Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Susan Pope

Susan Pope

Ratings: (0)|Views: 4 |Likes:
Published by URBNAnthony.com

More info:

Published by: URBNAnthony.com on Jun 30, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/30/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
OOZING OUT!!!!!
All Catholics are not bad. I always liked Susan. Please read the Article and mycomments after the end.
By Sarah Anne Hughes
Susan Sarandon committed one of the biggest no-nos in the celebrity world over theweekend: calling someone a Nazi. That someone happened to be Pope Benedict XVI.The comment was made during a Hamptons International Film Festival interview
Saturday with actor Bob Balaban. Sarandon was discussing her 1995 film, “Dead ManWalking,” Newsday 
reports,and said she sent the pope a copy of the book it was based
on. “The last one,” she continued, referring to Pope John Paul II. “Not this Nazi one we
have
now.” Balaban reportedly discouraged the remark, which Sarandon then repeated.
 
 Newsday reports that the comment was “somewhat offhanded.” (*See update two.)
But if the gaggle of celebs who have invoked 
name have taught us anything, it’sthat comparing anyone to a Nazi is usually a bad idea. Unless you’re Kanye West.
 
Update
: The Catholic League has condemned 
Sarandon’s comment, calling it “obscene.”
The Anti-Defamation League has asked the actress to apologize.
*Update two
: A reader emailed Celebri-tology with concerns over the use of the word
“murky” in this sentence that was previously in the post: “And the German pope doeshave a murky past involving the Hitler Youth.” As a young man, Pope
Benedict wasforced to join the Hitler Youth when it became mandatory in Germany. We apologize if the word caused confusion or concern..THE END--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HE WAS NOT A YOUTH. IN FACT THE PICTURE OF HIM IN RELIGIOUS GARBSALUTING HEIL HITLER WAS AS AN ADULT AND IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BUTWHEN YOU ARE THE PRESS, YOU EDIT. This has nothing to do with being forced.
THE MEDIA THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ALONG WITH POLITICS IS A PART OF THE SAMEMOVEMENT. WHEN DID THE ADL OR ANY OF THE CATHOLIC ORGANIZATIONSAPOLOGIZE FOR THE SUBVERSIVE RACISM HAPPENING NOW IN CONNECTICUT ANDTHROUGHOUT THE WORLD. WHEN DID THE HARTFORD AGENDA APOLOGIZE? THEYSIMPLY BUY OUT POLITICIANS AND MEMBERS OF THE NAACP FOR THEIR SILENCE ONTHE ISSUE OF RACISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS.. Who owns star bucks?
 
 
Pope Benedict's Islam Speech in Regensberg:
Author:Mosa Ali
Muslims have been greatly offended by references made about Islam in a speech that PopeBenedict XVI delivered on September 12 at the University of Regensberg entitled "Faith, Reasonand the University
 –
Memories and Reflections" Muslims were insulted by the speech'smisrepresentation of Islam as a religion that is spread through violence.The Vatican defended the speech claiming that the Pope was merely quoting the words ofByzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus from a medieval ****. In the Vatican's official statementof 16 September, it reads: "As for the opinion of the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologuswhich he quoted during his Regensburg talk, the Holy Father did not mean, nor does he mean, tomake that opinion his own in any way."In the Pope's subsequent apology, he apologizes for the reaction that Muslims had to his speechand affirms that the views of Emperor Manuel II do not reflect his own, saying: "At this time, I wishalso to add that I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries to a few passages of myaddress at the University of Regensburg, which were considered offensive to the sensibility ofMuslims. These in fact were a quotation from a medieval ****, which do not in any way expressmy personal thought."
 
However, many Muslims do not consider thisexplanation and apology to be sufficient. For onething, it only addresses the quotation formEmperor Manuel II, though themisrepresentations of Islam contained in thespeech are not limited to that quote. Also, hisapology is merely for the Muslim's reaction andnot for any fault in the speech itself.
 
To understand this better, we need to look carefully at the key paragraphs of the speech
 –
 paragraphs three and four
 –
and clarify what about them Muslims find offensive:Here is paragraph three of that speech:In the seventh conversation edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of theholy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion inreligion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammedwas still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions,developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details,such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", headdresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about therelationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "Show me just what Mohammedbrought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his commandto spread by the sword the faith he preached". The emperor, after having expressed himself soforcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence issomething unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of thesoul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God'snature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs theability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince areasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means ofthreatening a person with death...".
 
 
As we can see, this paragraph is not merely a quotation of a passage from a medieval ****. Thequoted words of the Emperor form only a part of it, and much of what is offensive and inaccuratein this paragraph is not from that quotation, but from the words of Pope Benedict XVI himself.The Pope introduces the quote by mentioning that the Emperor must have known the verse of theQur'ân that reads "There is no compulsion in religion." This is a claim being made by the Pope.He then goes on to assert on the basis of some "experts" that this verse was revealed in the earlydays when Islam was weak. He then goes on to say that the verses relating to "Holy War" camelater.These are the Pope's words. They are inaccurate and their implications are sinister. They areinaccurate because the verse "There is no compulsion in religion" was revealed to ProphetMuhammad (peace be upon him) in Madinah when Islam was at its most powerful. The Pope'swords imply that the verse which declares there is no compulsion in religion was only for the earlydays of Islam and was replaced with more militant injunctions when Islam grew stronger. Again,this implication does not come from something quoted from Emperor, but from the words of thePope.Here, the Pope needs to clarify that Islam does not preach violence against non-Muslims and thatMuslims do not advocate spreading Islam through violence, since this is the implication of his ownwords. Therefore, this is something that he has to either explain or retract, and it is somethingabout which Muslims feel he should apologize.After Pope Benedict XVI makes these observations about the verses of the Qur'ân, only thendoes he begin quoting the words of the Byzantine Emperor, which include the statement: "Showme just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil andinhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached"He makes no effort to distance himself from this statement or t show that he disagrees with it,which is something that a man of his position should have taken pains to do, especially afterpreceding this quote with the introduction that he gave.It is good that the Pope has now made it clear that the words of the Byzantine Emperor do notreflect his own views. However, more is needed. He needs to apologize for his poor choice ofwords that lead listeners to believe that he supports the Emperor's idea that Islam advocates thespread of faith through violence. He also needs to clarify his preceding statements about theverses of the Qur'an
 –
statements which are inaccurate and which imply the same negativemeaning as the Emperor's.We will now look at paragraph four:The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act inaccordance with reason is contrary to God's nature. The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: Forthe emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But forMuslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of ourcategories, even that of rationality. Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R.Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazn went so far as to state that God is not bound even by hisown word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God's will, wewould even have to practise idolatry.We should note that in this paragraph the Pope does not quote the Byzantine Emperor at all.Here he quotes from the comments made by Theodore Khoury, the editor of the Emperor'swritings, which are being cited as an analysis of those writings. The statement of Khoury that hequotes here seeks to explain the difference in attitude between the Emperor and the Muslimstowards violence by saying that Muslims do not subject God to the dictates of reason.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->