The Pope's Hatespeech

Thanks to Pastorius for bringing me on board, it's an honor to be in the company of many of my favorite bloggers.

Last night at a party someone wanted to discuss the controversy surrounding the Pope's remarks on Islam. I expressed the view that his remarks were probably taken out of context; she seemed to feel that his remarks were inappropriate. But, she didn't know what the Pope actually said, and I had only read portions of it, with commentary by others. To the jidhadis who are throwing temper tantrums, the substance of his remarks is irrelevant; nor do most Americans care: most people will take the word of the MSM that the Pope recently made "derogatory" remarks about Islam, or however they're phrasing it. In February the MSM informed me that Jillends-Posten had published offensive cartoons of Mohammed. But the MSM wouldn't show me the cartoons, they just wanted me to take their word for it. This simply will not do.

Here's what the Pope said, in full.

Ok, now that I've read it, I think I have reached a different conclusion than the one reached by these people after they read the Pope's address at Aula Magna:
















Ok, Mr. Hump o'Islam, I assume you're objecting primarily to this sentence:

"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."

But Mr. Hump, first of all let me point out that the sign you're holding up advocates jihad. In fact, it says that jihad is hump of Islam. If your position was that jihad is not hump of Islam, then I could see you objecting to the notion that Islam was spread by the sword. But, despite what college students in the Midwest claim to know about the "true" meaning of "jihad" -- i.e., inner struggle to be good and eat less trans-fatty acids -- I think the understanding of "jihad" shared by Mr. Hump and myself is the more reasonable one, seeing as how it's based in the plain language of the Koran, accords with the actual deeds of Mohammed, and is the actual way that Islam spread historically and continues to spread. In 20 years there will be no more Anamists and Christians in the Sudan. This will not be because Muslims in the Sudan engaged in a rigorous jihad of healthy eating.

Second of all Hump, I guess you didn't notice it the first two or three times you read the address, but the sentence above was spoken by someone else, and the Pope was simply quoting him. Let me give you an example of what it means to "quote" someone:

Gormless Norman: A man held up a sign that said, "Jihad is Hump of Islam".

Now, in this example, true, GN says, "Jihad is Hump of Islam." But it does not mean that GN necessarily believes that jihad is hump of Islam (though in fact I do). Simply, I am reporting what someone else said. You follow me so far, Hump? I know, it's a tricky concept.

So, the Pope is reporting that someone else said, "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." You see, Mr. Hump, the Pope doesn't necessarily believe that this statement is true.

Does the Pope believe it? I don't know, I mean, he sort of gives us a signal by saying in his own words that this utterance was made "with a startling brusqueness" and "so forcefully." In this way, the Pope is distancing himself from the remarks. It's like if I said:

GN: A filthy bastard held up a sign that said, "Jihad is Hump of Islam," and he then scratched his crabs-infested balls.

Let me also point out that here, as he has done elsewhere, the Pope advocates a dialogue among the major religions. In the Pope's view, the great obstacle to this dialogue is our flat materialism and secularism: we have chosen to excise a major part of what it means to be human out of our conception of the universe, and have thus rendered ourselves basically very smart, amoral animals. For Westerners, there is no longer a transcendent dimension to human existence [see this exchange btn GN and Pasto on this topic]. The Pope thinks this makes it impossible for us to really communicate with people who still believe there are transcendent values, and I think that's entirely right.

Ok, so Hump: the Pope is basically criticising the West. If the Pope meant to endorse the substance of Manuel II Paleologus's statement, he probably would not want a dialogue among religions at all. So shut your flange, Hump.

Of course, just between you and I, dear iBlogga reader, I understand that Hump has not read the Aula Magna address, and even if he had it would make no difference whatsoever that the Pope is actually criticising the West, and advocating needed reforms in Christianity. Hump just wants an excuse to kill infidels, for example 70 year-old nuns who have dedicated their lives to helping poor people. The Pope's completely innocuous remarks will suffice for this purpose, just as well as a cartoon or an image on an ice-cream lid at BK. And, although the Pope clearly did not endorse Manuel II Paleologus's statement, it's just as clear that the substance of that statement is essentially correct. The Pope has now expressed regret that his remarks were misunderstood. To his credit he has not actually apologized or retracted anything he said. If you read the whole thing, the criticism is simply absurd; and the MSM's description of these comments as "controversial" or "inflammatory" is the product of laziness, cowardice, and disregard for the truth.