This is two years old, and while we generally don’t feature archival material, it seemed newly relevant in light of the events in Cologne. The Pope tells Muslims to expel the illness within their hearts and assuage their bitterness with the Qur’an. He doubtless has no idea that the Qur’an says that Muslims can sooth their hearts (satisfy the breasts, in this translation) by waging jihad against Infidels: “Fight them; Allah will punish them by your hands and will disgrace them and give you victory over them and satisfy the breasts of a believing people” (9:14).
No doubt he is also unaware that the Qur’an says Muslim men can lawfully have sexual relations with “captives of the right hand” (4:3, 4:24, 23:1-6) who are captive women, the spoils of war (33:50). The Islamic teachings about using Infidel women in this way almost certainly motivated some of those who were rampaging in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. This is what the Pope and those sycophants who toe his line, along with their secular counterparts, have unleashed upon Europe.
“Francis to refugees: Christian or Muslim, the faith your parents instilled in you will help you move on,” Rome Reports, January 20, 2014 (thanks to John):
Pope Francis’ visit with a group of refugees at the Sacred Heart parish can best be described as simple, warm, and relaxed….
POPE FRANCIS
“Sharing our experience in carrying that cross, to expel the illness within our hearts, which embitters our life: it is important that you do this in your meetings. Those that are Christian, with the Bible, and those that are Muslim, with the Quran. The faith that your parents instilled in you will always help you move on.”…
Napoleon Bonaparte says
Pouvoir – Mopo Mogo (Le Pape: Ma Vie Masturbatoire)
Wellington says
Francis is part of the problem for the survival of Western Civilization and by no means part of the solution. The man is truly abysmal and I have to ask any devout and knowledgeable Catholic who believes that Catholicism is the true faith, why God would let such a destructive fool be elected Pontifex Maximus.
I mean this guy goes WAY beyond any corrupt Renaissance pope (e.g., Alexander VI) because even the most carnal and compromised of the Renaissance popes did not pose a threat to the actual survival of mankind unslaved. This pope does.
So, devout Catholics out there, what is the God you believe in up to? This I want to hear.
Christianblood says
(…Pope to refugees: Muslims can “expel the illness within our hearts” with Qur’an…)
This is pure MADNESS! It is pure EVIL!
Rufus says
I totally agree.
Bill says
Yes. Madness, evil, a betrayal of liberty and especially of Christ.
mezcukor says
I believe in my God and pope Francis can go to hell. He is a moron. He is a Jesuit/socialist. I cant stand him.
EYESOPEN says
“I second that emotion.”
MM says
As a catholic I believe that the pope is elected by the cardinals, not by God. Nevertheless God will bless us with some popes, he will permit others, and some he will send as a punishment. As stated by a Saint whose name I forgot.
This pope in my eyes is the punishment for the great apostasy within the church and in the western world. He is also sent do teach the faithful to adore God and not the Pope as happened time and time again.
As to papal infallibility: It only affects the solemn definition of a dogma. A very rare event. Francis’ teaching is not infallible and in fact very often quite erroneous.
Jan Sobieski (@RefugeeRacket) says
I have the same questions. How can this Pope be so ignorant about Islam? Does he not do any research, i.e., independent reading, or does he just rely on one page ‘expert’ opinions on what is and what is not?
Amy glass says
Does it really behoove you as to why the Catholic Church hierarchy goes to the mat in their defense of Islam? I am not surprised. Besides just political correctness or alliance/multi-faith building, you have to consider another angle. The Catholic church has lost most of its hegemony and power over the centuries since the reformation in the sixteenth century. Islam is a religion that has remained largely untouched by forces of reformation that can diminish its state power and stranglehold over Muslims and society. An establishment-minded catholic’s wet dream is to return to the good ol’ days when the Catholic Church was dominant in the West and wielded authority over every aspect of life including its control over government/monarchies, courts, disputes, marriage, reproduction, family affairs, etc.. Just like, you guessed it, Islam.
Even though the catholic hierarchy obviously doesn’t believe in Islam and probably thinks that the Qur’an’s claims are nonsense and that Muhammad is a questionable character, their defense of Islam speaks to their envy of Islam’s status as an unreformed, mostly unfractured religion with no concept of mosque/state separation. And of course, they are hoping that the shielding of Islam from any criticism regarding its barbaric practices via de facto laws or character assassination would spill over and mean that the Catholic Church also can be shielded from any criticism regarding its abuses of power/sexual abuse allegations.
This is why you shouldn’t be surprised when you see people like Phil Donahue of the Catholic League seeming to be in bed with Islamists regarding the enforcement of sharia anti-blasphemy laws, and demonizing people like Pamela Geller and western cartoonists practicing their constitutional freedom of expression. He is rubbing his hands and licking his chops over the thought of the catholic Church being able to exert the same power and fear over free people. I am sure that when the cross was inserted in a jar of urine or the statue of Mary dipped in cow dung (acts which I found distasteful by the way), the likes of Phil Donahue had hoped that these incidences/”works of art” would have garnered the same reactions of massive anti-free expression demonstrations, mob/vigilantism, death threats/fatwas, mainstream media condemnation of the artists instead of the violence in response to the artists… Just as is the case with any slight “offense” against Islam.
In a nutshell, the catholic establishment wishes they had the same power as Islam currently demands and expects of the west- i.e curtailing our rights in order to abide by Islamic sharia doctrine and refraining from any criticism of islamic doctrine/practices lest you be deemed racist, islamophobic, face hate speech prosecution in Europe, get pilloried in the media, be under the threat of a fatwa for your head, and so on. The catholic establishment is living that wish vicariously through Islam right now.
MM says
With all respect I think your analysis is wrong. These people hate the history of the church. For them the church begins with the 2nd Vatican Council, i.e. about 50 years ago. It’s not nostalgia but hard-core leftism what drives them and the image of the noble savage.
In turn if you ask Catholic Traditionalists they will have a very different stance on Islam. They clearly understand that we have two alternatives:
1) We continue as up to now and end up in a police state as in the Arab World and more and more in Europe.
2) We secure our borders, stop immigration of Muslims and restore Christianity as the essential basis of our free societies in the West.
EYESOPEN says
Concur.
