Pope Hails Election of Sadiq Kahn, Celebrates Mass Muslim Migration In to Europe
Breibart News By Virgina Hale May 22, 2016
The Pope has hailed the election of Sadiq Khan as “Muslim” mayor of London, claimed mass Muslim migration is “necessary” for Europe, and blamed Paris and Brussels for the attacks on European soil.
In an interview with French newspaper La Croix, Pope Francis strongly implied that the terrorists who attacked Paris and Brussels did so because they “grew up in a ghetto.”
He also applauded the election of Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, stating it “illustrates the need for Europe to rediscover its capacity to integrate,” evoking “Pope Gregory the Great, who negotiated with the people known as barbarians who were subsequently integrated.”
However, the situation of mass Muslim migration that Europe now faces is distinctly different: the “barbarians” (the term referring in this case to Franks, Lombards and Visigoths) were Europeans, and did not follow a religion which historically, violently, conquered dozens of countries and preached supremacy.
Even today, the Muslim country Indonesia is currently committing what has been widely described as a genocide against Christian West Papuans with mass migration, violence and the banning of Papuan nationalism.
Pope Francis also claimed Europe’s declining birth rate is a “grave problem” that makes mass Muslim migration “necessary.” He described this “demographic emptiness” as a result of “a selfish search for well-being.”
The Pope stated that Muslims and Christians need to learn to live peacefully together, citing Lebanon as a good example of this. Though Lebanon is perhaps not the best illustration for the Pontiff to draw upon.
Lebanon was a majority Christian country up until the 1960s. In the 1970s, after an influx of Muslim refugees, tens of thousands of Christians were ethnically cleansed from the country.
Since 2005 there have been as many as 14 terrorist attacks a year in Lebanon, and the UK government’s travel advice on Lebanon advises against traveling to certain parts of the country as there is a “high threat from terrorism.”
Pope Francis criticised France’s “exaggeration” of the separation of church and state, expressing disapproval of the country’s ban on the niqab in public places. This type of veil has been banned in Muslim-majority countries Azerbaijan and Chad. Polls show the vast majority of people in Islamic countries, apart from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, widely disapprove of the garment.
Suggesting that the fear of migration in Europe is partly based on a fear of Islam, Pope Francis was asked whether he felt that such fears are justified. He said he didn’t think that “there is a fear of Islam as such but of [Islamic State] and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam.”
“It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest,” the Pope said.
33 comments:
The Pope has hailed the election of Sadiq Khan as “Muslim” mayor of London, claimed mass Muslim migration is “necessary” for Europe, and blamed Paris and Brussels for the attacks on European soil.
So. I guess this brings up the previously facetious question which now seems to be a serious question:
Is the Pope Catholic?
I just am depressed because my parish priest had such nice things to say about the Pope in his homily today. I don't want to get in argument with him. We have discussed it before.
Sometimes the social justice warrior thing just overwhelms good sense.
It is a pity that a good man like Cardinal Sarah is bypassed for a communist. It as if we had a choice between Clarence Thomas and Bernie Sanders and we picked Bernie.
To think that Muslims are anything other that an existential threat to our society and our bitter enemies is just nuts. This Pope is just totally disconnected to reality. Which is ok if he is a truly holy man and not a communist bureaucrat in a cassock.
That's a piss poor interpretation by the breitbart writer of what he actually said. I don't agree with his socialist tendancies but that article is just anti-catholic clickbait.
Yer think?
I don't know. Don't you think that Pope Francis is an apologist for the Muslims? I mean I admit I am not a good benchmark for this guy. I have already made up my mind. But why can't he be forthright the way Cardinal Sarah was in the National Catholic prayer breakfast? What's the problem? Why does every crazy thing he have to say be explained away as "he really didn't say that...or he really didn't mean that...or you can't believe your lying eyes?"
Frank needs a trip to Deutschland to show him the error of his ways.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
Is the Pope Catholic?
Several hundreds of years of Crusaders would demur.
What's the deal with the Ghetto being the reason for terrorism? What's that all about?
He used ghetto in the original sense of a segregated, ethnically pure urban living area, not the American sense of "where the poor people live." Warsaw, not Watts. It's an argument for assimilation that I've seen made here many times in relation to our immigrant problems. Breitbart's writer tried to turn that into the "poverty causes Jihad" canard. Not to say that Francis hasn't used that too but he didn't in this case.
I'd prefer a warrior Pope but we've got a man of peace who preaches love and brotherhood and forgiveness and serving the poor and all that turn the other cheek like Jesus crap. He also is a thoughtful man who offers up ideas from many sides of issues. His opponents latch onto those reflections out of context and use them to damn him as a commie ISIS sympathizer. Always read what he says in full, not what someone tells you that he said. He's a lot deeper than some punk ass shit stirrer at Breitbart or Gateway.
He is distressingly socialistic. I'll give you that. So was the J-man by some measures.
Catholicism and Islam were and are religious empires, with all due respect. To pretend that they would avoid joining forces in an era where their biggest perceived threats are secular rationalism and democratic self-rule sounds naive.
