Jihad Is A Much Larger Threat Than Nazism

[Budge]

[quote]Budge: I agreed with some, I definately wouldn't agree that Islam is a religion that oppresses women, among other statements but I dont have the time to go through and address everything, and find Quranic verses that prove the point.[/quote]Yeah maybe we could do a seperate thread on that, I know I have seen very concerning things in the Koran, one of which is this..

[quote][4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and [b]leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them;[/b] then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.[/quote]

[url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839"]http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/kora...amp;byte=114839[/url]

Now this is a U of Michigan translation, {not a fundie Christian source}

I had a job where I had to spend time in Islamic households, home visits with clients, {yes a VERY HOSPITABLE culture and wow the food--it was ok in my job to eat with the families because I was observing home visits} but the role of women was VERY VERY DIFFERENT.

Keep in mind I am not a feminist and the church I was in before I moved taught that women are to submit to their husbands but it ws a whole different ballgame.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Budge

[Budge]

Every religion has had people kill each other, even Prots gone bad, who follow Catholic Church examples of Inquisitions.

Everyone ignores Jesus's commands in the bible about love your enemies and they go ahead and call down the fire, that Jesus rebuked the apostles for.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']...so you can speak Arabic and Farsi? I wasn't aware of that, should I start using Arabic and Farsi on this board instead?[/quote]
Now you are being ridiculous again.

I do not need to know Arabic, or Farsi to know what is going on in the world.
I don't need to read the Koran.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']That's a very uneducated position, considering Buddists have killed more Christians then Muslims EVER HAVE. No, rather then killing 2000 with planes, they murdered much much more.[/quote]

I am not debating history, I am talking about today.
...and the number is 3,000.


[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']Sure it is because a great amount of Muslims have helped Christians[/quote]

Undoubtedly.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']Since you havn't read the Quran, I wouldn't expect you to know. You must watch alot of Fox News, because I wouldnt be so quick to lump these "Muslim leaders" together.[/quote]
I did not mean to say "all" Muslim leaders, and did not mean to imply that.
I would not think Imams who preach peace would want to be lumped together with Imams who preach suicide bombings and other horrors.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']In the situation of the Crusades...[/quote]
today. I am not debating history.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']I'm curious as to why you havn't responded to my comments about His Holiness Pope John Paul II being great friends with President Khatami of Iran? It's a bit too much for you to handle, I understand.[/quote]
smile when you say that.
And, yes, His Holiness has had great relationships and had friendships with Muslim leaders who I am sure are fantastic people. What's you point on that?
Reza, When I say that I see a very big problem with Islamofascism in today's world, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with every last Muslim - because every single Muslim is not an Islamofascist, right?
...It's a bit too much for you to handle, I understand.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']Surely you do, because you've made claims against the religion based upon false truths.[/quote]
I make claims that a radical ideology is using Islam and the Koran to spread like a virus across the planet, and is a threat to anyone who disagrees with it - including other Muslims.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 01:53 AM']Truth isn't claiming false evidence about a particular religion but taking a stand against that which isn't true.[/quote]
agreed.

[Sojourner]

It seems to me, from the viewpoint of a bystander to the conversation, that the present conflict is best understood in the context of history.

Although I am not an expert in history, I feel as though we (U.S. citizens in general) are missing out on a lot of context in the general understanding of the current conflict by not having an understanding or appreciation of the historical background. That's one of my summer projects.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Terra Firma' post='1228367' date='Apr 3 2007, 12:12 PM']It seems to me, from the viewpoint of a bystander to the conversation, that the present conflict is best understood in the context of history.

Although I am not an expert in history, I feel as though we (U.S. citizens in general) are missing out on a lot of context in the general understanding of the current conflict by not having an understanding or appreciation of the historical background. That's one of my summer projects.[/quote]

Sure – I agree with that. "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it", right?
I have followed threads on history with great interest, so I may start one.
[b]
As for the world today:[/b]
I simply make the observation that there are (an estimate) 300,000,000 people in the world who seek to kill all the Jews, crush the democracies, and destroy Western Civilization.

