Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

the Pope and Islam :

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    About time they all slap on the rubber gloves, pull their cheeks apart and disappear up their own ar$eholes.

    The pope will likely need help to bend over, but I'm sure he has a bell-pull for just such an occasion

    As for the "Behead those who say Islam is not violent" crowd, they seem to have no problems strapping explosives to theirs...

    The pope is an emperor in all but name. Fortunately the papacy lost much of its power and influence as, one-by-one the european powers made the transition from monarchical government to secularist democracies, otherwise I don't doubt that we would still be spreading "religion by the sword".

    The fact that many middle-eastern countries, by way of a contrast, are still governed by monarchical forms of government and other forms of dictatorship is I think a major reason why religion has so much power in that part of the world.

    In a way Henry VIII did Britain a favour by breaking the power of the CC. I don't think its any coincidence that Britain enjoyed 400 years of imperial ascendancy. Not that its a justification of course, but at least we were "doing it for ourselves", rather than for Rome.
    Last edited by devilchicken; 09-19-2006, 07:40 PM.
    Batman: It's a low neighborhood, full of rumpots. They're used to curious sights, which they attribute to alcoholic delusions.

    Robin: Gosh, drink is sure a filthy thing, isn't it? I'd rather be dead than unable to trust my own eyes!

    Comment


    • #17
      Isn't this new pope from austria? What is it with austria really?
      So many weird people come from there..

      Comment


      • #18
        Freud ?

        Comment


        • #19
          From today's Times:

          Carey backs Pope and issues warning on 'violent' Islam
          By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent, and Richard Owen, in Rome

          THE former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey of Clifton has issued his own challenge to “violent” Islam in a lecture in which he defends the Pope’s “extraordinarily effective and lucid” speech.

          Lord Carey said that Muslims must address “with great urgency” their religion’s association with violence. He made it clear that he believed the “clash of civilisations” endangering the world was not between Islamist extremists and the West, but with Islam as a whole.

          “We are living in dangerous and potentially cataclysmic times,” he said. “There will be no significant material and economic progress [in Muslim communities] until the Muslim mind is allowed to challenge the status quo of Muslim conventions and even their most cherished shibboleths.”

          Lord Carey’s address came as the man who shot and wounded the last Pope wrote to Pope Benedict XVI to warn him that he was in danger. Mehmet Ali Agca, the Turkish gunman who tried to murder John Paul II in 1981 and is now in prison in Turkey, urged the Pope not to visit the country in November.

          “I write as one who knows about these matters very well,” Agca said. “Your life is in danger. Don’t come to Turkey — absolutely not!”

          Since the Pope quoted a Byzantine emperor as saying that the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad were “evil and inhuman”, a nun has been shot dead, a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda has vowed to kill the Pope, churches in Palestinian areas have been attacked and security at churches and mosques in London and elsewhere has been stepped up.

          This morning the Pope, who has already apologised for the offence caused by his words and distanced himself from the sentiments of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, will elaborate further on what he intended by last week’s address at Regensburg University in Germany.

          At his weekly audience at the Vatican the Pope is expected to emphasise the dangers of violence and fundamentalism in all religions, not just Islam, and reiterate his call for a dialogue of faiths based on “mutual respect”. The pontiff will explain why he has been “misunderstood”, Vatican sources said.

          Lord Carey, who as Archbishop of Canterbury became a pioneer in Christian-Muslim dialogue, himself quoted a contemporary political scientist, Samuel Huntington, who has said the world is witnessing a “clash of civilisations”.

          Arguing that Huntington’s thesis has some “validity”, Lord Carey quoted him as saying: “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”

          Lord Carey went on to argue that a “deep-seated Westophobia” has developed in recent years in the Muslim world.

          Lord Carey was delivering a lecture titled The Cross and the Crescent: The Clash of Faiths in an Age of Secularism, at Newbold College, Berkshire.

          Lord Carey, who has continued to work in interfaith collaboration since his retirement in 2002, said that the relationship between Islamic countries and the West was “the most dangerous, most important and potentially cataclysmic issue of our day.” He described the two civilisations as “polarised and uncomprehending” and said that the Danish cartoons controversy last March showed “two world views colliding in public space with no common point of reference”.

          He said the West had been largely responsible for “redrawing the map of the Middle East” and it was the “moral relativism of the West” that has outraged Muslim society. Most Muslims believe firmly that the invasion of Iraq is 2004 was solely about oil, he said.

