What the Pope said

On about the 14th of September 2006, it is reported that the Pope raised a very obscure subject relating to Christendom.  He quoted words from a 14th Century figure who was very critical of Mohammed.  Whether the Holy Father was purposely flying a kite to see what the response would be, or whether he was just indulging in an academic exercise, I do not know.  Now how much of a politician a man of The Church should be, again is outside of my scholarship.  But the inevitable occurred.

Ever since the West has brought near-instant communication to the world, there has been a group of Muslim radicals that have pored over every news-item to see if they can discover some aspect of the report that allows them to be incensed at the perceived insult to their faith.  It matters not if it is obvious that the originator of the "insult" meant no offence; it is just another excuse to incite the rabble.  And the rabble always seem ready to oblige.

Moving this subject a little to one side, it is clearly evident that those people who feel inferior, are the first to complain about discrimination.  Those people and nations who are confident in their own ability, are never the ones to rise up and complain about being oppressed, even when they are.  Look at the various minorities around the globe, they are the ones that complain about being discriminated against.  They never consider that there may well be a reason why they are looked down on by the majority-population.

Just look at the Irish, or the Jews.  They know that they are as good as any other race on the globe, and they aren't insulted by petty remarks.  In fact, both these groups make as many jokes against themselves as they do against others.  They are confident of their own abilities, and petty insults are like water off a duck's back.

There was such a case recently on this estate.  A local man stopped outside this house and blew his nose Pakistani-style.  I went outside and admonished him for an action that disgusted my wife.  "You are only getting on to me because I am a foreigner".  Need I say more.

I'll bet if Colin Powell had a pinko make a rude remark about his colour, he's be able to respond with an equally rude remark about the honky's colour.  Now, that's a man I admire!

Back to the original subject:  I have always been of the understanding that Islam was spread across the Middle East by use of the sword.  But so was Christianity spread across South America by the same method; except that the Spaniards had better weapons than swords. Religion has been likened to a disease, it is contagious.  Recently I saw a report from a physiologist that the human mind is structured towards believing in the supernatural.

I have a question for any religionist to provide a plausible answer.  If there is a God, why has He allowed there to be a number of competing religions?  I don't expect anyone to tell me that they know the answer for certain, but I would like to hear a rationally-plausible answer.  It is my contention that IF THERE IS A GOD, the world is just as He wants it to be.   We may be part of a very large experiment being carried out by an intelligence far greater than ours.

One final observation: you can't insult a true-born Englishman.  To attempt that impossible task will just get you looked down on as an ignorant bum who doesn't know any better.  It is an axiom that does not need proof; that the English are a self-made people who saved the Almighty a great deal of work.

A further thought on the same subject.  Islam has a problem that Christianity does not have.  Islam has no centre where authority can be said to exist.  One may not agree with the Catholic Church, but they have a centre and a leader.  The only authority that Islam has is the Quran, and that book was written in about 600AD.  Now, no-one is going to tell me that it is possible to take meaningful instruction from a document that was written that long ago.  Although not a scholar in that field, I do know that a person has to be familiar with the society that carries the language, to understand the meaning of any utterance.  Even a country as close to us as France, has quirks in their language that are not in ours; for example, they have two different words for "yes" whereas we only have one.  Think about it!

I was told by a Syrian scholar when I worked in Damascus that one cannot read the Quran in translation;  I accept that totally.  But I have enough knowledge of language to know that even the most learned scholars often disagree as to the meaning of ancient texts.  To really understand a language, you have to be immersed in the culture of the writer.  And that last requirement is totally impossible now.  At least with Catholicism there is a central leader who lays down edicts.  With Islam, every mullah will have his own interpretation, and we know some of them grossly abuse the teachings of the Prophet.  Or do they, when they preach Holy War?  And, tell me, what is holy about war?  Ghandi was probably correct in opposing a reasonable civilised enemy (Britain)