# The pope...



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2010)

Every time I think he can't become more of an idiot, he goes ahead and does just that. I don't know it this made the international news or not, but recently there was a big investigation into the topic of pedophilia in the Catholic church in Belgium.

As it turns out, the reality is beyond awful. There was a lot of abuse, and a lot of cover up. People here are calling out for justice; mainly for the guilty ones to be expelled from the church, and for the church to take a firm stance against this sort of thing.

Instead, we've seen the following reactions from the pope, over the last couple of weeks
1) We don't need structural reformation or punishment. We need to focus on introspection and genuine repentance.
2) Secularization and atheism were also the goal of the Nazis (WTF?!)
3) Pedophilia is a disease that overrides free will, so the clergymen are not to blame for what they do.

Small wonder that the Belgian churches can't keep up with the requests for debaptism (they have increased about tenfold compared to 2009). The only silver lining is that this pope is old so he'll die soon enough. And hopefully the next pope is less of a scumbag.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 17, 2010)

this is complicated. Becomes a issue of church vs. state in many instances. I do not believe the catholic church is purposely promoting pedophilia or whatever it is. That would just be sick.

I do think it has had some failings in its system which allowed, or allows things to happen that obviously shouldn't. And in no way would i of course support such things but i do feel the need to speak of the church, or churches in general in comparison with laws or governments and doctrine.

The church existed, and probably will exist, long before and after most current governments. A government is born, rule is established, it dies, a new one is born.

churches have been around a thousand years. So when someone speaks of the church failing to comply with legal, or governmental requirements it seems odd to me. since the churches existed before, will after, and basically live outside of most governments. why perhaps they dont even pay taxes for church land. It is almost like enforcing law on a indian reservation. That existed, before the law. Churches have never been innocent. Full of sinners i guess you could say. Remember that old saying about how religious people cant be better than no believers because if they didnt sin they wouldnt need to be in the church? If you think of the history of them, the wars, the corruption, let us never assume a church is innocent. Part of the reason is for the most part they are governed from within. Not your standard measure of checks and balances. And since they transcend many governments and establishments come and go the church has gained a lot of power, somewhat uncheckable. By design it will have problems within.

Now of course, if one were to believe in whatever church it may be. They have to follow their own doctrine. And where as one sins, one must also be forgiven. If the person repents, then the person must be absolved. At least as far as the church. This is the same whether your a shoplifter, adulterer, murderer, pedophile, or worship false idols. So the pope, just a guess here, is walking that line of trying to make sure they follow their own doctrine when dealing with this, while at the same time trying to appease the general population and keep the governments at bay. 

It really is complicated..From a church perspective. Once a person has repented than are they not again in good favor with the church? Does the church not recognize everyone as a sinner equally? And if they are in good favor with the church, should the church still be required to follow the current rule of law of the land? The church after all has transcended governments, and is global. Now if it does begin to kick out these people, and allowed them all to be freely prosecuted. Has it followed its own doctrine and guidelines? I honestly dont know. Out of my field of expertise. Perhaps someone that is trained in theology could answer that. It does appear to be quite the dilemma.

i am happy i am not catholic.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Every time I think he can't become more of an idiot, he goes ahead and does just that. I don't know it this made the international news or not, but recently there was a big investigation into the topic of pedophilia in the Catholic church in Belgium.
> 
> As it turns out, the reality is beyond awful. There was a lot of abuse, and a lot of cover up. People here are calling out for justice; mainly for the guilty ones to be expelled from the church, and for the church to take a firm stance against this sort of thing.
> 
> ...


 Fully and completely inline with the Christian Ideal of forgiveness of sin.





> 2) Secularization and atheism were also the goal of the Nazis (WTF?!)


To be fair, both were goals of the communists also





> 3) Pedophilia is a disease that overrides free will, so the clergymen are not to blame for what they do.


Yeah, which is another reason why having EVERYTHING be a disease is stupid...





> Small wonder that the Belgian churches can't keep up with the requests for debaptism


Uh, could you explain why churches would be involved in that?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2010)

Big Don said:


> which is another reason why having EVERYTHING be a disease is stupid...Uh, could you explain why churches would be involved in that?



Well, you can stop practicing Catholicism (not attending mass, not following church doctrine, ...) but technically, that doesn't make you any less of a Catholic because you are still baptized, and thus still recognized by the church as one of them. And technically, by being baptized, you recognize this yourself as well.

However, you can get formally de-baptized. This is a small ceremony that can be performed by a priest (hence the need for the church to be involved). It might seem a superfluous thing for an outsider. But this is like publicly tearing up your political party member card. It sends a message to the party / church leadership that you disagree with their course of action, and basically tell them to stuff it. This is one way to make them take notice, and the church does take this seriously, just like a political party would when they get a wave of people tearing up their membership cards.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2010)

bribrius said:


> It really is complicated..From a church perspective. Once a person has repented than are they not again in good favor with the church? Does the church not recognize everyone as a sinner equally? *And if they are in good favor with the church, should the church still be required to follow the current rule of law of the land?* The church after all has transcended governments, and is global. Now if it does begin to kick out these people, and allowed them all to be freely prosecuted. Has it followed its own doctrine and guidelines? I honestly dont know. Out of my field of expertise. Perhaps someone that is trained in theology could answer that. It does appear to be quite the dilemma.
> 
> i am happy i am not catholic.



In any secular state, the answer is yes because the church is not recognized as an authority that supersedes the laws of the land. Failing to do so opens up the church for prosecution of anyone complicit in the acts themselves or the cover-up thereof.

The church is free to deal with this issue in the realm where they hold authority. It is their choice to excommunicate or not, or to choose a penance. But that is in parallel with the legal proceedings of the laws of the land.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 17, 2010)

The Church preaching forgiveness and not wanting to "cut of heads"??

Terrible.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The Church preaching forgiveness and not wanting to *"cut of heads"*??
> 
> Terrible.


Thats one heck of a penance. 5 hail Mary's and 5 our Father's sounds much better.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 17, 2010)

Archangel M said:


> The Church preaching forgiveness and not wanting to "cut of heads"??
> 
> Terrible.



Well, I could understand them willing to forgive. Not my problem. But hiding the problem from the law makes it conspiracy to commit pedophilia.

But even ignoring that, the biggest sin of all (not counting the actual abuse) is the fact that the church hierarchy then just placed the offending priests in another parish where they would not be suspected, and trusted with authority over young kids again. And again. And again...

So on one hand, the pope now says that it is a disease and the poor clergymen cannot help themselves, and on the other they have to admit that they knowingly placed those priests / bishops in positions where they had the chance to sin again.

Sorry, but that doesn't fly imo.
Even if they didn't want to report the offenders to the police, a more appropriate penance would have been to make them live secluded in prayer in an isolated monastery for the rest of their life. It would have fit with church doctrine AND have worked to protect the children.


----------



## seasoned (Sep 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well, I could understand them willing to forgive. Not my problem. But hiding the problem from the law makes it conspiracy to commit pedophilia.
> 
> But even ignoring that, the biggest sin of all (not counting the actual abuse) is the fact that the church hierarchy then just placed the offending priests in another parish where they would not be suspected, and trusted with authority over young kids again. And again. And again...
> 
> ...



On a very serious note, this would be my vote for sure.


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 17, 2010)

*"And thus I clothe my naked villainy
With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;
And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."*

The most holy former hitlerjugend can flap his mouth about repentance, nazis and magic diseases all he want. The continued policy of sweeping cases of child abuse under the carpet is nothing short of a crime against humanity.


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> So on one hand, the pope now says that it is a disease and the poor clergymen cannot help themselves, and on the other they have to admit that they knowingly placed those priests / bishops in positions where they had the chance to sin again.



If it really is a disease, the priests involved would not go to incredible length's to cover it up. Let alone cover up for eachother.
Funny how people under the vow of celibacy suffer the most from this disease, and people who have normal sexual relationships suffer less from it.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 17, 2010)

I always love when the religious blame atheists for Nazis.  Point 24 of the Nazi Twenty five Points is - 

"24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations            in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate            against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party,            as such, stands for *positive Christianity*, but does not bind            itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats            the Jewish-materialist spirit _within_ and _without_ us, and            is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within            only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol. 1 Chapter 2 

What we have to fight for is the necessary security for the existence  and increase of our race and people, the subsistence of its children and  the maintenance of our racial stock unmixed, the freedom and  independence of the Fatherland; so that our people may be enabled to  fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol. 1 Chapter 8 

This human world of ours would be inconceivable without the practical  existence of a religious belief. The great masses of a nation are not  composed of philosophers. For the masses of the people, especially faith  is absolutely the only basis of a moral outlook on life. The various  substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might  warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing  denominations. ...There may be a few hundreds of thousands of superior  men who can live wisely and intelligently without depending on the  general standards that prevail in everyday life, but the millions of  others cannot do so. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol. 1 Chapter 10 

By helping to lift the human being above the level of mere animal  existence, Faith really contributes to consolidate and safeguard its own  existence. Taking humanity as it exists to-day and taking into  consideration the fact that the religious beliefs which it generally  holds and which have been consolidated through our education, so that  they serve as moral standards in practical life, if we should now  abolish religious teaching and not replace it by anything of equal value  the result would be that the foundations of human existence would be  seriously shaken. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_, Vol. 2 Chapter 1 

Anyone who dares to lay hands on the highest image of the Lord commits  sacrilege against the benevolent creator of this miracle and contributes  to the expulsion from paradise. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_ Vol. 2 Chapter 1

Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity  of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the  'remaking' of the Reich as they call it. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_ Vol. 2 Chapter 1 

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his  own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of  God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be  desecrated. For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their  abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's  creation, the divine will. 
- Adolf Hitler, _Mein Kampf_ Vol. 2 Chapter 10 

May divine providence bless us with enough courage and enough  determination to perceive within ourselves this holy German space. 
- Adolf Hitler, Speech, March 24, 1933 

We don't ask the Almighty, 'Lord, make us free!" We want to be active,  to work, to work together, so that when the hour comes that we appear  before the Lord we can say to him: 'Lord, you see that we have changed.'  The German people is no longer a people of dishonor and shame, of  self-destructiveness and cowardice. No, Lord, the German people is once  more strong in spirit, strong in determination, strong in the  willingness to bear every sacrifice. Lord, now bless our battle and our  freedom, and therefore our German people and fatherland. 
- Adolf Hitler, Prayer, May 1, 1933 

I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator.  By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work. 
- Adolf Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936 

The Catholic Church should not deceive herself: if National Socialism  does not succeed in defeating Bolshevism, then Church and Christianity  in Europe too are finished. Bolshevism is the mortal enemy of the Church  as much as of Fascism. ...Man cannot exist without belief in God. The  soldier who for three and four days lies under intense bombardment needs  a religious prop. 
- Adolf Hitler in conversation with Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, November 4, 1936 

Or maybe a christian could read "The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945," by Richard Steigmann-Gall.  Great book.  Personally I never got where this conception that the Nazis were atheists (I guess they wished to base one war on us atheists) when they clearly were christians and wanted to keep the fatherland pure of other religions.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 17, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Personally I never got where this conception that the Nazis were atheists (I guess they wished to base one war on us atheists) when they clearly were christians and wanted to keep the fatherland pure of other religions.



Nazis are bad, and atheists are bad, and thus by the transitive property of wingnuttiness, Nazis are atheists.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 17, 2010)

bribrius said:


> churches have been around a thousand years. So when someone speaks of the church failing to comply with legal, or governmental requirements it seems odd to me. since the churches existed before, will after, and basically live outside of most governments.



They do not live outside "most governments."  Every church in existence that I am aware of is subject to governmental authority.  They exist in the same country, they live by the same laws.  This formulation also implies the absurdity that the older a church is, the less law they have to obey.  So the Scientologists must obey all laws, the Mormons get to ignore speeding tickets, and the Catholics get to rape children?



bribrius said:


> It is almost like enforcing law on a indian reservation. That existed, before the law.



Er, no.  Indian reservations were created by the US government on terrible land that no one wanted so they would have a place to put Indian tribes who were occupying land that whites wanted.  AFAIK, most tribal reservations are not the ancestral land.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> Funny how people under the vow of celibacy suffer the most from this disease, and people who have normal sexual relationships suffer less from it.



Google 'karate instructor arrested' and say that again.

Or for that matter, take a look at Google News archives for athletic coaches, teachers, ministers of other religions, and so on.  I once did a bit of Google arithmetic dealing with the number of news articles about Anglican ministers arrested for sex offenses versus Catholics priests and divided by the numbers of each to come with a percentage of news story per clergy; it turned out that Anglicans had more percentage-wise.  And they're not celibate.

So perhaps celibacy has less to do with this evil than the fact that such people are attracted to jobs where they are in contact with youths and given positions of trust.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 17, 2010)

This behavior by the Church is pretty much the exact behavior you see in all entrenched institutions when confronted with their own wrongdoing.  That doesn't make the Church worse than all other institutions, but it certainly doesn't make them a guiding moral light.

Of course, this Pope is particularly maladroit at public relations.  Perhaps because he has always previously wielded power inside the institution without a need to interact with the public at large.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 17, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Nazis are bad, and atheists are bad, and thus by the transitive property of wingnuttiness, Nazis are atheists.



Yeah, but how are atheists bad?  By conception of religious sin?  By law?  I'm quite ethical and I've never practiced institutionalized bigotry towards anyone in regards to race, creed, sexuality or any other thing.  I always find it funny listening to conservative talk shows because I am at heart conservative on most issues how there's always a couple of callers every day that bring up atheists in the same breath of Islam or illegal immigrants as the contributing factor to some malady.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 17, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yeah, but how are atheists bad?  By conception of religious sin?  By law?  I'm quite ethical and I've never practiced institutionalized bigotry towards anyone in regards to race, creed, sexuality or any other thing.  I always find it funny listening to conservative talk shows because I am at heart conservative on most issues how there's always a couple of callers every day that bring up atheists in the same breath of Islam or illegal immigrants as the contributing factor to some malady.


 
Rightwing extremists need an "enemy", an "other" who they can demonize and organize against.  "Liberals", "elitists", "college professors", "union organizers", all take their turn at various times.  It doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense.  Of course, members of the Enemy who are useful get a pass - Karl Rove is an open atheist, and the right haven't denounced him.

A large organizing principle on the right is social conservatism, which is mostly religiously organized.  Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with that premise is a threat, thus "atheists" are evil people who are cruelly oppressing conservative Christians, nevermind that atheists of any kind are a small minority.  Others get it too though that challenge that premise, like liberal Christians or members of other religions. There is quite a bit of consternation in fundamentalist circles right now over the prominence of Glenn Beck and his religious message because Beck is a Mormon.

At the end of the day the most important thing to remember is that for most people, deeply held ideologies are a matter of emotion, not logic.  Thus how that ideology is constructed, inherent contradictions (like millionaire Republicans denouncing "elitists"), logical consistency and similar factors are never going to matter.  The ideology is all emotional.


----------



## crushing (Sep 17, 2010)

Wouldn't it be nice if such wingnuttiness only came from the right?  I think the further out there some of the wingnuts get, the less they see that their "team" engages in the very same behaviors.

The "Rally to Restore Sanity" is long overdue.  But, with many of the insane being so focused on the people with which they vehemently disagree, they may not realize they are the target.  Which makes the whole Jon Stewart thing even better.  They will do their best to keep fear of those nasty, god fearin', gun clingin', wingnuts alive.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 17, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Rightwing extremists need an "enemy", an "other" who they can demonize and organize against.



Let's just say 'extremists' and I'll agree with you.  I believe that particular sword cuts both ways.



> A large organizing principle on the right is social conservatism, which is mostly religiously organized.



Fiscal conservatism tends to define what is known as 'the right' in the USA.  Social conservatism tends to define the 'far right'.  IMHO.

Interestingly, the Catholic Church is very much an institution that would be seen as 'right wing', but Catholics in the USA have traditionally been identified with the DNC, only siding with right-wingers on hot-button issues such as abortion.

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.article&issue=soj0606&article=060610



> _At a meeting of Catholic pundits in New York, National Review  columnist Kate OBeirne told the story of two old friends, Pat and Mike.  When Pat told Mike that he heard that Sean OConnor, a friend of  theirs, had voted Republican, Mike responded with outrage. Thats a  dirty lie! he said. I saw him at Mass._





> Anyone who fundamentally disagrees with that premise is a threat, thus "atheists" are evil people who are cruelly oppressing conservative Christians, nevermind that atheists of any kind are a small minority.  Others get it too though that challenge that premise, like liberal Christians or members of other religions. There is quite a bit of consternation in fundamentalist circles right now over the prominence of Glenn Beck and his religious message because Beck is a Mormon.



The Mormons have been making common cause with the Catholics and other anti-abortion groups for some time now.  Most don't have a problem with it, although no one really seems to really want to peel back the layers of the onion on what it is that Mormons believe vis-a-vis traditional Christianity.



> At the end of the day the most important thing to remember is that for most people, deeply held ideologies are a matter of emotion, not logic.  Thus how that ideology is constructed, inherent contradictions (like millionaire Republicans denouncing "elitists"), logical consistency and similar factors are never going to matter.  The ideology is all emotional.



Immediately after 9/11, I seem to recall some white-supremacist groups, often the rightest of the right in terms of ultra-extremist conservatives, were seen making overtures to radical Islamists, under the _'enemy of my enemy is my friend'_ theory with regard to the Islamists' views of Jews.  That apparently was a non-starter.

