THE VATICAN MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS

The Vatican must show good will toward Muslims
Comment by Khalid Amayreh in Occupied East Jerusalem

The highly-publicized conversion  to Catholicism of a naturalized Italian citizen of Egyptian origin  this week once again illustrates the uneasy relations between Islam and western Christianity.

The problem, of course,   doesn’t lie in the conversion itself.  People after all should be free to choose their faith and way of life without coercion. The Quran  itself declares that “let there be no compulsion in religion.”  The way Muslims ought to relate to disbelievers is engraved  in Sura (or chapter) 9 of Islam’s holy scriptures, which reads:

Say : O ye that reject Faith!

I worship not that which ye worship,

 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,

 Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

To you be your Way, and to me mine.

But the  problem  lies in the vindictive atmosphere surrounding the conversion ceremony, including the anti-Islamic allusions and  insinuations.

Magdi Allam, who an Israel newspaper once called a “Muslim Zionist” admitted that he had always been a nominal Muslim, that he had never really practiced Islam and never prayed in his life. Yet, we have been told ad nauseam  by a wantonly ignorant or dishonest  Western media that Allam was “a prominent Muslim.”

Well, the truth is that he was neither Muslim nor prominent. How could a person who praises and glorifies Israel’s genocidal crimes against his fellow human beings (Christian and Muslims alike) be a man of faith?  Morality, honesty and candor are the ultimate signs of faith, characters that Allam conspicuously lacks.

So, it is highly doubtful that a man who believes  Zionism represents true righteousness and genuine civility will be a righteous individual, let alone a good Catholic.

In the context of his baptism at the hands of the Pope of the Vatican, Allam made a series of provocative lies against Islam.

The man who had written a book titled “Long Live Israel” was quoted as saying that “the root of evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual.

This is a cardinal mendacity, because all religions, ideologies, and isms are by definition “conflictual.” Indeed, in order for an idea, any idea, to be un-conflictual, it has to be completely  “morally neutral” between good and evil. Christianity itself was conflictual from day one.

In Matthew 10-34-39, Jesus is quoted  as saying that:

“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

In the Gospel of Thomas 16, (SV),  Jesus said:

“Perhaps people think that I have come to cast peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to cast conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war.  For there will be five in a house: there’ll be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.”

The above shows beyond doubt that Allam doesn’t know what he is talking about  when he faults Islam for  being “historically conflictual.”

As to the issue of violence,   Allam is being equally ignorant of historical facts, because  if a religion is to be judged solely by the behavior of its followers, then Christianity stands out as the main  candidate for being the most violent religion under the sun.

Let us consider some of the following historical facts pertaining to the relationship between Christianity and violence. In the past century alone,  Western “Christians” killed more than a hundred million people, mostly other Christians. In just two essentially ‘Christian” World Wars, as many as 70 million people were killed.  Indeed, the numerous crusades, holocausts, pogroms, inquisitions, gulags and ethnic cleansings that the White man committed in the name of Jesus make Muslim violence and wars look utterly negligible in comparison.

In the Middle Ages, Catholics spread death, terror and havoc through Europe, Asia Minor and the Levant. The Franks not only slaughtered Muslims and Jews en mass, but targeted their Orthodox coreligionists, destroying  and desecrating their churches, murdering their priests and raping their women.

In North America, South America and Australia the White man murdered millions in the name of Christ and Manifest Destiny?

To be sure, Muslims, too, indulged in violence, including unjustified violence. However, stigmatizing Islam with this calumny, as if the hands of  Catholics and other western Christians were  clean,  constitutes a pornographic deviation from historical truth and honesty.

Samuel P. Huntington is one of the West’s most  prominent  contemporary  intellectuals. He argued that “the west won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion, but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence.”

“Westerners,” he said, “often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do.”

One Vatican official, Cardinal Giovanni, told an Italian newspaper following the conversion ceremony that “conversion is a private matter, a personal thing and we hope that the baptism will not be interpreted negatively by Muslims.”

Well, one might give Giovanni  the benefit of the doubt were it  not for the  purposefully high profile the Vatican gave this conversion.  In the final analysis, the Vatican can’t hope for good relations with Muslims  and at the same time continues to incite hatred and racism against a religion that has as many as 15 hundred million followers, including millions of Europeans and hundreds of thousands of Italians.

Millions of erstwhile Christians converted to Islam in Europe and North America in recent years. However, unlike the Vatican, the Muslim religious authorities have  chosen not to turn every conversion into a  trial of Christianity.

Finally, it is imperative to remember that Muslims and Christians are neighbors and compatriots all over the world. This fact alone, which is not going to disappear, necessitates that each community  be sensitive to the sensibilities and feelings of the other.

Mutual respect, we are told, is the essence of religious faith.

30 Comments

  1. asimplesinner said,

    March 25, 2008 at 08:25

    “In North America, South America and Australia the White man murdered millions in the name of Christ and Manifest Destiny?”

    Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?

  2. Thomas said,

    March 25, 2008 at 14:15

    I concur with the aforementioned question: Where were the millions murdered in the name of Christ in America? As far as the conversion etc, please read the following: http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/03/bin-laden-popes-muslim-convert-and.html

  3. John said,

    March 25, 2008 at 15:52

    The Vatican did show goodwill toward Islam when it came out against the war in Iraq.

  4. Andrea said,

    March 25, 2008 at 16:17

    The Vaticans has never helped anyone but their own. Everyone has the right to belong to their own faith and every race, religion and government has to respect their free will.

  5. yessir said,

    March 25, 2008 at 16:29

    look up manifest destiny. look up the crusades. read up on your history.

    then talk.

  6. Thomas said,

    March 25, 2008 at 17:36

    yessir,

    stop conflating protestants with Catholics, understand what really happened during the Crusades and if you knew your history you would not make the blind assertions that you do. Then talk…

  7. John said,

    March 25, 2008 at 17:39

    Very vague answer, yessir. The Vatican has been a sharp critic of the Iraq war. So please stop your whining, or you risk alienating the one group of Christians that actually cares about your plight. Good luck with the Christian Zionists.

