Reida,

You are actually on the money, and your example is spot on. However, what you're implying is what every Conservative commentator/politician/etc wants to imply. Namely that we have some Muslim extremists. And then there are moderates, and the moderates have a responsibility to reign in the extremists, to repudiate them, etc.

The problem with this argument is threefold. First, in today's world, it's simply not possible for 'moderate Muslims' to communicate effectively to the extremists in such a way as might have been possible with Ian Paisley. Wherever extremism manifests, it is informed by the local social and political climate in each location. And there is a tremendous diversity across the regions where extremists exist: Take Pakistan, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, London, USA. We just can't fit 'extremists' into neat boxes, just as we can't categorize 'All Muslims' or 'All Christians' in certain ways.

Secondly, it abbrogates us of any responsibility, and creates a neat scapegoat in blaming all Muslims for the actions of just a few. We haven't done anything wrong. Capitalism isn't responsible for any systemic injustices, or social alienation, or exploitation. We're the good guys, and THEY want to attack our way of life, etc. It's their problem and THEY should deal with it. Sorry, it's everyone's problem and we have all got to do whatever we can to engage with the problems in our world.

Thirdly, it's trite and poor logic to believe that a problem which articulates itself in such a destructive and complex manner can be solved by such a simple solution as 'Moderate Muslims' cleaning up their own backyard. Terrorism and extremism predates the current era. And we solve nothing by pointing at each other suggesting everybody else is responsible. That is Pauline Hanson 101.

The solution is complex, and it involves a recognition of our own faults when we come to the table. And the proocess is lubricated by respect for the other. We should start by developing this, leaders and citizens alike.

Relda,

Your last argument is interesting.
There are many reasons why Muslims could be annoyed with the Pope’s views on Islam and I believe you are mixing tribalism with religious practice. The media portrays the reaction of the minority for the obvious purposed. There are many good Muslim examples but they never make it to the media because Kaiser Trad is more interesting.

Anyway, I would probably call myself an average but here is what I find interesting in the pope comments:

- On Reason: Islam is younger than Christianity by 570 years, yet the Islamic enlightenment superseded the Christian one by 3 centuries. Muslims invented the cheque, the first concept of hospital and their research and findings in math, algebra, anatomy and optics were the corner stone for European enlightenment. Probably this is why Catholic writers at the time referred to them as evil (evil = associated with science). Historians of the era told of Charlemagne escaping his palace when the Muslim emperor (Haroon Al Rashid) sent him a large water powered clock. Science and knowledge were the evil of those days. I would have hoped the pope can at least explained why? (Although I ask myself what happened to us, muslims ,since then)

- Theology: Islam & Christianity are perhaps the two closest religions and they share a lot: the commandments and the belief in Jesus and his message (Lets park the debate of whether he is a prophet or God at the side for now).
One would expect the pope to at least work on the divide. Muslims writers in the 11,13 centurty AD called Crusaders ‘Trinitarians’, French Gangs, Polytheist,etc.. If a top Muslim imam will go publicly and quote one of those writers today I think I will be annoyed. Leadership means responsibility to bridge gaps and create a good environment for dialogue.

Promoting comments like the pope's implies a cheap way of outsourcing the ignorance and its associated problems to Muslims. What if the world said to the vatican in "Hitler's one of yours, deal with him!"

A couple of points Nahum,
Firstly, no extremist whether Ian Paisly, the IRA or an Islamist are likely to be “reigned in” or assuaged either by that our own ‘lubrication’ or their peers. Moderate Muslims are as much hated by these ideologues for compromising their ‘faith’ as we ‘infidels’ are hated for our secularism and ‘moderninity’. The repudiation of their violent so-called Muslim counterparts is so they (the moderates) consolidate themselves into our own peaceful ethos (an ‘Aussie’ value) and are not left isolated in some sort of void.

Secondly, I entirely agree, this issue is complex. Capitalism, as a part of our social democracy is often often exploitative but it is no scapegoat. Those with a serious grievance will often, through reflex, tear down the nearest perceived agent of their ills. The resulting anarchy only bodes well for those wanting to fill a vacuum. Extremism can indeed be put into a little neat box – but its discernment is usually difficult and unrecognisable. The ‘terrorist’ is not only amongst but often one of us. You are quite right Nahum; Muslims, generally, are not the problem

Relda,

I have just read your intelligent understanding of the Pope’s speech. It is always refreshing to find an objective assessment of it rather than a long winded rationalization of media misrepresentation.

I do not envy your self assigned burden of not only attempting to respectfully reason with your adversaries but to try to respond to the large number of posts some comical (such as a call for a respect and condoning the Pope’s pontificator’s poop comment in one breath) but others requiring more attention.

I do envy your restraint in letting many unimportant but incorrect comments slide by. Examples include the Pope calling the other side evil, that the Pope used his pulpit to say ‘stupid things’ that incite hatred or rage, and that none of the Pope’s comments to date come close to seeking dialogue. Keep up the good work

A lot of these posts sound as though the discussion has turned into a competition between Islam and Christianity.

Which religion has killed he most people?
Does it feel any different having your family or friends killed by a muslim or a christian?

It may be that if we do not learn to live together then we will all die together.

OK Relda – your second paragraph – is Bush a self-proclaimed Christian? Is Bush the self-proclaimed leader of the ‘Free World’? Is Blair a self-proclaimed Christian? Is Howard a self-proclaimed Christian? Did the latter 2 join the former on an escapade to spread democracy throughout the Middle East…. firstly by bombing Afghanistan and then (inexplicably) Iraq to smithereens and subsequently supported Israeli attacks on the Lebanon? So tell me again, Christians do not ‘convert’ through violent means? I say again, the pope has much to discover by looking closer to home and we really aren’t talking splinters here but great, big, giant redwoods.

It is also interesting that the Queen – herself a Christian, ‘spiritual’ leader – has had nothing to say?

Having said all that, I agree with Peace. Personally, I would be delighted, joyous even, to see both (all) faiths sit side by side in peace, rather than one or the other come out on top. As Jesus himself said: "in my Father's house there are many mansions" - demonstrating his understanding that God speaks to all cultures in different ways and at different times and yet …. ALL, remain within the one house of God. ALL indeed, are brothers.

I can think of no better demonstration of a will-to-peace between faiths than all the various spiritual leaders engaging in a public display of washing each others feet. Whilst | am aware of the Christian symbolism of such an act – it is also symbolic of hospitality. The world is so much nicer when people act hospitably towards one another. An unequivocal demonstration of hospitality towards ‘others’ from the pope… now that would be a good example to set his flock?