There is hypocrisy on both sides. Muslims are upset when a Christian calls their religion evil, but then stay mum when a Muslim calls Christianity evil. There are so many examples of this hypocrisy, you'd think we really were back on an elementary schoolyard with two bullies calling each other names, saying "my dad will kick your dad's butt" etc.

When will this childishness end?

Forget the Pope and his recent remarks taken out of context by poltically-motivated Moslems. Benedict is all over himself with apologies for a religion which sanctifies and encourages a rabid group of killers in Iraq, Syria, Gaza, Pakistan, Sudan, Somalia,Egypt and even Indonesia. Hey, Benedict XVI, how about apologizing to Gay men and women who have never harmed anyone but for whom you have shown nothing but contempt, public scorn and marginalization not seen in Europe since the days of another German, Adolph Hitler!

How about the real issue? There is a large ever growing movement inside Islam that is spoiling for a fight with Europe and North America. We can pretend it isn't there but it is. If Islam is a religion of peace where are the counter-demonstrations to shut up the so called extremists! If main stream Islam wants to be considered a religion of peace then they need to act like it now!

The problem is inside Islam and it can only be fixed by Islam!

Muslims are going to have to learn to play nice in the sandbox with the other kids. Sometimes they'll hear things they don't like about their religion; sometimes those things are said by other religious leaders. Tough. Get over yourselves. Not everyone cares about Mohammad and your version religious truth. If you don't want Westerners thinking you're a bunch of crazy screaming flag/effigy burning idiots, then stop acting like it.

911 was a mega-forgery like the protocols of the learned elders of zion. It was a controlled domolition. The concrete of the building pulverized into dust using energy and brisance ONLY from explosives. All the lead researchers in the field are either Jewish or Christian and for their own reasons. The case is now the terrorists versus science. Last week, there have been spiked persecutions of the researchers due to the spectacular success, visit st911.org and Alex Jones sites and watch video evidence with your own eyes. The previous Pope was too much of a Dove in the eyes of Cheney. This Pope is servant of Bush. His comments come at a time to try to split the collective effort of the 911 truth movement which is blind to religion or race, but the splittists would not succeed. Our focus is strictly 911 truth.

My favorite political cartoon about this whole thing is the one Ben Sargent drew today. (You can check it out from the Comics page - "Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons")

Neither the Roman Catholic Church or Islam have a history of quiet acceptance of each other....

People, This POPE is a MASTER BAITER. He is trying
to SPLIT us. Our strict focus should be 911 investigation. Professor Steven Jones has been sent on paid leave for investigating 911. The suspected
terrorists in view of the overwhelming scientific evidence should now be interrogated using the same laws that George W Bush himself signed into law and applied to any terrorist regardless of whatever official immunity he may possess. 911 was a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION. There is OVERWHELMING evidence of INSIDE JOB. The NATIONAL HERO, the Fireman who came there first has been intimidated by a SWAT team to try to silence. His INTERVIEW is on ALEX JONES site. Please get your self informed and spread the information. I urge the COWARDLY and INCESTUOUS mainstream press to come out and display some novelty and independence.

I'm wondering - do you know any Muslims? The ones I know are mortified by the extremists in their religion. And consider them...I believe your words were: crazy screaming flag/effigy burning idiots. In other words, they're right there with you.

It's the world's second largest religion - extremism is bound to arise (much as it has within Christianity, the world's largest, overall religion).

Pope Ratzinger's comments are purely designed at
this very important time to distract the unity of
the people STRONGLY FOCUSSED ON THE TRUTH OF THE
MOTHER OF EVIL. That Mother of EVIL is the events
of 9/11. The buildings were reduced to FINE DUST.
There were MOLTEN METAL POOLS. The STEEL was shipped
to CHINA. The CRIME SCENE EVIDENCE was destroyed systematically. We demand the truth. The events of 911 defy physics. The TIME OF FALL is equal to the FREE FALL without COLLISIONS with intermediate floors. THE cutters charges were placed by someone and DETONATED IN SEQUENCE. There was PYROCLASTIC FLOW of FINE DUST. There was LATERAL or Horizontal MOMENTUM. PURE GRAVITY can never do this.

THIS WILL NEVER END. THERE IS NO ESCAPE. DONT BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND. THOSE ON THE SIDE OF FALSEHOOD WILL come to BIG GRIEF. This is SCIENCE versus the TERRORISTS. EVEN Catholic Church could not win the science versus Church. In the same way the terrorists will not win. The jinni is out. The information is all over the planet, every country and every city. Close to BILLION people now know it.

I am sure that the CHINESE government promptly analyzed the samples of steel shipped to it and knows it. Waiting to use it for the right time.

Hope we Americans take care of it ourselves.