          He went on to defend the Pope’s fundamental thesis, that reason and religious faith can be compatible. “The actual essay is an extraordinarily effective and lucid thesis exploring the weakness of secularism and the way that faith and reason go hand in hand,” he said.

          He said he agreed with his Muslim friends who claimed that true Islam is not a violent religion, but he wanted to know why Islam today had become associated with violence. “The Muslim world must address this matter with great urgency,” he said.
          _"For an eternity Allard was alone in an icy limbo where all the colours were bright and sharp and comfortless.
          _For another eternity Allard swam through seas without end, all green and cool and deep, where distorted creatures drifted, sometimes attacking him.
          _And then, at last, he had reached the real world – the world he had created, where he was God and could create or destroy whatever he wished.
          _He was supremely powerful. He told planets to destroy themselves, and they did. He created suns. Beautiful women flocked to be his. Of all men, he was the mightiest. Of all gods, he was the greatest."

          Comment


          • #20
            It's not often I agree with George Carey, but I reckon he's got it about right there.

            Comment


            • #21
              If everyone can be patient just a little bit longer Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be able to enrich uranium and produce a nuclear weapon.
              The Catholic Sword vs. The Muslim Plutonium Bomb??????

              GWB Said
              "The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said.
              Could GWB be right or should Iran be trusted? Bush's tactics in Iraq based on the countries supposed possession of WMD is still under scrutiny.

              http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....un/index.html

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by voilodian ghagnasdiak
                If everyone can be patient just a little bit longer Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be able to enrich uranium and produce a nuclear weapon.
                The Catholic Sword vs. The Muslim Plutonium Bomb??????
                Rephrase the question: "The Pope's academic discourse vs. the Muslim Plutonium Bomb????

                I would go with the Muslim Bomb, without question. Because if I went with the Pope I'd obviously be a double-plus un-good racist! Letting Iran have the bomb is, afterall, the fair thing to do. Think of it as sharing.


                Originally posted by voilodian ghagnasdiak

                GWB Said:

                "The greatest obstacle to this future is that your rulers have chosen to deny you liberty and to use your nation's resources to fund terrorism and fuel extremism and pursue nuclear weapons," he said.

                Could GWB be right or should Iran be trusted? Bush's tactics in Iraq based on the countries supposed possession of WMD is still under scrutiny.

                http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/19/iran.un/index.html
                No one will ever accuse Bushboy of intelligence, especially after his ill-advised and expensive invasion of Iraq, but Bushboy's statement here seems accurate enough.

                George Carey's comments make good sense, and it's about time. Of course, he is about fifteen years too late with this (ah, and what should we expect form a bloody Church-of-England sop?). Anyway, too bad the politicians are too cowardly (or too stupid) to make such remarks, which, after all, are just stating the obvious.

                We have been plagued by stupid and selfish politicans, idiotic intellectuals, cynical academics, castrated poets, soppy churchmen, and self-destroying activists, and the current instability can be directly attributed to their dishonesty and cowardice. Traditonal liberalism has been repressed in the press and in the universities in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness.

                Pay close attention. Here is what a real liberal (not conservative, not progressive--I mean liberal) voice sounds like:



                Can the West defeat the Islamist threat? Here are ten reasons why not

                David Selbourne

                LET US SUPPOSE, for the sake of argument, that the war declared by al-Qaeda and other Islamists is under way. Let us further suppose that thousands of “terrorist” attacks carried out in Islam’s name during the past decades form part of this war; and that conflicts that have spread to 50 countries and more, taking the lives of millions — including in inter-Muslim blood-shedding — are the outcome of what Osama bin Laden has called “conducting jihad for the sake of Allah”.

                If such war is under way, there are ten good reasons why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated in it.

                1) The first is the extent of political division in the non-Muslim world about what is afoot. Some reject outright that there is a war at all; others agree with the assertion by the US President that “the war we fight is the decisive ideological struggle of the 21st century”. Divided counsels have also dictated everything from “dialogue” to the use of nuclear weapons, and from reliance on “public diplomacy” to “taking out Islamic sites”, Mecca included. Adding to this incoherence has been the gulf between those bristling to take the fight to the “terrorist” and those who would impede such a fight, whether from domestic civil libertarian concerns or from rivalrous geopolitical calculation.