There are Islamofascist leaders using the Koran and the name of Allah to spread their ideology today.
Such as [url="http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/03/australias_meathead_mufti.html"]Sheik Ibrahim Mudeiris[/url]([url="http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=669"]more HERE including video[/url]), [url="http://english.aljazeera.net/English/archive/archive?ArchiveId=15816"]President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad[/url], and these people [VIDEO]

There are sincerely peaceful Muslims who do speak out against violence, and who do not wish to see their religion and culture hijacked by evil and used as a vehicle for modern Nazism today. And I thank God for them.
Such as [url="http://www.memritv.org/Transcript.asp?P1=623"]Abd al-Hamid al-Ansari[/url] ([url="http://www.chayas.com/qatarniversity.htm"]interesting article HERE[/url]), [url="http://www.shoebat.com/bio.php"]Walid Shoebat[/url][[url="http://www.shoebat.com/media/walidmovie801_1.wmv"]CNN Interview HERE[/url]], [url="http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/93666"]Zachariah Anani[/url], [url="http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153307"]Nonie Darwish[/url][[url="http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD153307"]interview video clip HERE[/url]]

And then, naturally, there are other folks who immediately react to people who speak out against Islamofascism as simply being Muslim-haters. Such as my buddy, Reza.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Lounge Daddy

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1228355' date='Apr 3 2007, 09:59 AM']Now you are being ridiculous again.

[b]No it's not ridiculous, it's the truth[/b]

I do not need to know Arabic, or Farsi to know what is going on in the world.

[b]In order to make a bold statement that the Quran saying "this that and the other thing", you should atleast know the Quran.[/b]

I don't need to read the Koran.

[b]If you're making claims that only Muslims that don't follow what their religion teachers are non-violent, then yes you do need to know the Quran in order to support your claim.[/b]

I am not debating history, I am talking about today.
...and the number is 3,000.

[b]I'm not talking about history either, I'm talking about what's happened in the last 5 years, as you're talking about [9/11] that happened in the last 5 years.[/b]

Undoubtedly.
I did not mean to say "all" Muslim leaders, and did not mean to imply that.
I would not think Imams who preach peace would want to be lumped together with Imams who preach suicide bombings and other horrors.
today. I am not debating history.

[b]That's not what you said, you put every Muslim together and said that the Quran told them to preach hate [though you'd never read te Quran before], you'd said grouped very Muslim Cleric together as being a terrorist and preaching terror, so I asked you simple question, what are the names of these clerics and repeatedly insisted that your claims are false [as they are]. You say you don't want to talk history but that's what you're doing. You've made outlandish claims about Islams history and said that your religion doesn't have such dirt on it's history, so I'd corrected you.[/b]

smile when you say that.
And, yes, His Holiness has had great relationships and had friendships with Muslim leaders who I am sure are fantastic people. What's you point on that?

[b]My point is the people that you've proclaimed to be fanatics, are alot of the same people that His Holiness was great friends with and would definately disagree with you.[/b]

Reza, When I say that I see a very big problem with Islamofascism in today's world, it doesn't mean that I have a problem with every last Muslim - because every single Muslim is not an Islamofascist, right?

[b]Correction: That wasn't what you said, I never said that you have a problem with the select few Muslims, you went on with a hate speech about how the only Muslims that aren't terrorists are those that don't practice their religion properly.[/b]

...It's a bit too much for you to handle, I understand.

[b]See that's the problem, I'd in everyone of my previous posts, taken a stand against the terrorists, but I'd also said that we should stand for truth and judge Islam for what it is, not what others claim. Its only now that you're saying that you don't consider ever Muslim a terrorists and that you don't need to know the Quran, but in your previous posts you were misquoting the Quran, taking it out of context, etc. and when corrected replied by saying that I'm defending terrorists, that I'm a Muslim apoligist and only stopped after everyone else supported me, that we should stick to the truth and not fabricate lies about another religion.[/b]

I make claims that a radical ideology is using Islam and the Koran to spread like a virus across the planet, and is a threat to anyone who disagrees with it - including other Muslims.

[b]Again, that wasn't your claim, go back and re-read your posts.[/b]

I simply make the observation that there are (an estimate) 300,000,000 people in the world who seek to kill all the Jews, crush the democracies, and destroy Western Civilization.

