Skip to main content

The Pope was right.

The insult of Pope Benedict to Muhammad and to Islam is nothing to the insult of Muslims themselves.

It's as though they're trying to prove every statement against them 100% correct.

I wish the Pope had not given even his non-apology. I wish he'd just out and out said, "But you're proving that what I quoted is true." and then let them choke on it.

I'm *appalled* that other churches or church leaders have apologized *for* him. It's like apologizing to the Mafia for suggesting that they are breaking kneecaps in hopes that they won't break your kneecaps. Doesn't truth matter? Or does only safety matter?

Or maybe, if there really *are* Muslims who don't believe in violence the analogy should be that it's like apologizing and pretending to *Italians* that there is no Mafia. It might make them feel good, but it encourages the Mafia. And the usual victims of the Mafia were other Italians just as the usual victim of violent Islam are other Muslims.

And, seriously now, how can we possibly expect those non-violent or "moderate" Muslims to stand against the violent Islamists if *we* refuse to?

The truth hurts. Cartoons of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban *hurt*. The words of the Pope *hurt*. But the blame for the hurt doesn't rest on cartoonists or Popes. The blame rests squarely on Islamists, on kidnappers who force conversion at gun point, on rioters killing people over cartoons, on systems that promote honor killings and holding women as property.

It rests on "Muslims" who come to the US and claim a "Muslim right" to practice their "Muslim ways" by practicing slavery and rape. It rests on Islamic theocracies executing people for apostasy, homosexuality, and for *being* raped.

The words of the Pope are NOTHING compared to the actions of Muhammad's followers.

Comments

Ymarsakar said…
Hey, maybe we should get out of the Middle East. Wouldn't that allow peace a chance and give Muslims a reason not to hate us, if we stop interfering with their religion and politics?
Synova said…
Heh. ;-)
Ymarsakar said…
You might be interested in Stratfor's perspective on this Pope deal. Bookworm has the goods because she has the subscription to Stratfor email wise.

Link

Popular posts from this blog

Goals

  Somehow I never got this colored and posted.  Anyhow, everyone should be honest about what their goals are and what they have as intended results.   ADDENDUM: When I added Popper's Paradox to the "labels" on this, I did a quick check that I had his name right and saw the fast and dirty definition on wikipedia, that unfettered tolerance simply means that the intolerant will always win.  This is baloney, of course, because we can *contend* without being intolerant.  We can still advocate for tolerance among everyone.  But even so, it struck me just how Popper's Paradox plays into the Progressive/SJW ethos. Intolerance isn't wrong. Racism isn't wrong. "Punching" isn't wrong. Political violence isn't wrong. Hate isn't wrong. Not even fascism is wrong. The Progressive/SJW ethos is that none of these things are wrong, they only become wrong based on who is targeted by those things. Those who like to quote Popper believe intolerance a moral ne

Why We Can't Have Unity

  Trump didn't divide the country. Let's get that out of the way first. There's several things that have divided us but the people who get elected are only the symptoms. Collective Identity is why we can't have Unity.  Don't believe me? 1) Dealing with groups is tempting because it's a force multiplier, and we've had "group politics" forever, but it's reached a tipping point. Everyone is considered primarily their group identity. 2) A failure to buy into this group identity ideology has been framed as racism. So we're told to believe that people with ideological differences or who question dividing everyone into group identities are not just people with different opinions, they are evil. Even arguing against the focus on group identity will get you called a racist. 3) Group identity defines nearly everything. Racism, right and wrong are no longer defined by actions or attitudes, at least by a critical percentage of the population. Right, wr

Why it doesn't matter what Parler allowed.

Because allowing people to say scary things in public (or mean things, or false things) doesn't inflame anyone.  It attracts people who are already inflamed. There used to be a joke that went more or less something like this:  There's a couple thousand white supremacist militia members in the US and two thirds of them are undercover FBI agents. And that's the second reason.  Because we actually want the scary conversations to happen in public. Driving those conversations underground doesn't make them go away. Inflamed people are still inflamed except now they are also legitimately aggrieved.  We have thousands of years of History that proves that this is true. Short of simply killing everyone of a certain mindset, ideology, religion, or culture, it's impossible to make them go away by forcing them to keep their scary ideas quiet.  Killing a few simply creates martyrs, not converts. Economic oppression, which was used against the Jews as well as endless other minorit