Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« U.S. Cartoonists Strike Back | Main | News of the Day from Communist China »

Friday, February 24, 2006

Quote of the day

(Cross-posted from Burkean Canuck).
Thanks to Anonalogue, I came across this Reuters piece about a very modest request issued by the Vatican:

After criticising both the cartoons and the violent protests in Muslim countries that followed, the Vatican this week linked the issue to its long-standing concern that the rights of other faiths are limited, sometimes severely, in Muslim countries.

Vatican prelates have been concerned by recent killings of two Catholic priests in Turkey and Nigeria. Turkish media linked the death there to the cartoons row. At least 146 Christians and Muslims have died in five days of religious riots in Nigeria.

"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us," Cardinal Angelo Sodano, the Vatican's Secretary of State (prime minister), told journalists in Rome.

Um, "Amen."

Posted by Russ Kuykendall on February 24, 2006 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quote of the day :

» Those Crazy Muhammed Cartoons from The Life of Nick
A couple of weeks ago, some Danish Cartoonists decided to publish a series of cartoons depicting the Moslem prophet, sparking outrage all over the world. The Moslems rioted in the streets of many large cities in many countries, demanding the death of... [Read More]

Tracked on 2006-02-24 11:22:09 AM


If the Pope read a bit more of his church's history he wouldn't be making such pharisaical statements about religious intolerance...The church of Rome and it's European nobles have done their share...there is enough blame to go around...maybe he would gain more credibility if he qualified the statement in recognizing Muslim theocratic fascism as just the most recent manifestation of religious persecution.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2006-02-24 8:30:54 AM

So that makes it OK for the Muslims?

Posted by: Herman | 2006-02-24 8:38:32 AM

I liked this part of the article:


As often happens at the Vatican, lower-level officials have been more outspoken than the Pope and his main aides.

"Enough now with this turning the other cheek! It's our duty to protect ourselves," Monsignor Velasio De Paolis, secretary of the Vatican's supreme court, thundered in the daily La Stampa.
"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organisations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."

With apologies to David Mamet:

Blake: A-I-D-A!! Get mad! You sons of bitches! Get mad!! You know what it takes to fight Dhimmitude?

(He pulls something out of his briefcase)

Blake: It takes brass balls to fight Dhimmitude.
(He's holding two brass balls on string, over the appropriate "area"--he puts them away after a pause)

Posted by: Anonalogue | 2006-02-24 8:47:35 AM

I think this is a step in the right direction:


Posted by: MSYB | 2006-02-24 9:06:14 AM

WLM: YES, there is more than enough blame to go around, but how long does Christianity have to endure wearing the Crusades albatros around their necks, but the world gives radical Islam a free pass when they slit said neck?

Posted by: Eskimo | 2006-02-24 9:57:29 AM

This is the second time I've noticed this pope doing a two-step. After criticizing the cartoons he now makes this statement.

I think it's part of his strategy and it makes sense.

Posted by: greenmamba | 2006-02-24 12:03:02 PM

I never thought I would see the day when the Vatican would actually use logic, reason and rational thinking to express realistic views. If the Catholic church is not afraid to criticise Islam, then nobody should.

Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-24 1:45:18 PM

It amazes me that so many people really don't know the truth about the Crusades? Do people educate themselves from what Muslims tell them? Some people need to do some researh. The Crusades was simply the re-conquering of lands and territory taken by the brutal forces of Islamic expansionism. In fact, the Ottoman Empire pushed all the way into Spain and France. How do you think those Bosnian Caucasian Muslims got there? The one's Islam never came to help.

Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-24 1:54:19 PM

If religion is the opium of the masses, Muslim religion is the crack cocaine.

Posted by: Smitty | 2006-02-24 2:03:59 PM

>>If religion is the opium of the masses, Muslim religion is the crack cocaine<<

Nice one, Smitty. I thought it was only Mozlims who were supposed to be intolerant and bigoted. Your comment proves that I am completely wrong.

Posted by: nadia | 2006-02-24 3:28:02 PM

My apologies, Nadia. You're right; I'm completely out of line slandering crack addicts in such a manner.

Posted by: Smitty | 2006-02-24 3:35:23 PM

Whatever! Wallow in your own ignorance. One can only pity you.