[b]This demographic isn't based upon nothing but your own mind. It's also important to point out that the situation in Isreal/Palestine is political, not religious.[/b]

There are sincerely peaceful Muslims who do speak out against violence, and who do not wish to see their religion and culture hijacked by evil and used as a vehicle for modern Nazism today. And I thank God for them.

[b]That's not what you said in your previous posts though, you said that those that aren't with the radicals are thoughs that don't practice their religion as it should be practiced and proclaimed the religion of Islam as a whole was the terrorist. You never made the distinction between Muslims.[/b]

And then, naturally, there are other folks who immediately react to people who speak out against Islamofascism as simply being Muslim-haters. Such as my buddy, Reza.

[b]Wrong, what I react against is people that make outlandish statements with no truth. Saying that Islam is the only religion that is violent, that everyone that's a Muslim is violent unless they're not practicing their religion as it's written in the wrong, though at the same time saying that he doesn't know the Quran and doesn't need to know the Quran, saying that every Muslim is our enemy and that their history has nothing but violence and that proves that Muslims want to hurt us, while not allowing others to bring up the facts that Christianity has a violent history. I'd repeatedly said that terrorism was wrong but I'd also said that we should judge their religion based upon doctrine, that we shouldn't judge an entire demographic of people such as Muslims based upon false stereotypes and the actions of the minority, that we should find out about the truth of their religion and stand on that platform as to why we don't believe in Islam.[/b][/quote]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Budge' post='1228297' date='Apr 3 2007, 08:07 AM']Yeah maybe we could do a seperate thread on that, I know I have seen very concerning things in the Koran,

[b]That would be great[/b]

one of which is this..
[url="http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=114839"]http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/kora...amp;byte=114839[/url]

[b]That's a much debated topic within Islam, this is a great contradiction within Islam because Muhammed was recorded as saying that Muslim men should never beat their wives. Some Muslim scholars that I'd spoken to have said that a man that has to resort to beating his wife, has failed as a husband, probably picked the wrong companion, among other charectors that fit into the equation. Rather then me go through various scholars, here's a short article in which a woman gives an explaination, in which most Muslims live with in their mindset [as I'd never known a Muslim man that has beaten his wife] [url="http://www.submission.org/women/beating.html"]http://www.submission.org/women/beating.html[/url].[/b]

Now this is a U of Michigan translation, {not a fundie Christian source}

[b]No doubt, I don't doubt your translation.[/b]

I had a job where I had to spend time in Islamic households, home visits with clients, {yes a VERY HOSPITABLE culture and wow the food--it was ok in my job to eat with the families because I was observing home visits} but the role of women was VERY VERY DIFFERENT.

[b]That's very true, it's very different. What alot of people forget sometimes though is that some women want their husbands to be masculine and tell them what to do. Most of my sisters are very liberal Muslims so as to be just like westerners for the most part but I have several friends that are more conservative [several that are women]. These women are the opposite as in, they desire a man that is going to tell them what to do and if their husband wasn't, they'd divorce him, so it's important to know that a grip of people see women as "oppressed" in Muslim marriages [and I'm sure that some are, infact I'm posetive of it] but I'd also found the same in Christianity. I know Christian men that use the scriptures [twist them] in the Bible to oppress their wives, so its difficult to determine. Now of course the women that I know, that are married to conservative muslim men, don't ever get beat because they obey their husbands [and as you can see in the verse, beating is the last thing, first they must correct their wives, then abstain from them, etc.]

I'd like to point out that wives of conservative catholics [and particularly orthodox] is rather different then Protestant marriages too. We view everything differently.

Middle Eastern Food is the bomb, no doubt about that.[/b]

Keep in mind I am not a feminist and the church I was in before I moved taught that women are to submit to their husbands but it ws a whole different ballgame.

