This Pope has courage

The problem is, the Pope of the Catholic church is not exactly the best person to be calling out another religion for using violence in support of their religious agenda. Pot, meet kettle. Yeah, it can be argued that the Catholic church is not as violent as it was 200, 300, 400 years ago, but let's face it: they used the technique (against the Muslims, for starters) and it seemed to be pretty effective for them.

The problem is not Muslim vs. Catholic vs. Fundamentalist Christian. The problem is religion in general.

Thank you C.C. and Mugg, how can you attack Fox News when all they did was allow us to hear the Pope's address? Such narrow mindedness is what has gotten the U. S. in trouble. Since Fox News is a no, and CNN is a no, and ABC is a no, the only one left is MSNBC and they are so far left it is stupid to even try to listen to them. Since ALL these stations are biased one way or the other, where do you go to get the news? Off the blogs on the Internet? Figures.

Crazy, you hit it on the head! Murder, rape and torture are acceptable, but the inconvenient truth is not.

I guess we should quit watching TV.

I read the entire speech. I doubt that many did. The impression I got from it was that in regards to that particular statement, the Pope was differentiating between the Islamic faith and Christian faith by insinuating that his was more transcendent than theirs. I suspect that he felt that his was more 'spiritual' while theirs was more temporal and of this world only.

It seems to the Christian that the Trinity (which most do not understand) has a special significance that the Allah of the Muslims does not have in their minds.

There may be some small truth in this for those that fully understand the essence of the Trinity ... but that essence is not at all evident in the actions of our orthodox (exoteric) churches based upon anything they actually do. Their words may make certain claims, but their actions show either (or both) their hypocrisy or ignorance.

Any religious concept that justifies killing in the name of their religious ideals has a serious misunderstanding of the intended esoteric precepts presented to them by their founders in the first place. To be truly spiritually inspired, one will know how nonspiritual such religions actually are, and the bulk of Christianity is very much lacking in that regard, probably no more or less so than the bulk of Islamic understanding.

Courage does not necessarily negate ignorance of the essence of esoteric wisdom.

(+=-)=Trinity=Truth=Peace=:-)
(+/-)=Duality=Falsehood=Conflict=:-(

If the pope can't speak out on religion and violence, Who can? I agree with everything steven said. In this day and age we need a pope that can speak to the entire world. He has the courage of his convictions, which is more than I can say for many of our politicians!

For full text of the pope's speech go to http://www.torquemadaspals.org

I agree Mary. 9/11 the nation was in such shock that I don't think anyone had feelings other than shock and grief. 9/12 we had retaliated enough that we were all ready to jump across the ocean and "kill with our bare hands"! Time seems to have softened a lot of people and I guess the shock and grief of 9/11 has just faded into a mere memory. The methods we use to get info does not seem like "torture" in the ordinary sense. We don't cut off fingers an inch at the time, we don't pull teeth, nor do we burn them with cigarettes, we don't hold them underwater until they pass out. The methods of torture are far worse in other countries and just because we decide to soften our method does not mean they will do the same. In fact, it will probably make them even more vicious.

But the problem is, we don't necessarily know who we're torturing. Believe me, if we had Osama bin Laden in our hands, I'd be willing to hold contests to see who could come up with the most fun and creative ways to torture him. If we got the guys who beheaded Daniel Pearl, or that contractor, or those soldiers, I'm all for cutting off their heads with a dull blade and a shaky hand. But the problem is, knowing the bad guys from the good guys. And I just don't think it's as easy as we'd like it to be.

This isn't a black and white world. This is a world of grays and nuances. It would be a whole lot easier if we could just definitively say, yep, it's Islam that's the problem: let's kill all the Muslims and everything will be fine. But that's not the way it works in real life. In real life, there are innocent people being slaughtered for no good reason, on both sides. We gloss over that in conversations about "what we should do about terrorism," and yet we don't gloss over it when we're talking about ourselves.

Three thousand people died in the World Trade Center. That's horrible. But 150,000 civilians have died in Iraq. Now even if only ONE TENTH of them were innocent people, that means that FIVE TIMES the number of innocents have died since we went in to Iraq as died on 9/11.

Were their lives any less precious? Well, to us, yes, frankly -- they aren't our brothers and sisters and fathers and sons and aunts and uncles and children. We are far away and we don't know much about the people in that part of the world, and so it is difficult to see them as "real" in the same way that we saw the people in the towers as "real." But every person is some mother's son or daughter, and we cannot, in our arrogance, afford to forget that an Iraqi mother grieves as surely as an American one.

