Australia's George Pell Tells It Like Is!!!
NMyTree
Posts: 2,374
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=1383832006
"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears," Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, said in a statement on Web sites of the Catholic Church of Australia.
"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence," he said. "
" Some Australian Muslim leaders said the comments by both Pope Benedict and Pell should be condemned.
Ameer Ali, head of a government-appointed Muslim reference group, told Reuters Pell's comments were "especially unhelpful in a charged atmosphere", while academic Samina Yasmeen said leaders should remember that religion often dealt with raw emotions.
"The fact that Cardinal Pell decided to come into the controversy and add more to that, I think it's a dangerous thing," she told a security conference in Canberra. "
Why is it this Muslim feels complelled to speak out against Pell, but only makes excuses for Muslim's behavior? Why?
Doesn't Samina Yasmeen think non-Muslims should be spared insults, verbal threats/attacks and physical attacks?
Or is it only Muslim's feelings and sensitities that she is concerned about?
Why is it dangerous for anyone else to speak out against them (Muslims), but they can continue to spit their venom all over the planet?
Is it not dangerous for Muslims to speak out, threaten and violently assault non-muslims and their institutions?
Or is it that they know non-Muslims are more rational, reasonable and open to verbal debate; rather than running around killing and destroying over words?
This is all an embarassment for the civil and rational Muslims of the world, while being a dispicable insult to all non-Muslims.
"The violent reaction in many parts of the Islamic world justified one of Pope Benedict's main fears," Pell, the Archbishop of Sydney, said in a statement on Web sites of the Catholic Church of Australia.
"They showed the link for many Islamists between religion and violence, their refusal to respond to criticism with rational arguments, but only with demonstrations, threats and actual violence," he said. "
" Some Australian Muslim leaders said the comments by both Pope Benedict and Pell should be condemned.
Ameer Ali, head of a government-appointed Muslim reference group, told Reuters Pell's comments were "especially unhelpful in a charged atmosphere", while academic Samina Yasmeen said leaders should remember that religion often dealt with raw emotions.
"The fact that Cardinal Pell decided to come into the controversy and add more to that, I think it's a dangerous thing," she told a security conference in Canberra. "
Why is it this Muslim feels complelled to speak out against Pell, but only makes excuses for Muslim's behavior? Why?
Doesn't Samina Yasmeen think non-Muslims should be spared insults, verbal threats/attacks and physical attacks?
Or is it only Muslim's feelings and sensitities that she is concerned about?
Why is it dangerous for anyone else to speak out against them (Muslims), but they can continue to spit their venom all over the planet?
Is it not dangerous for Muslims to speak out, threaten and violently assault non-muslims and their institutions?
Or is it that they know non-Muslims are more rational, reasonable and open to verbal debate; rather than running around killing and destroying over words?
This is all an embarassment for the civil and rational Muslims of the world, while being a dispicable insult to all non-Muslims.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I don't really get what that last statement is getting at ... It doesn't really fit with the other three.
It is my Sesame Street talk. Maybe one of things ain't like the other.
If people were honest. I think if we asked the Yanks on the board what they associate with the war on terrorism.............ahhhhh............brown skin would be leading the way. And of course they would add they don't really believe what they are saying.
Maybe lots would, but lots of people probably wouldn't as well. Personally, I don't give two shits about browness. I am more concerned about your psychology ... People with radical ideologies that espouse the virtues of violent death scare me no matter what they look like.
Time to switch your studies at school.
I hear ya about the psyche of some people. But hey, they grow up and can make their own decisions for themselves and still have to adhere to a strict law of some book. Call it brainwashing or whatever, but you have to say that when you become a responsible adult (somewhere between 25 and 60 for some) that you have to reflect on what you have been taught in life and start to question some or all of it. You don't have to change your mind about anything but you should look at it from the other side. At least! And if you could live their lives and be happy with living with that view then you will be an okay person. Too many people like to take a side and not put themselves in somebody elses shoes. And they are very, very, narrow minded people. I would start to give examples but I am sick of some of the names I get called on here. They are funny though.
One of the best ways to understand another culture is to talk to its people ... One of the great things about Canada is our opportunities to do that, in an environment where the first reaction isn't as hostile as it might be were I to go to Algeria, for instance. I question my own beliefs and views all the time ... I even question my views on terrorists. Do they have a point? Are they forced to do these terrible things by outside forces? Basically, I think yes, they do have some legitimate beefs. Its in their methods and pathological personalities that they fail. I'd actually love to do a study on the personalities of suicide bombers, or Taliban fighters ... Never happen, but it might be illuminating. People, myself included, assume gross psychopathology. But is it there? Could we measure it reliably if it was? What differentiates someone who becomes a suicide bomber from someone in the same oppressed culture who does not (and the latter are obviously far more numerous)?
Now that would be a paper to write!
I find that way too many people on this side of the world seem to think if you don't have cable t.v., a t.v. for every room, a computer and all the other goodies that go with living in the promised land that you don't amount to too much. Better yet, that people without can actually live a good, healthy life without outside interference. Last I heard if you have the basics in life you are pretty well off. Anything after that is just crap you are going to discard real soon for more advanced crap.