Captain's Quarters -

They'll raise hell as usual. Being the religion of Peace and Perpetual Victimhood, it's the only thing they know. And the liberal left will support them.

I don't think he'll apologize... last year there was a misinterpretation of what he said, deliberate or not. In essence, there was confusion about whether the words came from the Pontiff or from the man he was quoting.

This time there is no doubt... this comes from the Pope's mind and from his lips. To apologize now would be to say that the Pope recognizes that the Word of the Pope is subject to the hurt feelings of the enemies of the Church.

Not gonna happen.

The more the Islamists seethe, the stronger his point is made.

Actually, the Pope went a step further.

And, further out of line than the "Allies" performances, too.

Because, this summer, (per a headline I saw, yesterday), the State Department contacted the Vatcan; asking for Condi Rice to meet the Pope, before she started on the "last legs" of the "Peace Process."

She got turned down. How? The Pope's spokesman, by correspondence, and in the way of reply to Condi's request; wrote back "that the Pope was on vacation."

There are lots of players, involved.

Our State Department? No better than the elites who work for the WashPost, or the now "much smaller version" of it's former self: The New Yuk Times.

There are a lot of players out there! Including, yes. Putin. The Chinese. India. And, the german's. Who have often managed to crap all over themselves. (Unless you think hitler was a victor.)

In an Israeli article that appeared today; a warning went out to syria, "that if they dared use a chemical attack on an Israeli city, or Israeli citizens (I'd presume anywhere in the world), Damascus goes "buh bye." Painting out a retaliation that isn't a "Goody-Two-Shoes" dance.

Plus, the best news of all, a few years ago (before dancing with Chirac, Condi thought she'd be at least "vice president," elected in 2008.

SHE. WAS. WRONG. She's not going anywhere.

And, to the Pope? Well, he said "no" to her. "NO," to her credentials. A perverbial "slap in the face."

As to the seething Islamists; what do you think they gain?

Most Israelis are NOT a nation of victims! Nor are we.

Men who "seeth" might as well don prom dresses.

I was just reading the Abraham Lincoln "A House Divided" speech and was struck by how applicable it was to this point. A world divided against itself cannot stand. Either they will adopt freedom of religion and all that it entails or they will force us to accept Islam upon pain of death or subjugation.

Riots are pending the production and distribution of American flags ready for burning. Ramadan makes for some quite hungry and angry protestors during the day when cameras can catch the conflagrations in full "livid" color.

I'm more than skeptical that Condi had or has ever had political aspirations to the executive, Carol. Like Cheney's disavowal to seeking the White House, Rice's refusal is not a coy bid to be elevated by the swell of a draft movement. (Unlike Al Gore, I might add, who is being jockeyed in Massachusetts for a run.) Rice has repeatedly and emphatically reiterated her dream to be the head honcho of the NFL. Just the other day, in a frank interview, she indicated that her intentions are to return to Stanford.

We Catholics have started calling him our Good German Shephard.

Any bets on how the religion of peace will respond?

More tellingly, let's see what other world leaders say in response to the inevitable riots and killings by those peaceful observers of the religion of peace.

I follow Pope Benedict's thought closely. His Regensberg Speech was aimed at a target far broader than religion. He was condemning every restricted conception of reason, including the narrow verificationism of logical positivism of materialists, and the narrow "will to power" that Nietzsche and I would say many modern leftists find so admirable in radical Islam.

Catholic theology has developed along the lines of the Greek philosophical tradition in which reason is construed as the Logos of the universe, which means that the intelligibility of things isn't subject to human will, or reduction to sense experience. Radical materialism such as Marxism, and radical Islam both attempt to coerce the world to their liking. Authentic Christianity does not.

Thus it makes good sense to demand that all ideological systems ought to be non-coercive, and all religion ought to seek the truth, no more and no less.

Telling the truth is against both peace (at least the Leftist version) and multiculturalism. And I am sure some leftists who comment here will see plenty of 'red meat' for the savages they talk down to.