Bill says
I agree 100% with your assessment. Read the posts along this stream and you will see I am arguing the very same. I was especially agitated and outraged when CATHOLICS like Laura Inghram, Bill O’Reilly and Donahue refused to support Pam Geller and Robert Spencer’s Muhammad cartoon exposition. and instead, condemned. Rome is authoritarian, whether progressive or traditionalist, as opposed to being Constitutionalist. Most American Catholics reject this authoritarianism, but the fact of Rome’s structural authoritarianism remains and is projected by the hierarchy. And, this authoritarianism is shared in common with Islam.
Atheist7 says
Bill, Constitutional vs Authoritarian is interesting; however, the main problem is that current politically correct thinking contains two fatal errors:
1. All religions are good. Islam is a religion. Therefore Islam in good.
2. Islam is a religion of peace.
The dual nature of Islam needs to be exposed with our own information campaign.
Bill says
Mr. Atheist: There is no doubt that the narrative that “all religion is good” and “Islam is a religion” therefore “Islam is good” and “Islam is a religion of peace” is the major misconception at the heart of the west’s unwillingness to condemn Islam. And, you are also spot on in your assessment that the dual nature of Islam must be exposed. However, the “dual nature of Islam” has everything to do with Islam’s authoritarianism, which is hostile towards, incompatible with and subversive to liberty. The hierarchy of the Roman Church, like many others in our world, is authoritarian also. I do not believe this fact can be overlooked in the acquiesce of the Vatican to Islam in general. There are other factors of a theological nature, like Rome’s over emphasis of the nature-grace continuum that leads it to perceive Islam as benign or even, as it is evident, Rome perceives it as civil and moral. The post I responded to described this very accurately.
Atheist7 says
Bill, I am sure that the structure of the Catholic Church is a factor in the progress of Islamization; however, as I see it now, the most potent weapon that the Muslims have is the remarkably effective propaganda campaign that they have in place. It is the old technique called “blame the victim”. If you dare to criticize Islam, if you draw a cartoon of Muhammad, if you manifest even the slightest amount of islamophobia, and then if a Muslim becomes enraged and goes out and kills someone – then it is your fault! This is scary. Their propaganda is working. They have created the illusion that “islamophobia is bad” and “Islam is a religion of peace”. I know that I am repeating myself; however, I feel that these two memes are more dangerous than ISIS. With ISIS you have a rough idea as to where the enemy is. With the memes, you don’t recognize them as the enemy and they slowly destroy you from within. By the time you are aware as to what is happening, it is too late. What can we do?
Bill says
Mr. Atheist I agree with everything you said 100%. Islam (not radical Islam) is a POLITICAL IDEOLOGY that is hostile toward, incompatible with and subversive to liberty, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and all five clauses of the First Amendment. It is supremacist, expansionist, intolerant, authoritarian, cleptocratic, pedophile, misogynist, violent and authoritarian. I too perceive that the politics of Islam carried by so-called “moderate” Muslims is much more dangerous than the certifiably dangerous violent jihadis. “Jihad” (Arabic for “struggle to impose Islam”) is primarily political, cultural, economic, and demographic. The immigration of Muslims is the most dangerous (for liberty) and effective (for Muslims) means of imposing their sick system on us. I am critical of any and all who fail to recognize the facts as you have pointed them out. They are aiding and abetting the destruction of the west. They all remind me of the character “Lord Jim” in Conrad’s novel. His willingness to overlook evil, even out of his inclination to be merciful, led to disaster.
Bill says
Mr. Atheist. To answer your question “what can we do:”
1. Stop ALL immigration of Muslims immediately. Immigration is NOT a Constitutional Right. Be sure to protect the liberty of all Muslim citizens and legal aliens.
2. Be critical of Islam. Condemn and mock Islam. I am a Christian who has sat in university classrooms at the graduate and undergrad level and be subjected to tremendous criticism and vilification of my faith. All Christians share the same story. Not only in education, but everywhere. We listen, watch and offer our apologetic, most maintain our faith and actually become stronger and more knowledgeable. But most do not attempt to silence our critics. Most stand firm in affirming freedom of speech, etc.
3. Maintain the Constitution and all of the liberties therein.
4. Teach the history of liberty which includes its roots in ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM and the Enlightenment. To errantly eliminate or marginalize the history of Puritanism, the Puritan Revolution and Protestantism in America as it birthed liberty weakens our commitment and understanding of liberty and will lead to the progressive authoritarianism we see emerging.
5. Support Israel. They are on the firing line in opposing Islam.
Kepha says
Wellington, and a few others, here’s a Protestant attempt to answer your question–
Read the Bible. Keep in mind I’m following the numbering of chapters and verses found in Protestant editions, especially King James.
We are his people and the sheep of his hand, says the Psalm (Ps. 95:7). The Holy Spirit tells us we are sheep, which are about the stupidest, most ornery, and, when left on their own, helpless of all domestic critters; he does not calls us God’s dogs and cats, which can fend for themselves if need be (or even cattle). Perhaps this is to teach us our dependence on the Good Shepherd, Jesus Christ himself (John 10); and that there is no other name under heaven by which we are saved.
Why does God allow foolish people, wicked people, and people who combine both to lead any church? I can only say that Jesus forwarned us in the parable of the wheat and the tares (Mt. 13:24-30) and in the Olivet discrouse (Mt. 24-25) in which he warned of false Christs and false prophets. “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you” (I Corinthians 11:19)–which Paul wrote even as he was seeking to make peace in the most factious church in the apostolic era.
In all things, God works for the good of those who love Him (Rom. 8:28)–and this comforting and attractive verse is set in the midst of a chapter that describes the various tribulations of this world, including death and persecution. I guess it covers us when our pastors (and I’m thinking of some Protestant ones, as well as the Pape and the CCB) go astray.
Israel’s sufferings in Egyptian bondage probably gave resonance to those portions of the Torah which speak of justice and condemn oppression.
Without the dreary record of Israelite leaders who broke rather than kept God’s Covenant, we would not have had the Babylonian Captivity, in which the Jews learned to live as strangers and sojourners among others, and to yearn for the Messiah who ultimately came several centuries later. By dispersion and exile the church of God (and I see the difference between the Old and New Testament saints as the former hoping and the latter remembering).