But it does tend to show that politics is based on common interests and niggling details such as one's religious beliefs are somewhat less important when it comes right down to forming coalitions.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 17, 2010)

I sense a plot against the atheists.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 17, 2010)

Could be.  We are a small group, we don't have weekly clubhouse meetings on Sundays, yet we are being portrayed as this monolithic establishment who's out to destroy ... something, I don't think the religionists have decided what we are destroying yet.  We are not an organized group like religion so it's easy to target a beast with no head or body or really anything.  If they could come up with a word for people who don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny they would be as vilified as us.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 17, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Could be.  We are a small group, we don't have weekly clubhouse meetings on Sundays, yet we are being portrayed as this monolithic establishment who's out to destroy ... something, I don't think the religionists have decided what we are destroying yet.  We are not an organized group like religion so it's easy to target a beast with no head or body or really anything.  If they could come up with a word for people who don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny they would be as vilified as us.



  I am wondering where the Pope thinks Hitler learned to be anti-semitic except as a result of growing up in a Christian dominated Europe where the religion itself was anti-semitic and promoted anti-semitism.

  There had been a Jewish ghetto outside the Pope's window for centuries ffs.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 17, 2010)

Omar B said:


> If they could come up with a word for people who don't believe in Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny they would be as vilified as us.


 
You don't believe in the Easter Bunny???????????????????

This anti-bunny establishment/conspiracy needs to end!! I have found that the morality of our children has been negatively influenced by the lack of faith in his almighty Cuteness. Our traditional rituals of feasting early morning on chocolate confectionaries, and the sugar rush, nah the endorphin fix it provides brings us closer to the righteous bunny.

Send me chocolate and I will pray for your heathen soul!!! Repent!!!


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 17, 2010)

Ken Morgan said:


> You don't believe in the Easter Bunny???????????????????
> 
> This anti-bunny establishment/conspiracy needs to end!! I have found that the morality of our children has been negatively influenced by the lack of faith in his almighty Cuteness. Our traditional rituals of feasting early morning on chocolate confectionaries, and the sugar rush, nah the endorphin fix it provides brings us closer to the righteous bunny.
> 
> Send me chocolate and I will pray for your heathen soul!!! Repent!!!



 not believing in God is one thing...but not believing in the Easter bunny?  That is just cold.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 17, 2010)

:lol:

You chaps don't want to get me going on this one, especially as his Nazi-dom, the Pope, reached into my pocket and nicked a quid towards funding his visit to my country - for the privilege of which he denounced me as an "Aggressive Atheist (TM)" it seems.  One in twelve people here are Catholic (the stats on this vary) - if they want their religious head to come here then they can pay for it, not me!

Henry VIII had the right of it when it comes to the Papists - why we're opening the door for them (the senior hierarchy of the faith) now I am not sure.  It is the first time in my living memory that I have whole-heartedly disagreed with a decision taken by my monarch.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 17, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> :lol:
> 
> You chaps don't want to get me going on this one, especially as his Nazi-dom, the Pope, reached into my pocket and nicked a quid towards funding his visit to my country - for the privilege of which he denounced me as an "Aggressive Atheist (TM)" it seems.  One in twelve people here are Catholic (the stats on this vary) - if they want their religious head to come here then they can pay for it, not me!



Wait?  How does that work?  I'm pretty sure the biggest sect of christianity there is the Church Of England or am I wrong on this one?  How is the Pope reaching into everyone's pockets on this one?

Aggresive Atheist, that's great.  I love these generalizations about atheists, it's like screaming "them" or "those people," because who speaks up for a disembodied whole?  They seem to think all atheists are one because they think it's like a religion where we have to get togethers and hold hands.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 17, 2010)

Stop treating "The Church" like a separate entity and start arresting, prosecuting and punishing the members of the organization like any other people.  

Tax them too. Drop all religious exemptions.  Italy could probably balance their national debt just from St. Peters alone.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 17, 2010)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Stop treating "The Church" like a separate entity and start arresting, prosecuting and punishing the members of the organization like any other people.
> 
> Tax them too. Drop all religious exemptions. Italy could probably balance their national debt just from St. Peters alone.


 
well you know that isn't going to happen. The church has had more power than govt. at times in history. It is a separate entity.

I am not even sure the church is exempt from taxes but rather just immune to the entire thing. I dont believe they even have to file for exemption status (on income,property they do). The govt. possibily restricted via separation of church and state or the freedom of religion first amendment clause. Previous attempts to question the status of the church over taxes have gone no where. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/21/u...step-in-tax-exemption-fight.html?pagewanted=2

For example as well. A church (not catholic) opened a school and some type of retirment community. Both local and state seeked tax revenue claiming the new additions were not the direct church so could be taxed. these are two different states and on two sides of the country but the same church. The attempt to collect taxes from the school was almost immediatley dropped. Suppose whosever idea it was probably received a phone call.. Last i knew the retirement community still hadn't paid taxes. It had been in court for a couple years already.

But this is nothing new and didn't even begin in the united states. The churches have a history of not paying taxes to governments. The catholic church i dont believe has for the last thousand years to any country. They were exempt from tax in ancient egypt just as well as they are today. Other christian churches the same. The idea of separation of church and state but even the first draft of the magna carta protected church assets from being taken by the government. This could stem from the acquisition of lands taken from the church under king henry. The idea the churches and their property would always be protected from the governments from that point.

But oddly enough the church has actually IMPOSED TAXES and people have paid taxes to support the church.. 

we have a catholic school a couple towns over from us. The town it is in actually gives money (from tax revenue) to the catholic school. Not the school giving the town money. Apparently it considers the schools operation beneficial for taking students since the towns school system is at over capacity. The catholic school actually releases a budget to the town (it is more efficient than the public school in town) and then the town gives them so much money. This is on top of what people also pay to send their children to the catholic school.

edit:
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/st...church-challenges-tax-status-of-hall-1.987581

for case in point. If the church is not tax exempt it allows the government to acquire church land and property. I believe this problem was recognized from king henry in which the "charter of liberties" resulted, carried to the magna carta and transferring over in some of the beliefs as many things did when the u.s. was first founded. Because of this it is considered a violation of the freedom of religion, separation of church and state etc.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 17, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Aggresive Atheist, that's great. I love these generalizations about atheists, it's like screaming "them" or "those people," because who speaks up for a disembodied whole? They seem to think all atheists are one because they think it's like a religion where we have to get togethers and hold hands.


 
Actually, if you read the text of the Pope's address at Holyrood - which I am sure you and the other atheists who have posted on this thread have before commeting - you'll see that the Pope is _not_, in fact, making sweeping generalizations about atheists. He is, rather, talking about "atheism extremism," which marked part of the 20th century.

The germane part of the Pope's address reads: 



> "Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regimes attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a 'reductive vision of the person and his destiny'."


 
Look at the context of what the pope is saying. That's hardly a denunciation of every atheist.  

Your post that quoted Mein Kampf making reference to religion was funny since Hitler saw the Catholic Church as one of the biggest barriers to his plans. As just one example, _Mit Brennende Sorge_, for instance, was the only papal encyclical ever to be proulgated in a language other than Latin and was read from the pulpit of every Catholic Church in Germany on Palm Sunday in 1937. 

The result was a Hitler saying the encyclical was a declaraton of war by the Church against his preciosu Reich - something for which he vowed revenge. This resulted in visits by the Gestapo to every Catholic diocese to confiscate the text, the closing of every publishing house tha printed th letter, staging trials of Catholic monks and priests that they falsely accused of homosexuality and making sure there was a maximum of publicity. 

Additionaly, Hitler had these great things to say about Christianity and religion in general(all quotes from _Hitler's Table Talk_):

"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together."

Hmmm, interesting.

"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure."

And doesn't every _Christian_ think this? Wait. 

"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the state."

Because a Christian likes nothing better than to make sure his church can't preach if doing so would mean critisizing the state. Or something. 

"The reason why the ancient wold was so pure,lightand serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

Yep. That's a _very_ Christian attitude. 

"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt  synthesis betwee National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself."

Which is to be expected from a man who headed the National Christian Party. Oh, wait. He was with the National SOCIALISTS, that's right. Huh. Weird thing to say for a Christian!

And, lt we forget, according to Hitler, "the heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Chistianity," which was an "invention of the Jew."

Wow, now that's high praise indeed coming from Hitler! Or maybe not.

Now, if you want to seriously argue that Hitler and Naziism weren't atheistic you can. But can you honestly argue that he was a Christian? Only in the sense that every baptized person is. All the quotes you provided from Mein Kampf were from before Hitler's rise to power. I find it telling that he was singing a different song once he was calling the shots.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 17, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Well, you can stop practicing Catholicism (not attending mass, not following church doctrine, ...) but technically, that doesn't make you any less of a Catholic because you are still baptized, and thus still recognized by the church as one of them. And technically, by being baptized, you recognize this yourself as well.
> 
> However, you can get formally de-baptized. This is a small ceremony that can be performed by a priest (hence the need for the church to be involved).


 
Well, no. 

A Catholic priest cannot "de-baptize" anyone. According to the Church, baptism leaves "an indellible mark" on one's soul. There's is nothing you can do to "de-baptize" yourself. 

What you _can_ do is formally renounce the faith. This can be done simply buy officially joining another church, making a public staement to the effect that you no longer believe, or something similar. 

But the whole "de-baptizing" thing is simply a PR move desgned to insult the Church. No big deal, but hardly effective at "removing" one's baptism. Your statement above that doing this requires a priest and the chrch to be involved is actually rather funny in that sense. Someone has simply fooled you. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 17, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> *"And thus I clothe my naked villainy*
> *With old odd ends, stol'n forth of holy writ;*
> *And seem a saint, when most I play the devil."*
> 
> The most holy former hitlerjugend ...


 
I'm sure you're aware that Pope Benedict was _forced_ to join the Hitler Youth, right? Sure you were since it's pretty well known that membership was mandatory for any German boy 14 years or older. I'm also sure you knew that Benedict refused to attend meetings, that his parents - especially his father - were opposed to the Nazis, and that the Nazis killed one of Benedict's cousins when he was 14 because he was "unfit" due to having Downs Syndrome (hardly an act that would endear one to the murderers of your family member).

How ham-handed of you. The fact that you made such a ridiculous assertion about Benedict doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence that you know much about the scandal.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, if you read the text of the Pope's address at Holyrood - which I am sure you and the other atheists who have posted on this thread have before commeting - you'll see that the Pope is _not_, in fact, making sweeping generalizations about atheists. He is, rather, talking about "atheism extremism," which marked part of the 20th century.
> The germane part of the Pope's address reads:
> Look at the context of what the pope is saying. That's hardly a denunciation of every atheist. Your post that quoted Mein Kampf making reference to religion was funny since Hitler saw the Catholic Church as one of the biggest barriers to his plans. As just one example, _Mit Brennende Sorge_, for instance, was the only papal encyclical ever to be proulgated in a language other than Latin and was read from the pulpit of every Catholic Church in Germany on Palm Sunday in 1937.
> The result was a Hitler saying the encyclical was a declaraton of war by the Church against his preciosu Reich - something for which he vowed revenge. This resulted in visits by the Gestapo to every Catholic diocese to confiscate the text, the closing of every publishing house tha printed th letter, staging trials of Catholic monks and priests that they falsely accused of homosexuality and making sure there was a maximum of publicity.
> ...



But what the hell is athist extremism?  For there to be extremism there must be some sort of organization to begin with.  I mean, what does an extreme atheist do?  Launch crusades? Inquisitions?  Suicide bombings?  Sleeper cells?  Questioning ideas held near and dear to people's hearts?  Its just the Pope useing buzz words to turn the public ire towards something else rather than the kid touching like jangling keys in front of a toddler.

I did include quotes from after his rise to power, not just from the book.  Its not like Nazis used a cross for their imagry right?  After all the swastica in christianity represents the resurrection?  I guess you could argue he was crazy and spoke out both sides of his mouth (which I will accept) but Hitler was a christian (like the catholics say "once baptized") and a pure Germanic interpretation of christianity was one of his aims as written by him in his book (Hitler youth even had morning devotions at camp every day).  He may have grown antagonistic towards it later on but he wrote on christianity and god in his book and in his speeches after his rise to power.  I've read the speeches and books, I'm quite sure they are available in English too.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Well, no.
> 
> A Catholic priest cannot "de-baptize" anyone. According to the Church, baptism leaves "an indellible mark" on one's soul. There's is nothing you can do to "de-baptize" yourself.
> 
> ...



That is correct according to catholic doctrine. So if you decide that you don't believe in the Catholic Christian God, then de-baptism doesn't even make sense, because by doing it you would admit that there is something to be undone in the first place ... which there isn't if you don't believe in it .
This is one of the reasons that I haven't done that, and most likely never will. The Catholic church holds no power over me. I don't need middle men between me and God.

But the thing I mentioned is really known as de-baptism here and it is indeed as you say. The baptism is supposedly an indelible mark, but you can get stricken from the list of church members or however they call it, and it is basically done to give the church the finger. And in the current climate in Belgium, there is really no shortage of people wanting to do that.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> But what the hell is athist extremism? For there to be extremism there must be some sort of organization to begin with.


 
The necessity of an organization is debateable. What is needed is a belief taken to an exreme.



> I mean, what does an extreme atheist do? Launch crusades? Inquisitions? Suicide bombings? Sleeper cells? Questioning ideas held near and dear to people's hearts?


 
Do you know how many people the ateist regimes of the USSR and China and otehr communist countries have killed? They were all motivated by ther ideology which iwas based on atheistic materialism. They make the Inquisition and Crusades look like child's play. At leas whe you know the actual history of those events.



> Its just the Pope useing buzz words to turn the public ire towards something else rather than the kid touching like jangling keys in front of a toddler.


 
It most assuredly is not. If you had read the address he made you'd know that. 



> I did include quotes from after his rise to power, not just from the book. Its not like Nazis used a cross for their imagry right? After all the swastica in christianity represents the resurrection?


 
People have made the argument that the swastika is a "hooked cross" and indicative of the resurrection but I find that a bit of a stretch. I've seen images of "Christian swastikas" and the imagery used is generally different from that in a Buddhist, Hindu or Nazi swastika much like the supposed Jewish swastikas. In other words, it's a stylized abstraction of an already existing symbol. 



> I guess you could argue he was crazy and spoke out both sides of his mouth (which I will accept) but Hitler was a christian (like the catholics say "once baptized") and a pure Germanic interpretation of christianity was one of his aims as written by him in his book (Hitler youth even had morning devotions at camp every day).


 
Except his idea of a "pure Germanic" Christianity is, as I demonstrated, antithetical to actual Christianity. 



> He may have grown antagonistic towards it later on but he wrote on christianity and god in his book and in his speeches after his rise to power. I've read the speeches and books, I'm quite sure they are available in English too.


 
What I demostrated was that Hitler was anti-Christian. Whether or not he became that way or was that way when he wrote Mein Kampf (since his presentation of Christainity in that work is debateable; was he talking about Christianity or about the Christianity that was "an invention of the Jew"? It's not as if he was ignorant of propeganda and what would motivate the people, after all.)

Bt the pont remains: Hitler was anti-Christian. Vehemently so, in fact. Ignoring that fact or minimizing it because he _might_ have started out not diametrically opposed to it is simply to ignore facts.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> *But what the hell is athist extremism?*  For there to be extremism there must be some sort of organization to begin with.  I mean, what does an extreme atheist do?  Launch crusades? Inquisitions?  Suicide bombings?  Sleeper cells?  Questioning ideas held near and dear to people's hearts?  Its just the Pope useing buzz words to turn the public ire towards something else rather than the kid touching like jangling keys in front of a toddler.



Well, there are people who don't believe in God, and then there are people who REALLY don't believe in God 

But more serious, his popishnesh was talking about people actively pushing for true secularization of their country, meaning that the Church does not hold any special privileges or influence anymore. Apparently, the whole idea that criminals have to be brought before a court of law is too much to bear.

So this would make me both an extreme atheist and a believer.
Bit of a pickle, that


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is correct according to catholic doctrine. So if you decide that you don't believe in the Catholic Christian God, then de-baptism doesn't even make sense, because by doing it you would admit that there is something to be undone in the first place ... which there isn't if you don't believe in it .
> This is one of the reasons that I haven't done that, and most likely never will. The Catholic church holds no power over me. I don't need middle men between me and God.
> 
> But the thing I mentioned is really known as de-baptism here and it is indeed as you say. The baptism is supposedly an indelible mark, but you can get stricken from the list of church members or however they call it, and it is basically done to give the church the finger. And in the current climate in Belgium, there is really no shortage of people wanting to do that.


 
Which means, as I pointed out, your statement about priests and churches needing to be involvd is nonsensical. You might want to spread the word. If you're interested in the truth. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Marginal (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> But what the hell is athist extremism?



It's an intentionally distracting topic to derail any focus on the whole child molesting priests who were protected by the church thing.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Which means, as I pointed out, your statement about priests and churches needing to be involvd is nonsensical. You might want to spread the word. If you're interested in the truth.
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris



I know it doesn't make sense from a theological point of view.
However, it DOES make sense if your motivation is to explicitly tell the church that you are so disenchanted that you want to have nothing to do with them anymore, ever again.

To go back to my political analogy: tearing up your membership card in public is nonsensical as well. You just don't vote for them anymore. But that doesn't mean that the act of tearing it up is nonsensical. It isn't. Sometimes it is the right thing to stand up and tell the institution to stuff it.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> How is the Pope reaching into everyone's pockets on this one?
> .



From my taxes - it cost over £20M to pay for the security, accommodation and whatnot for for this visit.  They (my government) agreed to treat it as a 'State' visit, so his Holiness didn't have to put his hand in his own pocket.

Why they agreed to this I don't know and I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country; we have enough religious fundamentalists as it is without adding or encouraging more.


