This whole damn visit has turned into a debacle.

I had great hopes for Benedict. Now he's doing his John-Paul II imitation.

I've been thinking about the feebleness of Christianity in meeting the Islamic challenge. Been thinking about our self-repudiating culture and our anemic fertility rate.

It just seems on some level that perhaps we don't deserve to survive as a civilization...that our expiration was absolutely predictable, was self-inflicted and is to a large extent deserving.

I continue to believe that the Judeo-Christian West civilized and modernized the world...but somewhere along the way (the 60s maybe?), we lost ourselves.

Somebody please talk me out of this frame of mind.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 29, 2006 8:03 AM

As we are well aware Muslim dialogue can only be Muslim dialogue. Muslim dialogue tends to be flowery sprinkled with deceit and violence.

And to Dr Bardakoglu ,, Can you read lips? pthththththththt,.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 29, 2006 8:16 AM

Should Turkey join the EU?

You could say the answer to this question is rather like St.Augustine’s attitude to chastity ; a good thing but not yet.

Much of the driving force to moderation in Turkey comes from the desire to join the EU.

As is well known, Kemal Ataturk said there was no such thing as Western Civilization. There was simply civilization – Turkey could get on board or be left behind.

In order to drive the forces of reform and moderation Turkey needs incentives.
It also needs to be held to account for it’s serious human rights abuses regarding Christian minorities, the Armenians etc.

Before it can join the EU, a reformed type of Islam must emerge ( a reformed Islam is Christianity, in my book )

It Turkey loses all hope of joining the EU, it will probably revert to a much more extreme form of Islamic fundamentalism.

Posted by: Not_philip_Pullman at November 29, 2006 8:25 AM

Important films available about political Islam

“Obsession: Radical Islam's War Against The West”

This film was available at Youtube but was removed session was “at the request of copyright owner.”
It is being broadcast today by the Heritage Foundation.
Available here

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/archive.cfm

If you scroll down you can see a huge archive of lectures which you can watch.
You will need Windows Media Player, Broadband and sound to watch these films.
Highlights include

Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror
November 15, 2006
Nonie Darwish

Nonie Darwish reflects on the ideology on which she grew up in Eygpt and Gaza and why she came to reject it.

The Truth About Muhammad
November 14, 2006
Robert Spencer

A lecture to accompany the book.

Because They Hate: A Survivor of Islamic Terror Warns America
September 27, 2006
Brigitte Gabriel

A Lebanese Christian recounts her life growing up in Lebanon during the Civil War.

The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims
May 09, 2006
Dr. Andrew G. Bostom
Author of The Legacy of Jihad and
Associate Professor of Medicine,

This doctor turned scholar gives a particularly insightful lecture covering, amongst other things, the original Islamic conquest of Palestine in the 7th Century.

Posted by: Not_philip_Pullman at November 29, 2006 8:25 AM

In a clear reference to the Pope's words at Regensberg University, Mr Bardakoglu said religious leaders should not try to “demonstrate the superiority of their own beliefs” or waste time in discussing “the theology of religions”.

Yes! He is sooooo right! When WILL Islam quit doing that already?

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 8:34 AM

I think we must keep in mind that the Pope sees the world in a different light that many of us do. While the enormous tide of secularism has unfortunately pulled the masses (in the western world) away from premier focus on God and salvation, he cannot be swayed into the finite pleasures of the here and now. The Pope moves and acts in the interest and reality of eternal salvation of souls. Rather that see the people of islam as the enemy, he sees all people as God's people. In my opinion, he knows that islam is a misguided heretical cult, but to admonish its people harshly and publicly at this time may not serve the ultimate purpose for him. I think that Benedict, through his spirituality and confidence in the Trinity acts towards muslims much like the father in the story of the prodical son. He knows that with God, nothing is impossible and that in the end the Immaculate heart of Mary will triumph. So while we are all frustrated with muslims and islam in general, to look at this Pope as the lynchpin to pull western society into a new crusade is false (and wishful) thinking.

That is why it is so important that we in the West, realize that islam has already a foothold in many of our countries. We must be the ones to cleverly draw up new laws or at least enforce the laws we already have to protect ouselves and our culture.

We cannot allow an inferior society to use our laws and rules against us to eventually force us into submission. And we must do something now while we still can and not leave it up to our children and grandchildren when the issue will be multiplied.

Posted by: hassan_bin_sobar at November 29, 2006 8:38 AM

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. My guess is that the Pope knows that. He knows he isn't going to have honest dialogue with most of them. He is speaking to "those that have ears to hear".

Posted by: Josephine at November 29, 2006 8:40 AM

They talk out of both sides of their mouths. My guess is that the Pope knows that. He knows he isn't going to have honest dialogue with most of them. He is speaking to "those that have ears to hear".

Posted by: Josephine at November 29, 2006 08:40 AM

They might have ears to hear with but precious few brains to comprehend. He might as well be talking to a dungheap.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 8:42 AM

I sense that what the Pope is doing is calling out to the west to not only rediscover its Jewish/Christian heritage, but to go forward, not to do military crusade, but to spread the good news of the Gospel of Jesus, the King of Kings to all.

Also remember that in the Gospel of John, Jesus has said that he has to go and fine the lost sheep and bring them back. I look at the situation of the Muslims being among the lost sheep that must be brought back home to faith in Christ. This is why that the Muslims will come home to faith in Christ via his Mother, Mary. Take a good look at the history of the Christian that at one time there were communities in the Middle East that are now Muslim that at one time were Christian. The good news of the Gospel must not only go out back into the west, but also to east.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 29, 2006 9:09 AM

Sad, the Muslims once again deny their history.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 29, 2006 9:16 AM

Well, at least Pope Benedict didn't kiss the Koran like John Paul did. That has to be the most disgusting photo I have in my dhimmitude in action collection.

Posted by: John Sobieski at November 29, 2006 9:16 AM

Of course the Pope gets scolded-he hasn't kissed the PM'S butt so far. Short of that or a conversion he'll be deemed insufficiently sycophantic.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 29, 2006 9:50 AM

Re: "He said Muslims universally rejected accusations that Islam was spread over the world by swords."

These stupid Muslim Turks need a non- biased history lesson from a non-Muslim.

It is a historical fact that Islam was spread by the sword.

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?groupid=2756&HistoryID=ac59

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

Posted by: Johnathan at November 29, 2006 10:00 AM

No historical or scientific data? What utter bollocks.

It is typical of fascists that they rewrite history to suit their own perspective.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at November 29, 2006 10:00 AM

His Holiness Pope Dhimmius II.

Posted by: Kim Hartveld at November 29, 2006 10:14 AM

The grotesque attempt to ambush the Pope on his immediate arrival, to lecture him like a schoolboy on the wonderfulness of Islam, to demand that the "theology" of this or that faith be forever beyond any discussion, all done by Dr. Ali Bardakoglu, head of the state-run religious affairs department (and thus, one can assume, a man comfortable with, as a participant in, the Kemalist-mandaded government control of religious affairs that is supposed to insure that “moderate”” clerics reading “moderate” khutbas will prevail) who used and abused the Pope (so much for famed "Muslim" hospitality), and who was so ably assisted by Erdogan, who after a fifteen-minute private discussion with the Pope then claimed, to the outside world, without any confirmation by anyone, that a Pope who had for more than a decade expressed doubts about Turkish entry into the E.U. had suddenly -- no doubt on the basis of vague and non-committal remarks twisted in timeworn Muslim fashion to say whatever Erdogan wanted them to say -- now supported the entry of Turkey into the E.U.

