Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/09/16/pope.islam/index.html

Does anyone think these protests might actually might reach violence?

_________________

Of course they will. Remember the Danish cartoons? Some stuff is bound to go down.

_________________

CNN is saying that the Pope does not apologize for his remarks. I don't think he should. He said what he thought. If that offended someone, it's too bad.
The people who would cause the most trouble over this say everything they want, burn our flag, and preach for our destruction. It's comical that they take the approach of "we'll say whatever we want and you can't say anything about us". Personally, I think that's even more reason that these people should be eradicated from the planet, for the good of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.
There are Muslims out there who ARE good people, but you never get to hear from them because of those who have perverted the religion to serve themselves and their anti-semitic goals.


I suppose it goes without saying that the "these people" I was referring to represent a minority of muslims (who seem all too eager to reinforce the stereotype of "terrorist").

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

So they (the Radical muslims that are reacting) can say what they want, but oh noes if we say one ting in a negative light about them. Well, it looks like Pope Sidious was never taught that before...

Honestly though, for me, the Muslim reactions over certain things is getting too much. It's not like we say that we are going to wipe Islam off the face of the Earth, are we? No, of course not. Maybe it wasn't exactly the very best thing for the Pope to say, but there is certainly way too much reaction going on over this.

_________________

It doesn't matter what we're saying, though. It's all about what "they" are told that our agendas are. There are people out there who literally think that the United States/Israel is evil incarnate.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Well, yeah, kinda. But probably not in the way you see it.
During the time of Mohammed's death, and a while after, Yes, Conquerors that fought in the name of the faith did technically spread Islam by the sword...
But only to spread the word of it.
Seriously, which would work best to extend a religion to new areas(in terms of time): A few traveling monks or priests? Hearing about it, from passed down rumors? Or people, who fight in the name of this religion, taking over the place where you live?
They did not force it against their conqered people violently(maybe in some areas, but not as a whole). From what I've learned.
(correct me if I left out anything)

But, unfortunately, that has been the way of Islam for pretty much the past 1400 or so years. And even now, they don't appeared satisfied with the power they do have. As has been noted, Islamic preachers can condemn Christians and Jews pretty much with impunity, but let a Christian say anything negative about Islam at all, and it's church-burning time. Never mind that they can't even tell the difference between an Anglican Church and a Greek Orthodox Church, and don't know that neither of them even gives a crap about the pope or what he has to say.

And Muslims always love to bring up the Crusades, too. Conveniently forgetting, of course, that the Crusades started because the Muslim Turks invaded Jerusalem and were slaughtering Jews and Christians, and the Church basically sent troops in to protect the innocent. Granted, the troops themselves took certain liberties during the Second and subsequent crusades, but that's because they got cocky. My point is, the very same Muslims who criticize historic Christianity on account of the Crusades fail to acknowledge their own fault in them.

_________________

So Pope Beany has clarified what he said, and reassured the world that he was quoting someone else. And it seems that the Muslim world seems placated by that, including the Muslim Brotherhood...... click.

Interestingly, the Muslim Brotherhood wants the Pope to state what his true opinion of Islam really is. Not a bad idea. But it looks like the hype is over (maybe, possibly).

Well Muslim doctrine doesn't allow forced conversions but it allows something close. After conquering a heathen land they would give them 3 options.
1. Convert to Islam and live with full rights.
2. Keep your religion but live as a second class citizen with few rights. You also have to pay an extra tax.
3. Die
Some chose #1 because they didn't want to live as mistreated people. Some of the people that took #2 kept their religion but a lot just got sick of the mistreatment and converted. Non Jew/Christian people were especially mistreated because the Jews and Christians are considered "people of the book." Others were considered pagans. It's near forced conversion simply because those who don't convert immediatly usually break later

And what do I think about the protest? For some reason Muslims think that everyone has to follow there laws and if they don't they have to pay. I have no interest in following Muslim doctrine. When someone insults Jesus I'm not happy about it but I don't go out protesting and doing voilent things. Unfortunately Muslims often react voilently to insults.

