Pope angers muslims

[Barnabas]

How many libertarians will convert to islam to avoid paying the extra taxes?

[Heresson]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Muhammed managed to get power right away, living among a group of disorganized arabs looking for a leader. Christianity, living under Rome, didnt gain political power for 300 years. At which time the notion that theres no coercion in matters of faith was more or less forgotten.

even Theodosius didn't force anyone... pagan sacrifices were banned, and later pagan cult, but not paganity per se. That's bad, but that's a difference. And it's at the end of IV century.
It's not Constantine, as You seem to think, who started new christian policy.
Even in V century there's a pagan historian, a bad one, actually, Zosimos, who hated X-ty and bashed Constantine...

Id say that the correlations of being out of power with being against coercion is far stronger than any correlation with the content of founding documents.

It is true, but it does not apply to devoted muslims. They can not turn back the time and accept Meccan Muhammad only

Cite for that? I thought the interpretation of Sharia is an ongoing process today.

You've replied yourself with your second post - there are not quite successful attempts of renewing the process

By hypocrisy I've ment what I've given example for. Muhammad clearly said that f.e. You should cut hands for theft. Some claim that by "cut" he actually didn't mean "cut off", but lash or whatever. Well, that's a sollution of a kind, but a hypocrisy as well.

Because its the believers choice to live under that system, not the state's.

In shari'a system, You do not have a choice to leave it.
And the system is a state. That's actually one of the explenations why there's death penalty for apostasy" apostasy was leaving the ummah, treason of the state.
Well, I have a thought that they could say that now, when islam is no longer a state, it's no longer a necessity. But that'd demand treating Muhammad and Islam in historical context, which they do not.

Yet MOST muslims seem to accept that, and have for decades

True, but unlike in X-ty, there will always be a group that will question that.

You say that Muslims are minorities in some countries. But many of them do not see themselves as a minority, but as a start of building a majority.
Lets put it this way: in Poland, there are two muslim organisations. One is the old one, of the Tatars, who live in Poland for centuries. Living under ancien regimes - royal Poland, russian occupation, II Republic... and being tightly connected with ethnic group made them not think about converting anyone to their faith, and made them very liberal. Well, they are Tatars, I doubt they were very pious muslims when they came here already. The other organisation is made of immigrants and converts. They seem to despise Tatars, and its members are often, though I can't say by what percent, fanatical. I think many of muslim minorities in Britain see it as a state that will adopt shari'ah oneday.

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


What about canonic law?

there's a huge difference. Canonic law is mostly for clergy and their functions and has little to do with state law, not to mention gouverment. This post proves your ignorance on the subject.

[Fake Boris]

there's a huge difference. Canonic law is mostly for clergy and their functions and has little to do with state law, not to mention gouverment. This post proves your ignorance on the subject.

Canonic law included provisions about what the Church thought was the proper relationship between temporal and spiritual power.

Besides, if you think that Catholic dogmas and authority figures didn't have a major influence on the governing of political affairs in our civilization, you're pretty much a ******.

[Heresson]

You have to be a ****** of retards to compare shari'ah with canon law.

Is there a state claiming canon law is the basis of its legislation system?
is there a state which has The Bible as its constitution?
Does canon law support corporal punishment, including cutting of of hands, or executions?
Compare the size of canon law and shari'ah.
Shari'ah concerns EVERYTHING, from what you should eat, what You should wear, should You play dolls or not, to the gouvermental practice. And it is thought of as a law of a muslim state.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
I like the story about David and Goliath.

Here's this 9 1/2 foot Billy Badass, and some teenager whacks him in the head with a rock. Now that's violent.

rocks are stupid, throw... rocks.. at... them?

[dannubis]

So, something funny just came to my mind: since the pope is supposed to be infaillable, how can he apologise for something ?

This is a dogmatic problem... Let the clash begin !

[Saras]

IIRC, popes are not infallible, the church is

[BeBMan]

What's with this cannon law?

[Robert]

Originally posted by dannubis
So, something funny just came to my mind: since the pope is supposed to be infaillable, how can he apologise for something ?

This is a dogmatic problem... Let the clash begin !

I think the pope must go into infallable modus to speak infallable things. Not all things he says are 'infallable'. (We protestants know for sure )

I think it's hard for the pope to apologize though and to take his words back. After all he's the self-declared 'representant' of Jesus. Imagine Jesus taking his words back.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Saras
IIRC, popes are not infallible, the church is

Popes are literally infallible.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by dannubis
So, something funny just came to my mind: since the pope is supposed to be infaillable, how can he apologise for something ?

This is a dogmatic problem... Let the clash begin !

pope is only infallible in matters of faith and when he speaks ex cathedra. As CuyberShy put it, he has to get into infallible mode. Kind of like SailorMoon.

[BeBMan]

Vet, the speech he made was in a university context, so supposed to be part of a discussion or even as part of a dialogue of religions (although that didn't came out too well ). However, he was not in "infallible mode"

[Elok]

Originally posted by BeBro
What's with this cannon law?

The phrase is similar to "shotgun wedding." If you have the cannons, you make the laws.

[Jon Miller]

JM

[Dr Strangelove]

Is what the pope said really that bad though? He apparently quoted some Byzantine emporer who remarked that all that was new in Islam was evil, but I gather that the quote was given within the contrext of a speech discussing the historical context of the conflict between Christianity and Islam. What did he say afterwards? Was the speech so badly worded that a reasonable person might have easily misinterpreted his overall message? Should we now find ourselves apologizing for other people ripping a quote out of context? Shouldn't we be insisting that the original message be considered for what it was?