When a debate is so heavily invested in angry rhetoric, it's difficult to tell what's crossing a line and what's not. For my own part, I would say that the line is pretty much crossed when you have someone pining for the nuclear destruction of an entire city rather than addressing that city's problems with nuance. That's not useful, and it's certainly not smart.
For future reference:
The issue of the place of Islam in the world is a heated and important one, and there are two ways to discuss it. The first (and correct) way is by addressing its doctrines, its history, its consequences, and individual adherents to it, whether in a positive or negative light. The other way is doing something else, and almost always ends in bigotry. That's where statements like "nuke Tehran" (paraphrase) come from, and they're not going to be tolerated.
This thread needs less bickering and throwing around accusations at one another and more of everything else. If you want it to remain open, calming down - everyone - would be a good plan.
- Selected sermons from Jonathan Edwards, who deserves his reputation
- Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus (still; it's not that good)
- A book claiming to be the complete paintings of Caravaggio, but which is, in fact, lying
Mehmet Ali Ağca - a Turk - shot him in 1981, though it's unlikely that this was specifically an Islam-related thing. The man was crazy, and also in deep (it would seem) with all sorts of conflicting conspiracies and whatnot. It's quite a story, honestly.
Quote from Harkius »
First, as far as I can recall, there has been no link between the Pope's statement and the nun being shot. Instead, there is a suspected link, but that was probably only because the people shooting the Catholic woman happened to be Muslims. If you read the news, you will see that the people who apprehended them were also Muslims.
You're right, Harkius. Technically no link has yet been found, and may not even exist.
However, I'd say that it's a pretty safe bet. I mean, I'd put my money on it with little hesitation.
So, savages or not, they are going to try the murderers.
And good for them. Though you may not specifically be directing this at me, I feel I should note that it is absolutely not my opinion that all Muslims are monsters or idiots. I was thrilled to the core the other day, for an example, by an anecdote about members of Islamic Jihad in Gaza who were standing watch outside of churches in their neighbourhoods to make sure no firebomb nubs tried anything stupid.
Second, who the hell cares what Muammar Gaddafi's son says? I can say all manner of ridiculous and intolerant things, but that doesn't mean that I speak for a billion people.
I agree. I myself only care about what he said because of what it was, in and of itself, that he said, which I found ultimately hilarious.
CHOOSE MORE REPRESENTATIVE SOURCES IF YOU ARE GOING TO BLAST ISLAM.
This is good advice.
Quote from BigGator5 »
What wrong view? They killed a Nun and burned churches.
Why lie when the truth is so much more damning?
There's a fine line to be walked. When we say "they," we mean "individual Muslims." Whether or not they can be said to represent Islam as a whole is a matter for debate. What we don't mean when we say "they" is "all Muslims everywhere." We don't mean that all Muslims everywhere killed a nun and burned churches. To speak as if we did mean as much, or as if they did do as much, is fallacious and evil.
Whatever Islam's faults - and, speaking for myself, I would say they are Many and Grievous - we do nothing good and nothing honourable by speaking in such broad strokes.
Pope quoted a dead dumb-ass
Manuel II Paleologus was smarter and more awesome than anybody on these boards, and likely on the entire Internet. Certainly he was smarter and more awesome than you or I.
I think that you judge all of the Muslims in the world by the same standard, and that standard is not particularly based on open-minded ideals. Rather I think that you are afraid of people who are Islamic, and not for good reasons.
There happen to be a large number of people who are child molesters who also happen to be Christian. Does that mean that one leads to the other? No. It doesn't. It is an unfortunate correlation, not a causation.
If I can be said to be afraid of people who are Islamic, it's because I frequently see instances in the news of people who are Islamic committing acts of violence, oppressing large numbers of people, and saying boneheaded things. If they didn't claim - to a man, Harkius - that their religion was the reason for all of it, I wouldn't be so quick to judge it, perhaps. I am perfectly well aware that there are child molesters who are at least nominally Christian. They're bastards. However, for all the evils they commit, one thing they can't do - and typically don't even try to do - is justify their evil ways by citing their religion; at least, that is, not in any concrete, testable ways. They couldn't even if they wanted to. Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are quite happy to cite the Koran at the drop of a hat, and would appear to have had great success in doing so based on their apparent popularity with more moderate Muslims.