_________________
http://s3.bitefight.org/c.php?uid=34919

That's the one thing I particulary don't like. Say the wrong thing to Muslims, and there will be some who burn things and kill people (since I know there will be those who won't act in violence). That's why I have intolerance with severe intolerance over little things. Now I know these things aren't little to the Muslims, but every time someone sas something wrong about their religion, it becomes worldwide news, whereas the same thing to a different religion results in, at most, local news that everybody forgets in a day.

I'm trying to put this in the best way possible, but I'm certain there are some kinks that'll lead to misunderstanding.

_________________

With all the drama in the world, you've got to find humor, otherwise, you'll go insane.

First off, am I the only one that finds it funny that a group criticized for being violent responds to that criticism with violence? It's like they're going out of their way to reinforce the stereotype. It'd be like going into a stereotypical trailer park and yelling "you're all inbreds!!" only to have Cleetus yell back "Shut up, you're interrupting my wedding. Me an' my sister gotta hurry up so we can get on the bus and start our honeymoon!"

Also, for amusement, I sometimes think about what would happen if the ACLU were to have an off-shoot somewhere in the middle east (Iran, for example).

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Sounds like peace loving people to me..
Guh..
Would someone care to point out to them that, if they disagree with what he said they shouldn't be lining up to prove him correct?

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Let's bear in mind there are about 1.4 billion Muslims in the world; they make up 21.5% of the world's population. In any group that large it will never be hard to find a few thousand hair trigger hardliners willing to take to the streets and scream, and within that subset a smaller percentage willing to burn and even kill. It's always the extremists who get the most press.

This isn't aimed at you, StrongRad, but rather at any readers who are falling for the "all Muslims are violent" sentiment that's been going around for so long. If all 1.4 billion Muslims were violent this world would see chaos that would make the current troubles seem like a Sunday picnic by comparison. In regards to sweeping statements of "Muslims do this" and "Muslims are like that," it should be remarked that it is best to avoid generalizations with any population of that size.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

A small percentage of Muslims are violent, angry jihadists, but the rest of the Muslims are too afraid to do anything about it. Or they don't want to.

It's a mystery. If there was a group of Americans in Kentucky blowing up other Americans in the name of stopping illegal immigration or something, who would hunt them down and take cafe of the problem? AMERICA.

Step it up, brothers of those who are destabilizing the region and the world.

_________________

I agree completely. Usually, if a particular ethnicity or religion (or class for that matter) does something which other people in that group oppose, there will be protest against what they are doing, as they would not wish for others to presume that they would do the same thing. Yet, where's the public outcry of Islam? You hear Christians criticizing Fred Phelps all the time; wouldn't it be rational to expect the same thing from them? I'm not enforcing a stereotype here, but there seems to be something odd about this entire situation.
EDIT: That's IT! I've established a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda! They both have a Q in them!

_________________

In 1999, Iranian college students protested the closing of a reformist newspaper. Some of these students remain in prison to this day. Several students were killed by police and the hardline militant groups who stepped in to quash the protests. After the demonstrations were broken up a number of students were followed back to their dorms and beaten savagely by police, resulting in two (known) deaths.

(By the by, this did not occur on the orders of then-president Khatami. The president of Iran has no control over the police or the military. The president is not, in fact, the actual chief executive of Iran.)

This is one example. There are many pockets of resentment against the hardline clerics who weild so much power in the Middle East, but these people don't have the First Amendment to protect them. They can't expect due process. If they "step up" against the men in power they are subject to imprisonment, reprisals against their families, execution, and whatever else the hardliners feel is appropriate.

That, in a nutshell, is what is "odd" about the situation.

Mike

_________________
Logical fallacies ahoy! I'd also like to say: graaaaagh!

That is the very reason jerks like the Ayatollah need to be removed from power. People here in the states whine about living under "King George", but they don't know how great they've got it. Like I've said 1000's of times, the very fact that you can complain about how "your freedom of speech is being infringed" is proof that it isn't.