Without the dreary history of heresy, false teaching, and bad leaders in the churches, we may have failed to learn a few lessons which we might have neglected in times of peace and prosperity.
I suspect that the widespread failure of the Roman Church and the “Mainline” so-called Protestant churches of Europe and America is to remind us Christians that our real shepherd is Christ, and that his vicar on earth, ever since the ascension, is not a Roman cleric, but the Holy Spirit himself (and, @Timothy Jordan, God the Holy Spirit makes no mistakes; if things are bad for us now, maybe the divine purpose is for a better and more faithful generation to enjoy blessings that the likes of Timothy, Wellington, Robert, Bill, and Uncle Kepha would squander).
We are being reminded that no matter how venerable or powerful the institution, it may still fail, and it is not our saviour. You are seeing in times like these why some of us are Evangelical–we believe that God uses the proclamation of the Good News (Evangellion) about Jesus Christ’s righteousness, atoning death, and resurrection to call people to salvation, not an organization that is “infallible” in its own eyes.
Hmmm. Maybe having to take it easy while recuperating from back surgery has its silver lining for me…
Wellington says
Thanks for your input, Kepha. Your knowledgeable religious take on things is always welcomed by this agnostic. And may your recuperation from back surgery proceed optimally and swiftly.
BTW, have you ever read Michael Grant’s “Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels?” I would be interested in your take on it.
cs says
Is this guy MAD???? Is he smoking pot???? He bewilders me.
Shane says
He is a left wing guy and his left wing dogma makes him believe that Muslims and Islam are not better or worse than members of any other religion. He is just plain ignorant when it comes to Islam. Another possibility, is that he, as well as most Western politicians, thinks that it is smart to praise Islam so that they will not kill us. No, appeasing Islam only makes Muslims more aggressive.
Angemon says
I wish Francis would just convert to islam. At least he’d be honest.
Peggy says
That would defeat the purpose. As the Pope he can do a lot more damage.
Bill says
As a Christian addressing the theological issue: THE POPE DENIES CHRIST AND IS APOSTATE.
As an American and a Constitutionalist: The Pope, being Roman Catholic, like Islam, is authoritarian and an enemy of liberty.
Wellington says
Your comment is nonsense, Bill. Are you actually saying, as it appears you are, that Roman Catholicism is no better than Islam with respect to liberty? Your moral equivalency thinking here is PATHETIC.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself. There is nothing in the Roman Catholic theological blueprint that poses a threat to democracy, to free speech, to freedom of religion or to equality under the law on this planet——-contra Islam big time. And your other stupid statement (yes, it’s really stupid), that the present pope (whom I am certainly not a fan of) denies Christ, is just off the wall rubbish. And I write as one who is not religious in the least but your assessment of Roman Catholicism, which produced the intellectual architecture of a Thomas Aquinas, the magnificence of Italian Renaissance art, the extraordinary architectural response to the Protestant Reformation which is the Baroque, and which accepted the theories of Charles Darwin before any other Christian denomination did (under Pope Leo XIII) is so woeful and one-dimensional that I find myself at a loss for words to further delineate your monumental ignorance.
Your turn. If you care. If you can. BTW, the Know-Nothing Party died out long ago, though I think it arguable it still survives in microcosm with you.
Bill says
Roman Catholicism includes the intellectual, just as Islam does. The fact remains, that Roman Catholicism is authoritarian in nature in that the hierarchy and not the people are the ultimate authority. I blog a lot and I run across MANY traditionalist Roman Catholics who are sharply opposed to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, referring to both as “Lockean.” They are not conjuring this up from no where. And, the fact that the Roman Church has endorsed Darwinism, is merely another example of the philosophical root of authoritarianism, since Darwinism, is both a denial of Christ and an extremely deterministic RELIGIOUS BELIEF. Many Roman Catholics embrace the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in spite of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and the authority of the hierarchy.
Peggy says
So what you’re saying is that Catholisism is not dangerous only because Catholics have evoleved beyond the religion.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Just wondering how Catholics evolved despite their teachings but Muslims haven’t. Could it be that Catholisism is not that controlling?
I am not Catholic and don’t know the religion that well.
Bill says
Catholicism is not dangerous, first and foremost, because it affirms Christ. The authoritarianism of Catholicism subscribes to the Sermon on the Mount and the commandments of Christ, not the injunctions of the Koran and Muhammad.. Still, CATHOLICISM IS AT IT’S HEART, AUTHORITARIAN. The people doe not vote and the hierarchy has supremacy over the members. I find it amazing (yet not really) that so many Catholics and so many apologists for Catholicism are willing to overlook Rome’s conciliatory attitude towards Islam, and its condemnation of Israel and Protestantism.
mortimer says
Bill, Your ideas are screwy. Most RCs believe STRONGLY in classic-liberal, pluralistic democracy.
The other Anabaptists here are embarrassingly uneducated and risible.
They are as uninformed about RCC as Pope Francis is uninformed about Islam…and equally determined not to listen to well-informed intellectuals like Wellington.
Western Canadian says
Bill: You are obviously not qualified to comment on much of anything…. Your babbling is low and pathetic. Perhaps you should remain silent, and not remove all doubt about your ignorance??
Bill says
Maybe you should present some arguments rather than mere insults. It obscures your purported moral and intellectual supremacy The Roman Church does not hold elections. The hierarchy, that is, the Bishops, are the teaching arm of the church and are to be followed by the faithful, that is the FAITHFUL, THOSE WHO FOLLOW THEIR TEACHING.. The fact that the vast majority of Roman Catholics are classic liberals, does not change the FACT that the Roman Church is authoritarian, as opposed, to being democratic. There is a large body of Roman Catholic literature, that is easily accessed, that directly rejects classic liberalism and asserts the authoritarian and supreme status of the RCC..
