Distressingly even Turkey has complained about the remarks and Turkey is considered one of the more moderate Muslim nations. I wish there was concrete evidence to tell what percentage of Muslims are seething over incidents like this and what percentage are shrugging it off. Sentences like "Muslims are terrorists" make as much sense as "Catholics are child molesters". See only
some Muslims are terrorists and only
some Catholic (priests) child molesters...
The troubling difference is while several in the Catholic religion would get HUGELY upset over a statement like that, they aren't gonna start blowing things up.
Don't forget however that even in America we have our share of home grown religious terrorists. Don't forget the nutjobs that have been protesting at the funerals of those who have fallen in Iraq or the tard that was bombing abortion clinics.
Ironically the remarks by the Pope are essentially a condemnation of using violence to further your religion and these words should be given some consideration by EVERYONE. Here is the
offensive part of the speech:
In the seventh conversation (*4V8,>4H - controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: "There is no compulsion in religion". According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur'an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the "Book" and the "infidels", he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: "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". The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. "God", he says, "is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably (F×< 8`(T) 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...". While the quote "ONLY things that are evil and inhuman..." is a bit excessive (imagine if you will a rabbi saying ALL the later teachings of Jesus were evil and inhuman), the problem is the focus on one word in one sentence and completely missing the point of the speech.