You have said that all of this is an unfortunate correlation, and not a causation. I would say that this is half true, but not in a useful way. We must consider seriously just what it is in Islam that lends itself so well to being cited as justification for the barbarous acts we see every day, and just what it is in Christianity that would lend itself to poorly to the same thing.
The second that you, Dr. Tom, JonBush, and Furor start to remember (or understand, for some of you) that the one is not the other, you will begin to understand why some of us are so vocal about Islam NOT being a religion that is much different from Christianity...or any other.
I think your and others' vocality on this subject is based in a foolish disdain for religion, and that you do yourselves no favours with such an outlook, particularly as regards Islam. I have always found that people who make broad statements about the general similarity of all religions can not be relied upon to comment usefully upon them in any historical or contemporary contexts, and though I had previously suspected this of you for other reasons, I am nonetheless pained to see that I have further cause to hold what was previously just a mildly-supported feeling of tired frustration.
Even if that is true, the arabs did save a lot of books that would otherwise be lost now. You have to give them that.
Oh, I do indeed. They preserved many of the manuscripts they stole rather than simply destroying them, and for that we are all thankful. In a similar way, I have to give it to them that they were very rich, and had wonderful architecture, and highly successful and widespread trade routes. But then, this was true of precisely the society that Mysteriously Vanished from the same lands in which the Muslims established themselves, at around the same time this establishment was taking place. The Byzantines were fabulously wealthy. The Byzantines had beautiful architecture; if you want to see an example of it, just look at your nearest mosque (coincidence, obviously). The Byzantines had very successful and widespread trade routes.
The process of putting two and two together here shouldn't be too hard, though since Islam isn't in the business of ruthlessly conquering things, and never has been (not your words, but it's been said), mathematics itself may simply be wrong.
I think you're exaggerating here. The koran(?) simply contradicts itself on the matter.
The Koran can contradict itself all the live long day, and I imagine it does. I'm not basing my opinion of this solely on the Koran, however, for I think you'll find that I am no Koran fundamentalist. There's a little matter of historical record, rather, which is not exactly silent on the subject of the purported Islamic tolerance, and does not, in fact, speak very highly of it.
I'm basing this on a book(Atheology by Michel Onfray) I read, but the writer stated that in one chapter the koran preaches to slay the unbelievers, while in the other it preaches to show tolerance to them. I'll go and search for that book now, see if he mentions which chapters.
Go for it.
I once claimed christianity is as worse as islam. I retract that now. IMO islam is just an incredibly retarded religion, somewhere on the level of scientology.
I agree with you on a visceral level, but it is nonetheless important to speak charitably and calmly in such matters.
Quote from apokalypsekid9 »
When did I mention sides?
Well, people don't generally make disdainful, exclusive statements about one faction in a notorious conflict without implicitly, you know, assuming that there are sides. The very clear implication of your statement that it was the Arabs, and them alone, and them in a significant manner, who were doing this. The idea is absurd, but has become a trope for disaffected pseudo-intellectual teenagers, of which number surely you are not, or so I hope.
Point taken, but I just felt like posting a different opinion, considering how this debate was becoming, in my mind, a chance for mortal wombat to bash Muslims, without context/basis to do so.
Of course. It's important to hear both sides of the issue, and I'm grateful that you've felt moved by your conscience to take the one you have.
- From the same article: Turkish legal types request that the Pope be arrested as soon as he enters the country
- Palestinian group tied to rash of church firebombings declares: "We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches."
- Previously unheard-of Iraqi group kills one Christian, threatens to kill all of them (in Iraq) if Pope does not apologize explicitly to Mohammed in three days' time
- London-based demagogue calls for Benedict's death
And finally, commentator Andrew Brown of the Guardian has this to say, and it's worth reading:
Quote from Andrew Brown »
There is a peculiar irony, though, in the fact that Pope Benedict XVI's lecture may imperil his planned visit to Turkey this autumn. After all, if Islam has not been spread by the sword, he wouldn't now be planning to visit Turkey, a Muslim country full of Turks, but to Asia Minor, a Christian country full of Greeks; and the Emperor Manuel II Palaeologos would not have been besieged for four years, with nothing to do but write about theological conversations, in a city then called Constantinople, now called Istanbul.
Need I remind you that during the dark ages, who were the enlightened ones saving greek classics? It was the arabs.