Wellington says
I was raised Catholic and have associated with American Catholics since my boyhood and I have never met a SINGLE America Catholic who was opposed to the American Constitution and the Bill of Rights. NOT ONE. You are either making things up or are delusional or have spoken to an extremely few and rare Catholics who are not representative of Catholicism at all. You also insult with your comment all those Catholic American military personnel who are buried in graveyards across America and in foreign countries who fought for America and for the Constitution, often dying on fields of battle defending the freedom that you and I enjoy. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
As for Darwinian evolutionary theory being a denial of Christ, this is just a whack-job statement. You do know, I hope, that the vast majority of Protestant sects and the Orthodox world, as well as Roman Catholicism accept evolution. The evidence for it is overwhelming. We have over 80,000 Neanderthal skeletons alone and we can trace the evolution of hominids from some seven million years ago to quite recently, for instance Homo habilis with a cranial capacity of 750cc to Homo erectus with a 1000cc capacity to modern Homo sapiens with a standard cranial capacity of some 1350cc. There are at least six Australopithecine species we know of which can be accurately dated between 5 million to about 1 million years ago——–and so on. Frankly, I have to conclude you’re a loon and you do a disservice not only to Roman Catholicism and to America but to Christianity in general and to science as well. Done here.
Bill says
Again, as with all of the Catholic apologists here, name calling really does not strengthen your weak arguments. The vast majority of Roman Catholics reject the authoritarianism of the Roman Church, just as they do not accept the Church’s teaching on contraception (since over 90% of Catholics practice contraception). There is no insult to American Catholics who have fought in our wars for pointing out the truth that Rome is authoritarian, that Roman Catechism (841) states that Muslims and Catholics “together adore God.” No, the insult is perpetrated by the Roman Church.
I can assure you that Darwinism, is both a religious belief, with no evidence and a blatant denial of Christ. I could write, from the top of my head, many categories and particulars that demonstrate that evolution is merely a fairytale for adults and the naïve. Instead, I will refer you to a prominent Roman Catholic scientist, Dr. Michael Behe and his classic, “Darwin’s Black Box.” And do try to get a grip and stop the insults and name calling. They make you appear morally and intellectually inferior.
Atheist7 says
Bill, your contention: “Catholicism is not dangerous, first and foremost, because it affirms Christ.” Seriously? Tell that to the thousands of people who were burned alive because their views differed from that of the Church. Galileo was stupid enough to actually claim that the earth went around the sun – which was indeed a very bad thought to have at that time. He nearly got himself cooked.
No. The Catholic Church is no longer dangerous because it is smart enough to be highly political and to bend its dogma to be in sync with the current concept of political correctness. Thus the Church is adaptable and is becoming more “modern”.
The same cannot be said for Islam. The writings of Islam are absolute and eternal. They cannot be changed. To do so is a crime punishable by death. If you try to change the Koran (and be a moderate Muslim) then you are an apostate and must be killed. That is the true Islam. The Islam that will destroy the West. The Islam that will take us back to the time of the “ideal man” Mohammad.
Bill says
Mr. Atheist: You make a valid point. But, due to the Christian nature of Catholicism, classic liberalism is more prone to manifest than within Islam. Christianity includes, at its core, the Sermon on the Mount, Christian morality and the lives and teachings of Christ and the Apostles, which do in fact promote tolerance and liberty. Catholicism could easily become monstrous, as could any ideology or institution, especially one like the Catholic Church which is so authoritarian, if it was embraced by a sufficient population. Juxtaposed to this would be, for example a Church like the Congregationalist, a Protestant “sect” which is and has been historically, democratic, independent and not only absent of hierarchy but indignant and contrary to hierarchy. Incidentally, the Constitution was written by about 50 (of the 200 or so) delegates being Congregationalists with the remainder minus the patriotic Daniel Carroll, a great Roman Catholic American patriot, all others being PROTESTANTS.
Atheist7 says
Good work Bill. We have now answered the question as to why Christianity is no longer a threat (to discussion and free inquiry). In the 1500’s disagreement with the Church was something that no rational person would attempt. Now, Christianity is no longer a threat because we are free to discuss questions of Science the Theology. You could make a proposal and I could say “most of your data is faulty and the small fraction of your data that is correct has been interpreted incorrectly”. Then you could come back with “No. My data is correct and my interpretation is also correct – for the following reasons…”. In this back and forth we would increase our understanding of the world.
Islam is a threat because the above discussion could never take place. Any deviation from correct interpretation of Islamic Theology or criticism of Muhammad could result in swift death for the deviate who dares to question.
Bill says
Mr. Atheist: I must disagree with you on one major point. You wrote that in the 1500s “no rational person would disagree with the (Roman) Church. But, that’s exactly when the Reformation started in earnest. The history of dissent in the west, along with all of the five clauses of the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, ideas that are the pillars and foundations of our civilization and our disdain for Islam, AND OUR DISDAIN FOR ALL AUTHORITARIANS (including atheist progressive authoritarians as well as theistic ones), ALL OF IT WAS BIRTHED IN FIRST WITH THE REFORMATION AND then debated, contended for and implemented by English Protestants, aka “Puritans” over a century prior to the Enlightenment. I can proudly embrace the ideas of the Enlightenment and Locke, the ideas of an atheist like Tom Paine, the writing of a Puritan Levelers like Richard Overton, William Walwyn or John Lilburn, a great Christian American patriot like Sam Adams or Roger Williams, but I cannot abide the vile Islamophiles, traitors to our liberty. I see Roman Catholicism as precisely this: a betrayal to our liberty through their false piety, multi-culturalism and unwillingness to stand for freedom/.
Atheist7 says
Bill, yes I agree. The people who did disagree with the Church were very rational – and they put their love for what they perceived to be the truth above their own personal safety.
Bill says
Mr. Atheist: A true champion of liberty. God bless you.
Russell Kirk Was Right says
You’re insane, with no historical perspective. Do you actually believe a democratic religion is less-prone to heresy and corruption? Go do a study on the Anabaptists during the Reformation. Tons of corruption going on there. Let’s be clear: whatever is wrong with Rome (and we can gripe about lots of things), it hasn’t to do with the fact of a hierarchy. That’s just post-Enlightenment, modernist tripe derived from your very contemporary American view point. Scripture nowhere advocates a democratic Church structure, no matter what tortured eisegesis you rely on to make it say so.
Outside of religion, the Founding Fathers were abhorred at the idea of a democratically run nation. The Republic was their answer to England’s monarchy, founded on a deep study of the Greek and Roman models of government. Hierarchy is not itself an evil. It may be abused, misused, or neglected — but not the source of evil.
By the way: I’m not a Roman Catholic.
