Heartland

As I understand it, there is no written treaty/agreement that the UK has signed that recognises the Vatican or any territory owned by the Roman Catholic Church as a state.

The current UK government (and doubtless many of the previous ones) chooses to treat "The Holy See" (but not the Vatican) as if it were a state, but this is merely a political position not a legal treaty enshrined and protected by law.

So, legally, an arrest warrant could be issued.

But obviously an arrest warrant won't be issued, as the rich & powerful aren't subject to the same laws that we are.

However, it's the first time during my time on this planet that the issue of legal proceedings
against a pope is a question at all ... Now this possiblity has, say come into existence ...
and the Vatican (as well as the general public) should be made aware it often enough
to keep this fact in mind.

DeWinter wrote:I've always wondered why we thought we could deliver the right to refuse marriages, burqhas, and fight honour killings in Afghanistan when we can't do that here in Britain. But anyway, different topic for another day..

Heh. Good point.

lazarus corporation wrote:But obviously an arrest warrant won't be issued, as the rich & powerful aren't subject to the same laws that we are.

The very definition of privilege: "private law"

What do you think about Malachi?

Gloria olivae doesn't really fit Ratzinger. IIRC some wag suggested (while JPII was still alive) that it might fit a Cardinal Martini...

On the whole, vague predictions that could fit any number of people aren't really that persuasive. Whether Rome will be destroyed during the reign of the next Pope (Petrus Romanus) -- well, we'll just have to wait and see.

markfiend wrote:

lazarus corporation wrote:But obviously an arrest warrant won't be issued, as the rich & powerful aren't subject to the same laws that we are.

The very definition of privilege: "private law"

So then nothing stops a citizens arrest, in my opinion. If the police are in attendance and refuse to do their job, you can go ahead with it.
Admittedly you'd need someone willing to become a martyr for it, if some enraged Catholic doesn't kill you the Met will probably cave your skull in and the CCTV footage mysteriously vanish. After enough time has elapsed to prevent any lesser charge than murder being brought, naturally.

Is it just the same sitch as Blair then, the evidence is there against him the police and judiciary just refuse to act, despite there being no legal impediment ?

markfiend wrote:Yes, I remember. Yes, I agree Anglicanism is a "softer target" than Islam; I seem to recall quoting Stewart Lee when asked why he didn't do jokes about Islam like he does about Christianity: "I might be an atheist but I'm not suicidal".

This isn't to say that there aren't appreciable numbers of wannabe Christian theocrats with what you might call "fatwa envy"; Benedict XVI seems intent on undoing a lot of the Vatican 2 reforms for instance, and (in respect of Stewart Lee) Stephen Green and his "Christian Voice" group were determined to try to stop showings of Jerry Springer the Opera.

The point being, no-one should get to make death-threats over perceived slights to their holy symbols. What is holy to some is profane to others. If (some) muslims don't understand this, tough.

Thinking about it, our troops' presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be about "defending our freedoms". Complaining that exercising our rights endangers our troops, when they are there precisely to defend them, is a nonsense.

But anyway. Muslims who think that death threats are an appropriate response to -- well, to anything, need to be told, in no uncertain terms, that it is not. "So you're offended? Welcome to the 21st Century. On the whole I think you'll prefer it to the 7th." An appropriate response to being offended is thinking "what a dick", maybe even saying to the person who has offended you "you're a dick". But killing them? Killing people only tangentially related to the situation? Get a f*cking grip.

Wall of Text!

When you say Benedict XVI want to undo a lot of Vatican 2, what are you talking about? My impression is that all he's done is allowed certain practices, like the Tridentine mass, which were already available, to be more widely available than they were post-Vatican 2.

