Thursday, September 21, 2006
Who the Devil?
As the Pope is too busy elsewhere brewing up something else, we shall have to turn to another to hear about the Devil —
"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.
"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
"An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: The Devil's Recipe." Read MORE
ß
"And the devil came here yesterday. Yesterday the devil came here. Right here." [crosses himself] "And it smells of sulfur still today.
"Yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, from this rostrum, the president of the United States, the gentleman to whom I refer as the devil, came here, talking as if he owned the world. Truly. As the owner of the world.
"I think we could call a psychiatrist to analyze yesterday's statement made by the president of the United States. As the spokesman of imperialism, he came to share his nostrums, to try to preserve the current pattern of domination, exploitation and pillage of the peoples of the world.
"An Alfred Hitchcock movie could use it as a scenario. I would even propose a title: The Devil's Recipe." Read MORE
ß
// posted by beta-blogger @ 10:33 AM
Who the Devil?Friday, September 15, 2006
Love The Pope
The German Pope Benedict XVI, ecstatic from the visit to his native Bavaria, took a swipe at Islam by borrowing from the pages of a dusty book, "Twenty Six Dialogues With a Persian", written in 1399 by the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II in in 1399. What the Pope quoted, and what the Emperor allegedly said (in his argument with a Muslim Persian) is worth repeating to put matters in perspective: "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."
Now it is difficult to argue with the Pope seeing as he is infallible and all that. But Popes are generally people of a great age with memories that are very short. So I forgive him for not having dug up even more tirades against Islam which I am always willing to give to him should he wish to whip up further hatred: like the Knights Templars worshipping Mohammad or Baphomet (a fine piece mud-slinging so the Church could whip the former, denounce them as heretics, and then stretch them on the rack), and the merry poetics of Dante that sent many Muslims to the fiery depths. Or the speech by Benedict's own predecessor Urban II who, at the Council of Clermont of 1095, called for a crusade against the infidel race 'so despicable, degenerate and enslaved by demons' and, needless to say, abandoned by God.
This was the beginning of the Crusades that saw not only Muslim infidels slaughtered by the sword-happy soldiers of Christ (read about the capture of Jerusalem from both Muslim and Christian sources, and then compare that with its recapture by Saladin in this month — 25th September — in 1187), but also fellow Christians in the Eastern Church whose places of worship were plundered and who saw best to flee (those who could) for their lives from these peace-loving soldiers of Christ sent to their midst at the behest of, er, the Pope.
It is strange that the Pope, in misrepresenting and then attacking Jihad, chose to quote from a 14th century work in a century when the Mother Church had just recently apologised to my cousin the Jews for having mistreated them during the Inquisitions. (Well, my brothers and sisters were mistreated too then but you don't want to know about that). And strange too that it has come from the House of God that threw Hindu Goans down the well if they refused to come to the way of Christ (read about the curious effect of that in the 20th century on Mr Pandit in the 3rd volume of Goan writer/poet Dom Moraes' autobiography, "Never At Home"). And then there was the Philippines where Christainity came by the sword, and oh, the Indians on the other side too, in Mexico, they fell and were converted by the merry swordsmen of Cortes, were they not? And which Church, by the way, has been constantly accused of being in complicity with the Nazis?
Strange too that the Pope in his wisdom chose from a page written in medieval times, when Christianity's response to Islam was always wrapped in invectives and unbridled calumny. he ought to have been more careful: has he forgotten that it was during that same period of Christain history that the Antichrist was often portrayed as having the dual incarnation of the Turk (i.e.Islam) and the Pope? (Note to Pope: Please read Luther).
Emperor Manuel II was a Byzantine man much riled by the Muslim Turks as by the Pope, but he carried on the rich myth-making 'anti-Mahometan' tradition of the Christian West. He claimed that held conversations with the Muslim Kadhi in Ankara (the poor Emperor man was a vassal of the Turkish Sultan, though, curiously, they never made him Muslim by the sword).
It is doubtful though that he even made that conversation that the Pope quoted. (He earlier wrote an imaginary conversation between conquered Muslims and the Mongol Tamerlane), with some scholars believing that he borrowed his anti-Muslim bile from an earlier work, the "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce.
Ah well, I suppose if you do read ancient books you do get a lot of dust in your eyes.
ß
Now it is difficult to argue with the Pope seeing as he is infallible and all that. But Popes are generally people of a great age with memories that are very short. So I forgive him for not having dug up even more tirades against Islam which I am always willing to give to him should he wish to whip up further hatred: like the Knights Templars worshipping Mohammad or Baphomet (a fine piece mud-slinging so the Church could whip the former, denounce them as heretics, and then stretch them on the rack), and the merry poetics of Dante that sent many Muslims to the fiery depths. Or the speech by Benedict's own predecessor Urban II who, at the Council of Clermont of 1095, called for a crusade against the infidel race 'so despicable, degenerate and enslaved by demons' and, needless to say, abandoned by God.
This was the beginning of the Crusades that saw not only Muslim infidels slaughtered by the sword-happy soldiers of Christ (read about the capture of Jerusalem from both Muslim and Christian sources, and then compare that with its recapture by Saladin in this month — 25th September — in 1187), but also fellow Christians in the Eastern Church whose places of worship were plundered and who saw best to flee (those who could) for their lives from these peace-loving soldiers of Christ sent to their midst at the behest of, er, the Pope.
It is strange that the Pope, in misrepresenting and then attacking Jihad, chose to quote from a 14th century work in a century when the Mother Church had just recently apologised to my cousin the Jews for having mistreated them during the Inquisitions. (Well, my brothers and sisters were mistreated too then but you don't want to know about that). And strange too that it has come from the House of God that threw Hindu Goans down the well if they refused to come to the way of Christ (read about the curious effect of that in the 20th century on Mr Pandit in the 3rd volume of Goan writer/poet Dom Moraes' autobiography, "Never At Home"). And then there was the Philippines where Christainity came by the sword, and oh, the Indians on the other side too, in Mexico, they fell and were converted by the merry swordsmen of Cortes, were they not? And which Church, by the way, has been constantly accused of being in complicity with the Nazis?
Strange too that the Pope in his wisdom chose from a page written in medieval times, when Christianity's response to Islam was always wrapped in invectives and unbridled calumny. he ought to have been more careful: has he forgotten that it was during that same period of Christain history that the Antichrist was often portrayed as having the dual incarnation of the Turk (i.e.Islam) and the Pope? (Note to Pope: Please read Luther).
Emperor Manuel II was a Byzantine man much riled by the Muslim Turks as by the Pope, but he carried on the rich myth-making 'anti-Mahometan' tradition of the Christian West. He claimed that held conversations with the Muslim Kadhi in Ankara (the poor Emperor man was a vassal of the Turkish Sultan, though, curiously, they never made him Muslim by the sword).
It is doubtful though that he even made that conversation that the Pope quoted. (He earlier wrote an imaginary conversation between conquered Muslims and the Mongol Tamerlane), with some scholars believing that he borrowed his anti-Muslim bile from an earlier work, the "Confutatio Alchorani" by the Dominican friar Ricoldo of Montecroce.
Ah well, I suppose if you do read ancient books you do get a lot of dust in your eyes.
ß
// posted by beta-blogger @ 7:15 PM
Love The PopeMonday, September 11, 2006
On This Day
