A Civil Religious Discussion


Off-Topic Discussions

10,251 to 10,300 of 13,109 << first < prev | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | next > last >>

I could not find them. Not that it matters much, I do not feel it would change it much. There was a story in Time that had slight differences to what is on the "official" wiki page.

Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it. In such he fits in with a large portion of the current populous of the US.

EDIT: no I am not attempting a Godwin here.

Dark Archive

The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

I could not find them. Not that it matters much, I do not feel it would change it much. There was a story in Time that had slight differences to what is on the "official" wiki page.

Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it. In such he fits in with a large portion of the current populous of the US.

EDIT: no I am not attempting a Godwin here.

Ok who cares what Hitler was. He was a madman who murdered millions and attempted genocide. His motivations were likely from his own deranged head and not because of religion or lack of religion, he was hateful angry person. Thats all we need to know and learn to never let his kind in power again if we can help it. As for the pope I believe he was in Nazi controlled Poland, so he likely didn't have much choice whether he joined Hitler Youth or not. Likely if he showed any real opposition he would have been carted off to a concentration camp or executed right away. Same reason the Catholic church said no major opposition to the Nazi Regime at the time. If they had Vatican city would be rubble.


Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

I could not find them. Not that it matters much, I do not feel it would change it much. There was a story in Time that had slight differences to what is on the "official" wiki page.

Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it. In such he fits in with a large portion of the current populous of the US.

EDIT: no I am not attempting a Godwin here.

Ok who cares what Hitler was. He was a madman who murdered millions and attempted genocide. His motivations were likely from his own deranged head and not because of religion or lack of religion, he was hateful angry person. Thats all we need to know and learn to never let his kind in power again if we can help it. As for the pope I believe he was in Nazi controlled Poland, so he likely didn't have much choice whether he joined Hitler Youth or not. Likely if he showed any real opposition he would have been carted off to a concentration camp or executed right away. Same reason the Catholic church said no major opposition to the Nazi Regime at the time. If they had Vatican city would be rubble.

true and yet still someone had to go there earlier.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

I could not find them. Not that it matters much, I do not feel it would change it much. There was a story in Time that had slight differences to what is on the "official" wiki page.

Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it. In such he fits in with a large portion of the current populous of the US.

EDIT: no I am not attempting a Godwin here.

Ok who cares what Hitler was. He was a madman who murdered millions and attempted genocide. His motivations were likely from his own deranged head and not because of religion or lack of religion, he was hateful angry person. Thats all we need to know and learn to never let his kind in power again if we can help it. As for the pope I believe he was in Nazi controlled Poland, so he likely didn't have much choice whether he joined Hitler Youth or not. Likely if he showed any real opposition he would have been carted off to a concentration camp or executed right away. Same reason the Catholic church said no major opposition to the Nazi Regime at the time. If they had Vatican city would be rubble.
true and yet still someone had to go there earlier.

[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God asnd linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:
Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:

I could not find them. Not that it matters much, I do not feel it would change it much. There was a story in Time that had slight differences to what is on the "official" wiki page.

Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it. In such he fits in with a large portion of the current populous of the US.

EDIT: no I am not attempting a Godwin here.

Ok who cares what Hitler was. He was a madman who murdered millions and attempted genocide. His motivations were likely from his own deranged head and not because of religion or lack of religion, he was hateful angry person. Thats all we need to know and learn to never let his kind in power again if we can help it. As for the pope I believe he was in Nazi controlled Poland, so he likely didn't have much choice whether he joined Hitler Youth or not. Likely if he showed any real opposition he would have been carted off to a concentration camp or executed right away. Same reason the Catholic church said no major opposition to the Nazi Regime at the time. If they had Vatican city would be rubble.
All this is true. I think Samnell's point is that this means membership of the Nazi party is less serious than being a woman priest, supporting abortion rights or any other excommunicable offence. I believe he is arguing that the priorities of the Church may be just a tad odd because of this.

