|
Pardon me, but isn't that sort of forcing all religions to be like yours in order to count as "true" religions?I think Moff has a point on Taoism. I believe someone on this thread told me there was Taoist philosophy and Taoist religion. Where does one end and the other begin?
That might have been me. After a pint of stout, I'm not so sure :p
But yes, there are three basic kinds of Taoism (these are my names, not actual titles):
1. Physical Taoism - this is health based stuff; eat this to balance that, do these exercises, these sexual practices, etc. Heavily influenced by Buddhism, Tantrism, and traditional "Chinese medicine". Basically, a bunch of woo, and the useful bits boil down to "eat right and exercise".
2. Religious Taoism - this is an actual religion, including the worship of deities/spirits, with some ancestor worship, and involves many rituals and prayers, offerings/sacrifices (not living ones, generally - usually offerings of food/money suffice).
3. Philosophical Taoism - this is mainly a philosophy/way of life (the "watercourse way"), and, unlike the first two, is mainly based upon the Tao Te Ching and the poems/parables found within (the other two draw heavily from cultural sources other than the Tao Te Ching, which brings me close to invoking the "No True Taoist" fallacy ;) )
Needless to say, the strain of Taoism I subscribe to is the third one.
I am well aware that the Dalai Lama is not the King of Buddhism, but he draws his authority from a rather more literal conception of reincarnation, what with the presentation of artifacts from prior incarnations and all. This also hardly sounds metaphorical to me:Buddhism where divinities are relatively unimportant or even absent yet other supernatural doctrines (karma, reincarnation, a soul) persist.That would be Hinduism, or a person who read some Buddhist stuff and didn't understand any of it. The whole essence of Buddhism is no-self, which means the individual soul does not actually exist, which means reincarnation is nothing but an illusion.
Karma (from Sanskrit: "action, work") in Buddhism is the force that drives saṃsāra—the cycle of suffering and rebirth for each being. Good, skillful deeds (Pāli: "kusala") and bad, unskillful (Pāli: "akusala") actions produce "seeds" in the mind which come to fruition either in this life or in a subsequent rebirth.[18] The avoidance of unwholesome actions and the cultivation of positive actions is called śīla (from Sanskrit: "ethical conduct").In Theravada Buddhism there can be no divine salvation or forgiveness for one's karma, since it is a purely impersonal process that is a part of the makeup of the universe. Some Mahayana traditions hold different views. For example, the texts of certain Mahayana sutras (such as the Lotus Sutra, the Angulimaliya Sutra and the Nirvana Sutra) claim that reciting or merely hearing their texts can expunge great swathes of negative karma. Some forms of Buddhism (for example, Vajrayana) regard the recitation of mantras as a means for cutting off previous negative karma.[20] The Japanese Pure Land teacher Genshin taught that Amida Buddha has the power to destroy the karma that would otherwise bind one in saṃsāra.[21][22]
It doesn't, of course, follow that all varieties of Buddhism are equally wallowing in magical forces. I do think one could construct a version that is entirely secular, a project that seems likely to draw the same sorts that construct secular Christianities, but the other guys are still around too.
I am well aware that the Dalai Lama is not the King of Buddhism, but he draws his authority from a rather more literal conception of reincarnation, what with the presentation of artifacts from prior incarnations and all.
Buddhism is tricky to make generalities with, since it's been around so long, and because of the weird way it allows itself to be combined with other religions. Personally, I'd consider Buddhism-with-Literal-Reincarnation to be a Buddhist-Hindu hybrid, inasfar as the Buddha taught there is no soul. I'd consider Buddhism-with-various-gods-to-worship to be a Buddhism hybrid as well.
On the far opposite end of the spectrum is Zen, which was stripped of so much baggage that even some of the Buddha's teachings got jettisoned. It's also consequently more compatible with atheism than with other religions (except maybe vague or hands-off ones like Shinto or Deism). Personally, that's what I practice.
I agree with you that I need to remain more aware that everyone else includes the hybrids under the heading of Buddhism, and that people who read Wikipedia will likely be most familiar with the Buddhist-Hindu hybrid that the editors there seem enamored of. Indeed, some people who only read Wikipedia assume that ALL Buddhism is the Hindu hybrid.