Posted by: nadia | 2006-02-24 3:36:53 PM

Forget the crusades. Do a bit of research on the Ustache during WW2. Forced conversions and slaughter of those that were not willing to convert to Rome's definition of "Christianity."

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-24 4:21:03 PM

Or Vietname for that matter, under Diem.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-24 4:21:40 PM

Yeah, whatever, ebt.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-24 4:45:45 PM

Yes, bring forward the facts and truths to support your assertions. Without that you have no credibility.

Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-24 5:31:59 PM

Undoubtedly the crimes of the Ustashe did occur, to assert otherwise or have to prove this is just plain ignorant - you can go do this yourself.

As far as responsibility, I do believe Ian never claimed the Vatican was responsible for the Ustashe as ebt says. However, it does hold true that those people responsible for Ustashe atrocities did so in the name of Catholicism and Uniatism - it's clearly laid out in Budak, Puk and Zanic's declaration in 1941.

Further, Vatican involvement did occur and is still being revealed as little as 8 years ago. The US State Department issued a briefing in 1998 describing Vatican awareness of the killing campaign, and support for passage of authorities implicated in the campaign as well as holding assets in the Vatican Bank. The report even says - "Croatian Catholic authorities condemned the atrocities committed by the Ustashi, but remained otherwise supportive of the regime."

Posted by: History | 2006-02-24 6:30:37 PM

If the Doctrine of Christianity as tought in the Bible instructs and teaches its Christian followers that they are required to kill others, then and only then will I have a legitimate right to criticise Christianity.

People calling themselves Christians, or people that live in a Christian culture often commit horrible crimes, even murder. But they are just that, bad people. They are not committing such acts because of what the Bible is teaching them. They do what they do in spite of what the Bible teaches, not because of what it teaches.

Posted by: Doug | 2006-02-24 7:51:27 PM

Last time I was in a Church, the Old Testament was part of the Bible. Christian doctrine also believes that the Church is the "new Israel."

It's one of the reasons for the "doctrine" of infant baptism conducted by the RC Church and some Protestant denominations.

Most certainly, parts of the Bible does teach to destroy one's enemies. And of course, we have the Book of Revelation as well. Some interpret this in their own ways, including the need for a war for the endtimes.

Regardless, I'm not criticizing "Christianity." I'm asserting that the Roman Catholic church, including some of its adherents and officers have engaged in wicked evils against humanity, and as recently as this past century. One does not have to go back to the crusades or days of the Reformation to discover these atrocities.

You might want to do some research, as I pointed out earlier on the Diem regime of South Vietnam as well. Diem not only had a brother (who was well placed within the regime) that was an Archbishop, but Diem himself had access to the Pope and it is known he had at least one private meeting at the Vatican.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-24 9:05:51 PM


I agree with your second paragraph. To your first paragraph, I wouldn't limit the flexibility to criticize Christianity to the narrow parameter of only Biblical interpretation.

To deny the ability for Christians (or others) to criticize Christian activity is turning a blind eye. The Vatican does have a responsibility to denounce and action sex abuse scandals, the Ustashe involvement, etc... just as Christians should be skeptical of Benny Hinn's false prophecies and statements, or Ann Coulter's and Pat Robertson's of the world that promote killing and Christianity. The natural argument is to rebut that these examples are not "Christian activity". Obviously they are not, but evil and sin still pervade all religions and this should be analyzed objectively. As such, and in my own opinion, your last post would have been a better response to Ian's first assertion, instead of immediately doubting his credibility.

Further, the biggest critics of Christianity are Christians themselves. Certainly this is self-evident by the numerous interpretations of the Bible (and other historical events) that has manifested into various Christian denominations.

Posted by: History | 2006-02-24 9:18:35 PM

"If we tell our people they have no right to offend, we have to tell the others they have no right to destroy us..."

Actually, the whole point is that even if you don't tell your people they have no right to offend, you can still tell the "others" they have no right to destroy you.

Posted by: Darrell | 2006-02-25 4:21:46 AM

(Rev 12:10 KJV) And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

Not by any stretch of the imagination are the Christians and Muslims even closely alike now too.

For certainty Christians now do not go around killing any persons cause they have even converted to Christianity while Muslims undeniably and wrongfully still do kill many converts to Christianity, Muslims undeniably they even kill other Muslims who do not think like they do.