May he tell the truth for Decades to come.

Where is the GOOD if any coming out from the
Muslin religion? Many of them kill, rape and plunder under their name of Islam.

God is indeed GREAT. How dare most Muslims envoke his Name when they do their evil deeds. I fed up with the lot of them.

As religion is purely faith I have to reason the islam has none, if it had any then it would treat the leavers with sympathy for losing their faith, as it is islam is a sham like nazism, sadly I fear it will go the same way, causing a host of innocent deaths.

I think it is about time.

In efforts to be PC, so many ignore how much discrimination runs rampant in Islamic countries.

I was so disappointed when the pope backed down from his comments last year. I hope he has grown a spine since then.

Hooray!! I hope he stands tall through all of this. The Arab world had its heyday before Islam stomped its ability to question, think and respect others. Islam wiped out how many native cultures and languages in Northern Africa, often by force? Arabs/Muslims were in on the African slave trade centuries before the Europeans were; the list goes on.

Finally someone has some backbone to call a spade a spade. He's got to stand tall, period! I hope he does. Thank you, Pope Benedict.

"[T]he 80-year-old pontiff made a speech in "defence of religious liberty", which, he said "is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right." Agreed. Glad to see the pope has come around to that point of view. I seem to recall that actual church doctrine, as opposed to the pope's speech, calls for a 'special relationship" between the church and state. See the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX and Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae for details. Google up "the heresy of Americanism" for more. A reminder for a few of you folks - truth is not bigoted.

It is rather simple. The Pope is just calling a spade a spade. At the same time, if you read between his lines there you may see a flicker of this....No religion on Earth FORCES its followers to follow it or they are labelled apostates and earmarked for death. No religion on Earth DEMANDS others on this planet join their faith or submit. And in fact, there really IS no relgion that demands those as islam simply is a political ideology. Those famous words, "Religion of Peace" must one day be corrected to say, "Ideology of Submission."

Once the world pulls the blanket off this fake religion and exposes it for what it is, the sooner the world can send it back to the middle ages.

I am not Catholic, but I really do think this is huge. The papers don't seem to be saying much about it, but my guess is that they will not be able to avoid it once the inevitable rioting starts.

This Pope really should be applauded for his courage in stating the truth as opposed to the politically expedient. Even Oriana Fallaci would probably have approved of this.

Christopher Hitchens? Well, Rome wasn't built in a day...

Enjoy your radio show by the way.

Good for the Pope.
Why would not he want to meet with C.Rice?

Is it Islam that demands the death of "apostates", or just certain loony "Muslims"? Consider that Fred Phelps doesn't speak for the majority of Christians. I suspect that the majority of Muslims around the world are no more interested in killing apostates than the majority of Christians are interested in killing homosexuals.

I think that those who predict riots are dead on, however. There are a number of loony Muslims... and the MSM is more than happy to cover their "outrage" in an ongoing attempt to portray the West as "intolerant".

If the Pope really wants to get down to brass tacks he could actually state the church's true position on Mohammad---he's considered a false prophet a theme frequently discussed in church writings.

Mohammad crossed the line when he usurped Christ, the son of God. He was exactly what was prophesied to come. So far radical Islam is living up to those warnings.

"Is it Islam that demands the death of "apostates", or just certain loony "Muslims"?"

It's in the Koran, actually. It's also a part of the "honor killing" culture, too. If one of your family members converts, there is an obligation to kill him.

LOVE this Pope!!!! It's about time. (Also love the "Good German Shepard" bit, too)

"It's in the Koran, actually."

It's also in every one of the mainstream traditions of Islamic legal-religious scholarship. Lovely religion, isn't it?

Sachal, the information about the desire C.Rice had to visit the Vatacan, came from a link I read, yesterday.

She had her summer plans all figured out. There was going to be another "boost" of the piss-peace-pieces plan for another round of diplomatic pants dancing in the Mideast. With Abbas "presiding."

