"The reaction is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force the Pope
into submission to Islam."

Hm!

--S.

http://www.frontpag
<http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24434>
emag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=24434

Liberals, Islamists Unite against Pope 
By Andrew Walden
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 18, 2006

In what has suddenly been made into a highly controversial speech, the day
after September 11, at Bavaria's University of Regensberg, Pope Benedict
describes Christian belief in a God whose words and acts are bound by
reason, truth and the law of non-contradiction. Benedict contrasts this
with Islamic belief in a God not bound by anything-including his own words.
Benedict further contrasts Christian belief with that of secular humanists
who see reason as being completely unbound of God.

In response, both Islamists and secularists have demanded the Pope
apologize. He must not. Benedict's speech is a work of enlightened genius.
He has clearly laid out the differences between Christian culture and
Islamic culture and the basis of the clash of civilizations we now
experience as the War on Terror. His analysis also explains the underlying
cause of the alliance between the western left and the Islamofascist right.
It should be studied carefully by all who seek to defend western
civilization.

Islamist reaction focuses on one sentence in the speech. Reaching back to
1391, Benedict quotes Byzantine Emperor Manuel II: "Show me just what
Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and
inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

Four days later, according to AP: "Pakistan's legislature unanimously
condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an
apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and
Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades. 

"Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a
speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst
into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of
the Prophet Muhammad." 

Reuters quoted other sources expressing fears for the Pope's safety and even
fear of an attack on Vatican City.

The Islamist reaction proves Manuel II's 600-year-old point. The reaction
is not one of anger but a calculated attempt to force the Pope into
submission to Islam. Since Islam need not be internally consistent and it
is not bound by reason, it's only objective can be to assert the power of a
God who is so transcendent that He is not bound by anything. If man is
created in God's image then by extension Islamic man is not bound by
anything. (This explains the predilection on the part of some Muslims to
lie.) Islamists are not responding to any 'offense' to their non-existent
morality. They are asserting the only 'morality' they have-the will to
power.

"Will to Power" is a key element of Nietzsche 's philosophy-hence the root
of the term, Islamofascist. Moreover the Western "left' is today guided far
more by Nietzsche existentialist thought than by Marxist thought-hence the
alliance between the Western "left" and the Islamofascist 'right'.

Reuters quotes an Indian Muslim leader doing precisely what Manuel II said
they would: "Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the chief cleric of New Delhi's historic
Jama Masjid, India's largest mosque, extolled Muslims to 'respond in a
manner which forces the Pope to apologize.'" Note they intend to use
"force" not reason.

Reuters quotes an unnamed diplomat pointing out the Pope was, "calling a
spade a spade".

The secularist mouthpiece, New York Times,editorializes, "Pope Benedict XVI
has insulted Muslims.." This is false. The Pope's description of the
Islamic God as being unbound by reason is not an insult, it is an Islamic
article of faith. What Muslims and secularists fear is the Pope's decision
to choose to enter dialogue asserting his belief in Christianity. How dare
he not "apologize" for being a Christian? That is the so-called "insult."

One might "reasonably" ask when will Muslims "apologize" for being Muslim?
But they are not bound by reason to the point is lost on them. 

Amazingly the Times continues: "Muslim leaders the world over have demanded
apologies. For many Muslims, holy war - jihad - is a spiritual struggle, and
not a call to violence." In saying this, the Times implicitly recognizes
the Islamists are waging a propaganda jihad against the Pope and by
extension against Christianity-and they explicitly endorse and join this
jihad. The Times is saying to Islamists, 'we can join your 'spiritual'
jihad, but not your violent jihad.

The Times editors are living in a fool's paradise. The "spiritual"
non-violent jihad of propaganda is merely the flip side of the violent
jihad. Nowhere is that more clear than in the Islamist reaction to the
Pope.

With the Pope scheduled to visit Turkey in November the Islamists are
rejecting any apology from Vatican spokespersons and demand to hear from the
Pope himself. This would place raging mobs of semi-literate Islamist thugs
in the position of forcing the leader of Christendom to bow before them. 

In this demand for submission they are joined by the secularist mouthpiece.
In its September 16 edition the Times editorializes: "He needs to offer a
deep and persuasive apology." The secularists too seek the Pope's
submission. Like the Islamists, the secularists are driven only by their
will to power. While the Islamists represent their demented version of
God--unrestrained by reason, the secularists represent their demented
version of reason--unrestrained by God. They are united by their
self-worshipping world view. 

It should be noted that the carefully staged "anger' from the Islamic world
does not condemn Benedict's characterization of Islam as a religion where
God's "will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of
rationality.. (The Islamic) God is not bound even by his own word.." This
is not seen as an insult. Islam embraces this description. In offering
this description of Islam, Benedict refers to the views of leading modern
French Islamist R. Arnaldez as discussed in the writings of Professor
Theodore Khoury of Munster.

Likewise the secularists express no dismay at the pope's characterization of
a secularist as: "(A) subject (who) then decides, on the basis of his
experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the
subjective 'conscience' becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical." 

Benedict asserts that without reason, or without God, there can be no modern
system of morality. He explains, "In this way.ethics and religion lose
their power to create a community and become (instead) a completely personal
matter." 

Both Islamist and secularist seek to break God and reason apart. Each
claims superiority over the Christian West. They believe absolute moral
license makes them powerful. As globalization carries the Western tradition
of reason throughout the world, both are in decline. 

Where the force of reason is defeated, Islamist and secularist will meet in
combat, just as Hitler's fascists broke their pact with the Soviet Union,
invading in June, 1941 after the collapse of the allied forces on the
western front. 

What the Islamists and the New York Times both fear is having to reply to
the Pope's key point, borrowed from the Byzantine Emperor: "'Not to act
reasonably, not to act with logos (word or reason) is contrary to the nature
of God,'.. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we
invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures."

Their fear of reason can only lead the world to disaster.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic?  Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

http://www.intellnet.org

  Post message: osint@yahoogroups.com
  Subscribe:    [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Unsubscribe:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]


*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has 
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of 
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT 
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the 
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of 
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, 
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other 
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes 
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material 
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use 
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' 
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to