Which Road will the Pope Take?

Re: 46
yeah exactly: what a shame. So, who is going to Hell exactly, You or Pope and pope-worshippers?. Or you still want to dodge this inter-faith issue?

mishra: I`d like to know the amusement you recieved from my messages. The issue should always included all the faiths. But people here find it hard to stick to a topic, and you did exactly the same. I said earlier that I was talking about the pope in the ``general context``. I was talking specifically about him and him alone. I would have liked more debate on the original issues (Turkey, Muslim immigration to Europe, his criticism of multi-culturalism in Europe etc.).

Sadly, all those topics have been sidelined by senesless discussion about how the Muslim leaders should act and how Islamic leaders should initiate dialogue etc etc. Only a few hve actually talked about these points. It always ends up being an Indo-Pak, Muslim-Christian, Muslim-Hindu debate, and it doesn`t need to be that way. What a shame.

A.Khan

Amusing set of messages, including some from the author. It now appears that the issue is christian-muslim relations (why call it ``inter-faith`` relations then???) and that somehow the pope owes the muslims something. Why is that I wonder? Why doesnt the religous leadership of islam owe the Christians some ``inter-faith`` relations? Is it a good thing to have islam claim that it ``supercedes`` christianity? Is this a sustainable position in 2005?

It reminds me of the time that I took a ride with a pakistani taxi driver in NYC ten years ago. As I speak hindu/urdu we were in no time discussing peace/amity etc. Somehow the conversation turned to Salman Rushdie, and, of course, there was no doubt in his mind that he should be killed. He saw no contradiction between his claims of peace/amity and the attitude that a muslim ``apostate`` should be murdered. He would have been astonished to be described as an extremist in any way. Something similar is going on in this discussion.

bbabu: This article was never an attack on anyone, it was just an account of sorts of what he has said in the the past and how he might act. There were no flying allegations or anything of that sorts.

Also, anyone can comment on anyone else irrespective of where he/she is from. Too bad you think otherwise. Every article on this website does not need to be about Islamic extremism etc etc. If you think so, then you are one of the few religious bigots hangin around on this website. In any case, I will stop discussing this matter with you because this discussion is going nowhere.

A. Khan

Re# 39

``i think its fair to leave the indian, chinese, japanese, koreans out of the interfaith dialog since they dont have conflicts based on religion amongs nation-states. i would looove to see an interfaith dialog prime-time among

pope and the grand mufti of al-azar
falwell and fazlu
pipes and al-zawahiri

they should start with the first sin, and go to more interesting topics like the role of jews. ``


Nope, they should start with who-is-going-to-burn-eternally-in-Hell issue and that will be the end of the ``Inter-faith Dialogue``.

akpower #38

`` Ozer: I agree Turkey is a multi-faceted country. Its inclusion or the lack of it should be based on what it can bring to the table as far as the EU is concerned. Religion should not form the basis of any decision.

Also, every dialogue of such nature should be free of any suspicions/mistrust. I understand that there is a fair amount of history between most of the faiths in the world, but unless we go with a clear mind and an honest intention, any sort of a forward stride is out of question. ``

EU is more than a free trading treaty. It allows for a common currency, common legal code for business, immigration etc. It is hard to allow for such an agreement with a country where some people think honor killings are alright !!! Some conservative Kurds have such practises. Turkey has evolved a lot. I have nothing but respect for them. But they have distance to go before their culture/religion/other baggage is not an obstacle.

akpower #35

`` bbabu: 1stly mind ur language. We can discuss this issue maturely so please don`t show your calibre by bad-mouthing others. 2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline. It is a very convenient way to blame it on Muslims. No one has stopped them from going to churches. Besides, the Muslim population in Europe is still very small and not influential at all to cause any such trends. As for Turkey, you answered your own question. It is for the EU to make the decision. The Pope should stay out of it and not make such remarks that might portray a negative image of him in the Muslim world. The EU is a political/economic organization and should not have any thing to do with religion. ``

Sorry if I hit a nerve

The Pope has the right to express his opinion. I hold no brief for him. I do not know anything about the new pope. The article by the original author seems like an pre-emptive attack on the pope with respect to immigration and Turkey. The pope has a bigger say and right to express his opinions on the matter than someone from South Asia. I find the fretting about the Pope comical when you have far bigger rascals in your midst.

My opinion is that Turkey does not deserve to be in the EU as a full member. Give them full trading privileges but no immigration and political rights. That needs to wait for a couple of decades.

Ditto for some of the East European states !!!

Another article from Counter Punch (www.counterpunch.com)

Ciao

****************************************************

Triumph of the Theo-Cons
Pope Benedict XVI, a Rightwing Politician
By VICENTE NAVARRO

In most of the media coverage of Cardinal Ratzinger`s election as successor to John Paul II, he has been presented as very conservative on moral and religious issues. His opposition to legalizing abortion, homosexual marriage, and the ordination of women and his support for continuing the celibacy of priests and other church traditions, all have contributed to his reputation as a profoundly conservative religious person. Not much has been said, however, about his political views, except his being a member of the youth branch of the Nazi Party in Germany (the Hitler Youth). This was mentioned, then quickly dismissed as having no significance, since, as the Herald Tribune (21 April 2005) noted, ``Everybody had to be enrolled in Hitler Youth at that time.`` Otherwise, his political positions have been overlooked, ignored, or set aside as having no relevance.