----------



## dbell (Sep 18, 2010)

xJOHNx said:


> If it really is a disease, the priests involved would not go to incredible length's to cover it up. Let alone cover up for eachother.
> Funny how people under the vow of celibacy suffer the most from this disease, and people who have normal sexual relationships suffer less from it.



Actually you have it wrong here.  There are as many cases of lawyers, doctors, police officers, ministers from other religions (without celibacy rules) as the Catholic priesthood, involved in pedophilia .  In fact, percentage wise, the Catholic priest hood may not be as high as some of the other categories.  The problem here is the Catholic Church, due to its size has more money, gets the loudest complaints.

I don't condone what the Church has done in not reporting, in the past, they now do in most areas, when a priest is suspected of pedophilia to the local authorities, nor do I condone how they just moved them from place to place to keep the person out of trouble in one area just to get in trouble in the new area.  They should have been transferred to a Monastery for the remainder of their life of silence and prayer.  Most of the cases, not all granted, of pedophilia that are being brought to light are over 15+ years old and new cases are few and far between.  The Church is looking very closely at it's Religious Leaders and those in Religious life to make sure these things are not happening.  So, the Church IS taking action, within itself, and any new current cases ARE being taken to the local authorities as they happen, provided they come to the Church from "outside" and not from confession.  If the "news" comes from confessions, there are problems in taking action, other than repentance requirements, which CAN include demanding that the priest confessing take action to request life in a Monastery. 

Pedophilia is a mental disease, and the Pope is right in that matter, and in such the pedophile should be treated and removed from the area in which he can cause harm. (Monastery)


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Do you know how many people the ateist regimes of the USSR and China and otehr communist countries have killed? They were all motivated by ther ideology which iwas based on atheistic materialism. They make the Inquisition and Crusades look like child's play. At leas whe you know the actual history of those events.



 please prove that atheism was the motivating factor in any of those regimes,  that is the usual simplistic argument made by religionists to excuse the violent and predatory excesses of religion.

  Show me how to motivate people from lack of belief...no one flies planes into buildings screaming "no god is great"

  Look at all those oppressive regimes and you will find blind adherence to dogma and power concentrated in few individuals who make unopposed decisions for the masses.....sounds like religion to me.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> please prove that atheism was the motivating factor in any of those regimes, ...


 
They are Marxists. Marxism rests on materialist atheism. I know it's hard to believe that some people are actually motivated by the ideology they profess and all...

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> They are Marxists. Marxism rests on materialist atheism. I know it's hard to believe that some people are actually motivated by the ideology they profess and all...
> 
> Pax,
> 
> Chris




 Well I guess your saying so makes it the truth.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> But more serious, his popishnesh was talking about people actively pushing for true secularization of their country, meaning that the Church does not hold any special privileges or influence anymore. Apparently, the whole idea that criminals have to be brought before a court of law is too much to bear.


 
Uh, _no_. 

Come on, people. I don't care if you disagree with the pope about anything, really. But please, _please_ get your facts strait. I've alfready posted an excerpt o the pope's address at Holyrood that specifically details what he was referring to when he mentioned "atheist extremism." It goes way, way beyond people wanting "true secularism." To say otherwise is either dishonest or just being misinformed. 

For the record, here i the quote again:



> I also recall the regimes attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives.  As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a reductive vision of the person and his destiny.


 
The context of his quote is Naziism. Unless you want to argue that the Nazis were just misunderstood secularists we can just stop this nonsense now. 

I find the comments on this thread very intersting in light of what it says in the Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...Pope-puts-religion-back-in-the-spotlight.html).



> Pope Benedict's critics have underestimated him. They worked themselves into a state of indignation at the visit of a man about whom they knew only a few things  and most of these turn out to be wrong, on closer inspection. Anyone who thinks that Joseph Ratzinger is a former Nazi, or that he actively conspired to protect child abusers, has not done his or her homework.


 
Pax,

Chris

PS
Is it too much to ask that people actually read the pope's addresses in order to see his statements in context before commenting on them?


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Well I guess your saying so makes it the truth.


 
What a sting rebuke! I've been impaled by your rapier-like retort!

Or not. 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> From my taxes - it cost over £20M to pay for the security, accommodation and whatnot for for this visit. They (my government) agreed to treat it as a 'State' visit, so his Holiness didn't have to put his hand in his own pocket.


 
Have you ever heard of the Vatican City State? Benedict is the head of a state. His visit included meeting the head of your country. 



> Why they agreed to this I don't know and I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country; we have enough religious fundamentalists as it is without adding or encouraging more.


 
:lol: Benedict as a religious fundamentalist. Spoken like a person who has never once read aything he has written and relies on the press for their knowledge of him. Anyone who has read anyting this man has written since before he was created Cardinal to the current day could say he is a man of faith, an impressive intellectual. What they cannot say is that he is a fundamentalist. Unless you want to empty the word "fundamentalist" of any sort of actual meaning.

But seriously, Sukerkin, you're obviously well informed on matters. I'd be very interested in hearing which books of the pope's you've read wherein you find evidence of his "fundamentalism." Oh, heck, in all hoesty, I'm interested in hearing which books of his you've read, period. I mean making a comment like that means you've obviously read at lest _something_ he's written. Right? In toto, of course, not an excerpted line or two in the local newspaper. Please direct me to the work(s) in question where you see this so I can read them. 

Feel free to not include media statements or rants from people like Christopher Hitchens. I'm interested in your exposure to what Benedict has actually written himself. 

Thanks in advance.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> What a sting rebuke! I've been impaled by your rapier-like retort!
> 
> Or not.
> 
> ...


 yeah you concoct some term , say it is the basis of Marxism,  ignore thousands of years of historical and social context and rationalize thousands of years of church condoned anti-semitism with respect to Hitler.

 You aren't worth any more of my time.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> *The necessity of an organization is debateable. What is needed is a belief taken to an exreme.
> *
> Do you know how many people the ateist regimes of the USSR and China and otehr communist countries have killed? They were all motivated by ther ideology which iwas based on *atheistic materialism*. They make the Inquisition and Crusades look like child's play. At leas whe you know the actual history of those events.
> 
> ...



The need for an organization is not debatable, it's necessary to have extremism.  An organization with a large base you can call the "norm" or "control group" would be necessary to define what is out of the ordinary and extreme.  Atheism is not a "belief" as you put it, it's a non belief.  There's a huge gulf between believing in something and living your whole existence by it (religion) and not believing in something so it doesn't shade your existence at all.

Atheistic materialism?  You gotta love those buzzwords!  A non belief driving materialism?  No, materialism is materialism.  To argue that there is atheistic materialism them one must argue that there is christian materialism, buddhist materialism, etc.  Yes you have named regimes led by atheists, but were their motivations a lack of belief or were their motivations for reasons of power?  It's like saying "I don't believe in the easter bunny so I'm going to kill millions of people."  Paper thin argument to say the least.

He still called it chrsitanity, he still spoke of god and the creator.  Not because it doesn't fall within your particular sect does not mean it's not christianity.  It's often an argument put forward by the religious when someone acts how they don't believe a christian should act, to claim the person was not a christian.  Well he was, he himself wrote about it and spoke about it and his right to deem himself christian is just as valid as yours.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> From my taxes - it cost over £20M to pay for the security, accommodation and whatnot for for this visit.  They (my government) agreed to treat it as a 'State' visit, so his Holiness didn't have to put his hand in his own pocket.
> 
> Why they agreed to this I don't know and I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country; we have enough religious fundamentalists as it is without adding or encouraging more.


What you are (intentionally?) overlooking, is the Pope, while being the head of the Roman Catholic Church is ALSO a Head of State.The Pope is _ex officio_ head of state and head of government of Vatican City, functions dependent on his primordial function as bishop of the diocese of Rome. The term Holy See refers not to the Vatican state but to the Pope's spiritual and pastoral governance, largely exercised through the Roman Curia.His official title with regard to Vatican City is *Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City. *
Do you complain about the costs incurred when Putin or Obama or other heads of state visit?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Why they agreed to this I don't know and I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country; we have enough religious fundamentalists as it is without adding or encouraging more.



I'm Catholic, may I come visit?  At my own expense of course.  I was unaware that I was a religious fundamentalist, though.  News to me.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Just noticed that the Pope is having a prayer vigil with what looks like thousands of people in Hyde Park, oh I don't envy you guys with that traffic today!  Talk about tieing up city resources, but it seems fun right.  People out in the crush enjoying the park.

http://www.birminghammail.net/news/...nds-due-for-pope-prayer-vigil-97319-27292105/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...a-guest-who-took-time-to-charm-his-hosts.html


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> I'm sure you're aware that Pope Benedict was _forced_ to join the Hitler Youth, right? Sure you were since it's pretty well known that membership was mandatory for any German boy 14 years or older. I'm also sure you knew that Benedict refused to attend meetings, that his parents - especially his father - were opposed to the Nazis, and that the Nazis killed one of Benedict's cousins when he was 14 because he was "unfit" due to having Downs Syndrome (hardly an act that would endear one to the murderers of your family member).
> 
> How ham-handed of you. The fact that you made such a ridiculous assertion about Benedict doesn't exactly instill a lot of confidence that you know much about the scandal.
> 
> ...


 
I merely pointed out that he was in the hitlerjugend. The rest is your words.

And you certainly don`t need to lecture me on the methods of the nazis. My uncle who was a police officer was murdered by them for refusing to do their work during the occupation of Norway.

If anyone is ham handed it is the pope himself. He seems content to let the church continue to function as a pedo ring among other things.

THE scandal? This is like the 500th. Every time they just pray for the poor brother priest who has been tempted by the devil and by no fault of his own has succumbed to the irresistable magical disease, and everything is made ok.

Feel as confident as you wish, I don`t give a crap. I am actually glad this poor excuse for a human being is leading the church so we can see how flucked up their practices are.

PEACE!


Now prepare to experience the full power of the catholic church!


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

*Pope meets with victims, tells UK he's sorry*



LONDON &#8211; Pope Benedict XVI met Saturday with five people who were  molested by priests as children and apologized to them, even as abuse  survivors and thousands of people opposed to his visit marched in  central London in the biggest protest of his five-year papacy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100918/ap_on_re_eu/eu_pope_britain

Woah!  Is it funny picture time?


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Atheistic materialism?  You gotta love those buzzwords!  A non belief driving materialism?  No, materialism is materialism..




 Exactly, you want materialism,  then look no further than the vaults and coffers of the catholic church,  probably the most materialistic organization in history.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Comparisons of stalinist and maoist purges to the inquisition or the witch hunts or the crusades or whatever inevitably ignore the fact that the latter were all pre-industrial,  given the technology of the Maoists and Stalinists , the Crusaders and Inquisitors could well have killed just as many people.

 It is always a simple minded comparison.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> I merely pointed out that he was in the hitlerjugend. The rest is your words.


 
No, the rest was rather clearly implied given the tenor of your post. If you want to pretend otherwise that's fine. But you're reacion is a bit like ... well ...

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc[/yt]



> And you certainly don`t need to lecture me on the methods of the nazis. My uncle who was a police officer was murdered by them for refusing to do their work during the occupation of Norway.


 
Then maybe you should remember that before you make moronic comments implying the pope was somehow affiliated with the Nazis anymore than any other German man his age. Unless, of course, you make reference to all German males of a particular age being former members of the Hitler Youth. Oh, I'm _sure_ you do that 



> If anyone is ham handed it is the pope himself. He seems content to let the church continue to function as a pedo ring among other things.


 
I'm not sure why I'm bothering to spend my time answring you as your posts make it obvious you don't have a good grasp of what's actually going on with regards to the scandal but I'll give it a go (to say noting of the lack of any interest on your part to actually find out what's been going on).

First of all, technically speaking, a very small minority of the incidences of sexual abuse actually qualify as pedaphilia. The majority of cases involve men abusing boys who were at least adolescents (78% of victims were 11-17 years old while 6% were less than 7 tears of age). Unimaginably horrible, but not pedaphelia. I know you'll appreciate the distinction because you're interested in facts, regardless of what they are.

Strangely, men having sex with adolescent boys (ephebophilia) is _not_ listed as a mental disorder in the DSM-IV. Still horrible and obviously a crime but why the APA doesn't consider a specific mental disorder is a question I'd like to see addressed, wouldn't you?  

Secondly, if you look at the incidence of the annual total of incidents of sexual abuse by priests and the annual totals of accused priests you willfind that _both_ incidences begin to show serous decline in 1981, after increasing in number since 1950. 

What happened in 1981? Well, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was appointed head of the CDF. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was one of the Church organs responsible for dealing with cases of sexual abuse by priests. In 2001 the process was streamlined and the CDF gained sole responsibility for dealing with such cases. By 1995, however, the rate of abuse was extremely low numbering about 50 per year (albeit any instance of abuse of a chil by any adult, clergy or not, is too many).

A graph of this information can be seen here: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CVA-OCFOYuI/S8E-ZHHrLXI/AAAAAAAAACA/W6IImV2wGlQ/s1600/johnjayreport.jpg

That doesn't look like the pope being "ham handed" or "[seeming] content to let the church continue to function as a pedo ring among other things." At least it does't appear that way ifyou're interested in facts. 



> THE scandal? This is like the 500th. Every time they just pray for the poor brother priest who has been tempted by the devil and by no fault of his own has succumbed to the irresistable magical disease, and everything is made ok.


 
Wow, what a great example of you not exaggerating. Bill already mention the incidence rates of sexual abuse by Catholic priests but let's look at things a bit closer. (And yes, I use the tem "the scandal" to refer to the priestly sexual abuse problem as a whole, because it _is_ a scandal.)

About 4% of the 110,000 priests operating from 1950 to 1992 had complaints against them (the actual number is 4,392 so a bit less than 4%, but nevermind). That is, obviously, a rate that is astronomically too high. For _any_ group, wouldn't you say? 

There is disagreement about the rate of sexual abusive behavior in the generalmale population of the U.S. but studies put it generally between 1 in 10 and 1 in 5. The most common thing sexual abusers have is a pre-existing relationship with their victim. This could be as a rabbi or minister, a techer or coach, or a family member. 

So why do we hear so much about Catholic priests being sexual abusers? Probably for a couple of reasons. A single abuser who has a lot of exposure to children can have huge rates of abuse. 149 priests, for example, were responsible for more than _25,000_ cases of abuse in the years between 1950 and 1992. The same rates could be possible for teachers or coaches, of course, who deal with childen on an even more frequent basis than priests. Or more. In fact, over the course of a single decade, 1991-2000 it's estimated that _290,000_ children were sexually abused by school employees. That's in ten years, not 5 decades.

Interestingly, the NYT published a piece back in April which made an interesting point: "If the rate of abuse among Catholic priests stands (per the John Jay data) at roughly 4 percent, thats less than half the rate that Allen cites for the population as a whole. And the Jay study covers the sweep of the last 50 years; if you compare the rate of accusations against priests _now_ (as opposed to during  (during the crisis of the 1960s and 1970s) to Allens 10 percent figure, it looks like Catholic clergy currently abuse children and teenagers at about _one-fifth_ the rate of the male population as a whole." (see http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/09/does-celibacy-increase-sex-abuse/)

One fifth the rate of the general male population of the U.S.

Another reason is that the Church, in the person of the individual bishops, has a bad track record of punishing molesters when it has been determined that they are guilty of this crime. 

Lastly, the sheer size of the Church makes it more likely that we will hear more about this problem in the Church than in any other religious body. While a slight majority of American adults are Protestant they belong not to a single denomination but a host of them, umbering in the hundreds if not more. It's a matter of numbers, at least partially. 

(The figures I was quoting above can be found at:
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/04/07/mean-men.html and
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml)



> Feel as confident as you wish, I don`t give a crap.


 
Oh, I'm pretty confident about you based on your posts in this thread. You've made things very obvious. 



> I am actually glad this poor excuse for a human being is leading the church so we can see how flucked up their practices are.


 
Every person is a sinner, including the pope, as Benedict would be the first to tell you. But again, your comment here indicates how serious you are about getting to the facts. 

Any incidence of abuse of a child is a horrible crime and a sin. It should be punished under the law and any priest found guilty of such behavior should be removed from ministry permanently. 

But I'd appreciate a bit of parity in the presentation of sexual abuse in the media and perhaps by members of this board. Where is the moral outrage about the astronimically high rate of sexual abuse of minors suffered at the hands of public school employees, for instance? Hmm.



> Now prepare to experience the full power of the catholic church!


 
Can you imagine if people made a similar pictue of a rabbi or a Muslim cleric? You'd be labelled as the bigot you are. 

You're not the first that has posted an image like this on MT, of course. But I'm still waiting for people to point out the inherent bigotry of doing so. Sure we can all agree that burning the Koran is bigoted, or that saying _all_ Muslims are terrorists is bigoted (although I still don't know of anyone who does that), but pesent the pope as the evil Emporer? That's hunky dory! But I guess it's OK to be a bigot about some things. Right?

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> yeah you concoct some term , say it is the basis of Marxism, ignore thousands of years of historical and social context and rationalize thousands of years of church condoned anti-semitism with respect to Hitler.


 
It's hardly a term I "concocted." If you're not familiar with it that's not my fault. If you want to argue that materialism is a synonym for atheism that's fine by me. It doesn't do anything to refute my point. Communists were motivated by their ideology of historical materialism, which is explicitly atheistic, when they were killing millions of people. 



> You aren't worth any more of my time.


 
:lol: If you say so.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> Comparisons of stalinist and maoist purges to the inquisition or the witch hunts or the crusades or whatever inevitably ignore the fact that the latter were all pre-industrial, given the technology of the Maoists and Stalinists , the Crusaders and Inquisitors could well have killed just as many people.
> 
> It is always a simple minded comparison.