Bill says
I stated that the Roman Catholic Church is authoritarian. This authoritarianism is counter to Constitutionalism. The Roman Church, shares this type of authoritarianism with Islam. Now the Roman Church embraces Islam at the highest levels, recognizes Palestine, took decades to recognize Israel, seeks to divide Israel, includes a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem who is avidly pro-Palestinian and refers to Israel as the “occupation,” in (841) of its Catechism and in many other pronouncements asserts that “together with Muslims we ‘adore God,'” utters almost nothing against the abuses perpetrated in the Islamic world in the name of Islam. America, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was established by delegates to the Constitutional Convention who were over 95% Protestant and over 90% active members of Protestant churches, in a nation that was over 95% Protestant. While all institutions are capable of authoritarianism, the Roman Church is especially authoritarian in its very foundation. America and our liberty is the confluence between Protestantism and the Enlightenment. The Puritans (i.e. English Protestants) were contending for, implementing and practicing each of the five clauses of the First Amendment and much of the Bill of Rights over a century prior to the Enlightenment.
Russell Kirk Was Right says
You’re insane. You consider Oliver Cromwell non-authoritarian? He was a regicidal maniac.
Bill says
You are not informed. You need to study the Puritan Revolution. Cromwell’s regicide was to protect England from the authoritarianism of Rome and the politics of royalism. Also, Cromwell was not the only “Puritan” (i.e. English Protestant”). For example, do you know what a “Leveler” was?
“The Levellers, such as John Lilburne (1615-1657), Richard Overton (1631-1664), and William Walwyn (c. 1600-1681), were a group of radical libertarian activists and pamphleteers who were active during the English Revolution. They advocated individual liberty, property rights, constitutionally limited government, religious toleration, and free trade at a time when virtually none of these things existed in England. For their troubles, several of them were repeatedly imprisoned and their publications censored.”
Bill says
The name calling does not enhance your argument, nor does it project the moral and intellectual superiority you claim. Yes, the Pope denies Christ ,Christ, who claims to be the only way to the Father when he, that is the Pope, or anyone else, like his church, states that salvation can be found in Islam, in the Koran or anything related to Islam. You obviously do not understand what it means to BELIEVE in Christ. To BELIEVE in Christ means that all other so-called means of salvation are non existent. If the Pope truly knew Christ he would simply preach the Gospel: “No one comes to the Father except through Me (Christ).”
Western Canadian says
Your idiocy invites you being told to take a hike. Your ignorance is endless, as is your arrogance. Take a long hike.
Mathew Solo says
The total submission that Rome requires has been expressed by many popes, but none said it more clearly than Nicholas I (858-67):
“It is evident that the popes can neither be bound nor unbound by any earthly power, nor even by that of the apostle [Peter], if he should return upon the earth; since Constantine the Great has recognized that the pontiffs held the place of God upon earth, the divinity not being able to be judged by any living man. We are, then, infallible, and whatever may be our acts, we are not accountable for them but to ourselves. “
Popes… and their clergy during the times of Emperors were among the very rare few who could read and write…Roman Emperors often used them to administer…they used the emperors to gain real power and Influence…like all ordinary men they sought dominance and achieved it through feigning religion…they portend humility…they love preeminence among men…they deny the authority of God…and crave the worship of men…no man should want a title belonging only to God…and risk much to ignore a direct Order from Christ to call no man father…there is only one Holy Father…He Is God the Father…and no man.
Emperor Constantine the Great is now just Constantine the dead and
waiting to be resurrected some day by a Real God who would laugh
if ask to see any greatness at all in a mere flesh and blood man
Westman says
I think we’re being unduly hard on Bill. It’s true that the American Catholic Church has integrated evolution, birth-control, liberalism, partiotism, and is moving beyond allegiance to the Pope. That doesn’t exclude other Catholics in the world from rejecting Darwin or being very conservative. We see the influence of geographic regions on both Christanity and Islam.
I think we need Bill to have a religionist view even if it doesn’t exactly fit with some of our ideas. This really isn’t a discussion or dialogue to support general non-belief. We wish to repress the system whose goals are to take away our self-determination and enslave us. Only one religious ideology mandates our physical slavery.
Certainly, Bill is a contributor to the effort to oppose it.
Maureen Russell says
Bill, I agree with your statement.
Wellington says
To maintain as you have, Bill, that 1) the Pope denies Christ, 2) many traditionalist Roman Catholics oppose the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, 3) being a Roman Catholic pope means being an enemy of liberty, 4) the authoritarianism of the Catholic Church approximates the kind of authoritarianism found in Islam, and 5) embracing what Charles Darwin put forth is a denial of Christ is the kind of intellectual rot that makes you deserving of being called a loon.
Sometimes, you know, name calling is justified. I contend it is justified with you since your ideas are simply off the wall, not deserving of any respect and rooted in profound ignorance.
Atheist7 says
Wellington, I believe that your assessment is correct; however, one could say: “the ideas are counterfactual, not coupled to reality, or simply wrong”. Then again, to effectively say “the ideas are pure garbage” does have more of an impact and a somewhat different tone.
Bill says
Name calling is never justified. You know better. What’s wrong with honest debate? The most outrageous manifestation of your indignation is the high esteem you hold a weak hypothesis, i.e., Darwinian Evolution, as if it is religious dogma. Let me provide you with some scientific difficulties with this weak hypothesis:
1. The Fossil Record: all the major life forms appear suddenly in the fossil record fully formed with no transitional forms. The evolutionist’s few proposed transitional forms are all either hotly disputed by other evolutionists or found to be frauds or hoaxes.
2. Darwin, in “Origin of Species” stated that for his theory to be demonstrated there would have to be “innumerable transitional forms.” There are none.
3. Darwin’s “bull dog,” Sir Julian Huxley, stated that the main purpose for Darwin’s theory was so that “God could not dictate sexual mores.”
4. There is no mechanism that drives evolution. The idea of evolution runs counter to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, with no resolution to the vast problem. By constantly referring to “evolution did this” or “life did that,’ there is no difference with saying “God.”
5. Evolution relies on gradualism. Geology demonstrates that the earth has been subject to many catastrophic events of epic proportions. The Grand Canyon, for example, was not formed counter to the laws of physics and hydraulics, by the meandering Colorado River as Darwinism needs. It was created quickly by a major catastrophic event, similar in kind, but of much greater scale, than Mount St. Helens. Catastrophe disrupts and destroys evolution religion.