  8. B said,

    March 25, 2008 at 20:44

    What i dont understand is that how can a and i will quote this article “Magdi Allam, who an Israel newspaper once called a “Muslim Zionist” admitted that he had always been a nominal Muslim, that he had never really practiced Islam and never prayed in his life.”quoted as saying that “the root of evil is innate in an Islam that is physiologically violent and historically conflictual.
    that is like me arguing the point when i have never read the book that Harry Potter’s story is based in America……

  9. Ilona said,

    March 25, 2008 at 20:47

    asimplesinner… Millions of Native Americans were slaughtered by the Europeans. Native Americans were considered heathens & sinners, their children taken away from them to be taught to be good Christians, Native American tribes who did not accept Christ were harrassed, abused, stolen from & eventually nearly exterminated as a whole. That’s just basic history. Go into a detailed history & it will make you nauseous.

  10. asimplesinner said,

    March 25, 2008 at 21:38

    IIona – that is all well and good… Can you back it up?

    Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?

    When people ask for information and the most generic and vague “read history” answer is given. That doesn’t help make a case. It sort of insultingly presumes we don’t read history just because we don’t read it the way the commentators do…

    So provide some links please. Show me where it was Christianity that was the cause of this above and beyond nationalism and settler greed. Was it the message of Christianity that informed Indian Wars?

    Also worth considering – there ARE millions of Native Americans in the New world – and their population is GROWING.

    From Wikipedia:
    “With mestizos numbering some 60 percent of the modern population, estimates for the numbers of unmixed indigenous peoples vary from a very modest 10 percent to a more liberal 30 percent of the population.”

    So anywhere from 70-90% of Mexicans are of full or partial native heritage… That would seem to be the group in North America we would be most concerned about in an article talking about the Vatican and the Catholic Church.

    Provide some links.

    BTW Yessir – I agree with the poster who calls you to quit conflating Protestant and Catholic Christians into an amalgamation of just one group. If you are criticizing the Vatican for taking in a convert – and the press for making a story out of it – “Manifest Destiny” is in no real way related.

  11. Robin said,

    March 26, 2008 at 02:50

    “Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?”

    1492 was quite an eventful year. Not only did Columbus sail in search of a route to the East Indies and instead stumbled upon the Americas, it was also the year that Ferdinand and Isabella consolidated their power and conquered Granada, expelling both Muslims and Jews. Now what religion wereFerdinand and Isabella and just WHO wanted the Muslims and Jews expelled?

    Once the Americas were discovered, the race was on to claim this land for the crown. Upon this discovery, Ferdinand and Isabella sent a messenger to the POPE who then bestowed the newly found lands upon Spain, ALL authority was through Rome! Kings were only kings if crowned by the POPE. (does anyone remember that little tiff Henry the Eighth had?-His solution–break with Rome-)

    Read the Papal Bull of 1493
    http://www.kwabs.com/bull_of_1493.html which gave Brazil to Portugal, other lands were to come under the Spanish crown. Now please explain to me how the Vatican felt they had the authority to bestow these lands? Were they theirs to give? Of course there was a formal treaty reached between Spain and Portugal, the Treaty of Tordesillas, but it was based upon the authority granted by the Vatican.

    It was a PARTNERSHIP of conquest of the Americas. All one has to do is look at history, all of the explorers came with their Catholic priests because unlike
    today, there was NO separation of church and state. The conquest of the
    Americas was to achieve TWO purposes, acquire land AND spread Catholicism.

    Look to California as a very good example, the Mission System
    http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/missioncalifornia/a/missionhistory.htm
    was the means by which the Spanish “domesticated” the indigenous peoples.
    Problem is, hundreds of thousands of California Indians died when exposed to White Man’s diseases and when they would NOT come in to the mission system, they were systematically hunted down and slaughtered, not by the Church of course, but by the military who was PARTNERED with the church.

    And no, the Spanish were obviously not under control of the whole of North
    America. Here is a map of SPANISH America
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1148.html

    The other portions, the Eastern Seaboard, were colonized by the British, and
    then the French got in there with Louisiana. But the advent of Protestantism happened later, Martin Luther was only 10 years old in 1493.
    The history is complicated, but one thing is for certain, Europeans brought their Christianity with them to the Americas, whether it was Catholocism or Protestantism. (which drove manifest destiny)

    These colonizers who viewed the natives as savages, sought to “tame them” with RELIGION, There were advanced civilizations in South America, but some things they did not have which the Spanish brought with them, horses and guns-both of which were used to conquer the Americas. And who was the partner to ALL of this?

    The Catholic Church.

    Millions died from disease, unknown numbers were slaughtered, civilizations were destroyed, natives placed on reservations (North America) or marginalized in the Latin American caste system which kept strict record of how much European blood one had and bestowed rights accordingly.
    http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm

    You want more answers, then one really does only have to look to the history books, it’s all there, and it is certainly not a pretty picture except for those who wish to deny the facts.

    Now, we have Christians being endangered in Iraq, and who is to blame?
    American Christians!
    http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%5C2008-03-
    22%5Ckurd.htm

    See: http://artofmarkbryan.com/liberator.html

    Now, just so anyone wonders, I am a Catholic, but I am also a student of
    history. Anyone claiming that the Catholic church is free of greed and bloodshed in the Americas is simply delusional.

  12. B said,

    March 26, 2008 at 05:11

    Warfare against Native Americans continued until the end of the nineteenth century as the United States moved westward. This expansion was inspired by the nation’s “manifest destiny.” (Promised Land imagery figured prominently in shaping English colonial thought. The pilgrims identified themselves with the ancient Hebrews. They viewed the New World as the New Canaan. They were God’s chosen people headed for the Promised Land. Other colonists believed they, too, had been divinely called. The settlers in Virginia were, John Rolf said, “a peculiar people, marked and chosen by the finger of God.”)Manifest destiny was the belief that the United States was destined or chosen to occupy all the geographical territory between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. This idea was very popular in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Native Americans were viewed as obstacles to “manifest destiny.”.
    ———————–
    2.Ferdinand and Isabella chose Catholicism to unite Spain and in 1478 asked permission of the pope to begin the Spanish Inquisition to purify the people of Spain. They began by driving out Jews, Protestants and other non-believers.