Both "sides" saved Greek classics, but I think you'll find that the chief reason the Arabic faction could make use of these classics in the first place was because they were translated into Arabic by Christian monks in the fourth and fifth centuries and stored at places - like in say, Egypt and the Holy Land - that eventually fell to certain scimitar-wielding types who happened to come sweeping in out of nowhere shortly thereafter.
Need I also remind you that Islam is actually a very tolerant religion(in response to other posts of yours)?
Compared to a hypothetical religion based solely on ruthless intolerance, certainly.
Islam preaches tolerance to Jews and Christians, and was doing so since The Prophet Muhammed,
It preaches the subordination of these religions to the extent, if necessary, of charging their adherents a special tax in exchange for their lives. We're lucky indeed that there's no longer a caliphate to regulate this properly, lest we return to those glorious days of The Prophet Muhammed that you mentioned.
was your religion instructing members to tolerate the two other major religions right off the bat?
Probably not. But then, the Israelites didn't like to make so much hay about how wonderfully tolerant they were.
If you believe that people are randomly insulting your life style, you'd most likely be pretty pissed off. I would love it if you educated yourself about Islam before you start insulting it.
Back at you, but replacing the word "insulting" with "defending." Charity is a noble virtue, but so too is prudence.
Well, if other factors we just put aside for the moment, the religous ones, it does make a differnce. You assert that the Turks may express hostilities towards catholics. I think that the average Turk does not think about that issue that way, as the important thing in percieving someone as a threat is to have real physical contact with them.
I assert that, yes. It's no joke that one of the bestselling books in Turkey right now - even before this affair began, in fact - is the novel Attack on the Pope, which predicts the assassination of Benedict on his trip to Turkey. Lest you suggest, a la the Da Vinci Code brouhaha, that it's "just a novel" and "only fiction" and so on, I must say that there remains nevertheless something desperately ominous about a nation whose book-buying public - not just radical fringe groups - seems to be fixated on and enthused by the idea of the assassination of the Pope. In any event, novels are serious business there.
And I can tell you, outside of turistical places, a Turk can live an entire life without ever coming into contact with a catholic. You think they would now start raveging catholics, by god when a linch mob would gather first they would have to ask somene where to find them.
I do not think "never actually meeting someone" is a barrier towards being a hateful bigot towards them. In fact, the opposite is nearly always true, I think you'll find.
Yes, but that's a big point. That hypotetical guy not being turkish. You now what that would mean? That maybe the point that defines reality is not a catholics vs muslims rethoric, but maybe some other political or geopolitical or intramuslim agenda.
You know, considering that these two faiths and their adherents have shattered the world with ease on countless occasions, I don't think trying to downplay rising tensions between them in favour of "some other agenda" is really helpful, or particularly wise.
Anyhow, whether or not Catholic v. Muslim really does define reality, and whether or not you, personally, think it does, you've still got a third (a half?) of the world's population who do think it does, and will act as though it does, and there's not a damn thing the rest of you can do about it. If you want to stop the Islam that is currently on the march, you're going to have to do it on religious terms. There's just no way around it. It might be worth considering turning to the faith that has had the most significant history of doing exactly that, in fact. Lepanto, Vienna and Tours were not great victories for vapid western secularism, after all.
Which is also bad, but then suddenly you are faced with the notion that the religious differnces arguments miss the point. For all teists out there, money makes more difference in the world than religion, even in the muslim world. If you ever visit the baazar maybe ponder on that one.
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here, so I'm going to leave it for the moment.
The recent bombings in Turkey for instace, they were done by the Kurdish terorists, thats what I ment. Whos major disturbance is not Cristianity, but Turkey itself.
That Turkey is still a nation in which terrorist bombings occur, regardless of their motivation, does not move me to think my scenario less likely, I'm afraid.
Nor doing anything serious about it at least for several centuries.
Again, I'm not entirely sure how this is an answer to what I said. Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to be doing things that involve language.
As I replied to MW earlier, I think there is a big difference between catholic church and all of the institutions you mentioned above.
The contest is now closed, and no further submissions will be accepted, with the exception of that of Rakdos, who have made a prior arrangement due to extenuating circumstances and have until the end of the day.
EDIT: On second thought, all clans have until the end of today - that's 11:59PM, Eastern Standard Time, to submit a story if they have not done so already. We need more entries.