And that is the headline that goes out while the Pope, still a hapless guest, must refrain from setting the record straight at least while he is still in Turkey, and perhaps even when he has returned to Rome will not find it wise to directly contradict the Turks, lest their ill-concealed fury create other Santoro-like martyrs.

The intolerable behavior of both the leading “political” figure in Turkey, Erdogan, and the leading “religious” figure in Turkey (it’s a distinction that in Islam means very little, but only Kemalism gives it some minor meaning here), and the stories they have put out about the Pope’s sudden conversion to support for Turkey in the E.U., so quickly reported by the world’s press (eager to collaborate in this nonsense, uneager to show any skepticism) simply demonstrates one more time something which we all know is true, especially when it comes to what Muslim apologists and propagandists have been able to do against the Americans, the Israelis, the Indians, the Christians of Lebanon, the Biafrans, and anyone else who stands in their way and athwart their goals.

Twain was right: A lie travels half-way round the world, while the truth is still putting on its shoes.

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 10:25 AM

"He said Muslims universally rejected accusations that Islam “was spread over the world by swords”.

Oh, that's rich, considering how Constantinople was converted...by the sword.

Very disappointed in the Pope. Today is a sad day. I do not expect stridency from him, just that he stand firm on the Truth.

Posted by: nichtdhimmi at November 29, 2006 11:08 AM

QUTOE FROM THE ARTICLE:

"In a clear reference to the Pope's words at Regensberg University, Mr Bardakoglu ...said Muslims universally rejected accusations that Islam “was spread over the world by swords”.

REAALLLLLLLY Is that why the hadith says (and I sooo do quote):

QUOTE FROM THE HADITH:

Bukhari:V4B51N73 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘Know that Paradise is UNDER THE SHADE of swords.’”

---------------
And never mind all that inconvenient history of Islam --a constant spreading the religion by the sword.

Ah yes but history and what it ACTUALLY SAYS in your scriptures is to be ignored eh? you godless lying muslim scumbags!

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 29, 2006 11:09 AM

Hugh,

This is why the internet has to in this present dangerous age, play a very important and vital role in getting this truth out. This is why JW/DW and others have a big role to play.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 29, 2006 11:13 AM

QUOTE:

"He also said Turkey “is very kind to Christians” and quoted John Paul II, who said on his 1979 visit to Turkey that Christians and Muslims had to “develop the spiritual bonds that unite them” in order to “defend their moral values, peace and liberty.”

I cant believe His Holiness said that! After so many Christians have died and been killed there in Turkey! In the early part of the 20th cent in the fiftes and son on right up to this day!

I bet Cardinal Ratzinger will be the next Pope? It sounds like he might be more hard on Islam.

And maybe this Pope is saying all this to spare Christian lives in Turkey but at what cost?

I know Ive posted the following before but since the Pope is still in Turkey, forgive me for once again posting the same thing. But maaan is it appropos.

QUOTE FROM NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE (link to whole article below):

"Turkey, Armenia and Denial
Published: May 16, 2006

Turkey's self-destructive obsession with denying the Armenian genocide seems to have no limits. The Turks pulled out of a NATO exercise this week because the Canadian prime minister used the term "genocide" in reference to the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey during and after World War I. Before that, the Turkish ambassador to France was temporarily recalled to protest a French bill that would make it illegal to deny that the Armenian genocide occurred. And before that, a leading Turkish novelist, Orhan Pamuk, was charged with "insulting Turkish identity" for referring to the genocide (the charges were dropped after an international outcry).

Turkey's stance is hard to fathom. Each time the Turks lash out, new questions arise about Turkey's claim to a place in the European Union, and the Armenian diaspora becomes even more adamant in demanding a public reckoning over what happened"

quote from "THE NEW YORK TIMES" full article may 16 2006:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/16/opinion/16tue3.html?ex=1305432000&en=cfccaddb1b9957a1&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

---------------------
Armenian Genocide Survivor Sam Kadorian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfC0thL5lUc

Armenian Genocide (1915) Survivor: Hagop Assadourian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ln3JYUYnsqE&mode=related&search=

Armenian Genocide (1915) Survivor: Richard Parseghian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1ijIaMWwtk&mode=related&search=

Armenian Genocide (1915) Survivor --Alice Muggerditchian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHiaiqowsQg&mode=related&search=

Armenian Genocide Survivor Vartan Hartunian 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNYiNbRZBDk&mode=related&search=

mass kidnapping of Christian boys and girls in Turkey (to raise them as muslim and to marry the girls):
Armenian Genocide Survivor - Kevork Balian
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdnHOSs0XNA

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at November 29, 2006 11:20 AM

okay - Dr Bardakoglu says Muslims universally rejected accusations that Islam “was spread over the world by swords”.

UMMM, no...... Muhammad and Allah both insist that Islam is to be spread over the whole of the world by fighting. Dr. Bardakoglu is a hypocrite in the eyes of Islam. He should be asked to return to the fold and if he refuses to acknowledge Jihad fighting as a way to spread Islam over the whole of the earth... he should be killed immediately by the Caliphah...

Qur’an:8:39 “So fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief [non-Muslims]) and all submit to the religion of Allah alone (in the whole world).”

Bukhari:V4B52N196 “Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been ordered to fight with the people till they say,“None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”’”

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 73:

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Abi Aufa:

Allah's Apostle said, "Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords."

BukhariV1B7N1331 “The Prophet said, ‘I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me. 1. Allah made me victorious by awe by His terrorizing my enemies. 2. The earth has been made for me. 3. Booty has been made lawful for me yet it was not lawful for anyone else before me. [...]

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

Bukhari:V4B52N44 “A man came to Allah’s Apostle and said, ‘Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad in reward.’ He replied, ‘I do not find such a deed.’”

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 29, 2006 11:34 AM

Almost every paragraph of the Pope’s speech dwelt on the shared ground between the religions. “Christians and Muslims belong to the family who believe in the one God, and who, according to their respective traditions, look back to Abraham,” he said.

Well it may be true that Muslims and Christians both believe in one god... that god is obviously different in word and deed if you compare the Canonized Texts. They can't be the same god.

I thought the Pope understood that.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at November 29, 2006 11:46 AM

I just saw the Pope kiss the koran on Fox news.

Posted by: freewoman at November 29, 2006 12:05 PM

[The Pope] quoted Pope Gregory VII, who said in 1076 that Christians and Muslims “believe and confess to one God, even if in different ways, and every day we praise and venerate him as Creator of the ages and Lord of this world.”

Almost every paragraph of the Pope’s speech dwelt on the shared ground between the religions. “Christians and Muslims belong to the family who believe in the one God, and who, according to their respective traditions, look back to Abraham,” he said.

It's high time the Church declared Islam to be a Judaeo-Christian heresy. The Church should have done so at least 1,300 years ago, when all the facts were in. Now, after 1,300 years of more such facts upon bloody hateful facts, the Church still promulgates a "family"!?