From the article I read, yesterday, C.RICE was requesting Papal Blessing. HE. DIDN'T. DELIVER.

Nobody says you have to believe this.

Noboday says there's anything to be read into it, either. "Except this" ... C.RICE wanted the Vatican to make her trip look legitimate.

Actually, since she pasted her arse to Cirac's, a year ago, last summer; she's had a hard time regaining any credibility. At all.

And, if there are some here who think Condi wouldn't dream of a slot on the presidential ticket, then they're welcome to their ideas.

I know what I saw, though.

As the Net, prior to the UN paper Condi got; after dancing with Chirac; her stock had risen higher. Then, it fell.

She'll be managing to totter off the stage even less popular than Madeline Half-bright. What'da talent.

OPEC, just list all the countries, all but one, Venezuela, are muslim. Most of them have all the money for the best lawyers in the world but they still prefer Kingdoms, Hmmm, wonder Why? Defund them and send them back to the pre Andalusia days they so long for. Let Islam sort itself out, but why should we fund it or allow ourselves to be part of their internal slaughter of arbitrarily chosen infidels..
Call it genocide and get back to me why it shouldn't be called one.
Some how Genocide doesn't have a sacred ring to it. I think his holiness recognizes the failure of the church to not totally condemn early on, the atrocities in the late 30s.

Wow! Who would have thought it would be the semi-aged Pope who truly understands that hackneyed 60s phrase "speaking truth to power." It doesn't mean comfortably mouthing nasty platitudes about the US government or the President from the safety of an unwashed crowd of pink attired protesters. Instead, It means taking on a religion that has shown itself willing to resort to the furthest extremes of violence to stifle any criticism or debate. Bravo for the Pope (which is not something that a Jew usually says).

Now, if only our elected Politicians would have the same "cajones" as the Pope, we might finally confront the Islamofascists the way they should have been, from the beginning. Trying to "negotiate" with this scum is taken as a sign of weakness, and they act accordingly. With this Pope in Rome, there's hope from the Western world yet.

RKV: The Catholic Church has supported religious freedom at least since the Vatican II council in 1965. See Dignitatis Humanae.

Ken Price: I think you want politicians to demonstrate "cojones." "Cajones" is just Spanish for "boxes."

RKV,

There must always be a "special relationship" between church and state, given that ethics, morality, and faith intersect greatly with politics.

The moment you claim that abortion is evil or good, you are making a statement of ethics and morality. You are making a claim of a special relationship between your ethics (faith is the word used by the religious) and the actions of the government itself.

Who of us does not want our government to be of the ultimate good? Who of us do not work for our government to be of the ultimate good?

Catholics understand this, and we use our informed consciousness to choose our political leaders. The fact that they are Catholic (or claim to be) has bearing only to the extent that they do or do not follow the precepts of the Faith that the voter himself professes to follow.

Now, on to specifics. Examine Monaco, in which Roman Catholicism is the official religion. What percentage of the populace is Catholic? What pressure are others under to convert? Examine Malta, another country in which Catholicism is the official religion. Same questions.

Now, lets examine Saudi Arabia. Notice any differences? Let's examine Egypt, Syria, Iran, and even Iraq.

I'd say that states with Catholicism as the official religion follow the Mohammedean precept outlined in Sûrah al-Baqarah 256 that "there is no compulsion in religion" far better than Islamic states themselves.

I would also point out that the pope's speech, which can be read here, does not actually mention Muslims or Islam. So any Muslims who take offense at this particular speech would in effect be admitting that the references to lack of religious freedom or terrorism actually do apply to Muslims.

Captain Ed is unfortunately wrong: Islam is not near collapse. The harsh elements of Islam are written in the hearts of Muslims everywhere no less than love of liberty is written in ours. It's decentralized. There's no tottering commie edifice to overthrow, as in East Germany, after which everything will be better. No one is charge of Islam, and its intellectual aspects are not its essence.