The reality, however, is quite different. Ratzinger is profoundly political. And his political positions are more than conservative, they are ultra-right-wing. He was one of the most ultra-right cardinals of recent times. I will elaborate on this, but first, let`s dispense with the claim that every young person in Germany at that time was in the Hitler Youth. That is nonsense. Many young Germans, including Catholics, not only refused to join the Hitler Youth but fought against Hitler in a courageous and principled way. In a village near where the young Ratzinger lived (near Marktl ­ a mere 15 miles from Braunau, Hitler`s birthplace), two thousand Catholics signed a petition protesting the Nazi order to remove crucifixes from schoolrooms. In Munich, where Ratzinger later became archbishop, twenty Catholic students were executed in 1942 for distributing anti-Nazi leaflets at the university. They became known as the White Rose -- die weisse Rose. There was an anti-war resistance in Germany, including a Catholic resistance, which Ratzinger never joined, supported, or recognized. Even later, when Germany regained democracy, Bishop Ratzinger of Munich never paid tribute to those who had been killed because of their commitment to liberty and freedom. Among them, incidentally, were many communists, whom Ratzinger had defined as ``scum.``

There is no evidence that Ratzinger was a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer. But there is plenty of evidence that he was an opportunist who went along pursuing his personal ambitions, regardless of what was happening around him. He indicated early in life that he wanted to become a cardinal. And recently ­ a mere two years ago ­ he confided to another person that he expected to become Pope. Spanish public television showed a postcard that Ratzinger sent two years ago to a person in Spain, which he signed ``Pope Benedict XVI,`` the name he took when he indeed became Pope. This contradicts his recent statement that he did not want to become Pope. In fact, when he finally was chosen, reports indicate that he accepted quickly, firmly, and without any hesitation. If he did not want to become Pope, he could have stopped the active campaigning on his behalf by the influential ultra-right Opus Dei. He did not do so.

Let`s return to Ratzinger`s youth. One of the cardinals who most impressed him was Cardinal Faulhaber, then archbishop of Munich, who founded the boarding school where young Ratzinger studied (and later, in 1951, ordained him). Cardinal Faulhaber was an open Nazi sympathizer. According to Ratzinger`s brother, Georg, Joseph joined the Hitler Youth to get a scholarship that would allow him to continue his studies at Faulhaber`s boarding school.

During all his years in Germany, Ratzinger never in his writings publicly condemned the Holocaust, and, as late as 2000, he referred to the Catholic Church`s collaboration with the Hitler regime as a sign of ``a certain insufficiency of Catholics in front of the Holocaust because of the anti-Semitism that existed in the souls of many of them`` (emphasis added). A ``certain insufficiency`` is a dramatic understatement.

Ratzinger did not travel much in his youth and early adulthood. He was in many different ways a typical priest in the most conservative state of Germany, Bavaria. He was close to the Christian Union Party, the political branch of the very conservative Bavarian Catholic Church. This was the most right-wing party in the German parliament after World War II. It governed Bavaria for more than sixty years, establishing a link between Church and state that enormously benefited both the Catholic Church and Ratzinger. Ratzinger was a close friend of the leader of the Christian Union Party, Franz Josef Strauss, who was prime minister of Bavaria for the longest period in German history.

Ratzinger`s ultra-conservatism made him an attractive figure to the Vatican. He was made a cardinal shortly after being appointed bishop of Munich. He was strongly hostile to students protesting the Vietnam War in the 1960s, calling them ``ideological terrorists.`` He was eventually appointed head of the Inquisition (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), soon overseeing a record number of condemnations by that tribunal. One of his priorities as head of the Inquisition was to ban and destroy the Christian liberation movement that had surged in Latin America in protest against the Catholic hierarchy`s support of fascist and ultra-right dictatorships. He was assisted in this task by Cardinal Sodano, a close friend of dictator Pinochet (see my article Opus Dei and the Pope, 8 April 2005). Sodano referred to one of the leaders of the liberation theology movement, Mr. Boff, as a ``Judas of Christ.`` The first decision Ratzinger made when he became Pope, incidentally, was to appoint Sodano his deputy -­ in Vatican parlance, Secretary of State. Moreover, to make sure the other cardinals and bishops would not interpret that appointment as a mere renewal (Sodano was already Secretary of State under John Paul II), Ratzinger stressed that this was a special appointment to last at least four years. Sodano`s fascist sympathies are well documented.

Having been the candidate of Opus Dei (see my previous article), Ratzinger has encouraged Christians to become involved in political life that adheres to his teachings, which are ultra-right-wing. Ratzinger took his name from Benedict XV, the spiritual founder of Christian Democracy, whose primary purpose was to halt the surge of socialism in Europe. Ratzinger has preached anti-communism his entire life, interpreting communism very broadly (as do most ultra-right politicians) to include a lot of left and even center left parties. He has been very critical (hostile may be a better word) of the Spanish social democratic government led by Zapatero, accusing it of being open to moral decay.

Ratzinger has not made any statements about the Church`s concern with social justice or poverty, or similar rhetorical statements, as the previous Pope was inclined to do. Ratzinger is more down to earth and dispenses with these niceties. His primary and only concern is for the purity and strength of the Church as a temporal power. His enormous personal ambition fueled his strategy to be elected Pope from an early stage in the campaign, immediately after the death of John Paul II. Assisted by Opus Dei, very powerful under the John Paul II papacy, Ratzinger`s campaign distributed documents among the cardinals that, according to the Milanese paper La Stampa, presented a picture of decay and moral laxity among the clergy in Europe, Latin America, and the U.S. He wanted to stress that the Vatican had a moral problem on its hands that needed to be corrected by a strong leader. His next step was to give a very uncompromising speech at the opening of the cardinals` meetings to elect the Pope, forbidding all cardinals to make any statements outside the conclave ­ a norm imposed under the threat of excommunication, a Vatican norm that Ratzinger felt he needed to remind the cardinals about, even though most of them (115 of 120) were appointed by John Paul II. A leading campaigner for Ratzinger was Cardinal Sodano. One of Ratzinger`s first decisions, besides making Sodano his right-hand man, was to increase the age of retirement for bishops and cardinals from 75 to 80 years of age, as they had requested.