Catholics should no more embrace Muslims in their family of faith than they would embrace Arians, Marcionites, Valentinians, Docetists, Manicheans, Bogomilians, Cathars, or Satanists. After all, the Muslims in their founding text, the Qur'an, and in its exegetical Hadiths, have already declared Judaeo-Christianity to be a Muslim heresy -- and yet the Pope would keep turning the other cheek. How many cheeks does the West have to turn, for God's sake!?

Posted by: remote_control at November 29, 2006 12:08 PM

Mr Bardakoglu said religious leaders should not try to “demonstrate the superiority of their own beliefs” or waste time in discussing “the theology of religions”.

Perhaps old Baradog should take a peek into the Koran. B16 should, too.

Allah is He, no other Ilah (God) may be worshiped.
--- God proclaiming Islam's superiority in Koran 59:22

What is it with these Moslems, always acting indignant and giving orders.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 29, 2006 12:10 PM

How many cheeks does the West have to turn, for God's sake!?

Remote, with all the jackasses put into positions of authority in the West over the past 30 yrs, we have a nearly limitless supply of cheeks to turn.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 29, 2006 12:41 PM

I have been a Christian for almost seventeen years, and have been part of non-denominational churches for all of that time. There have been many, valid criticisms of the nondenoms, such as lack of tradition, acceptance of postmodern attitudes, and aberrant forms of worship in some instances.

The one thing I can say, however, is that the exegesis of the Bible, and strong apologetic teachings has never allowed any church I've been involved in to identify Islam as anything less than antithetical to Christianity. Popular protestant Christian culture, at least in the US, includes radio networks, bookstores and study groups, along with a large body of superb scholarship.

I pray that the Islamic crisis will help unite all people who claim Jesus as the central authority in their lives, Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical and otherwise. A shared understanding of church history, and a recommittment to our own scholarship and apologetics will go a long way toward breaking through this existential fog we seem to be in.

Posted by: Clive at November 29, 2006 12:53 PM

"Moderate" Muslims are simply the Velvet Glove which surround the Iron Fist of Jihad.

The Iron Fist says "We want to subjugate and kill you."

The Velvet Glove says "We are peaceful -- and if you don't agree, this Iron Fist I'm working so hard to conceal will punch you very hard."

Posted by: jsla at November 29, 2006 1:14 PM

Look I'm not even Catholic and I am not sure I would subscribe to some of the official statements by the Vatican vis-a-vis Muslims but I think some people are being a bit harsh on the Pope. His full speeches here indicate that he has made a distinct call for religious freedom to the diplomatic corps and in more gentle tones, to Bardakoglu. The Vatican has clarified his comments to Edorgan about the EU (very carefully worded...and you know, you'd expect Edorgan to be an opportunist when it comes to any "positive" statement on the EU and to put some spin on what was said etc etc).

We also don't know what was discussed in private (not that I expect any 180s in any near future)

And of course we all know how the press reports matters of religion.

At the same time he has to be careful not to make life even more difficult for Catholics in Turkey much less all other Christians in Turkey or elsewhere.

Posted by: saint at November 29, 2006 2:03 PM

The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove described in a posting above reifies the phrase "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo." As a tactic for Muslims, it had some early success, but such success is not capable of being sustained.

Things, you see, are not quite working out. The messge of the Akbar-Ahmeds and others desperately trying to disguise or camouflage ort explain away or distract Infidel attentin onto the trivial isn't quite up to the world-wide task at hand. Not only Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and Nasrallah and other terrorists are getting in the way, but so to is Sheik Al-Qaradawi, and so many other Muslim clerics, from Tantawi the former Sheikh al-Azhar to all kinds of people in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan, each more blood-curdling than the next.

Problem for Muslim apologists (and their well-paid running dogs, such as Esposito) is that as more of us begin to read and study and observe and make sense, we discover - and so do all kinds of Infidels, just a bit too much fortiter, and not nearly enough convincing suaviter. One is playing fast and loose with the Latin here, but what else is to be expected when someone demonstrates a liking for the adverb of manner "fast and loose"?

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 2:43 PM

The Iron Fist in the Velvet Glove reifies the phrase "fortiter in re, suaviter in modo." As a tactic for Muslims, it had some early success, but such success is not capable of being sustained.

Things, you see, are not quite working out. The messge of the Akbar-Ahmeds and others desperately trying to disguise or camouflage ort explain away or distract Infidel attentin onto the trivial isn't quite up to the world-wide task at hand. Not only Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri and Nasrallah and other terrorists are getting in the way, but so to is Sheik Al-Qaradawi, and so many other Muslim clerics, from Tantawi the former Sheikh al-Azhar to all kinds of people in Saudi Arabia and Iran and Pakistan, each more blood-curdling than the next.

Problem for Muslim apologists (and their well-paid running dogs, such as Esposito) is that as more of us begin to read and study and observe and make sense, we discover - and so do all kinds of Infidels, just a bit too much fortiter, and not nearly enough convincing suaviter. One is playing fast and loose with the Latin here, but what else is to be expected when someone demonstrates a liking for the adverb of manner "fast and loose"?

Posted by: Hugh at November 29, 2006 2:44 PM

The Pope is in Turkey for the purpose of meeting with the Patriarch of Constantinople, leader of the Orthodox communion. The purpose of the meeting, as I understand it, is to further discussions on rapprochment between the Latin and Greek churches, towards reunification of the Church. This is occuring in the face of increased interference in Christian activities in secular Turkey.

The Turkish government currently demands that the Patriarch of Constaninople be a Turkish citizen. This need not be an insurmountable obstacle, provided that upon the death of the old patriarch, a new patriarch would be selected from the Orthodox church and allowed to take Turkish citizenship if not a Turkish citizen already.

And yet we are to suppose that this will happen (continue to be allowed to happen?)in the face of increased violence against Christian clergymen, in the face of continuing denial of relgiously-motivated genocide against the Armenians by the Turks, in the face of increasing prominence of Islamist political parties in secular Turkey's government. There's a disconnect here. The world is to suspend disbelief concerning Turkish intentions while Turks themselves take no ownership of past outrages.

The pope can probably bear with the scolding from the Turks regarding his alleged insult to Islam. He can practically emphasize the common ground while staying on message: violence in matters of faith is no faith at all. There will be some, perhaps few, that will get the message.

Posted by: Chatillon at November 29, 2006 2:56 PM

Cornelius: "Somebody please talk me out of this frame of mind."

I think I understand what you mean.

I'm going to suggest that you read a children's book called "The White Mountains" by John Christopher.

Aside from that suggestion, here's are my comments on the substance of your post.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln

Thre is a risk in freedom. With freedom, people can make choices which get them much farther, in so many diverse areas, than they ever could under oppression. I wouldn't be writing to you in the way that I am were it not for freedom.

However, with freedom, people can also make choices so poor and blunders so large that they may lead to a quick cultural death unlikely to befall those totalitarian regimes that are at least careful enough to push for a high birthrate, and to use some markets in economic matters. An analogy; if you take your car out of the garage, you can drive to Florida for a vacation, but you might also swerve it off a bridge. You certainly won't swerve it off the bridge if you keep it locked up in the garage. That's not a good reason to keep it in the garage, and it will eventually, over decades, rust away to scrap in the garage. But, there you go; it still won't fall off a bridge that way.