6. Similar orthopedic structures do not indicate common ancestry. Marsupial dogs, found in Oceana, have the exact identical orthopedic structure as common placental dogs. You are not seriously going to now propose common ancestry.
7. Fossils are made when plants, animals or other structures are buried suddenly in torrents of water, like the turbidity currents that formed the Grand Canyon or were part of a major volcanic eruption like Mount St. Helens. Coal and petrified wood were discovered at Mt. St. Helens days after the eruption. So was a 300 foot deep canyon, that is exactly like the Grand Canyon in kind.
8. There is not one serious attempt to explain in detail any of the so called works of evolution. For example, no one could even offer an explanation as to how the reptilian respiratory system evolved into the avian respiratory system. The problems are so immense in scope, method, necessity, mechanism, and on and on that no one has ever proposed a detailed explanation even as a hypothesis.
O could write on for many days here. Another book you may want to read is “Evolution: Theory In Crisis” by Dr. Michael Denton, an atheist MD and biochemical researcher. It is a complete rejection of Darwinism on strictly scientific grounds.
By holding Darwinism as dogma,you have ironically placed yourself in the same position the Roman Church did with their Aristotelian rejection of Galileo. You Darwinists are the authoritarians and the creationists are Galileo. Congratulations. Protestantism ALWAYS embraced Galileo and science.
Wellington says
Name calling is never justified? So, calling Hitler a tyrant or Stalin and Mao ruthless killers is not justified? You see, you make over-the-top statements that are easily disproven and dismissed, something you excel at, another example being your silly contention that the Pope denies Christ. Hell, you probably are looney enough to actually think the Pope is the anti-Christ. And remember, I’m an agnostic.
As for your disproving evolution, all the crap you posted has been dealt with and dismissed long ago, except by loons like you. For instance, the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which deals with entropy, and which supposedly disproves evolution, but which does no such thing. Another false statement of yours is that there are no transitional forms. My God, ichthyologically speaking, there are transitional fish forms over hundreds of millions of years throughout the Paleolithic Era alone, from the Ordovician Period through the Permian. Another example of transitional species is man himself, the hominid family, from Sahelanthropus tschadensis the whole way to Homo erectus and Homo sapiens.
Tell me, what percentage of scientists who have a PhD in any subject matter related to evolution, examples of such disciplines being zoology, botany, biochemistry, paleontology and geology, do you think would agree with you respecting your take on evolution? It would be only a very tiny fraction of 1%. You know this or should know this.
Truly, I am tired of you. Your ignorance is extensive. You would treat with sundry subjects with no knowledge at all (e.g., medieval Christian thought as exemplified by such individuals like Erigena, Anselm, Aquinas and Duns Scotus). I will respond to you no more but I felt compelled to respond to you the times I did because sometimes massive ignorance and prejudice needs to be responded to.
Christianblood says
Bill.
You are totally WRONG!
Bill says
No. I am completely correct. The article states “The Pope tells Muslims to expel the illness within their hearts and assuage their bitterness with the Qur’an.” So the Koran and Islam which at the creedal and foundational level denies the Son, denies the Trinity, denies the crucifixion, denies the resurrection, denies the atonement and not only denies but curses and blasphemes, this Koran will save them? Only Christ can do what the Pope states the Koran can do.
The Pope is an authoritarian Islamophile. He perceives Islam as a benign force for civility when Islam is an authoritarian political ideology that is extremely hostile to liberty, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and each clause of the First Amendment. Rather than blindly defending him, he and others like him, both Protestant and Catholic, both Democrat and Republican, need to be challenged. His narrative is going to foist the politics of Islam on us.
Russell Kirk Was Right says
And you’re a historical hack, to boot. You tipped you’re hand when you defined “Puritan” as “English Protestant”. All Puritans were Protestants, not all Protestants ere Puritans.
I realize yours must be a comfortable bubble, but people who do real history have quite a different perspective. The most leveling I’ve seen here is your methodology and oversimplification with terms and ideas.
http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/09/levellers-forgotten-or-distorted.html
Your history is the equivalent of a Jack Chick tract. The internet is a sad place.
Bill says
Your insults and anger only demonstrate your lack of knowledge of history. My sources are none other than Perry Miller, William Haller, M.M. Knappen and Edmund Morgan. All are secular scholars widely recognize as THE foremost authorities on Puritanism. In addition, Puritans were indeed “English Protestants” and included many who remained members and loyal to the Anglican Church, as “Puritan,” was a initially a derisive term coined by Catholics and Protestant royalists to describe those who wanted to purify the Church of England’s from of worship, theology and governance and sought the extension of civil liberty to do just that. Here’s a quote from William Haller’s “Liberty and Reformation In the Puritan Revolution:” “Puritanism in this sense was not incompatible with any given ecclesiastical system, episcopalian, presbyterian, or congregational, so long as its promoters were left free to preach. It was in fact, NOTHING BUT ENGLISH PROTESTANTISM IN ITS MOST DYNAMIC FORM…”
Aron says
HE IS A LIBERATION THEOLOGIST
Nothing to be surprised about why he is pals with the Jihadis.
He is a Liberation theologian jesuit soaked in an erroneous belief that Jihad is just a kind of catharsis- like liberation theology!
He isnt ignorant about Koran or Jihad-since you cannot pass the seminary without knowing all the Critique of other Faith systems.
He knows what he is doing- like Left liberals, being an Ultra Leftist himself mired in South American blood baths.
abad says
I doubt the Pope has ever read the Quran.
Peggy says
Then why is he interpreting it?
This makes him a dangerous fool. How many good Catholic people are going too be influenced by this man and drop their guard?
Catholisism as a religion is not dangerous but obviously the Vatican is.
mortimer says
Peggy’s right on! How can Pope Francis interpret something he hasn’t read? It’s highly DOUBTFUL he read the Koran.
Moreover, has he read the hadiths? No. Has he read the Sira? No.
IF Francis read the Koran, he has understood nothing in it…he could not have found a positive message in the Koran for humanity…only the Koran of Mecca (the earlier, abrogated part) had any message of tolerance, but Koran 9 blew it all away as so much chaff in a strong wind.