On the subject of "fatwa envy" I don't think that really applies. To begin with, a fatwa is a ruling based on a code of religious law (sharia), and can be authored by anyone who is thought to have the appropriate education; a papal encyclical, on the other hand, is going to be a matter of philosophical and theological argumentation (see the actual writings of JPII or B16 in this regard; it's some have said that if JP2 hadn't taken the job we'd speak of Wojtyla in the same breath as folks like Merleau-Ponty and Derrida. B16, too, is an academic whose work has been well-recieved in the field of medieval studies, though all I've read from him is his analysis of St. Bonaventure's theology of history, and that was about 10 years ago). I'd add in this regard the the Pope rarely speaks or writes ex cathedra, and when he does do so, it is only on questions of faith and morals (i.e., what does a given doctrine mean, what is the moral status of abortion, etc.).

This is part of the problem, I think: you can have one sheikh or imam issuing a fatwa condemning Salman Rushdie to death, and another that declares his killing haram. The comparison is probably much more relevant within the context of Protestant Christianity, and--I'd guess--vastly moreso in regard to non-Anglican/Methodist/Lutheran Protestantism. Part of the problem is that Islam lacks any authoritative hierarchy, so there's no one who can say authoritatively that Bin Laden or al Zawahiri are theologically wrong (I am leaving aside the question of whether they are in fact wrong), and it lacks a philosophical tradition (recall that the golden age of Islamic philosophy lasts about a century, and that a case can be made that the most prominent Islamic philosopher--al Farabi--was in fact an esoteric atheist).

These two considerations are, I think, crucial to understanding the difference between Islam and Christianity. That being said, as Christianity continues to splinter over the last few hundred years, these traditions of interpretation and norms of argumentation start to disappear--sola scriptura and 'personal relationships with Christ' become a lot more prominent (I've had students tell me the talk with God on a regular basis. Note that: with, not to. These are always students at public universities. At Catholic universities, where I've also taught, you'd never hear such a thing!). Thus, you get a lot of non-mainstream Christians, such as this Terry Jones clown down in Florida, who essentially make it up as they go along, and are not bound by traditions of interpretation or norms of argumentation. I always think of that episode of The Simpsons where they find the angel skeleton in this regard: it cuts to a scene in the Vatican, where the Pope is informed, and his response is a nonplussed "Eh, we'll keep an eye on it" in opposition to Flanders' fervent and immediate belief.

All of that being said, I agree with you: the solution to bad speech is more speech. Islam presents a tough case, in part because of the lack of a strong philosophical tradition, which in turn I think stems from the fact that it is a religion of law rather than a religion of "love"--thus, the role of theology within Christianity is filled by fiqh or jurisprudence, which is a decidedly different variety of inquiry. When God has given you the law, you don't question it, you obey it. John 1:1 claims that in the arche was the logos, and points toward the possibility of a theology based in some sense of reason (arche means beginning, foundation, origin, and even authority, so it can be taken to refer to God as well as the cosmos, and logos means reason, speech, account, rationality--in the sense of the faculty of reason--word, and logic). Christianity points toward the possibility of a rational or philosophical account of the faith; the question is whether a religion of law does the same thing. Another factor might be the historical situation: Thomas Aquinas and Dante both argue for certain reforms to the way the relationship between church and state are understood, but no one really listens to them during their own ages. It takes Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke to really get people to adopt liberal toleration, though Aquinas and Dante will both say that "liberal toleration" is precisely what is required by Christianity well understood.

I guess I'll also add: Iman Rauf is a clown (yes, he has a right to do it, but it's a stupid thing to do). Terry Jones is a clown (yes, he has a right to do it, but it's a stupid thing to do). If we needed any further proof that these two are clowns, noted clown Donald Trump got involved with the issue, and the evil clowns at the Westboro Baptist Church tried to inject themselves into it as well. Most everyone involved is a clown.

"Can you play 'Romeo Down'?"

Probably.

I just hope he has a good support act. Not the Dalai Lama Experience or Backstreet Buddhas.

Interesting aside: one of the "Intelligent Design" crowd has said that ID is basically the logos theory of John Chapter 1 restated in scientific terms.