    In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada( Lets face it you cant talk him out of anything) became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain. He was responsible for establishing the rules of inquisitorial procedure and creating branches of the Inquisition in various cities. He remained the leader of the Spanish Inquisition for fifteen years and is believed to be responsible for the execution of around 2,000 Spaniards

  13. joe said,

    March 26, 2008 at 07:54

    One should not forget the millions of tones of gold Vatican received from transatlantic slave traders for pardoning them for sins of murder and other human rights violations occurred during the process of capture and transport of African slaves to America.At least some of that gold coud be used today to help Africa figth poverty and disease.

  14. asimplesinner said,

    March 26, 2008 at 12:13

    “One should not forget the millions of tones of gold Vatican received from transatlantic slave traders for pardoning them for sins of murder and other human rights violations occurred during the process of capture and transport of African slaves to America.At least some of that gold coud be used today to help Africa figth poverty and disease.”

    Please supply a citation for this bold assertion. Jack Chick tracts will not do.

  15. John said,

    March 26, 2008 at 12:47

    B is conflating Protestants and Catholics again. Maybe it’s just too difficult a concept for some people to grasp.

  16. asimplesinner said,

    March 26, 2008 at 12:49

    1492 was quite an eventful year. Not only did Columbus sail in search of a route to the East Indies and instead stumbled upon the Americas, it was also the year that Ferdinand and Isabella consolidated their power and conquered Granada, expelling both Muslims and Jews. Now what religion wereFerdinand and Isabella and just WHO wanted the Muslims and Jews expelled?

    Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America? This only seems tangetially related inasmuch as it provides opportunities for a crtitique of the Catholic Church in Spain…
    Can you help me to understand how

    Once the Americas were discovered, the race was on to claim this land for the crown. Upon this discovery, Ferdinand and Isabella sent a messenger to the POPE who then bestowed the newly found lands upon Spain, ALL authority was through Rome! Kings were only kings if crowned by the POPE. (does anyone remember that little tiff Henry the Eighth had?-His solution–break with Rome-)

    Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America? “Kings were only kings if crowned through Rome” is simply not accurate. With minor exceptions of the Avignon papacy and a few other instances, Popes almost never left Rome until the 20th century. They did not travel to coronations and crown anyone. Napolean stands out – and that was under threat and duress.

    Read the Papal Bull of 1493
    http://www.kwabs.com/bull_of_1493.html which gave Brazil to Portugal, other lands were to come under the Spanish crown. Now please explain to me how the Vatican felt they had the authority to bestow these lands? Were they theirs to give? Of course there was a formal treaty reached between Spain and Portugal, the Treaty of Tordesillas, but it was based upon the authority granted by the Vatican.

    Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America? The treater brokered by the Vatican effectively ended the thread of an Iberrian War. They were sought as a mediator. Read the whole history.

    It was a PARTNERSHIP of conquest of the Americas. All one has to do is look at history, all of the explorers came with their Catholic priests because unlike
    today, there was NO separation of church and state. The conquest of the
    Americas was to achieve TWO purposes, acquire land AND spread Catholicism.

    Fair enough now can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?

    Look to California as a very good example, the Mission System
    http://gocalifornia.about.com/cs/missioncalifornia/a/missionhistory.htm
    was the means by which the Spanish “domesticated” the indigenous peoples.
    Problem is, hundreds of thousands of California Indians died when exposed to White Man’s diseases and when they would NOT come in to the mission system, they were systematically hunted down and slaughtered, not by the Church of course, but by the military who was PARTNERED with the church.

    Maybe here you can show the slaughter of millions?

    And no, the Spanish were obviously not under control of the whole of North
    America. Here is a map of SPANISH America
    http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1148.html

    I am familiar with that well enough – I was a history major too. Now I would like to see where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America… I would like to see where French settlements and Spanish and Portugese waged war or intentionally spread disease which must seem to be your thesis when it comes to supporting the notion that millions were killed in the spread of Christianity.

    You are of the thinking that they understood the nature of the diseases that the NAs most frequently succumbed to well before germ theory had come to be explained and they intentionally went out and made every good effort to make people sick? Hunting them down to spread sickness?

    The other portions, the Eastern Seaboard, were colonized by the British, and
    then the French got in there with Louisiana. But the advent of Protestantism happened later, Martin Luther was only 10 years old in 1493.

    The portions of the Eastern Seaboard that were colonized by the Brits were only colonized after the Reformation – the Pilgrims themselves were a Protestant group seeking refuge in the New World from the Protestant Church of England. The Maryland Colony was allowed to Lord Baltimore so that he and other faithful Catholics would leave England. In all irony, the status of Maryland as a Catholic colony would not last long… In the course of only a few decades anti-Catholic disenfranchisement began. At the time of the Revolution we were 1% of the population. Even if Martin Luther was 10 years old in 1493…

    Are you trying to allude to the idea that because the Reformation was not in full swing by 1493 that means we will have to answer for some of the violently anti-NA behaviors of the non-Catholics that come later from the US?

    As Spaniards came to the New World they freely intermarried among NA people who by and large had peacably converted. A good deal of the 9M converts made in the New World saw the Spanish and the New Faith as Providence and were pleased to welcome a few small ships of white men that they could have otherwise easily massacared. Why did they do that?

    Are you familiar witht he ruling regimes the Spaniards came to find that practiced brutality the likes of which we would never countenance today? Human sacrifice, slavery and the like? Truly these few boats were a godsend to topple certain of these regimes.

    By the time era of OL Guadaloupe priests were baptizing faithful left and right for 10 straight years – people who sought them out for baptism. It was not bloody conquest.

    After the conversions aboriginal peoples were seen as having an equality that lead freely to intermarriage. That is why today as much as 90% of Mexico is of at least partial ancestory of aboriginal people.

    The history is complicated, but one thing is for certain, Europeans brought their Christianity with them to the Americas, whether it was Catholocism or Protestantism. (which drove manifest destiny)

    When you want to start talking about Manifest destiny, start a new topic somewhere else. This was never the speaking or the advocacy of the Catholic Church.

    These colonizers who viewed the natives as savages, sought to “tame them” with RELIGION, There were advanced civilizations in South America, but some things they did not have which the Spanish brought with them, horses and guns-both of which were used to conquer the Americas. And who was the partner to ALL of this?

    The Catholic Church.

    How would you describe them as a partner? That was the faith of the people who came to the new world. Don’t paint the “conquest” as some massive land war – there simply was not one, and I can promise you that 100 conqustadors with guns could not have withstood on the beachehad against even 250 native peoples with bows and arrows long enough for the next ship to come from Spain. Let alone been a conquering force while waiting for more gunpowder and bullets.