Frances may have read the Koran late one night as part of a course requirement, but evidently, he absorbed VIRTUALLY NOTHING in it.
Peggy’s right. His ignorance and glibness are irresponsible and irreconcilable with the his duty.
Atheist7 says
Yes the Pope has never read the Koran. And with good reason. The Koran is damned difficult to read. I tried it and came effectively to a brick wall. Like its in code – and sorted in random order. Totally mind boggling. but there is hope: Enter Robert Spencer and Bill Warner. Both have a series of books that make Islam understandable. Check out Bill Warner on Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Bill-Warner/e/B00FAWN654/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1452252383&sr=1-2-ent
Bill has taken the life of Muhammad and put it in chronological order so you can get a better idea as to sequence of what happened.
Dave J says
Catholicism, along with most of the West, has been lulled into a trance in which Muslims are portrayed as innocent and mistreated lambs and we are the cruel plotting wolves. So we must constantly make amends and exceptions for the poor fuzzy victims.
Except that reality is exactly reversed. The wolves are well organized and have a definite plan for us. Our smiles and simpering amuse them. They are very patient predators.
mortimer says
Pope Francis is gullible and naïve about what is in the Koran…assuming it is pacifist and contains the Golden Rule…far from it.
Koran 9 is particularly vicious and ABROGATES all peaceful, conciliatory verses in the earlier Koran of Mecca. Koran 9 speaks of killing, raping and enslaving Christians and all ‘other’ idolaters.
Koran 9.13-14 Fight (kill=qtl) them; Allah will PUNISH them by your hands (with death) and humiliate them (with enslavement and rape). He will grant you victory over them and soothe the hearts of a believing people. He will take away all rancor from their hearts (through revenge killing).
Western Canadian says
The only ‘illness’ that could be expelled from our hearts of muslims and the filthy koran, would be to wake us from our slumber, to educate ourselves, and to reject morons like this pitiable pope.
Peggy says
Hopefully he won’t be around that long but the fools who elected him might. Who will replace him? The same establishment will vote for another one and they won’t divert from what they want.
It sounds really hopeless when looked at this way so the only solution is for as many Catholics as possible to be educated by truth.
How does one do that?
Jura says
I remember a renowned catholic priest in my European homeland saying: The Roman Catholic Church is here to guide the migrants and to build bridges between European natives and the migrants.
Simply: Roman Catholic Church sees migrants as future Roman Catholics. From the point of view of the Church the expectations with migrants seem much better than with vastly agnostic European populations.
Pope should study practical problems in operation ofthe office of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Atheist7 says
When the settlers from Europe came to the new world they were refugees. The American Indians took them in and helped them on their feet. We, the refugees, did not incorporate our culture into the culture of the American Indians. Instead, we replaced their culture with our culture.
Islam has a history of invading a country, and replacing the indigenous culture with the culture of Islam. The process can be rapid – due to military conquest – or it can be slow due to the acceptance of refugees into the country. The refugee centers use the welfare system to support the growth of Islamic families. Thus France, Germany, Norway, Sweden….. – through their own tax dollars – are funding the seeds of their own destruction.
Westman says
Setting the morality of cultural destruction aside, the replacement of cultures by non-military means seems to indicate that one culture is more useful for future growth than the previous. The culture of the American indigenous population was pushed aside by a tsunsmi of European immigrants whose technology could not be matched; a technology used to destroy the main food source of the plains Indians. By the time different tribes banded in opposition, it was too late.
With Muslim immigration into Europe we see the tsunami but it is not accompanied by a better technology for properous growth. We see an adoption of technology but no invention. Even “united” Islamic nations, like Iran and its nuclear program, are trying and failing to catch up with the West. Turkey is about to devolve. The rich oil kingdoms buy everything and now feel the reality of debt.
The greatest Islamic threat to Europe will be degradation of the economy by a fast-reproducing, irrational, and violent culture that has a supremist expectation of net consumption. Other than begrudging labor, Islam brings no future advantage. Churchill was right, no more retrograde force exists in the world. Will Europe realize its predicament in time?
Ian H says
So the pope wants people to read the Qur’an. Well that is just dandy. How about he leaves that stuff to ISIS and tells people to read the Bible instead. I always thought the pope was supposed to be Catholic? Isn’t he supposed to advocate Christianity? Isn’t that part of the job description? Can they sack him for advocating other religions?
Peggy says
The question “Is the Pope Catholic” certainly doesn’t have the same impact any more.
mortimer says
If Pope Francis had read and comprehended the Koran, he would not make the glib, uninformed statements he made. He has let us all down by GUESSING about something he does not know for a fact.
Anyone who reads the Koran can immediately recognize it for what it is: a troop motivator, a plagiarized text that is self-referentially incoherent, ungrammatical, illogical and unhistorical, incomprehensible in the original text, a racist manifesto of hatred towards non-Arabs, a solicitation of murder, an anti-Semitic hate text, an anti-Christian death warrant, an extortionist’s manual, a justification for pedophilia, polygamy and violence against women.
Shame on the Pope for being so unprepared.
Carlito234 says
Seems this Pope is answering to the same Marxists in the UN who have created this Islamic invasion of Western societies. Who can we trust anymore?
John Prewett says
Vatican is the Great Whore of the Revelation. Pure and simple.
TH says
As a Catholic I am appalled that the Pope should place the Qu’ran on the same level as the Bible. It is obvious that the Church has NEVER accepted the Qur’an as any kind of revelation or that Mahommad is a true prophet. Rather from the very beginning he has been seen as a false propher and popes in the past had no doubt whatsover regarding the dangers of Islam. For that reason they convoked the Cruzades. This pope seems to be losing his mind.
Jura says
Impeach him! 🙂
What were those cardinals thinking when voting a southamerican marxist for pope?
Peggy says
Following orders. The Vatican has been infiltrated and now it’s out there for all to see if they wish to see it.
milad meah says
at this rate the prophecy that he will be our last pope will bear fruit
Peter B says
The 19th and early 20th century popes generally opposed democracy for the reasons Bill mentioned.
Jura says
John Paul II did not oppose democracy. He was a fighter for democracy.
