Pope Bashing?

In the US any other organization that uses it's influence to cover up crimes and essentially assist it's criminal members from facing prosecution is eligible for arrest and prosecution under federal RICO statutes. The actions of the Catholic Church definitely fit the bill.
 
In the US any other organization that uses it's influence to cover up crimes and essentially assist it's criminal members from facing prosecution is eligible for arrest and prosecution under federal RICO statutes. The actions of the Catholic Church definitely fit the bill.

LAPD are the exemplar of an organization that covered up its crimes. New York State Troopers too. Bush Administration covered up for various criminals in the Valerie Plame fiasco. Most organizations cover up for their criminals, it's pretty much part of any institution. Defining any of these organizations as a criminal organization is a bit of a stretch. RICO has been used against the Catholic Church a number of times, always unsuccessfully.
 
Ogg, Thanks for sharing that hilarious article.

How did the term "Holy See" originate and what are they implying with those words, that the Pope sees all, is omniscient or something like that?

Does that mean he saw what I was doing last night in bed? LOL

Gigi
 
"Holy See" is the administrative area under the control of a Bishop or Archbishop.

For the Pope, his "Holy See" is the whole world.

It is a feudal term. The "see" was an area that a Lord controlled and for which he was responsible to his Overlord. "Holy See" is/was the church's equivalent but in the Middle Ages churchmen could have a Holy See and a temporal See as well. They need not have been the same area.

Og

PS. There can be oddities with Holy Sees. The Church of England has them. The Bishop of Gibraltar's See is the whole Mediterranean litoral (the countries bordering the Mediterranean) which includes Italy and therefore Rome, Israel and therefore Jerusalem, Greece, Egypt, etc. At one time it also included Mecca. Of course, the Bishop only covers those Christians who are members of the Church of England. There aren't/weren't many in Mecca.

PPS Edited for: Oops! The Bishop of Gibraltar's See changed in 1980. It now covers all of mainland Europe AND the countries that were part of the former USSR so extends from the North Sea to the Pacific. He is now called the Bishop of Gibraltar in Europe...
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Ogg, for such a good explanation of the term, "see". Maybe it goes back to the days of ruling the land as far as the eye could see.
 
Hey...the Catholic Church loves astronomy...and even evolution

They don't deny science like the Evangelicals, they just accept it with a frown. They should be embracing it and making it a part of their program.

I don't see the Catholic Church as accepting science with a frown, at least today. They certainly did have a problem with Galileo and that damnable Devil's eye he used to show that Aristotle (and thus, the church) had the Universe all wrong. In fact, I heard that the Vatican recently apologized for their inconveniencing of the guy, all those years ago. For some reason, they have yet to apologize for inconveniencing Giordano Bruno, the Dominican friar who held that all the stars in the night sky were actually Suns, just like the one we have. He was burned at the stake by authorities on Feb. 17,1600 in the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.

But you can't hold back an idea who's time has come. The Catholic Church set up it's first astronomy observatory, the Observatory of the Roman College in 1774. That they did so in order to more accurately date Easter each year, is beside the point. In fact, the Gregorian Calendar, promulgated in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, was developed by the Jesuit mathematician Christoph Clavius at the Collegio Romano from astronomical data.

The Big bang model of the origin of the Universe was first put forward by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, who was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. At first, Einstein dismissed his physics as "abominable". However, even he changed his mind.

As for evolution, The Catholic Church, even by 1859 (when On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection was first published), had not insisted on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. The Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. (Officially naughty books..) Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, so long as Catholic dogma is not violated, back in 1950. Today the Church holds that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism ( that the human race has descended from a single pair of individuals) and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made on the subject.

As for science in general, The Catholic Church has long advocated a better understanding of our world. Yes, it's had it's bad days, Feb. 17,1600 stands out, but the Church's attitude towards science over the centuries has evolved!!

One more comment about poor Giordano Bruno, who's books were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1602. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode". Despite his regret, he defended Bruno's persecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life" by trying to make him recant.

Perhaps the good Cardinal Angelo Sodano has a little evolving of his own to do.
 
I don't see the Catholic Church as accepting science with a frown, at least today. They certainly did have a problem with Galileo and that damnable Devil's eye he used to show that Aristotle (and thus, the church) had the Universe all wrong. In fact, I heard that the Vatican recently apologized for their inconveniencing of the guy, all those years ago. For some reason, they have yet to apologize for inconveniencing Giordano Bruno, the Dominican friar who held that all the stars in the night sky were actually Suns, just like the one we have. He was burned at the stake by authorities on Feb. 17,1600 in the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, after the Roman Inquisition found him guilty of heresy.