Don't get me wrong I have problems with the current pope. When you go to South Africa, a country with epidemic levels of HIV infections and then tell a very superstitious people that condoms aren't the answer well I think your an awful person. Know your demographic these people are so superstitious they think having intercourse with a virgin will get rid of HIV, they had a public health minister tell them showering after intercourse will get rid of STD's. Don't go down there and tell them that condoms aren't the answer, you'll just be responsible for more infections.


Paul Watson wrote:
[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God and linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.

Ninja'd. CJ, the Pope used spurious logic to falsely accuse me of being a Nazi -- I'm not going to ignore the fact that he actually was one, willing or otherwise. And what happened to "thous shalt not bear false witness"? Is that only for Protestants? Does the Pope have special dispensation from God to ignore the Commandments?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God and linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.
Ninja'd. CJ, the Pope used spurious logic to falsely accuse me of being a Nazi -- I'm not going to ignore the fact that he actually was one, willing or otherwise. And what happened to "thous shalt not bear false witness"? Is that only for Protestants? Does the Pope have special dispensation from God to ignore the Commandments?

Spoilered for potential offence

Spoiler:
The Pope is God's representative on Earth. Given God isn't bound by the commandments, I don't see why the Pope should be.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Yeah, that is pretty offensive.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God and linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.
Ninja'd. CJ, the Pope used spurious logic to falsely accuse me of being a Nazi -- I'm not going to ignore the fact that he actually was one, willing or otherwise. And what happened to "thous shalt not bear false witness"? Is that only for Protestants? Does the Pope have special dispensation from God to ignore the Commandments?

Once again I have as of yet to read the statement so I shall politely not comment until I read it. It would, unfortunately, not be the first time he has inserted his foot in his mouth.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God and linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.
Ninja'd. CJ, the Pope used spurious logic to falsely accuse me of being a Nazi -- I'm not going to ignore the fact that he actually was one, willing or otherwise. And what happened to "thous shalt not bear false witness"? Is that only for Protestants? Does the Pope have special dispensation from God to ignore the Commandments?
Once again I have as of yet to read the statement so I shall politely not comment until I read it. It would, unfortunately, not be the first time he has inserted his foot in his mouth.

Comment if and when you feel like it. I'm not holding you accountable for the words of the Pontiff. If there's something as someone outside the faith I've missd, then I'd like to know. But commenting on every silly or controversial thing a religious leader says would be a full time job.


Paul Watson wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Paul Watson wrote:
[6-year old]The Pope started it![/6 year old] He did say Hitler was part of an attempt to destroy God and linked this to the 'militant, aggressive secularism' he was complaining about.
Ninja'd. CJ, the Pope used spurious logic to falsely accuse me of being a Nazi -- I'm not going to ignore the fact that he actually was one, willing or otherwise. And what happened to "thous shalt not bear false witness"? Is that only for Protestants? Does the Pope have special dispensation from God to ignore the Commandments?
Once again I have as of yet to read the statement so I shall politely not comment until I read it. It would, unfortunately, not be the first time he has inserted his foot in his mouth.
Comment if and when you feel like it. I'm not holding you accountable for the words of the Pontiff. If there's something as someone outside the faith I've missd, then I'd like to know. But commenting on every silly or controversial thing a religious leader says would be a full time job.

Yes, yes it would be.


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:


Oh and as to a post earlier about Hitler being Catholic. His parents were Catholic and it is documented he was raised as such and even confirmed in church. There is also information stating he never set foot in a church again in his life and since he sent several priests to gas chambers I think lapsed Catholic is the closest you get to it.

That still makes him a Catholic by the standards of the church. They count everybody baptized Catholic unless excommunicated. (That includes me, by the way.) That this leaves Ratzinger in an unfortunate position is hardly only his own fault. Any time he wants to start counting only the every Sunday crowd, he can.