    Millions died from disease, unknown numbers were slaughtered, civilizations were destroyed, natives placed on reservations (North America) or marginalized in the Latin American caste system which kept strict record of how much European blood one had and bestowed rights accordingly.
    http://www.zonalatina.com/Zldata55.htm

    This is tangetial – show how that is related to millionas in the new world being slaughtered for Christianity.

    We could turn the debate or the discussion into an all out bash fest bringing up 100 different points of contention. The OP contends THE VATICAN MST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS

    Must, or what? They haven’t so far by opposing this war? Are we the ones supposedly misunderstanding our faith and flying planes into buildings? Beheadhing journalists and co-religionists? Suicide bombing? Boming nightclubs? Bombing trains?

    But maybe all of that could be justified of be “not as bad” if we were “just as guilty” of
    You want more answers, then one really does only have to look to the history books, it’s all there, and it is certainly not a pretty picture except for those who wish to deny the facts.

    Now, we have Christians being endangered in Iraq, and who is to blame?
    American Christians!
    http://www.azzaman.com/english/index.asp?fname=news%5C2008-03-
    22%5Ckurd.htm

    See: http://artofmarkbryan.com/liberator.html

    The Catholic Church??????? Do you recall reading anything about how JP2 spoke out against pre-emptive invasion and made efforts to prevent the Iraq war? How he met with Terak Azizz – a Catholic – in trying to negotiate a prevention of this conflict?

    Did you not read about Bishop John Michael Botean of Canton calling for Catholics to not support or participate in this war?

    But how is that relevent? You are just stumping on that one.

    Now, just so anyone wonders, I am a Catholic, but I am also a student of
    history. Anyone claiming that the Catholic church is free of greed and bloodshed in the Americas is simply delusional.

    That is a clever and broad minded barb… but still doesn’t back up the notion that millions were killed in the new world as a matter of course for spreading Christianity. Let alone the Catholic Church… And that seems to be what the OP – who can’t apparently tell us apart – is wanting us to believe in this screed caused by the conversion of a Muslim who, at the rate he is going, may very well not live until the next Easter, let alone into old age.

    Given the choice of being a Copt in Egypt facing the Muslims or a pagan in Mexico dealing with a boat of under 100 men with ram-rod loaded muskets and Jesuit priests…

    Which do you think you would rather be?

    But we “Must show good will” …or what?

    The attack on the Vatican I am CERTAIN is being dreamt of in retaliation among fanatics will be justified if they are successful? Not enough good will to the religion of peace?

  17. joe said,

    March 26, 2008 at 17:48

    Why are we talking about the past .Can we not see the role of extreme Christian churches in the invasion of Afganistan and Iraq.Are millions not being killed and irradiated with radioactive bullets?

  18. Robin said,

    March 26, 2008 at 18:54

    Good point Joe! The fact is that it is a continuum of past actions.

    “With minor exceptions of the Avignon papacy and a few other instances, Popes almost never left Rome until the 20th century. They did not travel to coronations and crown anyone”

    No-the emperors and kings traveled to Rome to be coronated or were coronated by local bishops whose authority derived from the Vatican.

    From the Lateran Council:

    “Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman Pontiff by no means pertains only to heavenly things, but also earthly things, and to things under the earth, and even over the angels, whom he his greater than.”
    ___________________________

    The doctrine of the divine right of kings came to dominate mediæval concepts of kingship, claiming biblical authority (Epistle to the Romans, chapter 13). Augustine of Hippo in his work The City of God had stated his opinion that while the City of Man and the City of God may stand at cross-purposes, both of them have been instituted by God and served His ultimate will. Even though the City of Man — the world of secular government — may seem ungodly and be governed by sinners, it has been placed on earth for the protection of the City of God. Therefore, monarchs have been placed on their thrones for God’s purpose, and to question their authority is to question God. Although it is worth mentioning that Augustine also said “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all” and Thomas Aquinas indicated laws “opposed to the Divine good” must not be observed.[1] However it was discouraged for Roman Catholics to take action to overthrow even tyrannical governments.[citation needed]

    This belief in the god-given authority of monarchs was central to the Roman Catholic vision of governance in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Ancien Régime. Although this was most true of what would later be termed the ultramontaine party and the Catholic Church has recognized, on an exceptional basis, Republics as early as 1291 in the case of San Marino.[2] It believed that only God, and the Roman Catholic Church itself as God’s agent, could depose a monarch. In a society based on an alliance of throne and altar, the Church itself became part of the mediæval governing elite. A senior cleric, usually an archbishop or cardinal anointed and crowned a monarch. Emperors were crowned by the Pope, starting with Charlemagne and continuing through-out the Holy Roman Empire.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism’s_links_with_political_authorities

    This was certainly a reversal in roles. Note in 314 it was Constantine who crowned Pope Sylvester!

    Certainly one jests when attempting to make it seem as if the kings did not use the Church and vice versa in order to maintain power. Have you not heard of the Holy Roman Empire, which morphed it’s way throughout history?
    What of the Germans?
    http://www.igougo.com/travelcontent/Journal.aspx?JournalID=45221#1215134

    Furthermore
    The Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römischer Kaiser, Latin: Romanorum Imperator) was the elected monarch ruling over the Holy Roman Empire, a Central European state in existence during the Middle Ages and the Early Modern period. By convention the first Emperor was taken to be the Frankish king Charlemagne, crowned as Emperor of the West by Pope Leo III on 25 December 800, although the Empire itself (as well as the style Holy Roman Emperor) did not come into use until some time later. Holy Roman Emperors were crowned by the Popes up until the 16th century, and the last Emperor, Francis II, abdicated in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars that saw the Empire’s final dissolution.

    With Ferdinand and Isabella, it was a little different. They sought power and influence in Europe by intermarriage into the monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire!