Surrounded by what the Italian press has called the ``theo-cons,`` Ratzinger has a political project aimed at strengthening conservative forces worldwide, but particularly in Europe, supposedly awash in moral decay. His intervention in political matters is very aggressive. In Spain, for example, the Vatican has given instructions to Catholic civil servants to sabotage enforcement of the civil union law that applies to homosexuals. The Vatican`s hostility to the socialist government of Spain ­ which has eliminated Catholic teaching as a compulsory subject in public schools, while maintaining it as an elective; has made it easier to get a divorce; has legalized homosexuals` civil unions, including their right to adopt children; and is planning to expand the law on abortion, which until now has allowed abortion only on medical and social grounds ­ has reached extreme and overtly hostile levels. Seeing Spain as its territory, the Church cannot accept the secular and democratic processes that have been occurring in that country since the end of the Franco regime ­ one of Europe`s cruelest fascist dictatorships (for every political assassination by Mussolini in Italy, Franco killed ten thousand), supported by the Catholic Church. Today, in Spain, the Church is one of the least trusted and least liked institutions, particularly among the young. Only 14% of young people are practicing Catholics. Actually, this lack of popularity of the Church is evident in all countries. In the Latin American countries, the largest granary of Catholics in the world, the number of Catholics has fallen by 25 million over the past ten years, as they have moved to Protestant churches. And the number of priests is declining most dramatically. Even in the new Pope`s Germany, the most recent poll among university students shows that 83% thought the Church was either in crisis or dying. In this poll, more Germans opposed Ratzinger`s becoming Pope than favored it.

Still, more than 1,200 million of the world`s people are Catholic. And the Church, with 4,700 bishops and 400,000 priests, is a formidable organization that can do a lot of harm. The Vatican`s prohibition of condom use, for example, has been a major factor in the spread of AIDS in Africa. As Mithela Wrong of Nigeria has written (New Statesman, 11 April 05), ``The Vatican has done more to spread AIDs in Africa than all the prostitutes of that Continent combined.`` And the Vatican`s support for oligarchic regimes in Latin America (including Duvalier`s in Haiti) has created enormous poverty. The Pope and many of the cardinals form an ultra-right leadership that has become a source of religious and political fundamentalism that threatens progress worldwide. While much has been written about the threat of Muslim fundamentalism, not much has been said about the threat posed by this Catholic fundamentalism. It is time that people recognized it. As Umberto Ecco recently wrote, ``It almost seems like we are going back to the middle Ages.``

---

Vicente Navarro is Professor of Public Policy at Johns Hopkins University, USA and Pompeu Fabra University, Spain. Navarro contributed an essay on Salvidor Dali`s fascist ties for CounterPunch`s collection on art, culture and politics: Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at: navarro@counterpunch.org

i think its fair to leave the indian, chinese, japanese, koreans out of the interfaith dialog since they dont have conflicts based on religion amongs nation-states. i would looove to see an interfaith dialog prime-time among

pope and the grand mufti of al-azar
falwell and fazlu
pipes and al-zawahiri

they should start with the first sin, and go to more interesting topics like the role of jews.

Raw dust: I said weakness in faith of ``Catholics not Catholicism``. I dont want to get entangled in another sub-issue, but there has been a decline in the number of church-goers in Europe. And pls guyz, I am not generalizing, but that has been the treand in Europe in the last 2-3 decades at least.

Quite a few writers have touched on that, and I have also come across atleast a couple of reports that talk about this subject. That is all i said and meant. As far as the reasons are concerned, i wouldn`t want to delve into them.

Ozer: I agree Turkey is a multi-faceted country. Its inclusion or the lack of it should be based on what it can bring to the table as far as the EU is concerned. Religion should not form the basis of any decision.

Also, every dialogue of such nature should be free of any suspicions/mistrust. I understand that there is a fair amount of history between most of the faiths in the world, but unless we go with a clear mind and an honest intention, any sort of a forward stride is out of question.

Adeel Khan:

“East is East, West is West, never the twain shall meet”. Rudyard Kipling

This myopic phrase runs in tandem with Samuel Huntington`s jibes concerning “A Clash of Civilizations”. Admittedly events in the comity of international relations have exacerbated such anorexic trepidation. This creepy foreboding should be dispelled and redressed.

Turkey, in this regard stands as a litmus test. A reverential bridge between the Orient and the Occident. Tradition and Modernity. Islam and Christianity.

My name is Ozer, and Im half-Turkish. I would like to expand on a theme referred to in your revealing article: The EU and its rapport vis-à-vis Turkey. Although Turkey has walked the tight-rope to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria, Brussels is still reticently lukewarm about signaling the green light to accession, due to various imperatives: mostly strategic and economic.

I feel that Turkey should opt for the “politics of variable geometry” with the EU, signaling a moderated yet close bi-lateral partnership agreement, where she gets to pick certain policy undercurrents without sheepishly bowing down to every Eurocratic whim. Fat cats cozily sitting in Brussels should not eclipse Turkey`s foreign policy flexibility.

Turkey cannot entirely forego Europe, but she can strategically re-align herself with Asia and the Middle East including a de jure rapprochement with the Developing 8 of which Pakistan is a signatory. Turkey stands a lot to gain through the policy of re-alignment: namely an entrée to gas pipelines in Central Asia, vital networks to the oil-rich Gulf states and a strengthening within the OIC via her jealously guarded links to NATO.

That way the Turkish vessel can sail both sides of the blue Bosphorus: Asia and Europe. Anchoring your ship along the beautiful tides of the Turkish Bosphorus requires no sanction. From no one. The limitless existence of its blue is irrevocable. Geographical anachronisms such as “East” and “West” pale into clown-like rhetorical insignificance.

As a half Turkish half Pakistani citizen Im proud of both my ancestries: I do feel that Turkey is the cradle of civilization: a kaleidoscopic bridge between East and West: Istanbul bears testimony to this: with a collage of mosques doting the city side-by-side with a buzzing nightlife, visitors witness an electrically copious embodiment of delicious multi-cultural fusion.

Such diversity is multi-faceted, ranging from the momentous literature of Orhan Pamuk to the luminous fusion cuisine at some of Turkey`s top eateries. Fashion designers too have harnessed silhouettes bearing craftsmanship from both the Orient and the Occident.

Allama Iqbal and Jellalludin Rumi strove hard in exhorting a bedrock of multi-religious multi-cultural synnergy, surely “Chowki” columnists can come up with viable stratagems of how to further a multi-cultural dialogue ? Afterall wasn`t this the raison d`etre of the Chowki electronic forum to begin with ?

The invitation to multi-culturalism is a timeless one.

But time is a revocable privilege !

Mr. Writer care to elaborate what you meant by this
``2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline.``

what are the weaknesses of Catholicism?