[b]Nice[/b][/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote]Germany, after Hitler's rise to power, was declared a Roman Catholic Nation, yet it contributed the most massive annihilation of Jews that this world has ever seen . . .
. . . Does the fact that germany was a Catholic Nation during WWII, reflect the Roman Church as a whole?[/quote]
The Nazi government was [b]not[/b] Catholic (nor even Christian), and the Church never gave its approval to Nazism nor the Holocaust.
In fact, the Catholic Church and Nazism were enemies, and the Nazis persecuted Catholic clergy as well as Jews.
And the Pope Pius XII and the Vatican did more than anyone else to save Jewish lives during the Holocaust.

From Phatmass' own Catholic Defense Directory: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/directory/index.php/cat/344"]The Church and the Holocaust[/url]. Do yourself a favor and read at least some of those articles linked to, and get your history straight. (Should be enough there to keep you reading into next week!)

Sorry, but I just get sick of these "Hitler's Pope" lies being spread around.

And here's a recent [i]Telegraph[/i] article about recently-discovered Nazi documents that showed the Nazis considered the Pope an enemy for his aid of Jews and Poles. [url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wisrael130.xml"]"'Nazi' Pope helped Jews flee Holocaust"[/url]

Edited April 5, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

The Qu'ran contains multiple admonishions to make war on "infidels." (Including the "People of the Book" or "Those to whom the Scriptures were Given" - Jews and Christians - who refuse to submit to Islamic rule.)

[quote]You to whom the Scriptures were given! Believe in what we have revealed, confirming your own Scriptures, before We obliterate your faces and turn them backward, or lay our Curse upon you.[/quote](Qu'ran 4.47)

[quote]Make war on [the infidels]until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme[/quote] (Qu'ran 8:40)

[quote]Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.[/quote](Qu'ran 9:123)

[quote]When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them; besiege them; and lay in ambush everywhere for them. If they convert and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.[/quote](Qu'ran 9:5)

[quote]Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe not in God . . . who do not forbid what God and his Apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.[/quote](Qu'ran 9:29)


And Islam was originally spread by violent military conquest. The message to a town would be given to submit to Islam or war, and if the town would not submit, the Muslims would make war until the town was conquered.

Within a century, the Muslims had forged an empire stretching from Persia to Spain, and they almost conqered all Europe were they not turned back in France by Charles Martel.

That is history. This "religion of peace" stuff is p.c. bullhockey.

Edited April 5, 2007 by Socrates

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1230379' date='Apr 4 2007, 08:19 PM']The Qu'ran contains multiple admonishions to make war on "infidels." (Including the "People of the Book" or "Those to whom the Scriptures were Given" - Jews and Christians - who refuse to submit to Islamic rule.)

(Qu'ran 4.47)

(Qu'ran 8:40)

(Qu'ran 9:123)

(Qu'ran 9:5)

(Qu'ran 9:29)
And Islam was originally spread by violent military conquest. The message to a town would be given to submit to Islam or war, and if the town would not submit, the Muslims would make war until the town was conquered.

Within a century, the Muslims had forged an empire stretching from Persia to Spain, and they almost conqered all Europe were they not turned back in France by Charles Martel.

That is history. This "religion of peace" stuff is p.c. bullhockey.[/quote]

Go back and re-read my posts and you'll see that those verses, when properly translated and put into the propre context don't say anything of the sort. It's obvious that you dont now Islamic history or the Quran.

In regards to your post about the Roman Church, that isn't true. The Roman Church declared Germany a "Catholic Nation" after hitler came to power. I'm talking about declaring the Roman Catholicism the official religion of Germany and it's endorsement of Germany as a whole. Here's some quotes that I found:

[b]With the Church's strong view against Communism and its cooperation with Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, some in the Church looked at the Nazi party as an ally at first.[/b]

[b]Hitler was never directly excommunicated by the Catholic Church and several Catholic bishops in Germany or Austria are recorded as encouraging prayers of support for "The Führer"; this despite the fact the original Reichskonkordat (1933) of Germany with the Holy See proscribed any active political participation by the priesthood.[/b]

If everyone would like a more accurate interpretation of mainline Islam, why not go to the horses mouth: King Abdullah II speaking at a Catholic University [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys[/url]

Reza

Edited April 5, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1230591' date='Apr 5 2007, 12:42 AM']In regards to your post about the Roman Church, that isn't true. The Roman Church declared Germany a "Catholic Nation" after hitler came to power. I'm talking about declaring the Roman Catholicism the official religion of Germany and it's endorsement of Germany as a whole. Here's some quotes that I found:[/quote]Reza, I really don't know what your sources are, but this is just not true. Unfortunately, some anti-Catholic historians want to re-write history, but even from their perspective, I've never heard such a far-fetched accusation as Hitler's Germany being declared a "Catholic Nation." There certainly wasn't a "stamp of approval" coming from the Vatican for Hitler.