Man aren't the whackos out in force! I distrust this administration, however, 911 was planned conceived and executed by Muslims from the Wahhabist movement! You want to get informed read Hatred's Kingdom! The enemy isn't the Pope or the Roman Catholic Church, the enemy is the Wahhabist movement in Saudi Arabia! They have one message-convert or die! I got news for you also-it applies to all Jews, Christians, Atheists, Sunni and Shia!

Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism
ISBN: 0895261359

visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION
visit www.st911.org <--- CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Wow. Disorganized AND paranoid schizoform disorder. In one sentence. Sweet. The best part about schizophrenics is they make it so damn easy to diagnose them in writing.

Here's the Ben Sargent cartoon: http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/sargent/cartoons/0906/091906.html

www.st911.org + DISTRACTION + CONTROLLED DEMOLITION + Thermate = a sock puppet

Apparently, some people think that their rambling conspiracy theories can be made more credible by using RANDOM CAPITAL LETTERS. Go find a September 11th forum. You are off topic, wierdos.

Icca:

The capital letters are abitrary, NOT RANDOM.

Random: proceeding, made, or occurring
without definite aim, reason, or
pattern

There is a reason and an aim for their choice of capitals. But since it is their own choice, and not one we can understand, they are

Arbitrary: subject to individual will or
judgment without restriction;
contingent solely upon one's
discretion

Those cartoons are funny.

It seems that God's definition of the sword is missed by all. The sword that God wields is his word. The word of God divides us all, on religious fronts, scientific front, etc.

When Jesus states that he is going to set the world aflame, he injected the world with the sword of his father which is the word of God.

Is this what Mohammad meant when he mentioned the sword? How can you blow up others or become the leader of millions of Catholics without understanding this?

"If Islam is a religion of peace where are the counter-demonstrations to shut up the so called extremists!"

Because moderates, of whatever affiliation, don't protest. To quote Jon Stewart, moderates are too busy raising their kids, working, and just generally living their lives. You're not going to see a demonstration anytime soon with them parading down the street holding placards saying "BE REASONABLE!"

Excellent post Jim!

The most dangerous religous weapon is the misinterpretation of the word of god and/or misuse of the sword of god; pardon the analogy!

Mira8-I beg to disagree, the KKK was very vocal for a long time in Frederick MD. Counter demonstrations by moderates have driven them underground in our county.

Complacency among their peers is the weapon these people need. For evil to win it only requires that good people do nothing!

Moderate tolerant god loving Islam needs to shut these people up or it will get completly out of hand fast.

I meant to say undwerground with no power in our county.

I love the logic behind the actions of the Muslim protesters in the West Bank: "We object to being characterized as a violent bunch, so we're going to go burn this church down!"

I don't want to agree with that old Byzantine emperor's comments, but it sure is hard not to based on the last five years. Regardless of what 'moderate' lay Islams believe, almost all we seem to see coming out of Muslim religious authorities is hatred for non-Muslims. The heck with lay people, where are the Muslim clerics with the kind of ecumenical spirit that most Christian and Jewish leaders have shown in recent decades/centuries? They are the ones who could change things for the better.

Ever since the Dawn of History, BULLIES have found various ways to INTIMIDATE people to do their bidding. Today, the preferred method is that of FALSE FLAG operations. With this method, eloquently described by GEORGE ORWELL in his 1984, you can now CONTROL POPULATIONS. One central element of this scheme is what ORWELL described as MOSES THE RAVEN, in his ANIMAL FARM. Ofcourse, the role of the RAVEN is not only an ameliorating image of afterlife, but also several RAVENS can make people fight under their control. This is the POPE-POLITICIAN-NEXUS. Pope John Paul was not a STOOGE of Cheney and Cheney CHIDED him with a glass piece of Dove. But this Pope was extra-ordinarily PROMOTED by NewYork Times, the same paper that employed the RUMOR-MONGER, Judith MILLER. This POPE is the agent of BUSH, because his ACTION-RESPONSE is well understood by them and is predictable. Similarly, the Islamic populations are under the control as their ACTION-RESPONSE is well understood. Powerless militarily, with dictators, they can only protest without prudence. Only one among them today is a man of brilliance and he is Ahmadinejad. A nation, inventor of Chess, his strategy is masterly and response accurate. "Pope's statement is in line with the policy of Bush administration" he says.

This statement is designed to distract from the MOST IMPORTANT MOVEMENT of today, THE 911 TRUTH MOVEMENT.

Why does the Truth HURT you so much? Lets discuss it openly on the mainstream media. WHICH EVER SIDE IS ABSURD, will automatically fall no matter HOW POWERFUL IT IS, as we have the EXPERIENCE OF CHURCH VERSUS COPERNICUS.