                2) The second reason why, as things stand, Islam will not be defeated is that the strengths of the world community of Muslims are being underestimated, and the nature of Islam misunderstood. It is neither a “religion of peace” nor a “religion hijacked” or “perverted” by “the few”. Instead, its moral intransigence and revived ardours, its jihadist ethic and the refusal of most diaspora Muslims to “share a common set of values” with non-Muslims are all one, and justified by the Koran itself.

                Islam is not even a religion in the conventional sense of the term. It is a transnational political and ethical movement that believes that it holds the solution to mankind’s problems. It therefore holds that it is in mankind’s own interests to be subdued under Islam’s rule. Such belief therefore makes an absurdity of the project to “democratise” Muslim nations in the West’s interests, an inversion that Islam cannot accept and, in its own terms, rightly so. It renders naive, too, the distinction between the military and political wings of Islamic movements; and makes Donald Rumsfeld’s assertion in June 2005 that the insurgents in Iraq “don’t have vision, they’re losers” merely foolish. In this war, if there is a war, the boot is on the other foot.

                3) Indeed, the third reason why Islam will not be defeated, as things stand, is the low level of Western leadership, in particular in the United States. During the half-century of the Islamic revival, it has shown itself at sixes and sevens both diplomatically and militarily. It has been without a sense of strategic direction, and been unable to settle upon coherent war plans. It has even lacked the gifts of language to make its purposes plain. Or, as Burke put it in March, 1775, “a great empire and little minds go ill together”. In this war with Islam, if it is a war, the combination bodes defeat.

                4) Next is the contribution to the disarray of Western policy-making being made by the egotistical competitiveness, and in some cases hysterics, of “experts” and commentators on Islam. They include hyperventilating Islamophobes as well as academic apologists for the worst that is being done in Islam’s name. On this battleground, with its personalised blogsites to assist self-promotion, many seem to think that their opinions are more important than the issues upon which they are passing judgment; and amid the babel of advisory voices, policy has become increasingly inconsistent.

                5) The fifth disablement is to be found in the confusion of “progressives” about the Islamic advance. With their political and moral bearings lost since the defeat of the “socialist project”, many on the Left have only the fag-end of anti-colonial positions on which to take their stand. To attribute the West’s problems to our colonial past contains some truth. But it is again to misunderstand the inner strength of Islam’s revival, which is owed not to victimhood but to advancing confidence in its own belief system.

                Moreover, to Islam’s further advantage, it has led most of today’s “progressives” to say little, or even to keep silent, about what would once have been regarded as the reactionary aspects of Islam: its oppressive hostility to dissent, its maltreatment of women, its supremacist hatred of selected out-groups such as Jews and gays, and its readiness to incite and to use extremes of violence against them. Mein Kampf circulates in Arab countries under the title Jihadi.

                6) The sixth reason for Islam’s growing strength is the vicarious satisfaction felt by many non-Muslims at America’s reverses. Those who feel such satisfaction could be regarded as Trojan horses, a cavalry whose number is legion and which is growing. For some, their principle — or anti-principle — is that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. Others believe their refusal of support for the war with Islam, if there is such a war, is a righteous one. But the consequences are the same: Islam’s advance is being borne along by Muslims and non-Muslims together.

                7) The seventh reason lies in the moral poverty of the West’s, and especially America’s, own value system. Doctrines of market freedom, free choice and competition — or “freedom ’n’ liberty” — are no match for the ethics of Islam and Sharia, like them or not. Yet in the “battle for hearts and minds” the US First Cavalry Division saw fit to set up “Operation Adam Smith” in Iraq to teach marketing skills, among other things, to local entrepreneurs. There can be no victory here. Or, as Sheikh Mohammed al-Tabatabi told thousands of worshippers in Baghdad in May 2003: “The West calls for freedom and liberty. Islam rejects such liberty. True liberty is obedience to Allah.”

                8) The next indication that Islam’s advance will continue lies in the skilful use being made of the media and of the world wide web in the service both of the “electronic jihad” and the bamboozling of Western opinion by Muslim spokesmen. It is also a political enterprise in which Muslims and non-Muslims can now be found acting together in furthering the reach of Islam’s world view; the help being given by Western producers and broadcasters to al-Jazeera is the most notable instance of it.

                9) The ninth factor guaranteeing Islam’s onward march is the West’s dependency on the material resources of Arab and Muslim countries. In April 1917, Woodrow Wilson, recommending to the US Congress an American declaration of war against Germany, could say that “we have no selfish ends to serve”. American levels of consumption make no such statement possible now. The US is, so to speak, over a barrel. It will remain so.