And did you happen to see an inter-faith issue in my #5.?

bbabu: 1stly mind ur language. We can discuss this issue maturely so please don`t show your calibre by bad-mouthing others. 2ndly, the weakness in faith of Catholics and Christians in general have attributed to the decline. It is a very convenient way to blame it on Muslims. No one has stopped them from going to churches. Besides, the Muslim population in Europe is still very small and not influential at all to cause any such trends. As for Turkey, you answered your own question. It is for the EU to make the decision. The Pope should stay out of it and not make such remarks that might portray a negative image of him in the Muslim world. The EU is a political/economic organization and should not have any thing to do with religion.

mohar: Calm your nerves! Dont get agitated. I was talking JUST about the Pope and how he may or may not react to certain issues. I wasnt talking about the Pope in the ``general context of world politics and the overall global situation at present``. So yes, my article had nothing to do with Islamic extremism. Its a shame that most people find it wfully hard to stick to a topic here at chowk.

feroz: I absolutely think that ALL faiths need to be part of this discussion/dialogue. But since most of the socio-econo-political trends in the world depend on countries that our mainly Christian, Muslim and Jew (I know only Israel is a Jew country but we all know how much influence they have on the whole world, especially on US), I think they have to be the prime ``talkers``. Another thing is that these three religions have alot of ``history`` between them, so a more comprehensive dialogue between them is needed to iron out certain differences that still exist. But yes, other faiths should also be part of a larger interaction.

A. Khan

`` A statement such as this easily fits into the thinking of the traditional school of Catholic thought, which is of the view that the ever-increasing number of Muslims in Europe poses a constant threat to Catholic culture. It also tends to project that the decline of Christianity in Europe has nothing to do with weakness in faith of its own people and everything to do with the rising influence of Islam in the continent. Such a view, if accepted by European countries, might further sideline Muslims in Europe by imposing laws and regulations that will push them away from the basics of their religion – like the law that banned headscarves in France. ``

It is natural the church will be concerned about decline in Catholicism. The rising influence of Islam has to do with immigration. Immigration of poor Middle Eastern Muslims is unpopular across every European country. It is a matter of time it gets stopped.

`` Pope Benedict XVI, Mr.Ratzinger’s papal name, has also gone on record to say that he is against Turkey’s induction into the European Union. “Turkey has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe,`` he told the Paris newspaper Le Figaro, “Europe was founded not on geography, but on a common faith. We have to redefine what Europe is, and we cannot stop at positivism.”

This is a disturbing thought which only reflects religious favoritism, if one puts it politely. The idea that an Islamic Turkey cannot merge with a Christian Europe not only is a Stone-Age point of view but also is a slap on the face of Europe’s pronounced multi-culturalism and secularism. He has also mentioned his intention to have a dialogue with Jews, but has yet to say anything similar pertaining to Muslims. ``

I think you are uninformed person or a plain hypocrite or worse a bigot.

Why shouldn`t the EU make its own decision on Turkey ? Turkey has to prove it is worthy of membership in the EU. A country that denies the right of citizens (Kurds) to call themself what they want or speak/write in their own language. Imagine the furor if India put a ban on Urdu and ban on Arabic names.

re: Echoboom # 31

Thanks!

re: Mohar11 # 32

Religious extremism is very resurgent these days.

re: akpower

I have a question for you. When you were talking about an interfaith dialogue between the Abramhic faiths, do you realize it would be a limited dialogue if you do not include Hinduism and Buddhism in this dialogue?

Ciao

Re: # 27
//...There is no connection to Islamic extremism in this article....//

Well, I guess - I will have to drill into your thick head so that you understand the connection. For a start, Read that article posted by ferozk. It`s talking about all sorts of fundamentalism manifesting themselves. With rise of this Pope, the fundamentalism is not limited to muslims anymore. Now catholics have thrown their hats into the ring.

This guy Pope benedickk is a jacka$$ who is emerging a perfect counter-part to Mullahs. Idelologically, there is hardly any difference between these people - it`s the same medieval mindset - ``my faith better than everybody else, secularism is a sin .... blah blah blah.``

This guy Pop dicKkkhead is going pour more fuel to the already burning fire of islamic fundamentalism around the world. He has already made that clear.

Now - do you see the connection?

ferozek:30
The reference is to hamidm2`s spelling doberman as `dobermann` ( with two `n`). Only non-jewish germans have two `n` names.

That French Cardinal, Lasinger, who was a jew & could have been the new-pope is not the reference here.

Re: Echoboom # 29

Echo, are you sure about the Jewish identity?

My understanding was that it was a French cardinal, who was Jewish and converted to Catholic faith to escape the Nazis.

Ciao

hamidm:28
....dobermanns and rottweillers are benign beings compared to rabid humans of the religious persuasion .........

Amendment: The DNA tests reveal that rottweiller & dobermann (one with chopped off `n` is a clear giveaway of the breed being jewish) he was before he saw the Holy See.

He is a German Shepherd now, the rabid Han-umans of the ridiculous persuasion please note.

---

As Blondie of the good, the bad and the ugly would say:

`` There are only two kind of people in this world: the Mullah and the Tullah``
(Tullahs, for the uninformed, are all the Naapaak uniformed ones & their cantonement & civil-line cousins.)

from now on CHOWK would be divided between the Tullahs or the Mullahs. You`re either with us or with them. There is no ``No-Man`s land`` here except of course for the Famenists (famished-for-men).

But!

A Tullah may also be a Mullah, when he shows up, he would be called Rehmatullah. Maybe he is just around the corner.

---

Re: # 27

akapower,

.... i agree with you when you say, ``There is no connection to Islamic extremism in this article``......... however, on this forum everything ends up in a urinal contest between the horrible hindoos and the pathetic pakis - everyone gets wet in the process, but we like it ........ there is nothing like the smell of urea on a nice spring day .......

.......... as for this new clown in robes, the title ``god`s rottweiller`` is quite appropriate even though, as a dog lover , i must protest ......... dobermanns and rottweillers are benign beings compared to rabid humans of the religious persuasion .........