First, it struck me as a bit amusing, for one simple reason. Remember, remember the Fifth of November, the gunpowder, treason, and plot. I see no reason that the Fifth of November should ever be forgot. Is this date chosen by you, or is Benedict actually visiting on that date?
The precise date of the visit is not known as yet, though I'd imagine they'll confirm it soon. I did choose the date in question for infamous reasons expressly related to what you mentioned. Other dates in there also have meaning. One of them is my birthday.
Second, I think that the hypothetical situation at hand is a bit inaccurate. I think that the comments by the Pope are not going to cause much more than the protests that we've already seen. Further, if there was an attack, I think that it would be oversimplifying things to link these two and say that it was anything more than further provocation.
Well, it's not so much that I'm necessarily linking the two, but rather using the occasion of the one to discuss the other. Even before this incident, as I noted, there has been a degree of anti-Catholicism present there. When Ratzinger declared in 2004 that Turkey should not join the European Union, for example, declaring the country to be "in permanent contrast to Europe," this was considered by many Turks to be a meddling and unnecessary statement. The blow was softened somewhat by his simultaneous suggestion that they should instead work towards forming an Islamic nation group, but the attention to such a prickly issue was not welcome. As the question of Turkey joining the European Union becomes more and more urgent (as the soonest possible window for the country's accession approaches), the tension between traditionalist Islamists and forward-thinking secularists is going to spell all manner of trouble for anyone caught in the middle.
The occasion of Benedict's visitation to such a place, coupled with the enormous religious and political pressures involved, makes it a prime opportunity for someone - not necessarily someone Turkish - to strike. Insofar as Turkey itself is not a hotbed of terrorism, you'd best believe that potential terrorists would not have a difficult time finding accomodation there if they were to have something planned.
In any event, this is a very real concern at the moment for Church officials and Catholics in general. While it is true that Popes have been martyred or simply assassinated before, this has not happened within living memory, and certainly not in a world that is in any way comparable to the one in which we now live.
Please, let's not turn this into something that it is not, though. I would like to ask Laton to apologize to Furor. I have seen what I consider unreasonable modding here, but never from him. He has always been a fine and upstanding member of the community, from my observations.
Harkius
I appreciate this, Harkius, but Laton and I will have to work this one out for ourselves, I think.
Quote from TheLarch »
I don't believe so. Vandalizing churches in Bursa, Konya....uh uh.
How many churches in Bursa or Konya anyway? Are there any?
Even in Istanbul....how many, almost one?
There are very few churches in Turkey, though they can be found in the major cities, of which Bursa, Konya and Istanbul are examples. Their relative oddity in such a country makes them something of a curiosity.
In any event, I would like to point out that to focus on this is to miss the point of the thing entirely. It doesn't matter whether there's one church in Istanbul or a thousand, because that's not what I'm talking about.
I wouldn't say your scenario would be likely in Turkey. Bombing amongst themselves, more likely.
I'm not sure what the second part of this means, though I will mention again, as I did above, that the perpetrators need not necessarily be Turkish themselves.
The situation will quiet down without much fuss. I think you are a bit overzealous in seeking important historical turning points of such magnitude.
Well, it wasn't exactly my idea. The question of the consequences of the Holy Father's assassination on a dangerous trip is one that is of considerable importance and currency at the moment.
This is not one, Vatican would never let it escalate to such extent.
The Vatican does not uphold the tradition of appeasing people who threaten her.
Hipotetical situation like you described is more likely to happen from an incident that is much more random and doesn't have such a highbrow background as this one, aka, the Pope.
I don't know about this, honestly. Are you suggesting that the cartoon riots were worse than (for example) what would follow on the heels of the President of the United States cracking Mohammed jokes in an address to the world, or something? Important figures create important consequences with even the most mundane or irrelevant of actions. Bill Clinton's sex life was a matter of absorbing and inescapable interest to the nation for years, you may recall. If anything, we should take the intensity of the cartoon riots as an indication of how very little it takes to aggravate such people, and be concerned indeed for what could come about as a result of something that really mattered.
Quote from Mortal Wombat »
Of course there are churches in Istanbul, but I don't think there are Catholic ones. Eastern Orthodox ones, definitely.
There are a few, but not many. There are only some 35,000-40,000 Catholics in Turkey. Not surprisingly, there aren't many Orthodox ones either. They've been kind of shoved out, as it were.
Though I will concede that the Vatican did start this (although I think Benedict's swipe at the religion was true), like I said before, Muslims are big babies when it comes to criticizing their own religion.