I fear that you've been subject to someone's revisionist history, and haven't had any other perspective to correct these gross errors.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1230591' date='Apr 5 2007, 12:42 AM'][b]With the Church's strong view against Communism and its cooperation with Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, some in the Church looked at the Nazi party as an ally at first.[/b][/quote]The reality is that the Communists led a campaign which included every attempt to exterminate the Christian religion. While the Catholic Church and other Western Christians resisted the Fascists, the greater and more blood-thirsty enemy was the Communist revolutionaries. It is safe to say that the Fascists were no help for promoting Christian culture; and instead, saw established churches only as tools to manipulate and serve their propoganda machine.

As far as Hitler's Germany being a "Catholic Nation", you'd need to explain why my father's parish priest (a German himself) feared for his life and was unable to enter Germany because of the Nazis.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1230591' date='Apr 5 2007, 12:42 AM'][b]Hitler was never directly excommunicated by the Catholic Church and several Catholic bishops in Germany or Austria are recorded as encouraging prayers of support for "The Führer"; this despite the fact the original Reichskonkordat (1933) of Germany with the Holy See proscribed any active political participation by the priesthood.[/b][/quote]There is a famous book called "Hitler's Pope", which was a real smear job against Pope Pius XII. Though many still believe the book's lies, those who pay attention to this stuff know that the premise doesn't even resemble reality. Even this past week, more documents from Germany (recently released) reveal that German spies in the Vatican saw the Catholic Church as an enemy:

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wisrael130.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wisrael130.xml[/url]

Quoting a little bit:[quote]Pius XII, the wartime pontiff often condemned as "Hitler's Pope", was actually considered an enemy by the Third Reich, according to newly discovered documents.

Several letters and memos unearthed at a depot used by the Stasi, the East-German secret police, show that Nazi spies within the Vatican were concerned at Pius's efforts to help displaced Poles and Jews.

In one, the head of Berlin's police force tells Joachim von Ribbentropp, the Third Reich's foreign minister, that the Catholic Church was providing assistance to Jews "both in terms of people and financially".

A report from a spy at work in the Vatican states: "Our source was told to his face by Father Robert Leibner [one of Pius's secretaries]that the greatest hope of the Church is that the Nazi system would be obliterated by the war."
...

In 1999, John Cornwell's Hitler's Pope suggested that Pius XII, who had been the papal envoy to Germany before the war, was sympathetic to the Nazis.

Over the years more documents have come to light as the Vatican has opened its secret archives to scholars in an attempt to clear what it sees as a [b]communist-funded smear on Pius's name[/b].[/quote]I've read personal accounts that confirm that the Communists had both the motives and the track-record for attacking the Catholic Church from the top down. The Communists and all enemies of the Catholic Church know that attempting to associate the Vatican with Hitler is quite an effective way to discredit the Church.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1230591' date='Apr 5 2007, 12:42 AM']If everyone would like a more accurate interpretation of mainline Islam, why not go to the horses mouth: King Abdullah II speaking at a Catholic University [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5z6cmC7dys[/url][/quote]For me, the biggest problem isn't the radical Jihadists. It is the fact that non-Muslims are treated by Muslim governments (secular, religious, royal, whatever) and Muslim-majority mobs as second-class citizens. Even in the "moderate" kingdom of Jordan, non-Muslims are second-class. Quoting a report (International Religious Freedom Report 2005) from the state department ([url="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51602.htm"]link[/url]):[quote]Because Shari’a law governs the personal status of Muslims, converting from Islam to Christianity and proselytizing Muslims are not allowed. Muslims who convert to other faiths face societal and governmental discrimination. The Government does not recognize the legality of such conversions. Under Shari'a, converts are regarded as apostates and legally may be denied their civil and property rights. In the past, this principle has not been applied, but during the reporting period one convert to Christianity was found guilty of apostasy and stripped of many of his civil rights. The Government claims it neither encourages nor prohibits apostasy. Converts from Islam do not fall under the jurisdiction of their new religion's laws in matters of personal status; they are still considered Muslims under Shari'a. Converts to Islam fall under the jurisdiction of Shari'a courts. Shari'a law prescribes the death penalty for Muslims who convert to another religion; however, such punishment has never been applied.[/quote]
As you know, the subjugation of Copts in Egypt is not because of radical Jihadists...it is the moderate, secular Islam that is oppressing them.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1230825' date='Apr 4 2007, 11:17 PM']Reza, I really don't know what your sources are, but this is just not true. Unfortunately, some anti-Catholic historians want to re-write history, but even from their perspective, I've never heard such a far-fetched accusation as Hitler's Germany being declared a "Catholic Nation." There certainly wasn't a "stamp of approval" coming from the Vatican for Hitler.