THIS IS THE FREEDOM WE DEMAND, which BUSH FALSELY set out to defend, and actually HATES HIMSELF.

ONLY RATIONAL RESPONSES WILL BE ENTERTAINED !!!

So, in a theological discussion, the Pope quotes some comments from Byzantine Emperor over 500 years ago to try and illustrate a greater point....using violence to spread religion is not a good thing.

Next thing you know, churches attacked, effigies burned, pope threatened.

Yup, religion of peace (TM) alright. Sheesh.

And only rational posts are ENTERTAINING!!!

I firmly believe that the West needs to change the language it uses to discuss these issues. The term "struggle" (jihad) is quite respectible in Islamic society. Granted that there are many, many ways a believer may struggle for (and with) their faith, violent struggle is a historical fact, and not anathema to many prominent spokesmen for Islam (as this most recent incident demonstrates, as did the Danish cartoon incident, . . .)

Christians are, by and large, deeply embarrased by historical violence in the name of Christianity - we certainly don't try to defend it. The islamic world is also very, very sensitive to the very word "Crusade."

I have no desire to re-fight past religious wars - but we need a way to be able to talk about religious violence in a way that helps the more extreme in the islamic community stop and think (or at least, makes it crystal clear just how dangerous it is).

I propose using terms that are understandable and familiar to discuss religious war with the islamic community. In short, in discussing our history, we should use the word "jihad" rather than "crusade" to describe military actions undertaken by Christians for ostensibly religious reasons. The invasions to re-take the middle east were Christian "Jihads" - as was the Reconquista in Spain.

Muslims will, of course, want to talk about legitimate Jihad vs. illegitmate Jihad, or True Jihad vs. False Jihad - but that's a healthier discussion. Adherants of most faiths have been - and many still are - willing to fight for their faith, their culture, and their land. They MUST realize that they are not alone in this, and that their willingness to fight and die doesn't make them better than anyone else.

The radical muslim is always looking for something over which he may riot.
The mindset seems to be that of a six year old child crying out in rage because he didn't get his way. He doesn't care if he hurts someones' feelings but just don't cross him.
Childish. A seventh century mentality in a six year old child with an AK-47.
Take the rifle away, spank him, and send him to bed without his supper.
He'll learn not to take his damned religion so seriously.

"The radical muslim is always looking for something over which he may riot."

Funny, I remember reading a similar comment in the 1960's (maybe the 70's) about the black population of the United States.

What happened? Well, we have tried to address their grievances, and things (while not perfect) are an awful lot better than they used to be. And it only took thirty or forty years to bring about the change.

Is the same possible with Islam? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. The only thing we can do is try, since it is obvious to even the most shortsighted among us, that the current course is not the correct one.

I'm so tired of all the moral equalivalency arguments: Christianity and it's radical elements are just as bad as those in Islam. They're not. Jesus himself never killed people who didn't believe -- Mohammed did. If the founder of your religion gives the green light to violence, how can you say that violence is not an integral part of the belief system? In terms of the violent reaction to the Pope's speech and the ugliness of the cartoon's from the Moeslem world, it's almost as though Westerners have lost the capacity to condemn evil unless it's perpetrated by White males. If you're skin's olive, then it's OK b/c it's your "culture." Biogotry, hatred, incitement to violence always wrong even if you really really think it's what your god wants.

P.S. Modest Proposal -- The Crusades were essentially turf battles: Christian lands were captured by Moeslems and Christian land owners wanted them back. So, enough about the Crusades. Both sides had blood on its hands INCLUDING MOESLEMS who were pretty ruthless in conquering the land in the first place. I never heard Moeslems apologize though for their acts of barbarity, however.

To: Speaker of English

You are correct! Arbitrary - yes. Random - no. My apologies.

Still, I am perplexed as to why people are commenting on 9/11 theories on this blog. Isn't it about whether the cartoons are as insulting as the Mohammed cartoons? As a Catholic, I am not particularly insulted by the Pope cartoons and would much rather brush them off as people's opinions, which they are entitled to have, than get offended. They are drawings, for goodness sake!

I have no idea why these conspiracy nuts are/were on this page either. Sometimes a new thread. with all that blank space looks very tempting to many (in this case, I think, one) idiots with nothing better to do.

I think it's sad, really.

No we are demonstrating our freedom.

By showing this cartoons, you are demonstrating your ignorance.

There is something fundamentally wrong with Islam. The prophet Mohammed said it's okay to kill infidels, and the Koran says that followers must do what the immam commands. If the immam of one sect commands his followers to do kill non-believers, then they must. Islam is a runaway train. It is impossible for moderates to take control because the bar keeps getting set higher and higher. The more we cave into muslim demands, the worse the violence will get because they see it works. And they will not stop until they have conquered the world and killed all non-believers.