Someone somewhere said it before: The Islamaniac response is something like, "Don't say I'm violent, or I'll kill you."

May God Bless and keep the POPE safe from all harm as he continues to follow God's mighty will. (many, many prayers are needed, folks)

I'm not understanding the Condi thing either, except that the Pope has expressed his displeasure regarding the Iraq war.....and this may have something to do with his decision.

I happen to be of the mind that President Bush's decision to invade Iraq was the correct decision and that we should continue to have a strong presence there until we are no longer needed *as defined by the emerging, strong leaders of that country* - I would think 20-30 years would be enough time to withdraw.

Though, would he stand up in the same way for Buddhists or Hindus? I don't think so. He's only concerned about his own "sheep", of course.

Takekaze, I can answer your question. Would the Pope stand up for Buddhists or Hindus? Yes, he would, and he has.

If you want to stake out the Pope's reasoning on the themes of truth and religious pluralism, I strongly recommend reading his book Truth and Tolerance (authored under his name, Joseph Ratzinger).

Delusional. It's what Christians are when speaking about religious violence. I am not saying Islam is tolerant. It is certainly not. But Christians have a very short memory. What about, for example, the massacre of a million Tutsis in Randa (1994) by the Christian militia groups the Interahamwe and the Impuzamugambi? Militia Groups lead sometimes by priests. And what a great Pop, this guy that served in the Nazi army.

Laura: Try to get your facts straight before you post - 800,000 Tutsis were massacred - a terrible number of course - but not a "million." Neither the Interahamwe nor the Impuzamugambi were specifically Christian. What they did, of course, was against the basic tenants of Christianity. And the Pope, who was then a young student, was DRAFTED by the Nazis.

You know, you all should really stop looking to the MSM for news about Pope Benedict or the Catholic Church. As with all things, the MSM routinely gets it wrong, and it over sensationalizes. Contrary to reports and blog posts, Pope Benedict has not "returned" to the traditional role of defender of the faith, and he has not "given up" on appeasement. The truth is, he never stopped defending the faith and he never attempted to appease and he never apologized for the Regensburg address.

He has consistently and repeatedly called for religious freedom everywhere, as well as demanding reciprocity in non-Christian countries. This address is nothing new. Pope Benedict has been saying these things all along for anyone who has cared to listen (which, sadly, appears not to include many of the people here -- this is not the first time I have had to comment that folks should stop relying on the MSM's reporting on the Pope or the Church).

Just a few of the many remarks Pope Benedict has made regarding religious freedom for Christians, including those in Muslim areas --

"A robust democratic society depends on its ability to uphold and protect religious freedom—a basic right inherent in the very dignity of the human person. It is therefore essential to safeguard citizens who belong to religious minorities from acts of violence. Such protection not only accords with human dignity but also contributes to the common good. During an era in which threats against religious freedom are becoming more ominous throughout the world, I encourage Pakistan to bolster its efforts in securing freedom for people to live, worship, and perform works of charity according to the dictates of their conscience and with immunity from intimidation."
-- Address to the new ambassador of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to the Holy See, June 1, 2007

"I wish to reiterate the concern expressed by the Synod Fathers about the grave difficulties affecting the mission of those Christian communities in areas where Christians are a minority or where they are denied religious freedom. (239) We should surely give thanks to the Lord for all those Bishops, priests, consecrated persons and laity who devote themselves generously to the preaching of the Gospel and practise their faith at the risk of their lives. In not a few parts of the world, simply going to church represents a heroic witness that can result in marginalization and violence. Here too, I would like to reaffirm the solidarity of the whole Church with those who are denied freedom of worship. As we know, wherever religious freedom is lacking, people lack the most meaningful freedom of all, since it is through faith that men and women express their deepest decision about the ultimate meaning of their lives."
-- Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis, February 22, 2007