It's a policy change I would happily support, in fact. Every religion around lies blatantly about its numbers.


Sigh ~

Liberty's Edge

The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Once again I have as of yet to read the statement so I shall politely not comment until I read it. It would, unfortunately, not be the first time he has inserted his foot in his mouth.

Here's the statement:

Pope Benedict wrote:

“Even in our own lifetimes 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.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of 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 and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Once again I have as of yet to read the statement so I shall politely not comment until I read it. It would, unfortunately, not be the first time he has inserted his foot in his mouth.

Here's the statement:

Pope Benedict wrote:

“Even in our own lifetimes 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.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of 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 and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

I can see the fuss, not sure I agree with the complaints though.


Pope Benedict wrote:
“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of 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 and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

Would it be so much to ask for a Pope to get up and say that you don't need religion to be good and lacking it doesn't make you bad? Just imagine people living happy, fulfilling, moral lives with or without it.

But I suppose that would be like asking Microsoft to promote Linux.

Liberty's Edge

Samnell wrote:

Would it be so much to ask for a Pope to get up and say that you don't need religion to be good and lacking it doesn't make you bad? Just imagine people living happy, fulfilling, moral lives with or without it.

But I suppose that would be like asking Microsoft to promote Linux.

More like asking Microsoft to admit that people without computers aren't evil degenerates that lead society into genocide.

CJ - which complaints are you having trouble understanding? I'd be happy to explain why we're upset about being blamed for the Holocaust.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Samnell wrote:

Would it be so much to ask for a Pope to get up and say that you don't need religion to be good and lacking it doesn't make you bad? Just imagine people living happy, fulfilling, moral lives with or without it.

But I suppose that would be like asking Microsoft to promote Linux.

More like asking Microsoft to admit that people without computers aren't evil degenerates that lead society into genocide.

CJ - which complaints are you having trouble understanding? I'd be happy to explain why we're upset about being blamed for the Holocaust.

I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Samnell wrote:

Would it be so much to ask for a Pope to get up and say that you don't need religion to be good and lacking it doesn't make you bad? Just imagine people living happy, fulfilling, moral lives with or without it.

But I suppose that would be like asking Microsoft to promote Linux.

More like asking Microsoft to admit that people without computers aren't evil degenerates that lead society into genocide.

CJ - which complaints are you having trouble understanding? I'd be happy to explain why we're upset about being blamed for the Holocaust.

I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.

Can I point out, purely for the Pope's benefit who is obviously reading this, that if the UK wasn't secular, his flock in the UK would have been tried for heresy against the official, established religion of the UK, the Anglican Church? Perhaps secularism is a good thing?


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.

And by the same token, if I claimed that Catholocism inexorably leads to raping children -- and that all Catholics are personally to blame for the abuse -- you'd be rightfully angry, right? As opposed to just being "overly sensitive."

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.
And by the same token, if I claimed that Catholocism inexorably leads to raping children -- and that all Catholics are personally to blame for the abuse -- you'd be rightfully angry, right? As opposed to just being "overly sensitive."

Also, Ratzi references "atheist extremism". However, there's no such thing.

There's a reason that certain nutjobs are referred to as "Christian extremists" or "Muslim extremists" - their actions can be directly tied to their religious ideology, and they often are very vocal about the religious reasons for their crimes.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.
And by the same token, if I claimed that Catholocism inexorably leads to raping children -- and that all Catholics are personally to blame for the abuse -- you'd be rightfully angry, right? As opposed to just being "overly sensitive."

Also, Ratzi references "atheist extremism". However, there's no such thing.

There's a reason that certain nutjobs are referred to as "Christian extremists" or "Muslim extremists" - their actions can be directly tied to their religious ideology, and they often are very vocal about the religious reasons for their crimes.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be fair, there are a handful of nutters who wish to purge religion (and in many cases the religious) from the planet. The ones who go further than Samnell and Richard Dawkins in their Atheism could be argued to be extremist.