The only way this will end is with a mass renewal of faith of all Christians, and an end of acceptance and special treatment for Islam. We must then spread our faith, PEACEFULLY throughout the Arab world. Once the faith takes hold, the violence will slowly begin to end.

People are dying over his remarks! Give Muslims a profuse apology without justifications. Nuances can't be addressed in Headlines.

To My 2 Cents:

Thanks for the giggle - I needed one today.

The next time I talk to my olive-skinned, Roman Catholic family members, I'll remember that our Italian heritage allows us to pass ourselves off as violent Muslims....

The Gospel According to Matthew:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you."

The Gospel According to Boosh:

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, that is not enough to resist an Islamo-fascist. Instead you must hit him before he hits you. No, you must hit him in case he hits you. No no, you must hit him so he won't even think of hitting you. And once you have got him down, torture him as you please."

There's a risk that this cartoon will be. misunderstood in the West. The intent of the Egyptian cartoonist cannot be hostile towards the Pope. After all, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem (the Palestinians' spiritual and secular leader at the time) spent the Second World War in comfort in Berlin as a guest of the Fuehrer himself. The two leaders shared the goal of annihilating the Jews, as does the present President of Iran. So let's not allow our cultural obtuseness in these matters to lead us to take offense at this well-intentioned cartoon.

I am so tired of hearing that Islam is a "peaceful, tolerant religion." It is only "peaceful, tolerant" when it is in control and even then they fight amongst themselves, i.e sunni vs. shia. They only find spiritual fulfillment in mayhem. When I can buy a cross and a bible in Saudi Arabia, I will accept a papal apology.
I dont see outrage over "infidel" beheadings, or only muslims worthy of outrage. If you dont like the West, go back- you are not wanted or needed here.

"P.S. Modest Proposal -- The Crusades were essentially turf battles: Christian lands were captured by Moeslems and Christian land owners wanted them back. So, enough about the Crusades. Both sides had blood on its hands INCLUDING MOESLEMS who were pretty ruthless in conquering the land in the first place. I never heard Moeslems apologize though for their acts of barbarity, however."

Of course - loss of territory was part of it. Palestine, Egypt, Syria and Asia Minor had been Christian for a couple of centuries before they were conquered by islamic armies. Both sides wanted to rule - not surprising.

My point is not to justify either side - plenty of blood guilt to go around on BOTH sides.

I do, however, think that we need to strongly make the point "you want to talk 'Jihad?' Be careful what you ask for - we've done it too, and your holy war is no nobler or more human than anyone else's." I honestly believe that Muslims think an islamic "jihad" is fundamentally different from any other form of armed struggle - that's it's somehow "different" when they do it. This is flat out wrong - and maybe, just maybe, coopting their language might help make that point.

I also think it's important that we stop this foolishness before it goes too far. I do not believe Christianity is a fault - as has been noted, the New Testament writings can quite plausibly be interpreted as pacifistic. But there is a very deep strain of violence in Western culture. Western societies have generated some of the worst wars in history - and our conflicts tend to have a total, "to the death" quality to them.

There's a very real danger that if islamic extremists were ever able to induce a country to give jihad a real go, and threaten the existance of a modern, Western state, the blowback could be a clash of civilizations on the scale of World War II. Yeah - we haven't won the war in Iraq. But look at the shear scale of the destruction we generated - without really putting our country on a war footing. I firmly believe that if, say, Spain were threatened with invasion, we would go absolutely and completely berzerk. And, quite frankly, if we were to face a truly existential threat, I don't believe that would be irrational.

"People are dying over his remarks! Give Muslims a profuse apology without justifications. Nuances can't be addressed in Headlines."

Why? Will that put an end to violence perpetrated by muslim extremists? It never has in the past. Why will it be any different this time? This foolishness needs to be confronted by men and women of goodwill everywhere - including Muslims. And frankly, until the Muslim community as a whole stands up and deals with it's own nutcases, it's hard to take protestations that Islam is "peaceful" with a straight face. Yes, Christians can be violent nutcases too - but we don't celebrate, defend, or ignore the David Koresh's in our midst.

I firmly believe that if, say, Spain were threatened with invasion, we would go absolutely and completely berzerk. And, quite frankly, if we were to face a truly existential threat, I don't believe that would be irrational.

Posted by: Modest Proposal | September 20, 2006 01:33 PM

Not a realistic scenario. Where would Spain be invaded from? France? Or across the Medi from Morocco? What's more realistic is another attack in NYC causing tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of casualties and the country then goes berserk. The neocons will seize it as an opportunity to impose martial laws here and then nuke Iran and Syria back to the stone age. Anyone who opposes to authoritarian rule in this country will be branded a traitor and thrown into jail. They will pass laws to make it all legal of course.

