Roy
Phil, I think that ever since the assassination attempt on Pope Paul in 1981 the Swiss Guard, who is obligated to protect the pope, has insisted on better personal protection for the pontiff. I don't see that as cause for ridicule, as you seem to embrace, but rather common sense. If you recall your history accurately, you will recall that the pontiff forgave his would be Turkish assassin and embraced him even after being shot by him. What a shame that those great moments in our recent history are already forgotten
Jim Thorpe
Hey Phil,I thought my Ford analogy was pretty funny though but as we both agree not perfect. But if competing religions, or theologians can't discuss aspects of other religions then what the have is just bavardage, or idle chatter accomplishing nothing. My ex-professor would call it mental masturbation! You are very mistaken in how I view the pope and I have my own complaints about the vatican so don't paint me with that brush. But how would a picture of the pope crucified go over? Considering how here in the states they have sold out artistic displays of the crucifix in urine, the virgin mary made out of cow dung and other equally nasty things, without a single killing in response, I would think that a pope snuff film would go over ok and make quite a bit of money for somebody. Obviously you have a beef with the Catholic church that you are trying to take out on others. Your expectation that the pope apologize for a quote taken out of context to a group of people that regularly call for the deaths of infidels, who thry consider unclean and are apes and pigs I find funny.While I was raised in a religious household, I consider myself a C&E christian (christmas and Easter). You're feelings are wrong regarding how I think of the pope.
Jim Thorpe
Mark, Perhaps if you didn't have posts that are so filled with hubris that others wouldn't post the "gung-ho" replies.Let me ask you a simple polite question. Everything else being equal, is a culture that values slavery better or worse than a culture that works to defeat slavery? Thanks!
JAMIE
The bottom line for me is that the pope said nothing really wrong , he owes no apology for what he said . If the muslim world is really concerned with what others are saying bout thier creed , then its time for " the god loving muslims" to purge the ranks and help find the "bad guys" who hide as muslims . MY TWO CENTS ...
JAMIE
Furthermore I wouldnt piss the Catholics off , they are over due for a crusade ..look what they did last time !!! Roy can I get an amen on that?
Roy
Furthermore I wouldnt piss the Catholics off , they are over due for a crusade ..look what they did last time !!! Roy can I get an amen on that?[/quote]An amen? I don't know. Did three centuries of nine crusades really accomplish all that much?
tintin
I have read with interest this whole string (and even contributed (?) once to it). I find the debate typical, and a blatant example of why things on earth are the way they are. And to think that these present exchanges are taking place inside what I would consider an enlighten group... When most people think of "crusades," they think of the military expeditions, of which there were only seven principle ones, to Palestine. What most people forget is that the "crusades" from the 11th to the 16th century number in the hundred! Many were not sanctioned by the pope, but most of them were, against all sorts of "evil" people, as far as Scandinavia and the Caucasus. All were a joke, an excuse to slaughter, pillage, and rape. Look, for example, at the massacres of European Jews by the crusaders, as they passed through Europe: they were practicing, I guess. Or the "Children Crusade," when the children who made the crossing and survived were sold as slaves to the locals in Palestine. One of the most famous crusades is the Spanish inquisition.The whole story of humanity is a story of religious wars in the name of God. Which God? My God who is the REAL one. Etc, etc.If Karl Marx ever said something of value for all ages, he wrote it in his Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes" ("Religion is the opium of the people"). And that goes fro ALL the religions, bar none.Amen.
Tim
That's it in a nutshell Daniel.....
Norm
To me the whole group of issues regarding terrorists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, imperialism, religion; the Pope, Bush and bin Laden is a highly complex, emotive and subjective issue. There is no solution! It's about people; it's about respect; it's about comprehension amongst many other things.People are very strange ceatures; have you not noticed? When we try to paint them all the same or even put them into various boxes it just does not work. What makes one young man from Birmingham UK feel so strongly about something that he decides to become a human bomb? What makes one young man, who is stationed in a foriegn country, take part in a gang rape of an innocent young girl then kill her to hide the evidence. Why do some people "see beyond the horizon" whilst others cannot "see the wood for the trees". Respect is partly about accepting that you or I may not be perfect or even right in our views and that perhaps the other guy, as stupid as it seems, may just have some valid points. No-one; no religion; no leader can be right all the time. This leads me to question the basis of fundamentalism. How can fundamentalist views be reasonable? And that surely applies to any religion or philosohy. Facts are facts by definition but what the fundamentalists do is often, too often, confuse dogma with facts. It seems to me that most religions fail in this regard. I am not irreligious or anti-religious but to me, sadly perhaps, none of them make much sense.Comprehension is simply about accepting that all that we know is just that "all that we know". We know what we see and hear and we know what we are told. That forms the knowledge upon which we base decisions, opinions and upon which we take actions. Sadly an increasing amount of "what we know" is feed to us by those with vested interests of various kinds. In Australia the printed media is appalling and electronic media in some areas is even worse. We have leaders who outright lie - for political gain they tell us that refugees threw their own children into the sea, knowing it to be untrue. After retirement they acknowledge the untruth of the story. The same with Iraq and WMDs or links between Hussein and bin Laden. To paraphrase "truth is the first casualty of politics".Democracy is no longer about government of the people; for the people; by the people - it is about maintaining power at all costs. Power comes from controlling peoples comprehension; make them believe you irrespective of the truth or justice.I do not blame Ali in the streets of Teheran for believing what he does; he only knows what he knows. I do not blame Fred in Iowa for believing what he does. I do blame those who knowingly manipulate what I am made to think and what others are made to think. To end this ramble on a positive note I am an optimist; all things will pass, but if only we would learn from them.