These are hard times, morally. Because it would be insane not to protect ourselves as much as we need to but at the same time, if we are too glib about the torturing of human beings and the taking of lives, we lose whatever moral authority we went into this with. More importantly, we lose the ideals on which this country was built; in a very real way, we lose our souls.

1) Torture does not "save lives," except in very rare circumstances. It tends to generate false statements that the one who is being tortured believes that the torturer wants to hear.

2) If you think that our people who are kidnapped, captured, or held in any way by other countries canot be tortured more or treated worse, think again. Yes, some of the prisoners are killed and some are tortured now. Giving free reign, however, would make matters substantially worse, endanger ALL prisoners and start a 'we can torture more than you can' cycle.

3) It is, in and of itself, morally reprehensible. Lowering ourselves to, or below the level of the people we are labeling as evil does not, on the surface, appear to be a demonstration of our moral superiority. And the "Our torture isn't as bad as their torture" argument makes me sick.

ALL past countries or groups who have engaged in torture that we have moraaly condemned (Stalinist Russia, Hitle's Germany, Idi Amin's administration, etc, etc.) have claimed moral rectitude and that it was in the service of a greater good. But, gee, gosh, we're right this tme and everyone else has always been wrong. We're justified. We're saving lives, freedom, and the American way. Is torture and the rest of our life saving behavior that has killed more people than the evil regimes the American way? I didn't used to think so. Maybe it is. That appears to be the way it is headed. Yep, folks, that's the way to show our moral superiority to the world. That's the way to convert our enemies into friends. That's the way to make our friends proud. WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?

4) Virtually all past commanders of general officer rank have come out against this as a strategy. strongly. Even some currently employed by this "moral" administration have refused to comply. Maybe they know something you don't.

I give up.

Thank you, Wendy, maybe I won't give up after all.

Torture is torture. You criticise the radical Islamists for being murderous hypocrits, yet fail to do the same for Bush and Co. Whether the bomb is dropped from 3 Miles up or strapped to a body, the result is the same. Terrorism. What ever method of torture used, it is torture. The victims and their families will be justified in hating their torturers. This is how you make more terrorists.
Just as the pointless death in New York motivates the US to seek revenge, the pointless death in Iraq motivates Muslims to seek revenge. Eye for an eye sends the whole world blind.
Religion thy name is Hypocrisy.
ALL religions preach peace. ALL religions have followers that kill for their religion.
Bush and Bin Laden are both terrorists, both need to be put on trial for their crimes.

It is a total waste of time to try to reason with any of the various sects of Islam. The Sunnis and Shia have been openly at war and trying to kill each other since Muhammad died in 632 AD. The arguement between those two sects is whether a direct blood decendant of Muhammad or someone elected by the group should be the leader of the Islamic religion.

The other few dozen sects have been at war with each other and all non believers for over a thousand years too.

One war between two of the sects which lasted over a hundred years and caused the deaths of over 70,000 people started because a camel that belonged to one group drank from a pool of water that was claimed by the other group. I can not understand how one camel belly full of water is worth 70,000 human lives but it apparently made sense to them.

Barbarians can not be reasoned with and since the Quran teaches that it is not possible for a believer to lie to a non believer no matter what words pass their lips, they can not be believed either.

About the only thing that has changed in the Islamic world in 1,400 years is that they have found easier ways to kill in the name of Allah.

I think some people here need to take their blood pressure, temp., and pulse about every 15 mnutes, and, like the Hertz commercial, "you need a hug." No sane person wants to torture anyone or any living thing. With that said, if some one is going to cut the head off or do bodily harm to one of my children, there is killing an torture weighing leavily on my mind. A fellow American also qualifies for my dark thoughts. Could I cross the line? I don't think so because I believe God is the ultimate punisher.

A few thoughts:
After WW2, for about a year of so, there remained Nazi resistance (one way was sniping at American soldiers). It was bad
in the rural areas. A few commanders, after issueing several warnings to
to viallages were shots came from, rounded up viallagers abd shot them dead.

It worked.