Just note that these forms of Buddhism are, in actuality, Buddhist-X hybrids.
I am well aware that the Dalai Lama is not the King of Buddhism, but he draws his authority from a rather more literal conception of reincarnation, what with the presentation of artifacts from prior incarnations and all.Buddhism is tricky to make generalities with, since it's been around so long, and because of the weird way it allows itself to be combined with other religions. Personally, I'd consider Buddhism-with-Literal-Reincarnation to be a Buddhist-Hindu hybrid, inasfar as the Buddha taught there is no soul. I'd consider Buddhism-with-various-gods-to-worship to be a Buddhism hybrid as well.
Ok. I don't know that I agree with the terminology (Are they the hybrids or are you the guy missing important stuff? I don't have a horse in the race. :) ) but I see where you're coming from.
I agree with you that I need to remain more aware that everyone else includes the hybrids under the heading of Buddhism, and that people who read Wikipedia will likely be most familiar with the Buddhist-Hindu hybrid that the editors there seem enamored of. Indeed, some people who only read Wikipedia assume that ALL Buddhism is the Hindu hybrid.Just note that these forms of Buddhism are, in actuality, Buddhist-X hybrids.
Not just Wikipedia. The version of Buddhism I learned about back in high school was of the non-Zen variety. (We also managed to skip Pure Land despite the point of the lesson being to get the basics of world religions and it being the most popular brand of Buddhism in East Asia. Midwestern small town high schools do a terrible job with other cultures.) I do think the all-metaphors version could escape being a religion under my definition and I'm ok with that. In the same sense I see Jagyr's philosophical Taoism, at least so far as he's shared, non-religious. Or maybe post-religious is a better term.
An article some might find interesting.
"Frankly, it seems bizarre to me to dismiss the reality of consciousness, by which I mean inwardness, subjectivity. I am pretty sure it would seem just as bizarre to me if I were an atheist."
Yes! It certainly would! Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, none of the authors cited are denying the reality of consciousness -- only the assertion that consciousness resides in an immortal, magical soul, as opposed to the mind.
|
|
An article some might find interesting."Frankly, it seems bizarre to me to dismiss the reality of consciousness, by which I mean inwardness, subjectivity. I am pretty sure it would seem just as bizarre to me if I were an atheist."Yes! It certainly would! Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, none of the authors cited are denying the reality of consciousness -- only the assertion that consciousness resides in an immortal, magical soul, as opposed to the mind.
Or the brain. The mind is as fuzzy a concept as consciousness and equally subject to being an ethereal spooky offsdhoot of the body rather than part of it.
[EDIT] Ehich is what I think you were saying. Apparently I'm feeling like nitpicking at the mnoment. I blame living in a third world country full of aggressive secularists.
[EDIT2] Yup. Definitely not in the right mood for this thread.
I was going to leave this alone, but I'm too busy doing a facedesk:
Let me see if I understand the Pope's logic here:
1. It is never appropriate to criticize faith -- even in the case of radical Islam, for example, we must respect people for their faith, and never criticize religions.
2. Because atheists cannot prove that God doesn't exist, atheism is a faith, rather than a rational stance.
3. Atheism leads inexorably to Nazism and mass murder.
OK, never mind the fact that (a) Hitler was an avowed Catholic; (b) the fascist governments at the time of WWII had the support of the Catholic Church, as they stood against "Godless Communism;" and (c) Ratzinger himself was a member of the Hitler Youth. Let's put all that aside and instead look at the brilliant chain of logic detailed above. Am I the only one who sees any contradition there?
An article some might find interesting.
I found the comment under the article amusing.
The theologies of "the Fall" don't really make much sense to me anymore. We didn't fall (or rise) we became. To me, the historical/intertextual context of Genesis & the rest of the Bible is being explained away by religious conservatives in unsatisfactory, self serving, even sometimes racist-like ways. Why are there seven days in creation when an omnipotent God would hardly need six days & a day of rest in the heavenly recliner? Pay no attention to the seven planetary gods/ goddesses that most people of that time and area believed in, even though their names, or Nordic equivalents, are still used for the days of the week, Moon's day...Saturn's Day...Woden's day. What were the neighbors of the Jewish tribes doing with serpents, and why did it talk to Eve and not Adam, who was apparently just as clueless & gullible? What did the ancients really know of sex, other than it has consequences? They definitely didn't know of the human ovum, which wasn't discovered until the 1840s.
