Pope Rage is all the rage

Submitted by Maggie4Life (Australia), Oct 6, 2006 at 22:03

I have been reading a variety of comments here and elsewhere. The rage against Pope Benedict XVI has resulted in a rather pathetic display of three year old temper tantrums in countries where the usual suspects reside. I really do believe that we should all invest in some adult sized dummies and nappies and donate them to these poor demented folk who are not allowed to have a thought of their own - out of fear that if they thought for themselves they would up and leave Islam in droves and return to their Christian and other cultural roots. Oh yes, I have been learning a lot about the lies of Islam. I have been learning even more about their historical inventions, as they try to pass off historical events in a way that is not compatible with the truth.

Probably the funniest effort for Pope rage has to be the cartoon that aired on Al Jazeera, as it portrayed Benedict killing the white doves of peace that were released by the late Pope John Paul II. It is a funny cartoon because it showed Benedict as being such an excellent shot that he would have no trouble at his age winning a gold medal in shooting. Three bulleyes, just like the imaginary missile that went through the Lebanese ambulance 792. However, Al Jazeera has shot itself in the foot with this cartoon. If the imams had told the truth to their adherents instead of making up lies sufficient to cause yet another three year old tantrum, then there would have been absolutely no need for everything that took place.

Yes, Benedict had a message for Islamists. That message is: Let my people worship in peace. Leave them alone and stop the forced conversions. Stop killing my people just because they are Christian, or Jew, or Buddhist or Hindu.

The Pope rage has not really abated for the ragers have simply focused their attention elsewhere. In France, we are hearing about the growing intifada in the North African neighbourhoods. In Prague, we hear about the plot to kidnap Jews, placing them in a synagogue, and blowing it up. In Belgium there were riots that lasted for more than three nights because some idiot died. In France again, Robert Redeker fears for his life because he wrote an article that was much more critical of Islam than what was stated by Benedict XVI in a speech meant for a specific audience in Regensberg. Now we have a new focus in London. It is the turn of Jack Straw who has initiated veil rage.

Personally, I agree with Jack Straw, since I find the wearing of the burqa and the veil to be an affront to my own womanhood. It is also an affront to have someone hiding behind a veil like that because if one cannot read the expressions in the eyes and face, one cannot know whether what is being said is a lie or the truth. There is also a tendency for the wearers of the burqa to behave in a very threatening way.

I am very secure in my own Catholic belief system. I disagree with the Hindu who has stated in the comments that Hindu etc are the only true religion. I disagree because the Hindu religion and its variants are polytheism, and they are pagan. The Baghwan does not exist, and none of those gods have ever existed. However, that does not mean that I reject anything within the Hindu religion that is good and true. There are those elements that contain the truth. We need to build on those elements of truth but as far as I am personally concerned, I disregard the rest. My own personal exposure to persons of Hindu belief has not been all that pleasant. I need not elaborate here. Suffice to say that I reject the idea that one is being religious by being a vegan, and in the same way I reject the idea that one is being religious by wearing a burqa. Even when I wear a hat in church, I am not being religious. The only thing that counts is what lies in my heart.

I only have to look into the Scriptures to see why those who display all the outward signs of religion, without the necessary circumcision of the heart, do not necessarily please God. My own experience taught me that if one says "I am religious", but is a thief, and dishonest, then that outward form of being religious counts for nothing. This is basically the message that Jesus was conveying to the scribes and Pharisees, and it was the message of the parable of the pharisee and the tax collector. The Pharisee was one who displayed all the signs of outward piety. He had on the right clothing, and he made sure that he was seen conforming to the precepts. The tax collector was a bit of a huxster. What is not revealed in this parable is what the Pharisee did when no one was looking and this is the real issue, because God sees everything that is in our hearts. The Pharisee thought of himself as being a "saint", because he kept the precepts in an outward fashion. He had so much pride that he failed to admit to his sins of omission and commission. The tax collector on the other hand, being one who was touched by God, came to the Temple to ask forgiveness for his sins. Who was more pleasing to God? Was it the one who wore the clothing of the Pharisee? Or was it the tax collector who was truly sorry for what he had done?

Looking through the Scripture, I see that to be a man or woman of God, one behaves in an upright or righteous way. There is nothing that is righteous if one goes around burning effigies of the leader of another religion. There is nothing upright if one issues a fatwa to kill that religious leader. There is nothing upright about wearing a veil, or refusing to eat meat.

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".