By PJK
Just some quick thoughts RE: the Pope's comments. Now, obviously the comments were bound to spur controversy, and if the the Pope didn't think people would overreact, or was hoping for that effect, he's an idiot, plain and simple (yes, I am allowed to call the Pope an idiot if I want, and remember that what I just said was a conditional statement). HOWEVER, there is no reason why anyone should arrive at the conclusion, as one commenter on our Cbox remarked, that "the Pope doesn't like Muslim people".
First of all, the Pope was QUOTING. He made perfectly clear that the quote was not a reflection of his own view, so unfortunately for all you rabid anti-Papal nutjobs, we have to give him the benefit of the doubt here. And if you look at the comment in context, it's a valid point. The Pope was speaking on the subject of "faith and reason", specifically, suggesting that anyone who spreads faith through violence shows a lack of reason. I agree. And it is a historical fact that the religion of Islam, at the command of its own prophet, did at one time spread the Islamic faith by the sword, killing many innocent people in the name of Allah. Let's not sugar-coat history here people. Christians did the same thing, so did Hindus and Buddhists and probably at some point even Jews. The fact that he focused on Islam was probably a bad move, but so what? Why do we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements? Particularly something that happened over 600 years ago? Any religion should be open to criticism. Yet the hysteria mounts, and even in this enlightened age, we see people firebombed for drawing cartoons of Muhammed (for example). How can anyone who believes in free speech defend that? Political correctness, if taken seriously (and that is a whole other discussion entirely), should not accept double-standards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
You know how these crazy Muslims react to being accused as violent people? They incite violence! What the hell are we supposed to think?
I don't think calling them "crazy Muslims," as Challi said, is a very reasonable statement, though I suppose it to be spoken in the same manner that your (PJK) statement about "anti-Papal nutjobs" was.
I think that the reason "we allow one religion's sensitivity to blanket any criticism of its radical elements" is partly because we today are so desirous of being culturally sensitive, so to speak. That statement was definitely not such.
And why should religions be open to criticism? They are not intended to change form with popular opinion, are they?
Hey now, "crazy muslims" only applied to the Muslims that are crazy. Y'know, the ones that start the riots, burn effigies and bomb buildings?
Fine. I apologise to any anti-Papal nutjobs for calling them anti-Papal nutjobs.
Lada, nothing should be immune from criticism, provided the arguments against it are valid. There's a lot of prejudice in the world, but that doesn't mean we should censor debate if it's reasonable. And regardless of what religions are "intended" for, they can and do change with popular opinion. Vatican II par exemple?
yeah i agree that everything should be open to criticism especially religion because it is both a mass movement whilst simultaneously an intensly personal affair for true believers! and your post on the same topic, lada, suggests that you are either a philosophy student or enjy being ambigous and non-committal!
:D
I do not enjoy being ambiguous and noncommital, but neither am I a philosophy student by trade. Though perhaps, studying it on my own would make me so?
I conceed to the idea that religions ought to be open to criticism; however, I still have one thing to say on that (at least). =)
Religion is indeed a "mass movement and an intensely personal affair" as you, Heatherez, pointed out, and yet it is also something unmovable, a rock of sorts, that ought not to be moved, yes? There is only so far, then, that the criticism of or within it should be allowed to go, no?
Or not, because critisicm does not necessarily command the necessity to change?
You're definitely worthy of being a philosophy student because all you did there was ask questions.
haha. true.
well lada i have concluded you are an english or poetry student or maybe politics? flouncyness abounds, cus thats a word...
well, it is in the title for over-syllabic tripe...
...
You're in the title for over-syllabic tripe
11 comments! w00t! Clearly an indication that we need to have more controversial issues as posts.
Post a Comment