The ball is currently in play. Either can happen for us. It is what free people do that matters. A small group of sharp, sincere, hard-working people can make a difference. Heck; look at the difference for the world one sociopathic and/or delusional and/or demon-possessed man in the desert made 1400 years ago. Yes the circumstances are different, but they is different in ways both in and against our favor, and we can't predict the future. But we do appear to have a fighting chance.

Could you imagine the situation without the handful of fighting people out there like Spencer and Ye'or and Shoebat? The more their words are backed up by the evidence the jihadists are intent on providing, the more the MSM loses the credibility its propagansa relies upon, and the more people will take the fight seriously. This is happening in the age of the Internet; there isn't the information lock down there once could have been.

The people at the head of the knowledge curve, when they're on target, tend to be eventually followed by the people who go more with the flow. As it increasingly becomes clear to moderately-thinking people what the situation is, the flow more and more tends toward truth (in a place with free speech).

Think of it playing out over a generation or two. The US (sadly, perhaps unlike Europe) will still have the demographics in favor of the anti-jihadists, it will still likely have the culture to fight, that we've had since fighting off the British. Look at the birth trend differences between cultural conservatives and leftwing cultural relativists. Even counting the fact that the latter control the educational establishments of the former, there is a significant difference that bodes well for the culture that prizes firearms ownership, relative to that which prizes tolerance of forced marriage on cultural grounds. There are a lot of points for hope.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 29, 2006 4:48 PM

Tehran Times Opinion Column: Dialogue with Islam or a Christian alliance against Muslims?

Ummah News Links

Posted by: ummahnewslinks at November 29, 2006 4:59 PM

This Pope is a disgrace.

Posted by: US_infidel at November 29, 2006 5:35 PM

This is the standard MO that Turkey has always used.
It comes at you with a sledge hammer and expects you to comply with every demand they make.

The scolding of the Pope itself should be expected, what Turkey also expects is the usual capitulation she gets by flexing her muscle.

I understand the need for diplomacy, but in face of an animal such as Turkey I believe it is best showing strength and aggression. This is the universally accepted language of Islam. Give an inch they'll take a mile is so true in this part of the world. How else do the Saddam's of the world always manage to keep a lid on these people, brute force and terror.

I'm afraid that a lack of dialogue and condemnation of Christian treatment in Muslim lands, will only get worse if not pressured when the opportunity arrives, and that opportunity is here now.

Niv

Posted by: niv at November 29, 2006 5:42 PM

So the Pope is supporting Turkey's entry into the EU?

I may be wrong, but I thought that the Vatican was an independent state, and is not a member of the EU. And if this is the case, what business is it of the Pope who joins or does not join the EU?

Posted by: Aardvark at November 29, 2006 5:56 PM

"I just saw the Pope kiss the koran on Fox news."

Posted by: freewoman

I saw him kiss a Bible with his Orthodox Christian cohort. Are you sure that's not what you saw?

Dearest, The Allies Shall Win:
You posted:

"I bet Cardinal Ratzinger will be the next Pope? It sounds like he might be more hard on Islam.

And maybe this Pope is saying all this to spare Christian lives in Turkey but at what cost?"

Forgive me if I missed some sarcasm of yours and am telling you something you already know.

Joseph Ratzinger IS Pope Benedict XVI

Posted by: freedomschool at November 29, 2006 5:56 PM

Mrsmomomoto,

Thanks for the effort. Much truth in what you write.

I guess the news has just been so bad of late:

Iran and Syria are chomping at the bit as we prepare to abandon Iraq; a Chavez protege was just elected President in Ecuador, surrounding our beleagured friends in Colombia with enemies; the Pope completely backtracks on his previously courageous and enlightened stand on Islam; the Democtrats are ready to make "ethno-religious profiling" a crime; DHS has apparently released thousands of illegal immigrants from the Middle East who were caught entering from Mexico over the last 5 years; and on and on...

You quoted Lincoln.

He also said "a house divided cannot stand."

As long as the Left half of the country is uninterested in fighting Jihad, I'm wondering how we're going to win this thing.

Then again, who knows,...we lost the war (Vietnam) and won the peace against the Soviets. Maybe the same will happen after Iraq. But in my guts and in my intellect, I can't help but feel such a sanguine prognosis is wishful thinking.

Sorry I can't be more positive. I stay sober during the week.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 29, 2006 6:03 PM

I love it when the norms of grammar boldly are elided by the evocatin of similes apostrophized.

Posted by: jsla at November 29, 2006 6:10 PM

QUOTE

He also said Turkey “is very kind to Christians” and quoted John Paul II, who said on his 1979 visit to Turkey that Christians and Muslims had to “develop the spiritual bonds that unite them” in order to “defend their moral values, peace and liberty.”

yes turkey where very kind to my family 30 years ago when they came to Cyprus and forced them out of there homes and stole there property if thats being nice then i would hate to think what Turkey is like when they are bad

Posted by: Greek Gurl at November 29, 2006 6:12 PM

dang -- evocation.

Can we get a spell checker?

Posted by: jsla at November 29, 2006 6:12 PM

"I just saw the Pope kiss the koran on Fox news."

Posted by: freewoman

maybe the pope was not kissing the koran maybe he was wiping his nose with it

Posted by: Greek Gurl at November 29, 2006 6:27 PM

"And if this is the case, what business is it of the Pope who joins or does not join the EU?"

That's exactly what the Pope told Erdogan... that the Holy See had no political authority over the EU and therefore would not object to Turkey's entrance. Erdogan twisted that as if BXVII supported Turkey's application.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 29, 2006 6:28 PM

"I just saw the Pope kiss the koran on Fox news."

Posted by: freewoman

Wrong!

I've had Fox on all dayt and they've shown a clip of the Pope kissing a large book. This is the Gospel Book which he always kisses during Liturgy. He had celebrated Mass at the house of the Blessed Virgin and Saint John the Beloved in Ephesus. The clip is from that.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 29, 2006 6:32 PM

Is he trying to be papal or just politically correct???

Posted by: OLD SARGE at November 29, 2006 6:37 PM

Will someone, anyone, please tell the emperor he is naked!!!!
Is there no one left on earth that will tell islam to go staight to hell?

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 29, 2006 6:38 PM

straight ↑

Posted by: Carolyn2 at November 29, 2006 6:40 PM

That's exactly what the Pope told Erdogan... that the Holy See had no political authority over the EU and therefore would not object to Turkey's entrance. Erdogan twisted that as if BXVII supported Turkey's application.

Posted by: Provoslavni

your right the pope has no politcal power over turkey joining the EU but he has influence on european countrys which are mostly catholic lots of catholics admire the pope and take his advice and if he says turkey should not join the EU then most likely catholics will not vote for Turkey to join the EU or vote for leaders in there country who do not want turkey in the EU so the pope does have power in that way

Posted by: Greek Gurl at November 29, 2006 6:42 PM

Greetings Cornelius
Domo arregato, Mrsmomomoto

Cornelius posted:

"As long as the Left half of the country is uninterested in fighting Jihad, I'm wondering how we're going to win this thing."

What the American Left needs to understand is that their Progressive values - possible only in a country like ours - like feminism and gay rights, will be the first things to go under Sharia law.

mrsmomomoto:
Thank you for the link. It's nice to see myself being talked about in the MSM.

Posted by: freedomschool at November 29, 2006 6:42 PM

I tried to imagine that picture but stopped due to stomach contents,i think he would like to tell them to eat shit and bark at the moon, but that would cause trouble!!!!