 
:lol:

You're too funny, brother! 

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 18, 2010)

Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"

I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"
> 
> I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.



   Those statistics , technicalities and comparisons to public school teachers must be great comfort to the victims of those priests, and to the Irish orphans physically abused in those Catholic orphanages.

  It is so much better that they targeted adolescents instead of prepubescents.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 18, 2010)

Oh for Goodness sakes.

Look, there are religious and non religious evil people. Religion and atheism in and of themselves are not necessarily the root cause of that evil. There are other reasons, we do not make our decisions in a vacuum, based on one specific dogma.

A short clip by Sam Harris says it better then I. If youre in a hurry click over to 3:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4&p=2366D5468EDEC3DC&playnext=1&index=11


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> It's hardly a term I "concocted." If you're not familiar with it that's not my fault. If you want to argue that materialism is a synonym for atheism that's fine by me. It doesn't do anything to refute my point. Communists were motivated by their ideology of historical materialism, which is explicitly atheistic, when they were killing millions of people.



So what you are trying to say is that materialism is an atheist quality.  If that were so then only atheists would be billionaires because that seems to be our only motivation you think and everyone else would work and give it away.  We should tell all the televangelists, oil barons in the middle east, etc to quit it.

You seem to put all atheists in one box.  Not believing in something does not make you act a certain way, it just means you don't believe in something.  It's like saying people who don't believe in Santa Clause are always serial killers or people who don't believe in  the Easter Bunny are all cannibals.

Love the clip Ken.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> So what you are trying to say is that materialism is an atheist quality.  If that were so then only atheists would be billionaires because that seems to be our only motivation you think and everyone else would work and give it away.



No, he means the philosophy of materialism, "The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything,  including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms  of matter and physical phenomena."  However, not all atheists are materialists, nor are all materialists atheists.  The term "atheistic materialism" adds nothing, since the philosophy neither requires nor is distinguished by atheism, nor is "atheistic materialiam" qualitatively different from other forms of materialism.  A good sign that the speaker isn't really engaging the topic.

As for the apologetics, we can discuss rates and statistics till the cows come home, but that doesn't change one basic reality.  The Church was responsible for covering up and enabling the crimes of pedophile priests.  This includes then Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote in 1985 that defrocking a pedophile priest should take more time, and any such decision should take into account the good of the church and the reaction of the community of the faithful.  He was involved, despite protestations to the contrary by the Church.

Honest, holy men own up to their mistakes, especially such grave ones.  They don't hide them, deny them, or explain them away.  Nor do they accuse those holding them to account of conducting a "smear campaign."


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"
> 
> I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.



 If the defenders of this church needs to excuse the crimes of priests by drawing comparisons to laity and secular professions then this church has lost any moral authority and any relevance to modern society.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> If the defenders of this church needs to excuse the crimes of priests by drawing comparisons to laity and secular professions then this church has lost any moral authority and any relevance to modern society.



I'm not sure what you mean by this statement.

First, I'm Catholic.  I defend the church.  I do not excuse the crimes of priests.

However, I don't see where it is inappropriate to point out that the RCC is not the only organization that appears to attract sexual predators to its ranks.  If the comparisons are not correct, kindly point them out.  If they are correct, then I fail to see how they could be inappropriate.  I do not in any way make excuses for the clergy who have sexually abused children or those who have covered up for their crimes.

With regard to *my* being able to affect the moral authority of the RCC, I cannot and do not speak for the church.  I *am* the laity.  My opinions are my own.

As to the 'moral authority' of the church, that could only apply to believers.  If you're not, then the RCC is in no position to tell you what's right or wrong.  

With regard to 'relevance to modern society,' the RCC has no obligation to modify its beliefs or positions to be more in tune with what non-believers want.  It's not a club that changes to suit your beliefs, it's not a business that is trying to gain customers.  You change to suit the RCC's beliefs, or you don't join.  Pretty simple.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

A teacher, karate instructor, etc. makes no claims to being the moral and spiritual advisor or leader to anyone to the extent a priest does,  we hold priests to a higher standard of morality and they assume a higher standard of morality and leadership.

 that is why the betrayal of that trust is so much more a crime for a priest.

  If they are judged on the same standards as any other secular vocation then the Church has no right to assume a higher standard of moral authority or leadership than a karate instructor.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> As to the 'moral authority' of the church, that could only apply to believers.  If you're not, then the RCC is in no position to tell you what's right or wrong.
> 
> .



 As you well know Bill, the Catholic church tries to exert its influence on far more than just its flock. It is opposed to gay marriage (although it doesn't have to marry homosexuals in its bailiwick) and abortion for everyone, not just Catholics.

 It opposes the use of condoms for Africans even though it would limit the spread of aids .

etc.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> A teacher, karate instructor, etc. makes no claims to being the moral and spiritual advisor or leader to anyone to the extent a priest does,  we hold priests to a higher standard of morality and they assume a higher standard of morality and leadership.



OK, fair enough.  I think I've also pointed out that clergy other than Catholics have also had a problem with these types of crimes.  Are they held to a lesser standard than Catholic clergy?



> that is why the betrayal of that trust is so much more a crime for a priest.


Personally, I don't know if I would make that distinction, but I see your point.



> If they are judged on the same standards as any other secular vocation then the Church has no right to assume a higher standard of moral authority or leadership than a karate instructor.


Again, I'm not sure why you say the church has any authority whatsoever outside of the ranks of the faithful.  Only believers see it as a moral authority.  I would hardly expect non-Christians or for that matter, non-Catholics to see the Pope as a moral authority or to obey the rules of the RCC.  Where are you getting that?


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Where are you getting that?



 I posted right afterwards Bill,  if the Church were to say that for instance gay marriage isn't on for Catholics....fair enough, but they oppose gay marriage in general.

  If they were to say that Catholics cannot have an abortion and still be part of the Catholic Church,  I have no problem with that, but they oppose abortion for all people.

  the same with birth control.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> I posted right afterwards Bill,  if the Church were to say that for instance gay marriage isn't on for Catholics....fair enough, but they oppose gay marriage in general.
> 
> If they were to say that Catholics cannot have an abortion and still be part of the Catholic Church,  I have no problem with that, but they oppose abortion for all people.
> 
> the same with birth control.



Sure, they oppose it for all people.  All a non-Catholic has to do is say 'bugger that' and move on.  If you're saying that the church as 'lost' moral authority on that basis, then I'd say it never had it to begin with.  What right does the RCC have to make anyone do what it wants them to do?  It's allowed to have opinions, everybody gets to have them.  It can even tell people about them, that's pretty much universal in the Western world too.  Nobody is forced to listen, and especially not to obey.

I _*think*_ what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since the RCC is in a pretty messed-up state right now vis-a-vis these crimes, it should NOT be speaking in public about how others should live their lives.  Well, I can see your point there, it seems a bit hypocritical.  On the other hand, who is going to stop them and why should they?  It's like talk radio - just don't listen.

With all due respects, your comments kind of remind me of those people who hate Rush Limbaugh and can't stop listening to his show so that they have something new to be offended about each day (I'm not a fan, don't listen, but also don't care what he says or doesn't say).  If the RCC's pronouncements on abortion, homosexuality, etc, bother you, don't listen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> As you well know Bill, the Catholic church tries to exert its influence on far more than just its flock. It is opposed to gay marriage (although it doesn't have to marry homosexuals in its bailiwick) and abortion for everyone, not just Catholics.
> 
> It opposes the use of condoms for Africans even though it would limit the spread of aids .
> 
> etc.



I'm Catholic and the RCC has a lot of positions I don't agree with.  To put it bluntly, so what?  The RCC is not obligated to change it's positions to be more in line with what others would like (me, you, Africans, etc).


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> No, he means the philosophy of materialism, "*The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything,  including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms  of matter and physical phenomena.*"  However, not all atheists are materialists, nor are all materialists atheists.  The term "atheistic materialism" adds nothing, since the philosophy neither requires nor is distinguished by atheism, nor is "atheistic materialiam" qualitatively different from other forms of materialism.  A good sign that the speaker isn't really engaging the topic.
> 
> As for the apologetics, we can discuss rates and statistics till the cows come home, but that doesn't change one basic reality.  The Church was responsible for covering up and enabling the crimes of pedophile priests.  This includes then Cardinal Ratzinger, who wrote in 1985 that defrocking a pedophile priest should take more time, and any such decision should take into account the good of the church and the reaction of the community of the faithful.  He was involved, despite protestations to the contrary by the Church.
> 
> Honest, holy men own up to their mistakes, especially such grave ones.  They don't hide them, deny them, or explain them away.  Nor do they accuse those holding them to account of conducting a "smear campaign."



If that's what he was trying to get at then sure, I observe the facts of reality, not something that exists only in the mind of believers like gods, ghosts, goblins and fairy folk.

_Existence is a self-sufficient primary_. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it_and no alternative to it_. Existence existsand only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, I don't see where it is inappropriate to point out that the RCC is not the only organization that appears to attract sexual predators to its ranks.



It's true, but orthogonal to the main criticism of the Church.  From what I have seen, no one blames the Church for some priests committing crimes, what they blame the Church for is how they responded to those crimes.  In the face of that criticism, what any other class of people get up to is entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> _Existence is a self-sufficient primary_. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it_and no alternative to it_. Existence existsand only existence exists. Its existence and its nature are irreducible and unalterable.



You sound like one of those extremist Nazi atheists.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Sure, they oppose it for all people.*  All a non-Catholic has to do is say 'bugger that' and move on.  If you're saying that the church as 'lost' moral authority on that basis, then I'd say it never had it to begin with.  What right does the RCC have to make anyone do what it wants them to do?  It's allowed to have opinions, everybody gets to have them.  It can even tell people about them, that's pretty much universal in the Western world too.  Nobody is forced to listen, and especially not to obey.
> 
> I _*think*_ what you're saying (correct me if I'm wrong) is that since the RCC is in a pretty messed-up state right now vis-a-vis these crimes, *it should NOT be speaking in public about how others should live their lives.  Well, I can see your point there, it seems a bit hypocritical.*  On the other hand, who is going to stop them and why should they?  It's like talk radio - just don't listen.
> 
> With all due respects, your comments kind of remind me of those people who hate Rush Limbaugh and can't stop listening to his show so that they have something new to be offended about each day (I'm not a fan, don't listen, but also don't care what he says or doesn't say).  If the RCC's pronouncements on abortion, homosexuality, etc, bother you, don't listen.



Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in.  Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything.  Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on.  Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.

As to your second point, I totally agree.  Didnt Jesus say "remove the log from your own eye before you take the splinter from mine?"  Or something to that effect.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> You sound like one of those extremist Nazi atheists.



Gotta do something on the weekend.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> It's true, but orthogonal to the main criticism of the Church.  From what I have seen, no one blames the Church for some priests committing crimes, what they blame the Church for is how they responded to those crimes.  In the face of that criticism, what any other class of people get up to is entirely irrelevant.



Good point.  However, reference the 'blame' in this thread, there are some truly hateful things about Catholicism being said; I'm trying not to take it personally.  I'm wondering how some of these Catholic-haters would respond to me in person?  Attack me?  Curse me out?  Or is this just an online thing?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in.  Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything.  Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on.  Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.



First, define "have a say in."  If you mean set policy for non-believers, I agree; but then again, they don't.  If you mean 'have an opinion' or 'set policy for their own members' then I disagree.  People and organizations are allowed to have any opinions they wish, and as many of them as they wish.

Not being allowed to speak on any topic is anti-freedom.  I could never support that.



> As to your second point, I totally agree.  Didnt Jesus say "remove the log from your own eye before you take the splinter from mine?"  Or something to that effect.



Yep.  And that would be an internal debate the church should be (and is) having.  Non-Catholics are welcome to have an opinion; but not a 'say' as you put it.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, define "have a say in."  *If you mean set policy for non-believers*, I agree; but then again, they don't.  If you mean 'have an opinion' or 'set policy for their own members' then I disagree.  People and organizations are allowed to have any opinions they wish, and as many of them as they wish.
> Not being allowed to speak on any topic is anti-freedom.  I could never support that.
> Yep.  And that would be an internal debate the church should be (and is) having.  Non-Catholics are welcome to have an opinion; but not a 'say' as you put it.



There ya go.  It's as if certain religions think all should live by their set of rules even those not of their flock which I heartily disagree with.  I'm a good person, an ethical person, I don't think I should have a metaphorical finger waggled in my direction because I my wish to do X, Y or Z that a certain religion may not belive in.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> There ya go.  It's as if certain religions think all should live by their set of rules even those not of their flock which I heartily disagree with.



Well of course they do.  The RCC (like many religions) believes it represents the One True Faith.  This means that the way we do it is the way it should be done.  The things we believe are the literal truth.  The rules we set should be followed by all.

You might consider getting used to that.  Any religion that claims to be the One True Faith is going to behave similarly.  There's no escaping it.  What you seem to be wanting is for the RCC to equivocate and suggest that it's not the One True Faith, or that it might be wrong about its beliefs, morals, or rules.  That won't ever happen.

But here's the thing; this is not the Middle Ages, and you're free to disagree.  The RCC cannot impose its rules on you, it can only keep insisting it is right, while you insist that it is not.  Opinions are like that.



> I'm a good person, an ethical person, I don't think I should have a metaphorical finger waggled in my direction because I my wish to do X, Y or Z that a certain religion may not belive in.



I find it interesting how many people do not believe in Christianity, religion, the RCC, the Pope, etc, etc, and yet they want absolution, justification, or acknowledgment that their way is OK from these organizations.  What is it you want from the RCC, an _"I'm OK, You're OK"_ certificate?


----------



## Big Don (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Certain choices should not be up to organizations like the church to have a say in.  Thing is the church seems to have an opinion on everything.  Abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, etc I don't think they should be speaking on.  Opposing or supporting anything for all people should never happen, lord over your own flock.


Yeah, because *some people* don't deserve freedom of speech...


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Did I give you the impression I wanted absolution, justification or acknowledgment from these organizations?  I have a problem with people being classed as sinners or heathens or infidels or whatever other name there may be just because you don't share their philosophical stand.

I'm pointing out that as you said, these religions think they are the _one true way_, but they should realize that they are not _the only way_ and things like abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, stem cell research, etc is outside their sphere of influence and rightly should be ... except for their adherents.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I'm Catholic, may I come visit?  At my own expense of course.  I was unaware that I was a religious fundamentalist, though.  News to me.



I would not take away from you the right to choose to frame your beliefs as you wish, Bill.  We have been around that track before and came to the conclusion that the way your couch your belief is, from my point of view at least, offensive to no-one.

To argue, however, that the postions held by the Catholic Church as an institution are not fundamentalist must mean that we use the term in different ways.  Which is okay as long as we know that we have that difference of interpretation.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Did I give you the impression I wanted absolution, justification or acknowledgment from these organizations?



Yes, you kind of did.  Wingeing about being a 'good person' (which by the way I believe you are, no problem there) and the RCC chooses not to recognize that.



> I have a problem with people being classed as sinners or heathens or infidels or whatever other name there may be just because you don't share their philosophical stand.



I understand you have a problem with it, but it's not going to change.



> I'm pointing out that as you said, these religions think they are the _one true way_, but they should realize that they are not _the only way_ and things like abortion, gay marriage, pre-marital sex, contraception, stem cell research, etc is outside their sphere of influence and rightly should be ... except for their adherents.



They certainly realize that they do not wield temporal power.  In the case of the RCC, it's become quite political and nuanced in its approach to other faiths.  However, it has not watered down its message about its core beliefs.  It believes abortion is wrong, etc and it's going to keep believing that and of course keep saying that.

I can see you think the church SHOULD believe differently, but it's not going to.  That's why I suggested you should get used to disappointment in that sense.  Yes, you have a problem with organizations that behave in ways that are contrary to logic.  They'll keep doing it, so you're going to continue to have a problem with them.  :shrug:


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> *Yes, you kind of did.  Wingeing about being a 'good person' (which by the way I believe you are, no problem there) and the RCC chooses not to recognize that.*
> 
> I understand you have a problem with it, but it's not going to change.
> 
> ...



Was I whingeing?  Didn't think I was!  I've got an uncle who's a priest so I get to hear that whole deal every now and then.  Never mind that both his daughters got pregnant before marriage or in one case before even finishing high school ... to be a fly on the wall in that house when he found out!  You should see him and my father (who's Hindu) talk, there is a lot of lecturing on one side and a lot of smiling and nodding on the other.

No, I don't think they should believe anything different Bill.  I only take issue with them thinking their rules should be a universal.  But as we all know, that's not going to change.  But at least I can ***** and moan like an old codger now now, get my practice in.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, reference the 'blame' in this thread, there are some truly hateful things about Catholicism being said; I'm trying not to take it personally.



I wouldn't equivocate "Catholicism" with "Catholics", or even necessarily "Catholics" with "Pope Benedict" or "priests."  I understand how it can come across that way however, no one wants to feel attacked for their core beliefs.  You are not responsible for what others have done, even if they are part of your group.

In my experience, the ones who feel the angriest about the Church are the ones who were once a part of it.  That can be experienced as a personal betrayal.  I never grew up in the Church, despite being baptized Catholic, so I have a pretty unemotional view of the whole mess, and can see the similarities to other groups and institutions.  My father left the Church though, when they tried to prevent him from marrying my mother.  My grandfather left the Church recently, after the full weight of the scandal became clear.  All of the victims and their families who are seeking accountability, the ones running the "smear campaign", were all Catholic too - they put their trust in the Church and the trust was broken.  Those are the people I see who are angriest.