Paul Watson wrote:
Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.
And by the same token, if I claimed that Catholocism inexorably leads to raping children -- and that all Catholics are personally to blame for the abuse -- you'd be rightfully angry, right? As opposed to just being "overly sensitive."

Also, Ratzi references "atheist extremism". However, there's no such thing.

There's a reason that certain nutjobs are referred to as "Christian extremists" or "Muslim extremists" - their actions can be directly tied to their religious ideology, and they often are very vocal about the religious reasons for their crimes.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

To be fair, there are a handful of nutters who wish to purge religion (and in many cases the religious) from the planet. The ones who go further than Samnell and Richard Dawkins in their Atheism could be argued to be extremist.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I guess I see it from a different view point and do not automatically see it as if you were personally responsible for the holocaust. I can however see where someone in this over sensitive age could easily read that into it if they wished to.
And by the same token, if I claimed that Catholocism inexorably leads to raping children -- and that all Catholics are personally to blame for the abuse -- you'd be rightfully angry, right? As opposed to just being "overly sensitive."

I must be a masochist.

If you do not believe in extremism in the atheistic community I suggest you take a look harder. Now while it is not as prevalent as some other communities, you are also theoretically looking at a much smaller group.

Yes Kirk I would, find that a bit much. I was trying to carefully word my response to avoid this sort of confrontation but I guess I did not do as good of a job as I thought. I simply do not read it as you do.


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I simply do not read it as you do.

And this other reading would be what?

Liberty's Edge

Paul Watson wrote:
To be fair, there are a handful of nutters who wish to purge religion (and in many cases the religious) from the planet. The ones who go further than Samnell and Richard Dawkins in their Atheism could be argued to be extremist.

I was waiting for this one. That's not extreme atheism, that's extreme anti-theism. Not to be pedantic, but I think it's an important distinction. Atheism doesn't have an official position on anything other than the question of "do you believe a god exists?" Anything outside of that question is unrelated to atheism (except in maybe a tangential way).

The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
If you do not believe in extremism in the atheistic community I suggest you take a look harder. Now while it is not as prevalent as some other communities, you are also theoretically looking at a much smaller group.

Oh, of course there are extremists who are atheists. But those extremists don't do the things they do because they lack a belief in a god, they do those things because of other ideas or philosophies taken to extremes. Saying that they committed those crimes because of their atheism is like saying they committed those crimes because they didn't believe in the tooth fairy.

As for the "smaller group == smaller numbers of nutjobs" argument...well, I've always found it interesting that atheists are underrepresented (and Christians are overrepresented) among prison populations.

Samnell wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I simply do not read it as you do.
And this other reading would be what?

I second the question.


Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:
Samnell wrote:
The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
I simply do not read it as you do.
And this other reading would be what?
I second the question.

Yeah, I'm at a loss.


When I first read this story it did not in fact have any specific wording listed. I try to check out BBC when I can and as such that was where I read it.
I have found it:

Quote:


In essence, he has been asking us to examine what kind of country we want this to be.
He warned Britain not to lose sight of its Christian heritage in its ‘multi-cultural’ and ‘aggressively secular’ modern society.
Politicians should not try to ‘silence’ religion by discouraging public celebration of its most important festivals, notably Christmas.
Nor should they enact legislation which forces Christians to act against their consciences.
He reminded us that ‘Britain stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God’, and reflected how it was ‘deeply moving to recall how many of your fellow citizens sacrificed their lives’.
The excesses of secularism and the perils of ‘atheist extremism’ were themes to which he returned again and again.
They will resonate with Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, and with many non-Christians of other faiths, and perhaps those with none.
Perhaps rather amusingly, yesterday evening at Birmingham Airport, David Cameron ‘spun’ the Pope’s anti-secularist message to something closer to his ‘Big Society’.
It is far, far more than that. Pope Benedict’s declarations over the past few days have been remarkable and, in modern Britain, virtually unprecedented. [/unquote]

Then after seeing some people upset I wondered what the fuss was about. I had to read the exact words about 3 times before it occurred to my why, someone might take offense. I think I am still 'stuck' in this frame of mind and while I can see someone being upset if they choose to read it in a particular way, I guess the fact that he was caught up in the Nazi regime, willingly or no, means he had the opportunity to see first hand how such things can come about. As such, I find it harder to dismiss.