The Catholic Church, in my opinion, has become marginalized in the world today. I think this has been happening for about 250 years. Who listens to the pope? If you are not Catholic, do you really care? I was born in Texas, raised in Texas, went to school in Texas. I love Texas! BUT I will tell you this: 3 things you did not want to be in Texas =1) Catholic, 2 )black, 3) Jewish. The ranking order is up to you.

Well, just a few musings......

Whew! You know, there was a time when I felt safe. But it's been a while... I am definitely against torture. I think the Catholic church is still powerful, even though I am not a Catholic. I am afraid of middle-eastern Islam, even though I have a sense that there must be moderates there just as there are here. Maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. I am afraid of them because I don't understand them, because I am frightened by their views on women, and because war has been going on there non-stop since ? We somehow got roped into playing war with them, and nobody is winning. AND I lived in Texas for five years, enjoyed my stay there, but was always bothered by the treatment of blacks and Hispanics. The world all seems much closer together and much less safe since, oh, 2000 or so...

Simon, I think that your comments are incredibly naive. US tactical bombing of targets in Iraq is not the moral equivalent to delibrately targetting civilians in suicide bombings. As for the condoning of violence by the Catholic Church, name me a Pope in the last 100 years who hasn't condemned war in the world. Enough of the "Crusades were a Catholic enterprise" nonsense. No Pope has contemplated that activity in half a millenium.

John 3:16

Whew!! There's a lot of opinions out there. I also read the pope's entire speech, and I also think that the Muslims have blown it way out of context, and it gives them another reason to vent at the west The pope was talking to a group of very bright students, and he is reminding them to consider reason as an essential component of human interaction. There ARE parts of the Koran that talk about converting EVERYONE to Islam, and taking it to the far corners of the earth. Sure, Christianity talks about the great commision to also go to the far corners to share the Gospel (which means truth), but not kill them if they aren't interested. and what about atheists, Hindus, Buddists?? Kill all of them if they are unbelievers (of Islam)?? I am recommending a DVD to watch and share, and hopefully someday the peace loving, non-violent Muslims will rise up and hold their brothers accountable. Only time will tell. The movie is "Obsession, Radical Islam's War With The West" You can find out about it at www.obsessionthemovie.com. This world is becoming a very dangerous place, and it might be comint to your neighborhood soon!

I am not sure that I would call it courage, but the Muslims have become so prickly it is going to become basically impossible to discuss history or even their own religion with them. It is sad to see the Pope concentrating on the problem of Islamic violence, when he could be creating immediate best sellers by condemning novels instead. Writers could use the boost right now.

Hey Crazy, I downloaded the speech myself, the full text given at Regensburg University. I googled the speech and got a link to www.freerepublic.com. If you go to the site directly, just search the site for the full text.

Living in Bavaria, the Pope's speech was available in all Catholic Churches.
Brushing things under the carpet only makes things fester. He quoted and yeserday there was dialogue in Rome with Muslim clerics. When religion becomes fanatical it becomes dangerous. We have to stand up and be counted.

I'm sorry, I can't find any incredible naivete in Simon's posting. And the crusades were NOT an 'enterprise' of the Catholic Church? What crusades are you talking about? Certainly there were venal and political motivations mixed in behind the scenes but what institution do you think WAS responsible for the movement? If your point is that the church has reformed from this time, you are, certainly, correct. You can add the fact that many of the Moslem sects have not evolved past this violent exclusivity but you can not deny that Christian sects, and most visibly, the Catholic Church has violent enforcement of their corner of the truth in the past.

I don't think that the families of the civilians (or soldiers, they're people, too) who are killed by collateral damage or :friendly fire," make a distinction of the types of moral claims to the killing. Remember, the use of many of the civilians is with their consent and collaboration. We don't ask the victims of our bombs whether or not they wish to contribute to our holy purposes. And, yes, suicide bombing is morally as reprehensible a practice as I can imagine. It's much better that all the people on our side, including our own people, that we kill with "friendly fire" were killed accidentally.

Love that phrase, "friendly fire." They're just 'accidents' folks, unavoidable accompaniments of our bombing people we actually intend to kill, because maybe they knew the people, or some just like the people that attacked our buildings.

With about 20% of the entire world identifying as Moslem, we certainly have a lot of killing to do, particularly as it seems more important to us to get the "gulty" than to save the innocent. Hell, maybe they're all guilty of something. They don't act or believe the ways we do so they must be. In no way misunderstand that I believe these groups of militant Muslims (sic) are not among the lowest creatures on the earth's surface, Many of them and much of their philosophy is utterly detestable and needs to be corrected however we can. But if you think that sinking to their level and proliferating our enemies is the way to do it, then they have already converted you to the part of their philosophy that we object to.