Now I understand your dilemma - Catholicism has been defanged of the permission to act out or even violently resist whereas Islam hasn't. So in any such arrangement/relationship the more violent one will win; just as a domestic batterer will win absent any police presence. But the secular authorities of Superstate Europe have abdicated any will to resist massive Muslim immigration so the pope's out of luck. Both his office and Brussels seem to have relented under the pseudo-imperative of "mercy" - for the violent newcomer.
Spain went through this. But it vanquished the invader through a reconquista that I think Europe has little stomach for.
Heaven be with you, it will be a bumpy ride. Lebanon is indeed instructive. Trump may indeed be onto the only right track.
You could get a "warrior pope" I suppose. But the only forces capable of committing themselves to a tough and effective stance would be the apparatuses of state available to Europe - if they wanted to. Which they don't. So the writing's on the wall. The Vatican has even less at its disposal, with a negligible amount of territory and orange and blue suited guards. So he's reduced to a figurehead, and I don't think that talking as tough as you'd like him to talk would do anything.
Time to start reading Islam for Dummies again. I for one don't welcome our new overlords. But at least I'm in America, where things stand to remain at least marginally better.
"Always read what he says in full, not what someone tells you he said."
Okay, here's one thing he has said:
Jesus Christ, Jehovah, Allah. These are all names employed to describe an entity that is distinctly the same across the world.
I put it to you that if you are a secularist the above is nonsense and if you are a Catholic it is heresy. I'm not going to elaborate because unless you are a Schmendrick it jumps out at you that the Pope, in this statement, has said something both monstrous and scandalous.
The link is to La Croix not Breitbart. Is the Pope this naive, or just subversive? Plenty of groups were ghettoized, I can't think of any that turned to organized terrorism. The muslims are learning their terrorism in mosques and in their Koran,as laid out by their founder and funded by the Saudis.
"To pretend that they would avoid joining forces in an era where their biggest perceived threats are secular rationalism and democratic self-rule sounds naive."
mmmkay
Ritmo, PBUH, if I understand his posts, is time traveling again. Other than that, I think we're largely in agreement. It's a little hard to find the point.
For ricpic
Amp, the first link is to La Croix but Troopers quoted paragraphs are from Breitbart. What the Pope actually said is far less scandalous than the Breitbart writer made it out to be. Which was my principal point. Read what he actually says and make a judgement based on that, not what you are told that he said. See my link for ricpic for an example.
What are you getting at? He made the statement. I don't care what false additions or embellishments were added on later by whoever.
The Pope stated that "Jesus, Jehovah, Allah.......describe an entity that is distinctly the same...." That is HERESY.
You want to obfuscate what he said by talking about add ons...that's your problem not mine
I understand that Pope Francis wants the West to become like Lebanon. He would be happy with the destruction of the capitalist society. He rails against it all the time. His goal is income redistribution. That is why he dislikes American Conservative Catholics and praises the likes of Fidel Castro.
It was a terrible mistake to put him in charge when we are faced with the onslaught of Muslim barbarians. I am sure the Church will survive. We have survived worse. But lets have our eyes open about it.
Rhythm and Balls said...
Catholicism and Islam were and are religious empires, with all due respect.
Given the hierarchical nature of the Church and the almost chaotic divergence of Islam, fewer statements are more at odds with reality.
There is no Catholic religious empire. Not since the late middle ages. It is a false equivalence. It is not the Catholic church that is trying to establish a caliphate. The Church is under attack. Our Society is under attack. By a Muslim horde just as destructive as the one led by Saladin. Everything that is old comes back again.
Maybe it is time for a warrior Pope. Cardinal Sarah could have been that man. We missed a chance when they picked Frankie the Freeloader.
Here is a direct quote from Pope Francis in the original La Croix article:
"A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy."
Also this where he posits a direct moral equivalence between the Church and the Muslim search for a caliphate:
"Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam. It is true that the idea of conquest is inherent in the soul of Islam. However, it is also possible to interpret the objective in Matthew’s Gospel, where Jesus sends his disciples to all nations, in terms of the same idea of conquest."
So government needs to control the free market.
The teachings of the Gospel can be interpreted in the same way as the precepts of ISIS which is only partly inspired by Islam.
What else is it inspired by if not Islam?
Rabel,I have read the La Croix interview, that's where I surmise that this man is naive or subversive.
"We need to speak of roots in the plural because there are so many. In this
sense, when I hear talk of the Christian roots of Europe, I sometimes dread the
tone, which can seem triumphalist or even vengeful. It then takes on
colonialist overtones."
WTF? Did the Europeans colonize themselves?
"A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but
they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance
them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economomy
How would he know. He comes from a state that Peronism rules. Gangster economics. Conquistator economics. He praises Castro for goodness sakes. The man loves poor people and apparently wants to keep them that way.
"In Brussels, the terrorists were Belgians, children of migrants, but they grew up in a ghetto. In London, the new mayor (Editor: Sadiq Khan, the son of Muslim Pakistanis) took his oath of office in a cathedral and will undoubtedly meet the queen. This illustrates the need for Europe to rediscover its capacity to integrate."