"Benedict's swipe" is non-existent. If you keep insisting that it's otherwise, you're no better than the reactionaries you're criticizing. For reference:
Quote from Benedict XVI »
In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the jihad (holy war). The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". It is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without decending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he turns to his interlocutor somewhat brusquely with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God is not pleased by blood, and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death...".
Indeed, in the bolded section we may see fairly notable evidence that Benedict is not only not promoting the words of the emperor, but is rather relating them critically, as well he may.
I'm disappointed in you, Furor. I would have expected a more clearly framed debate topic from someone as astute as yourself. To list recent events and say "What happens next" would get an infraction from a regular member here.
No, it wouldn't. Why would it?
To be clear, in any even, this is in Debate rather than in the Water Cooler because it will turn into a debate, eventually, and we may as well just save time. Is that really so unreasonable?
What exactly are we debating here? What happens next? Well, here's what happens next: I finish typing this post, press the "Submit Reply" button, and wait for others to flame me.
Why would people flame you? I think you're being really, really weird about this, but apart from that I bear you no ill will.
I don't mean to flame you, Furor, but really - the topic is poorly defined for a debatable topic. I do think this issue is a decent topic to debate, but just needs to be rephrased in a more effective manner.
I don't really understand people who talk like this. If you can see that the topic is worthy of debate, it's hardly likely that it has been so poorly phrased as to be undebatable. It sounds like you're making excuses for something, but I don't know what.
I also think that it's dangerous to speculate on what you think is going to happen next in the timeline of events. You know as well as I do that doing this is dangerous in this context, as it taints people's opinions when they respond in a debate forum. Don't we always strive to present our arguments/topics in the most neutral manner possible? Speculating in this fashion clearly violates that.
No, we don't always strive to present our arguments/topics in the most neutral manner possible. What's the point of having opinions at all? Why even come here? Maybe other people do this, but I know I typically try to present my arguments/topics in a way that reflects best on them and is most likely to convince people I'm right.
In this case it's all admittedly and clearly hypothetical, so what's the problem?
I'll withhold any further comments about this issue until the original post is rephrased (if I'm still here, that is ).
You know, that's really not funny. The suggestion that I - me, of all people! - would ban or suspend you for this is monstrous.
Fine. Paleologus was inaccurate, and the Pope, quoting him, perpetuated the inaccuracy. You know what I meant.
No, actually, I really didn't. There have been a lot of people commenting on this story without actually reading the Pope's lecture, and one of the watermarks of such a person is thinking the Pope himself made and affirmed these statements, when in fact he did neither. I wanted to make sure you were not such a person, though of course that's hardly likely in your case. You're better than that.
Quote from Cyan »
Considering what a lame duck and/or transition Pope that Benedict XVI is, I honestly don't think that it would affect much at all.
You seem to be trapped in April of 2005. A lot has changed since then.
Admittedly, the Pope's words were a trifle impolitic and, I'd even argue, inaccurate in principle.
Inaccurate, eh. So he was misquoting Paleologus, who actually thought the world of Mohammed and Islam in general?
EDIT: For reference, here is the full text of the lecture in question. Make up your own mind about just what was going down.
turnip_song: That's certainly a concern, though I think people here are bright enough not to go overboard. I hope you'll forgive me for daring to present something in a more creative way than is typical for the Debate forum. I don't make a lot of threads anymore, and I want to have some fun when I do.
When a debate is so heavily invested in angry rhetoric, it's difficult to tell what's crossing a line and what's not. For my own part, I would say that the line is pretty much crossed when you have someone pining for the nuclear destruction of an entire city rather than addressing that city's problems with nuance. That's not useful, and it's certainly not smart.
For future reference:
The issue of the place of Islam in the world is a heated and important one, and there are two ways to discuss it. The first (and correct) way is by addressing its doctrines, its history, its consequences, and individual adherents to it, whether in a positive or negative light. The other way is doing something else, and almost always ends in bigotry. That's where statements like "nuke Tehran" (paraphrase) come from, and they're not going to be tolerated.
Thus ends the thread.
- Selected sermons from Jonathan Edwards, who deserves his reputation
- Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus (still; it's not that good)
- A book claiming to be the complete paintings of Caravaggio, but which is, in fact, lying
Mehmet Ali Ağca - a Turk - shot him in 1981, though it's unlikely that this was specifically an Islam-related thing. The man was crazy, and also in deep (it would seem) with all sorts of conflicting conspiracies and whatnot. It's quite a story, honestly.
