What Did The Pope Do?

Yes, religion should be kept out of here ...but. I'm a WASP and have nothing to do with the pope. The Muslums demand he apologize personally, but what would his fate be if he did that?? BOOM! I hope I didn't touch a nerve with anyone, but the USA and it's Allies are not loosing troops daily to Protestants or Catholics..or even Communists.

Besides..it makes it interesting. Do you thing Springer would have been so famous if he didn't get into a conflict now and then.

Darn..don't know how to edit those little "smilies".

if you dont have anything nice to say...

Yes, religion should be kept out of here ...but. I'm a WASP and have nothing to do with the pope. The Muslums demand he apologize personally, but what would his fate be if he did that?? BOOM! I hope I didn't touch a nerve with anyone, but the USA and it's Allies are not loosing troops daily to Protestants or Catholics..or even Communists.

I have no religion and should be able to talk religion with impunity but I'll keep it to a minimum.

Search the various news sites for what the pope did and what he's apologizing for.

I believe nothing is going to happen to Benedict 16 no matter if he apologizes, although he eventually did.

That is the problem with public figures - they have to be careful of what they say. There is always somebody that might get offended.

I think that what Pope Benedict XVI did was spot on. He spoke the historically correct truth by quoting that 14th Century Byzantine Christian Emperor, Manuel II Paleologos. The quote said, in so many words, that Muslims spread their faith "by the sword," meaning with violence. Now, unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church engaged in a bit of that sort of thing as well, during the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition. However, the R/C Church long ago recognized that this was an historical anomoly and totally against the teachings of Christ, so they have since condemmed those acts. Pope John Paul II led the church in a period of Reconciliation for those times, and what's done is done.

The problem with Islam is that it still has a rabidly violent subculture, and the allegedly non-violent Muslims are NOT speaking out against the killing being done by their brother Muslims. They make it clear that they intend to eliminate Israel from the map of the Middle East, and then hold the rest of the world hostage -- once they acquire nuclear weapons. After Pope B-16's comments, the Muslims went completely ape and have burned churches, killed an innocent Nun, and vowed personal revenge on His Holiness in their usual manner. So, the Pope speaks the truth about violent Muslims, who immediately proceed to prove him right.

So -- what's to apologize for? Not a bloody thing.

Now -- if anyone reading this happens to be a faithful Muslim, please explain to us why you think it's necessary to go around killing everyone who doesn't care to practice the same religion you do. And if you don't believe that, then please, PLEASE let us know that as well, and why!

BTW I am a faithful Christian, and I believe that the way to achieve salvation is by accepting Jesus Christ as your personal Savior. However, I don't believe in killing anyone for any reason, other than as an act of war, for personal self-defense, or for the defense of a third party who is wrongfully placed in jeopardy of their life, which are basically the same thing. This is what Christ teaches. Anyone who isn't a Christian is perfectly free and safe to practice their own religion around me, even if that religion happens to be Islam.

Very well put, Larry.

I have been reading the Koran of late to see what Islam is all about. I have come across a passage or two (in the first ~60 pages or so) that, if interpreted a certain way, suggests that the infidels be detroyed. However, if one were to read it as written it implies that Islam has every right to defend itself from those who seek to directly Islam, which makes pefect rational sense. it says 'if the infidels do not harm them, leave them be'.

The core issue is religous fundamentalism on all levels. Ismalic fundamentalism brings human rights violations, violence, and oppression of women. Christian fundamentalism breeds homophobia, sexism, abortion clinic bombings and little scientific progression. Jewish fundamentalism breeds zionism.

I have no problem with any religion along as it treats all members of the community with respect, beleivers or otherwise. BTW I am a unitarian - I do not beleive in any organized concept of god, only mine, which was reached at a logical conclusion. I am also generally a pacafist, but will happily become violent if it was personal.

Very well put, Larry.

I have been reading the Koran of late to see what Islam is all about. I have come across a passage or two (in the first ~60 pages or so) that, if interpreted a certain way, suggests that the infidels be detroyed. However, if one were to read it as written it implies that Islam has every right to defend itself from those who seek to directly Islam, which makes pefect rational sense. it says 'if the infidels do not harm them, leave them be'.

The core issue is religous fundamentalism on all levels. Ismalic fundamentalism brings human rights violations, violence, and oppression of women. Christian fundamentalism breeds homophobia, sexism, abortion clinic bombings and little scientific progression. Jewish fundamentalism breeds zionism.

I have no problem with any religion along as it treats all members of the community with respect, beleivers or otherwise. BTW I am a unitarian - I do not beleive in any organized concept of god, only mine, which was reached at a logical conclusion. I am also generally a pacafist, but will happily become violent if it was personal.

OK Shaun, I agree right up to that last bit about "happily" becoming violent if it's "personal." Violent action is something we should consider only as a last resort to defend ourselves from the violence of others. Even then, it should not be engaged in "happily," but cautiously, with reasoned awareness of the consequences for all parties. Even if you are forced to act in self-defense, it will have a lasting psychological effect on you. You do have a right to defend yourself from violence, but the best way to do this is to avoid it if at all possible. If a drugs-crazed person would invade my home and threaten me with physical injury or death if I did not hand over my property, I'd first attempt to defuse the situation by offering him or her what they want. But if I am threatened by assault with a deadly weapon, then I must, at that point, act to defend myself. However, assuming I succeeded in protecting my life, I would never by "happy" about what had happened in that situation.

