catholic Church councils. If you don't believe me, read your Church history.

Your "final word" is used by over 30,000 protestant denominations all claiming 'Sola Scriptura'. Is this how The Holy Spirit operates in truth?

Islam claims that the Koran is the final authority for their teachings, yet they have just as many divisions as protestantism, which is why it becomes a 'free for all' when it comes down to what one should believe is 'the truth'.

As far as the "lap of luxury" to which you make reference (I presume to The Pope), to what do you reference that with?

Do a study some time on the Tabernacle of the Jewish faith and the Ark of the Covenenat, and the Priest's vestments and then the Temple.

Be careful not to confuse something ornate as a thing to be abhorred. This only leads to endless contention. Many protestant churches have beautiful buildings, some with fountains, others with huge pipe organs. Some pastors may drive Cadillacs, others, Hondas. Do you see how silly this can get?

Matthew 16:18 begs the question, who do you think Peter was? Jesus called him Kepha, meaning massive boulder.

Like it or not, The Pope is the head of The Church.

Sorry to digress Robert but I couldn't resist.

PJ

Posted by: PJ at May 16, 2006 7:47 PM

The problem with referring to scriptures is that we in the present have no understanding of the environment in which they were written.

A nod to Caroline here. "Love they neighbor as thyself" should be understood in the context of the time and place. In that context "neighbor" meant racial/tribal kinsmen, not some stranger who was living next door or some sojourner from a strange land that moved into your neighborhood.

And by the way.. A Serb told me that in Slavic Neighbor has the same meaning..a kinsmen, a person of your ethnicity, religion, culture.

We shoot ourself in the foot by referring to our quoting scripture, in fact almost everything in scripture can be contradicted by another verse.. biggest problem is that we of the 21st Century bear no resemblance at all, in any form, other than human form to the peoples for whom the scriptures were written.

In other words, they are incomprehensible, and trying to apply them to our lives is digging a hole in the ground and pulling it in on top of you.

Posted by: Nariz at May 16, 2006 9:53 PM

I don't care if a Pope is a Pope: it's wrong for the spiritual leader of one of the most important and globally widespread branches of Christianity to kiss of Koran. Period.

Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 9:54 PM

"to kiss the Koran"

Posted by: Television at May 16, 2006 9:55 PM

IMO..The Pope is seeking to protect HIS church in the land of Islam, and is aware that if he doesn't dhimmi out, then the Church in the land of Islam is in deep doo doo.

Selling out All of posterity for a handful of hopes, forelorn hopes at that.

The troops chosen to run into the breach in the wall of a castle were called The Forelorn Hope, today we would call them dead men walking.

Posted by: Nariz at May 16, 2006 10:10 PM

PJ - the early Church - which was Jewish to start with - not ROMAN CATHOLIC - had scriptures - the Old Testament, Jewish scriptures which they AND Christ AND Paul AND the Apolstles followed.

These are the same scriptures Christ adhered to and lived by.

As for the New Testament - yes PJ read your history - both arms of the church - East and West orthordox BOTH deteremined what was to be the NT - separately - oddly enough they didn't need the Roman Pope to do it for them, yet they ended up with the same books (bar some of the Catholic ones, and hence the split between Orthodox and Catholic today).

A careful reading of the scriptures and you will see that the Old Testament is in the New and vise versa.

Show me PJ where there is meant to be a "pope" based in Rome who heads the church? I always thought Christ was the head - I don't follow some sinful man (if I did - it would make me no better off than the Muslim following HIS cleric/pope)(maybe you should read Revalation and the Woman who rides the beast; and the 'seven hills' of mystery babylon). Fact is the early church was JEWISH, not Roman Catholic - and it comprised of elders (for which instruction is given in the NT by Paul). No where does it say have a heirarchy of Popes and bishops (aka clerics telling the masses what to do) - Christ wanted to aviod all of that - why the hell do you think he attacked the priests of his time so much (they did EXACTLY the same thing as the Popes)????

So no PJ - like Nariz says - (for once I semi agree with him) - the Pope is merely protecting his "turf" and trying to get some more.

As for the Vactican - well if we sold off the Vactican we could pay off the the debt of a third wold African nation very easily. The wealth of the Catholic church is based upon selling indulgences to their people to have there sins forgiven (you know - the thing Martin Luther had a big beef with??) Only Christ can forgive sins.

Let the Pope live and work like Mother Theresa - then I will respect him as an leader who practices what he preaches. And then I may listen. Only the rich can afford body guards. Only the political have a (private) army.