                10) Finally, the West is convinced that its notions of technology-driven modernity and market-driven prog- ress are innately superior to the ideals of “backward” Islam. This is an old delusion. In 1899, Winston Churchill asserted that there was “no stronger retrograde force in the world” than Islam. More than a century later, it is fondly believed that sophisticated hardware and Star Wars defences will ensure Western mastery in this war, if it is a war.

                But as the Saudi “scholar” Suleiman al-Omar declared in June 2004: “Islam is advancing according to a steady plan. America will be destroyed.” As things stand, given the ten factors set out here, he is more likely to be proved right than wrong.

                David Selbourne is the author of The Losing Battle with Islam, which was published in the United States in November last year

                Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...349195,00.html



                Interestingly enough, Selbourne couldn't find a publisher in Britain for his new book, so he brought it to the United States . . . which may be a measure of just how cow'd the British press has become under the lash of the PC/multiculturalism masters . . . who, we can only hope, will receive a richly deserved kick in the arse for their stupidity, which is at least as deplorable as Bush and Blair's.
                Last edited by Jerry Cornelius; 09-20-2006, 09:58 AM.
                "Jerry Cornelius was based, for instance, on a young man I used to see around Notting Hill where there was also a greengrocer called Cornelius of London."

                --Michael Moorcock

                Comment


                • #23
                  Coincidentally, I've just come across Selbourne's view of the Pope's comments on Islam (among other things). It seems the Pope has now upset the Jews:
                  There is something seriously awry in the current political and social climate. In the space of a few days we have the Pope giving offence to Muslims by claiming an antithesis between reason and Islam (has no-one given the Pope a copy of Voltaire?). A couple of days later an all too limited retraction that includes the antisemitic libel of Christ-killing.
                  The rest here.
                  \"...an ape reft of his tail, and grown rusty at climbing, who yet feels himself to be a symbol and the frail representative of Omnipotence in a place that is not home.\" James Branch Cabell

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    V.G., so you think maybe the C4ts didn't have the b0mb before 1sra3l did?
                    "A man is no man who cannot have a fried mackerel when he has set his mind on it; and more especially when he has money in his pocket to pay for it." - E.A. Poe's NICHOLAS DUNKS; OR, FRIED MACKEREL FOR DINNER

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      that reason and religious faith can be compatible. “The actual essay is an extraordinarily effective and lucid thesis exploring the weakness of secularism and the way that faith and reason go hand in hand,” he said.

                      i read the txt of the pope and i am not convinced but that would be another subject !

                      a difficult text ........

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by voilodian ghagnasdiak
                        If everyone can be patient just a little bit longer Pres. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be able to enrich uranium and produce a nuclear weapon.
                        The Catholic Sword vs. The Muslim Plutonium Bomb??????

                        GWB Said
                        Could GWB be right or should Iran be trusted? Bush's tactics in Iraq based on the countries supposed possession of WMD is still under scrutiny.

                        http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/....un/index.html
                        I don't necessarily think Iran (or anyone else for that matter) should posess nuclear weapons but I think it is hypocritical and opportunistic of the US to attack Iran on this basis, metaphorically or literally! After all, the only country in the world with a record for launching nuclear strikes against civilian targets is the US.
                        Does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker.
                        Bakunin

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Iranian leaders are mad men fanatical .........

                          The true subject of the paope talk was the superirority of christianism on other religions and secularism, condamnation of the " age des lumières " that means the values of the XVIII century, rights of men, freedom etc .....

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Talisant Wrote
                            V.G., so you think maybe the C4ts didn't have the b0mb before 1sra3l did?
                            Being realistic,.. everything has a pricetag.
                            Of course Iran could have purchased said weaponry from various resources with its vast wealth.(Russia?)
                            By enriching uranium Iran is making a global statement proclaiming its ascent into the superpower regime.
                            Last edited by voilodian ghagnasdiak; 09-21-2006, 01:12 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Groakes
                              I don't necessarily think Iran (or anyone else for that matter) should posess nuclear weapons but I think it is hypocritical and opportunistic of the US to attack Iran on this basis, metaphorically or literally! After all, the only country in the world with a record for launching nuclear strikes against civilian targets is the US.

                              Yes, yes, yes!

                              People seem to forget this little bit of insignificant history.

                              The logic behind limiting nuclear proliferation seems to be "but we can trust those nations that already have nukes..."

                              Really?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                The Pope Must die.
                                Free the West Memphis Three

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X