[b]I never said that the Vatican put a stamp of approval on Hitler but the country of Germany, declaring it a German Nation.[/b]

I fear that you've been subject to someone's revisionist history, and haven't had any other perspective to correct these gross errors.

[b]Well you could dispute it as you please, but I don't believe that it's not true. I believe at most liberal of interpretations of history, the Roman church didn't take a stand against hitler from the beginning, as it never formally condemned hitler's actions.[/b]

The reality is that the Communists led a campaign which included every attempt to exterminate the Christian religion. While the Catholic Church and other Western Christians resisted the Fascists, the greater and more blood-thirsty enemy was the Communist revolutionaries.

[b]I'd agree that the athiest communists were the greatest threat, as the Russian Orthodox Church was almost completely annihilated. I wouldn't agree that the Roman Church did everything in it's power to resist the fascists.[/b]

It is safe to say that the Fascists were no help for promoting Christian culture; and instead, saw established churches only as tools to manipulate and serve their propoganda machine.

[b]Agreed, it hurt the church in the long run, particular among Jewish people.[/b]

As far as Hitler's Germany being a "Catholic Nation", you'd need to explain why my father's parish priest (a German himself) feared for his life and was unable to enter Germany because of the Nazis.

[b]I know as a fact that alot of Roman Priests opposed the fascists, that I'm not denying but there were alot of Roman Priests that didn't take a stand and the Vatican didn't take a formal stance condemning hitler [and I think Mussalini either].[/b]

There is a famous book called "Hitler's Pope", which was a real smear job against Pope Pius XII. Though many still believe the book's lies, those who pay attention to this stuff know that the premise doesn't even resemble reality. Even this past week, more documents from Germany (recently released) reveal that German spies in the Vatican saw the Catholic Church as an enemy:

[url="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/30/wisrael130.xml"]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../wisrael130.xml[/url]

[b]I wouldn't deny that Hitler saw the Church as an enemy as that which was written was in opposite to fascism but the church didn't condemn hitler and a great amount of Roman Priests went along with him. In regards to the book, I'd stumbled upon it once on the internet but never read it. Usually I don't read books such as those.[/b]

Quoting a little bit:I've read personal accounts that confirm that the Communists had both the motives and the track-record for attacking the Catholic Church from the top down. The Communists and all enemies of the Catholic Church know that attempting to associate the Vatican with Hitler is quite an effective way to discredit the Church.

[b]My point wasn't to say that it's in Roman's doctrine to agree with Hitler or others but to say that Romans have their share of embarassing history that is very violent and wrong but doesn't reflect the church as a whole, just as Muslims have a slightly negative history but don't reflect the religion as a collective. His Holiness Pope John Paul II made a great amount of apologizes for actions of the Romans in the past, that were very wrong and didn't reflect that of the church as a collective. Here's a quote that you might find interesting:

May 4, 2001: Becomes first pope to visit Greece since Schism; issues sweeping apology for "sins of action and omission" by Roman Catholics against Orthodox Christians.[/b]