The muslim's reactions more than vindicated the pope's words. It was a brilliant move by the pope to attempt to open the eyes of the blind to the Salafists and their intentions. Sooner or later we will have to settle accounts with muslims and wipe them not only from the face of the earth but also from human memory. Where are the moderate muslims" Oh, moderates don't protest you say? Then they should prepare themselves and their families for death. The Reconquista in Spain was undertaken by the peoples of the Iberian penninsula to retake their own lands from the muslims who invaded and occupied Spain over three hundred years BEFORE the first crusade. But of course, Islam is a religion of peace and one has only to look at muslim and particularly arab countries to find the most open, tolerant, diverse, and multi-culttural societies on the planet.

Why not just sign your posts El Cid. The meaning might be clearer.

This sentence, "As the BBC has noted, John Paul's friendly gestures toward Islam have been followed by a harder line from Benedict," is misleading. The linked article contains the following...Quote...

Benedict XVI undoubtedly wants to achieve better relations with Islam, but there is an important proviso.

It can be summed up in a single word: reciprocity. It means that if Muslims want to enjoy religious freedom in the West, then Christians should have an equal right to follow their faith in Islamic states, without fear of persecution. End Quote...

Is that so bad?

Some is rotten in Denmark. The Pope reads a quote from some old book (14th century) that claims Islam has violent tendencies. Islam claims he is wrong while burning churches and killing a woman (a nun, in fact).

Without getting into any mind games about bias or any more PC BS from the press and based strictly on the facts - who is correct here? The guy who says somebody is violent, or the people who kill and destroy property to prove they are not?

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, Thermate, www.infowars.com: you, sir, are a g'damn moron, and not one sane person believes your conspiracy theory b@llsh*t.

Hmmm...I'm just curious to see how many Catholics are going to go out killing muslims and burning mosques because of these sacrilegious cartoons of the Pope.
This is some sort of sick challenge.

Please, the sane leaders of Islam need to step up to the plate and be vocal about what is wrong and what is right. The silence is deafening, almost as deafening as the Pope's silence during the holocaust of WWII.
"Don't call me violent or I'll blow you up"

I personally haven't seen anything in the cartoons shown here that really pushes my buttons. As a Catholic, I've seen a lot worse thrown at the religion over the years.

Mind you, my dad pointed me to several images that take the other side of the question. One has an Islamic person painting a sign that says, "Death to all who call Islam VIOLENT!" Another Islamic person next to him says, "I think we may want to rethink the wording."

It seems the real issue (for Muslims) isn't whether Islam *now* is violent, but whether the remarks constituted a slam against Islam itself and Mohammed, who is beyond reproach in their eyes. Yes, he ordered assassinations of his enemies, yes he went after old men and women who wrote political poetry about him, but he was the Prophet, and that makes everything OK.

What gets me is the continual use of the word "infidel" for Christians, Jews, and even Muslims who don't agree with the group who is talking. It is inflammatory speech, and not much else, which, like using "crusades" and "crusaders", is designed to get the hackles and rage up in the general Muslim populace.

I personally don't think Bush sees this as a religious crusade (which is theoretically a requirement for the historical Crusader). He might see it as a political crusade (spreading a political idea), an attempt to eliminate a dangerous enemy to the lives of Americans (al Quada and other extremists), and even possibly a land-grab for oil. But the religious aspect isn't there.

Point 1: Historically, Mohammed admired the "People of the Book", as he called Christians and Jews. In fact a Muslim male who is pure or a virgin is only given the option of marrying a Muslim virgin or one of the "people of the book".

Point 2: Mohammed did not consider Jews and Christians "infidels". That term was reserved for polytheists, atheists, and others. The use of "infidels" for the "people of the book" was probably a later invention and had to do with the fact that one group didn't want to convert, and the other kept trying to kick the Muslims out of the land.

It probably had less to do with religion than politics... but then again, in the Muslim world then and now, EVERYTHING is tied to religion (and the Sharia, or "way" to live - which covers politics, diet, culture, family life and economics - has religious roots), so the difference may seem semantic in their view. It isn't in the Western world anymore (though it might have seemed so during the Middle Ages). I think this is where the disconnect really happens.

The West tends to see things in terms of physical truth, social issues, economic needs and opportunities, rationality, logic, fairness, and yes, even political expediency.

Muslim extremists see everything in terms of religious duty and religious law, as they have been taught it. They can't be flexible, or they wouldn't be good Muslims. If they take out innocent bystanders, it's really collateral damage, and the innocent will get to heaven. They may even see it as a favor to the bystanders!

Point 3: Mohammed wanted everyone to be literate. He believed, at least at the start, that everyone should be able to read the Quaran (I hope I spelled that right) in the original Arabic. The imams were to help interpret, based on the whole canon. What is the literacy rate in the Middle East and other Muslim areas? Have they, as Mohammed probably wanted, read the entire Quaran?