Mark Wales
Let me ask you a simple polite question. Everything else being equal, is a culture that values slavery better or worse than a culture that works to defeat slavery? [/quote][b]Oh East is East and West is West and nere the twain shall meetTill earth and sky stand presently at God's great judgement seatBut there is neither East nor West, border nor breed nor birthTill two strong men stand face to facethough they come from the ends of the earth.[/b][i]Ballad of the East and West - Rudyard kipling[/i]Namaste.[/quote]
dandan
An amen? I don't know. Did three centuries of nine crusades really accomplish all that much?Ummm, Those olden times crusades sort of of helped set things up as they are today didnt they? To this pope I am indifferent, Beware the polarising influence of the media: the Australian TV news sort of made it sound like [muslim] people were rioting in Indonesia in response to old Ben's speech. Which has the effect of fanning the flames of fear [of Muslims] for the people who watch the news in Australia.It is just So easy to just believe what one sees on the television. The problem is, the media seems to thrive on BAD news , and will go to great lengths to present a story in a way that has maximum emotional impact on the viewers. Without regards for the truth it often seems. Balanced reporting[ presenting the whole story from all concerned points of view] just doesnt sell papers, or win TV ratings. It is my belief that the fanatical, bloodthirsty muslim is most likely in the minority.And before anyone says something like " O yeah? then what about 9/11 ?" There are a hell of a lot of unhappy citizens on planet earth at the moment -why?, it seems to me that some countries might be living at the expense of others and not playing fair. [/quote]
Jim Thorpe
Mark,Again, I politely ask; Everything else being equal, is a culture that values slavery better or worse than a culture that works to defeat slavery?
JAMIE
ROY / dan dan is was cracking wise with my amen comment . And I agree with you (dandan) that the last crusade has set the religous stage that we currantly have . In my paper today , the headline reads " AL-QAIDA in Iraq vows Islam will take over the world " ..AL-QAIDA is calling out for the death of the pope .. I worry that if this climite continues the "pc' mentallity will cease and the real blood shed will begine . This is what I ment by my crusade crack .
Jim Thorpe
The question not mentioned in these threads is: Why was there a crusade? Muslim extremists and Mark Wave have brought it out as a reason for the anymosity toward the west but how did lslam spread to Italy? Southern Spain?Turkey? France? Was it through the effective use of Islamic missionaries? Good will gestures that prompted mass conversion to the religion of peace?Both sides have history of good and bad behaviour but to say that one side had a monopoly on violence is incorrect. It is not by chance that many mosques are built over the ruins of churches.I suggest the pope apologize in the Blue Mosque in Istanbul during the sermon portion of a Catholic mass, since it was actually built as a church.
Norm
Hi Jim,If I could have a go at your slavery comment. I do not believe that there can be a "True" answer. Even accepting the fact that all things are never equal.My personal view of slavery is that surely it must be totally abhorent; how can one human own another? I have never and could never employ a servant in the traditional sense because I would value that person too much as an individual and it would probably make for a difficult relationship. But I do not expect anyone to think the way that I think, they are not me and I cannot be them. My mother said she was a slave of the mill owner from whom she felt there could be no escape. How could she survive without the mill; there was no other way she could feed her kids. My grandfather was only a wee lad when his parents effectively sold him to the mine-owners and he had to stay for many years.In other parts of the world people do not have my views, because they are not me. I would hate to be a slave of any sort but I don't even know any slaves so I cannot try to presume how one would feel. But just for arguments sake what if the slave felt himself to be more fortunate than some because he has the opportunity to live and to be valued; that being a slave is normal to him; that this is his lot in life and he knows of no other; possibly he may feel it is the only way that he can survive. Would you free him to his death?The equivalent of my mum's mill and granddad's mine still exist but today we call it globalisation. In some ways this is every bit as insidious as what you would call slavery. Sadly in some ways this goes against Mark Wales quote of Kipling because the two strong men are not equal; they are grossly unequal. I agree wholeheartedly that we should be "defeating slavery" but let's defeat a few other demons on the way.
