[rona_]

Quote

To sum up all this nonsense:

My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend. No mine is better than yours.

Or

Say we are peaceful or we will kill you.

Now you begin to understand why all of this is completely pointless and irrational.

DId you confuse this with the cricket thread?

[pbleighton]

"A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm."

Well, the alternatives are:
1. The Pope is stupid, or
2. The Pope is naive, or
3. The Pope is ignorant.

It seems pretty clear that it was deliberate. Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid (Murdoch's New York Post) agree, and think it was a WONDERFUL idea. Go team!

Peter

[pbleighton]

"Case in point: I think you're a bigot."

Oh dear, Richard. Don't you know that only conservatives are allowed to be so blunt? When they do it, the beacon of their intellectual honesty shines ever so much brighter, as if fueled by the fire of a thousand burning crosses...

Peter

[luke warm]

Quote

"A number of people are starting to suggest that the Pope did this deliberately to trigger to trigger just this type of ***** storm."

Well, the alternatives are:
1. The Pope is stupid, or
2. The Pope is naive, or
3. The Pope is ignorant.

hmmm... so the pope is stupid, naive, or ignorant unless he deliberately wanted to enrage the terrorist elements involved? you are very good at making assertions but not so good at proving or defending them

Quote

Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid

ahhh so he was referring to people writing letters to newspapers... i thought he meant some intellectually honest, objective person was making that case

Quote

"Case in point: I think you're a bigot."

Oh dear, Richard. Don't you know that only conservatives are allowed to be so blunt? When they do it, the beacon of their intellectual honesty shines ever so much brighter, as if fueled by the fire of a thousand burning crosses

it's easy to make such statements, but not quite so easy to prove them... it shoud be easy to post quotes from me showing bigotry... but i think people reading all our words over numerous posts know who has and has not made such statements

Quote

Say we are peaceful or we will kill you.

Now you begin to understand why all of this is completely pointless and irrational.

yep, that pretty much sums it up... say (and write) what we want or we'll murder some more women and children... or don't say what we want, we'll do it anyway

i've stated in other threads that i believe the, for example, kkk is a homegrown terrorist organization.. some of what they've done has been in the name of a religion they've perverted... they are still murderous bastards and mad dogs... is that bigotry? no... did i dehunanize them? no

[Winstonm]

It seems to me that once again it is proven that the root of all evil is not the love of money; the root of all evil is religious doctrine.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Sep 21 2006, 04:45 AM, said:

Quote

Some of the letters to the editor of the local right wing tabloid

ahhh so he was referring to people writing letters to newspapers... i thought he meant some intellectually honest, objective person was making that case

I first heard this raised by Silvia Poggioli on NPR...

[zasanya]

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

[pbleighton]

"3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist."

Peter

[bid_em_up]

zasanya, on Sep 21 2006, 08:06 AM, said:

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

I have always wondered......What/Whose name does an atheist scream when they are having sex?

Their own? Nobody? Non-existent?

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

It seems to me that once again it is proven that the root of all evil is not the love of money; the root of all evil is religious doctrine.

I suspect that for some on this thread, they'd (incorrectly) modify your statement to read: the root of all evil is the other guy's religious doctrine.

Their own, of course, being revealed truth, has to be seen differently.

[joshs]

bid_em_up, on Sep 21 2006, 09:54 AM, said:

zasanya, on Sep 21 2006, 08:06 AM, said:

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

I have always wondered......What/Whose name does an atheist scream when they are having sex?

Their own? Nobody? Non-existent?

Hopefully not the name of their other lover....

[bid_em_up]

luke warm, on Sep 20 2006, 04:27 PM, said:

Quote

Suppose for the moment that I decided to drag my white ass down to Compton... In fact, most of my friends would say that I got what I deserved for doing anything this stupid.

they might say that, but they would be wrong... you might deserve to be arrested for disturbing the peace, but you would not deserve to be beat or killed... that isn't to say you *wouldn't* be beat or killed...