Point 4 (this one regarding the Emperor who was quoted): The Emperor (c. 1300's) was under threat from invading Muslim armies. The Muslims (encouraged by a sultan tired of Crusaders invading, and not by Mohammed himself) had been on a bit of a rampage against the newly-defined "infidels". So the emperor felt under pressure, under threat, angry and frustrated at the damage and death surrounding him and at the seizure of his land. He was, probably justifiably, p*ssed at the invaders.

Also (and this was part of the Pope's point) the emperor had been raised in the Greek philosophical tradition which viewed God as being a certain way, and likely to behave in a certain way given certain circumstances. The Arabic Muslims he faced didn't see things that way (having what some have called a very fatalistic attitude towards things). The emperor couldn't understand it, and probably couldn't grasp how to deal with it.

His God wasn't necessarily more rational than theirs, or made any more sense most of the time, but the emperor felt he knew what to expect from his God - and knew what his God expected of him. Muslims seemed to have been told to either a> assume the worst, or b>take nothing for granted regarding Allah's intentions or future requests, and expect the unexpected. Allah may give you the world today and take it back tomorrow, no explanations given -- and none should be expected. He may tell you to do this one day, and that the next, even though the second contradicts the first. It is entirely his perogative.

Another point:
Imams seem to have a heck of a lot of control over their flock these days. They say do something, and it is done. They complain about someone, and their whole group gets up in arms. This seems especially true when they set them off to do something, but they seem to have problems stopping them once they start. Perhaps this has to do with the religio-political vacuum within the Islamic community as a whole. There isn't a Caliph, so the imams have attained that authority.

(On a side note, all these extremist groups say they want to restore the Caliphate, but I doubt they could agree between themselves who that should be. They each will have their preferred favorite, and any other pretender would be considered an "infidel", a "false one" or a "non-believer". Yeah, a Caliphate will bring peace... NOT!)

I suspect that a lot of this rage is built up frustration over other issues (socio-political and economic), as well as a sense that Islam should be more important (all-important) on the world stage. The speed and frequency with which these riots happen could have more to do with a generalized feeling of helplessness, of being slighted, and of not having the position (in the world or in the community) they feel they deserve.

Just a thought. Sorry for its length.

"Not a realistic scenario. Where would Spain be invaded from? France? Or across the Medi from Morocco? What's more realistic is another attack in NYC causing tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of casualties and the country then goes berserk. The neocons will seize it as an opportunity to impose martial laws here and then nuke Iran and Syria back to the stone age. Anyone who opposes to authoritarian rule in this country will be branded a traitor and thrown into jail. They will pass laws to make it all legal of course."

The point is that if Westerners truly believe we are facing a life or death threat, we will react. Spain? That was just a convenient example. But listen to what some of the more radical Muslim leaders say - and take them seriously. Could one imagine, in the next 50 years, a resurgant islamic world declaring jihad in the Balkans? I would argue "yes." Could one imagine, in the next 50 years, a nuclear weapon being used against Israel? Sure. How about Jihad in some of the "stans" in central asia? Not all that far-fetched.

A biological or nuclear terrorist attack against a major Western capital? Again - sure. If that were to turn us towards fascism, it would be a terrible tragedy. My sincere hope is that we would not. But we would fight - and I don't think that would be either surprising or inappropriate. A refusal to fight when faced with a determined attacker intent on destroying us would result in our destruction.

Point 1:
Why should the Pope "personally apologize" to a specific imam? Is apologizing to the whole Islamic religion not enough?

*sarcasm* Do they want it in the form of a public speech, a letter or a personal phone call? */sarcasm*

Point 2:
Observant commented:
"The silence is deafening, almost as deafening as the Pope's silence during the holocaust of WWII."

Man, I hate it when people say that... especially since it is not true! Even rabbis have said the Pope of the time did a lot to help. The academic rumor/theory didn't even start until the 1960's.

Before he became Pope, he wrote and made speeches against the "myth of racial superiority", and the evil it produced. As Pope, he supported (or certainly didn't ban) a heck of a lot of movements by members of the Church to save Jews. The Assisi Underground was one of the biggest.

Vatican City was kept inviolate, keeping the Nazis from controling it (and him) and allowing it to be a haven (or at least a rest stop) for all sorts of Germany's enemies (downed fliers, Jews, partisans). The Pope had to be careful, because there had been crackdowns on Catholic parishes whenever the priest had openly and vociferously defied the Nazis. Some had resulted in anihilation of the flock.

Like the noble who smuggled out his artwork (and threatened staff?) while appearing to be the perfect host to the invaders, the Pope had to walk a fine line to get what needed to be done done. He was more like the French Resistance or Juan Pujol (who fed false information to the Germans in the run-up to Normandy) than a suicide bomber.