    Ferdinand and Isabella greatly expanded Spain’s influence on the continent by marrying their children to the heirs of other European rulers. When their grandson, Charles, came to the throne as Charles I of Spain, he inherited a vast amount of territory in Europe. In 1519, as Charles V, he became emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, the largest Western empire since the Roman Empire. Subsequent Spanish kings ruled vast European domains and faced many foreign threats. They met these threats using wealth from Spain’s huge American empire.
    http://www.spanish-fiestas.com/history/catholic-kings.htm

    Oh GEE! I am certain that all the wealth from the Americas which was granted to them BY THE VATICAN in the Papal Bull of 1493 was a GIFT to the benevolent conquerors.

    Asimplesinner, you did not answer my basic question: Now please explain to me how the Vatican felt they had the authority to bestow these lands?

    Did you not read that I am a Catholic myself? Thank God in the course of time the Pope had the humility to declare himself fallible. But mind you, only a wee bit. Vatican I was an attempt by the church to divorce itself from it’s prior sins. If not for the Reformation the Vatican would still be partnered with the state in Catholic countries. Partnership is PARTNERSHIP, one cannot possibly say with a straight face that Catholicism just happened to be the religion of the Spanish and therefor should not be held accountable. They played off each other. Wherever the Spanish went to conquer, there were the Catholics right along with them. Yes Isabella did seek to control the brutality of the conquerors by establishing the the Secretary of Indian Affairs, which later became the Supreme Council of the Indies. This was the government agency set up for COLONIALISM. She has even been suggested for sainthood, but as Shaw stated, “Hell is paved with good intentions, not bad ones” Furthermore, at the very SAME time, Ferdinand and Isabella were busy with the Inquisition.

    “I can promise you that 100 conqustadors with guns could not have withstood on the beachehad against even 250 native peoples with bows and arrows long enough for the next ship to come from Spain. Let alone been a conquering force while waiting for more gunpowder and bullets.”

    I am sensing again the white supremacist notion of divine intervention with that statement. Furthermore, you go further to suggest that those civilizations here in the Americas who practiced human sacrifice were better off due to the Spanish intervention. Uh huh, the sure fire bet to end such barbaric practices is to kill them! Then take all their riches! Just one example, the conquest of the Incas
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_conquest_of_the_Inca_Empire

    “Pizarro sent out a priest, Vicente de Valverde, to exhort the Inca to accept Christianity and Charles V as his master. Atahuallpa disputed both the religion and the sovereignty of the Spaniards and, after examining a Bible offered by the priest, flung the book to the ground. Valverde reported these events to Pizarro, who immediately ordered an attack. The astonished Incas were cut down from all sides, Pizarro himself seizing Atahuallpa.”

    The AUDACITY of rejecting Catholocism!! And guess what, the priest did NOTHING to exhort Pizarro not to attack. I am sure Jesus himself was there though.

  19. asimplesinner said,

    March 26, 2008 at 21:03

    The doctrine of the divine right of kings came to dominate mediæval concepts of kingship, claiming biblical authority (Epistle to the Romans, chapter 13). Augustine of Hippo in his work The City of God had stated his opinion that while the City of Man and the City of God may stand at cross-purposes, both of them have been instituted by God and served His ultimate will. Even though the City of Man — the world of secular government — may seem ungodly and be governed by sinners, it has been placed on earth for the protection of the City of God. Therefore, monarchs have been placed on their thrones for God’s purpose, and to question their authority is to question God. Although it is worth mentioning that Augustine also said “a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all” and Thomas Aquinas indicated laws “opposed to the Divine good” must not be observed.[1] However it was discouraged for Roman Catholics to take action to overthrow even tyrannical governments.[citation needed]

    This belief in the god-given authority of monarchs was central to the Roman Catholic vision of governance in the Middle Ages, Renaissance and Ancien Régime. Although this was most true of what would later be termed the ultramontaine party and the Catholic Church has recognized, on an exceptional basis, Republics as early as 1291 in the case of San Marino.[2] It believed that only God, and the Roman Catholic Church itself as God’s agent, could depose a monarch. In a society based on an alliance of throne and altar, the Church itself became part of the mediæval governing elite. A senior cleric, usually an archbishop or cardinal anointed and crowned a monarch. Emperors were crowned by the Pope, starting with Charlemagne and continuing through-out the Holy Roman Empire.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism’s_links_with_political_authorities

    This was certainly a reversal in roles. Note in 314 it was Constantine who crowned Pope Sylvester!

    OK, I didn’t realize this post was now about Catholics and monarchy…

    If you could ever address the thesis that started this all… Can you help me to understand where “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?

    Certainly one jests when attempting to make it seem as if the kings did not use the Church and vice versa in order to maintain power. Have you not heard of the Holy Roman Empire, which morphed it’s way throughout history?
    What of the Germans?
    http://www.igougo.com/travelcontent/Journal.aspx?JournalID=45221#1215134

    What of them? This is classic straw-man ascription. I am still looking to determine how it is the case that in warning the Vatican that we MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS (or else what?) that in fact we haven’t largely shown good will and I am looking to understand how the Vatican was responsible for the ‘“millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America’

    Furthermore
    The Holy Roman Emperor (German: Römischer Kaiser, Latin: Romanorum Imperator) was the elected monarch ruling over the Holy Roman Empire, …

    Still nothing to do with ‘“millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America…

    With Ferdinand and Isabella, it was a little different. They sought power and influence in Europe by intermarriage into the monarchy of the Holy Roman Empire!

    Ditto.

    Oh GEE! I am certain that all the wealth from the Americas which was granted to them BY THE VATICAN in the Papal Bull of 1493 was a GIFT to the benevolent conquerors.

    Mature sarcasm, duly noted… still nothing to do with ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”….

    Asimplesinner, you did not answer my basic question: Now please explain to me how the Vatican felt they had the authority to bestow these lands?

    If I explained again it was in arbitration between two Catholic monarchs would that then explain ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America?”

    Did you not read that I am a Catholic myself?

    I did. What of it? What indicates I might not have seen that? If you were Muslim, secular, Jewish, whatever I am still just looking to understand ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”…

    Thank God in the course of time the Pope had the humility to declare himself fallible. But mind you, only a wee bit. Vatican I was an attempt by the church to divorce itself from it’s prior sins. If not for the Reformation the Vatican would still be partnered with the state in Catholic countries.

    The Reformation did not really change that – church state relations remaind for centuries afterwards. And this is pleasant enough pontification, but I am still waiting about ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”

    Partnership is PARTNERSHIP, one cannot possibly say with a straight face that Catholicism just happened to be the religion of the Spanish and therefor should not be held accountable.