But you can't hold back an idea who's time has come. The Catholic Church set up it's first astronomy observatory, the Observatory of the Roman College in 1774. That they did so in order to more accurately date Easter each year, is beside the point. In fact, the Gregorian Calendar, promulgated in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII, was developed by the Jesuit mathematician Christoph Clavius at the Collegio Romano from astronomical data.

The Big bang model of the origin of the Universe was first put forward by Monsignor Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître, who was a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer at the Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium. At first, Einstein dismissed his physics as "abominable". However, even he changed his mind.

As for evolution, The Catholic Church, even by 1859 (when On the Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection was first published), had not insisted on a literal reading of the Book of Genesis. The Origin of Species was never placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. (Officially naughty books..) Pope Pius XII agreed to the academic freedom to study the scientific implications of evolution, so long as Catholic dogma is not violated, back in 1950. Today the Church holds that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict, though humans are regarded as a special creation, and that the existence of God is required to explain both monogenism ( that the human race has descended from a single pair of individuals) and the spiritual component of human origins. No infallible declarations by the Pope or an Ecumenical Council have been made on the subject.

As for science in general, The Catholic Church has long advocated a better understanding of our world. Yes, it's had it's bad days, Feb. 17,1600 stands out, but the Church's attitude towards science over the centuries has evolved!!

One more comment about poor Giordano Bruno, who's books were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1602. On the 400th anniversary of Bruno's death, Cardinal Angelo Sodano declared Bruno's death to be a "sad episode". Despite his regret, he defended Bruno's persecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life" by trying to make him recant.

Perhaps the good Cardinal Angelo Sodano has a little evolving of his own to do.

I'm talking anecdotes. I went to a Catholic elementary and middle school. We were instructed that Evolution was a marginal theory in the scheme of how we got here. Very pseudo-creationist well into the 21st Century. The Catholic high school my friends went to had biology as an elective course you took when you were a senior. Freshman took physics though. Catholics frown upon any scientific theory after Darwin. A good Catholic scientific education consists of Aristotle, Newton, Linnaeus, Mendel.
 
I don't see the Catholic Church as accepting science with a frown, at least today. -

Perhaps the good Cardinal Angelo Sodano has a little evolving of his own to do.

And so the "Church" exhibits the the distance between themselves and the people of the Church. Sure it was wrongheaded and ignorant, not to mention, un-Christian, but "he defended Bruno's persecutors, maintaining that the Inquisitors "had the desire to preserve freedom and promote the common good and did everything possible to save his life"

Showing that the Priesthood holds it's self interests to be holy-er than the truth.

Such is the legacy of the Middle Ages and bureaucracies everywhere.
 
We could start a new thread called The Atrocities Committed by the Roman Catholic Church since its inception, but I fear it would be too lengthy.

As far as keeping up with new scientific research, the Church seems to get behind the major developments as long as it does not interfere with their dogmas.

The case in point, adult stem cell research money funded to steer research away from embryonic stem cells, which are more viable so far.
 
A Pox On All Their Houses........

We could start a new thread called The Atrocities Committed by the Roman Catholic Church since its inception, but I fear it would be too lengthy.

It certainly would be lengthy but the number of atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church would be greater than than those committed by various Protestant churches only because it has been in the atrocity business for a longer period of time and had more turf to protect.

As for Islam, it's only been committing atrocities since about 644 AD, when the caliph Umar was assassinated. He succeeded Muhammad after his death in 634. Then Uthman took over and was assassinated in 665, bringing Ali to the caliphate and sparking the first Islamic civil war, which ended when Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. This lead to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shi'as and the world hasn't seen the end of it yet.

What the Christians and the Muslims have done to each other over the years warrants a book of it's own. (Actually there are dozens.)

The Jews have more than several pages in their list of atrocities going back to when the Israelites kicked the bejeezass out of the various Canaanite tribes that were squatting on their land.

The Buddhists don't have much to atone for but the various Hindu tribes sure do. Once they got done killing themselves on a regular basis, they gleefully took on the encroaching adherents of Islam. Correct my if I'm wrong, but I think they're still going at it, Gandhi notwithstanding.