I'm not actually sure what I meant with the Vatican 2 stuff. I think I meant that, well, JP1 showed signs of loosening the contraceptive ban for instance; Benedict (like JP2 before him) has been nothing if not more hard-line. In fact he's even less liberal than his predecessor. The popular feeling, as I understand it, after JP2's death was "anyone but Ratzinger".

The fatwa envy thing is a bit of a (bad) joke really; there are Christians who wish they could pronounce a death-sentence, whether or not there's a rival imam (or pastor) to pronounce otherwise. Commonly phrased as "you wouldn't dare talk to Muslims like that!"

I actually think Imam Rauf building the soi disant ground zero mosque is being a lot less stupid than Terry Jones; the site has already been being used as a Muslim prayer-space for about a year. (There were Muslim prayer spaces in the World Trade Center.) In fact, at this point, I will be disappointed if the Cordoba House is not built. Backing down is never the right thing to do in the face of bullies.

(My partner has just glared at me and said "Are you talking about politics?? You have your politics face on!")

The Pope has some quite fanatical followers. Were he ever to actually declare someone's life an affront to the Church and God, I'd be willing to bet it'd be every bit as effective as a fatwa from some bearded old idiot in the sub-continent who should go out and meet some ladies who aren't covered from head to foot.

The real reason surely Islam gets such kid glove treatment despite it's flaws and the seemingly deranged behaviour of it's followers is because it's followers are some 90% non-white. If your average Muslim was a white European, it'd probably be reviled in the press along the same lines as fascism. To your average Christian it must seem quite incomprehensible when your religion is picked apart on a daily basis and is open for any ridicule anyone feels like giving it, justified or no, yet Islam treated with respect and solemnity, rather than "fatwa envy"?

In the UK it astonishes me reading the Guardian and seeing it neatly side-stepping the issues an increasing Islamic presence on the UK will have on womens/gay rights, free speech, etc.

As for Jones/ Rauf..Jones hasn't actually DONE anything, yet you saw the response. "Death to Christians", and bearded rent-a-mob flag burnings.
Why Rauf is going ahead with Cordoba House, despite the trouble and ill-feeling it's caused I don't quite grasp. Why not make it a multi-faith centre if he wants to promote healing and moderate Islam?

DeWinter wrote:If your average Muslim was a white European, it'd probably be reviled in the press along the same lines as fascism.

If you read any of the right wing press (in the UK, or particularly in the US) then you'll see Islam being reviled constantly (along the same lines as communism, immigrants, and the other devils of the right-wing press - fascism is only the devil of the left-wing press).

If by "the press" you only mean the Guardian and/or the BBC, then you're correct.

Take your hat off and denounce all religions.

DeWinter wrote:(My partner has just glared at me and said "Are you talking about politics?? You have your politics face on!")

Always happy to oblige.

DeWinter wrote:The Pope has some quite fanatical followers. Were he ever to actually declare someone's life an affront to the Church and God, I'd be willing to bet it'd be every bit as effective as a fatwa from some bearded old idiot in the sub-continent who should go out and meet some ladies who aren't covered from head to foot.

I suppose that's true actually. Not particularly likely to happen though. I hope...

DeWinter wrote:The real reason surely Islam gets such kid glove treatment despite it's flaws and the seemingly deranged behaviour of it's followers is because it's followers are some 90% non-white. If your average Muslim was a white European, it'd probably be reviled in the press along the same lines as fascism. To your average Christian it must seem quite incomprehensible when your religion is picked apart on a daily basis and is open for any ridicule anyone feels like giving it, justified or no, yet Islam treated with respect and solemnity, rather than "fatwa envy"?

I think the thing is that, because as you say most Muslims are non-white, there's the uncomfortable spectre of racism rearing its head. There are a lot of things I dislike about Islam (and worldwide probably more harm is done in its name than in Christianity's) but it's very uncomfortable to be singing from the same hymn-sheet (if you pardon the pun) as the idiots from the EDL and BNP. Having said that, there are plenty of Christian bigots (or bigots who use Christianity as an excuse) -- just look at who's on which side in the various gay marriage legal cases going through the US courts at the moment.

