"there isn't a doctrine, much less a dogma, the interpretation of the Suras, and the various rulings/arguments which make up Shari'a (which, like Talmud, is an ongoing, but not binding, tradition) is personal, so devotion is harder to interpret, unless you think you are in a position to declare the entire Wahabbist movement to be un-Islamic."
Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think?"
A little, but you averred that you could distinguish who was, or wasn't devout. "I agree with this completely. The IRA is no more full of devout Catholics than Al Qu*eda is full of Moslems who *understand* the Koran." .
You are perfectly allowed to have an opinion, but it's possible those opinions are either wrong (viz. Michelle Malkin's opinion that the Japanese were justly interned, and that we should consider doing the same to all Muslims) or merely misinformed.
I can't read Arabic, so I can't do more than read someone elses exegis of the Qu'ran, I even agree with you that those who are violently radical in their understanding are wrong, but I can't say that with certainty (and the early history of expansionist Islam is certainly something one can point to and say it has, at its core, a streak of; religiously, legitimised violence, and those who practice such do have a real understanding of the faith, and the less (or non) violent traditions are aberrant interpretations.
I'm not going to make either of those assumptions, any more than I can really argue that 1 Timothy is not-merely non-Pauline writing (which is fairly certain) but rather was a specific attempt to derail the practice of active female involvement in the early-Church (which, from what I've read seems a reasonable, and even probable, interpretation of the letter).
The other thing is the "devout"ness of those who belong to the IRA, because that's a question of internal motivation. One can be damned devout, and wrong (as you point out wrt T. McVeigh, he isn't seen as identifying with a specifc church, though from his writings, and the way he went about his crime, he seems to be a member of Christian Identity).
I might say members of the IRA aren't, "good" catholics, but I won't say they aren't devout.
I hope this clarifies my thinking.
On a different note, I'm with your husband, I want the mass in Latin, and with a good practice of training in the language (at least of the Mass, its rituals and purpose; as well as the simple meaning of the words) because if I try to attend a mass in someplace like Frankfort (which I did) I can't. My German is enough to get by, it's not enough to understand the liturgy (I don't expect the sermons, and homilies, to be in anything but the local language), which means when I travel I can't partake.
On the issue of the Pope making the world more dangerous, yeah, in this instance he probably has; but that's a function of his devotion. If he believes the things he says, then he (as head of the church) has a duty to speak to them. That he apologised means either he is trimming his sails for public relations, or that his belief isn't a matter of doctrine, but predjudice. Either of those is wrong, and both would demand an apology of more substance than he made.
no subject
Well, that was a little snarky, doncha think?"
A little, but you averred that you could distinguish who was, or wasn't devout. "I agree with this completely. The IRA is no more full of devout Catholics than Al Qu*eda is full of Moslems who *understand* the Koran." .
You are perfectly allowed to have an opinion, but it's possible those opinions are either wrong (viz. Michelle Malkin's opinion that the Japanese were justly interned, and that we should consider doing the same to all Muslims) or merely misinformed.
I can't read Arabic, so I can't do more than read someone elses exegis of the Qu'ran, I even agree with you that those who are violently radical in their understanding are wrong, but I can't say that with certainty (and the early history of expansionist Islam is certainly something one can point to and say it has, at its core, a streak of; religiously, legitimised violence, and those who practice such do have a real understanding of the faith, and the less (or non) violent traditions are aberrant interpretations.
I'm not going to make either of those assumptions, any more than I can really argue that 1 Timothy is not-merely non-Pauline writing (which is fairly certain) but rather was a specific attempt to derail the practice of active female involvement in the early-Church (which, from what I've read seems a reasonable, and even probable, interpretation of the letter).
The other thing is the "devout"ness of those who belong to the IRA, because that's a question of internal motivation. One can be damned devout, and wrong (as you point out wrt T. McVeigh, he isn't seen as identifying with a specifc church, though from his writings, and the way he went about his crime, he seems to be a member of Christian Identity).
I might say members of the IRA aren't, "good" catholics, but I won't say they aren't devout.
I hope this clarifies my thinking.
On a different note, I'm with your husband, I want the mass in Latin, and with a good practice of training in the language (at least of the Mass, its rituals and purpose; as well as the simple meaning of the words) because if I try to attend a mass in someplace like Frankfort (which I did) I can't. My German is enough to get by, it's not enough to understand the liturgy (I don't expect the sermons, and homilies, to be in anything but the local language), which means when I travel I can't partake.
On the issue of the Pope making the world more dangerous, yeah, in this instance he probably has; but that's a function of his devotion. If he believes the things he says, then he (as head of the church) has a duty to speak to them. That he apologised means either he is trimming his sails for public relations, or that his belief isn't a matter of doctrine, but predjudice. Either of those is wrong, and both would demand an apology of more substance than he made.