Point 1:
Why should the Pope "personally apologize" to a specific imam? Is apologizing to the whole Islamic religion not enough?

*sarcasm* Do they want it in the form of a public speech, a letter or a personal phone call? */sarcasm*

Point 2:
Observant commented:
"The silence is deafening, almost as deafening as the Pope's silence during the holocaust of WWII."

Man, I hate it when people say that... especially since it is not true! Even rabbis have said the Pope of the time did a lot to help. The academic rumor/theory didn't even start until the 1960's.

Before he became Pope, he wrote and made speeches against the "myth of racial superiority", and the evil it produced. As Pope, he supported (or certainly didn't ban) a heck of a lot of movements by members of the Church to save Jews. The Assisi Underground was one of the biggest.

Vatican City was kept inviolate, keeping the Nazis from controling it (and him) and allowing it to be a haven (or at least a rest stop) for all sorts of Germany's enemies (downed fliers, Jews, partisans). The Pope had to be careful, because there had been crackdowns on Catholic parishes whenever the priest had openly and vociferously defied the Nazis. Some had resulted in anihilation of the flock.

Like the noble who smuggled out his artwork (and threatened staff?) while appearing to be the perfect host to the invaders, the Pope had to walk a fine line to get what needed to be done done. He was more like the French Resistance or Juan Pujol (who fed false information to the Germans in the run-up to Normandy) than a suicide bomber.

I meant "Juan Pujol García" of course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juan_Pujol_%28alias_Garbo%29

So if someone makes a cartoon abour Allah then that is bad and we are going to kill you. Someone makes a cartoon about the pope, they think it is wonderful. They can talk about the west and western religions,OKAY. Say something about them and they are shooting nuns in a children's hospital. Yep, they are peaceful people who only want to live and prosper.

One of my favorite cartoons of the early post-9/11 era has two old Japanese gentlemen watching from a distance while a dinosaur/Godzilla monster wearing an American flag goes rampaging across the picture. Caption: "I'm glad he's mad at someone else this time!"

The US is now behaving like a bully and a braggart, trying to push everyone, both foreign and domestic, into behaving the way we want them to. Trying to brow-beat them into submission, into agreeing they know best. We are the rampaging monster.

The administration has called our own people traitors for disagreeing with it on a factual as well as procedural basis (calling them "morally confused"!), it has thumbed its nose at treaties we signed in good faith, and it is trying to perform an end-run around the Supreme Court in regards to illegal wire-taps and mistreatment of prisoners. What do you mean "*If* that were to turn us toward fascism..."??

Oh, and Cheney said that the hopes of the *civilized world* depend on a U.S. victory. WHAT? We're the saviors of ALL civilization? Besides the fact that he shows a blind and insulting arrogance unheard of since the collapse of the British Empire, he just effectively painted a HUGE target on us! Thanks a lot, Dick!

Sorry about the double-post earlier. My finger slipped.

If catholics torched building or rioted everytime someone took a dig at the Church, the world would be in flames.

But we understand the value of discourse and dissent, something these 7th Century throwbacks would never allow.

They are thugs. Play ground bullies. Trumpeting the superiority of their religion and then turning around and crying victim when someone dares says something even remotely critical of it.

Finally, something that isn't being blamed on us.

To all who blaim the US, you need to read history before 9-11. They disliked us before that.

To those who blaim the POPE, your a hypocrit for you have no words for the muslims that killed for some cartoons.

If anyone for one minute thinks that being nice or openminded will solve anything your to naive to be in a conversation that will help.

They want to dead simply for your belief in a diety. That is all the proof I need to show me we are in trouble

Perhaps I should have drawn you a picture since I fear anything beyond Dr. Seuss is difficult for you?

Simple solution. USA out of mideast. Stop helping prop up despots in Egypt, Saudi Arabia etc. Play fair with Israel. Learn to live with Iran. Do all that, and bingo, Peace. Simple.

It is fascinating to read all this stuff about whether the Islam Religion or the Christian Religion, especially the Catholics, have violant tendencies. It isn't that long ago that Christians, as the Ku Klux Klan, in the USA, dressed in white, faces covered, hung blacks from the trees in Mississippi because they were dating their white daughters. Grow up, religion is nothing but a man-made thing and is constantly used any-which-way we like - good or bad. The Pope started this little war this time by quoting a nastie remark about Islam from 1400. The question is why - what is he pushing for? His subsequent "I'm sorry; didn't mean to, etc." is nothing but a diplomatic band-aide - the fact is he backstapped the Moslems. But why?. All though I'm not an Arab can't blame them for being upset with this Pope.