I don't know if that is feeding this thread, but it is something to keep in mind.  That, and the hypocrisy you earlier mentioned fuels it as well.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Have you ever heard of the Vatican City State? Benedict is the head of a state. His visit included meeting the head of your country.



Of course I have - that was the fiction used to excuse his Pope-ness nicking my quid (by which you can take it that the historical footing of the Vatican as a state is not one I care to accept (me being Emperor of the Universe and all that )).

When I wrote "Why they agreed to this I don't know" I didn't mean I did not know about the status of the Vatican but rather that the usage of this to give an expenses-paid pass to a religious leader on a religious, rather than a political, mission was beyond my ken.



chrispillertkd said:


> :lol: Benedict as a religious fundamentalist. Spoken like a person who has never once read aything he has written and relies on the press for their knowledge of him. Anyone who has read anyting this man has written since before he was created Cardinal to the current day could say he is a man of faith, an impressive intellectual. What they cannot say is that he is a fundamentalist. Unless you want to empty the word "fundamentalist" of any sort of actual meaning.
> 
> But seriously, Sukerkin, you're obviously well informed on matters. I'd be very interested in hearing which books of the pope's you've read wherein you find evidence of his "fundamentalism." Oh, heck, in all hoesty, I'm interested in hearing which books of his you've read, period. I mean making a comment like that means you've obviously read at lest _something_ he's written. Right? In toto, of course, not an excerpted line or two in the local newspaper. Please direct me to the work(s) in question where you see this so I can read them.
> 
> ...



Just to clarify the meaning of the sentence I wrote that provoked your personal attack on my intelligence and education.  I said I don't want him or the institution that he heads in my country at my expense.  I consider the RCC to be a fundamentalist faith - you clearly do not.  Which is not a point of conflict between us (at least up until the day we meet on opposite sides of the war to come between secular and temporal powers).  As I said to Bill just above, perhaps we use different criteria when utilising the term.

Until then, feel free not to talk to me anymore.

I don't think you realise the tone you take with people is highly likely to get you punched in the nose out in the 3D world (by making things personal rather than a discussion, no matter how hot, about a topic of interest).  You must either be one hugely intimidating fellow or behave differently when talking to people face-to-face.

Thankfully, I can put you on ignore now if I so choose, which as a Mod I couldn't (or rather wouldn't as I thought it was my duty to monitor what was said).  I'd rather not as it disrupts the flow of discussions when bits are missing but given that I don't have to put up with things on-line that I do in the real world it is a step that is one click away (thank the non-existent mythical sky-god for small mercies).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 18, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> I wouldn't equivocate "Catholicism" with "Catholics", or even necessarily "Catholics" with "Pope Benedict" or "priests."  I understand how it can come across that way however, no one wants to feel attacked for their core beliefs.  You are not responsible for what others have done, even if they are part of your group.



Believe me when I say that my wife and I are not happy campers right now, neither about the scandals or about the way they were covered up.  We're angry, we're upset, and we're not the only ones.  My wife's uncle is a retired Catholic priest; he's not happy either.

On the other hand, Pope Benedict is my spiritual leader, like it or not. This is something I have no choice in unless I bail on my religion.  To hear him trashed by Catholics is one thing; to hear others whom I like and respect say he's not welcome in their country and call him a Nazi and a child molester...not easy to hear.



> In my experience, the ones who feel the angriest about the Church are the ones who were once a part of it.  That can be experienced as a personal betrayal.  I never grew up in the Church, despite being baptized Catholic, so I have a pretty unemotional view of the whole mess, and can see the similarities to other groups and institutions.  My father left the Church though, when they tried to prevent him from marrying my mother.  My grandfather left the Church recently, after the full weight of the scandal became clear.  All of the victims and their families who are seeking accountability, the ones running the "smear campaign", were all Catholic too - they put their trust in the Church and the trust was broken.  Those are the people I see who are angriest.



Don't blame them.

I do hold some wonder though; especially with all the friends I have in England.  I stay in touch; I hear them go on at great length, sounding quite a bit like Paisley in his heyday to hear them talk, and yet NOT ONE WORD about their own Church of England and it's similar peccadilloes.  I'm not saying theirs are worse than ours or vice-versa.  But I would not be shouting about the Archbishop of Canterbury if he came to the USA, nor calling him a variety of foul names; if for no other reason than not wanting to offend my friends.  I might think ill of him (actually I don't) but I'd keep i to myself.



> I don't know if that is feeding this thread, but it is something to keep in mind.  That, and the hypocrisy you earlier mentioned fuels it as well.



Nah, it's not just here.  A lot of my English friends on on Twitter; you'd think they had just been visited by Satan in person (some swear the Pope is Satan, so there you go).  Add to that the fact that I just relocated to Michigan from the South USA, where the Pope is generally referred to as a 'Red Shoed Whore' by good Baptists, and our church was vandalized every Christmas when we put up our Creche, and you might start to feel a bit put upon.

And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me?  I guess it's better to know than to not know, but it's still a feeling that creates gulfs rather than making them smaller. As much as I feel angry at the RCC, I begin to feel that if I remain RCC myself, I will only be able to have friends who are RCC.  If others hate my faith, I can't imagine they like me that much.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 18, 2010)

Can't Rep you for that last post, Bill (the stacks full sad to say).

Rest assured that it is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with a persons faith and still treat them with the same respect as you did before arguing about it.

I've been discoursing religion into the early hours with my father practically every time we meet for over thirty years now.  I think none the less of him as a man for truly holding in his heart a belief that, to not honey my words at all, I find patently ridiculous.  The same is true of him in his frustration that I cannot see that he *is* right :lol:.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Can't Rep you for that last post, Bill


I can, and did





> Rest assured that it is entirely possible to vehemently disagree with a persons faith and still treat them with the same respect as you did before arguing about it.


Problem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...


----------



## Omar B (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Believe me when I say that my wife and I are not happy campers right now, neither about the scandals or about the way they were covered up.  We're angry, we're upset, and we're not the only ones.  My wife's uncle is a retired Catholic priest; he's not happy either.
> 
> On the other hand, Pope Benedict is my spiritual leader, like it or not. This is something I have no choice in unless I bail on my religion.  *To hear him trashed by Catholics is one thing; to hear others whom I like and respect say he's not welcome in their country and call him a Nazi and a child molester...not easy to hear.*
> 
> ...



I can only imagine what that must be like Bud.  It's pretty terrible for me to hear and I'm not even religious, I may not feel, but I do understand your pain.  A couple of those posts did get a little out of control didn't they?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Big Don said:


> Problem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...



Just because one hates religion, does not mean one hates the religious.  It's kind of like "love the sinner, hate the sin"...


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me?



I understand.  As someone with a lot of bad things to say about religion though, I have no issues with most of its practicioners.  How could I?  Almost everyone I love and respect, including my wife, my parents, and most of my friends, are religious.  I love them all the same.  Similarly, they manage to love me even if they might think I'm going to Hell (no one has said so).  Or that I might be a Nazi. 

Again though, I understand that it doesn't make it any easier to feel under attack.  Human institutions will always fail, because they are run by humans.  Those who put their faith in an institution will have their faith broken, it is inevitable.  Better then not to construct your faith around what fallible humans will do.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 18, 2010)

Big Don said:


> I can, and didProblem is, a large portion of the atheists around aren't merely non-believers, but, haters of religion, see Bill Maher...


 

A large portion??? This is based on what evidence? A poll? A survey?

I can think of only maybe a half dozen high profile atheists who don't hold back on their criticism of religion, and as our own Bill Mattocks says, if you dont like it, dont listen. But why should religion get a bi on criticism? Because its religion? I would argue criticism has made western democracies better, has made education and science better and it makes individuals better. I hope and trust that the criticism the RC church is getting lately will make it better in the future.

I can think of a half dozen high profile atheists, but I can think of more than a dozen high profile religious extremists who spew their venom all over the airways. Why is it OK for religions to have extremists, but not atheists? Funny I cant find one quote from an atheist blaming Haitis earthquake earlier this year on the Haitians.  

Nut cases are not definded by their religious/non-religious beliefs, by their race, by their colour, by their gender, by their nationality or by their culture. They occupy space everywhere.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> Of course I have - that was the fiction used to excuse his Pope-ness nicking my quid (by which you can take it that the historical footing of the Vatican as a state is not one I care to accept (me being Emperor of the Universe and all that )).


 
So it's a fiction that Pope Bnedict is on a state visit? That must be news to the Queen. You had best inform ehr majesty that she has been fooled by those evil papists. Perhaps she could treat a few of them the way Henry VIII did back in the day. You said you approved of his dealings with the Church, after all. And we know what a great guy he was to members of the Church.  



> When I wrote "Why they agreed to this I don't know" I didn't mean I did not know about the status of the Vatican but rather that the usage of this to give an expenses-paid pass to a religious leader on a religious, rather than a political, mission was beyond my ken.


 
Like I said the pope visited the Queen as the head of the Vatican City State. It's not entirely untoward that wile on such a visit he would engage in some religous ceremonies for the faithful. If you have a problem with that take it up with your duly elected representative and point out to them where such activity runs counter to your Constitution. Oh, that's right. You don't have a Constitution.  



> Just to clarify the meaning of the sentence I wrote that provoked your personal attack on my intelligence and education.


 
Trust me, I went easy on you. Your statement equating Benedict with a religious fundamentalist was possibly the most idiotic thing I heard in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time. 

So, speaking of which, how about sharing with us all the works of Benedict that you've read that led you to make the claim that he was a religious fundamentalist? I'm still waiting to hear about even one from you. I personally haven't read his entire corpus but in works such as 

_The Spirit of the Liturgy_ 
_A New Song for the Lord_
_In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall_
_The Nature and Mission of Theology_
_Called to Communion: Understanding the Church Today_
_Principles of Catholic Theology_
_The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood_
_Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions_
_God is Near Us: The Eucharist, the Heart of Life_
_Jesus of Nazareth_
_Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life_
_Mary: The Church at the Source_
_Many Religions, One Covenant: Israel, the Church and the World_
_Theology of History in St. Bonaventure_
_Theological Highlights of Vatican II_

you will find no trace of religious fundamentalism. 

Isn't that what you found when you read his works for a first hand experience of the man's thought before denigrating him in public like this? I mean, obviously I've only read a portion of the man's corpus so I could easily be missing something. Please, by all means, share with us all the works that you have read and specify the passages wherein you found Benedict's fundamentalism jumping off the page at you. I am really rather interested in hearing what you found and where it was located. 



> I said I don't want him or the institution that he heads in my country at my expense.


 
That isn't all that you said. Which you know.  



> I consider the RCC to be a fundamentalist faith - you clearly do not.


 
I clearly do not because I have an actual familiarity with what the Church teaches. Your position that the Catholic Church is fundamentalist simply uses a devil word to paint an institution you disageree with in a bad light. It's not surprising given the widespread anti-Catholic bigotry present in the U.K. Heck, I've even seen it first hand there myself and from a friend of mine who is from England. But hey, bigotry of that sort is just part of the old English "eccentricity" I'm sure 



> Which is not a point of conflict between us (at least up until the day we meet on opposite sides of the war to come between secular and temporal powers). As I said to Bill just above, perhaps we use different criteria when utilising the term.


 
You make your original post, then get caught by me having nota thing to stand on to make it, you don't even offer one work of Ratzinger's that you've read to show you have anything other than a characiture of the man and _this_ is the best you can do? Oh, come on. Man up and tell me what you've read by Benedict that qualifies you to call him a fundamentalist. If you have the stones to _honestly_ do so.

Have you even read - or even listened to - the addresses he's made since being in the U.K. _in toto_? Are you intellectually honest enough to do that, when it comes to the Catholic Church? 



> Until then, feel free not to talk to me anymore.


 
So, I should take this as a "You got me, I've not read Benedict at all and am not actually interested in educating myself before making a judgement about the man" answer then?



> I don't think you realise the tone you take with people is highly likely to get you punched in the nose out in the 3D world (by making things personal rather than a discussion, no matter how hot, about a topic of interest). You must either be one hugely intimidating fellow or behave differently when talking to people face-to-face.


 
Funny, I was kind of thinking the same thing about you. Personally, I'm not intimidating at all. But, unlike you, I know what I'm talking about in this area. 

You walk around where I'm from making bigoted comments like you did here and eventualy people are going to start disagreeing with you. If you think that the proper response to one who demonstrates that you've been making statements that are based on ignorance and bigotry is to punch the person responsible, well that's your business. 



> Thankfully, I can put you on ignore now if I so choose, which as a Mod I couldn't (or rather wouldn't as I thought it was my duty to monitor what was said).


 
Oh, sure you could. Or, perhaps more constructively, you could refrain fom making bigoted comments in the first place. (Maybe we'll just call that "Plan B.")  



> I'd rather not as it disrupts the flow of discussions when bits are missing but given that I don't have to put up with things on-line that I do in the real world it is a step that is one click away (thank the non-existent mythical sky-god for small mercies).


 
Hey iggy me or don't, it's irrelevant to me. But if you make more bigoted comments about the pope don't expect me not to tell you exactly what I think. Your attempted slap in your comment above is laughable, too. It just shows how even now you can't shake that bigoted view of yours. But like I said previously, apparently it's OK to be a bigot about _some things. Right?

Pax,

Chris_


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 18, 2010)

Cirdan said:


> Statistics? Techincalities? "Every person is a sinner?"
> 
> I am glad people like you call me a moron and a bigot.


 
Hey, thanks for proving my point when I said: 



> *Any incidence of abuse of a child is a horrible crime and a sin. It should be punished under the law and any priest found guilty of such behavior should be removed from ministry permanently.*
> 
> But I'd appreciate a bit of parity in the presentation of sexual abuse in the media and perhaps by members of this board. *Where is the moral outrage about the astronimically high rate of sexual abuse of minors suffered at the hands of public school employees, for instance?* Hmm.


 
Your post is most appreciated. Maybe not for the reason you think it would be. But it is.

Pax,

Chris

PS
Could you please show me where I called _you_ a moron or a bigot? I don't recall dong so. It should be easy enough for you to produce the quote of mine wherein I mak that charge against you. Or by "people like [me]" you mean people _other than_ me and decided just to lump me in with them? Hmmm, that soundsa bit like referring to "those people" in certain other threads, doesn't it?


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 18, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> So, speaking of which, how about sharing with us all the works of Benedict that you've read that led you to make the claim that he was a religious fundamentalist?



From "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF   THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS", 1986:
"To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity *they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent*. As in every moral disorder, *homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God*. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."


In January 2010: 'The pope made his comments in an address to  diplomats in his yearly assessment of world events. The main theme of  the address was the *environment and the protection of creation*.
"To  carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the  environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism,"  he said.
"Creatures differ from one  another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we  know from daily experience. *One such attack comes from laws or proposals  which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological  basis of the difference between the sexes*," he said.'


Apparently, Gay marriage now threatens the environment.  Or something.


And of course, "As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the  20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and  virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man  and of society,


He's hardly the worst, but the charge isn't indefensible.
​


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 19, 2010)

Big Don said:


> What you are (intentionally?) overlooking, is the Pope, while being the head of the Roman Catholic Church is ALSO a Head of State.The Pope is _ex officio_ head of state and head of government of Vatican City, functions dependent on his primordial function as bishop of the diocese of Rome. The term Holy See refers not to the Vatican state but to the Pope's spiritual and pastoral governance, largely exercised through the Roman Curia.His official title with regard to Vatican City is *Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City. *
> Do you complain about the costs incurred when Putin or Obama or other heads of state visit?



Well, one could argue that the difference is that Putin or Obama are the leaders of countries that are global power brokers who have a significant impact on the worlds economy and politics. The pope otoh is the leader of a postage stamp sized plot of land, roughly the size of a football field, with almost zero impact on the world's economy, and only a mild impact on politics.

You don't bring out the big guns for every 2 bit leader who wants to visit. We certainly don't expect it when e.g the Belgium PM or crown prince visits the US or UK. I can't imagine that it would cost 20 million then.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do hold some wonder though; especially with all the friends I have in England.  I stay in touch; I hear them go on at great length, sounding quite a bit like Paisley in his heyday to hear them talk, and yet NOT ONE WORD about their own Church of England and it's similar peccadilloes.  I'm not saying theirs are worse than ours or vice-versa.  But I would not be shouting about the Archbishop of Canterbury if he came to the USA, nor calling him a variety of foul names; if for no other reason than not wanting to offend my friends.  I might think ill of him (actually I don't) but I'd keep i to myself..



The main difference seems to be that -according to the stories that are coming out- that the institution of the church actively tried to sweep things under the rug. You get child molesters in any church or organization where you have children: the boy scouts, the (any) church, ...
that is not what this is about. But generally, when such people are found uot, they are reported, not protected to protect the image of the organization.



Bill Mattocks said:


> Nah, it's not just here.  A lot of my English friends on on Twitter; you'd think they had just been visited by Satan in person (some swear the Pope is Satan, so there you go).  Add to that the fact that I just relocated to Michigan from the South USA, where the Pope is generally referred to as a 'Red Shoed Whore' by good Baptists, and our church was vandalized every Christmas when we put up our Creche, and you might start to feel a bit put upon.



Aye. I can see that. You're now a minority in your own country.
But the main reason for those reactions you see / hear about is that the pope IS the spiritual leader (as you already mentioned). To quote a former US president: the buck stops with him. And rather than speak up about it and reassure the people that this will no longer be tolerated, we get a speech about how it wasn't the fault of the child molesters because they couldn't help themselves. Combined with the fact that the church knowingly put children at risk by reassigning those priests to a new parish... I'd say that some of that anger is deserved.