Jimmy, I usually dont perceive your posts as bigoted, per se. In most cases, I take them as being just conversation starters, but Richard has a point in the fact that the threads you start tend to be on subjects that could well be controversial and/or inflammatory.

It could be intentional, it could be because you actually want to find out about things that are going on in the world, it could be you just like irritating Richard .

Without knowing you personally, it is hard to tell via written medium what your intent actually is.

While I usually read the back and forths between the two of you with amusement, the statement above appears to show just how naive you may be of what goes on in the real world (if you actually believe what you wrote).

The N-word is considered, in many places, to be a fighting word. Most people know that if they use it, they can expect to get the crap beat out of them, at the very least.....a gunshot or a knife to the throat is also a good possibility. I certainly would tell you that you were stupid for doing such a thing, as you should know what was going to happen to you. If you dont believe me, go down to your street corner and find out for yourself if you get arrested for disturbing the peace....or......

Now in a "perfect" world, yes, all that would happen to you is you would be arrested. And its great that you think that is all that "should" happen. But this isnt a perfect world, and you damn well know it and you have to know what WILL happen if you do it. Therefore, if you are dumb enough to actually go and shout that word on the street corner......you DESERVE what happens to you.

The same goes for the pope, imo. A man in his position should have a real good idea of how his words will be received by others. To make a speech like the one he did, and claim "Oh gee, I didnt realize that I might offend someone" is ludicrous.
Especially given the tensions in the world today.

So either the man is really dumb/naive (I dont believe that he is, as such) or.....his speech could be perceived as being deliberately inflammatory. I dont believe that to be the case either. I think that as the leading authority for his religion, he has just as much right to state his beliefs and give the Church's opinion on matters, as the mullah's do. But he had to be able to forsee what the consequences of such statements would likely be.....and then make a decision that the matter was important enough to him to make the statements anyway.
Of course, he has as much right to defend and state his beliefs as much as anyone else does........

[the saint]

rona_, on Sep 20 2006, 09:48 PM, said:

Quote

To sum up all this nonsense:

My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend. No mine is better than yours.

Or

Say we are peaceful or we will kill you.

Now you begin to understand why all of this is completely pointless and irrational.

DId you confuse this with the cricket thread?

Nope. If it was cricket it would be a serious matter. As it is religion, I can't take it seriously at all.

[rona_]

For Jimmy This is a must read. Can I get excommunicated for posting here? Oh well...

A man with little sympathy for other faiths.

http://www.guardian....1875791,00.html

[hotShot]

zasanya, on Sep 21 2006, 03:06 PM, said:

3 full pages spewing hatred (and 4th started) within 48 hours in the name of religion.Thank God I am an atheist.

Well the subject seems to be religion, but in fact it is not.

Guess we all know from history classes that emperors and kings claimed to be a god or that their claim of reign was some gods will. Religious leadership lead to political and economic power.
Our culture evolved to seperation of religious and political leadership and to enable everyone to participate in the political process.
Making religious leaders give up their political power is a process that was not easy in our culture and it took a few hundred years. And we had Jesus saying something that could be interpreted as separation of religion and state.
The concept of separating state and religion is not compatible with the islam, so it might be harder for them to evolve in that direction.
Additionaly economic extrems between those who got rich selling oil and those who have nothing, lead to high social tensions.
Leaders everywhere and at any time used some external enemy to make the people forget internal problems.

The pope is guilty of being an easy target to direct the hatred to, that would have caused social riots otherwise.

[helene_t]

rona_, on Sep 21 2006, 07:44 PM, said:

A man with little sympathy for other faiths.

http://www.guardian....1875791,00.html

The funny thing with this summary is that this guy has been insulting just about everybody - homosexuals, budists, female priests, jews. The leasts insulting things he'd said were about moslems. And guess who just ignore the jerk, and who make a big deal out of it ........

[mike777]

In the interest of furthering the discussion I offer up a couple of quotes from a long article by Reuel Marc Gerecht.