Re: # 13

Bringing in the history or present situation of either India or Pakistan into this article, which has no connection to it whatsoever, is lame. Only people who can offer no useful argument to this discussion would come up with something like this.

Re: #18

There is no connection to Islamic extremism in this article. Its kind of sad, that I just wrote an article about the new Pope and whatever little I have heard of him but people turned to something else. What you say or feel about Pakistanis is just how YOU feel. You would like to think that Pakistanis have no credibility. The scenario is totally different actually, but you would disagree with that for obvious reasons.

In any case, it is irrelevant if I am Pakistani or Indian or Arab or Persian. Its what I said matters, and nothing else. Period

Most people here are unable to get out of their narrow-mindedness to discuss something that is very legitimate and something that is also being debated in many other places; and guess what, alot of those places are non-Muslim.

I am surprised at the majority of the membership here at chowk. I am new here and on first look chowk has some very good articles on its website. Too bad the members don`t quite understand the quality of writing here. They can`t get themselves out of the religious and racial hatred/intolarence that surrounds their thought process. Its a pity.

Re: # 23

thanatos,

......... i am flattered - take my hand, stop being a tithe payer (although the tax advantages are significant) and together we shall rule the world ............. i think you will make a fine disciple if you can get rid of all those funny ideas that you have picked up from the mind-benders ............ and you can bring along your brother hypnos (aka urstruly) when he returns from his annual trip to the festival of fools in raiwind ...........

...persephone sends her regards ..............

re: hamidm2 # 22

I think that your initial post was more accurate, because as a I was surfing the web engaging in my daily reading routine, I came across the article, which I feel must be be made a part of this debate. I think that you will appreciate it, because it is really interesting. The article is from Counterpunch.

Ciao

**************

God`s Rottweiller
Pope Ratzinger`s Pie-in-the Sky for the Masses
By MIKE WHITNEY

Imagine there’s no heaven; it’s easy if you try,
No hell below us; above us only sky.

“Imagine”, John Lennon

Marx was wrong. Religion isn’t the “opium of the masses”. Its effects are never that benign. No, religion is a shackle clasped to the mind of man, keeping him from utilizing the one thing that lifts him above the primordial swamp of fear and superstition; his inquiring mind.
The appointment of the new pope, Joseph Ratzinger, guarantees that that mental shackle will be cinched up a notch-or-two, and the papal caravan that’s winding back to the dark-ages will steadily gain in momentum. Wherever we look, the institutions that protect secular democracy are being uprooted from their moorings and tossed on the slag-heap. A right-wing ideologue, like Pope Benedict XVI, just puts the finishing touches on a global system that’s already dominated by Islamic fanatics, Jewish settler-extremists and Christian fundamentalists all brandishing the same cudgel of intolerance and all eager to force “infidels” to conform to their twisted doctrine.

Ratzinger is a particularly aggressive form of this modern-day sarcoma. His inflexible views should merge seamlessly with the chauvinism of Bush, Sharon and al Zarqawi. During his tenure at the Vatican he personally spearheaded the effort to elevate the Nazi-collaborating Pious XII to sainthood and led the charge to publicly humiliate candidates (like John Kerry) whose views on abortion and birth control were not consistent with his own. (by threatening to bar them from the sacraments) He also “publicly praised the fascist movement in the Church known as Opus Dei and supported the canonization of Josemaria Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, an open fascist who served in the government of Spain’s dictator Franco, and who publicly praised Hitler.” (quote from Rabbi Michael Lerner.)

Ratzinger’s critics have dubbed him “God’s rottweiller”; a sobriquet that captures his combative and polarizing style. He’s lived up to that title by taking the most stridently conservative positions on nearly every social issue. He summarized the women’s liberation movement by saying that “women should “follow the roles inscribed by her biology”; a comment that suggests women that should accept their traditional function as domesticated breeding-machines. It’s the same as saying that, “A woman’s place is in the home.” Not much changes in Rome in 2000 years.

On homosexuality, Ratzinger’s views are even more odious. He is quoted as saying that gays are inherently disposed “to intrinsic moral evil” and that their rights can be “legitimately limited”.
“Intrinsic moral evil”?

What unbelievable gall. This is the type of statement we would expect from a gay-bashing, white-supremacist, not the pope. No wonder America’s right-wing punditocracy is all a-twitter over his appointment; they know they’ve got a friend in Rome who shares their same world view. (And, by the way, it was an appointment. Despite the universal belief that some form of democratic process took place, the reality is that “John Paul appointed all but 2 of the men who elected the new pope” (al Jazeera) That’s as close to a sure thing as an Ohio optical scanner.)

Ratzinger, however, has been much more guarded in his opinions about pedophile priests. Perhaps, that has something to do with the various cover-ups that were arranged under his authority, like evacuating the serial-criminal Cardinal Law from the Boston diocese. Ratzinger was apparently involved in arranging a sinecure for Law in Rome to save the Boston Cardinal from facing felony charges at home.

In another story recently run by Reuters, “New Pope shelved sex abuse claim”, Alistair Bell shows that Ratzinger was directly involved in “deliberately shelving a probe into (sex abuse) claims for 6 years.” The allegations were filed with Ratzinger’s office at the Vatican and claim that 9 former members of the Legion of Christ were sexually abused by the order’s founder, Marcial Maciel.

By now, we all know the drill. Once the claims are filed, the church elders go into lockdown-mode and hide behind a wall of denial. What a joke; the same characters who feel free to wag their fingers at homosexuals and scold struggling parishioners about the sinfulness of birth control, sweep their own criminal activities under the Vatican doormat. The hypocrisy would make a Pharisee wince.

Ratzinger’s intolerance stretches well beyond homosexuals and women. In 1997 he said that Europeans were attracted to Buddhism for its “autoerotic spirituality” that offers “transcendence without imposing concrete obligations”. He has been equally dismissive of Hinduism saying that it offers “false hope” and condemns its adherents to a “morally cruel” concept of reincarnation that resembles “a continuous circle of hell”.

Similarly, Ratzinger laid out his belief that Catholicism is superior to other forms of Christianity in his theological treatise “Dominus Jesus” (Jesus is Lord”) The document angered many Protestants by its declaration that the real message of Christ, “subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him”. Skeptical Protestants took this to mean that the Catholic Church did not consider their churches as true.