I make no excuses for vandalism though. That is just wrong, and 2 wrongs don't make a right.



Bill Mattocks said:


> And when it comes down to it, although I try hard to separate my friends opinions of my religious leader or my religion from their opinions of me, sometimes it is a bit hard - if you think my religion is ****, what kind of respect can you have for me?  I guess it's better to know than to not know, but it's still a feeling that creates gulfs rather than making them smaller. As much as I feel angry at the RCC, I begin to feel that if I remain RCC myself, I will only be able to have friends who are RCC.  If others hate my faith, I can't imagine they like me that much.



I don't hate your faith (you probably know this from our earlier discussions on the RCC). At this moment I don't have a problem with the RCC faith, but with the internal policy makers. And given that I still belong to the RCC (admittedly, I don't follow all church doctrine so we can argue about hom much of a catholic I really am), I feel I have that right. Even if I didn't belong to the RCC, I would be capable of separating the individual people from the faith itself, just like I don't blame Islam for 9/11, christianity for the crusades or atheism for the soviet gulags.

If policy makers have the power to take a moral stand but don't do it, then I can hold them responsible without blaming whatever organization they belong to.


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> So it's a fiction that Pope Bnedict is on a state visit? That must be news to the Queen.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Trust me, I went easy on you. Your statement equating Benedict with a  religious fundamentalist was possibly the most idiotic thing I heard in a  loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.



I don't know if you are deliberately seeking to pick a fight or that your interpretation of sentences in English differs from mine.  

I know that it is easy to grab the wrong end of the stick in Internet discourse and have seen it happen with posts of mine before now (those being the only cases in which I can say for certain that what was read was not what I meant).

However, I happily do not have to fret about it as much as I do in the real world when I feel myself slipping into a spiral of despair at ever getting my point across un-skewed.

For the record, I do think, even in the cold light of morn, that it might be a good idea to moderate how you phrase things, Chris. For misinterpretation is a two-edged sword and the content of what you have attempted to say to me is being lost in my reaction to what I see as personally directed remarks.

It is for the best if we part company I feel as I can see nothing constructive or pleasant coming out of any further exchanges.

:waves goodbye:


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 19, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Your post is most appreciated. Maybe not for the reason you think it would be. But it is.


 
Likewise. But I don`t think you get it either.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would hardly expect non-Christians or for that matter, non-Catholics to see the Pope as a moral authority or to obey the rules of the RCC.  Where are you getting that?



 Bill, the RCC IIRC threatened to excommunicate any Catholic politician that voted to legalize abortion.  How was that not an attempt to force Catholic mores on the population that are not Catholics?

 Sure you can argue that they were just dealing with the Catholics, but really they fully well know those politicians represented a plurality of religions and beliefs and any laws they enact following a Catholic edict will also be applied to non-Catholics.

In fact is it still not the case that any Catholic politician voting for legal abortion faces excommunication?

http://www.trosch.org/law/catholics-abortion.html


----------



## Jenna (Sep 19, 2010)

The cost of the Pope's trip is estimated to reach £20M with the taxpayer bearing around £10-15M of that and the RCC bearing the rest out of its own coffers.  

The one day G20 junket [for it is little more than a junket] here in London last year cost £20M.

Q: Which was the better value?
A: As long as I am free to pollute the atmosphere with my car and consider the use of condoms to protect myself against STIs then I do not particularly care.

Jenna x


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2010)

Has anybody ever read Father Joseph Grizone's book "Joshua a Parable for Today"?

It's a story about what would happen between the "Church" and Christ if he were to return today. As a Catholic I found it a very thought provoking work.

If you have read it you will know why I bring it up here.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

"If you have read it you will know why I bring it up here."  No, but you could try to explain what you are getting at.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2010)

As to what the Brits think of the Pope..should I be shocked or something? Henry VII ring any bells?


----------



## Sukerkin (Sep 19, 2010)

Aye, I do agree that the shadow of history falls long on that, *Angel*.  Past events colour current attitudes quite strongly at times :nods:.


----------



## xJOHNx (Sep 19, 2010)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Google 'karate instructor arrested' and say that again.
> 
> Or for that matter, take a look at Google News archives for athletic coaches, teachers, ministers of other religions, and so on.  I once did a bit of Google arithmetic dealing with the number of news articles about Anglican ministers arrested for sex offenses versus Catholics priests and divided by the numbers of each to come with a percentage of news story per clergy; it turned out that Anglicans had more percentage-wise.  And they're not celibate.
> 
> So perhaps celibacy has less to do with this evil than the fact that such people are attracted to jobs where they are in contact with youths and given positions of trust.


Your last paragraph made the most sense to me.

I was basing my opinion on articles I read in the local papers and magazines. In which was made clear that more abuse happened at the 'catholic' institutions than any other place in this country and seeing the amounts of confessions, it almost must be.
And in the 60'ties, Catholicism was (and still is) one of the largest institutions in this country.

edit: now I'm off to read the 'antichrist' by Nietzsche. A thought provoking book, which has nothing at all to do with Satanism.
And even less with making everybody an Atheist. As Nietzsche contrary to popular belief believed in "God", as in "the kingdom of God is within you.."


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 19, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> Every time I think he can't become more of an idiot, he goes ahead and does just that. I don't know it this made the international news or not, but recently there was a big investigation into the topic of pedophilia in the Catholic church in Belgium.
> 
> As it turns out, the reality is beyond awful. There was a lot of abuse, and a lot of cover up. People here are calling out for justice; mainly for the guilty ones to be expelled from the church, and for the church to take a firm stance against this sort of thing.
> 
> ...



Obviously the pope doesnt believe in the saying Tis better to be quiet and let people think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"



Omar B said:


> I always love when the religious blame atheists for Nazis.  Point 24 of the Nazi Twenty five Points is -
> 
> "24. We demand liberty for all religious denominations            in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate            against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party,            as such, stands for *positive Christianity*, but does not bind            itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats            the Jewish-materialist spirit _within_ and _without_ us, and            is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within            only on the principle: the common interest before self-interest."
> 
> ...



Gyaku zuki! Good job debunking that post.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

That Chris person tried to, only commented on the Mein Kampf quotes and held firm to the fact that Hitler was not a christian.  But he was, I guess the other quotes from speeches after he was already chancellor or the talk with the German Cardinal were fine to ignore.  Or one could ignore the fact that Hitler identified himself as a christian, I guess you could disagree with what the man classes himself as.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

*My  feelings as a Christian* points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.  It points  me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized  these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who,  *God&#8217;s truth!*  was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.  *In boundless  love as a Christian and as a man* I read through the passage which tells us how  the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the  Temple the brood of vipers and adders.  How terrific was His fight for the world  against the Jewish poison.  To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest  emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for  this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.*  As a Christian I have no  duty to allow my self to be cheated,* but I have the duty to be a fighter for  truth and justice&#8230;  And if there is anything which could demonstrate that  we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I  have also a duty to my own people."  
 &#8211;Adolf Hitler, speech 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed.   The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20,  Oxford University Press, 1942)

The Führer commands the diplomatic and social forms better than a born  sovereign. ...*Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God*. He  recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture. ...Not as  clear is his conception of the Catholic Church as a God-established  institution." As a result of this report, the conference votes to "once  again affirm our loyal and positive attitude, demanded by the fourth  commandment, toward today's form of government and the Führer." They  assure the Führer they will provide him "all available moral resources  his world-historical struggle aimed at repelling Bolshevism.
- Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber, meeting of Bavarian bishops on his meeting with Adolf Hitler, December 13, 1936

I wish to express my church's sincere and joyous preparedness to  cooperate as best they could with the government now ruling that had set  itself that tasks of promoting the Christian education of the people,  repelling ungodliness and immorality, developing readiness to make  sacrifices for the common good and protecting the rights of the Church. 
- Cardinal Adolf Bertram, Archbishop of Breslau, letter to Adolf Hitler  following the announcement of the Concordat between Nazi Germany and  the Vatican, July 22, 1933

What the old parliament and parties did not accomplish in sixty years,  your statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's  prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with  the Papacy, the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a  feat of immeasurable blessing. ...May God preserve the Reich Chancellor  for our people. 
- Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber of Bavaria, praising Adolf Hitler for the Concordat, July 24, 1933 

The word "German" is God's Word! Whosoever understands this is released  from all theological conflicts. This is German: return home to Germany  and leave behind egoism and your feelings of abandonment. ...*Christ has  come to us through the person of Adolf Hitler*. ...Hitler has taken root  in us; through his strength, through his honesty, his faith and his  idealism we have found our way to paradise. 
- Kirchenrat Leutheusser, addressing German Christians in Saalfeld, August 30, 1933 

Adolf Hitler is the tool of God, called upon to overcome Judaism... 
- Father Senn, a Catholic priest, writing in a Catholic publication, May 15, 1934

Just putting that to rest so we can get back to discussing the Pope's visit.  On a side note, I've practiced my German more in the past 2 days than in the whole year alone so I guess it serves a purpose.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> *My feelings as a Christian* points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, *Gods truth!* was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. *In boundless love as a Christian and as a man* I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.* As a Christian I have no duty to allow my self to be cheated,* but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows . For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
> Adolf Hitler, speech 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
> 
> The Führer commands the diplomatic and social forms better than a born sovereign. ...*Without a doubt the chancellor lives in faith in God*. He recognizes Christianity as the foundation of Western culture. ...Not as clear is his conception of the Catholic Church as a God-established institution." As a result of this report, the conference votes to "once again affirm our loyal and positive attitude, demanded by the fourth commandment, toward today's form of government and the Führer." They assure the Führer they will provide him "all available moral resources his world-historical struggle aimed at repelling Bolshevism.
> ...


 

http://www.trueorigin.org/hitler01.asp


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

I'm sure a site with this as their logo is really credible. Especially when their first  sources is another creationist web site.  Maybe he did hate christianity and religion, doesn't change the fact that he identified as one as did many of his top men and was quite close with the cardinal in Germany at the time.  Not the first time people hated what they identified themselves as, gays, various ethic groups, blah blah blah.







Exposing the myth of evolution.  LOL!


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> I'm sure a site with this as their logo is really credible. Especially when their first sources is another creationist web site. Maybe he did hate christianity and religion, doesn't change the fact that he identified as one as did many of his top men and was quite close with the cardinal in Germany at the time. Not the first time people hated what they identified themselves as, gays, various ethic groups, blah blah blah.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
does it matter? It is a redliculous argument.
you can find numerous websites going either way on his religion. with supporting evidence going either way. Hitler himself made contrary statements, either way.

Truth be known he was probably a social darwinist, materialist, rooted closer to nature. Raised catholic he never let go of the notion of god completley but had been reported to have believed in reincarnation and dabled in the occult as well too so what the hell. So basically, he was a man with no true religion. Worshiping himself or his nation with the idea he was predestined. Many had gone this route of materialism and social darwinsim. It was after all copied from darwin, from some in the united states who followed it with early eugenics, and further fit perfectly into hitlers views for the future of Germany and disposing of who he did not want around. Marx had similiar views. Marx was not a christian either. Hitler actually claimed to hate socialism as well and attibuted it to aiding in the decline of germany along with the jews. But If you look at his actions he did not act like a christian, killed christians, followed various beliefs but acted on those of social darwinism. And set up a semi-socialist state even after he claimed he hated the socialists. Reason being he was really a nationalist seeking power to return germany to what he thought was the rightful heirs and overseer of the world. The semi socialist state a appeasement, no different than the speeches for the religious. He was a politician.
.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 19, 2010)

bribrius said:


> Many had gone this route of materialism and social darwinsim. It was after all copied from darwin...



Darwin had nothing to do with social darwinism.  Nor was he a materialist for most of his life, if not all.



bribrius said:


> Marx had similiar views. Marx was not a christian either.



Marx also had nothing to do with social darwinism.  



bribrius said:


> But If you look at his actions he did not act like a christian, killed christians, followed various beliefs but acted on those of social darwinism.



Real Christians don't kill other Christians?  So the medieval Catholic church wasn't Christian?  The Calvinists in their little terror state of Geneva weren't Christian?  Bah.

Many of the actual social darwinians were Christians, in Germany, the US, the UK and elsewhere.  Hard not to be, when it's the social norm.



bribrius said:


> And set up a semi-socialist state even after he claimed he hated the socialists.



No he didn't.  None of the socialist party planks were ever put into place.  No land was redistributed, no nothing.  Industrialists and other capitalists were a key source of support for the regime, and the unionists and communists were persecuted.

This just gets pathetic.  Everyone keeps trying to throw the guy back to the other side, and abuses history in the process.  Some morons even make the man a "liberal"!


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 19, 2010)

Here's Mein Kampf http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/
Type god or Jesus into the find feature and see what happens.
I'm sure his speeches are somewhere too.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

bribrius said:


> *does it matter? It is a redliculous argument.
> you can find numerous websites going either way on his religion*. with supporting evidence going either way. Hitler himself made contrary statements, either way.
> 
> Truth be known he was probably a social darwinist, materialist, rooted closer to nature. *Raised catholic he never let go of the notion of god completley* but had been reported to have believed in reincarnation and dabled in the occult as well too so what the hell. So basically, he was a man with no true religion. Worshiping himself or his nation with the idea he was predestined. Many had gone this route of materialism and social darwinsim. It was after all copied from darwin, from some in the united states who followed it with early eugenics, and further fit perfectly into hitlers views for the future of Germany and disposing of who he did not want around. Marx had similiar views. Marx was not a christian either. Hitler actually claimed to hate socialism as well and attibuted it to aiding in the decline of germany along with the jews. *But If you look at his actions he did not act like a christian*, killed christians, followed various beliefs but acted on those of social darwinism. And set up a semi-socialist state even after he claimed he hated the socialists. Reason being he was really a nationalist seeking power to return germany to what he thought was the rightful heirs and overseer of the world. The semi socialist state a appeasement, no different than the speeches for the religious. He was a politician.
> .



Yes it does matter.  It's a web site where they believe in magic, not exactly where I would go for any sort of source on anything unless I was a christian and predisposed to believing in magic.

Doesn't matter what you think christianity is, there seems to be this huge thing going on where if a person who identifies as christian and does not conduct himself in the way _you_ (the christian decider you are) expect him to then he's not.  Fact is even even within christianity there are many disparate sects claiming that they are true christians and the others are not.  Morons say it, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Lutherans.  So clearly there is no consensus within christianity itself as to what it is.  He may not have acted like a christian as you said, but those kid touching priests are christians and they committed reprehensible acts, David Coresh, Jim Jones, etc.  Fact is, if the person identifies as a christian _then he is_ because clearly even within the christian community there is no concensus.  Besides, all those glowing speeches from various Cardinals of the catholic chuck (who I;'m pretty sure are christians) say very glowing things abotu him in regards to him living in the faith of god.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Darwin had nothing to do with social darwinism. Nor was he a materialist for most of his life, if not all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html
suppose we could go back and forth at this....


http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

Marx hated jews.

Marx was a materialist.  Darwin wasn't?  since when?

Darwin wasn't early eugenics? early social darwinism?  Why do you think they call it social DARWINISM.  Have you read darwin?  It isn't so much a leap.....

Isn't it darwin who said he basically hoped the inferior of our species dont marry and reproduce? Since we don't have the heart to let people die and will screw up evolution by not doing so?

sure sounds similiar to social darwinism..........


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

Another christian web site?  It's like using verses from the bible to prove it's veracity.  Nice work bud.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yes it does matter. It's a web site where they believe in magic, not exactly where I would go for any sort of source on anything unless I was a christian and predisposed to believing in magic.
> 
> Doesn't matter what you think christianity is, there seems to be this huge thing going on where if a person who identifies as christian and does not conduct himself in the way _you_ (the christian decider you are) expect him to then he's not. Fact is even even within christianity there are many disparate sects claiming that they are true christians and the others are not. Morons say it, 7th Day Adventists, Baptists, Lutherans. So clearly there is no consensus within christianity itself as to what it is. He may not have acted like a christian as you said, but those kid touching priests are christians and they committed reprehensible acts, David Coresh, Jim Jones, etc. Fact is, if the person identifies as a christian _then he is_ because clearly even within the christian community there is no concensus. Besides, all those glowing speeches from various Cardinals of the catholic chuck (who I;'m pretty sure are christians) say very glowing things abotu him in regards to him living in the faith of god.


 
Feel free to pick another website. quick google search brought up tons of them for hitler and religion. I don't believe Hitler identified himself as a christian. This appears to be our disagreement. You are reading a speech and see that he does to others in his speech. Contrary documents show the opposite and are not in the speech. One would believe it more reasonable to believe other documents over a public speech intended to sway public opinion. You have also not included all the things hitler said AGAINST religion. So you are only showing one side rather than a correct portrayal. And in your want to believe he must be a christian because he said god in speeches, you are throwing out the evidence of eugenics and social darwinsim. Beliefs not normally had by those of religions. Any religions. Social darwinism is not a religiously held view. In fact it goes against religious views. Hitler was big on it.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Another christian web site? It's like using verses from the bible to prove it's veracity. Nice work bud.


 

Not putting much work into it. posting whatever comes up and figure if you want to disagree with it you have to do the research.....


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

bribrius said:


> *Feel free to pick another website. quick google search brought up tons of them for hitler and religion.* I don't believe Hitler identified himself as a christian. This appears to be our disagreement. You are reading a speech and see that he does to others in his speech. Contrary documents show the opposite and are not in the speech. *One would believe it more reasonable to believe other documents over a public speech intended to sway public opinion.* You have also not included all the things hitler said AGAINST religion. So you are only showing one side rather than a correct portrayal. *And in your want to believe he must be a christian* because he said god in speeches, you are throwing out the evidence of eugenics and social darwinsim. *Believes not normally had by those of religions.* Any religions. Social darwinism is not a religiously held view. In fact it goes against religious views.  Hitler was big on it.





bribrius said:


> Not putting much work into it. posting whatever  comes up and figure if you want to disagree with it you have to do the  research.....