Of course it is known that this particular Pope does not like to use many speech writers. What is this the third time he has caused a big row with something written and then taken perhaps differently then he meant. Either he is trying to stir up a hornets nest, or he better start using a speech writer from now on.


When I first read this story it did not in fact have any specific wording listed. I try to check out BBC when I can and as such that was where I read it.
I have found it:

Quote:


In essence, he has been asking us to examine what kind of country we want this to be.
He warned Britain not to lose sight of its Christian heritage in its ‘multi-cultural’ and ‘aggressively secular’ modern society.
Politicians should not try to ‘silence’ religion by discouraging public celebration of its most important festivals, notably Christmas.
Nor should they enact legislation which forces Christians to act against their consciences.
He reminded us that ‘Britain stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God’, and reflected how it was ‘deeply moving to recall how many of your fellow citizens sacrificed their lives’.
The excesses of secularism and the perils of ‘atheist extremism’ were themes to which he returned again and again.
They will resonate with Catholics and non-Catholic Christians, and with many non-Christians of other faiths, and perhaps those with none.
Perhaps rather amusingly, yesterday evening at Birmingham Airport, David Cameron ‘spun’ the Pope’s anti-secularist message to something closer to his ‘Big Society’.
It is far, far more than that. Pope Benedict’s declarations over the past few days have been remarkable and, in modern Britain, virtually unprecedented. [/unquote]

Then after seeing some people upset I wondered what the fuss was about. I had to read the exact words about 3 times before it occurred to me why, someone might take offense. I think I am still 'stuck' in this frame of mind and while I can see someone being upset if they choose to read it in a particular way, I guess the fact that he was caught up in the Nazi regime, willingly or no, means he had the opportunity to see first hand how such things can come about. As such, I find it harder to dismiss.

Of course it is known that this particular Pope does not like to use many speech writers. What is this the third time he has caused a big row with something written and then taken perhaps differently then he meant. Either he is trying to stir up a hornets nest, or he better start using a speech writer from now on.


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Either he is trying to stir up a hornets nest, or he better start using a speech writer from now on.

The humanist community condemns his role in the coverup of the abuse scandal. General consensus is that he pulled this oft-discredited argument from Ben Stein as a counterattack, in order to draw public attention away from the real reason they were protesting his visit.


The Crimson Jester, Rogue Lord wrote:
Either he is trying to stir up a hornets nest, or he better start using a speech writer from now on.

The humanist community condemns his role in the coverup of the abuse scandal. General consensus is that he pulled this oft-discredited argument from Ben Stein as a smokescreen counterattack, in order to draw public attention away from the real reason they were protesting his visit.

Liberty's Edge

Crimson Jester wrote:
Yes Kirk I would, find that a bit much. I was trying to carefully word my response to avoid this sort of confrontation but I guess I did not do as good of a job as I thought. I simply do not read it as you do.

What's good for the goose is, apparently, not good for the gander. The pope equated (falsely) all atheists to Nazis (which is funny coming from a former Nazi, but I digress). Kirk's hypothetical statement equated (falsely) all catholics to child rapists (while not true it is apparently endorsed given that catholicism's supreme leader was once an active participant in a cover up).


So the different way of reading it amounts to: "The Pope was a Nazi so he knows about Nazis and how Nazism rises from multiculturalism and suppression of Christianity"?

Am I understanding you correctly, CJ?


Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Kirk's hypothetical statement...