The Church of Jesus Christ also is not just the Catholic Christian Church but it is still composed of all the true Christains world wide.

While it is true that many of the Christians are silent, often too silent, when they do next act, or speak they even now have a very significant influence.

(2 Tim 2:15 KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

(Mat 26:52 KJV) Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. 53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?

as to all of those rather perverts, wicked even persons, here too who now are the false twisters of the Bible, the false accusers of the Christian brethren too, the supporter of the devil mostly they should note that

Most Preofessing Christan's for many centuries and still now too do not generally use their swords, except in self defense, for they do have much better weapons, specifically prayer and the pen.

Further, as to the the biggest verbal critics of Christianity are Christians themselves they now certainly do not tend do not kill other fellow Christians, like the Muslims do kill evem other Mulsims now worldwide.

That also is what Muslims realy now do not like , the power of the Christian pen, and just look what a few cartoons did.

The Apostle Paul used his pen and he made great positive religious world wide changes. Germany's Martin Luther used his pen and he also made great positive religious changes in Europe.

(Rev 12:12 KJV) Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

Posted by: paul | 2006-02-25 5:37:30 AM

... Most certainly, parts of the Bible does teach to destroy one's enemies. Specifically only the Old testament which was to be applied by the Old testament Jews Only and never by anyone Else. These teachings were done away when Jesus came and the new Israelites, the Christians now do not follow these laws at all. tghis is Undeniable too.

In the new Convenant, that is why it was, is called New Testament this doctrine, command, an eye for an eye approach is clearly not brought forth, not accepted as valid any longer, not even by Jesus Christ or any of the Apostle writers now too. Rather jesus clearly had said-

(Mat 5:44 KJV) But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Yes the Bible now says Love your enemies and not rather Kill them but it also now says do not fellowship with the bad people, the word used is fellowship, meaning do not keep company with the bad people, rebuke them rather and clearly now that is not the same as killing them physically for sure too.

(Eph 5:11 KJV) And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

(Titus 1:13 KJV) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; 4 Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

I do also now love these misquoters of a the Bible who quote mostly out of conttext isolated text of the Bible, and clearly they now also do not kwow what the rest of the Bible realy says , and they thus do show to all how ignorant of the Bible now they themselves are. It thus gives me a and many others a good opportunity to straiten them out too with the undeniable truth.

That is why some persons wrongfully do not like the Christians to use their free speech right even here.

Posted by: paul | 2006-02-25 6:00:03 AM

"Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organisations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities."

In contrast to the Muslims this reactor is still talking about one's right of free speech, and now using it, and not at all wrongfully for sure murdering anyone, who does not go along with what you may want, like the many bad Muslims do as well as we all can see worldwide.

Posted by: I love you all | 2006-02-25 6:10:03 AM

That`ll be the day when Coffee Cup Anan would attempt to 'make the societies in majority Muslim countries , face up to their responsibilities . That would mean saying something of substance and conviction instead of mindless cliches and double speak . He is scared s--tless of these savages ,like the rest of ' us '.
I agree with Smitty -- if religion is the opium of the asses , then Muslim relogion is the crack --- I think that`s what he said.

Posted by: daveh | 2006-02-25 6:39:18 AM

""Let's drop this diplomatic silence," said the rector of the Pontifical Lateran University. "We should put pressure on international organisations to make the societies and states in majority Muslim countries face up to their responsibilities.""

I guess the Vatican is still interested in wielding political power.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-25 6:46:01 AM


"Germany's Martin Luther used his pen and he also made great positive religious changes in Europe."

I would hardly consider his significant contributions to anti-semitism great positive religious changes.

Posted by: History | 2006-02-25 9:01:10 AM

And of course, we should also remember that good ol' Luther was a drunk.

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-26 2:39:18 PM

Now, who's being puritanical?

Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2006-02-26 6:19:14 PM

I dunno. You? Your projections on what I wrote about Luther? I'm not classifying or making any judgement on the fact Luther was a drunk. I'm just saying.

One of my personal favorites of all time, Thomas Paine, was also a drunk. Just a fact.

Are you projecting I'm in someway, "puritanical" by pointing out facts?

Posted by: Ian Scott | 2006-02-26 10:38:41 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.