I'm leaving out entire chapters in this sordid tale, but you get the picture.

If you take the word priest to be any Holy Roller in charge, I think that underneath almost every war, persecution, atrocity, ethnic cleansing and misery inflicted on one's fellow Man, you'll find either a priest or a Warlord backed by one.
 
Let us not forget the Holy Crusades and what that did to the Holy Land!

I have noticed on a regular basis that the Catholics do own a lot of prime real estate the world over. Put it all together, it would be a nice sized country for sure.
 
Let us not forget the Holy Crusades and what that did to the Holy Land!

I have noticed on a regular basis that the Catholics do own a lot of prime real estate the world over. Put it all together, it would be a nice sized country for sure.

In my opinion, there was nothing holy about the Holy Crusades. There were eight major Crusades that departed Europe for the Holy Land, with various assorted minor ones to there and elsewhere. Bloodbath followed bloodbath which seems to be carrying on today.

As for all the Roman Catholic Church's real estate, it's sizable. But add it all up and it pales in value compared to what they've got in The Institute for Works of Religion, commonly known as the Vatican Bank.

But then your average American mega-church isn't doing too bad either. "Six Flags Over Jesus" and the others, led by the likes of TD Jakes, Joel Osteen, Paula White and Creflo Dollar are doing just fine, thank you very much and remember to leave your wallet in the plate.

At least Guru Bhagwan Shree Ranjneesh...
213452-jane-stork-breaking-the-spell.jpg



(the "Bhagwan Bill" of Bloom County fame) never pretended he wasn't in it for the money.
 
Stephen55, I almost called them the Unholy Crusades but did not want to stir up trouble, but that is what they were.

I did not know the holdings of the RC Church were so well distributed, but I should have guessed.

I meant any and all real estate grabbed by the RC Church to establish themselves from the very beginning to now, all added up into total square miles of land. Now that would be an interesting fact.

The protestant churches would pale in comparison, I bet, even if you put all their land together under that umbrella.

Gigi
 
Land grags are for the winners...

The Roman Catholic Church doesn't have a monopoly on land grabs. Just ask Little Jack Horner....:D

King Henry VIII had a serious beef with the Catholic church, also known as Rome. He was quite a bright guy and knew how to put a good spin on any political/religious quarrel. Of course, back then, a religious quarrel was a political quarrel. PO'd that Rome would not annul his 24 year marriage to Catherine of Aragon in timely fashion, he went ahead and secretly married Anne Boleyn.

Rome knew that Henry was very much a Catholic at heart and that all of his scheming to marry Anne was more about producing a male heir, thus avoiding another political debacle like the War of the Roses that occurred before his dad (H the VII) became king.

It's difficult to know if Pope Clement VII would have seen Henry's petition for annulment favorably if Henry had been willing to co-operate. At the time Clement was imprisoned by Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. Henry had bypassed Cardinal Thomas Wolsey and gone directly to the Holy See by sending his secretary William Knight. But due to that pesky Charles V, who was Catherine's nephew, Knight wasn't able to obtain the annulment, only secret word that Rome would give conditional dispensation for a new marriage.

Henry now had to go through Wolsey, who did his best, even arranging for an ecclesiastical court to meet in England, with a representative from the Pope.
Despite Catherine's impassioned plea on her own behalf, Pope Clement was likely to grant an annulment but there he was, a prisoner of Charles V.

So, why did Rome excommunicate Henry VIII after he married Anne Boleyn? It was because Pope Clement had forbade Henry from marrying Anne before his annulment from his marriage to Catherine was properly processed in Rome. Henry had shown the nerve to do that in England, thus usurping some of the power of Rome which was heresy above all heresy.

Henry went on to steadily decrease the power of the Roman church in England. He also worked to reduce the power of the Church of England. It was clear that he wanted to call the shots.

Now, for something completely different...

Little Jack Horner sat in the corner
Eating his Christmas pie,
He put in his thumb and pulled out a plum
And said "What a good boy am I!"