Edit: If the christian god* is supposed to be all powerful why did it take him more then one day to create everything and why did he need a rest?
*Is it Yahweh, Jehovah or some other name for the christian god?
(I don't like to refer to him/it as 'God'.)
|
[EDIT2] Yup. Definitely not in the right mood for this thread.
You ok? (I really didn't mean to imply anything by posting the article. Not sure how much I agree with Marilynne. It seemed to me that her overall point was nebulous. I felt that the questions asked by CT were fair though. And just thought it might have been of interest to some here.)
|
|
[EDIT2] Yup. Definitely not in the right mood for this thread.You ok? (I really didn't mean to imply anything by posting the article. Not sure how much I agree with Marilynne. It seemed to me that her overall point was nebulous. I felt that the questions asked by CT were fair though. And just thought it might have been of interest to some here.)
Nothing to do with your article, Moff (beyond the problem Kirth pointed out). Just that I'm nitpicking Kirth and struggling hard not to post some stuff about the Pope's commetns that will likely be offensive to Crimson Jester as a Cathloic. As that would just be gratuitously offensive, I've stopped short of typing it. So probably not in the best frame of mind to contribute without being needlessly offensive.
[EDIT] And sometimes I leave an edit when I've deleted a point to remind myself not to be so assinine again. Or to let people who saw the original before I cleaned it up know that I know I overstepped the mark without them telling me. I'm fine. Really. The concern for my dubious sanity is appreciated, however.
1. Or the brain. The mind is as fuzzy a concept as consciousness and equally subject to being an ethereal spooky offsdhoot of the body rather than part of it.
2. Which is what I think you were saying. Apparently I'm feeling like nitpicking at the mnoment. I blame living in a third world country full of aggressive secularists.
3. Yup. Definitely not in the right mood for this thread.
1. Point taken -- I should have been more clear. By "the mind," I'm including the incidental mixing of signals and firing of neurons that physically takes place in the brain.
2. Trade you! I'm on a first world country full of aggressive born-agains.3. You seem OK to me...
|
|
1. Or the brain. The mind is as fuzzy a concept as consciousness and equally subject to being an ethereal spooky offsdhoot of the body rather than part of it.
2. Which is what I think you were saying. Apparently I'm feeling like nitpicking at the mnoment. I blame living in a third world country full of aggressive secularists.
3. Yup. Definitely not in the right mood for this thread.1. Point taken -- I should have been more clear. By "the mind," I'm including the incidental mixing of signals and firing of neurons that physically takes place in the brain.
2. Trade you! I'm on a first world country full of aggressive born-agains.
3. You seem OK to me...
Eh, maybe. Combining quote from a senior Vastican offical and the Pope into one more extreme statement might be a bit dickish.
[EDIT] And no way on the trade. I don't mind you coming here, (although you might be in for a shock at the level of socialism) but I'd go nuts in Texas, heat aside.
Just that I'm nitpicking Kirth and struggling hard not to post some stuff about the Pope's comments that will likely be offensive to Crimson Jester as a Cathloic. As that would just be gratuitously offensive, I've stopped short of typing it. So probably not in the best frame of mind to contribute without being needlessly offensive.
I thought of that, too, and almost didn't post it. But the thing is, I respect CJ enough to assume that he realizes that (a) he's not the Pope, nor do I think he is; (b) the Pope's every utterance need not be assumed to also be speaking for him; and (c) even when CJ disagrees with me, I always like to read his comments.
In Absence of Mind, your main argument is that the influential popular scientist-writers of our age (Wilson, Dennett, Dawkins, Pinker, et al.) fail to acknowledge the spiritual impulses, conscience, compassion, and other felt experiences, via the human mind, that show up in all of human history and that set our species apart from others.
The capacity to inflict suffering has also shown up in all of human history and sets our species apart from others. To suggest the 'good' comes from our soul and therefore god while the 'bad' does not seems absurd to me.
Combining quote from a senior Vastican offical and the Pope into one more extreme statement might be a bit dickish.
