Death to Islam!
- Thread starter Peter
- Start date
Faeelin said:
Being an atheist I personally wouldn't give, eh, anything, but some might. Some right-wingers might use it a legimate reason for stepping up attacks on moslems.
How much influence over the Roman Catholics does the Pope actually have?
Best regards!
- Mr.B.
Peter said:
I can't speak for places like Latin America or the Catholic parts of Africa, but in Europe (and I expect North America and, frankly, everywhere else) that would be a huge scandal. If the church hierarchy actually runs with the message - which I doubt - the result would be an exodus of the faithful, very likely followed shortly by an exodus of entire dioceses. It's one thing for the pope to focus on things like contraception and premarital sex - most Catholics are cheerfully prepared to ignore that and look at the message of faith, love, forgiveness and social justice that John Paul II has formulated. But calling for a crusade would be received roughly like President Bush calling for a new Indian War ("...this time we will not hold back! The Navajo nation has had its time to cooperate peacefully. Following in the great tradition of American heroes like George Armstrong Custer, I have ordered the 101 Airborne...")
I think the most likely result would be a moment of embarrassed silence followed by a quick announcement that the pope is - indisposed. And allergic to microphones from RIGHT NOW. You don't get to be cardinal without learning something about politics.
Of course, someone somewhere IS going to take him seriously. That seems to be human nature. And, equally of course, nobody in the Islamic world will ever forget the unguarded moment when the evil priest inadvertently said what he really thinks... Worse than Bushes' "Crusade" speech by several orders of magnitude.
Pope's message (no matter what it is, contraception, sex...) don't carry weight outside catholic comunity. We can therefore safely say his messages regarding religion are ignored outside catholic comunity (if he says "Peace to insert region here non-catholic politicians will say "Good one Pope, there should be peace." If he says "Pill is bad" politicians will say "He's spiritual leader, we have to deal with more earthly matters."). So we have call for war limited to catholics. Which is strongest country that can be called catholic (=where catholic ideals are strong and has strong catholic majority)? Spain? Italy? Brasil? No fear there. And it gives justification to OBL to call for fight agaisnt crusaders (which is what his organisation is actually called anyway).
I see RCC loose more support than padophilia scandals did.
I see RCC loose more support than padophilia scandals did.
NapoleonXIV
Banned
It does lead to an interesting question. How much opposition was there to the first Crusades? I'm not talking about ignoring them but actually saying "this is not right for a Christian leader to say."
Anyone know??
Shock, disbelief and probably, after a while, laughter. Shortly after his little joke John Paul II would become one of the few Popes to retire.
Anyone know??
Shock, disbelief and probably, after a while, laughter. Shortly after his little joke John Paul II would become one of the few Popes to retire.
Flocculencio
Donor
NapoleonXIV said:
I'd assume very little. After all, the idea of seeing the murder of people of another religion as morally wrong is a relatively recent one. And it kept the potential troublemakers out of Europe and safely away campaigning in distant countries.
We could laugh it off, or just shake our heads and go "that guy needs to be replaced", but I don't think the muslim would would ever, ever forget. I think our biggest problem in the war on terror is that- beacuse of some things that weren't said and needed to be, and beacuse of some faulty PR moves (or lack of them) it's being percieved increasingly as a war on Islam. Western-Middle eastern relations will be damaged forever, even between non-catholic countries and the muslim world. I mean, if most americans assume that all muslims hate america beacuse one shi'a cleric in tehran says so, I would guess that the popular perception of Christianity in the middle east would be that all christians are out to wipe out Islam.
We tend to view Islam as monolithic, and I think most muslims return the favor. We can't tell sufi from shi'a from sunni, so I don't think they would take the time to distinguish between lutheran, catholic, anglican, and so on.
We tend to view Islam as monolithic, and I think most muslims return the favor. We can't tell sufi from shi'a from sunni, so I don't think they would take the time to distinguish between lutheran, catholic, anglican, and so on.