Posted by: OLD SARGE at November 29, 2006 6:42 PM

Cornelius,

The hits you mention are significant hits, and there is no denying that, and they will have significant negative consequences.

I think it will get much worse before it gets better. But, thinking in terms of the many decades this war will last, I think there is a good chance it will eventually get better, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Regarding the house divided: As it progresses, I think the ranks of the Left will thin out. Many of those who vote Democratic aren't moonbats, and don't want the terrorists to win. They see Iraq and the WoT as different things, see Iraq as an elective war, and dislike elective wars that aren't won quickly. Even if they are wrong regarding Iraq, when clearer situations arise (and the Jihadis are intent on making that happen), they, and hopefully their children as well, will align with the defence against Jihad.

Recall that most people don't have or seek out the information that you have, as they have different jobs and hobbies and personal obligations. When this sort of information does end up facing them, many more will want to react as you want to react.

As far as staying sober, well, I really do think we are early in this war. I think there are a lot of ways things could play out, even with the recent hits you mention. I think sober is good, but predicting, many decades prematurely, how the war will end, is actually counter-productive if it induces despair now. It can become a self-fulfilling prophecy that way. I'm wary of it.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 29, 2006 6:55 PM

He also said Turkey “is very kind to Christians” ...
must be why they have flourished since the sacking of Constantinople in the 15th century...churches all over the place...conversions a daily occurance..bibles on sale on the street....right.

Posted by: ujaklija at November 29, 2006 7:37 PM

"Turkey 'is very kind to Christians'"

Attributed to Benedict XVI

In fact, he said no such thing. A link, provided below, will allow anyone interested to see exactly what he did say.

The mistake that, unfortunately, most posting in this thread, Robert included, are making is to neglect to apply the necesary skepticism to this and other MSM reports about the visit, accepting the story at face value.

Keep in mind that a churchman, especially one of Benedict's high office, to say nothing of the cultivated personal spirituality that has characterized him his whole life, is trained, and expected, to conduct himself with quiet dignity, relying primarily on reason, persuasion and good example, rather than on loud denunciations. This "soft" approach is the embodiment of the notion of "the wisdom of God" as "foolishness in the eyes of the world" to quote St. Paul. We should not overlook the power that, in normal conditions, this gentle, passive, forebearing approach, has to prompt change by appeal to the human conscience. If it is the case, as many suggest, that Islam presents an inpenetrable barrier to the success of such an appeal, this, still, is something that the public in the West, has to be made aware of in a process of education that moves incrementally. Benedict's efforts will likely help advance the consciousness of western publics in this direction if his appeals to the Islamic world are not successful.

More than this quiet, low-key method, though, consider these specific points in his message:

1. Referring to the process of social development, in which he mentions specifically the pursuit of freedom, along with a number of other important values cherished by western and Christian societies, he slips in a reference to the separation of temporal and spiritual power, a challenge to the Islamic notion wherein the two functions exist in the same authority, in the Turkish case, or course, the "secular" which assumes control of all religious affairs

"This is because we too, while respecting the legitimate autonomy of temporal affairs, have a specific contribution to offer in the search for proper solutions to these pressing questions".

2. He not only appeals for religious freedom, but subtly notes that it provides the indispensable criterion for the legitimacy of the power of the state:

"Freedom of religion, institutionally guaranteed and effectively respected in practice, both for individuals and communities, constitutes for all believers the necessary condition for their loyal contribution to the building up of society ...

Finally, I note that the Telegraph, or their source, are putting words into Benedict's mouth. What is reported as his reference to Turkey's "kindness to Christians" (NO such words are found anywhere in the text of Benedict's speech) is actually a reference to comments made in the 11th century by St. Gregory VII about a North African Muslim ruler noted in his time for his fair-handed treatment of the Christians in his domain.

"As an illustration of the fraternal respect with which Christians and Muslims can work together, I would like to quote some words addressed by Pope Gregory VII in 1076 to a Muslim prince in North Africa who had acted with great benevolence towards the Christians under his jurisdiction. Pope Gregory spoke of the particular charity that Christians and Muslims owe to one another “because we believe in one God, albeit in a different manner, and because we praise him and worship him every day as the Creator and Ruler of the world.”"

But this in itself can be taken as an unflattering comparison to the present situation of Christians in Turkey. If there is any whitewashing in Benedict's words, it is only in his not having said anything directly alluding to the negative conditions afflicting Turkish Christians.

Anyone wanting to see the full text of the speech, and judge for yourselves, can find it here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061128_pres-religious-affairs_en.html

Posted by: templar at November 29, 2006 7:59 PM

As long as the Left half of the country is uninterested in fighting Jihad, I'm wondering how we're going to win this thing. Posted by Cornelius

Well I'm a Goldwater Conservative, and that makes me a liberal by todays definitions, and I blame you Radical Right Wingers who dare call yourself conservative for the alienation of half or over half of the population. Manipulated by the likes of those demigogues on the Radical Right, you morons started a culture war.. that has alienated half the country, and you keep it up with Ann Coulter, Oreilly, Buchanan, Limpballs, Robertson, Dobson, Perkins et al... good job scheiss for brains, because of dumbkopfs like you..half the country thinks that conservatives are raving intolerant and self righteous religious freaks.. and guess what.. they are correct.. and thus they inappropriately defend or sympathize with another group of people whom they (erroneously) believer are maligned and demonized as the morons on the (radical) right have maligned and demonized liberals, gays, women, etc..

Good job scheiss for brains.

From the OED

liberal adj. & n.

— adj.
1given freely; ample, abundant.
2(often foll. by of) giving freely, generous, not sparing.
3open-minded, not prejudiced.
4not strict or rigorous; (of interpretation) not literal.
5for general broadening of the mind, not professional or technical (liberal studies).
6a favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate political and social reform. b (Liberal) of or characteristic of Liberals or a Liberal Party.
7Theol. regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change (liberal Protestant; liberal Judaism).

— n.
1a person of liberal views.

And FYI, I have absolutely no use at all for those on the Marxist and extreme left, such as those morons on Democracy Now that give air time to and sympathize with Muslims.. but I give them the benefit of the doubt, till proven differently, that they are whollfully ignorant of Islam, and foolishly perceive the world through lenses stained by economics and class, just as conservatives see the world through lenses stained by religion, economics and class (and they do), and by the way Islam is conservative

Ergo this is a war between rigid conservative ideologies...

I bemoan the death and passing of Goldwater and the ascension of that socialist and agent of the Council on Foreign Relations... Ronald Reagan.

Posted by: Nariz at November 29, 2006 8:25 PM

Cornelius: "Somebody please talk me out of this frame of mind."

Maybe while "somebody" is talking you out of it, I can listen. I felt the same way you feel last night. When I feel utterly despondent about the slow deterioration of the Western world, especially the deliberate, concerted, appalling dissolution of U.S. sovereignty led by our own president and instigated and championed by unelected internationalist elites in the CFR, EU, U.S. State Department, U.N., and other bureaucracies, I feel so helpless and enraged that nothing can console me, so I go outside and run through the woods with my dog. We run around the pond, back up the hill, and by the time we get back to the house, I'm too exhausted to think about it any more. I tell myself that sooner or later islam will be recognized for the death cult that it is, and people will wake up and see that America is being dissolved as they go about their daily lives. But I'm so afraid that by the time the American people finally realize what is going on, it will be too late to stop it. The public will be fed some impending doomsday scenario that can be avoided only by abolishing our Constitution and our borders, like the insolvency of social security or the collapse of the dollar. I'm sure the brilliant minds behind this treason are working furiously to concoct a terrifying and plausible explanation for their perfidy; our collective "security" will be the resounding justification for this major step toward global government.