It would be, I agree. I read the senior Vatican's even more outrageous statement after the Pope's, and viewed it more along the lines of a clarification, not an amplification, as it were. Ratzinger's actual remarks, while phrased in the usual convoluted and formal Popespeak, basically seemed to be saying the same thing without being quite so direct about it.
If I've sadly misunderstood him, please point out how.
|
|
Just that I'm nitpicking Kirth and struggling hard not to post some stuff about the Pope's comments that will likely be offensive to Crimson Jester as a Cathloic. As that would just be gratuitously offensive, I've stopped short of typing it. So probably not in the best frame of mind to contribute without being needlessly offensive.I thought of that, too, and almost didn't post it. But the thing is, I respect CJ enough to assume that he realizes that (a) he's not the Pope, nor do I think he is; (b) the Pope's every utterance need not be assumed to also be speaking for him; and (c) even when CJ disagrees with me, I always like to read his comments.
Oh, I agree. But there's a difference between pulling an article, and commenting on it, and what I was typing which was more along the lines of parodying and directly insulting the head of the faith. As there isn't a broader point that would justify that, I'm trrying to refrain.
Oh, I agree. But there's a difference between pulling an article, and commenting on it, and what I was typing which was more along the lines of parodying and directly insulting the head of the faith. As there isn't a broader point that would justify that, I'm trrying to refrain.
Maybe you could post it over at Jerry Coyne's blog? You've got me awfully curious now!
|
|
Combining quote from a senior Vastican offical and the Pope into one more extreme statement might be a bit dickish.I read the senior Vatican's even more outrageous statement after the Pope's, and viewed it more along the lines of a clarification, not an amplification, as it were. Ratzinger's actual remarks, while phrased in the usual convoluted and formal Popespeak, basically seemed to be saying the same thing without being quite so direct about it.
I was referring to the one who didn't make the trip because of gout. He said that landing in Heathrow wazs like coming into a third world country because of all the multicultural faces. That's been officially repudiated as being the view of the Vatican.
|
|
Edit: If the christian god* is supposed to be all powerful why did it take him more then one day to create everything and why did he need a rest?
"Did it take Him seven days?" or "Did he take seven days?"
In any case, I don't think it did. I (personally) feel that they used seven as a form of pneumonic (sp? -- is that the right word here?) to help them remember.
*Is it Yahweh, Jehovah or some other name for the christian god?
(I don't like to refer to him/it as 'God'.)
Not sure. I guess it depends on your religion. As I understand it, both Yahweh and Jehovah are pretty much bastardizations of the Hebrew word that no one knows how to say/pronounce. Also, as I understand it, that name was reserved for only the most important things.
The kindest thing I can think to say regarding the Pope is that I disagree with his priorities.
|
|
Oh, I agree. But there's a difference between pulling an article, and commenting on it, and what I was typing which was more along the lines of parodying and directly insulting the head of the faith. As there isn't a broader point that would justify that, I'm trrying to refrain.Maybe you could post it over at Jerry Coyne's blog? You've got me awfully curious now!
Spoilered. Reading the spoiler may offend.
In any case, I don't think it did. I (personally) feel that they used seven as a form of pneumonic (sp? -- is that the right word here?) to help them remember.
What led you to that conclusion?
In any case, I don't think it did. I (personally) feel that they used seven as a form of pneumonic (sp? -- is that the right word here?) to help them remember.What led you to that conclusion?
I always though it was simply revisionism.
The kindest thing I can think to say regarding the Pope is that I disagree with his priorities.
The kindest thing I can say is what Paul said.
I was referring to the one who didn't make the trip because of gout. He said that landing in Heathrow wazs like coming into a third world country because of all the multicultural faces. That's been officially repudiated as being the view of the Vatican.
I missed that one, and, yeah, I'd be inclined not to link that to any official stance of the Church or the Pope. I thought you were referring to the clarification of the Pope's atheist remarks by the Catholic League:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to “reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century.” Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of “a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.”
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
|
|
In any case, I don't think it did. I (personally) feel that they used seven as a form of pneumonic (sp? -- is that the right word here?) to help them remember.What led you to that conclusion?