[b]In 2000, he asked forgiveness for the wrongs done by the Catholic Church to others, singling out Jews for special mention. The apology drew mixed reactions because he failed to mention what many perceived as Pope Pius XII's failure to condemn the Holocaust during World War II. Repentance for the sins or omissions of the church was one of the themes of his pontificate. The pope publicly admitted church culpability 94 times in issues ranging from the inquisition to the treatment of women. [/b]

[b]The Vatican issues "Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Mistakes of the Past,'' which lists several major areas where the church had failed, including the Inquisition, forced conversion and other events involving the persecution of Jews. One week before a planned trip to the Holy Land, Pope John Paul II apologizes for the church's treatment of Jews. [/b]

For me, the biggest problem isn't the radical Jihadists. It is the fact that non-Muslims are treated by Muslim governments (secular, religious, royal, whatever) and Muslim-majority mobs as second-class citizens.

[b]That's a very severe problem, I'd definately agree with you but we've got to seperate the difference between politics and religion. In Palestine, it's true that Hamas is partly in power but it isn't because of religion, it's because of politics. Surely Hamas is religious but they weren't voted into power because of their religious ideology but because of their politics.[/b]

Even in the "moderate" kingdom of Jordan, non-Muslims are second-class.

[b]Jordan has a long history of problems [honor killings, etc] but those can't be changed overnight, it takes time. It was Queen Rania that pushed for honor killings to be abolished, and because of her, it happened. The King of Jordan is a very moderate person that doesn't want to see Christians as second class citizens but it's going to take time for him to make the transition from the past to the future. Jordan is a monarchy and it has good and bad kings. King Abdullah II is great, I believe but it's difficult for a great king to reverse the evil deeds of bad kings.[/b]

Quoting a report (International Religious Freedom Report 2005) from the state department ([url="http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2005/51602.htm"]link[/url]):
As you know, the subjugation of Copts in Egypt is not because of radical Jihadists...it is the moderate, secular Islam that is oppressing them.

[b]It's definately a "trying" period in Egypt but the situation is getting better. If I'm not mistaken, I don't think Copts have to pay a religious tax no more, so though it takes time, it's getting better. Prior to His Holiness Pope St. Kyrillos VI becoming Pope, Copts were more oppressed but if you know about Pope St. Kyrillos, His Holiness was very blessed and cured the president's wife or daughter [it's been a while since I studied it] but that opened people's minds more to the truth of Jesus Christ. No matter if you're Muslims or Christian, everyone wants to be healed, it's a human desire. Jordan has some problems [as does Palestine] but from the Christians that I know [not alot but few] that live in Jordan, it isn't worse then Palestine, it's about the same, not great but not horrible either. What Isreal has done to churches in Palestine and the oppression of Christians is far worse then Jordan's restrictions.

I mean, we've gone through horrible oppression from Romans in the past [as you pointed out Maronites did from Syriac Orthodox] and I'm sure at that moment people were saying, "man it's just their religion, it teaches them to do that to us, it's never going to change" and differen't thoughts of such but it did get better, so I believe that Islam is going through a phase and it's going to get better [and maybe one day Muslims will turn to Christianity?][/b][/quote]

Reza

Edited April 5, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[Guest T-Bone]

.

Edited April 5, 2007 by T-Bone

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='reza']Well you could dispute it as you please, but I don't believe that it's not true. I believe at most liberal of interpretations of history, the Roman church didn't take a stand against hitler from the beginning, as it never formally condemned hitler's actions.[/quote]Reza, I would ask you to be more cautious when discussing subjects which you may not know much about. The Catholic Church spoke out against the problems in the Germany Empire over two years before the start of World War II began in Europe. Please refer to this encyclical from 1937:
[url="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11BRENN.HTM"]ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH MARCH 14, 1937 (link)[/url]

Let me quote and highlight some key points:
[quote]3. [b]When, in 1933, We consented, Venerable Brethren, to open negotiations for a concordat, which the Reich Government proposed on the basis of a scheme of several years' standing[/b]; and when, to your unanimous satisfaction, We concluded the negotiations by a solemn treaty, We were prompted by the desire, as it behooved Us, to secure for Germany the freedom of the Church's beneficent mission and the salvation of the souls in her care, as well as by the sincere wish to render the German people a service essential for its peaceful development and prosperity. [b]Hence, despite many and grave misgivings, We then decided not to withhold Our consent for We wished to spare the Faithful of Germany, as far as it was humanly possible, the trials and difficulties they would have had to face, given the circumstances, had the negotiations fallen through.[/b] It was by acts that We wished to make it plain, Christ's interests being Our sole object, that the pacific and maternal hand of the Church would be extended to anyone who did not actually refuse it.