It's not my job to prove your point for you.  For someone "not putting much work in" you seem quite eager to contribute.

As to the veracity of his being a christian or not, he said it in his book and speeches, the catholic church in Germany, it's cardinal and higher ups said it.  If you wish to ignore those or the fact that religious devotion was apart of the morning routine of the Hitler Youth organization.  Non christians don't usually want clubs in their name carrying out religious services as part of their daily routine.

No, I don't "want" to prove that Hitler is christian more than I "want" to prove that the earth is not flat, it just is.

Sure they may not be beliefs held by religions, doesn't mean individuals don't hold them.  Christians have committed crimes, rapes, molested, robbed, broken all 10 commandments, all manner of evil, look at the prison population, many of them identify as christian no matter how vicious their crime.  I didn't state that Hitler was a paragon of christian virtue, but he was a christian.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> It's not my job to prove your point for you. For someone "not putting much work in" you seem quite eager to contribute.
> 
> As to the veracity of his being a christian or not, he said it in his book and speeches, the catholic church in Germany, it's cardinal and higher ups said it. If you wish to ignore those or the fact that religious devotion was apart of the morning routine of the Hitler Youth organization. Non christians don't usually want clubs in their name carrying out religious services as part of their daily routine.
> 
> ...


was that before or after he started executing the priests?:shock:


*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Quotes Establishing Hitler's Non-Christianity[/FONT]*

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Hitler may in public have claimed to be doing the will of God, but records of his private conversations show otherwise. Many of these were recorded by his secretary and published in a book called _Hitler's Table Talk_ (Adolf Hitler, London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1953). I have lifted the text of these from the soc.religion.christian newsgroup's [/FONT] 


*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Night of 11th-12th July, 1941[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"National Socialism and religion cannot exist together....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things." (p 6 & 7)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]10th October, 1941, midday[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure." (p 43)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]14th October, 1941, midday[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity <is> the liar....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State." (p 49-52)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]19th October, 1941, night[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]21st October, 1941, midday[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"The decisive falsification of Jesus' <who he asserts many times was never a Jew> doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, ******s? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea." (p 63-65)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]13th December, 1941, midnight[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... <here insults people who believe transubstantiation>....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease." (p 118-119)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]14th December, 1941, midday[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." (p 119 & 120)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]9th April, 1942, dinner[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"There is something very unhealthy about Christianity." (p 339)[/FONT]

*[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]27th February, 1942, midday[/FONT]* 

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie."[/FONT] 
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"Our epoch in the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold <its demise>." (p 278)[/FONT]


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

"was that before or after he started executing the priests?"  What, like no other person claiming to be christian has ever executed a priest?  Just proves he killed someone.  Middle ages European history is filled with such instances.  As I've said before, there are many criminals including murderers who identify as christian.  

Nice job cutting and pasting from other web sites.  I hope you don't do your homework that way. By the way, those quotes have the earmarks of the French to English translation of the book which is quite faulty rather than the German original or German to English which gives a clearer picture of the issue at hand.   If you read the book or the other one I've mentioned earlier in the trhead you'll find that Hitler never says an ill word reguarding god or Jesus, when he does speak ill it's usually of the Roman catholic church, but that's because he wanted a specifically German version of the church.

http://www.archive.org/stream/HitlersTableTalk#page/n0/mode/2up

Christ was an Aryan, and St. Paul used       his doctrine to mobilize the criminal underworld and thus organize       a proto-Bolsevism. 
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 143]  Hitler identifying with Jesus

The decisive falsification of Jesus's       doctrine was the work of St. Paul. He gave himself to this work       with subtlety and for purposes of personal exploitation. For       the Galiean's object was to liberate His country from Jewish       oppression. He set Himself against Jewish capitalism, and that's       why the Jews liquidated Him. 
-Hitler [Table-Talk, p. 76]  Hitler defending Jesus?

Luther had the merit of rising against     the Pope and the organisation of the Church. It was the first     of the great revolutions. And thanks to his translation of the     Bible, Luther replaced our dialects by the great German language!     
-Table-Talk [p. 9]  Hitler agreeing with Luther's Germanic version of the bible

We don't want to educate anyone in atheism.     
Table-Talk [p. 6]  Not something a person who's not religious would say

An uneducated man, on the other hand,     runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to     the state of the animal)... 
Table-Talk [p. 59]  Again, sounds like a person who sees the non religious as less than human.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> "was that before or after he started executing the priests?" What, like no other person claiming to be christian has ever executed a priest? Just proves he killed someone. Middle ages European history is filled with such instances. As I've said before, there are many criminals including murderers who identify as christian.
> 
> Nice job cutting and pasting from other web sites. I hope you don't do your homework that way. By the way, those quotes have the earmarks of the French to English translation of the book which is quite faulty rather than the German original or German to English which gives a clearer picture of the issue at hand. If you read the book or the other one I've mentioned earlier in the trhead you'll find that Hitler never says an ill word reguarding god or Jesus, when he does speak ill it's usually of the Roman catholic church, but that's because he wanted a specifically German version of the church.
> 
> ...


 
nice.  But i thought christians were supposed to believe in the bible? Hitler had it rewritten the way he wanted it.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

Hitler didnt have the bible rewritten!  He was referring to Luther, you know, Martin Luther?  It's the same bible.  I'm sure you will get to him in history class.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Hitler didnt have the bible rewritten! He was referring to Luther, you know, Martin Luther? It's the same bible. I'm sure you will get to him in history class.


 

yes he did


----------



## Omar B (Sep 19, 2010)

He wanted to, he did not in fact do it.  There is a huge gulf between wish and action.

Rewriting the bible doesn't sound like something an atheist would do.  I know I don't really give a hoot one way or another what's in there.  Sounds more like a religious person's grab at power like King James.  You made an excellent point about Hitler's christianity.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 19, 2010)

"
*"Christianity is an invention of sick brains," Adolf Hitler, 13 December 1941.*

*"So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death," Adolf Hitler, 14 October 1941.*

When one looks at the atrocities committed under the Nazi regime of Adolf Hitler and compares them to the teacher of universal love, Jesus of Nazareth, one might come to the immediate conclusion that the notion that Hitler was a Christian is absurd. Nevertheless, no small number of people hold such a view. Why do they think this, and is there any truth to it?
This question has been vexing me for years. I've done a lot of research, read a number of books, written a pretty large web site to try to get at the issue (which is by no means simple and clear cut). Frankly, this is an area where objectivity is a severe challenge. The argument has become one between the Christian apologists and the anti-Christian propagandists. That's not much of a formula for truth. 
At this point (after years of debate) I believe that the question, as it is posed in the title of this page is meaningless. It is more a reflection of an individual's bias than an assertion of historical fact. I view Jesus as a gentle man who taught love of God and neighbor, who said to turn the other cheek and give of oneself sacrificially. If that belief is "Christian", then no one--not the staunchest anti-Christian -- could claim Hitler was a Christian. If on the other hand, one classifies Christianity as any view which is derived from the Christian story, no matter how faithful or how perverted--however logical or illogical (or pathological), then Hitler did consider himself an admirer of Jesus (perverted though his view was), although the religion we popularly call Christianity disgusted him.
If then the question is not a historical question but a reflection of the bias of the one who asks, what is the value of the question? In a word, the answer is "propaganda". To assert the statement (using an iconoclastic definition of "Christian") serves to denigrate Christianity through "guilt by association". To deny the statement is to defend Christianity's "good name" by refusing to let Hitler's twisted view of Jesus to be associated with Christian "main stream" views. 
So what started as an apologists answer to the question "Was Hitler a Christian?", is now an exploration of Hitler's religions thinking and the issue of Christian anti-Semitism in general. But if you want an answer to the question, then mine is: Not any kind we would call "Christian" today."


"gets worn away before the advances of science....Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know the stars are not sources of light, but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity....The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches, and that why they're heading for ruin&#8212;for science is bound to win. [_Hitler's Table Talk_, pp. 59-61]"



http://www.davnet.org/kevin/essays/hitler.html


pretty much back where we started. A rediculous argument.

He would have believed in a different version of the bible, believed in no current church, a different version (non jewish) of christ.  And i still say he was a naturalist/social darwinist/materialist with a sick fascination for practicing eugenics...


----------



## Omar B (Sep 20, 2010)

Ok, a half answer that does not take into account that he considered himself a christian ... which in most cases is the basis of identifying someone as a christian, self identification.  Like people who don't go to church and call themselves christian, they are, because they say so.  Nicely cut and pasted though.

His being a christian does not reflect upon you or your church or whoever.  I'm quite sure you are not a mass murdering psychopath so shooing Hitler away is not even necessary.  Just like some priests touching boys does not mean they all do.  I don't expect any other christian to be held responsible for his actions.  Crazy is crazy.


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 20, 2010)

bribrius said:


> Marx hated jews.



Both of Marx's parents were converted Jews.  Which has nothing to do with materialism or social darwinism.



bribrius said:


> Marx was a materialist.



So am I.  You will find that doesn't explain much.



bribrius said:


> Darwin wasn't?  since when?



Darwin was religious for a large portion of his life.  Later on, he described himself as an agnostic.



bribrius said:


> Darwin wasn't early eugenics? early social darwinism?  Why do you think they call it social DARWINISM.  Have you read darwin?  It isn't so much a leap.....


 
No he wasn't.  Did Darwin invent neo-Darwinism, even though it was invented after his death?  Others came up with the concept based on his work on biological evolution.  His name being in the title proves nothing.  Darwin himself was against ranking races of man by evolutionary pedigree.  He was against the appropriation and mistreatment of native peoples.  He thought social policy should not be guided by the concept of struggle and survival in nature.  You tell me if that sounds like a social darwinist.  Of course, it's pretty clear you are just throwing around emotionally loaded catchphrases without a true understanding of the history and how they do or do not apply.


----------



## Blade96 (Sep 20, 2010)

bribrius said:


> http://www.toolan.com/hitler/surplus.html
> suppose we could go back and forth at this....
> 
> 
> ...



You dont know much about darwin do you. He was a naturalist, whose work was with animals and nature. It was later people who applied his work to humans. While he was interested in work about diseases being inherited and such, he had preblems with applying it to humans. He said that if we did, we would not get the benefits of natural selection, but we had the danger of people losing sympathy for each other in the process and not helping the weak and the downtrodden.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> From "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS", 1986:
> 
> 
> "To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity *they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent*. As in every moral disorder, *homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God*. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."​


 
Producing this quote as an "example of Benedict's "fundamentalism" only demonstrates one thing: you equate holding homosexual acts as being inherently disordered with being a fundamentalist. Of course, this is not the case since it reduces fundamentalism to not accepting the sexual mores of liberalism.​ 



> In January 2010: 'The pope made his comments in an address to diplomats in his yearly assessment of world events. The main theme of the address was the *environment and the protection of creation*.





> "To carry our reflection further, we must remember that the problem of the environment is complex; one might compare it to a multifaceted prism," he said.
> "Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. *One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes*," he said.'​


 

So, in a discussion about whether or not Benedict is a "fundamentalist" which has touched on the anti-Catholicism present in the U.K. (and at least one of our posters from there) you provide a quote from ... Reuters. And it's not even a posting of the pope's address in toto it's a quote from the _tenth_ paragraph of a 12 paragraph address on a variety of subjects. And yet Reuters leads with it in heir article. Well, I'm surprised. Or something. They also fail to point out that at this point in the address, Benedict had moved from addressing the issue of the environment and creation in general to how specific creatures can be effected in various way through a variety of means. His comments on legalizing gay "marriage" was an example of this in the case of man. 

That's hardly fundamentalism but rather a conclusion drawn from the belief that homosexual acts are inherntly disordered.​ 
Since you're obviously interested in what the pope has to say on this subject you can read his _entire_ address at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/b...ben-xvi_spe_20100111_diplomatic-corps_en.html​ 



> Apparently, Gay marriage now threatens the environment. Or something.


 
Well, it's definitely on the "or something" end of the spectrum, which you would know if you bothered to read the Pope's addres itself instead of relying on an excerpt of the speech in a media outlet from a country that had outlawed Catholicism for quite some time and that still finds anti-Catholic sentiment acceptable.​ 


> And of course, "&#8220;As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the 20th century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society,&#8221;


 
Again, not an example of fundamentalism. You can argue about whether Naziism is properly called "atheistic" but you can't argue that this is an example of fundamentalism (not least of which because you haven't actually argued anything but merely produced a few partial quotes from Benedict and then stated your conclusion by fiat).​ 



> He's hardly the worst, but the charge isn't indefensible.


 
Well, he's "hardly the worst" because he simply doesn't qualify. And you didn't even produce any argumentation for your position so the "indefensible" part certainly fails.​ 
Pax,​ 
Chris​


----------



## Empty Hands (Sep 20, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Producing this quote as an "example of Benedict's "fundamentalism" only demonstrates one thing: you equate holding homosexual acts as being inherently disordered with being a fundamentalist.



Yep.



chrispillertkd said:


> Of course, this is not the case since it reduces fundamentalism to not accepting the sexual mores of liberalism.



Not "liberalism", but simple reason and evidence.  On the reason side, there is no evidence or argument to believe that homosexuality is immoral without recourse to a religious argument.  On the evidence side, it is clear that homosexuality has biological roots, and cannot in any sense be considered a moral disorder.  Even a certain percentage of animals display same sex orientated bonding and sexual behavior, and you can hardly claim that animals are morally disordered.

When you must accept the mandates of your religion against all other evidence, that is fundamentalism.
​


chrispillertkd said:


> So, in a discussion about whether or not Benedict is a "fundamentalist" which has touched on the anti-Catholicism present in the U.K. (and at least one of our posters from there) you provide a quote from ... Reuters.



Is the quote inaccurate?  Attacking the motivation of the source is a logical fallacy.  Typical apologist behavior.



chrispillertkd said:


> They also fail to point out that at this point in the address, Benedict had moved from addressing the issue of the environment and creation in general to how specific creatures can be effected in various way through a variety of means. His comments on legalizing gay "marriage" was an example of this in the case of man.



The plain claim of the quoted text is that man is "endangered" from the "attack" of anti-discrimination laws which "strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes."  The only potential basis for the claim that man is under attack from such laws is an unsupportable religious claim, hence fundamentalism.  You would do well to address that instead of obfuscating the point with red herring arguments.



chrispillertkd said:


> That's hardly fundamentalism but rather a conclusion drawn from the belief that homosexual acts are inherntly disordered.


 
I'm curious how you define "fundamentalism" if this doesn't count.  Holding someone as inherently morally disordered based on a biological sexual orientation over which they have no control solely based on an argument from religious scripture is the _sine qua non _of fundamentalism.



chrispillertkd said:


> Again, not an example of fundamentalism. You can argue about whether Naziism is properly called "atheistic" but you can't argue that this is an example of fundamentalism.


 
Nazism was the example, not the point.  Benedict's argument was that the loss of religion in society leads to "a truncated vision of man and society."  The argument extends far beyond Nazism, but of course you are pretending the argument is only about Nazis.  The belief that man and society can only be good or complete with religion is also a mark of fundamentalism.




chrispillertkd said:


> And you didn't even produce any argumentation for your position so the "indefensible" part certainly fails.



Arrant nonsense.  I put forward 3 pieces of evidence. You may disagree or claim they mean something else, but it's patently false to claim that I didn't put forward anything at all.

For someone who comes across with such a sneering, smug sense of contempt and superiority, you have a remarkable inability to back it up by addressing the actual argument put forward.  Such a remarkable human being as yourself shouldn't have any problems disposing with my arguments logically.  If you ever bothered to engage them.​


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2010)

Sukerkin said:


> I don't know if you are deliberately seeking to pick a fight or that your interpretation of sentences in English differs from mine.


 
Pray tell, what do you expect people to think when you call a visit of the head of one state to the head of your own country? Here in the real world, that's known as a sate visit. But you refered to it as a "fiction."

But the real crux of the matter, as you well know, was your statement: "Why they agreed to this I don't know and *I certainly don't want this man or what he represents in my country*; we have enough *religious fundamentalists as it is* without adding or encouraging more."

What "that man" represents is 1) a sovereign nation, and 2) the religion of over 1,000,000,000 people. Your statement makes it clearthat you're a bigot when it comes to Catholicism. It also shows you don't have any actual idea what relgious fundamentalism entails.  



> I know that it is easy to grab the wrong end of the stick in Internet discourse and have seen it happen with posts of mine before now (those being the only cases in which I can say for certain that what was read was not what I meant).


 
No, I understood what you meant. Which was why I specifically askeoto provide information on what books of Benedict's you have read and where you found evidence of his so-called "fundamentalism" in them. You refused to do so every time I made my requst. People who have so much as cracked a book written by the person they're insulting usually don't go to such lengths to ignore a simple request. Unless they actualy have no idea what they're talking about and were caught in a lie, that is. 

I produced a list of books by Benedict which I have read that were published over the course of his life (excluding official Church documents he either authored or oversaw when head of the CDF and his papal writings as including these would have made the list even longer). It had over a dozen works on it and it wasn't even the total of his corpus. Despite requests you produced ... well, nothing. 



> However, I happily do not have to fret about it as much as I do in the real world when I feel myself slipping into a spiral of despair at ever getting my point across un-skewed.