As the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which was originally called the Office of the Inquisition) Ratzinger led the crusade to silence or remove dissenters, visionaries and progressives. The office served as the papal “thought police”; rooting out the liberals and bringing them into line with Catholic doctrine. Ratzinger’s aptitude for this new task won him the appellation “Cardinal Enforcer”, the high-priest of Catholic orthodoxy. In just a few short years he managed to stamp out “liberation theology”; (the fusing of Christianity with activism) crushing the aspirations of desperately impoverished people in their struggle for social justice.

To his credit, Ratzinger was a strong critic of the war in Iraq saying that the invasion “had no moral justification” and that the concept of “preventive war does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Nevertheless, we can only guess what his feelings may be about the broad-based, national liberation movement (“the insurgency”) that has sprouted up in reaction to the illegal occupation of Iraq.

Also, how will the new pope regard the nascent resistance movement in Haiti, where the democratically elected Aristide was removed in a coup organized by the United States? Judging by Ratzinger’s efforts to crush Latin American liberation theology, we can expect that the pope will condemn these indigenous movements aimed at reclaiming their country through force of arms. Ratzinger won’t be delivering any “fatwas” from Rome, nor has concept of “jihad” caught on in Vatican City. Instead, we can expect the plaintive appeals for “peace and justice” accompanied by tacit support to the powers that be. Traditional Church doctrine offers no relief for the struggles and suffering of the common man; just the “pie-in-the-sky” promise of an easier life in the netherworld. That won’t change under Ratzinger.

hamidm:20

Excerpt from `` The de-demonistion of hamidm2`` by Holey Seesaw. Printed by the Lucifer press.
ISBN 666.

``...the machines to beam little satans into humans were all assembled in the City Square. Who would have thought a few years ago that it would be machines that would come to the rescue of mankind to make a human out of a satan; but such is the lot of the satan community. Over the centuries such has been their lot, no one has ever shed a tear over the demise oftheir loved ones ever since Baba Shaitaan was unceremoniously & contemptously condemned from the Heavens and into the Hades..

..`` Mamaaa! I`m home. That is what our Grand Abba had said when he re-entered the fold. It has been a long long time and now the prodigal son has returned home to ``go forth & multiply``. Now those were not the exact words of blessing which were said to him at that primordial goodbye moment, but in satan-talk that is what would be its rough translation...

It has been years when the Fiery One had left his hometown in the Hades to seek a better fortune up up on the crust where it was still hot humid and hazy . The clime was not so hospitable for those used to the cinders & brimstones but then there was work. ``There`` in Hades everyone was already converted and every satan knows that you cannot convert the converted ..

So he boarded the Earthship and oared his way up & up on the Lava stream.

[ A few chapters after this talk about his abduction by the folks who had come from the
Land-of Lighted-ones. These folks considered the Earth/Hades folk as from the Land-of-the-ignited-ones``. Such is the story of the one who left Lava-land ( for that is what Hades was affectionately called by the purists who had found a piece of their own in Hades
to distinguish themselves from the ones who had gone astray; had started doing good deeds and nurturing illuminated thought. That sure was a sign that they were getting the lightbeams from somewhere]

Fastforward to last chapter, and the last millinium and a few lines about the de-demonisation itself:

..They came to the grotto where hamidm2 had been incarcerated and had refused to recant his rants against the religious and the ridiculous.

``Why do you do it ``? one Inquisitor Conquestidor asked him breathing his hot breath into hamidm2`s nostrils--as if hamidm2 really needed this oxygen

`` Why do you do it``? he insisted

Hamidm2 suddenly rose and peering down shouted in the ear of the man:

`` Because they are there``.

A riot, a pandemonium of utter abject silence greeted him instead.

Such eloquence, such profoundness and such pedantry had never ever graced the ears of the ruthless-one--for he was not a man of many books. He did not understand, comprehend, and figure out what all this meant `` Because they are there``. such answers were usually the style of those in their teens & for the teens everything is forgiveable until their youthmarrow is sucked dry and they start getting funnyideas of their own.

But this hamidm2 doesn`t seem to be growing up he is refusing to let funny ideas into his head instead he is kind of lark happy all the time, even in this grotto. He well knows that he cannot make an insanity plea because we already know that it is the insane who can only dare to talk such talk --and it is for that reason that we have invented these machines which can read minds and photocopy thoughts.

The real issue is not to know the thoughts; we already know that. It is that we always are in the neeed of tithe-payers and those who must serve by their leg-and-limb. It is for this reason that we need these hamidm2`s to get -de-demonised.....``

Re: # 21

ferozek,

...... that was a very sensible post - now i am ashamed of my rant against the poor old man !........... but you must admit that in this day and age, the pope does seem to be quite silly and irrelevant - not as silly as the queen of england, but silly never the less ........... sometimes i wonder if our ancestors, homo habilis and homo erectus, were not more intelligent than us ...........

re: Adeel Khan

The issue and concept of an inter-faith dialogue is a prickly one, because the only way and manner in which such a dialogue can happen is, and it is a huge if, if all faiths are willing to overcome their own religious philosophical doctrines of infallibility and admit to flaws within their own religions.

Secondly, Pope Bendict XVI`s biggest concern is not to encourage an inter-faith harmony between the Abramhic religions, but to arrest the decline of Catholicism in Europe. Europe is one of the most secular continents in the world and the new pope will be more interested to increase the appeal of the Catholic faith. As the situation stands right now, the shrinking appeal of religion to Europeans suggests a possibility that the Catholic Church might implode from a rapidily disappearing congregation.

Thirdly, this papacy is a transitory papacy. Bendict XVI was anointed pope to manage the transition to another papacy, which will be more profound and long tenured. Benedict XVI will offer stability and continuity to the church and his policies will be more inclined towards upholding status quo of the Catholic Church with the secular Europe.