The sad fact is, the people in power in places like Iran are not stable people. They obviously can't spot irony (like protesting someone calling them violent by threatening to kill him), and I seriously doubt they have any respect for anyone other than themselves. Hopefully the UN, NATO, or someone will recognize the threat that people like Ahmadinejad, The Ayatollah, Hezbollah, and their followers pose to the world and conveniently remove them from it.
Perhaps threats against the pope will mobilize Germany, and they'll be able to rouse the rest of NATO.
I'm not counting on the UN to do anything. They won't until a terrorist group bombs the UN building. Then, my guess is that they'll write a letter telling the terrorists that, if they bomb the UN 20 more times, they will consider imposing some sort of sanctions.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I found a really good article on Slate this morning that expresses my opinions on the subject.
http://www.slate.com/id/2149885/

The essence of the article is that regardless of what the Pope said, we should be defending his right to free speech, rather than apologizing for a stray remark that puts the middle east into an uproar every 4 months.

_________________

Should, is a term that ought to be used to describe that which ought to be done in order in order to expound the most benefit, and the least harm.

The pope should have apologized (even though he was only quoting someone else) and to his credit, he did. In doing so, he probably saved lives, and I would challenge anyone to prove the claim that in the process he decreased anyones rights to free speech. More severe and prolonged protests would have probably simply had led more people to being scared away from speaking their minds, then have been.

Going further, I will deny the assertion that Muslims are not any more prone to violence then Christians.. Their religion is an omnipotent force in their lives, and effects everything they do. This is not true for any except perhaps one christian that I have yet met, and it leads towards a greater percentage involvement in extremism. Beyond having too many devout adherents, Islam is also, relatively speaking, textually violent. Certainly Jesus was not the war conducting, Jew slaughtering prophet Mouhamed was.

As a Catholic myself, I'm rather displeased with Pope Funnyeyebrows' short-sighted remarks (any bigotry on the part of Christians or Americans is sure to raise my hackles). You could say I'm angry at him even. But I'm glad to hear that he apologized and realized he made an honest mistake.

Doesn't change the fact that he has funny eyebrows.

_________________
Corn chips are no place for a mighty warrior!

Where's the bigotry?




That's true. The countries that are predominantly Islamic today were made that way because of "the sword". Violent conquest at the hand of Muslims.

It just shows how screwed up the world is when you can't state a true fact without being called a bigot.

_________________

He's said that he's sorry for people confusing his quotation of a 1400 Byzantine emperor as being acclamation of his own beliefs. The aforementioned emperor was quoted by Benedict, as saying that Muslims are "evil and inhuman". Reading within a paragraph or two radius of the quote should probably allow us to infer how the pope himself views it, though I havent done so yet.

I think it was quite big of him to apologise. Not having done so would have led to pointless death, destruction, and animosity, which Denmark was too stubborn to aviod in its own case.

The line of freedom of speech should not be drawn at not apologising when you shouldn't have to, but rather at not passing legislation which prohibits the right of one to say what one wishes. Apologies are harmless, and fair or not, it is right to do that which leads to the most benefit and the least harm.

A good deal of this has been I believe the media's fault. Whilst a free press have more virtues then it does faults, it is one of its underbecoming attributes that it will create news where there is none(generally they will headline many things which are either intrigueing flops: "I didn't inhale!" "My job would be easier if I were dictator" or things that might be un-PC "Bush doesn't care about black people" "She's got that fiery Latino-black blood (Shwartzenegar)) in order to increase reader and viewership. This is more a common problem then bias, because stations want to broadcast to all Americans, not just unobjective Americans of one side political spectrum, and therefore will try to stay away from being too editorial. The majority of the media is run by Capitalism, not ideology.

Unfortunately freedom of speech isn't valued in the Islamic world. I certain Islamic countries the punishment for insulting Mohammad are, how should I put it? Severe.

_________________
http://s3.bitefight.org/c.php?uid=34919