The Pope did not back track on his speech

Submitted by Maggie4Life (Australia), Sep 24, 2006 at 21:44

It seems that the media has once again misrepresented Benedict XVI. Yesterday, I listened to the best homily ever that I have heard from a Catholic priest (my new parish priest). He spoke on this very subject, and like others he expressed disappointment that the Pope had "apologised". However, a careful analysis of what the Pope has said in clarification of the situation shows that the only regrets that have been expressed is for the violence that has been created by neanderthals.

The speech at Regensberg is going down as a real classic from a Pontiff. In some ways this speech is on a par with the speech given by the first Pontiff at the first Council of Jerusalem. It is very defining, because it tackled far more than Islam. Anyone who has read the content of the Regensberg address will know that there was mostly criticism of the western scholars, and especially of Europe, and yes even the USA where moral relativism has been embraced.

One of my sources of information is "Against the Grain", which is an excellent site because of the quality of information that the owner provides. From here I have learned that the modernist theologians have become quite alarmed over the speech by the Pope. On modernist who has expressed alarm is Hans Kung, and he is a man who does not represent mainstream Catholics.

There is no reason why Benedict should apologise or even backtrack on his speech, because he was addressing the issue of faith and reason.

On the other hand, the childish behaving of the Jihadis has proved that within Islam there is little room for thinking and reason. These Jihadis are harming other Muslims who have in fact decided to ignore the passages in the Koran that advocate violence. No Muslim can honestly get away from the fact that the Koran does in fact promote the idea of conversion by the sword. It is dishonest to state that the two kidnapped American journalists did not convert by the sword. They quite literally had a gun at their heads, and if they wanted to live they had to do what their slave driving captors wanted. Mind you, I would think more of them if they had not been willing to give in, just as Jill Carroll refused to give into the pressure that was placed upon her to convert.

The people who poured out onto the streets are the puppets of slave masters who desire to impose a political system that is anathema to people in the west. These poor little puppets have had their brains removed, for if they truly had the ability to think they would not be so dumb as to consent to the entrapment of the slavery of Islam.

I would not expect any Jihadi to understand the speech at Regensberg, since most of them have already proved themselves to be totally uneducated. By that I mean that they lack the intellectual tools that allow them to think for themselves. If they had any form of intellectual acumen then they would in fact denounce Islam and walk away from the extremism.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".