    Now we are getting somewhere… I am expecting this to lead to an explination of ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”

    They played off each other. Wherever the Spanish went to conquer, there were the Catholics right along with them. Yes Isabella did seek to control the brutality of the conquerors by establishing the the Secretary of Indian Affairs, which later became the Supreme Council of the Indies. This was the government agency set up for COLONIALISM. She has even been suggested for sainthood, but as Shaw stated, “Hell is paved with good intentions, not bad ones” Furthermore, at the very SAME time, Ferdinand and Isabella were busy with the Inquisition.

    The Inquisistion… Always a card well played in discussions about the difficulties of the Church. It would take a few days and pages elsewhere to refute just half of the slander and libel that has been spread over the “I” word or to consider the context of it and the State of the Spanish kingdom. In wikipedia speak we would call them “weasel words” Mere mention of the “I” word can upset people.

    If you want I will post about it on my blog and we can go days and days about that alone… But as it stands in this context, I don’t see the relevence of bringing that up when I am trying to get to the heart of ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”.

    “I can promise you that 100 conqustadors with guns could not have withstood on the beachehad against even 250 native peoples with bows and arrows long enough for the next ship to come from Spain. Let alone been a conquering force while waiting for more gunpowder and bullets.”

    I am sensing again the white supremacist notion of divine intervention with that statement.

    Put the “sensing” aside, your spidey sense if off today – if you want to ask my thinking for clarification do so, but if that is what you think you are sensing you are wrong. But using an invective like “white supremency” (you have seen photographs of me? You what color I am?) serves no real constructive purpose. If you want me to say more plainly that I think they ended up being better off, hell yes I do.

    Why?….
    Furthermore, you go further to suggest that those civilizations here in the Americas who practiced human sacrifice were better off due to the Spanish intervention. Uh huh, the sure fire bet to end such barbaric practices is to kill them!

    That makes no sense! It does not follow that they were all killed! Show all this… heck for novelty sake go ahead and demonstrate here of all places ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”. You can’t because it was not done, not by the Catholic Church in this instance.

    The AUDACITY of rejecting Catholocism!! And guess what, the priest did NOTHING to exhort Pizarro not to attack. I am sure Jesus himself was there though.

    I am going to move past the immature and invective sarcasm of the last statement. That serves no one any good. As to the first part… was a greater good affected as a result? Were people protected as a result? Do you know what sort of sacrifices that priest made?

    Do you understand why it is the case that they did NOT meet with more resistence – they would have – I repeat – been fairly useless to hold out for any long period of time had the native people opted to resist…

    Yes, they did come in and topple a regime that had human sacrifice and was barbaric to women and children. Couldn’t that maybe be why it went largely unresisted?

    Now if you could just demonstrate ““millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America”…..

  20. Robin said,

    March 27, 2008 at 03:08

    http://globalnation.inquirer.net/mindfeeds/mindfeeds/
    view_article.php?article_id=67758

    Perhaps you have heard of the Requerimiento which was recited to the natives:

    ” On the part of the King, Don Fernando, and of Doña Juana, his daughter, Queen of Castille and León, subduers of the barbarous nations, we their servants notify and make known to you, as best we can, that the Lord our God, Living and Eternal, created the Heaven and the Earth, and one man and one woman, of whom you and we, all the men of the world, were and are descendants, and all those who came after us. But, on account of the multitude which has sprung from this man and woman in the five thousand years since the world was created, it was necessary that some men should go one way and some another, and that they should be divided into many kingdoms and provinces, for in one alone they could not be sustained.

    Of all these nations God our Lord gave charge to one man, called St. Peter, that he should be Lord and Superior of all the men in the world, that all should obey him, and that he should be the head of the whole human race, wherever men should live, and under whatever law, sect, or belief they should be; and he gave him the world for his kingdom and jurisdiction.

    But, if you do not do this, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their Highnesses; we shall take you and your wives and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their Highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him; and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their Highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us. And that we have said this to you and made this Requisition, we request the notary here present to give us his testimony in writing, and we ask the rest who are present that they should be witnesses of this Requisition.”

    If you still do not think that these conquistadors murdered native Americans USING the name of Christ, then nothing is going to convince you otherwise. One more little bit of info, did you know that a percentage of the loot taken from Latin America was automatically sent to the Vatican? Now if the Vatican isn’t acting in Christ’s name then I don’t know who is.

    Now….to the article, it’s title “The Vatican Must Show Good Will Towards Muslims” which is concerning the high profile baptism of a Muslim in name only who happens to also be highly critical of Islam. I happened to convert to Catholocism myself four years ago and I know what it takes to do this. First there are the RCIA classes (Right of Christian Initiation of Adults) which take two years. Then one is baptized, during Easter vigil, when all such baptisms occur world-wide for Catholics (and only then). The news reads:

    “Vatican television zoomed in on Allam, who sat in the front row of the basilica along with six other candidates for baptism. Allam later received his first communion.

    Yahya Pallavicini, vice-president of Coreis, the Islamic religious community in Italy, said he respected Allam’s choice but said he was “perplexed” by the enormously symbolic and high-profile way in which he chose to convert.

    “If Allam truly was compelled by a strong spiritual inspiration, perhaps it would have been better to do it delicately, maybe with a priest from Viterbo where he lives,” the ANSA news agency quoted Pallavicini as saying. ”

    I whole-heartedly agree. This was a STUNT and both Allam and the Pope were co-conspirators.

    As for Iraq, I am fully aware that the Vatican opposed Bush’s pre-emptive war, as well they should.

    You wrote: “I am still looking to determine how it is the case that in warning the Vatican that “WE” MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS (or else what?) that in fact”WE” haven’t largely shown good will.”

    May I ask a question? Why are you using the pronoun WE when referring to the Vatican?

  21. jason said,

    March 27, 2008 at 16:18

    asimplesinner, you sure have mastered those whitewashed western history books. the winners write history.

  22. asimplesinner said,

    March 27, 2008 at 17:27

    “asimplesinner, you sure have mastered those whitewashed western history books. the winners write history.”

    You always do better to make an argument than cast vague aspersians.