BC says
The headline says “our hearts” as though the Muslims are missionaries to Christians, but then it says “within their hearts” Which is correct? In any case he is wrong as the evil is in the quran itself and the source of their enmity and bitterness.
What can you expect from an old man who had spent his life believing in a delusion?
DPH5175 says
The man is an anti-pope unworthy of the loyalty of any Catholic. Of all the leaders of the West his betrayal is the most bitter given the role the papacy has played in actually making Western civilisation. Disgusting!
Champ says
The Pope tells Muslims to expel the illness within their hearts and assuage their bitterness with the Qur’an.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This wrongheaded advice from the Pope is akin to telling a drug addict to expel his addiction by taking more of the drug he’s addicted to.
Wow there is something seriously wrong with this Pope if he thinks that the quran can sooth the savage mohammedan beast. ROFL!
Kepha says
BTW, reading the interchange between Wellington and Bill (with respect to both) in which several others weigh in, I note some are throwing rocks at the Anabaptists.
As a spiritual heir of Zwingli and Calvin, I do not adhere to Anabaptist beliefs. However, I’ll say this for the older Anabpatist bodies: I have yet to meet a cradle Mennonite whom I did not like as a person.
While the Anabaptists erred in denying baptism to the children of believers, and in leaving politics and worldly government to the devil and his disciples, I cannot fault their desire for a wholehearted devotion to Christ. I also respect their desire to make their faith practical.
And, speaking as someone who identifies most closely with the conservative Presbyterian tradition, I own representative government, political compact, the political supremacy of law, and the accountability of office holders to the people (or, presbyters to the congregation) as “Ours”. But even these good things can be corrupted. We see in these United States some very deep and fierce divisions because of politics, and as the influence of the Christian faith wanes, there ceases to be a common reference for people on both sides of the political aisle. And as individuals, including clergy, turn from Christ, we can find ourselves tempted by money, power, sex, and the fads of the hour.
I agree with everyone who castigates Frankie Boy for thinking the Qur’an can cleanse hearts. But how many of us here would be a lot more comfortable if the Pope had said something like, “Dear friends, we all suffer feelings of anger, wrong desires, resentments, and often confuse vengeance and justice. Why don’t we dust off our Bibles, and re-appropriate what the Bible tells us about Jesus Christ, who can deal with all the anger, uncleanness, and other sins that beset us?” I know I would.
Bill says
Spiritually the Pope needs to preach THE GOSPEL OF GRACE (I.E. “MY GOSPEL,” ROMANS 2:16; ROMANS 1:16). Politically, he needs to stand for liberty and against the tyranny and authoritarianism of Islam. But he can’t, being an authoritarian himself. And, besides Romanism he is also deeply infected with the authoritarianism of progressivism coupled with a disdain for Israel.
Russell Kirk Was Right says
My comment about Anabaptists wasn’t meant to make all subsequent Anabaptist sects equivalent. Just historical honesty about the fact that “non-authoritarian” religious structures have been no less susceptible to false gospels and disorder and immorality. One must be careful not to project politics onto ecclesial polity, as if the Left hand of God’s Kingdom and His Right hand administer the same ways. Luther and Calvin were abundantly clear about making this distinction. As a good Presbyterian you can appreciate this.
By the way, Zwingli was not an Anabaptist. He had other problems, but this was not one of them.
Bill says
The usual condemnation of Anabaptists by Catholics and other high church apologists is the LACK of authoritarianism that has led to chaos. My criticism of Rome was not decrying their immorality, which is a major problem of mountainous proportions. My criticism is Rome’s acceptance and fidelity with Islam which IS related to their common authoritarianism and Rome’s exaggeration of the nature-grace continuum. You are correct in this regard. Authoritarianism, immorality and abuse are perpetrated by people and institutions of all stripes. This includes Protestants, Catholics, atheists, etc. No one’s hands are clean. But the fact remains, the Roman Church now (as opposed to the era of the Crusades, which in my opinion, were relatively weak, yet honorable attempts to protect the innocent from the gargantuan abuse of Islam) has endorsed Islam in (841) of the Catechism and in other notable statements, has a Pope and Bishops who welcome and promote Muslim immigration into the west, took decades to recognize Israel yet was the first to recognize the Islamist, cleptocratic PA, refers to Israel as “the occupation,” and endorses the entire Palestinian narrative and are relatively silent and unconcerned with the abuse perpetrated against non Muslims by Muslims in Muslim dominated nations. I am just as critical of Protestants and atheists who do the same.
Edward says
Since many of Pope Francis’ comments have not resonated with the adherents of the RCC shouldn’t we start questioning why?
Today, I would simply ask of him which creation account would be the most acceptable to believe by when comparing Genesis’ with the Koranic version.
Having compared both Genesis and the Koranic one, it’s written that the Genesis concept version creation happened by God’s Word and n contrast it is written in the Koranic version that the1st human creation was the result of (non physical) sexual copulation as explained by this website:
http://muslimmatters.org/2012/02/03/the-creation-of-man-as-mentioned-in-the-quran/
Pope Francis interpretation would in a way reveal his legitimacy I firmly believe.
Many more questions should be asked to continue to learn of his viability as the RCC Pope!
Edward says
I should question who was the donor of the first seed that created the first man? It stands to reason that man was first created to provide the seed.
Genesis 1:26-27
“And God said; Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
And here another contradiction in the making.
Created in the Image of God:
“Islam does not agree with this statement.”
http://www.iqrasense.com/allah/islamic-viewpoint-on-god-made-man-in-his-own-image.html
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
There is error, there is mistakedness, and there is profound stupidity. Pope Frank gives us the last. Instead of wreaking suffering upon mankind, he should either read the Holy Ko-Ran and understand it, or shut the hell up.
Peggy says
Yes, it’s extremely dangerous that the Vatican is full of traitors but so are other churches.
What is the Church of England doing? Are there any Evangelical churches out there fighting this?
Then we have Hindus, Buddhists and Jews. What is being done from the top to educate their flock?
How did this happen?
Walter H. Schneider says
Re: >>>Muslims can “expel the illness within our hearts” with Qur’ran<<< Right, they can, but some of them won't! The Pope needs to recognize and acknowledge that immigration without integration is an invasion and can quite possibly escalate into a conquest.