There are other methods than indiscriminate killing, or trying to reason with the other crazies. Many of them are refractory to reason, and many are refractory to reason because their motivations are not what they pretend them to be. I think true leadres, statesmen, and effective politicians could come up with better ways to solve the problem than arbitrary (as far as the stated purposes, anyway) attacks even if debate IS ineffective. I can think of alternatives. Our politicians don't want to.

While I am certainly not going to attempt to categorize ALL Muslims based upon the actions of SOME, the thing about Islamic extremists is that they do not allow the freedom of anyone to disagree with them. They respond to what they feel are remarks saying they are violent by responding violently?? Does that make any sense at all??

I'm a Christian, but I respect everyone's individual right to choose their own religious affiliation, whether or not I agree with it personally. Heck even if people choose not to believe anything at all, it's their choice to make. I can share my faith with others, but I can't and won't try to force anybody to adhere to it or threaten their lives because they disagree with me.

I've always thought that if you really have confidence in what you believe in, you don't need to get angry at people who don't share those beliefs.

Do these islamic extremists really think that kidnapping innocent folks and beheading them or blowing themselves up in a building so they can go to "paradise" by murdering men,women and children who have never done anything to them makes a "positive" statement about their "faith"?

Now they expect the Pope, who has apologized more times than he should have to, to keep apologizing until all of the muslim world is satisfied.

There are some of them who will never be satisfied, because they are so full of fanatical hatred. They seem only to want another excuse to commit further acts of violence.

Again, I don't think-at least I hope- that not ALL people who are muslims are like this, but the extremeists are the ones who are the most vocal.

Angela, right on!! As I mentioned before, the radical Muslims DON'T want ANYONE to challenge their warped view of the world. As well as the DVD "Obession", I'm reading a book, "Jihad ,The Rise Of Militant Islam In Central Asia" by Ahmed Rashid. It is really opening my eyes as to the lenght and depth of Islam. We are NOT going to win in Iraq, as Bagdad has become the "In Place" for insurgency, and of course all of Islam loves the Palestinians. It's true that only 10 to 15% of the world is Islamic, but with over 1 billion followers, that's a lot of folk that really need to realize their religion has been hijaked!

Let me say it one more time, religions for the most part are very biased, true spirituality is neutral ... as is God. Unconditional love for each and all that want truth enough !

Crazy....to really catch on to the fact that Fox News is biased, you have to watch it for two.....maybe three....minutes. And seriously, I don't pick up on any such in-your-face bias on any other news network. If I did, regardless of the slant, I wouldn't watch it either. I don't like having my views being manipulated. Why would anyone?

Wendy.....great comments !!!

I totally agree. I think he was speaking to the good muslim people, and pointing out the obvious. That the religion has been taken over by radicalism. I wish the muslims in the United States would speak up. They are the few muslims in the world that can say what they want , and not get their heads cut off. The good Ole USA, say what you want.

Oh yeah, I forgot to comment on the News issue. I will admit Fox is slightly to the right. But they are closer to the middle than anyone else. But I dont hear you com plaining about the far left networks. Oh yeah, they are saying what YOU agree with. That is Bias.

Hi guys, I really appreciate you reading and commenting on my article. But this was not about Fox New or NPR. This was about a Pope trying to have a REAL dialogue with another faith. Even after meeting with a collection of ministers, the action was still not enough. The Pope, according to the Umaa, must submit. To me, that reflects the one sided nature of this dialogue. In order to have, you have to admit that you are wrong. How would you all respond if I laid out those conditions for a dialogue with me?

Sorry Steven, this is also not relevant to your purpose but I am again submitting to the pointless urge to attempt to educate or at least chasten the uneducable, as in Jason.

Jason, pardon me for once more submitting to the utterly useless attempt to correct your misapprehensions. "...far left networks" what alternate universe in which the Third Reich controls the world did you come from? Left of Genghis Khan, Hitler, and Bush, maybe, but not left of the sane world. And yes, I just lumped GWB in with Genghis Khan and Adolf Hitler, but that was clearly inaccurate. They weren't borderline retarded.