DeWinter wrote: In the UK it astonishes me reading the Guardian and seeing it neatly side-stepping the issues an increasing Islamic presence on the UK will have on womens/gay rights, free speech, etc.

Agreed. I think we've touched on this before; I think it's foolhardy the way that the fashionable left has "latched onto" Islam as its cause célèbre. I think it's to do with Palestinian solidarity, anti-USA (anti-war) feeling, all these sorts of issues. Although we don't actually know that an increase in the number of Muslims will have any effect on civil liberties; it smacks of Dail Mailism to suggest it will...

DeWinter wrote:As for Jones/ Rauf..Jones hasn't actually DONE anything, yet you saw the response. "Death to Christians", and bearded rent-a-mob flag burnings.

No, and neither has Rauf. Yet there's been significant anti-Muslim violence in the USA. Arson attacks, windows broken, all over the country. To lay that at the feet of Rauf is blaming the victim. It would be exactly the same as blaming Jones for the "rent-a-mob flag burnings".

Why Rauf is going ahead with Cordoba House, despite the trouble and ill-feeling it's caused I don't quite grasp. Why not make it a multi-faith centre if he wants to promote healing and moderate Islam?

It's their building, their land. Whatever they want to do with it is their business. Quite frankly why anyone from Buttfück Idaho thinks their views count (never mind us here in Blighty) is beyond me. It's about as sane as protesting about the demolition of an Italian restaurant because it offends the faith of Pastafarians.

lazarus corporation wrote: If you read any of the right wing press (in the UK, or particularly in the US) then you'll see Islam being reviled constantly (along the same lines as communism, immigrants, and the other devils of the right-wing press - fascism is only the devil of the left-wing press).
If by "the press" you only mean the Guardian and/or the BBC, then you're correct.

Strange as it may seem to you, (and it has to other people too!) I haven't read the Mail in years. It was after every day for a week there was an article on travellers/gypsies setting up illegal camp sites on green belt land. I could never understand why it should enrage me. I'd rather caravans than over-priced ugly Barratt homes.
That and the permanent talking up of house prices. I could only assume someone high-up in the Mail's hierarchy has a property portfolio. Haven't really taken it seriously since. Telegraph is considerably saner, if you avoid Heffer & Daly.
The right wing press in Britain tends to view Islam as the bogeyman, but it doesn't give the lefts softly-softly approach to Islam to Christianity in any way shape or form. And my point being that' shouldn't be done. Let Lee make his witty remarks about Mohammed. That'd be ground-breaking and brave, which surely alternative comedy is meant to be..?

I did mean the Guardian/BBC, and they worry me more because the Guardian is pretty heavily subsidised by the government, and the BBC the supposedly impartial national broadcaster. I expected somewhat more from the Guardian than for it to degenerate into the left's equivalent of the Mail. For the Mail readers foaming at the mouth on migrants, Guardian readers foam whenever Israel is mentioned. If you fancy a laugh go to the Guardians websites and see how many completely unrelated stories have comments attached blaming the Zionists and the Rothschilds..

markfiend wrote:Although we don't actually know that an increase in the number of Muslims will have any effect on civil liberties; it smacks of Dail Mailism to suggest it will...

I would say, judging by the younger generation of British Muslims having more extreme views than their parents/grandparents, and their willingness to use violent confrontation,certain subjects won't become freely debatable where their community is concerned. You're right we don't know it, but it's certainly not a wild assumption to make.

DeWinter wrote:I would say, judging by the younger generation of British Muslims having more extreme views than their parents/grandparents,

Do we know that this is the case though? One cannot logically get from:
Proposition: Most Muslim extremists are 2nd or 3rd generation.
to
Conclusion: More 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims are extremists.

I will agree that the radicalisation of some young Muslims is happening (it seems to occur primarily in university Islamic societies, from what I can gather), but is this not analogous to radical political movements like the Socialist Worker Student Society in the 80s?