  23. asimplesinner said,

    March 27, 2008 at 17:45

    “If you still do not think that these conquistadors murdered native Americans USING the name of Christ, then nothing is going to convince you otherwise. One more little bit of info, did you know that a percentage of the loot taken from Latin America was automatically sent to the Vatican? Now if the Vatican isn’t acting in Christ’s name then I don’t know who is.”

    This again Robin is a red herring. You can type whole books worth of paragraphs linking Spain and Catholicism, Catholicism in the New World, etc. But can you actually demonstrate that “millions were murdered in the name of Christ”? So far no.

    You could write or clip and paste a dozen more non-sequitar paragraphs about these other topics, but the only thing I am really interested in at this point is seeing where these millions are.

    And all the talk of “Vatican Gold” is provacative to be sure… but not really relevent to showing where these “murdered millions” are.

    Now….to the article, it’s title “The Vatican Must Show Good Will Towards Muslims” which is concerning the high profile baptism of a Muslim in name only who happens to also be highly critical of Islam. I happened to convert to Catholocism myself four years ago and I know what it takes to do this. First there are the RCIA classes (Right of Christian Initiation of Adults) which take two years. Then one is baptized, during Easter vigil, when all such baptisms occur world-wide for Catholics (and only then). The news reads:

    Yahya Pallavicini, vice-president of Coreis, the Islamic religious community in Italy, said he respected Allam’s choice but said he was “perplexed” by the enormously symbolic and high-profile way in which he chose to convert.

    “If Allam truly was compelled by a strong spiritual inspiration, perhaps it would have been better to do it delicately, maybe with a priest from Viterbo where he lives,” the ANSA news agency quoted Pallavicini as saying. ”

    I whole-heartedly agree. This was a STUNT and both Allam and the Pope were co-conspirators. “

    Have you read the testimony of Allam and why he CHOSE this high profile conversion? Why he wanted to the world to know that he is becoming Catholic? Why he wanted to serve as a visible sign? He could have quietly been baptized in 100s of out of the way convents or monasteries with no more witnesses to it than a handful of monks or nuns who will in turn never leave their monastery or convent.

    He didn’t want that.

    Why? Because the palpable tension, hostility and persecution (like Father Ragheed Ganni and the Chaldean Archbishop of Mosul being murdered in Iraq, or the Trappists in Algeria, or Sister Cecelia Hanna in Jordan…) has not been private, discrete or hidden. He wanted to stand up and show the world he had no fear in making his new faith known.

    Why should he?

    Do the people who protest this conversion forbid or discourage Christians from converting?

    I would like to see a list of the major critics of this conversion and cross reference it to a list of major Islamic critics of the violence of Christians in Iraq. Would the same names be on both lists?

    Funny thing is, here on this blog when searching it with Google.com. I could come up with no references to “faraj rahno” the murdered Chaldean bishop from just a few weeks ago. I wonder why that is? I wonder why the topic here is demanding “VATICAN MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TO MUSLIMS” (or else what?) but I see no “MUSLIMS MUST NOT KILL CHRISTIANS”. Odd.

    As to why the “we” – I stand in solidarity with our pope.

  24. Robin said,

    March 27, 2008 at 18:55

    Did you stand in solidarity with “our Pope” John Paul when he apologized for the atrocities committed when using force to promote Catholocism in millenia past, such as what was done to the Native Americans in the reading of the Requiermiento http://users.dickinson.edu/~borges/Resources-Requerimiento.htm

    Full Text of the Apology:
    http://www.biblia.com/islam/pope.htm

    Note: John Paul refers to a document of the International Theological Commission, entitled: “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past:
    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/
    rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

    The portion referring to the use of force in spreading Catholocism:

    5.3. The Use of Force in the Service of Truth

    To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors.

    Analogous attention should be paid to all the failures, for which the sons and daughters of the Church may have been responsible, to denounce injustice and violence in the great variety of historical situations: “Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly or inappropriately.”(79)

    As always, establishing the historical truth by means of historical-critical research is decisive. Once the facts have been established, it will be necessary to evaluate their spiritual and moral value, as well as their objective significance. Only thus will it be possible to avoid every form of mythical memory and reach a fair critical memory capable – in the light of faith – of producing fruits of conversion and renewal. “From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.’

    .

  25. asimplesinner said,

    March 27, 2008 at 20:15

    Robin I can come up with even more apologies and link to them myself if you want. Let me know, I can even do an entry on my blog.

    Or you could find EVEN MORE of them and STILL avoid (some more) offering an explination of “millions were murdered in the name of Christ” in North & South America.

    Again, you can come up with more examples and links to apologies… Or I can do it for you, but I am going to ask you for what I hope is the last time to show where these millions were.

    Can you?

  26. Robin said,

    March 27, 2008 at 21:09

    Yes I can asimplesinner, but you will not accept them. You even go so far as to make light of the Pope John Paul’s apology which is SUPPOSED to evoke humbleness and repentance, something to learn from, something that when the POPE apologizes we as Catholics are surely supposed to heed.

    The Native American Indian population was DECIMATED by the coming of the White Man. ALL used their superiority screed when killing, enslaving, and forcing conversion. No amount of talking to you will convince you that this is something that CHRISTIANS did who used their religion to justify it.

    You want to dismiss any facts given as red herrings. You even state, “It would take a few days and pages elsewhere to refute just half of the slander and libel that has been spread over the “I” word or to consider the context of it and the State of the Spanish kingdom”. I have NEVER known a Catholic which tried to justify the Inquisition in any matter. Apologies were made for that too, did you miss them, or simply override them in your thoughts? One can always consider “context” but it does not take away from outcome. It is that OUTCOME both in the Inquisition and the decimation of the Native Americans that you dismiss apologies. As a Catholic myself, I find your viewpoints absolutely REPUGNANT, arrogant, and needless to say, CONTRARY to what our Pope asked for us to do, JOIN him in sorrow for sins past committed by the Church.

  27. asimplesinner said,

    March 27, 2008 at 23:58

    Yes I can asimplesinner, but you will not accept them.

    I might accept them if you will outline them. You do not. You point to situations of abuse or other regrettable situations, but I can’t find the statistics. Millions? Where are the millions? Where are they?

    The Holocaust saw the death of 12 M innocent people in the death camps – “6M” which people often think is the number is only half correct – that is just the Jewish victims. Non-Jews added it comes to 6M.

