I am all for personal accountability.

I was just wondering when you’re going to start using some of it YOURSELF on your own MOUTH the next time you accuse me, a hard-core conservative, of being a “limp-wristed leftist” just because I submit a statement that doesn’t go in perfect sync with your ideology.

Apparently “fundies” come in shades of PINK, too!

I am in NO WAY a “religious bigot”. What I was commenting on was how strange it is for the Pope to criticize a religion for being so hateful, while his own church is guilty of violence against humanity, some of which is continuing in his condemnation of gay people like us, and he doesn’t even KNOW ME! Just like YOU are condemning ME by accusing this proud gay Republican of being from the “gayleft” when I am probably MORE “red-state” than anyone else here!

I just have a problem with hypocrites in the church, whether they be from the left or right wing, that try to use religion to take shots at their political enemies.

Jesus NEVER acted like THAT!

Why is it that so many GayLeft men have such an animus toward religion? Is it because you resist control? Is it that you abhor restraint? Or is it a sociopathology in your psyche that drives you to hate anything which demands personal accountability?

Preliminarily, the translation (re #1) from the NYTimes of what the pope said isn’t bad, but it isn’t particularly good, either. What the pope said in Regensburg was

“Zeig mir doch, was Mohammed Neues gebracht hat und da wirst du nur Schlechtes und Inhumanes finden wie dies, dass er vorgeschrieben hat, den Glauben, den er predigte, durch das Schwert zu verbreiten.”

That translates to

Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only the bad and the inhumane, such as his prescription to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

Note the differences between this from the NYTimes’s translation. “Schlechtes” does not translate to “evil,” “Uebel” does. “Inhumanes” does not translate to “inhuman,” “Unmenschlich” does. And “vorschreiben” (for which “vorgeschrieben” is the past participle) does not translate to “command,” Befehl does. Bit of a difference.

Regarding Peter’s comments, it is true that the pope’s Zitat (citation) at Regensburg (Germany) derived from remarks by Byzantine emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, but it should be remembered that, after the Arabs had, by the time that he made the remarks, over-run more than a bit of territory that had been controlled by Constantinople. Manuel II went to western Europe to ask for aid to defend his domain. This was, indeed, after the Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic split (and the Romans controlled Western Europe), but he requested aid from the West anyway. He received no aid from the West. I suspect, but cannot prove, that the pope’s Zitat was a repetition of Manuel II’s stump speech asking for assistance from the western Europeans. If this suspicion is correct, that would more than suggest that Manuel II meant the Zitat more for public relations purposes by the Byzantines than as something that should be taken as a reflection of historical reality.

And, so, I suspect, but also cannot prove, that the Arabs and other Muslims took the pope’s Zitat in Regensburg, Germany, as a call for Western Europeans to oppose Muslims. It is that that leads me to believe that Muslims in the Near East and elsewhere were up in arms about the pope’s Zitat.

On what may be more interesting regarding the pope’s Zitat at Regensburg, that the pope gave it at all seems to suggest that he has something of a tin ear to politics regarding religion and state. Why religion? Because, as head of the RCCi (Roman Catholic Church, Inc.) he is obviously a renouned religious figure. Why state? Because, he is head of state of the Vatican, an independent (or quasi-independent) entity. From what I can tell, he should not have ruffled feathers, such as he did, in his speech in Regensburg. He should have test-marketed it first, by first having several of his underlings go out and say the same thing, and seeing what the reaction from the “opposition” was.

NB: We’ve just returned from Munich, where the pope’s visit was all the media all the time. There were two interesting aspect (in addition to the above). One, he complained about the fact that the “Glauebiger” (the believers) didn’t seem to be a numerous as they had been in past years and decades, even in nominally RC Bavaria. (No surprise. But note that Germany has a “Kirchensteuer” which obligates members of a church to pay a tax to support the church. So, fewer members, less tax money to the churches.) And he complained about the “mangel” of persons wanting to enter the priesthood. Virtually nobody–at least in western Europe–wants to enter the priesthood. (Again, no surprise.) Just to report–you decide.

The pontiff should renounce his statement only if Muslims will renounce the rest of the statement. That is, the true fact that Islam approves of spreading the faith by the sword.

Sounds fair enough to me. Let’s see if those who call us “infidels” are civilized enough to renounce violence towards themselves and towards us.

Regards,
Peter H.

A war of civilizations, as you call it, presumes that Muslims are civilized, which they are not.

Many of the Muslim leaders condemning the pope’s words seem deaf, dumb and blind when innocents are murdered by Muslims in the name of Islam.

All of these events (1st WTC attack, the Cole, the embassies, 9/11, 3/11, 7/7, the cartoons, the transatlantic flights, now this) are skirmishes in a war between civilizations.

I hope we are on the winning side.

Same with the Danish cartoons. The *mistake* was in acting like reasonable people would find something about them insulting. This is what it’s like in the adult world, polite people do their best not to offend, but acting like all offense is your fault is a pathology, not a politeness. Adult people understand that sometimes they are *not* responsible for other people’s upsets.

It is not *reasonable* to put the blame for the upset on Pope Benedict. And I wish he had just said, “You’re proving my point” instead of saying “I’m sorry you’re offended,” because even if it wasn’t an actual apology, it still sounds like he was forced to make one.

And the Danish cartoons was handled all wrong too. If people react violently to a piture of their prophet with a bomb in his turban, then *that* is *truth* and should not be compromised.

So fan the flames? Yeah, until we can finally get it *right*. The Pope and some cartoonists aren’t denegrating Muhammad, his followers are.

Regards,
Peter H.

Don’t forget that many Christians in the West have been willing, even eager, to accept such limits on free speech — witness the chastened reaction to the Mohammad Cartoon Rage riots, in which Church officials, government leaders, and others solemnly pontificated against “insults to religious figures.” (I have yet to see any Christians go to the streets and ignite riots when crucifixes have been dipped in urine.)

But it wasn’t really a question of blasphemy then, and it isn’t a question of insult now. It is a question of whether non-Muslims will submit to Muslim standards and restrictions on their speech, thought, and behavior. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case for the pontiff.

Not, however, for me. I WILL NOT SUBMIT.

Regards,
Peter H.

^ good thread on it from lesters hq

Miss Grundy