You're right, Harkius. Technically no link has yet been found, and may not even exist.
However, I'd say that it's a pretty safe bet. I mean, I'd put my money on it with little hesitation.
And good for them. Though you may not specifically be directing this at me, I feel I should note that it is absolutely not my opinion that all Muslims are monsters or idiots. I was thrilled to the core the other day, for an example, by an anecdote about members of Islamic Jihad in Gaza who were standing watch outside of churches in their neighbourhoods to make sure no firebomb nubs tried anything stupid.
I agree. I myself only care about what he said because of what it was, in and of itself, that he said, which I found ultimately hilarious.
This is good advice.
There's a fine line to be walked. When we say "they," we mean "individual Muslims." Whether or not they can be said to represent Islam as a whole is a matter for debate. What we don't mean when we say "they" is "all Muslims everywhere." We don't mean that all Muslims everywhere killed a nun and burned churches. To speak as if we did mean as much, or as if they did do as much, is fallacious and evil.
Whatever Islam's faults - and, speaking for myself, I would say they are Many and Grievous - we do nothing good and nothing honourable by speaking in such broad strokes.
Manuel II Paleologus was smarter and more awesome than anybody on these boards, and likely on the entire Internet. Certainly he was smarter and more awesome than you or I.
If I can be said to be afraid of people who are Islamic, it's because I frequently see instances in the news of people who are Islamic committing acts of violence, oppressing large numbers of people, and saying boneheaded things. If they didn't claim - to a man, Harkius - that their religion was the reason for all of it, I wouldn't be so quick to judge it, perhaps. I am perfectly well aware that there are child molesters who are at least nominally Christian. They're bastards. However, for all the evils they commit, one thing they can't do - and typically don't even try to do - is justify their evil ways by citing their religion; at least, that is, not in any concrete, testable ways. They couldn't even if they wanted to. Muslim terrorists, on the other hand, are quite happy to cite the Koran at the drop of a hat, and would appear to have had great success in doing so based on their apparent popularity with more moderate Muslims.
You have said that all of this is an unfortunate correlation, and not a causation. I would say that this is half true, but not in a useful way. We must consider seriously just what it is in Islam that lends itself so well to being cited as justification for the barbarous acts we see every day, and just what it is in Christianity that would lend itself to poorly to the same thing.
I think your and others' vocality on this subject is based in a foolish disdain for religion, and that you do yourselves no favours with such an outlook, particularly as regards Islam. I have always found that people who make broad statements about the general similarity of all religions can not be relied upon to comment usefully upon them in any historical or contemporary contexts, and though I had previously suspected this of you for other reasons, I am nonetheless pained to see that I have further cause to hold what was previously just a mildly-supported feeling of tired frustration.
Oh, I do indeed. They preserved many of the manuscripts they stole rather than simply destroying them, and for that we are all thankful. In a similar way, I have to give it to them that they were very rich, and had wonderful architecture, and highly successful and widespread trade routes. But then, this was true of precisely the society that Mysteriously Vanished from the same lands in which the Muslims established themselves, at around the same time this establishment was taking place. The Byzantines were fabulously wealthy. The Byzantines had beautiful architecture; if you want to see an example of it, just look at your nearest mosque (coincidence, obviously). The Byzantines had very successful and widespread trade routes.
The process of putting two and two together here shouldn't be too hard, though since Islam isn't in the business of ruthlessly conquering things, and never has been (not your words, but it's been said), mathematics itself may simply be wrong.
The Koran can contradict itself all the live long day, and I imagine it does. I'm not basing my opinion of this solely on the Koran, however, for I think you'll find that I am no Koran fundamentalist. There's a little matter of historical record, rather, which is not exactly silent on the subject of the purported Islamic tolerance, and does not, in fact, speak very highly of it.
Go for it.
I agree with you on a visceral level, but it is nonetheless important to speak charitably and calmly in such matters.
Well, people don't generally make disdainful, exclusive statements about one faction in a notorious conflict without implicitly, you know, assuming that there are sides. The very clear implication of your statement that it was the Arabs, and them alone, and them in a significant manner, who were doing this. The idea is absurd, but has become a trope for disaffected pseudo-intellectual teenagers, of which number surely you are not, or so I hope.