I have observed that soldiers, who take on the terrible task of administering lethal force against their nation's enemies, usually become pacifists once their service is completed. I can understand this quite easily. Violence changes a person, and if you're head is in the right place, it is not unusual to be left with a great deal of guilt at what you were forced to do by the realities of your situation at the time. So, regardless of the ethical correctness of violent defensive action, it still takes it's toll on the psyche.

Well, yes. I was being a little sarcastic with the 'happily' remark but if I was attacked in my home, at work, on the street by a random act of violence I will instinctively defend myself. Yes, they can take my watch, wallet etc. they are replaceable I am not. But, fortunately, despite the figures muggings and home invasions are still quite rare in OZ. I do not personally know anyone who has been robbed at gun/knife point. My dad was at the local airport when there was an armed hold-up back in 1993, but civilians were not at all threatened.

Whilst I would try to defend myself in a personal situation, I will never, ever, join any branch of our armed forces. If noone participated in war, there would be no war. I do not want to have any part in war, and will not. I don't see the point of harming anyone, mentally or physically, that I don't have anything against.

Some could say 'what happened if australia is invaded?' well, the only 2 countries that would have the resources to take over australia are USA and china, long before they reach australia there would be nuclear retaliatory action of some kind. Indonesia, well, maybe, its a large country but is largely impoverished and wouldn't have the resources for a successful invasion of australia.

Some could say 'what happened if australia is invaded?' well, the only 2 countries that would have the resources to take over australia are USA and china, long before they reach australia there would be nuclear retaliatory action of some kind. Indonesia, well, maybe, its a large country but is largely impoverished and wouldn't have the resources for a successful invasion of australia.

Have no fear, there's no oil in Australia!

W will invade Alberta well before Australia...

No, W did not invade Iraq because of oil. If that was the motive, he would be taking over something like Canada or Saudi Arabia. Australia does have oil, but not much reserves (though we do have heaps of gas), and our production has already peaked (back in 2000).

No, W invaded Iraq to deflect attention from Osama Bin Laden. If Bin Laden was caught and brought before a grand jury, Osama would have some knowledge of the social and business ties of the Bin Ladens and the Bushes. Just like when W suppressed 20 pages or so of the independant report on 9/11. Osama has been left alone purely to save face.

3 1/2 yrs on Iraq is in a quagmire. I personally see the US and our boys being there for the next little while. It has cost 1/4 of a trillion dollars, 2300 US troops dead and 40000 wounded. 45000 iraqi civilians dead. Torture is now worse than when it was under Saddam. Since the invasion, the price of oil has doubled. And, no WMDs were found. Neither was any link between iraq and terrorism. Has the invasion of iraq acheived any 'key performance indicator'? No. Impeach bush now!

Some could say 'what happened if australia is invaded?' well, the only 2 countries that would have the resources to take over australia are USA and china, long before they reach australia there would be nuclear retaliatory action of some kind. Indonesia, well, maybe, its a large country but is largely impoverished and wouldn't have the resources for a successful invasion of australia.

Have no fear, there's no oil in Australia!

W will invade Alberta well before Australia...

President Bush "invaded" Iraq only after 12 years of the Saddam Hussein regime sticking it's finger in the eye of the UN, violating each and every resolution, and only after each and every single country in the world agreed that Saddam had WMD's, was seeking to build more, had used them against his own people, would use them again, and then only after going after still more UN resolutions authorizing the use of force against the Saddam Hussein regime.

Well, we ended the terror of the Hussein regime, and then found ourselves embrioled in a massive insurgency of terrorists sponsored by the Religion Of Peace®. So while routing out that infestation of violent terrorists, we rebuild Iraq's infrastructure. All the good we have done over there, while well documented by the U.S. and British forces over there doing the job, is totally ignored by the liberal, Anti-American media. All we see is the bad, none of the good.

All I can say is, if this war in Iraq was about oil, then WHERE'S THE FRIGGIN' OIL??? As an American paying the highest prices for gasoline I've ever seen in my lifetime, if this war in Iraq ISN'T about oil, then W and his administration had damn well BETTER FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT ABOUT THE OIL -- AND DAMN SOON!

After all we've been through, all the money spent, all the American and coalition lives sacrificed, we had better start swimming in oil pretty damn soon. We'll magnanamously pay the Iraqi's maybe $10 a barrel for their oil, but even at that price, they'll get rich beyond their wildest dreams anyway.

The rest of the world, the ones who didn't support regime change in Iraq even though they agreed to it in the UN and begged for it to happen, can pay $200 a barrel for the same oil the U.S. and U.K. are getting for ten.

And for those of you who won't serve in your country's armed forces, and fight to preserve your peace and freedom, don't worry. Someone else will take care of you, because naive, innocent little children need to be taken care of. When some bully comes up to you and starts beating you up and taking away everything you own and hurting the people you care about, call the U.S. Armed Forces. They'll come. And if you decide to fight the bullies yourself, we'll help you. The one thing we won't do is BE the bully.

I hate violence and will kill anyone that says otherwise (just a joke).