Jim Thorpe
Norm,I appreciate your response. There is a reason I ask the question and am waiting for a response from Mark Wave. He says :"The truth is that we are all guilty of imposing our ideals on cultures because we assume it is "better than" others."Earlier in our discussion of Islam, I state that I do not believe all cultures are equal. I still stand by that statement. I am not talking about a comparison to slavery as you suggest in the mill scenario but true slavery. The basic tenets of modern western thought is based on individual freedom. If you don't believe in it then you will allow that current slave to stay a slave. If you believe in freedom and liberty then you will make a system to allow this person to survive in a free status, understanding that his children will presumably be better off. I appreciate the predicament that the thankful slave is under but I suggest that this may not be the case for the majority of slaves. You will not find me arguing on the side of pro-slavery. We can think up scenarios all we want but I think if we held a poll, no one on this forum would want to be a slave. I don't think you have to be a slave nor know one to believe these basic human right principles.So to put it back in the question: Is a culture that values slavery better or worse than a culture that is against it? It shouldn't be that hard of question to answer. So in the end, this question is not about slavery nor the need for us to go out today and defeat it. It is about the ability to see what is right and what is wrong. If we can't agree that slavery is wrong and that a culture that values slavery is a lesser culture, then that certainly changes the tone of the debate, wouldn't you think so? If someone doesn't agree with the basic principles of modern human rights, then I think the discussion will be limited.There are many wonderful cultures and lands out there but there are some that aren't. If we are not willing to recognize this then what have we become as a people?
Mark Wales
I read the words "basic human rights", "what's right or wrong" etc.Who decides this? What could appear to be human rights violation forsome maybe a way of life for another. All this sounds so much like theConquistadors (hope my spelling is right) who devastated an entire culture "Aztecs" to bring "salvation to the natives". With salvation came many deseases that the natives never had! Just imagine if they were aboard the Mayflower. What fun. We would have seen the complete decimation of the native American Indians. Not the usual half hearted reservations that exist now. It would have been a complete cleansing.What a wonderful thought, don't you think?Its good to talk about "human rights", salvery and all those wonderfulthoughts, keep it up folks. Maybe if anyone listening feels inclined they can come over to Bali and bring the "Natives" enlightenment.
dawnofjedi
In response to Mr. Mark Wales:I think it is really easy for you to manipulate the discussion to try and prove your point, but its also really easy to see through that.Are you actually trying to imply that the modern Western culture of tolerance has anything at all to do with that which conquered the "new world" 500 years ago? I think it is pathetic that you would lump together all the achievements that the West has made on modern human rights since the 1960s with the actions of various European monarchies of many centuries past. And if you want to play that game, then lets take one example of many on the other side, the Mughal conquering of India. Destruction of Buddhist temples that nearly eradicated the religion. I dont believe they succumbed to disease in this case, Mr. Wales, I believe it was the conquering sword of the Mughals, the worst being Aurangzeb, now a central figure in Pakistani nationalism. Hindu and Buddhist temples were destroyed, and there was something called the 'jizya' at that time, a 'head-tax' on non-Muslims. And this is history. In one place. At one time. But my point is it is a complete manipulation to equate the semi-ancient past with the modern day situation. Talk about American human rights and talk about the pilgrims? I assure you, Mr. Wales, that if you walk down the streets of NYC today you will not see pilgrims oppressing Native Americans. Of course 400 years ago this may have been the case, but how relevant is that in our discussion of today's issues? So why dont we be more realistic here? Why dont we look at how society is now?The right of self-determination is the fundamental basis of human rights. Freedom to believe what you want to believe without fear of violent suppression. Within a system of reasonable laws of course, we are not talking about anarchy here. So do we want to live in a society where we can form our own opinions? Where we can hear both sides of the story? I will assure you, Mr. Wales, that what I believe in is not imposed to me by my government, religious leaders, or CNN. I am living in a free society where I can look at the media from other nations not my own. I can draw together various sources from facts and opinions broadcast around the world, and then make my decisions. And I am pretty sure that not all people have those rights. In fact, I am positive they dont. So when I hear about retribution for adultery in Pakistani tribal society being gang rape, I cringe. And when I hear about Taliban rockets destroying ancient Buddhist carvings in Bamayan, it makes me sick. Death penalty for conversion? A ban on music and women doing anything? Moderate professors purged in Iran? This is tolerance? A Palestinian government run by Hamas that won its claim to fame and local support on a legacy of suicide bombings and desire to impose harsh Sharia law (which is often abused at the whim of the judges in the name of the divine)? Shiite and Sunni sectarian death squads