Of course. It's important to hear both sides of the issue, and I'm grateful that you've felt moved by your conscience to take the one you have.
=-=-=
Further updates:
- Official: Pope and the West doomed
- From the same article: Turkish legal types request that the Pope be arrested as soon as he enters the country
- Palestinian group tied to rash of church firebombings declares: "We want to make it clear that if the pope does not appear on TV and apologize for his comments, we will blow up all of Gaza’s churches."
- Archibishop of Canterbury offers cautious support to the Pope
- Previously unheard-of Iraqi group kills one Christian, threatens to kill all of them (in Iraq) if Pope does not apologize explicitly to Mohammed in three days' time
- London-based demagogue calls for Benedict's death
- Outside Westminster Cathedral today:
And finally, commentator Andrew Brown of the Guardian has this to say, and it's worth reading:
Both "sides" saved Greek classics, but I think you'll find that the chief reason the Arabic faction could make use of these classics in the first place was because they were translated into Arabic by Christian monks in the fourth and fifth centuries and stored at places - like in say, Egypt and the Holy Land - that eventually fell to certain scimitar-wielding types who happened to come sweeping in out of nowhere shortly thereafter.
Compared to a hypothetical religion based solely on ruthless intolerance, certainly.
It preaches the subordination of these religions to the extent, if necessary, of charging their adherents a special tax in exchange for their lives. We're lucky indeed that there's no longer a caliphate to regulate this properly, lest we return to those glorious days of The Prophet Muhammed that you mentioned.
Probably not. But then, the Israelites didn't like to make so much hay about how wonderfully tolerant they were.
Back at you, but replacing the word "insulting" with "defending." Charity is a noble virtue, but so too is prudence.
I assert that, yes. It's no joke that one of the bestselling books in Turkey right now - even before this affair began, in fact - is the novel Attack on the Pope, which predicts the assassination of Benedict on his trip to Turkey. Lest you suggest, a la the Da Vinci Code brouhaha, that it's "just a novel" and "only fiction" and so on, I must say that there remains nevertheless something desperately ominous about a nation whose book-buying public - not just radical fringe groups - seems to be fixated on and enthused by the idea of the assassination of the Pope. In any event, novels are serious business there.
I do not think "never actually meeting someone" is a barrier towards being a hateful bigot towards them. In fact, the opposite is nearly always true, I think you'll find.
You know, considering that these two faiths and their adherents have shattered the world with ease on countless occasions, I don't think trying to downplay rising tensions between them in favour of "some other agenda" is really helpful, or particularly wise.
Anyhow, whether or not Catholic v. Muslim really does define reality, and whether or not you, personally, think it does, you've still got a third (a half?) of the world's population who do think it does, and will act as though it does, and there's not a damn thing the rest of you can do about it. If you want to stop the Islam that is currently on the march, you're going to have to do it on religious terms. There's just no way around it. It might be worth considering turning to the faith that has had the most significant history of doing exactly that, in fact. Lepanto, Vienna and Tours were not great victories for vapid western secularism, after all.
I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here, so I'm going to leave it for the moment.
That Turkey is still a nation in which terrorist bombings occur, regardless of their motivation, does not move me to think my scenario less likely, I'm afraid.
Again, I'm not entirely sure how this is an answer to what I said. Maybe it's just too early in the day for me to be doing things that involve language.
Why?
==
Other updates:
- Turkish lawmaker likens Benedict to Hitler and Mussolini for comments.
- Enlightened Somali leaders call for Pope's death.
- Italian nun murdered in Somalia.
- Official: Pope's comments an American/Zionist plot.
EDIT: On second thought, all clans have until the end of today - that's 11:59PM, Eastern Standard Time, to submit a story if they have not done so already. We need more entries.
The precise date of the visit is not known as yet, though I'd imagine they'll confirm it soon. I did choose the date in question for infamous reasons expressly related to what you mentioned. Other dates in there also have meaning. One of them is my birthday.