NapoleonXIV said:
From what I read there wasa very little overt, strident opposition on moral grounds, but quite a bit of head-shaking. At least one German chronicler described the whole thing as vaguely ridiculous. However, once they took Jerusalem they were pretty much vindicated in the eyes of contemporary Christians.
Now, we've discussed Christian opposition to the Crusades; were there any Muslim leaders who spoke out against the wars of conquest launched after Mohammed's death (400 years before the Crusades) or who opposed the raiding of Europe by North African pirates (their activity continued on until the mid-1800s; not sure when it began, but it was big in the 15th-16th centuries)?
"Nor, after the 1st crusade, was there any real opposition to it until the 14th century in Europe."
Wait...are you saying that after the First Crusade, there was no opposition among Muslims to the Barbary Corsairs until the 14th Century? And were those who opposed it European Muslims?
And when did North African raiding of Europe really get started? I figured it was around the time of the initial Islamic expansion (the sea-raids on Rome), but I could be wrong.
Wait...are you saying that after the First Crusade, there was no opposition among Muslims to the Barbary Corsairs until the 14th Century? And were those who opposed it European Muslims?
And when did North African raiding of Europe really get started? I figured it was around the time of the initial Islamic expansion (the sea-raids on Rome), but I could be wrong.
Matt Quinn said:
Naturally. Many sufi leaders stringently opposed (and continue to oppose) any form of violence. While Muslim scripture expressly sanctions warfare against non-Muslims, there are significant differences of interpretation (not to mention a large number of Muslim heretics who relegate these writings to secondary level). The Fatimid Caliphate and the later Ayyubids favoured negotiated settlement and peaceful coexistence with the Christian invaders, and even the famously warlike Mamluk Empire was not known for a particularly aggressive stance against Western Christendom or Byzantium (though they admittedly had a 'no negotiation' policy on Jerusalem). Shortly before the Crusades began, the respected writer and scholar Abu Lala al-Mari (sp?) went on recored opposing all religious warfare. The Barbary pirates were periodically regarded as an embarrassment rather than an asset in Istanbul, and IIRC it was Selim II that intended to do away with them (though that was never possible).
I am not terribly well read in Islamic studies, but I'm sure there's someone on this board who is and can enlighten us as to the legal arguments surrounding the issue at the time. I have to say, though, that if anything impresses me about the position of the Islamic world against Christendom in the years of 900-1400, it is its remarkable forbearance.
mattep74 said:
That's just a dumb excuse. Like they *need* a special reason to hate a western, democratic, pro-American country... If they had hit Paris it would have been the headscarf debate, in Berlin it would have been the crucifixes in schools, Chechnya for Moscow and and for London the Iraq war.
quote: Like they *need* a special reason to hate a western, democratic, pro-American country... If they had hit Paris it would have been the headscarf debate, in Berlin it would have been the crucifixes in schools, Chechnya for Moscow and and for London the Iraq war.
Also, don't forget for Australia the Howard govt's unwavering support for GW in the War on Terror, and Canberra supposedly having participated in the invasion of 'sacred Muslim land' (absolute bullcrap, since East Timor's indigenous ppl were always Catholic to begin with) thru the 1999 East Timor humanitarian intervention. Oh, and the Islamic fundamentalist hatred directed against supposedly 'immoral' Westerners who go to places like Bali and sunbake and party in skimpy outfits on the beaches...
Also, don't forget for Australia the Howard govt's unwavering support for GW in the War on Terror, and Canberra supposedly having participated in the invasion of 'sacred Muslim land' (absolute bullcrap, since East Timor's indigenous ppl were always Catholic to begin with) thru the 1999 East Timor humanitarian intervention. Oh, and the Islamic fundamentalist hatred directed against supposedly 'immoral' Westerners who go to places like Bali and sunbake and party in skimpy outfits on the beaches...