 
Yes, it is always the other guy. Or, alternately, when that other guy calls you out for 1) your bigotry, or 2) your glaringly obvious lie you have to deal with "a spiral of despair." It's a good thing you never exaggerate!



> For the record, I do think, even in the cold light of morn, that it might be a good idea to moderate how you phrase things, Chris.


 
How I phrase things? Why, was I going on about not wanting what someone represents in my country? Or was I talking about having enough of a certian kind of people in my country? Or was I caught labelling someone with a derogatory term based not on what I ad read of his scholarly works but on my own bigotry? Or did I say I liked how a certain tyrannical king dealt with a certain group of people when they refused to go against their consciences and say he was the head of the Church?

Yes, if I had sid _any_ of those things I'd definitely think moderation in my posts was called for. 

But I wasn't the one who posted any of that.



> For misinterpretation is a two-edged sword and the content of what you have attempted to say to me is being lost in my reaction to what I see as personally directed remarks.


 
You have a question about what I mean, feel free to ask. I'll tell you. Like when I said "Man up and tell me what you've read by Benedict that qualifies you to call him a fundamentalist. If you have the stones to _honestly_ do so." By that I meant I think you haven't read one thing Benedict has read on your own and rely on the media for your biased idea of what he says. Additionally, I mean that I don't think you're man enough to admit that.

I think that's pretty clear but if you need further help let me know. 



> It is for the best if we part company I feel as I can see nothing constructive or pleasant coming out of any further exchanges.
> 
> :waves goodbye:


 
Well, I don't know about that. I think our interaction on this thread has been constructive in at least one way; it's demonstarted that you don't know what you're talking about and are simply bigottedwhen it comes to the Church.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2010)

Omar B said:


> That Chris person tried to, only commented on the Mein Kampf quotes and held firm to the fact that Hitler was not a christian. But he was, I guess the other quotes from speeches after he was already chancellor or the talk with the German Cardinal were fine to ignore. Or one could ignore the fact that Hitler identified himself as a christian, I guess you could disagree with what the man classes himself as.


 
Actually, what "that Chris person" did was show that at a time later than his writing of Mein Kampf Hitler repudiated Christianity. I thought that was pretty obvious. I mean, if you write something about religion at one point and then ten years or so later you make repeated remarks at odds with your previous comments it generally means your initial position has changed. 

I also would've figured that when I pointed out Hitler's reaction to Mit Brennender Sorge it illustrated what he thought of Christianity in general and the Church in particular.

If Hitler identified himself as a Christian throughout his life then why was he so adamant that Christianity was antithetical to National Socialism? You know, Naziism. I'm pretty sure Hitler considered himself a Nazi and never repudiated _that_ position.

Now those are some questions maybe "that Omar person" could answer.

Pax,

Chris


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 20, 2010)

I think someone should have called Goodwin on this thread about 3 pages back is what I think.


----------



## chrispillertkd (Sep 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Yep.​




And so everyone who sees homosexual acts as disordered is a religious fundamentalists. Sorry, it fails on its face.​ 


> Not "liberalism", but simple reason and evidence. On the reason side, there is no evidence or argument to believe that homosexuality is immoral without recourse to a religious argument. On the evidence side, it is clear that homosexuality has biological roots, and cannot in any sense be considered a moral disorder. Even a certain percentage of animals display same sex orientated bonding and sexual behavior, and you can hardly claim that animals are morally disordered.


 
Actually, you can obviously make the argument that homosexual acts are disordered without reference to religion. Freud did so. 

But, regardless of that, even if you rely on a religious argument, so what? Religious arguments themselves are not therefore irrational. 

As for having a biological basis and so therefore not immoral, there are biological factors related to alcoholism but drinking to excess is still immoral.​ 


> When you must accept the mandates of your religion against all other evidence, that is fundamentalism.


 
Boy, do I know a lot of atheist fundamentalists, then :lol:

Simply put, Catholics at least have no such mandate.​ 


> Is the quote inaccurate? Attacking the motivation of the source is a logical fallacy. Typical apologist behavior.


 
Did you bother to read the address itself? I provided you the link for it. It's pretty obvious the way it was presented in Reuters wasn't how the pope intended it to be taken. This is especially true giev your comment about gay "marriage" being bad for the environment 

FWIW, apologetics is simply giving an explanation for a certain position. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. Anyone who explains their position to someone who attacks it is an apologist. 



> The plain claim of the quoted text is that man is "endangered" from the "attack" of anti-discrimination laws which "strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes." The only potential basis for the claim that man is under attack from such laws is an unsupportable religious claim, hence fundamentalism. You would do well to address that instead of obfuscating the point with red herring arguments.


 
OK, so you haven't read the pope's address. Got it. No big deal. Unless you wat to have an actual discussion about it. 

Your definition of religious fundamentalism is still overly general; you're really coming rather close to an Enlightenment conception of knowledge.  



> I'm curious how you define "fundamentalism" if this doesn't count. Holding someone as inherently morally disordered based on a biological sexual orientation over which they have no control solely based on an argument from religious scripture is the _sine qua non _of fundamentalism.


 
No, that certainly is not the _sine qua non_ of fundamentalism. Except for you, apparently. So, anyone can believe anything but if they also believe homosexual acts are immoral they're fundamentalists. It's laughable.

Fundamentalism is properlly applied to a Protestant Christian movement that had its roots in the early 20th century that holds not only to the "fundamentals of the faith" (such as the divinity of Christ) but also, and more to the point, a method of interpreting the Bible marked by a disregard for the type of literature to which a particular book belongs. It is this aspect of having a particular style of exegesis that marks fudamentalism for what it is. If you have read anything by Benedict dealing with exegesis you would see how untenable the claim that he is a fundamentalist is. 



> Nazism was the example, not the point.


 
But it failed to even be an example.  



> Benedict's argument was that the loss of religion in society leads to "a truncated vision of man and society." The argument extends far beyond Nazism, but of course you are pretending the argument is only about Nazis.


 
No, I'm not "pretending" that at all. 

The pope mentioned Naziism as an example of what he was talking about. It was within the context of him praising the citizens of the UK for the examples of them fighting for human dignity throughout their history. Along with a list of other examples, he mentioned Britians stand against Naziism. Then he says not to forget the lessons of atheist extremism. Considering the body count of the 20th century at the hands of such people I think it's a good thing to recall as a warning of what can happen when you exclude "God, religion, and virtue from public life." 



> The belief that man and society can only be good or complete with religion is also a mark of fundamentalism.


 
Maybe. But it's certainly not a mark of Catholicism and the last time I checked the pope was Catholic.  
​ 



> Arrant nonsense. I put forward 3 pieces of evidence. You may disagree or claim they mean something else, but it's patently false to claim that I didn't put forward anything at all.


 
No, you put forth three quotes. You didn't make any argumentation whatsoever. You equate fundamentalism with not embracing homosexual acts. That's false on its face. Coupled with a lack of argumenttion of how what Benedict said qualifies as fundamentalism some other way means your position is simply untenable. 



> For someone who comes across with such a sneering, smug sense of contempt and superiority, you have a remarkable inability to back it up by addressing the actual argument put forward. Such a remarkable human being as yourself shouldn't have any problems disposing with my arguments logically. If you ever bothered to engage them.


 
Dude, you haven't made any arguments. You've basically said fundamentalism is any position that doesn't think homosexual acts are OK. The pope doesn't think homosexual acts are OK. Ergo he's a fudamentalist. But acceptance of homosexual acts isn't the mark of not being a fundamentalist any more than rejection of the moral parity between homosexual acts and sexual congress between a man and a woman is the mark of being a fundamentalist. In other words, the premise for your argument is faulty. It's a nice bit of petitio principii, really. 

As for coming off as being smug, you might also want to take a gander in your own mirror when denouncing me for that 

Pax,

Chris​


----------



## Omar B (Sep 20, 2010)

chrispillertkd said:


> Actually, what "that Chris person" did was show that at a time later than his writing of Mein Kampf Hitler repudiated Christianity. I thought that was pretty obvious. I mean, if you write something about religion at one point and then ten years or so later you make repeated remarks at odds with your previous comments it generally means your initial position has changed.
> I also would've figured that when I pointed out Hitler's reaction to Mit Brennender Sorge it illustrated what he thought of Christianity in general and the Church in particular.
> *If Hitler identified himself as a Christian throughout his life then why was he so adamant that Christianity was antithetical to National Socialism? You know, Naziism. I'm pretty sure Hitler considered himself a Nazi and never repudiated that position*.
> Now those are some questions maybe "that Omar person" could answer.



Am I expected to answer to a crazy person referring to himself as a christian?  It's not as if he's the first christian who's committed mass murder, or spoken out against the church and other christians, nor is it somehow a statement about how all christians act.  He refereed to himself as a christian, that's usually enough for any other person to be deemed a christian.  The Cardinal in Germany always had glowing things to say about him.  Sure you can willfully ignore the fact that he is, but it would be the same as my asserting that say, you are not a christian based upon the fact that I've never seen you in a church.

I don't see christianity as antithetical to socialism.  Christianity seems centered on sharing, the meek inheriting the earth, socialism seems quite in line with that taking from the rich, redistributing and such.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 20, 2010)

In keeping with the whole Pope angle, I saw this and thought it was funny.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 20, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Ok, a half answer that does not take into account that he considered himself a christian ... which in most cases is the basis of identifying someone as a christian, self identification. Like people who don't go to church and call themselves christian, they are, because they say so. Nicely cut and pasted though.
> 
> His being a christian does not reflect upon you or your church or whoever. I'm quite sure you are not a mass murdering psychopath so shooing Hitler away is not even necessary. Just like some priests touching boys does not mean they all do. I don't expect any other christian to be held responsible for his actions. Crazy is crazy.


 
so if i say i am a satanist but my version of satan is mary poppins you would still consider me one because of my self identification?
i have no concern of it reflecting on me or anyone else. I just disagree with you. Given your sig line i expected a much different argument than the normal atheist stance.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 20, 2010)

Empty Hands said:


> Both of Marx's parents were converted Jews. Which has nothing to do with materialism or social darwinism.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 where is the link?


----------



## Omar B (Sep 20, 2010)

bribrius said:


> so if i say i am a satanist but my version of  satan is mary poppins you would still consider me one because of my self  identification?
> i have no concern of it reflecting on me or anyone else. I just disagree  with you. Given your sig line i expected a much different argument than  the normal atheist stance.



Don't expect anything from me based upon what you think is the "normal atheist."  Atheists are not a club, a church or anything of the sort, we are all individuals who happen to agree on one topic.  Just like you are an atheist where it comes to an issue like Thor, Odin, Zeus, a person who does not believe in Thor is not expected to act in a certain way now are they.

If you say you are a Satanist, then fine, you are a Satanist.  I know quite a few Satanists and they tend to be great people.

Fact is his self identification along with cardinals and many heads of churches much higher and most likley more holy than the regular christian say he was, he knew himself and these men certainly knew him so I'm more apt the believe him than someone who says "that's not how christians act."  Because we all know, belief systems don't dictate how people act in most cases (ask in jail houses, the unwed mothers, etc who consider themselves christian).  Not that anyone really needs a second or third opinion on what they are after they have said it.

How about Doug Pinnik singer/bass player from the band King's X.  He's identifies as a homosexual, but he practices a celibate lifestyle.  By your argument he's not gay because he doesn't have sex with men.  Same way, Hitler identifies as a christian, many identify him as a christian, but he didn't conduct himself as you think a christian should act, but not all christians carry on their lives to the letter of the bible now do they?


----------



## Cirdan (Sep 22, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Just like you are an atheist where it comes to an issue like Thor, Odin, Zeus, a person who does not believe in Thor is not expected to act in a certain way now are they.


 
Why wouldn`t anyone want to believe in Thor? He makes it rain so we get a good harvest, puts up nice rainbows, kills giants _and_ likes to party!

Thor and Baldur:















Odin does the cristian god a favor:





more here:
http://www.odinandfriends.com/webcomic-start


----------



## Omar B (Sep 22, 2010)

I'm all for it!


----------



## bribrius (Sep 22, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Don't expect anything from me based upon what you think is the "normal atheist." Atheists are not a club, a church or anything of the sort, we are all individuals who happen to agree on one topic. Just like you are an atheist where it comes to an issue like Thor, Odin, Zeus, a person who does not believe in Thor is not expected to act in a certain way now are they.
> 
> If you say you are a Satanist, then fine, you are a Satanist. I know quite a few Satanists and they tend to be great people.
> 
> ...


 homo doug would have to start to kill other homosexuals and then denounce homosexuality. Then it would be a fair comparison. And doug couldn't be just gay.  Because hitler didnt believe the normal jesus scenario but had his own version. Homo doug would have to be transvestite gay or something.  Or maybe gay but with farm animals.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 22, 2010)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Braun



we almost forgot about eva.....


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 22, 2010)

This whole debate about when Hitler was a Christian,  if he was a Christian etc. seem to ignore the whole point that he learned to be anti-semitic by growing up in an anti-semitic society where it was condoned by various Christian denominations.

  The founder of the Lutheran church and ex Catholic had this to say.



> In 1543 Luther published On the Jews and Their Lies in which he says that the Jews are a "base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[13] They are full of the "devil's feces ... which they wallow in like swine."[14]



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_and_antisemitism

  is it any wonder with attitudes like that in Christianity that Hitler and his ilk ended up persecuting jews, no matter what they may have said about Christianity in the latter part of their lives?


----------



## Omar B (Sep 22, 2010)

bribrius said:


> homo doug would have to start to kill other homosexuals and then denounce homosexuality. Then it would be a fair comparison. And doug couldn't be just gay.  Because hitler didnt believe the normal jesus scenario but had his own version. Homo doug would have to be transvestite gay or something.  Or maybe gay but with farm animals.



Homo Doug?  Are you normally this rude and offensive?  I think you missed the point of the self identification annalogy and went straight for mass murder.  Lol.

If you continually wish to blank out Hitler's self identification or the acknowledgement of the church and it's fathers in Germany theb fine.  Blanking out the facts of reality is always an option I see.


----------



## Ramirez (Sep 22, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Homo Doug?  Are you normally this rude and offensive?



 QFT...couldn't just say Pinnik could he?  Must be a Christian thing.


----------



## Omar B (Sep 22, 2010)

Ramirez said:


> QFT...couldn't just say Pinnik could he?  Must be a Christian thing.



Yeah dude.  Fact is though Doug is gay he is a very devout christian, Kings X is a christian metal band.  He is celebate because when he came to the realization he decided rather than sin he would just be celebate.


----------



## bribrius (Sep 22, 2010)

Omar B said:


> Yeah dude. Fact is though Doug is gay he is a very devout christian, Kings X is a christian metal band. He is celebate because when he came to the realization he decided rather than sin he would just be celebate.


 

i was just using a abbreviation. One from the text of your post.  Homo is a abbreviated homosexual.  I actually dont know or really care to know who he is.....


----------



## Omar B (Sep 22, 2010)

Calling someone a "homo" is not an abbreviation, it's an insult and you know it.  Do not try to clothe your insult as something other than what it is.  If you don't get that I suppose it's something you have to work on.


----------



## elder999 (Sep 24, 2010)

Oh, for Godwin's sake! :lfao:

Hitler was way more complicated than simply "Christian." It was his secretary Martin Bormann who said that Chrisitianity and Nazism were incompatible, though.Hitler didn't squawk about it, though. Additionally, he made _Nazism_ the official state religion, and replaced school Bibles with _Mein Kampf._

Without going into uneccessary details, Hitler and his pals had a definite neo-pagan tilt to them, and stated repeatedly that they wanted to do away with Christianity. Paradoxically, though, in *1941*, Hitler told General Gerhart Engel: "_I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so_."


----------



## elder999 (Sep 25, 2010)

Bruno@MT said:


> As it turns out, the reality is beyond awful. There was a lot of abuse, and a lot of cover up. People here are calling out for justice; *mainly for the guilty ones to be expelled from the church, and for the church to take a firm stance against this sort of thing*.


 
Before I get into the rest of this, I have to say that I agree with what people are mainly calling for-seems simple enough, but...




Bruno@MT said:


> Instead, we've seen the following reactions from the pope, over the last couple of weeks
> 1) We don't need structural reformation or punishment. We need to focus on introspection and genuine repentance.


 
On the one hand this is a genuinely _Christian_ sentiment-one that simply doesn't address the problem. More on that later, though. Fact is, that as the _Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Christ,Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province,Servant of the Servants of God, and_ _*Sovereign of State of Vatican City*_, (not to mention CEO of Catholic Church, Inc. :lol: ) this is the party line-tragically, the Church's response on the whole to this problem is wholly inadequate *because* it's the church.

Until some time in the 90's, The Congregation of the Servants of the Paraclete was just down the road from my old house in the Jemez. Interestingly, it was founded by Father Gerald Fitzgerald-to minister to priests who had problems with alchoholism, drugs or celibacy. OVer the years, against his objections, they also came to try to treat priests who sexually abused children. Oddlt enough though, there's a record of Father Fitzgerald writing letters to various diocese and the Vatican stating his position that priests couldn't be cured of this problem, shouldn't be permitted near children, and, in the worst cases, should be immediately defrocked. 

So, the Catholic church has had access to this information, and informed opinion on it for many years. It's worth noting, though, that for a great many of those years, the position of psychiatric professionals was that these men could be treated, cured and returned to the situations where they practiced abuse. 




Bruno@MT said:


> 3) Pedophilia is a disease that overrides free will, so the clergymen are not to blame for what they do.


 
It's not for me to say that they're not to blame-more like they just can't help it, _and, *once identified*, should not be permitted near children._ I don't get why it is that no one in the church's heirarchy doesn't get this, even now, when it's costing them so much.


----------