Well, it's not so much that I'm necessarily linking the two, but rather using the occasion of the one to discuss the other. Even before this incident, as I noted, there has been a degree of anti-Catholicism present there. When Ratzinger declared in 2004 that Turkey should not join the European Union, for example, declaring the country to be "in permanent contrast to Europe," this was considered by many Turks to be a meddling and unnecessary statement. The blow was softened somewhat by his simultaneous suggestion that they should instead work towards forming an Islamic nation group, but the attention to such a prickly issue was not welcome. As the question of Turkey joining the European Union becomes more and more urgent (as the soonest possible window for the country's accession approaches), the tension between traditionalist Islamists and forward-thinking secularists is going to spell all manner of trouble for anyone caught in the middle.
The occasion of Benedict's visitation to such a place, coupled with the enormous religious and political pressures involved, makes it a prime opportunity for someone - not necessarily someone Turkish - to strike. Insofar as Turkey itself is not a hotbed of terrorism, you'd best believe that potential terrorists would not have a difficult time finding accomodation there if they were to have something planned.
In any event, this is a very real concern at the moment for Church officials and Catholics in general. While it is true that Popes have been martyred or simply assassinated before, this has not happened within living memory, and certainly not in a world that is in any way comparable to the one in which we now live.
I appreciate this, Harkius, but Laton and I will have to work this one out for ourselves, I think.
There are very few churches in Turkey, though they can be found in the major cities, of which Bursa, Konya and Istanbul are examples. Their relative oddity in such a country makes them something of a curiosity.
In any event, I would like to point out that to focus on this is to miss the point of the thing entirely. It doesn't matter whether there's one church in Istanbul or a thousand, because that's not what I'm talking about.
I'm not sure what the second part of this means, though I will mention again, as I did above, that the perpetrators need not necessarily be Turkish themselves.
Well, it wasn't exactly my idea. The question of the consequences of the Holy Father's assassination on a dangerous trip is one that is of considerable importance and currency at the moment.
The Vatican does not uphold the tradition of appeasing people who threaten her.
I don't know about this, honestly. Are you suggesting that the cartoon riots were worse than (for example) what would follow on the heels of the President of the United States cracking Mohammed jokes in an address to the world, or something? Important figures create important consequences with even the most mundane or irrelevant of actions. Bill Clinton's sex life was a matter of absorbing and inescapable interest to the nation for years, you may recall. If anything, we should take the intensity of the cartoon riots as an indication of how very little it takes to aggravate such people, and be concerned indeed for what could come about as a result of something that really mattered.
There are a few, but not many. There are only some 35,000-40,000 Catholics in Turkey. Not surprisingly, there aren't many Orthodox ones either. They've been kind of shoved out, as it were.
"Benedict's swipe" is non-existent. If you keep insisting that it's otherwise, you're no better than the reactionaries you're criticizing. For reference:
Indeed, in the bolded section we may see fairly notable evidence that Benedict is not only not promoting the words of the emperor, but is rather relating them critically, as well he may.
No, it wouldn't. Why would it?
To be clear, in any even, this is in Debate rather than in the Water Cooler because it will turn into a debate, eventually, and we may as well just save time. Is that really so unreasonable?
Why would people flame you? I think you're being really, really weird about this, but apart from that I bear you no ill will.
I don't really understand people who talk like this. If you can see that the topic is worthy of debate, it's hardly likely that it has been so poorly phrased as to be undebatable. It sounds like you're making excuses for something, but I don't know what.
No, we don't always strive to present our arguments/topics in the most neutral manner possible. What's the point of having opinions at all? Why even come here? Maybe other people do this, but I know I typically try to present my arguments/topics in a way that reflects best on them and is most likely to convince people I'm right.
In this case it's all admittedly and clearly hypothetical, so what's the problem?
You know, that's really not funny. The suggestion that I - me, of all people! - would ban or suspend you for this is monstrous.
No, actually, I really didn't. There have been a lot of people commenting on this story without actually reading the Pope's lecture, and one of the watermarks of such a person is thinking the Pope himself made and affirmed these statements, when in fact he did neither. I wanted to make sure you were not such a person, though of course that's hardly likely in your case. You're better than that.
You seem to be trapped in April of 2005. A lot has changed since then.
Inaccurate, eh. So he was misquoting Paleologus, who actually thought the world of Mohammed and Islam in general?
EDIT: For reference, here is the full text of the lecture in question. Make up your own mind about just what was going down.
turnip_song: That's certainly a concern, though I think people here are bright enough not to go overboard. I hope you'll forgive me for daring to present something in a more creative way than is typical for the Debate forum. I don't make a lot of threads anymore, and I want to have some fun when I do.