Let’s try interfaith tolerance and dialogue the Pope’s way. It is not only effective in stirring emotions and riots, it also a full package: a stab, a jab, and an apology. I can’t understand what was going through his mind, when he decided to quote Manuel II Palaeologus, the second-to-last Byzantine emperor. The Pope’s quote originates from Manuel’s miserable letter after escaping the Ottoman court; where he had been held prisoner.

Let’s see, after several crusades aiming to spread religion through force, an Emperor who bears a grudge after war losses, declares:

“Show me just what Muhammad 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.”

He then continues, saying, “God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

So this emperor, whose empire has waged 13 crusades to spread Christianity through force, is saying you can’t spread religion through violence, and is criticizing Islam.

Would you in your right mind use such a quote to encourage dialogue and peace between religions? Let’s note that he only used the first part of the quote, and not the latter. I really loved Pope John Paul II; he was doing a great job promoting dialogue between religions. I believe he managed to promote tolerance more than any Pope during his pontificate.

Now, this new Pope comes and misquotes a “medieval text” that does not “express what he feels.” You’re the Pope; you’re trying to create more dialogue, why on Earth would you not quote something that doesn’t express your feelings. Apology accepted your holiness, I am just wondering, are you going to quote Hitler next?

++ Cartoon courtesy of Cairo Freeze

Cross linked from my blog, Chronicles Of a Utopian Writer

I am Amino, and that is all you need to know about me, since everything else will always be a constant variable. I am eighteen, an English Literature sophomore, androgynous writer, conflicted idealist, devoted humanist, and a skeptic bookworm.

I write in order to learn more about the world, people, and myself. I never take anything for granted, and I have an eccentric passion to figure out answers on my own. Playing the Devil’s advocate is a dominant feature in most of my works, and I cherish people who disagree with me for opening new doors in my mind.

To me controversy is the mother of forthcoming understanding.

I am glad to be on board; it’s going to be one hell of a ride.

I will be writing posts regularly, sometimes cross posted from my blog, Chronicles of a Utopian Writer.

The Holocaust must be the epitome of fascist atrocity to many, but to me there is something more outrageous: holocaust denial rules. There are actual rules that condemn Holocaust denial and you could be sentenced up to three years in prison for doubting history’s credibility in relation to such an event. To think that a number of European countries mainly: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, and Switzerland, and of course non-EU Israel, who constantly preach about democracy actually have such rules is a direct insult to Human Rights and Freedom of Speech. Such laws are making false assumptions that if you are questioning history then you are discriminating against Jews. If a person were to say that the Paranoiac civilization wasn’t attacked by the Roman Empire, could this mean he’s discriminating against Egyptians nowadays?

Why is such a topic so sacred, that it can’t be debated, even more sacred than God and religion to Europeans? Can you be jailed for not believing in God in Europe? Without alluding to the numerous conspiracy theories, the only reasonable explanation is that these rules are unjust and discriminative. Not only foreigners are affected by this, even Jews who question the holocaust are bashed and labeled as Anti-Semitic. That brings us to a good point, that Tololy has brought my attention to the other day, anti-Semitic? How come this term always refers to Jews, although it’s a commonly known fact that all religious sects occupying that area were Semitics?

Let us put Arabs and the world aside, don’t the Jews have the right to question whatever they have in their books; just like any person in the world would? People like Noam Chomsky, who is Jewish by birth, were labeled as anti-Semitic for questioning history! We’re not here today to discuss whether the holocaust really happened or not, as far as I am concerned, if it happened then it’s a monstrous crime. If it didn’t… really… what difference would it make? People around the world are able to question every single account of history, and they should be able to discuss and question the holocaust account without persecution. Otherwise, governments are simply carrying out double standards when it comes to democracy and freedom of speech.