6. [b]Different, however, Venerable Brethren, is the purpose of this letter.[/b] As you affectionately visited Us in Our illness, so also We turn to you, and through you, the German Catholics, who, like all suffering and afflicted children, are nearer to their Father's heart. At a time when your faith, like gold, is being tested in the fire of tribulation and persecution, [b]when your religious freedom is beset on all sides[/b], when the lack of religious teaching and of normal defense is heavily weighing on you, you have every right to words of truth and spiritual comfort from him whose first predecessor heard these words from the Lord: "I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren" (Luke xxii. 32).

8. [b]Whoever exalts race, or the people, or the State, or a particular form of State, or the depositories of power, or any other fundamental value of the human community [/b]-- however necessary and honorable be their function in worldly things -- whoever raises these notions above their standard value [b]and divinizes them to an idolatrous level, distorts and perverts an order of the world planned and created by God; he is far from the true faith in God and from the concept of life which that faith upholds.[/b]

13. [b]We thank you, Venerable Brethren, your priests and Faithful, who have persisted in their Christian duty and in the defense of God's rights in the teeth of an aggressive paganism.[/b] Our gratitude, warmer still and admiring, goes out to those who, in fulfillment of their duty, have been deemed worthy of sacrifice and suffering for the love of God.[/quote]Just to repeat: this was written two and a half years before the Germany invaded Poland (starting WWII in Europe).

Here is the text, in black-and-white, showing that the Vatican publically challenged and set itself at odds with the "aggressive paganism" of the Third Reich. And this encyclical was released when many Catholics lived and were subject to persecution by the German government.

Reza, you've been fed some serious anti-Catholic propoganda. I'd be interested to know who fed you these distortions and lies, if you are comfortable sharing that info.

I also noticed that you keep using the term "Roman Church." As you have requested that I avoid the term "Monophysite" when describing the Coptic Church, I would ask in the same spirit that you use the term "Catholic Church" instead of Roman Church. As you know, Neither Maronites nor Byzantine Catholics nor Chaldean Catholics nor Syro-Malabar Catholics nor Melkites fit well under the term "Roman Church." The practice of adding the "Roman" to Catholic was actually begun in England during the Reformation.

Also, sometimes your use of the term doesn't tell the whole story. For example, when you talk about the "Roman Church" persecuting Copts, the real story is that the Eastern (i.e. Greek) Byzantine Emperor supported the Melkites, who were the ones in Egypt with the Copts. That description goes a lot further to reflecting history than blaming everything on the "Roman Church."

One last request, Reza. Could you please use quotes properly. I don't think your intermixing bold text as responses is clear to the casual reader. In addition, it is more difficult to reply, because quoted text is omitted when doing a "reply" to a post.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Reza']Jordan has a long history of problems [honor killings, etc] but those can't be changed overnight, it takes time. It was Queen Rania that pushed for honor killings to be abolished, and because of her, it happened. The King of Jordan is a very moderate person that doesn't want to see Christians as second class citizens but it's going to take time for him to make the transition from the past to the future. Jordan is a monarchy and it has good and bad kings. King Abdullah II is great, I believe but it's difficult for a great king to reverse the evil deeds of bad kings.[/quote]I generally agree with your judgment of King Abdullah II, though he's not without critics in the human rights community. His Western education included time at Oxford and Georgetown, which I believe helped expose him to a more progressive worldview.

I think that his ability to be a progressive is seriously threatened by his need to avoid alienating the Jordanian people, which could result in him being deposed. I'm sure that he has no friends among radical Jihadists, given his friendly relations with Israel and the US (not to mention that his government is probably got a bunch of them in Jordanian prisons).