[Son], The Archbishop, The Pope John Paul

of y'all niggaz
They way y'all all follow [Sonny]
[Son’s] a living legend and I'll tell you why
Everybody wanna be [Son] and [Son is] still alive

You who come ‘round here, have come to expect truth. At least I hope so. And where, in such rare instances, I cannot offer you truth, I try to leave the question open for your consideration. In fact, as aptly named as the Fell Clutch is, it could just as easily be titled “For Your Consideration.” So today, I have a couple of things for your consideration.

I have stated repeatedly (marketing rule number 4080, record companies are… um, I mean, tell what you are gonna tell ‘em, tell ‘em, and tell ‘em what you told ‘em. Sonny “Record companies are shady”Redd) that the idea here is to put forward thoughts that aren’t always considered. Imposing my opinion on you isn’t my goal. Folks pay me for that, and if I did that as a hobby, I’d be a sick sick man (in lieu of being a “Bad Bad Man” And this is “the Scenario Remix” digression. We have 4 MC’s, 4 that are in physical form, one that is in spiritual essence and he goes by the name of … Redd. Viper, do you have this joint, son?).

Well, since it has been so long since I tackled the tough stuff, there is a backlog, so let’s hit it.

First, the Pope is taking a lot of flak behind a recent speech he made wherein he supposedly called Islam evil. The pitiful reporters, in an effort to tell the “whole story” and give it some “razzle,” pointed out that he quoted a 14th century emperor, and that the statement wasn’t his.

Incensed that the Pope would call Islam an evil religion (and simultaneously ignoring the part about quoting someone else – how’s that for multitasking?), Muslims world wide responded in defense of their faith by…um…setting shit on fire and offing a couple of Nuns. Note to the Muslim community, in America we call that “irony.”



Now, before I set the record straight (you knew I was gonna), let me point out in my own self-serving way that I have it on good authority that the Pope is a reader of the Fell Clutch. I know, I’m shocked too. (Being an Episcopalian, I wonder if Queen Elizabeth is a reader too?)

How do I know, you ask? Well, aside from all those hits on my site meter from some country called “Vatican, The” wherever that is, he straight jacked one of my posts. Like, straight up, took that joint, added a few “Holy See’s” and shout outs to some cats in the Bible, and called it his own.

In the speech where he “called” Islam evil (but I didn’t say that, my Muslim friends-Sonny “I don’t need the heat from any of a'all Jihad-Jihad niggas, I know how y'all get down”Redd) he made the following statement about God (and who would know better? ME! That’s who! HA!):

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God…

Yes faithful readers, the Pope acknowledges what I have already told you, God transcends science. Moreover, it is also clear that he copped such a radical idea from right here. So listen up Your Holiness, we will call my contribution to your speech my tithe for the…I don’t know, let’s say year. So me and the big guy are settled up for the year, right? I can pass the plate to the sucker sitting next to me, knowing that we’re good.

Good.

Moving on to the point, so do you really want to know what the Pope said? Yeah, me too. To lay out the background, during the siege of Constantinople in the late 1300’s, the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus sat with a Persian and discussed the differences between Christianity and Islam.

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read … of the dialogue carried on - perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara - by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. … The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between - as they were called - three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point - itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole - which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation … the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to the experts, this is one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”

Full Text

Just an aside to my Muslim friends, you guys need a new PR guy, cause whoever said that the proper response to a speech calling Islam violent is violence needs to be shot – or beheaded. I know y’all like that.

In other news, George Bush is struggling with the Geneva Convention, or at least the part saying that prisoners shouldn’t be treated inhumanely. Let me clarify something for George, first the Pope reads this blog, so you should too. Secondly, you calling the term “inhumane” vague (which is really his argument) is like Bill Clinton not knowing the definition of “is.” In short, that shit “is” so stupid as to be considered “inhumane”. Got it? Good.

That’s all for me. I’m out.