As to his comments about Turkey, it should be noted that those comments will not influence EU policy, because the policy of EU is still secular and after all the bloodshed, which Europe has seen and experienced over the issue of religion and politics, it is very unlikely that the EU will once again allow religion to influence politics. Twenty years ago, no one in their right mind would have predicted that the EU would include the nations of the former Warsaw Pact nations and that Russia itself would be eager to join it. Politics is a very funny and unpredictable creature. Turkey`s joining of EU is simply a matter of self-interests and if it in in EU interest, then Turkey will be a EU member.

For example, there is a proposal to make China a member of SARRC. What does China have to do SARRC nations? The same arguments, about history and geography and religion, which are used by the Europeans against the Turks can also be applied to China by the SARRC nations.

International political economy is not about nationalism or sovereign rights; it is about transnationalism and global business opportunities. EU embodies these ideals and maybe in the near future, these interests and ideals will see the creation of a single economic bloc from the Pacific to the Atlantic as ASEAN joins EU with SARRC acting as the bridge uniting the two blocs together. Right now, this idea sounds like a fantasy, but then again; no predicted that Berlin Wall would fall down!

Ciao

....... the pope is a bad man .......

.......... look guys, i simply don`t understand how anyone can take a man in a funny hat and ridiculous robe seriously ........... just look at him ! ...... there he is, surrounded by cherubic choir boys in frocks and dirty old who should have been defrocked, babbling in a language that nobody understands and handing out cookies and wine ................ this is insanity !........

................ yet, apparantly sane people, are fawning and gushing over a man who presides over the biggest clandestine operation in the world - a group of thugs that has wreaked havoc on earth for centuries in the name of an cruel god and his imaginary son ............ you know what the conquistadors used to do in central america ?.......... they would baptize little babies and bash their brains out against a rock to ``save`` them ?........... by comparison the massacre at khandaq was a church picinic ........... now this man is chairman and ceo of the world`s biggest corporation built on loot and plunder and he is not accountable to anyone except ``Him``......... i say, tax the bas%#ds like everone else !............

........... and what about his links to hitler ?........... okay, i know he says he had to join hitler`s little league, but then that`s what khalid sheikh mohammad would say ........... and lets`s not forget his predecessor pius xii who sang silly hymns outside the batroom while the jews were taking showers ........... you can`t just say, ``oh, but that was in the past, and the last pope was such a lovely man who worked with a senile old president to bring down the berlin wall and reached out to people of all faiths and rapped pedophile priests on the knuckles with a ruler ``......... whoppity whoo !............ i would still keep an eye on this guy .....

........... he is a bad man, indeed .............

p.s i am glad i got that out of my system !

catholic church record of bringing good to humanity in past is mixed. at this point, the church has pretty much lost its moral authority, it is relegated to be more of an ethnic organizatoin (italians or hispanic or irish etc). the church has interest in developing world because it thinks it can increase its franchise. so thru dialog a charter for engagement of the church should be designed about does and donts of church in developing coutries, including external oversight on activities and accounts. that way everyone knows what is expected and can mutually benefit. church still has something +ve to offer via its missionary activities in hospitals and schools which are very much needed in developing world. by having a dialog and demarkating boundaries, it can have a productive and peacful existance (church is still kind of used to its imperial past).

Re: # 16 malik
//... started needling islamic fundamentalism which is completely independent of the subject of this article. ,...//

Actually, it`s not. Islamic fundamentalism is somewhat connected here.

But I understand your frustration... But what you should understand is that - over the years people are just sick of holier-than-thou pakis. Ranting and raving towards all and sundry while their own country has become the terrorist snake-pit of the world.

This author probably means well...but you pakis have no credibility left with anybody. So you folks have to go thru this gauntlet everytime you point fingers towards others. That`s the way things stand right now.

Re: # 4 kaura
//...Critiquing him is like arresting petty thiefs while murdrers run free. ..//

Good analogy. The author wants a ``inter-faith`` dialogue between the petty thief and murderers. Guess how that meeting would turn out ;))

Re: # 14 renash,

i am aware of the allegations you put in your posts, and take whatever responsibility i need to take. how`s that?

but the thing is, you guys seem so obsessed with this islamic fundamentalism thing that more than us, you see things thru it. my point is, this article doesn`t even hint about what muslims think or do, but somebody here picked up the first name of the writer and started needling islamic fundamentalism which is completely independent of the subject of this article.

if a guy from pakistan writes something, he may not be a jihadi aur a sympathizer of one (which is the case most of the time). he sure shares his nationality with them but nationality is not to be taken for complete similarity or for that matter, responsibility. do you think fundos are thriving because everybody likes them? no! believe me, it`s complicated than that.

bhai mere, you think it is the best position you can take for things to get better? i say this is the most convinient position.

Re: # 11


``i have realized a recently developed prejudice in hindus against muslims``

I think it is age old. And yes, it is mutual. Partition, riots are all its forms.


``i think the recipie for developing such an enlightment is the following:

- remain subjugated for several centruies by foriegn masters
- obtain the inevitable freedom
- wait untill the GDP starts to rise
- after it does, start talking all kind of shit against your ex-masters ``

Not necessarily, if you look at history many nations who became rulers of vast landmass were subjugated and ruled by others for centuries. Britain was under Romans, Vikings, French, the russians were under Tatar-Mongols, Americans were under British. Chinese were under Japs (for a short time).
All this talk about GDP is indeed childish. There are a few Indians who do bring up the matter, I apologize for that. They need to understand that india is still a country with 250-300 million poor people. I guess its the recent confidence and prosperity among the relative few which has triggered it.

`` i am an athiest, a lover of my historical heritage, may it be in india or pakistan, comming from any religion, hinuism`

You surely are an endangered specie in the Islamic world.

``obvious self-invented contempt of GDP indians puts me off.``

Same here. India has miles to go and decades to toil hard.