roaming the streets of Baghdad? This is enlightenment? And then to know that some of these are the same people that harbored Bin Laden, as a 'guest', while he and his buddies plotted and trained to murder 3000 civilians in my own home city, it actually makes me kind of angry. And in that anger, I think that I am going to stay away from the rioting, beheading, effigy burning, and suicide bombing. I value my life and the lives of others...I dont know where that comes from, maybe my upbringing? All I can say is that, yeah, it must be great to have such a point of view like you, that us Westerners should not be judging other societies based on our own values. But what is it then, that makes values valuable? Good values. Universal values. Values of freedom and tolerance. But tolerance does not live everywhere. If tolerance is absent, mental slavery ensues. And in order to insure the perpetuation of an intolerant society, violence and suppression is often necessary. I for one am quite happy that I was born in Queens, NY in 1981 and not in 1400s Europe, or 1600s India, or 1930s Germany, or 1990s Afghanistan, or 2006 Pakistan. For anyone that values freedom and individuality, its just common sense. (and again, I am not generalizing but in my criticisms only referring to fanatics and fanatic dominated societies)OM MANI PADME HUM
Norm
Hi "Dawnofjedi",I always feel uncomfortable addressing someone by a pseudonym, its as if you are not communicating with a real person; it acts like a barrier.It seems clear that you are angry about the state of the world vis a vis terrorism and that's understandable, particularly for someone from New York. Obviously every New Yorker suffered great loss on 9/11 and I share that suffering with you.For myself I would rather live in a free society than a fundamentalist society, of that I have no doubt.Could I just ask you to consider what "Freedom" means particulary "based on our own values" (which you may have been using as a quote) and also what "Tolerance" means. Is it possible that they mean different things in different places? Tolerance, to me, says we tolerate something; its not as good as us but we will put up with it. And that in part reflects "western" attitudes. I read often that the government of Indonesia gets frustrated and annoyed with Australia's so called "tolerant" attitude; and I understand that. It is really about not being judgemental.If freedom means having the right to an open well-informed free choice about what you think and what you say then sadly I think it is a scarce commodity in most of the world, including western societies. Please consider the suggestion that "Muslims are not terrorists" even though those who carried out such a barbaric act as 9/11 were Muslims. You know, the one question that haunts me more than the others is "Why would any young person choose to turn themself into a human bomb". I have not been able to settle on any of the glib answers. I guess I will never know because I am not one of them. If western society wishes to maintain the high moral ground it needs to come to terms with the proposition that we may not always be right and with a second proposition that we just may need to understand were the other guy is coming from.Remember I said, "I would rather live in a free society than a fundamentalist society" well sadly I am quite disturbed to feel that the first of those is disappearing faster than the other, by our own action. In the longer term I expect these things will pass and we will be Ok again for a while; but will we ever learn to understand one another. Dawn, its tough but its possible and surely the first one to try and understand will be the "winner" in my book.
Roy
Since the fall of the Soviet Union, it seems the US has been struggling with its role within the world. Once the cold war was over, it was, "what do we do now?" Spreading freedom and democracy throughout the world seemed a reasonable idea, and thus was founded the "World Police."Whether we like it or not, there is a very strong perception in the world that the US promotes freedom and democracy more by force of arms than by world aid and assistance. Certainly, one accuracy within that larger perception is that the US promotes freedom and democracy on a very selective basis, and only where it serves the "interests of the US." Those interests increasingly appear to be economic as opposed to a noble ideology of spreading freedom and democracy. Taking the moral high ground is not a commitment that allows for stepping off whenever it is convenient. Another accurate perception is that the US seems more willing to engage in force than to fully exhaust diplomacy and dialogue. Moreover the reliability of its intelligence to accurately determine a clear and present danger is questionable, as was so painfully demonstrated in Iraq. The war in Iraq was a mistake and to answer that challenge with a retort that the Iraqi people are better off without Saddam was not sufficient justification for the US to take up arms against a sovereign nation. My thoughts on freedom and democracy is that it cannot be forced fed into cultures that share little or no cultural similarity with the US or the West. Freedom and democracy is earned...it is not a right, but rather a privilege and it is achieved only through the struggles of an oppressed people who are willing to fight to be heard.I feel very sorry for whoever is elected the next President of the United States. While anticipating that the next President will have a much wiser view of America's role and responsibility to its world neighbors, that President will be strapped with an awesome job of restoring America's image in the world. That President will also face the awesome job of rekindling pride and confidence of the American people to replace the fear that grips them today.