Who's Kirk? Michael's dad, who actually can act? Or the fat guy in tights who can't act, but gets all the chicks in that old show anyway?


It's nice to see that the Hindu community is sticking up for the atheists in this case.

Liberty's Edge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Xpltvdeleted wrote:
Kirk's hypothetical statement...
Who's Kirk? Michael's dad, who actually can act? Or the fat guy in tights who can't act, but gets all the chicks in that old show anyway?

That's just my nickname for you...i thought it was sweet :(

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Pope Benedict wrote:

“Even in our own lifetimes 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.

“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of 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 and thus a reductive vision of a person and his destiny.”

I'm not seeing the argument that the Pope said all atheists are extremists or that atheists are responsible for nazis. The only way I see to get there is by assuming that aethism leads to truncated vision of man, which leads to reductive vision of a person, which leads to Godwin for all. The last link isn't actually present in the quote. It's more like a list of the ingredients to get nazi-funtime, which is the worst outcome of the circumstances described above, rather than a strict A causes B causes C causes nazis.

You could just as easily madlib the Pope's statement and come out with a series of statements about the crusades that are similar. Something like:

The Space Pope wrote:
“As we reflect on the sobering lessons of Christian extremism of the 13th(?) [I have no idea and am too lazy to look it up] century, let us never forget how the blind fealty to the supposed leaders of God, leads ultimately to a divinely justified vision of man and of society and thus a xenophobic vision of a person and his destiny.”

Or something like that.


Sebastian wrote:
I'm not seeing the argument that the Pope said all atheists are extremists or that atheists are responsible for nazis.

That's because you're missing out on the essential definition of "extremist" (the word "militant" gets used a lot, synonymously and equally bizarrely, as well).

  • Christian Extremist: Bombs abortion clinics.
  • Muslim Extremist: Flies planes into buildings.
  • Atheist Extremist: Criticizes religion.


  • Kirth Gersen wrote:

    That's because you're missing out on the essential definition of "extremist" (the word "militant" gets used a lot, synonymously and equally bizarrely, as well).

  • Christian Extremist: Bombs abortion clinics.
  • Muslim Extremist: Flies planes into buildings.
  • Atheist Extremist: Criticizes religion.
  • And the final one is clearly the most outrageously evil and reprehensible of the three, the great existential threat of our era.

    Perhaps Joe was the wrong octogenarian for the job. If only they could have gotten Betty White.

    Liberty's Edge

    Samnell wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    That's because you're missing out on the essential definition of "extremist" (the word "militant" gets used a lot, synonymously and equally bizarrely, as well).

  • Christian Extremist: Bombs abortion clinics.
  • Muslim Extremist: Flies planes into buildings.
  • Atheist Extremist: Criticizes religion.
  • And the final one is clearly the most outrageously evil and reprehensible of the three, the great existential threat of our era.

    Perhaps Joe was the wrong octogenarian for the job. [b]If only they could have gotten Betty White.]/b]

    +1

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
  • Atheist Extremist: Criticizes religion.
  • I'm not even sure what everyone is talking about any more. But I'm not sure where this came from. I see "Atheist Extremist" as more an "Anti-Theist". And I've seen some of this attitude here. Bill Maher's (sp?) conclusion was essentially that we must squash all religion no matter the cost. That feels a bit "extremist". I'm sure that if I looked I could find people who do violent acts to religious people because they are religious. I don't think that any group is really immune.

    And I don't really see how this discussion is helpful.


    Moff Rimmer wrote:
    I'm not even sure what everyone is talking about any more. But I'm not sure where this came from. I see "Atheist Extremist" as more an "Anti-Theist". And I've seen some of this attitude here. Bill Maher's (sp?) conclusion was essentially that we must squash all religion no matter the cost. That feels a bit "extremist".