    In Philosophy the event is discussed as “The Novum” Novum is Latin for new – It is a reference to this sort of mass evil occuring for the first time in the world in those sorts of numbers and an allusion to contradict the Biblical “There is nothing new under the sun”. In fact there was something new. This was it. It had never been seen before and while I would love to say it was never seen again, it was – it got worse in Stalin’s USSR and likely as bad in the PRC in the 60s.

    My point? The Holocaust is a new thing because no once ever concieved of the ability to murder MILLIONS like that before. EVER. AND it took modern train systems, guns, concentration camps, armies and – little known fact – a primative punchcard computer system based on International Business Machine (IBM!) earliest most primative computers. Before that it was neither imaginable nor feasible.

    So now I am going to ask you to back up those numbers. I don’t want to start new discussions about the Inqusisition, the king of Spain, Charlemagne, any of that. If you want to come to Ancient Future Forum and start a forum discussion on any of those things, game on, let’s do.

    I want you to back up the number that millions were killed.

    Not point to gold going to Europe. Not point to the 2,000 killed during the Spanish Inquisition. (Did you know where most Jews fled during the SI? Do you know how many “witches” were burned at the steak in the Protestant North at that time? Do you know how many were hanged for misdemeanors in Cromwell’s England?)

    You even go so far as to make light of the Pope John Paul’s apology which is SUPPOSED to evoke humbleness and repentance, something to learn from, something that when the POPE apologizes we as Catholics are surely supposed to heed.

    Lady I pointed out I could come up with more than that still. PLEASE show me where I made fun of it. You can’t because I didn’t. You can note that in the end I point to the fact that these apologies – which I said I supported – don’t add up to millions killed – something you still haven’t proven.

    The Native American Indian population was DECIMATED by the coming of the White Man.

    Again, 70-90% of Mexico’s 80M+ population is of aboriginal American blood in part or in whole. How do we decimate a group that exponentiall repopulates like that? Infant mortality being what it is, if we the Catholic Church had set on a mission to decimate – which we did not, it took decades to have baptisms, after the apparition of OL Guadalupe priests worked day and night for a decade baptizing those that came to them. If we decimated them, how are there 100M+ Mexicans in Mexico and America with 70-90% aboriginal blood?

    Answer, we didn’t decimate. We didn’t kill millions. Don’t put that on the Catholic Church.

  28. joe said,

    March 28, 2008 at 17:06

    “70-90% of Mexico 80M+population is aboriginal”How do you prove it? One has to accept that colonialism was wrong and it was encouraged by Christian church.There is no democratic colonialism neither a democratic racism.People of the colonies din’t choose to be colonised on the contrary they violently opposed it and in the processes innocent lifes were lost.Even a loss of a single life is as significant as 6M.

  29. asimplesinner said,

    March 28, 2008 at 18:10

    “People of the colonies din’t choose to be colonised on the contrary they violently opposed it and in the processes innocent lifes were lost.Even a loss of a single life is as significant as 6M.”

    That is a subjective value judgement I am ill-prepared to accept. Concepts of greater good being what they are, no, I don’t accept that 1 death = 6,000,000 deaths.

    How to prove the aboriginal blood of Mexican people?

    See here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#Mexico

    But are you really doubting that and thinking that Mexicans are majority Caucasian/Euros?

    “One has to accept that colonialism was wrong and it was encouraged by Christian church.”

    Why does one have to accept that? If you were next in line to be a human sacrifice for Huitzilopochtli, I bet you would be singing a different tune.

    See:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huitzilopochtli
    and see:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Pre-Columbian_Americas

    “People of the colonies din’t choose to be colonised on the contrary they violently opposed it and in the processes innocent lifes were lost.”

    Can you better demonstrate this violent take over by a minority party with muskets who were months away from re-enforcements?

    We should just accept your imaging of this on the veraciy of your claims?

    The Americas and the world are better for what transpired. If you don’t agree, make sure you do not benifit in any way from North American technology, science, or medical break throughs…

    As a matter of fact, just shut that computer off now… And don’t go for dialysis if your kidneys give out.

    How in the hell did this thread about the demands of a Palestinian

    THE VATICAN MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS morph into a discussion of colonialism? Am I the only one here wanting to know what the response will be otherwise? THE VATICAN MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS… or what?

    If they don’t do as they are demanded, then what? They deserve to be attacked by terrorists? Allah demands some suicide bombing in Rome? Maybe the Italian trains will be attacked like Spain? Or suicide bombers like in Israel? Or plains in the Vatican like WTC? Or bombs on busses like London? Maybe invent something new? Maybe a little of each?

    If we don’t do as we are told like good dhimmi, than in Moslem nations they will riot and attack Catholic churches and Italian embassies like was done in Indonesia against the Danish embassy OVER A CARTOON?

    Wake up to what the REAL dangers are here people.

  30. Robin said,

    March 28, 2008 at 22:38

    Oh……………now it is much more clear where you are coming from simple sinner. BLEEP, you’re talking to the wrong person here, as in ME, a Catholic who is AMICABLY divorced from a Muslim, sharing a beautiful MUSLIM daughter with my LOVING and accepting MUSLIM ex-inlaws. For every single Muslim extremist I can drum up a Christian bigot to make the hateful pair complete, starting with YOU! The Vatican sought to distance itself from the remarks made about Islam by Allam, didn’t you read that memo?

    “The Holy See’s chief spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, on Thursday said Mr. Allam’s comments about Islam “remain his personal opinions without in any way becoming the official expression of the positions of the pope or of the Holy See.”

    L’Osservatore Romano, the Vatican publication, tried to calm Muslim anger, writing, “There are no hostile intentions toward a great religion like Islam.”
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120667020675970743.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

    Here’s a nice picture of the VATICAN seal of King Phillip II of Spain, complete with sword.
    http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1556-1598.htm

    “How in the hell did this thread about the demands of a Palestinian

    THE VATICAN MUST SHOW GOOD WILL TOWARDS MUSLIMS morph into a discussion of colonialism?”

    Because YOU chose a sentence out of the article above to be the very first comment on this thread. If you don’t believe me, just look up above at what you wrote.

    And here, I’ll leave you and everyone who wishes with some GOOD reading
    http://www.burningcross.net/crusades/christian-missionary-atrocities.html