Walk up to a stranger in a public place and ask how he/she feels about the North American Union, open borders, unlimited Mexican immigration, and a new currency shared by Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. The odds are that person will not have a clue what you are talking about and if you told him, he would not believe you. America is being sold out right under our noses and the American people don't even know! The few that do know, like Lou Dobbs and Jerome Corsi, are talking themselves hoarse and reaching only a few people. Ask another stranger if he thinks islam is an inherently violent religion. Ask him if America has always been a "multicultural" society that advocates moral equivalency, political correctness, and cultural/religious relativity. If the person is between 25 and 40, he will probably answer no and yes. If he is over 40, he might answer yes and no, but there's no guarantee. Yes, there are many reasons to be depressed; we still have the Democrat congress to look forward to.

All Americans should pause and reflect on the great nation that the ruling elite and social engineers are dismantling before our very eyes because in a few years, it will be forever gone, sacrified to global trade and unelected global government. Enjoy your freedom while you have it; another catastrophic terrorist attack could be the catalyst that ends our way of life and personal freedoms even before the coming merger of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. Things are bad and getting worse every day but believe me, the worst is yet to come.

Posted by: Susanp at November 29, 2006 9:23 PM

When I saw the Pope kiss the koran , the newsperson said they had just entered the Blue mosque. I'm assuming it's muslim, he had his cap off, and there were muslim dressed males around the male holding the book.

Is the Blue mosque muslim?

Posted by: freewoman at November 29, 2006 10:08 PM

fact is no Islam country can stand the light of truth about about how poorly they treated the residence of the country they overran. Turkey should be hanging head in shame over the way the few the Pope and their Christian minority, as well admitting to the Armenian genocide that Turkey pulled as well a getting out of Cyprus is not there land. But but being Muslims they will have the schizophrenic idea that any land they overrun is now forever Muslim land. In a lot of ways Turkey is like North Korea very good and self-delusion

Posted by: islamakapigeaters at November 29, 2006 10:37 PM

"...In a clear reference to the Pope's words at Regensberg University, Mr Bardakoglu said religious leaders should not try to “demonstrate the superiority of their own beliefs” or waste time in discussing “the theology of religions”.

He said Muslims universally rejected accusations that Islam “was spread over the world by swords”.

And at this point, someone should merely point to a map of the world, show the 30 or so odd nations facing muslim homicidism, muslim demands for muslim
hegemony, show him the nations like Iraq, where the muslims slaughter each other, and 7 or so others that have similar situations between muslims, and then, show him a copy of the Quran, and say to him... 'Sir, with all due respect, you are a liar'

Then, we might have that dialogue.... after, we sneer, just a bit, and show some visceral idea of reality

Posted by: mgoldberg at November 29, 2006 11:19 PM

1. "Manipulated by the likes of those demigogues on the Radical Right, you morons started a culture war"

False. The culture war started with the Marxist infiltration of the university system in the 1960s. It is at a fever pitch now because the ideological children of the Marxists believe they have common cause with Islamofascists in fighting the United States. (Both envy its power, one hates its economic system, the other hates the relatively unregulated nature of its culture.)

You call the backlash against this the start of the conflict, you are ignorant or deceptive.

You are wrong about Conservatives being the reason Lefitsts support Islamofascists. Democrats today break down into about three groups, roughly. There are True Believing leftist ideologues whose brains have drowned long ago in Identity Politics, and they are actively on the side of Islamofascists. There are Dems (plenty of them) who are not on the side of the Islamofascists but who are suspicious of or firmly against the Iraq war, think it was a mistake on both humanitarian and national security grounds. And there are some very confused, paranoid people brainwashed by the ideologically biased educational system, who are not thinking much themselves and who are held in the sway of anyone using PC buzzwords.

Conservatives are not responsible for the first or third groups. We have potential partners, in the long term, in the war against Islamofascism, if we eventually start debating rationally with the second group. The media sure as anything isn't going to facilitate that, but time will make the importance of doing so increasingly clear.

2. Definitions.

Regarding the word 'conservative', note that in 1992, the Russian Communists were called the "Conservatives". The word is about keeping cultural or political principles the same; you know, "conserving" it. What principles are to be keep the same depends upon the situation. Islamic conservatives are different from American conservatives are different from Russian conservatives in circa 1992.

You bring up the definition of "liberal". Notice, first, that America is founded on Classical Liberal principles. Therefore, a conservative in America is actually a type of liberal, in the philosophical sense. Further, the word 'liberal' has, in politics, shifted in meaning to mean not simply someone who is pro-liberty, but specifically someone who has a certain set of beliefs about how to attain certain political goals supposedly associated with liberty. The word is typically used as synonymous with 'leftist', and denotes a person whose political beliefs are derived from those of various sorts of socialist thinkers. It is wrong to claim that when the the political label 'liberal' is used in a deragatory fashion, that this is meant as any sort of swipe at liberal philosophical principles generally.

3. "Ergo this is a war between rigid conservative ideologies..."

False again. This is a war between a bunch of people who want to pragmatically uphold Classical Liberalism in light of novel threats (by doing things like devising behavioural screens for potential terrorists on airplanes; things like "watch it if a group of people socializing together forgo their assigned seats and take places next to all the exits"), against a coalition of people in favor of massive centralized totalitarian control of society.

You can attempt to smear as religious nuts or followers of demogoguery those who are concerned for our genuine national security interests, and who are concerned with confronting threats the existence of which is heavily supported by evidence. However, recognize that doing so is not an argument. It is instead an attempt at distracting from the actual question of whether or not there is a serious national security threat and, if so, how to deal with it effectively while preserving out constitution and our principles.

Posted by: mrsmomomoto at November 29, 2006 11:49 PM

a succession of koran-kissing popes! - is ther no light at the end of the tunnel?

Posted by: wallyUK at November 30, 2006 1:57 AM

"When I saw the Pope kiss the koran , the newsperson said they had just entered the Blue mosque. I'm assuming it's muslim, he had his cap off, and there were muslim dressed males around the male holding the book.

Is the Blue mosque muslim?"

Posted by freewoman

What is "muslim dressed"? Are you aware that not all Muslims dress the same? The Turks dress differently than the Iranians. The Arabs dress differently than the Pakistani. People in Turkey, whether Christian or Muslim, dress like Turks.

Has anyone watched a news broadcast of footage and seen that the video did not synchronize with the commentary? I have. Or has anyone sometimes see blatant incorrect identification of people, places and things by newsreporters? I have.

I have googled for some evidence that the Pope kissed the Koran in his visit to the Blue Mosque and found absolutely nothing. No evidence. As a matter of fact, so far others have come forward and reported that they saw the Pope kiss the Bible, not the Koran on FOX News. More than one.

Unfortunately there are those here who wish to believe you without seeing any evidence. More fool them. And shame on you.

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 2:23 AM

Well done, mrsmomomoto.