    Sure it does, but the Pope point-blank calls every atheist a Nazi, and that's somehow NOT exremist? What seems most extreme -- especially to the people on the wrong end of it -- is the double standard that makes it OK for the Pope to cover up felonies (as the official church position), doom millions to HIV through his campaign of lies and misinformation in Africa (as the official church position), and spout off stuff about everyone else being Nazis the way he does... but then on the flip side, Mahar says we'd be better off without all that, and Maher is the "extremist." That somehow makes perfect sense, to anyone?


    Moff Rimmer wrote:
    And I don't really see how this discussion is helpful.

    I think it's absolutely necessary to question the entitlement that makes all religion somehow immune from all criticism. Because we're so used to that entitlement, that religious organizations get away with things -- brazenly, openly, and as official policy -- that make the worst that Maher or Samnell ever said look like nothing at all. But yet Samnell and Maher are branded "extremists," not the Pope, for example.

    Let me be clear, that I don't often agree with Samnell and Maher. Atheists aren't a cohesive "organization" with a pope or anything, despite the erroneous crap people say about Dawkins. But one thing I do feel very strongly about, is that if those two are "extremists" for their views, then the Pope, in comparison, is a galactic arch-criminal.


    Moff Rimmer wrote:
    And I don't really see how this discussion is helpful.

    By that criteria, we might as well shut down the boards. :P

    Seriously, though, the pope used very flawed logic to link atheism with genocide. It's helpful to point that out, if only as an exercise in critical thinking. I daresay your "helpful" criteria is entirely subjective, and much of what anyone has posted in the past could be discounted as "unhelpful."


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Sebastian wrote:
    I'm not seeing the argument that the Pope said all atheists are extremists or that atheists are responsible for nazis.

    That's because you're missing out on the essential definition of "extremist" (the word "militant" gets used a lot, synonymously and equally bizarrely, as well).

  • Christian Extremist: Bombs abortion clinics.
  • Muslim Extremist: Flies planes into buildings.
  • Atheist Extremist: Criticizes religion.
  • Exactly. I'm deeply opposed to violence, or to the repression of anyone based on their belief system, yet I've been called an "extremist" and "intolerant" so many times, here and elsewhere, that I've literally lost count.

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Moff Rimmer wrote:
    I'm not even sure what everyone is talking about any more. But I'm not sure where this came from. I see "Atheist Extremist" as more an "Anti-Theist". And I've seen some of this attitude here. Bill Maher's (sp?) conclusion was essentially that we must squash all religion no matter the cost. That feels a bit "extremist".
    Sure it does, but the Pope point-blank calls every atheist a Nazi, and that's somehow NOT exremist? What seems most extreme -- especially to the people on the wrong end of it -- is the double standard that makes it OK for the Pope to cover up felonies (as the official church position), doom millions to HIV through his campaign of lies and misinformation in Africa (as the official church position), and spout off stuff about everyone else being Nazis the way he does... but then on the flip side, Mahar says we'd be better off without all that, and Maher is the "extremist." That somehow makes perfect sense, to anyone?

    I'm not saying it's "ok". All that I was saying was that your three "examples" of "extremists" seemed a little off.

    And for Bugley regarding "helpful" -- fixing "hate" with more "hate" generally doesn't work well.


    Moff Rimmer wrote:
    I'm not saying it's "ok". All that I was saying was that your three "examples" of "extremists" seemed a little off.

    Certainly and without question, all three have been called that, have they not? But OK, since anyone who directly kills in the name of religion is off-limits by your rules, let's instead stick with two very high-profile figures -- Richard Dawkins (aka "Darwin's Rottweiler") vs. Pope Benedict XVI (aka "the Holy Father") -- neither of whom is remotely considered a terrorist.

  • Benedict: Covers up massive international sex abuse scandal, inflicts millions with HiV, calls all atheists Nazis.
  • Dawkins: Says that religion is "absurd" and "a failed hypothesis," and that we'd probably all be better off if we got rid of it -- but that will happen through education, not through direct action.