Little Jack Horner was reputed to have been Thomas Horner, Steward to Richard Whiting, the Bishop of the Abbey at Glastonbury. The Steward had an important role and was responsible for managing the household, collecting taxes and keeping accounts of the Abbey of Glastonbury

The Church, the King and the Gold

Glastonbury was the largest and wealthiest Abbey in England and this Benedictine Monastery owned extensive lands and manors in the county of Somerset. Between 1536 and 1540, after breaking away from the Catholic Church, King Henry VIII and his chief minister Thomas Cromwell set about the systematic Dissolution of all of the Monasteries in England. The reason for was to loot the monasteries of their gold and silver and seize the monastic lands. By 1539 Glastonbury was the only religious house left in Somerset and it was only at matter of time before Glastonbury Abbey was also seized.

The Bribe

It is rumored that the Bishop, Richard Whiting, tried to bribe the King. He sent his Steward, Thomas Horner, with a gift of twelve title deeds to various English manorial estates. The deeds were said to have been secreted in a pie (valuables were often hidden in this bizarre fashion to thwart thieves). Whiting ( Little Jack Horner) realized that the bribe would do no good and was said to have stolen the deed to the manor of Mells (it being the real 'plum' of the twelve manors). (In Tudor times, the name Jack was a synonym for "knave", thus Thomas Horner became a thief; knave Horner.)

The Traitor and the Execution

The remaining eleven manors were given to the crown but to no avail. The old Bishop was convicted of treason for remaining loyal to Rome. The jury included his treacherous steward Thomas Horner who found Bishop Whiting guilty and sent the old man to a terrible death of being hung, drawn and quartered on Glastonbury Tor. The Abbey was destroyed. Following the destruction of the abbey the steward, Horner moved into the Manor of Mells. Whether Horner actually stole the deeds to the Manor or was rewarded with them for helping to convict the Bishop of Glastonbury is not known but the Manor of Mells became the property of the Horner family who lived there until the 20th century.
 
Stephen, I love a man who knows his facts and the Jack Horner story was so interesting when put into the context of the song. Very nice.

Henry the VIII has fascinated me since the 60s PBS series. We recently rented The Six Wives of Henry VIII to watch again. Still wonderful.

What I find so fascinating is that once England was free of the burden of taxes to Rome, started by Julius Caesar, it began an era of prosperity once Elizabeth I was firmly at the helm.

A tempest at sea saved England from the beheading of their "Bastard Queen" and being subjected to Catholic/Spanish domination once again when the Armada was defeated. The Pope was fully in favor of Spain's attempt to conquer England and restore it to the rightful faith.

Religion is political, I agree completely.

Gigi
 
The Brits certainly dodged a bullet when the Spanish Armada failed to live up to it's mission statement. The Pope at the time, Pope Sixtus V certainly wanted to stick it England.

The nasty bit of weather came after the Armada was severely mauled. The fleet was at anchor off the coast of Flanders at Gravelines, awaiting an army to take on board to take across the Channel to invade England. The Brits sent in a series of fire ships, old and beat up vessels packed with anything that would burn. They were set afire and steered or allowed to drift with the wind into the Spanish fleet. It wasn't so much that Spanish ships would catch fire (none did) as the panic and disorder that was created as the Spanish ships had to pull up anchor and set out in a hurried and unorganized manner...to be met by the English ships, who were more in number but out gunned. The ensuing sea battle was not so much a victory for the English fleet as only five Spanish ships were lost, as much as it achieved the goal of forcing the Armada to abandon it's wait for the invasion army.

The Armada regrouped and sailed up the east coast of England but with no army aboard it really couldn't threaten anyone with invasion. The English ships followed, not to engage in a set naval battle, but just harassing the Spanish to keep the Armada moving.

The Armada's plan was then to go home by sailing west after clearing the northernmost part of Britain and going out past Ireland and then south. It was off the coast of Ireland that it ran into severe weather. 24 ships were wrecked and some others were so badly damaged that they had to take refuge in Scotland. (As for the Scots, my guess it was a case of the enemy of my enemy is my friend.:D)

The Armada set out with 22 warships of the Spanish Navy and over one hundred converted merchant vessels. About fifty vessels never made it home. The cost of building up the Spanish Navy and outfitting the Armada left Spain basically bankrupt.
 
As for Islam, it's only been committing atrocities since about 644 AD, when the caliph Umar was assassinated. He succeeded Muhammad after his death in 634. Then Uthman took over and was assassinated in 665, bringing Ali to the caliphate and sparking the first Islamic civil war, which ended when Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. This lead to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shi'as and the world hasn't seen the end of it yet.