Wendy, 150K Iraqi civilains have died since we went in? Out of 50m? Do you realise what you are saying in percentage terms? It makes a stunning point here but its far from true....where would you have gotten that number anyway?

Sorry Steven, as you have just found out. Too many people simply jump into a thread to make their political points regardless of what the subject was or how they can twist/adjust it...Look at David, he bashes Fox for having a slant but does not feel the others do, this illustrates his political view as much as Howard does by comparing Bush to Hitler. Its fine to disagree but people like Howard would undoubtedly not have such (public) opinions if Bush was Hitler, by his ability to rant as such it does prove, ONE Bush is no murdering Hitler and TWO Howard is no historian nor an indepth thinker.

Wait to see what the responses to this comment will be!

Well look guys, give the Pope a break! Look what the fundamentalist evangelicals are doing over here! Robertson calls for us to assasinate a foreign head of State. Falwell erupts with all kinds of vicious stuff like AIDS is God's way of spanking homosexuals. The Pope is a relatively mellow dude, he said he was sorry get over it. Courageous not necessarily -- innocent yes.

Steven,

I agree the Pope was trying to commence a dialogue but the reaction he received to his words must have caused him to pause. Muslims used it as an excuse for riot and even murder. Too few if any Muslim scholars said "hold it, this is a discussion not an excuse for violence" I hope I'm wrong but I saw no mention of any Muslim clerics or ayatollahs saying this...At least he had the moral courage not to apolgise for his reciting of historical figures.


"that Christian sects, and most visibly, the Catholic Church has violent enforcement of their corner of the truth in the past."

Howard no one seems to be claiming that, however the word past is key. No mainstream Christian, Buddhist, or Jewish groups are forcing conversions at gunpoint or or advocating general killing of Muslims. Too many radical elements in Islam are outright violent, do you think you can get away with discussions like we are having here in most Islamicly ruled states?

When the evangelical right gets it's way into our government, they will do away with sunday worship and instead gather five times a day ... then we too will all be required to be together more, so that we can dance in the streets after each gathering as we rant and rave about some heathen non-christian nation we will next 'convert' on our list.

pS. ... be very thankful that they (evangelical right) are as yet only 1/35th as 'religious'.

"The so-called "obscure" emperor he quoted was a Byzantine ruler under siege from radical Jihadists who thought nothing about killing those who did not convert."


Ok, let's get real here....if the Pope wants to quote from a few hundred years ago, so will I...let me remind everyone of the Catholic church's guilt in the St. Bartholomew Massacre a few hundred years ago...which makes my head spin, as the Catholic Church is accusing the Muslims of something THEY have been doing for hundreds of years:

For instance:

"August 24, 1572, was the date of the infamous St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre in France. On that day, over 400 years ago, began one of the most horrifying holocausts in history.

The glorious Reformation, begun in Germany on October 31, 1517, had spread to France.
However, alarm bells began to ring at the Vatican! France was her eldest daughter and main pillar—the chief source of money and power. . . . King Pepin of the Franks (the father of Charlemagne) had given the Papal States to the Pope almost 1000 years earlier. Almost half the real estate in the country was owned by the clergy.

Meanwhile, back in Paris, the King of France and his Court spent their time drinking, reveling and carousing. The Court spiritual adviser—a Jesuit priest— urged them to massacre the Protestants—as penance for their many sins! To catch the Christians off-guard every token of peace, friendship, and ecumenical good will was offered. (to bring the Protestants to Paris).

Suddenly—and without warning—the devilish work commenced. Beginning at Paris, the French soldiers and the Roman Catholic clergy fell upon the unarmed people, and blood flowed like a river throughout the entire country. Men, women, and children fell in heaps before the mobs and the bloodthirsty troops. In one week, almost 100,100 Protestants perished. The rivers of France were so filled with corpses that for many months no fish were eaten. In the valley of the Loire, wolves came down from the hills to feel upon the decaying bodies of Frenchmen. The list of massacres was as endless as the list of the dead!

......When news of the Massacre reached the Vatican there was jubilation! Cannons roared—bells rung—and a special commemorative medal was struck—to honor the occasion! The Pope commissioned Italian artist Vasari to paint a mural of the Massacre—which still hangs in the Vatican!".

well, the stories go on and on and on...join us or die!

I quote the above from this site:

http://www.reformation.org/bart.html

I can't remember who, in one of the above posts, said "Pot, meet the kettle"...