The point being, most of these radicalised young Muslims will, in all likelihood, do exactly what all the SWSS members I used to know did: settle down with a family, a mortgage, and sit around in twenty years time reminiscing about the demonstrations they went on.

DeWinter wrote:and their willingness to use violent confrontation,certain subjects won't become freely debatable where their community is concerned. You're right we don't know it, but it's certainly not a wild assumption to make.

Well, as I've said, backing down in the face of bullying is the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately people like Theo Van Gogh paid for it with their lives, but I'm damned if I'll sit down and shut up just because some yahoo thinks he can intimidate me.

markfiend wrote:Interesting aside: one of the "Intelligent Design" crowd has said that ID is basically the logos theory of John Chapter 1 restated in scientific terms.

Ugh. ID is bad science, bad theology and bad philosophy all rolled up into one.

markfiend wrote: I'm not actually sure what I meant with the Vatican 2 stuff. I think I meant that, well, JP1 showed signs of loosening the contraceptive ban for instance; Benedict (like JP2 before him) has been nothing if not more hard-line. In fact he's even less liberal than his predecessor. The popular feeling, as I understand it, after JP2's death was "anyone but Ratzinger".

I don't see "liberal" as necessarily good. I don't have a dog in this fight, really, but Catholic teaching is based in a deep reflection on the encounter between the Church and philosophy. The contraceptive ban can't really be "loosened" without overturning a system of metaphysical and moral reasoning that goes back--ultimately--to Aristotle.

markfiend wrote: The fatwa envy thing is a bit of a (bad) joke really; there are Christians who wish they could pronounce a death-sentence, whether or not there's a rival imam (or pastor) to pronounce otherwise. Commonly phrased as "you wouldn't dare talk to Muslims like that!"

Well, yes. The religion of perpetual outrage tends to get outraged when they are criticized, mocked, or otherwise disrespected. It seems indisputable: if you criticize Islam publicly you are much more likely to meet a violent end than if you criticize Christianity, Judaism, various forms of Paganism, atheism, agnosticism... etc., etc., etc. So, contra DeWinter's position, I'd suggest the kid gloves treatment stems from an unfortunate suspicion that rougher handling will result in violence. I'd also suggest that he is right about the chilling effect that Islam has on women's rights, gay rights, speech rights, etc. Ideas have consequences.

markfiend wrote: I actually think Imam Rauf building the soi disant ground zero mosque is being a lot less stupid than Terry Jones; the site has already been being used as a Muslim prayer-space for about a year. (There were Muslim prayer spaces in the World Trade Center.) In fact, at this point, I will be disappointed if the Cordoba House is not built. Backing down is never the right thing to do in the face of bullies.

My point was perhaps unclear: they're both acting in poor taste. It's in poor taste--downright rude--to burn a book that millions of people, whether Christian, Jew, or Muslims, take to be holy. Yes, it's protected speech, but it is indecorous, and like the famous "Piss Christ" photograph it's really just a puerile attempt at giving offense. Frankly, Rauf's plan is in the same boat: there is no way that trying to build a fifteen story Islamic center two blocks away from where 3000+ people were slaughtered by men acting in the name of Islam is anything but poor taste (I'll add: this does not mean that they correctly or incorrectly understand Islam or any such thing. It does mean, however, that they saw themselves as performing a pious act when they flew those planes into the World Trade Center. This is a Big Problem). It is downright rude, and he has to know that local sensibilities will be offended (I say this on the assumption that he is not stupid). Thus, such an act is an attempt at offense, and it is in poor taste. So, I will say, yes, he has the right to do so, but he probably shouldn't--because it is rude and in poor taste.

sultan2075 wrote: Frankly, Rauf's plan is in the same boat: there is no way that trying to build a fifteen story Islamic center two blocks away from where 3000+ people were slaughtered by men acting in the name of Islam is anything but poor taste (I'll add: this does not mean that they correctly or incorrectly understand Islam or any such thing. It does mean, however, that they saw themselves as performing a pious act when they flew those planes into the World Trade Center. This is a Big Problem).