Actually I would point out that we do not even acknowledge either 'Umar OR 'Uthman as eever legitimately holding the Caliphate. Nor do we acknowledge the succeeding Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, the so-called "shadow Caliphate" under the Mamluks, or even the Ottoman Turks.

That said you make it out as if we are constantly at each others' throats, which is not the case at all. I actually do have Sunni friends and we agree on more things than not. America's a special case of course, since many differences in doctrine and philosophy are a moot point here. But there are other countries (even in the Middle East) where you will find Shi'a going to Sunni masjid. Part is numbers of course; the Sunni are just much more numerous and widespread. But even so... we are all Muslim.

What the Christians and the Muslims have done to each other over the years warrants a book of it's own. (Actually there are dozens.)

True. But again its a mix of religious docrtine and politics. The Europeans just used religion as an excuse to launch the various Crusades (several of which never left Europe). Centuries later they used colonialism and the idea of a 'civilizing mssion' to do the same.

The Buddhists don't have much to atone for

Aside from what they did in Tibet and Inner Asia you mean? Buddhists have gone through the same phases as anyone else. And thats not even getting into Burma which is an OFFICIALLY Buddhist state. Or Sri Lanka where lower caste Singhalese can't even join the Sangha.

but the various Hindu tribes sure do. Once they got done killing themselves on a regular basis, they gleefully took on the encroaching adherents of Islam. Correct my if I'm wrong, but I think they're still going at it, Gandhi notwithstanding.

Well Gandhi was not the saint he is always portrayed as in western media. But that said what you forget is that "Hindu" really refers to hundreds of thousands of native religious traditions in India which share the same roots with Buddhism and Jainism. They are only united because non-Hindu outsiders chose to.

What we tend to call "Hinduism" today tends towards the ultra-nationalistic groups like the BJP. Many of them are decidedly anti-Muslim yes but they are also very anti-Christian and you can finds lots on that too. The Hindu radicals don't reflect the majority of Indians who cleave to a more traditional brand of the faith. And there has been cross pollination with Islam (as attested in Sikhism or the various mystical schools like the Bauls and Qalanders).
 
Again, a pox on all their houses....

Yes all Muslims are Muslim. Just as all Christians are Christian. That hasn't stopped them from slaughtering each other over the centuries and making life difficult if they can't slaughter.

My point is that more blood has been spilled in the name of religion than it would take to fill a good sized lake.

Christians, Muslims, Jews and (all the various) Hindus have never had much trouble putting aside their religious teachings about peace and love to take up arms and have a serious go at annihilating each other. Yes, there are also political and economic reasons for the carnage but if all of those religious types actually lived what their Books tell them...who would there be to field the armies?

If the Sunni and the Shi'a get along, why are they strapping on suicide bombs and blowing each other to pieces?

It wasn't that long ago in Ireland (the North and the Republic) when asked by the masked gunman to name your religion, that the wrong answer was fatal.

If another big nuke goes off in anger, my guess is that either India will drop it on Pakistan or vice versa. Don't these people have better things to do? (That goes for the lot of them.)

I'm a fan of Mark Twain and here's a couple of his words of wisdom on religion...

Man is a Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion--several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven....The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

And my favorite...

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
 
And one last lyrical comment from Tom Lehrer...


Oh, the Protestants hate the Catholics,
And the Catholics hate the Protestants,
And the Hindus hate the Muslims,
And everybody hates the Jews.

But during national brotherhood week, national brotherhood week,
It's national everyone-smile-at-one-another-hood week.
Be nice to people who
Are inferior to you.
It's only for a week, so have no fear.
Be grateful that it doesn't last all year!
 
Thanks, Ogg, for such a good explanation of the term, "see". Maybe it goes back to the days of ruling the land as far as the eye could see.

No, in an ecclesastical context the word see is derived from sidem, the latin for seat or throne and as Og said, referred to the area of land over which authority was claimed or exercised.

see in the sense of sight has a teutonic origin. The convergence of spelling is co-incidental .
 
And my favorite...

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.

Stephen, the Koran clearly states that People of an earlier Revealation (commonly translated inaccurately as People of the Book) shall be respected and not interfered with religiously. For most of their history that held reasonably well, particularly with regard to Christians and Jews. Islams relationship with Hindu's and Zoroastrians has always been much more troubled.

Historically the great slaughterers of the moslems were the Mongols who didn't become moslem until after they had ceased their killing.