"Peace is based on respect for the rights of all. Conscious of this, the Church champions the fundamental rights of each person. In particular she promotes and defends respect for the life and the religious freedom of everyone. Respect for the right to life at every stage firmly establishes a principle of decisive importance: life is a gift which is not completely at the disposal of the subject. Similarly, the affirmation of the right to religious freedom places the human being in a relationship with a transcendent principle which withdraws him from human caprice. The right to life and to the free expression of personal faith in God is not subject to the power of man. Peace requires the establishment of a clear boundary between what is at man's disposal and what is not: in this way unacceptable intrusions into the patrimony of specifically human values will be avoided. . . . As far as the free expression of personal faith is concerned, another disturbing symptom of lack of peace in the world is represented by the difficulties that both Christians and the followers of other religions frequently encounter in publicly and freely professing their religious convictions. Speaking of Christians in particular, I must point out with pain that not only are they at times prevented from doing so; in some States they are actually persecuted, and even recently tragic cases of ferocious violence have been recorded. There are regimes that impose a single religion upon everyone, while secular regimes often lead not so much to violent persecution as to systematic cultural denigration of religious beliefs. In both instances, a fundamental human right is not being respected, with serious repercussions for peaceful coexistence. This can only promote a mentality and culture that is not conducive to peace."
-- Message for the World Day of Peace, January 1, 2007

"In the present circumstances, marked little by light and too much by darkness, it is a cause of consolation and hope for me to know that the Christian communities in the Middle East, whose intense suffering I am well aware of, continue to be vital and active communities, resolute in bearing witness to their faith with their specific identity in the societies in which they are situated. . . . In fact, is it not a grace to be able to participate in the sufferings of Christ, uniting oneself to the action with which he took unto himself our sins in order to atone for them? May Catholic communities, often living in difficult situations, be aware of the powerful force which emanates from suffering accepted with love. Such suffering can change the hearts of others and the heart of the world. . . . In the present situation Christians are called to be courageous and steadfast in the power of the Spirit of Christ, knowing that they can count on the closeness of their brothers and sisters in the faith scattered throughout the world."
-- Christmas Message to Catholics living in Middle East regions, December 21, 2006

"The civil authorities of every democratic country are duty bound to guarantee the effective freedom of all believers and to permit them to organize freely the life of their religious communities. Naturally it is my hope that believers, whichever religious community they belong to, will continue to benefit from these rights, since I am certain that religious liberty is a fundamental expression of human liberty and that the active presence of religions in society is a source of progress and enrichment for all. This assumes, of course, that religions do not seek to exercise direct political power, as that is not their province, and it also assumes that they utterly refuse to sanction recourse to violence as a legitimate expression of religion."
-- Address to the diplomatic corps of the Republic of Turkey, November 28, 2006

"The lessons of the past must therefore help us to seek paths of reconciliation, in order to live with respect for the identity and freedom of each individual, with a view to fruitful co-operation in the service of all humanity. As Pope John Paul II said in his memorable speech to young people at Casablanca in Morocco, "Respect and dialogue require reciprocity in all spheres, especially in that which concerns basic freedoms, more particularly religious freedom. They favour peace and agreement between peoples" (no. 5)."
-- Address to ambassadors of countries with a Muslim majority, September 25, 2006

"no citizen of India, especially the weak and the underprivileged, should ever have to experience discrimination for any reason, especially based on ethnic or religious background or social position. . . . The disturbing signs of religious intolerance which have troubled some regions of the nation, including the reprehensible attempt to legislate clearly discriminatory restrictions on the fundamental right of religious freedom, must be firmly rejected as not only unconstitutional, but also as contrary to the highest ideals of India’s founding fathers, who believed in a nation of peaceful coexistence and mutual tolerance between different religions and ethnic groups."
-- Address to the new ambassador of India, May 18, 2006

"peace is rooted in respect for religious freedom, which is a fundamental and primordial aspect of the freedom of conscience of individuals and of the freedom of peoples. It is important that everywhere in the world every person can belong to the religion of his choice and practise it freely without fear, for no one can base his life on the quest for material well-being alone."
-- Address to five new ambassadors to the Holy See, May 18, 2006

As noted in an earlier post, I'm glad to hear that Ratzinger now agrees that "religious liberty ... is a fundamental, irrepressible, inalienable and inviolable right."