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 2:24 AM

The morning news on the BBC said that the pope will be visiting the Blue Mosque later today, so perhaps Freewoman has been confused by the film of the pope kissing an Eastern Orthodox Bible ( which I've seen and which definitely took place in a Christian setting) after all.

Posted by: wallyUK at November 30, 2006 3:18 AM

Greek Gurl,

It's never a good idea to tweak the tail of a tiger. There was a coup against Makarios lead by a murder mile(Nicosia) thug Nicos Samson( sponsored by the wretched Greek colonels in Athens), who soon set about doing what came naturally to him although to be fair it was mainly his fellow Greeks who were on the receiving end.We Brits, as we so often do in these circumstances,sitting on the side lines watching and listening to the drums, flew out 'Black Mak' to the sanctuary of the Ritz in London whilst the terrified Turkish Cypriots were hastened from their shared villages into refuges on British Sovereign Base Areas complete with livestock in some cases.In come the mainland Turks, quite unlike their Cypriot cousins in many ways, civilised ways, to reciprocate against the Greeks in the North et voila, the law of unforseen consequences is satisfied.

Posted by: Dr.D. at November 30, 2006 3:53 AM

When I saw the clip, the Pope wasn't wearing his cap, neither was a guy with him, the one holding the book had a muslim looking hat, scraggly beard, the robe looked like muslim cleric robes, and the other males standing around looked like the one holding the book. Same hats and robes.

I'm not trying to fool anyone, just telling what I saw.

Posted by: freewoman at November 30, 2006 7:18 AM

"I'm going to suggest that you read a children's book called 'The White Mountains' by John Christopher."

mrsmomomoto - Have you read the other two books in the series/trilogy? I loved those books when I was young!

Posted by: Josephine at November 30, 2006 7:47 AM

Mesmomoto,

Nariz's rant was so over the top, I wasn't going to bother responding, but thank you for your eloquent and accurate retort.

I guess the bottom line for my current pessimism is that Muslim penetration of the West is sufficiently advanced - not just in terms of numbers, but also pertaining to corrupted pedagogy and effective employment of grievance-machinery - that we are simply ideologically disarmed. Of course we have Robert, Horowitz, and a couple of dozen great op-ed writers and bloggers fighting the good fight, but as you full-well know, government and academe seem utterly clueless.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in this fight for the duration. But between the persistant run of bad news....and reading Mark Steyn's 'America Alone,' it is very hard to be sanguine about the outcome.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 30, 2006 8:09 AM

Susan,

Yes. Our sense of frustration is very mutual. Instead of jogging like you, I shadow-box. The more frustrated, the more rapid and numerous my combinations. Then I try to wind down with the guitar...do a little composing....delve into the spiritual side. Sometimes I find peace. Sometimes not.

It's hard to acknowledge to myself that not only am I completely helpless in the unfolding of world events, but that I'm also bereft of answers. Islam isn't going away....and to a large extent, it is theologically innoculated from the virus of reform.

What to do? What to advocate for? Should we hope for Hugh's Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq? Maybe he's absolutely right and such a spectacle will distract and consume the Muslim world! Or maybe he's dead wrong and the triumph of jihadism in that tortured country will be a turning point in the fortunes of the entire region. I simply don't know.

All I DO know is that pretending something is other than what it is (Islam), in the hopes that it will become so, is terribly, terribly naive.

So instead of feeling better about things by putting my head in the sand, I watch unfolding events with anger and trepidation. And in the end, I try to both lose myself and find myself in my little nuclear family....and in the bigger human family around me.

Hang tough Susan. We'll get through it.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 30, 2006 8:30 AM

"But between the persistant run of bad news....and reading Mark Steyn's 'America Alone,' it is very hard to be sanguine about the outcome."
Posted by: Cornelius

I started Mark Steyn's book and had to put it down because I found it to be so depressing. (No offense to Mark Steyn.)

I refuse to believe that the failure of democracy is written in stone. I believe the fight can, and will, be won. While I am hopeful for Canadians, I am pinning most of my hopes on Americans and their dedication to the solid foundation of their constitution.

In my opinion, there is a reason why so many movies have been made about America's earlier years (the wild west, early settlers, etc.). It's not just to glorify the past but also to remind Americans, and others, about what it means to be American.

Americans, and Canadians, are made of tough stuff. Think of what our ancestors had to endure to survive and, eventually, flourish in these rugged lands.

Posted by: Josephine at November 30, 2006 8:31 AM

"When I saw the clip, the Pope wasn't wearing his cap, neither was a guy with him, the one holding the book had a muslim looking hat, scraggly beard, the robe looked like muslim cleric robes, and the other males standing around looked like the one holding the book. Same hats and robes."

from a post above.

The Pope wasn't wearing his hat because male clergy always remove head covering during acts of liturgical veneration such as kissing the Gospel.

The one holding the book had a muslim looking hat, scraggly beard, and robe was an Orthodox deacon wearing his cassock and kamilafki (a hat similar to a fez). That is their normal dress.

This Pope, when still a cardinal, actually warned John Paul II about "kissing everything" after the Quran incident. In John Paul II's defense, it must be pointed out, that the late Pope had a custom of kissing EVERY gift he recieved as a sign of respect to his guest. He kissed a pair of sunglasses during one audience and even an Ozzie Osbourne CD that was given to him by a music producer. It didn't imply any veneration, just appreciation to the giver.

This current Pope is more reserved and careful. Be assured, he will not be kissing any Qurans.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2006 11:05 AM

Josephine:Americans, and Canadians, are made of tough stuff. Think of what our ancestors had to endure to survive and, eventually, flourish in these rugged lands.

Right you are, and we will continue to survive and flourish.
Look what we survive every day...How many things are trying to kill you?
Bugs.
Germs.
Virus.
Terrorists.
Polution.
Planes.
Trains.
Automobiles.
Criminals.
Chemicals.
Smoking.
Drinking.
Radiation(sun)
Weather.
Earthquakes.
Huricanes.
Tornados.
Islam.
This list is not complete...
In spite of almost daily attacks, we survive, and most of us thrive. We dont need Allah, we are doing just fine without him/her/it...

Posted by: duh_swami at November 30, 2006 11:13 AM

Also, don't forget that this trip is NOT about Islam or Christian-Muslim relations at all. It is about healing the schism between the two halfs of historic Christianity. The Pope went to see the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and in order to do that, he must be gracious to his Turkish "hosts" who keep the Patriarch as a virtual prisoner.

Although Patriarch Bartholemew is the First among Orthodox Bishops, the Turks insist he is just a local ethnic leader. The Popes visit reinforces the Patriarch's ecumenical status and is seen as a threat to the Turks.

An artcle called "Pope 'goes too far' on Patriarch" shows clearly what Benedict is up to,

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=24&art_id=qw116489016056B211

and why he needs our total support.

Benedict knows that the reunion of Christianity (or at least an strong alliance of Churches) is the only way to save Europe from Muslim domination. He has said this clearly in several of his books. Because of this, the real story is what comes out of his meeting in the Phanar, not any polite platitudes to keep the Turks quiet.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2006 11:17 AM

Freewoman:

So far as I can tell, as of the time of your entry claiming that Pope Benedict had kissed the Koran, he had not yet even been to the Blue Mosque, although it appears now he has.