Hey Matamoros,
Yes please try to draw a picture for me. I'll look for it right here.

Maya wants an isolationist US. The problem is world prosperity depends on world stability and there are no other guaranteeors of stability left in the world. If we were to disengage in the ME or SE Asia we would be doing so at the peril of Iran's and China's neighbors and the economic peril of the world. State's interests are a-moral. This does not just go for the contemporary US but for every state in existance. Under our system the world has largely prospered.

There have been many losers and many mistakes, but the statistical trend towards prosperity has been undeniable over the past half century. Billions of people have a vested interest in the West's principles continuing to dominate the world whether they realize it or not. If you want to set the world back a hundred years and replace Western institutions with your own that is your right but the West will fight you for its own good and the good of the rest of the world.

If you don't think that is fair or if you think the institions of the West are arrogant for thinking they know what is best well then you are right. The fact of the matter is that any such power is similarly unfair, but this regime works better then any in human history and there are a lot of people that are willing to fight to protect it.

Although Islamic terror is relatively new to the West (I'd say the murder of Israeli atletes at the 1972 Olympics is probably the beginning of present-day Islamic terror) it's been around for almost ten centuries in the Indian sub-continent and still going strong. Nowhere else in the world did Islam meet with as little resistance as it did in India and perhaps no place was it more ruthless in the way it crushed, desecrated and subjugated the native population. Anywhere from 20,000 - 30,000 temples were razed to the ground throughout the length and breadth of India from the 11th century to the 19th century, not to mention millions of Hindus being forced to convert to Islam under duress. Occasionally Hindus were allowed to practice their religion if they paid "Zeziya" a head-tax for being non-muslim ! Violence of this magnitude can not be sustained over a period of time in a country the size of India without an underlying ideaology that's extremely intolerant of other religions. A 11th century Islamic invader from Turkey had rounded up "pagans" and their idols in Western India. As the "pagans" were pleading to get their idols back promising to pay any ransom, the Turkish king replied "On the day of reckoning, I want to be known as an icon-breaker, not an icon-trader !".

The pope and the emperor he quoted were absolutely spot-on in describing the role of Islam in the Indian sub-continent.

The Catholic Church (from the Pope down)made an official but highly secretive policy of covering up the abuse of thousands (probably tens of thousands world wide) of children by predator priests who were all simply reshuffled from parsih to parish in order to avoid proper prosecution and most importantly to avoid the embarrassment of the church. The most egregious perpetator, an arch bishop of Boston, was actually promoted to a vatican postion for his faithful complicity in protecting the church's image at the cost of the lifelong mental health of many hundreds of children victimized by the monsters he made sure remained unprosecuted for decades.

This situation reeks of the same arrogance and myopic world view. The Catholic hierarchy is so self absorbed that they are unable to see the importance of purposely reaching out a hand of acceptance and understanding to the overwhelming majority of perfectly peaceful and reverent Muslims the world over and rather spout "confusing" quotations in the midst of very trying times which only a catholic religious scholar might be able to deem as anything but offensive.

Personally, I think an organization capable of sacrificing the the mental health of all of those thousands of children (the vaticans apology was equally tepid for this heinous crime as well)solely to help the church avoid scandal and costs would be perfectly capable of intentionally fomenting violence in order to exploit the current situation in the US, helping shore up the faithful against "the enemy" in order to try to create growth in otherwise waning membership and coffers.

Muslim reactions to the Pope's comments prove him 100% correct. In addition, there are thousands of historical examples of Muslim violence and intolerance towards other religions. We must stop sugar-coating the things radical muslims do, the more we try to apease them, the more they believe their backwards and intollerant way of life is right. It is not. If Muslims want to be respected, they must respect other religions/ethnic groups, that means allowing non-muslims to practive their religion FREELY and OPENLY in countries that are mainly Muslims.

The real question that we should be debating is: WHAT ARE MUSLIMS DOING TO IMPROVE THEIR IMAGE IN THE WORLD? AND WHY ARE THEY ALLOWED TO HARASS NON-MUSLIMS?

The Pope was 1,000% correct

Read the Koran, learn the history without prejudice heart. Many of you people don't understand even the meaning of Islam. For more than 50 years the Palastinians denied their rights to live peacefully in their own soil, why nobody cries for it. We westerners must see what is happening now it caused by our negligences to our muslim brothers. Please reopen the Koran for the seek of the peace of the world.

Did you notice the weenie boys at WaPo refuse to carry the Mohammad cartoons, but have no problem depicting the Pope and Bush disrespectfully? As our media cowers in fear of Islam,it continues to denigrate Christians and Americans.

religion is a sensitive thing to talk about. Therefore, it is best is not to comment, quote, praise, or critisize OTHER religions. Will it make the world any better to critisize other religions?