Hypocrites vs. hypocrites
Submitted by mediumgeek on Sat, 16/09/2006 - 18:32
I am not sure what is worse. The Popes idiot statement that only evil has come from Islam or the fact that some Muslims are using violence to show their disapproval for his statement by for example attacking churches. How can the Pope which is the head representative of a religion that has done so many horrendous things in the past make such statement about another religion? How in the world does anyone think it is the correct way to respond to an utterly ignorant statement with attacking churches? Both sides are being major hypocrites!
Arg! Civilized countries are uniting and trying to agree on common ground when it comes to laws and human rights. Why aren't religions heading in the same direction?
Still think he was being a hypocrite!
Well even if I admit that I was slightly off on the details I still stick to my opinion that his statements were unneccessary and inappropriate by a person in his position. It still seems meaningless so you start to wonder why he put it in there. Why couldn't he prove his violence point with something from his own religion which has done many horrifying things.
My point goes mainly on being a hypocrite. Don't critisize others for being violent if you are so yourself. If you do, at least mention that your own background isn't really squeeky clean either.
And the other side should probably not threaten to kill people if they are objecting against someone saying they are violent...
Btw. Interesting information on the Byzantine empereror. Thanks!
What common ground?
Common ground is hard to find when two religions both claim universal validity...
I want to change pope!
Silly stupid talk! You wouldn't expect it by a pope....
GRRRRRRRR
Chiara
Well...
I can't agree with you on this. I've read the complete text of the pope's speech, and his quote was taken out of context. That was a quote from a Christian ruler of Byzantium. In fact, there was another, real criticism of Islam in the speech, but it wasn't this quote. The pope said that some historical leaders of Islam didn't think God is bound by his own word or by reason. In other words, he could be fucking with us, telling us to worship idols or do something crazy that he doesn't even believe himself. Of course, nobody is complaining about this criticism, because nobody read the damned speech.
I think you're getting the wrong impression from the media coverage. You're seeing it from a Western perspective. But don't forget that in Middle Eastern countries, people generally don't have the right to protest. "Protesters" usually get their heads kicked in. If you're seeing a protest on TV, it's with the implicit permission (and often planning) of the State.
Many of the protesters are illiterate, and their only knowledge of the issue is what their political/religious leaders have told them. I can assure you that when the whole cartoon issue exploded, the huge majority of people screaming about it had never seen the cartoons, because in fact they were censored over here. In one of the universities in Dubai, which is supposed to provide Western-quality education, a professor was fired for showing students a copy of the cartoons (!!!) because they were censored in the UAE.
Anyway, that's my take on it, and I'm not suggesting my view is the only "right" one.
literacy..
Actually, Muslims are generally literate - it is an important part of the religion, and the Madrassas that are most famous in teh West as "terrorist schools" are in fact a widespread system of education, teaching religion (and not much terrorism).
The fact is that people in Islamic countries are about as lazy as people in western countries in reading the actual text of something complicated. In some coutries there is indeed little opportunity for protest, but in others it isn't really a matter of state-sponsored demonstrations so much as people who got the typical media mistreatment of the issue and got annoyed.
Not lazy
I simply cannot agree to calling people lazy for not reading the actual text. The English translation is quite difficult for a non native speaker like me to understand and I thought I was pretty a "fluent reader". I have now tried this few times and simply give up every time. There is also a limit to how much time you can spend on reading up on things in detail.
I guess our problem is who we rely on as a filter when we either don't have time or have problems getting through a difficult text like this. Newspapers are proving themselves to be unreliable but who can really be relied on? Everyone always has some kind of an agenda.
Leaders/Media vs. the People
Sorry for a really late reply! Been away on vacation and with limited Internet access.
Very good answer! You are right, I didn't read the speech just few articles in the newspapers. In my opinion, we should be able to trust the newspapers to bring us the right stories and not take things out of context. I sat down just now and tried to read the speech. I must admit that I am not much wiser and I gave up half way through. I am not sure what the pope is trying to say. It still feels a bit weird that he had to drag up this example. Why couldn't he find some other example trying to say that religion shouldn't be forced on with violence which involved some past history of this own religion? That combined with the critisism you mentioned this does indeed feel like slightly pointed.
In my opinion, any other person than the pope himself can make such statements. In an ideal world nothing should have come of it other than people would take it as a constructive critism and tried to become better. But it is the hypocracy with attacking another religion without first analyzing his own religion shortcomings that annoys me. And the fact that violence and threats are used to deny a statement accusing people of using violence...
I didn't know that people in the Middle Eastern countries didn't have the right to protests. This makes me think that there are some other people higher up that just simply want to cause problems and start a conflict. The name of this entry should probably have been Leaders/Media vs. the People.
It is really good to get your take on this. I tend to only see the black and white of these kinds of issues. I want to be able to trust the media but maybe I need to start becoming more careful. Then again, I don't have time to carefully research every single issue that occurs and who can I really trust? Tricky questions!