On the matter of dress and headgear, Orthodox bishops and other clerics typically wear long beards and some rather exotic looking (to our western eyes) garments and head coverings so you have probably confused these matters.

It almost seems to me that many posting here WANT to see the Pope kiss the Koran or commit some other misstep so that they continue to have something to complain about. So let's not get ahead of ourselves. Resistance to aggressive Islam, not petty squabbles based on ancient history between Christians of different denominations, Christians and non-Christians, religious vs. secular and so on should not cloud our perceptions or distract us.

Posted by: templar at November 30, 2006 11:37 AM

Still waiting for a retraction of your statement, freewoman.

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 12:52 PM

templar:

Not only do they WANT to see the Pope kiss the Koran so that they can bash him, they allege that the photo of him kissing the Koran is all over the internet. That's what August22 said on another thread. I've asked him to provide links to those photos but so far he has not.

Still waiting, August22, for evidence of all those photos of the Pope kissing the Koran.

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 1:22 PM

Still waiting for a retraction of your statement, freewoman........................................

(Prostrating myself in front Atheling).... OH, great Atheling, so sorry to have seen the Pope kissing a big book without his cap in front of males who looked like musim clerics while the newsperson was speaking of the Blue mosque.

How's that for a retraction, Atheling?

Posted by: freewoman at November 30, 2006 1:29 PM

freewoman:

Your sarcasm only proves the malicious intent behind your original allegation.

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 2:40 PM

Atheling, there was nothing malicious behind that post. I have nothing against the Pope or the Catholic Church. I wrote what I saw. Wrong it may be, but I wrote what I saw.

Nothing malicious about it. Don't put any there.

Posted by: freewoman at November 30, 2006 2:44 PM

You saw wrong. And you refuse to admit it. Your sarcastic and obdurate "retraction" sure proves that.

What a crock of sh*t. And your libel is still being spread around on this site. Another commenter just repeated what you alleged (alarmed pig farmer). See what you have done? And you don't care, do you? So much for caring about the truth of things.

If you had any sense of decency, honor or concern for the truth, you would have made a true retraction and advised those who insist on spreading your lies to stop and desist.

However, that'd be asking too much, wouldn't it, freewoman? Your pride and ego comes before the Truth, doesn't it?

Posted by: atheling at November 30, 2006 3:00 PM

It's never a good idea to tweak the tail of a tiger. There was a coup against Makarios lead by a murder mile(Nicosia) thug Nicos Samson( sponsored by the wretched Greek colonels in Athens), who soon set about doing what came naturally to him although to be fair it was mainly his fellow Greeks who were on the receiving end.We Brits, as we so often do in these circumstances,sitting on the side lines watching and listening to the drums, flew out 'Black Mak'

Posted by: Dr.D

dr D you brits are just as bad as the turks for what you did in Cyprus. british always have supported the turks because they are bitter that greek Cypriots wanted to be independent from the british empire but during british empire in Cyprus the Brits where hanging a lot of greek men Greek Cypriot men where hanged by the order of facist Queen elizabeth II. Anyway soon greeks where getting fed up with the british opressing them in Cyprus greeks wanted freedom and indepence and EOKA rebelled against the British and we got are independence so in return the spiteful british supported the TMT turkish Cypriot Terrorist group which was killnig greeks and lots of Greeks supported the Eonis (union) with greece why not Crete also had Eonis with greece to before that was not part of Greece.
also the TUrkish Cypriots in Cyprus where in the british police force during the british empire to help the british to kill Greek Cypriots

Dr D as much as i want the Turkish illegal settlers out of Cyprus i also want the british army bases out of Cyprus to as well as the turkish army bases and also i want the britsh who are retireing to Cyprus who have brought stolen cheap property in the north from the illegal Turkish occupation side to leave to that cheap property they are buying belongs to a greek Cypriot refugee

the only reason Cyprus has the british bases there is becasue we know that british would give all of cyprus to the Turks you keep your bases there as blackmail

Posted by: Greek Gurl at November 30, 2006 4:00 PM

Freewoman:

I'm posting here some information that may clarify what you saw. Most of this is just a cut and paste of a comment I posted on another thread in which your name is mentioned and other posters repeat the rumour you started on the site. It's quite alright to have made an honest mistake, but I think you should admit that it was a mistake. It would help a great deal at this point if you did so. A retraction does not mean one acted maliciously only that the information was incorrect and further spreading of it would be wrong.

What most likely has caused this confusion (which I hope and pray for the sake of everyone passing around this absurd rumour is all this is) is the dress of Orthodox (Christian) clergy who often wear a cylindrical black hat inspired by the fez which is called a "kamelavka", in some cases covered by a long veil ("Klobook") as well as full length robes variously called riasa, pid-riasa as well as exo-riasa (there are two of them, the one with the broad sleeves being worn over the other to provide extra warmth) and this may give the appearance of dress similar to some types of Islamic dress, but these are Christian clerics, bishops, priests, and deacons, and maybe others in various minor orders.

The book that Benedict kissed, if this actually happened, would have been the Gospel book at one of the Christian services (either Catholic or Orthodox), which is brought out and venerated in various Orthodox liturgical rites, predominantly during the Divine Liturgy ("Mass") at the "Little Entrance" (a procession from the sanctuary around the nave of the Church and back again) and after the reading of the Gospel for the celebration (when the faithful are often invited to kiss it).

Moreover, some of the features of the Catholic liturgical services at which the Pope has presided or is scheduled to preside, including some of the gospel readings, have been done or will be done, according to these Eastern customs. You can find reference to this at the Holy See's website (www.vatican.va) where you'll find the official Missal published for the Pope's Turkish vist. This is because a number of the Catholic communities in Turkey follow the same liturgical traditions as the Orthodox and other Eastern Christian Churches, including the Byzantine rite used by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As such, many of the Catholic clergy around the Pope at these celebrations would be dressed in the same manner as the Orthodox as I've described it above, not to mention any Orthodox visitors present.

In summary, I think we can safely conclude that THE BOOK BENEDICT KISSED WAS THE HOLY GOSPELS, and the bearded, exotically robed men around him were Catholic and/or Orthodox Christian clergy!

If you care to learn more information about some of the liturgical details I've referred to, try this link to the Holy See's website:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/2006/documents/ns_lit_doc_20061128_present-turchia_en.html

But please consider doing some damage control as well.

Posted by: templar at November 30, 2006 7:29 PM

Josephine,

Yes, Stein's book is absolutely depressing. His focus is demography....and where Europe's concerned, it's a catastrophe.

I like your optimism though....just hope it's warrented.

Posted by: Cornelius at November 30, 2006 11:11 PM

Templar,
Well put and succinctly explained.

Unfortunately, the mainstream media is completely ignorant of the Orthodox Churches and viciously biased against the Catholic Church. The only way to get accurate information is to go directly to the source as you did above.

The Pope is right! The schism between the Orthodox and Catholics is worse than just a scandal. In the face of the Islamic onslaught, this disunity is suicidal.

Posted by: Provoslavni at November 30, 2006 11:45 PM

Provoslavi:

Not only is the media biased, there is also internal dissension within the Church! The Curia fights against the Pope, and the Jesuits are waging a secret campaign it seems.

Read this article:

http://www.chiesa.espressonline.it/dettaglio.jsp?id=99381&eng=y

Posted by: atheling at December 1, 2006 1:25 AM