A few things. But mostly because of how it reads and because it was written in a Hebrew Poetic style. Hebrew poetry works in threes. The first three days talk about separation -- separate light from dark, air from land, land from water. The next three days talk about creation -- fish and birds, other animals, and people. The seventh day kind of puts closure to the "story".
I guess you can say that it is "revisionism" like ArchLich said, but well before I learned more about the scientific research into the origin of the earth, etc., the more I looked at the passage, the less it made sense as a literal description of how God created the things.
I was going to leave this alone, but I'm too busy doing a facedesk:
Let me see if I understand the Pope's logic here:
1. It is never appropriate to criticize faith -- even in the case of radical Islam, for example, we must respect people for their faith, and never criticize religions.
2. Because atheists cannot prove that God doesn't exist, atheism is a faith, rather than a rational stance.
3. Atheism leads inexorably to Nazism and mass murder.
OK, never mind the fact that (a) Hitler was an avowed Catholic; (b) the fascist governments at the time of WWII had the support of the Catholic Church, as they stood against "Godless Communism;" and (c) Ratzinger himself was a member of the Hitler Youth. Let's put all that aside and instead look at the brilliant chain of logic detailed above. Am I the only one who sees any contradition there?
I'll just say that I do not agree with Mr. Ratzinger, and leave it at that.
I was referring to the one who didn't make the trip because of gout. He said that landing in Heathrow wazs like coming into a third world country because of all the multicultural faces. That's been officially repudiated as being the view of the Vatican.
I would say that it's astonishing that a man from an organization that is a direct beneficiary of those same multicultural forces in that same country he so damns would loathe them so, but who could be astonished at that knowing even the tiniest bit of the hierarchy's record?
I must, however reluctantly and feebly, defend Ratzinger on the Hitler Youth charges. He was certainly a member and crewed an antiaircraft gun if I remember correctly, but that was true of every German his age. The Hitler Youth was mandatory. He got drafted.
This does not, of course, excuse his involvement. It merely mitigates it somewhat. What alternative did he have? Ms. Rowling's originality is questionable, but she surely grasped the kind of alternative available to him:
Peter: You don’t understand! He would have killed me, Sirius!
Sirius: THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!
It's not like his religion doesn't celebrate martyrdom.
I must, however reluctantly and feebly, defend Ratzinger on the Hitler Youth charges. He was certainly a member and crewed an antiaircraft gun if I remember correctly, but that was true of every German his age. The Hitler Youth was mandatory. He got drafted.
Granted. Draftee or willing, though, he should be well familiar with the rallying call of "Gott mitt Uns!" ("God with us!"), and all the religious pomposity of the movement... unless of course he's developed Alzheimer's, which would excuse both the lapse in memory and the deplorable non-logic. Then again, the irony of ANY member pulling a Godwin is a bit absurd.
Is it still a Godwin if the original statement was not made on the internet?
Just that I'm nitpicking Kirth and struggling hard not to post some stuff about the Pope's comments that will likely be offensive to Crimson Jester as a Cathloic. As that would just be gratuitously offensive, I've stopped short of typing it. So probably not in the best frame of mind to contribute without being needlessly offensive.I thought of that, too, and almost didn't post it. But the thing is, I respect CJ enough to assume that he realizes that (a) he's not the Pope, nor do I think he is; (b) the Pope's every utterance need not be assumed to also be speaking for him; and (c) even when CJ disagrees with me, I always like to read his comments.
So only because I was brought up here, 1) I have as of yet to read it, but I am not now nor ever have been a 'fan' of this Pope. I respect the office, just as I Respect the 'office' of President of the US. That being said this particular Pope has a history of being taken out of context, or accused of things with minimal evidence, in my mind and I will wait until more information to accurately give an opinion. 2) Just because he is the Pope does not change my faith, beliefs, or religion. We have a history of bad men in the office.
I have to go to a meeting, more later.
|
|
Is it still a Godwin if the original statement was not made on the internet?
According to the well-researched and totally true Wikipedia. Godwin's law only applies to online discussion so the Pope did not commit an infraction.
We have a history of bad men in the office.
I thought you just called them anti-Popes.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
|
|
We have a history of bad men in the office.I thought you just called them anti-Popes.