Militant Islam largely post dates the establishment of Israel in 1948 and tragically the large Jewish minorities which had survived relatively well in the moslem world for two millenia have all but disappeared. More than 100,000 Jews left both Morocco and Egypt for example and Iran is now the only moslem country with a substantial Jewish population(about 25 to 30,000)

To my mind what is called militant Islam has its roots at least as much in anti imperialism and tribalism as in religion.
 
No, in an ecclesastical context the word see is derived from sidem, the latin for seat or throne and as Og said, referred to the area of land over which authority was claimed or exercised.

see in the sense of sight has a teutonic origin. The convergence of spelling is co-incidental .

What Ishtat said, except I believe the word is sedes? Sancta Sedes. It translates that way to all other languages, too, as Holy Seat or Holy Chair.

It certainly would be lengthy but the number of atrocities committed by the Roman Catholic Church would be greater than than those committed by various Protestant churches only because it has been in the atrocity business for a longer period of time and had more turf to protect.

As for Islam, it's only been committing atrocities since about 644 AD, when the caliph Umar was assassinated. He succeeded Muhammad after his death in 634. Then Uthman took over and was assassinated in 665, bringing Ali to the caliphate and sparking the first Islamic civil war, which ended when Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. This lead to the division of Islam into Sunnis and Shi'as and the world hasn't seen the end of it yet.

What the Christians and the Muslims have done to each other over the years warrants a book of it's own. (Actually there are dozens.)

The Jews have more than several pages in their list of atrocities going back to when the Israelites kicked the bejeezass out of the various Canaanite tribes that were squatting on their land.

The Buddhists don't have much to atone for but the various Hindu tribes sure do. Once they got done killing themselves on a regular basis, they gleefully took on the encroaching adherents of Islam. Correct my if I'm wrong, but I think they're still going at it, Gandhi notwithstanding.

I'm leaving out entire chapters in this sordid tale, but you get the picture.

If you take the word priest to be any Holy Roller in charge, I think that underneath almost every war, persecution, atrocity, ethnic cleansing and misery inflicted on one's fellow Man, you'll find either a priest or a Warlord backed by one.

I think you cite nice anecdotes but fail to draw the conclusion that seems to follow from them. Conflict, atrocity, and manipulation span across human societies, not merely across religions.

I certainly don't want to trivialize the problem of religious extremism, or give every ideology equal credence; I'm probably the least suitable person around to defend religion, too. I do, however, think the anti-religious rants of Hitchens-like characters and the accepted wisdoms they spawn don't do anyone too many favors.

Peddling religion as the universal culprit serves only to blind people to other historical forces. Naïve scientism that goes hand in hand doesn't help, either. Nor do attacks on religion in its benign guises achieve anything but sharpen the conflict. Most disturbing, the whole thing in the end resembles religious extremism itself, from dogmatism and the rhetoric of intolerance, to promises of facile 'salvation' and the smug assuredness in the possession of truth. The role of religion in present-day conflicts needs better criticism than that, I think.
 
Thank you, contributors. I really enjoyed your posts.

My son and I drove past a big billboard yesterday that said, "Jesus is risen."

I ask my son, if he was risen, why is he still invisible? Why doesn't he say hello to everyone who has been waiting so long to see him?

Another one on Interstate 5 says, "Jesus died for your sins." He died for my sins BEFORE I was born. Now, that is faulty thinking in my book.

Why must the Christains advertise their faith like that? I know, it is a free country....
 
Stephen, the Koran clearly states that People of an earlier Revealation (commonly translated inaccurately as People of the Book) shall be respected and not interfered with religiously. For most of their history that held reasonably well, particularly with regard to Christians and Jews. Islams relationship with Hindu's and Zoroastrians has always been much more troubled.

The Qur'an:

Qur'an (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down.

Qur'an (9:5) "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." Prayer and charity are among the Five Pillars of Islam, as salat and zakat. See below.

Qur'an (9:11) - (Continued from above) "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion" This confirms that Muhammad is speaking of conversion to Islam.

Qur'an (2:193) - "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion be only for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers." The key phrase is to fight until "religion be only for Allah."


So much for...the Koran clearly states that People of an earlier Revealation (commonly translated inaccurately as People of the Book) shall be respected and not interfered with religiously.

So, just to be clear... very, very clear....under Islam, who exactly, gets to be respected and allowed to live... and who exactly, is to be slaughtered?
 
Back
Top