I was trying to think of a British equivalent for this, maybe the EDL/BNP setting up a campaign headquarters near the Admiral Duncan, or Sinn Fein in Manchester City Centre. Neither group was responsible for those bombings (apparently), but the locals would be furious.

I suppose what ought to be born in mind by me when I see those demonstrations in Islamic countries is that they are very unlikely to have a free press, and have probably heard about Jones' antics in a way that makes him out to be the most influential figure in the Western world after the Pope. Keeping the populace angry at outsiders to take their minds off their own sh*tty lives is hardly a new trick.

markfiend wrote:Do we know that this is the case though? One cannot logically get from:
Proposition: Most Muslim extremists are 2nd or 3rd generation.
to
Conclusion: More 2nd or 3rd generation Muslims are extremists.

That's my own clumsy choice of words! I doubt large numbers are strapping on the semtex. Perhaps I should have said "conservative", or even "stricter". It makes little sense to me that some 40+ years since the first Muslims came here that we're now seeing full body coverings daily, and hearing of the aforementioned forced marriages, honour killings, acid disfiguration, etc. Why now, and not then? That would say to me that those born here are following a harsher form of Islam than their parents/ grandparents.

I think the British equivalent is more like an Irish-themed pub near the Arndale centre in Manchester.

Muslims have been in Britain for a lot longer than 40 years; the Shah Jehan Mosque in Woking opened in 1889.

I remain to be convinced that just because we hear of forced marriages, "honour" killings, etc. that they are actually happening more often. It's as likely (IMO) that we are hearing of these things as an attempt by the press to demonise British Muslims as "the other". It's like the "travellers are eating swans" stories; the British press isn't above the age-old journalistic art of "making shıt up".

I'll agree that the full-body burqa-type covering seems to be becoming more common.

ABC News wrote: Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,� Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?�


Last week President Obama told me that Pastor Jones could be cited for public burning – but that was “the extent of the laws that we have available to us.� Rep. John Boehner said on "GMA" that “just because you have a right to do something in America does not mean it is the right thing to do.�

For Breyer, that right is not a foregone conclusion.

The upshot of it is: Breyer is saying that you can burn all the copies of the Bible, Torah, Gita, etc., that you choose, because those who hold those texts sacred will generally behave themselves. So, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" now means that Congress can make laws prohibiting actions and words that Islam considers blasphemous.

edit: I'd add that as a matter of general politeness one ought not to blaspheme against a god around the adherents of that god. That's mere good manners. The First Amendment prohibits the federal government from getting involved.

Wow. That's a dangerous conclusion to draw.

I take your point about politeness, but sometimes politeness gets you nowhere.

Martin Luther King wrote:First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

It certainly strikes me as such. A religion that receives state protection is a state religion.

And yes, sometimes politeness gets you nowhere.

I'd ask:
does Coronation Chicken really need sultanas?

I think not padre...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11300552

Would the Catholic Church help poverty relief a lot more by paying tax on it's investments and assets?

Did you all misread that "rich man/kingdom of heaven" bit? If sandals were good enough for Christ, you don't need designer Italian leather, dearie.

If a woman was good enough to bear God's son, surely a woman is good enough to be a priest? Christ seemed fond enough of Mary Magdalene to let her hang out with him after all.

Are you serious when you state that child molestation is no greater sin than the ordination of women?

Isn't your Church's position on both women and gays contrary to Christ's teachings of tolerance? I have never read anything suggesting he reviled either, personally.

When the option to be a martyr to your faith and refuse to join the Hitler Youth was before you, why didn't you embrace it?

Will your successor visit the UK even when the RC church has died out, as it's expected to do in the next few decades?

Why don't you believe in reincarnation, since "Eliijah came again and you knew him not"? Same chap, different body, reincarnation.

Didn't your church long ago lose sight of it's purpose to spread teachings of tolerance, respect, and forgiveness and become a self-sustaining organisation for anally retentive theologians?

Isn't the good done in Africa/ Latin America by individual Catholics done in spite of Rome, rather than because of it?