It is unfortunately the case that the actual doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church as documented in its encyclicals does not agree with what the pope said. Example below from "The Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX."

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true. -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851.

RKV: I don't want us to keep going around in circles, so maybe we need a more authoritative opinion here. But do you agree, or disagree, that the Vatican II documents superseded the Syllabus of Errors Condemned by Pius IX?

How could Vatican II superceed the infallible (ex cathedra) encyclicals of Pius? Or was Pius wrong in the first place, and therefore papal encyclicals are fallible?

Again, the Pope's statements are fine as far as they go, which is, in my opinion, no where near far enough based on the historical record.

Charlene: Some sources are saying 800 000, others more than a million (Reuters, AP). Sorry but, they are Christian militia groups... killing other Christians (by the way).

But, if you prefer an Islam-Christian war, we can talk about Nigeria where thousand have been killed since the introduction of Islamic law in 2000. Christians are also killing. In February 2006, the famous Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola said: "May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation". He also said: "CAN may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue." CAN stands for Christian Association of Nigeria. And a few days later they did killed again.

And what about Muslims and Christians killing each other daily in Sudan.

Or should we talk about the Orthodox Christian militia Serbs and the Catholics Croats that killed Muslim Bosnians and Kosovars, in the 1990s.

Or should we mention the attacks on Hindus by young Christians in India, like for example the one in Alirajpur (jan 10, 2004).

Or should we talk about the war that is opposing Protestant militia groups and Christian ones in Ulster for years and years.

And let's try to not forget the fights between Muslims and Christians in Indonesia, Azerbaijan, Philippines, etc.

And what about Cyprus where the UN peacekeeping troops have been holding Christian Greeks and Muslim Turks apart for three decades, lest they slaughter each other.

And in our own country when fundamentalist extremists occasionally kill doctors and nurses at American abortion clinics.

Don't forget the West Virginia textbook war in 1974. Fundamentalists decided that new Kanawha County schoolbooks were "godless." They held stormy protests, staged a school boycott and turned violent. Schools were dynamited. Two people were shot. School buses had bullet holes.

Enough?

This post hit the nail on the head. The key to defeating Islamism is to confront the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the evil ideology. This was how Reagan beat the Bolshevik Communists and won the Cold War.

Islamists are much more concerned about the Pope's remarks than that of the secular politicians for two reasons.The first is that the Pope is much better equipped than most other political leaders to successfully engage Islamists ideologically. The second reason is that historically Christians have had greater success than anyone else at rolling back Islamists gains and in the current phase of this war Conservative Evangelical, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox play key roles in the opposition to the Islamist agenda.

Both Christianity and Islam are on the rise where other religions are stagnating and secularism is in retreat. The global culture war will be increasingly defined in terms of Christianity vs Islam with everyone else aligning themselves with one pole or the other

RKV:

You don't understand the infallibility doctrine. Papal encyclicals are not infallible according to Catholic doctrine.

Laura - The degree of moral equivilence shown in your post is staggering. With a couple of (pretty minor) exceptions, the Christian violence you cite is defensive. Islam marches into Christian territory to conquer with the sword and eventually the local put-upon Christians retaliate/defend themselves. You then condemn the Christians for their violence.

If this speach is calling out the Muslims, isn't also calling out the Democrats?

There are some who believe that it is legitimate to destroy human life in its earliest or final stages. Equally troubling is the growing crisis of the family, which is the fundamental nucleus of society based on the indissoluble bond of marriage between a man and a woman. Experience has shown that when the truth about man is subverted or the foundation of the family undermined, peace itself is threatened and the rule of law is compromised, leading inevitably to forms of injustice and violence.

doesn't this say abortion, euthanasia and same sex marriage lead to injustice and violence.