SO TRUE...

the Pope needs to look in the mirror....no wonder the Muslims were offended.

Well we all know without a doubt that there is no such thing as a conspiracy, after all, the Skeptical Inquirer and the even the 'liberal' (ha) media tells us so. Heck, if there was, which there isn't, it would only be a theory anyway.

So lets just call it BAU (business as usual). BAU is about Divide and Conquer. All of the world leaders have inherited that 'wisdom' (questionable) about how to control the minions.

That is a 'game' played by the upper (usually behind the scenes) leadership. It very much keeps the subjects distracted about what is really going on as we are encouraged to conflict with each other ... while the 'management' tips the scales in their preffered direction of outcome.

This is a little realized fact that we all should begin to become aware of. It works very effectively upon the ignorant. People in high places do not make speeches that are not carefully crafted for effect. They may sometimes miscalculate, but always there is specific intention behind the word and phrases. The popes speech was no exception.

Charles, I heard that figure on television. After your comment, I did a little internet research. The most conservative estimate (www.iraqbodycount.com) is 48,000. A study by researchers from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Al-Mustaniriya University in Baghdad (study published in the Lancet) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_survey_of_mortality_before_and_after_the_2003_invasion_of_Iraq)
put the number at over 100,000 as of October, 2004. That's two years ago. Furthermore, 6,000 civilians died this year in July and August alone (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.main/index.html).
All of this suggests that the figure of 150,000 is not at all unreasonable -- is, in fact, supported by reputable studies.

But even if we are to use the most conservative number, 48,000, the point still stands -- that a tenth of that number is still almost twice as many people who died in 9/11. In other words, the Iraqis have lost 16times (not 16 percent, 16 TIMES) the number of innocent civilians as we lost.

As a political analyst said the other night on TV, "You hear the argument 'we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here' to which the Iraqis rightfully respond, 'WHAT!!?? How is THAT fair?"

But again, I suggest that we don't see the Iraqi people as being "human" in the same way that we see Americans. It's an understandable tendency, but we ought to be aware of it and understand that it doesn't justify anything.

WTF? Why'd my box get chopped? Huh.

Jerry, I have only one thing to say to your post. YES!

OK, I have another thing to add. The speeches given by those in "high Places" are usually crafted toward a specific purpose which may or may not coincide with their literal statements. I agree but there is one glaring exception. Even with a carefully prepared script, even with a bug in his ear (such as during his "debate") George W. Bush's speeches, the moment he varies from the text that he is given (and he can barely read), are incredible gibberish. "Carefully crafted" speeches do not describe his utterances. He can't even pronounce or use the words written for him correctly. The far sadder issue, though, is that nearly 40% of our voting public are incapable of noticeing.

Howard, it's interesting that you comment on George Bush's inability to speak English. I just spent a little time running through the speeches of Tony Blair re 9/11 (looking for a particular quote). I recommend everyone try this. Why can't we have a leader who speaks the English language so eloquently, clearly -- well, beautifully. I do think that the quality of a person's language (particularly in written speeches) reflects the quality of their thought.

Nuff said.

Simon Frew.....exactly! The whole world will go blind....

Wendy CNN AND Wikipedia are the sources you quote? The Lancet? Geez that was supposed to be at one time a magazine of medical review, it became politicalized a few years ago. Neither the Lancet nor CNN can be considered non partisan on Iraq especially as are political and especially as Lancet have gone on record from day one as considering Iraq as an Imperialist war etc. Either number you've quoted is quoted simply as civilain deaths, this belies the hard fact that some at least were in arms fighting someone (take yr pick on the side, they weren't civilians if they were fighting) and that many if not most of the civilains were killed by the terrorists not by Iraqi/US/Allied forces. Even at 180K that comes out less 35K a year, no where near what Saddam was killing before hand. I don't know of anyone who considers them (the Iraqis) less then human as you assert either but that is neither here or now...

Did you ever find out what happened to your box/comments? They sure were hard to read...Can you redo them?

This Pope has demonstrated his vast knowledge of Christian theology and total ignorance of Islamic thought. His visit to the US is officially "pastoral." Yet he is credited with getting Bush elected because of his condemnation of Kerry.

Know the real picture of Islam ...
http://www.TheMovieObsession.com

finally Exposed !!!!

Obsession Movie on Fox-Interview
http://www.TheMovieObsession.com/media_FOX_christian_american_turning_to_islam.php