# 11
EYES WIDE SHUT, thats how u can describe the average paki, hindus dont hate muslims,
but they cant understand why pakistanis refuse to see the wrongs in their religion. the
latest report by National Counterterrorism Centre in usa says that a majority of the dreaded terrorist groups that threathen india and the rest of the world are in pakistan.
thats the reality that pakis refuse to see and thats what bugs the average indian

# 11
EYES WIDE SHUT, thats how u can describe the average paki, hindus dont hate muslims,
but they cant understand why pakistanis refuse to see the wrongs in their religion. the
latest report by National Counterterrorism Centre in usa says that a majority of the dreaded terrorist groups that threathen india and the rest of the world are in pakistan.
thats the reality that pakis refuse to see and thats what bugs the average indian

and by the way, smart pops know that the only way to get any consideration from millions of indifferent first worlders is to cut down the crap of religious fundamentalism. they sure will be interested in selling from their shop, no matter how stright they might be in terms of their religious orthodoxy. it`s just that they don`t have the luxary of blind audiance like there is in abudance in muslim countries.

they are like a strict father who used to kick and punch his son for his own reasons but now that the son has outgrown him in strength, knows that the only way to save some respect is to back off from being a `bad father` and do whatever it costs to look like a `good father`.

akpower,

yaar don`t mess with such folks. i hate to say this but at least from my experience of this forum, i have realized a recently developed prejudice in hindus against muslims. it is as if they are trying to prove something, as if they are taking some kind of revenge. i think the recipie for developing such an enlightment is the following:

- remain subjugated for several centruies by foriegn masters
- obtain the inevitable freedom
- wait untill the GDP starts to rise
- after it does, start talking all kind of shit against your ex-masters

have some morals guys. i am an athiest, a lover of my historical heritage, may it be in india or pakistan, comming from any religion, hinuism, islam, sikhism or budhism but the obvious self-invented contempt of GDP indians puts me off.

Ohh so u mean to say that Muslims shd not debate criticize their own leaders and Christians shd also always back theirs even when they are wrong? If something is factual then it shd be supported, no matter what.

You wrote the article from a muslim`s point of view, for the sake of muslims, and the perceived threat that this pope may be to the muslims` agenda. So, why are you apalled?

1. There is enough outrage over Islamic fundamentalists within Islamic countries and outside. A massive number of articles have been written in this context, even on this forum. I find it appalling for people to ignore that.

2. I have my reservations against this new Pope, which may or may not be cleared depending on his agendas. I sure hope they do!

3. We are not discussing Islamic extremists and their activities here, because it is an oft-discussed issue. I find it appalling that some people are not open to open discussions about such high-profile religious personalities. I am sure if this article was about a corrupt/extremist Islamic leader, a lot of people would have voiced a positive opinion.

Under Pope Benedict XVI, a major shift in most of the Vatican’s positions is unlikely, since he already was one of the most influential men in the Vatican and worked closely with the late John Paul II before he became pope.

As per Wikipedia and other such sources, he has opposed changing the traditional Catholic doctrines on marriage, family and homosexuality. He was seen by critics as at best indifferent to church sex abuse scandal. He maintains that the concept of female priests does not fit into the Catholic faith. He has rejected the idea that divorced people can remarry.

However, his views are basically similar to those of Pope John Paul II, who was not subject to criticism on the same scale. So it is more a matter of the way he says it than what he says.

It should also be noted that he criticized the U.S. war on Iraq in 2003, saying that it could not be justified. In selecting the name Benedict, he invoked Pope Benedict XV, who worked for peace during World War I. Without a certain degree of moral firmness, he would not have been able to take such clear-cut positions.

Therefore, the road for the new Pope is already well known (and travelled).

Isn`t it amusing to see islamic interlocutors demanding ``inter-faith dialog`` from Christians?

Why shouldn`t it work the other way around as well? Where are muslims taking initiative and outreach to various minorities and other civilizations? I don`t mean charity but true doctrinal outreach based on respect for other religous traditions as legitimate and valuable.
Why arent there vast protest movements againts the islamofascism of Saudi Arabia? Where is the outrage at the jihadi islam of pakistan?

The answer is a deafening silence. You see, this is a task for others but not for orthodox religous muslims. They have no need for analysis along these lines or for defining a position on harmony based on muslim traditions. They are, after all, perfect and why should perfection compromise with others?

The pope is a religous bigot no doubt, full of narrow-minded eurocentric and abrahamic absolutes. But at least the past pope apologized to the jews and prayed with them at jerusalem. A modest beginning, but it does mean something, especially to the european jews who are a small minority of the european peoples.

inter-faith issues? reading too much paulo coelho etc.?

what exactly is an inter-faith issue?

According to mister pope, there is no salvation for you mister writer (assuming from your arabic first name that you are a muslim), you are heading to a fiery place well-thought out for guys like you by mister Pope`s God.

And presumably, according to Koran mister Pope is gonna get sent to a similar place for commiting Shirk, a sin for which no redemption is possible till eternity. Hum Feeha Khalidoon? eh?

So where exactly is the inter-faith issue here?

Compared to mullahs, ayatollahs, wahabis, the new Pope is an innocent altar boy. Critiquing him is like arresting petty thiefs while murdrers run free.

Muslims like you are alarmed because now you may have a counterbalance to your agenda.

``Pope Benedict XVI, Mr.Ratzinger’s papal name, has also gone on record to say that he is against Turkey’s induction into the European Union. “Turkey has always represented a different continent, always in contrast with Europe,`` he told``

E.U. is an union of European nations. Turkey is not European by race, ethnicity, geography so why the hell it should be included in E.U. Simply because in the 15th century they captured Constatinople, they have to be included in E.U.? 90% of Turkey is in Asia Minor. The whole intention to be included in E.U. is for economic reason. In no time millions of turks will be all over Europe. What the Ottomans couldn`t achieve they will achieve very swiftly. As some said it will be the death of Europe.

Re: # 1

So, what exactly is your point? In this article have I looked to defend Muslim priests who preach hatred or am I taking their side?? Hell no. Yes there are some Muslim priests and organziations that preach hatred, but two wrongs don`t make a right. 99% of Muslim population doesn`t reflect those attitudes. I was just saying how this new pope apparently is and the things he has said in the past. My article is based on facts. And if you can`t accept facts, it tough.

You are fretting about the Pope when Muslim Priests from the highest pulpits of Islam preach hellfire and damnation to non believers? Europe is and always will be a tolerant place compared to the mess, obscuratinism and intolerance of the Islamic world. Get your own house in order before preaching to others.