Ultimately, co-existence between Christians and Muslims is still possible. I come from a country where they co-habit on good terms.
You want to bet that the muslims in Belgian think of themselves as Belgians or Muslims first last and always?
He also brings up Argentina as a Kumbaya nation, where,in 1996, the Muslims came halfway across the world to blow up a Jewish center and kill 85 people.
The initial problems are the wars in the Middle East and in Africa as well as
the underdevelopment of the African continent, which causes hunger. If there
are wars, it is because there exist arms manufacturers – which can be justified
for defensive purposes – and above all arms traffickers. If there is so much
unemployment, it is because of a lack of investment capable of providing
employment, of which Africa has such a great need.
There was investment in Africa. the investors were told to get out. Remember "Africa for the Africans"
I don't read French but I take it these are his own words.
"What are you getting at? He made the statement."
Re read Snopes. The quote was made up from whole cloth by a fake news site - National Report. Snopes could be wrong. I'll gladly acknowledge that if you can provide a link that doesn't originate with the National Report story.
"A completely free market does not work. Markets in themselves are good but they also require a fulcrum, a third party, or a state to monitor and balance them. In other words, [what is needed is] a social market economy."
That's a pretty good description of America's economic history. See the Commerce Clause for example. Note his first sentence which is rendered absolutely true by his use of "completely."
"Today, I don’t think that there is a fear of Islam as such but of ISIS and its war of conquest, which is partly drawn from Islam."
That puts him well to the right of our current administration and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He's not my favorite Pope by any means. It's a bad time to have a pacifistic communalist at the Vatican. Hell, he's practically an Episcopalian. However, I've seen a concerted effort to make him out to be some sort of monster. Unfortunately much of that is coming from "conservative" sources and is a misrepresentation of who he is. A lot of people been sucked in.
On this the Pope is not infallible.
I misread that as the Pope in not inflatable.
Well Rabel, I'm not saying that's their biggest threat. I'm saying that's Islam's greatest threat and it's the only "threat" that Catholicism can do anything about. Sorry to have written that incorrectly.
"Catholicism and Islam were and are religious empires, with all due respect."
Given the hierarchical nature of the Church and the almost chaotic divergence of Islam, fewer statements are more at odds with reality.
Lol. In what "reality" does a unifying religion gain a billion+ adherents by not being an empire? Maybe Buddhism, but Catholicism was the religion more or less adopted by Constantine as the state religion of an existing empire and the structure he gave it within that imperial apparatus stayed more or less intact over the years. Sure there were changes, many and very significant. But one of the few unifying entities throughout Europe was the Roman imperial political heritage and the church that was grafted onto it. It simply replaced the Roman state religion ("pontiff" was originally a Roman pagan office based on the sanctity placed on keeping bridges intact), and those offices remained in place long after the empire itself fell, and not before first morphing into an almost equally powerful Holy Roman Empire nearly a thousand years later.
Hierarchies are not anti-imperial. They're required for something as large and complex as an empire to function.
Who knows what you mean by the "chaotic divergence of Islam?" Just because it doesn't have a centralized authority (any more) doesn't mean that it wasn't an empire all the way through the fall of the Ottomans barely a hundred years ago. Even if it lacked control over local adherents and imams doesn't mean that it lacked for any of the martial characteristics of an empire. Militarily it had everything an empire could ever want, and its massive conquests over such a relatively short time is testament to exactly that. It spread, by the sword, faster and over greater areas than almost anything before or since. If that's not a definition of empire, I have no idea what is.
And by the way, in case you haven't guessed it, I'm not exactly pro-empire. But maybe edutcher is and therefore simply resents my application of it to Christianity (before Luther/Henry VIII) and Islam.
I understand that a significant minority of the Iraqi, Palestinian, and Egyptian populations were Christians. They are all being forced out of their birth countries usually by acts of extreme violence. It is not the European countries that need to learn tolerance. The European countries are where Muslims are fleeing to.......If the Muslims could learn to be tolerant of their own minorities, they wouldn't have to escape to Europe. If the Shiites and Sunnis can't go two days without massacring each other how well will they adapt to topless beaches and Gay pride parades.......You would think the Pope would be as forceful in condemnation of the persecution of Christians in Islamic lands as the far more muted discrimination against Muslims in Christian lands........Look where the flow of refugees is going. People are not fleeing religious persecution in Brussels although they have occasion to run away from armed murderers there......I don't claim to be holier than the Pope, but he's all wrong about this.
I don't claim to be holier than the Pope, but he's all wrong about this.
Of course he is.
Even if the caliphs couldn't convert the entire population of the middle east to Islam, they did a bang-up job in Arabizing it. And the depredations against the Christians and Jews (and especially Samaritans) were severe. Most of the population of "Palestine" would have been Samaritan (and Jewish and Christian) prior to 1948 had it not been for the edict of al Hakim, which made mass conversions nearly inevitable and practically compulsory upon pain of death.
I'm not sure if the mass conversions in Spain were compulsory but they sure seemed to switch back to Christianity pretty quick after 1492.
People are sheep and religious warlords are ruthless.
Post a Comment