    Which is more "extreme"? Hint: A lot of people say it's Dawkins. And that's because the bar is firmly set at two very different heights. As you yourself have demonstrated, all it takes for an atheist to merit the epithet "militant" or "extremist" is to criticize religion. For a religious figure to merit the same epithet, they pretty much have to kill someone, or at least burn someone else's holy book (which means they're criticizing religion, of course).

  • Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    but the Pope point-blank calls every atheist a Nazi, and that's somehow NOT exremist?

    Kirth - can you explain a little more how you're getting to this? If I were to use the phrase "point-blank" I would use it to mean the Pope literally said "Atheists are Nazis." Maybe I'm off my atheist game, but I'm not feeling the same rage the rest of you have about the Pope's statement. Maybe it's the lapsed Catholicism in my blood.

    Scarab Sages

    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    As you yourself have demonstrated, all it takes for an atheist to merit the epithet "militant" or "extremist" is to criticize religion.

    I have? "Criticizing" religion is one thing. Saying that all religion is bad and must be destroyed no matter the cost is something else. I don't really know that Dawkins has said that. Maher pretty well has.

    I can kind of understand the "merit" of criticizing a religious leader -- no one is beyond reproach. However, I think that the Pope is an extreme case. He doesn't speak for me and isn't a representative of what I believe. We don't really have an equivalent to that position either. I'd probably say that most religions don't -- maybe Buddhism with the Dali.

    In any case, it still feels a little hypocritical saying that he's wrong in calling others extremists by calling others extremists.

    EDIT: And calling someone out for being a d*** in a "civil" religious discussion is not the same thing as calling someone an "extremist".


    Sebastian wrote:
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    but the Pope point-blank calls every atheist a Nazi, and that's somehow NOT exremist?
    Kirth - can you explain a little more how you're getting to this? If I were to use the phrase "point-blank" I would use it to mean the Pope literally said "Atheists are Nazis." Maybe I'm off my atheist game, but I'm not feeling the same rage the rest of you have about the Pope's statement. Maybe it's the lapsed Catholicism in my blood.

    It is not just you. I am just as confused.


    Jeremy Mcgillan wrote:


    Ok who cares what Hitler was. He was a madman who murdered millions and attempted genocide. His motivations were likely from his own deranged head and not because of religion or lack of religion, he was hateful angry person.

    Not trying to Godwin here but it is a pretty good story.

    Hitler would probably best be described as a Deist. The exact details are none to clear but he definitely believed in a God though there is no evidence of him ever expressing any belief in the Son of a God.

    Hitler believed that Providence both protected him and also had a divine mission for him. His belief in this was solidified during the Great War. He tells a story about hearing a voice that told him to head down the trench line away from the rest of his squad. A minute or two later a stray allied artillery shell made an extremely fluky direct hit right down into the trench where his squad was located killing or maiming all of them - except Hitler who had inexplicably wandered away.

    He took the mission that won him his Iron Cross because he believed that that, despite the fact that Allied Snipers had killed the three messengers sent before him they would not hit him...and he was right. All the shots the snipers made against him missed.

    He would later state that 'no German could kill him'. By which he meant God protected him against Assassination attempts. Drove his body guards crazy, he'd stand up waving from the car (easy target from anyone with a gun) etc. but he definitely lived a charmed life. One of his body guards died when a bouquet of flowers thrown into the vehicle was poisoned (the Guard picked it up and not Hitler). The Allies bombed a cabin in the Mountains he was supposed to be in but he had, a day or so before gone into one of his petulant rages and never got out there. There are the famous assassination attempts. The bomb on an airplane freezing before the fuse could go off or an officer moving the briefcase behind a thick leg of a table so that its full effect was avoided by Hitler. Thats all the ones I can remember but I think there are two or three other examples.

    Of course in the end he took his own life so his prophecy was wrong...a German killed him.

    1 to 50 of 13,109 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / A Civil Religious Discussion All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.