"Let us be frank: There is absolutely nothing in the pope's speech that isn't appropriate or pertinent to a civilized discussion of revealed religions and ethics. Even if one is not a believer in any revealed faith, or has some memory of the conflict, daily cruelty and forced conversions meted out by representatives of Rome's bishops, or has some skeptcism about the church's commitment to defending the liberal ideas of the Enlightenment, one can be thankful that the pope sees Christianity as a vehical of peace and tries to explain why he thinks this is so. And by extension why Islam is so often today the loudly proclaimed faith of men who define their relationship to God through violence. Joseph Ratzinger's explanation, as befits a former professor of theology and philosophy, is an abstract one, but it is in the broadest sense undeniable true.......

The pope doesn't tell us how we should proceed to counter the defects he sees in Islam. He should, since that would begin a real, painful but meaningful dialogue, which will surely cut both ways between West and Islam. But what is most disturbing in the Western reaction to the pope's speech-and one sees the same reaction among those uncomfortable with President Bush's use of the term "Islamofascism"-is the often well-intentioned refusal to talk openly about the other side. No one wants to offend, so we assume public position of liberal tolerance, hoping that good-willed, non-confrontation dialogue, WHICH CRITICIZES 'OUR" POSSIBLY OFFENSIVE BEHAVIOR WHILE DOWNPLAYING "THIERS" WILL SOMEHOW LEAD TO A MORE PEACEFUL, ECUMENCIAL WORLD."........

"But we need to talk and argue about these things. We need to stop treating Muslims like children, and viewing our public diplomacy with Islamic countries as popularity contests"......

[Winstonm]

Late-Breaking News Item

It has just been revealed that careful analysis of the Pope's speech by Italian scholars has uncovered a glaring mistranslation.

What the pope actually said was, "Islam sucks."

[mikeh]

I am sorry, Mike, but I disagree with the idea that the Pope's speech contained appropriate comments on the defects he sees in Islam.

My reading of his speech (admittedly in translation) suggests that he was setting forth an argument whereby he compared Islam to Christianity, by stating the that former was inferior to the latter because Islam condones and in some cases justifies the spread of the religion by the sword while Christianity does not.

He suggests that the use of force to spread religion is evil: a concept with which I heartily agree, and, insofar as that might have been his point, I agree that it is appropriate for the leader of a non-coercive religion to raise the matter in public discourse. I agree also that, if that had been what happened, appeasing the Islamic leaders, who for purposes of realpolitik, arouse the anger of their uninformed congregations, is at least a questionable policy, if not counterproductive.

Unfortunately, this was not what happened.

The Pope is not the head of a religion, but he is the head of a powerful, and historically dominant sect of a religion. And that sect has a bloody history of forced conversions, torture, and massacre of those who dare to disagree with it. It also has an unenviable history in terms of the imposition of its faith in South and Central America, to name perhaps the best example of enforced cultural change in the past thousand years.

For a Pope, trained in the history of the church, to pontificate (I use the word deliberately) as if his church was the epitome of civility and reason while Islam is irrational and violent is inexcusable: it is hypocrisy on a grand scale.

Now, if he had begun his speech by candidly admitting that the Catholic Church had, as of the time of the alleged dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and the Persian scholar, held to much the same 'evil' practice of spreading itself through coercion, but had since reformed, he would have my respect for intellectual honesty, even while I would question his motive or intelligence.

[Winstonm]

mikeh, on Sep 21 2006, 10:13 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Sep 20 2006, 09:01 PM, said:

It seems to me that once again it is proven that the root of all evil is not the love of money; the root of all evil is religious doctrine.

I suspect that for some on this thread, they'd (incorrectly) modify your statement to read: the root of all evil is the other guy's religious doctrine.

Their own, of course, being revealed truth, has to be seen differently.

Acutally, I think this can be presented as a mathematical formula.

The root of evil=arrogance squared