Sorry. Couldn't resist.
No, This is the Antipope.
This is the antelope.
This is the antelope.
Koo-koo-kachoo?
Gesundheit!
Edit: If the christian god* is supposed to be all powerful why did it take him more then one day to create everything and why did he need a rest?"Did it take Him seven days?" or "Did he take seven days?"
In any case, I don't think it did. I (personally) feel that they used seven as a form of pneumonic (sp? -- is that the right word here?) to help them remember.
Not sure. I guess it depends on your religion. As I understand it, both Yahweh and Jehovah are pretty much bastardizations of the Hebrew word that no one knows how to say/pronounce. Also, as I understand it, that name was reserved for only the most important things.*Is it Yahweh, Jehovah or some other name for the christian god?
(I don't like to refer to him/it as 'God'.)
Ancient Hebrew as most Semitic languages did not have any vowels. The Greeks were the first to invent vowels. As such writing was initially hard to decipher, and had to be done so in context. The Ancient name of god is YHVH. The closest we have to a proper English spelling is in fact Yahweh. Yehovah was a bastardization that included the vowels from the title Adonai, Which is Hebrew for Lord. Translations later and Yehovah is now Jehovah. None of which are truly correct.
Oh, I agree. But there's a difference between pulling an article, and commenting on it, and what I was typing which was more along the lines of parodying and directly insulting the head of the faith. As there isn't a broader point that would justify that, I'm trrying to refrain.Maybe you could post it over at Jerry Coyne's blog? You've got me awfully curious now!Spoilered. Reading the spoiler may offend.
** spoiler omitted **
Thank you for the spoiler, and while I disagree, I can understand what has caused not only you, but many many others to feel much the same way.
I must, however reluctantly and feebly, defend Ratzinger on the Hitler Youth charges. He was certainly a member and crewed an antiaircraft gun if I remember correctly, but that was true of every German his age. The Hitler Youth was mandatory. He got drafted.
This does not, of course, excuse his involvement. It merely mitigates it somewhat. What alternative did he have? Ms. Rowling's originality is questionable, but she surely grasped the kind of alternative available to him:
It's not like his religion doesn't celebrate martyrdom.
Peter: You don’t understand! He would have killed me, Sirius!
Sirius: THEN YOU SHOULD HAVE DIED!
you mean the fact that he as a young man left his post and gave himself up to the 'enemy' without ever firing his gun?
I was referring to the one who didn't make the trip because of gout. He said that landing in Heathrow wazs like coming into a third world country because of all the multicultural faces. That's been officially repudiated as being the view of the Vatican.I missed that one, and, yeah, I'd be inclined not to link that to any official stance of the Church or the Pope. I thought you were referring to the clarification of the Pope's atheist remarks by the Catholic League:
The pope cited Hitler today, asking everyone to “reflect on the sobering lessons of atheist extremism of the 20th century.” Immediately, the British Humanist Association got its back up, accusing the pope of “a terrible libel against those who do not believe in God.”
The pope did not go far enough. Radical atheists like the British Humanist Association should apologize for Hitler. But they should not stop there. They also need to issue an apology for the 67 million innocent men, women and children murdered under Stalin, and the 77 million innocent Chinese killed by Mao. Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all driven by a radical atheism, a militant and fundamentally dogmatic brand of secular extremism. It was this anti-religious impulse that allowed them to become mass murderers. By contrast, a grand total of 1,394 were killed during the 250 years of the Inquisition, most all of whom were murdered by secular authorities.
Bill Donohue, the one man to drive more Catholics from the faith then any man in history. I put this moron in the same category of idiots as Fred Phelps.
Bill Donohue, the one man to drive more Catholics from the faith then any man in history. I put this moron in the same category of idiots as Fred Phelps.
(Big smile) See, I knew I'd like your comments!
For what it's worth, my mother-in-law, a lifelong devout Catholic, is considering changing the wording to "member of the Catholic community," in protestation against the sex abuse and against people like Donohue and Ratzinger.
Bill Donohue, the one man to drive more Catholics from the faith then any man in history. I put this moron in the same category of idiots as Fred Phelps.(Big smile) See, I knew I'd like your comments!
For what it's worth, my mother-in-law, a lifelong devout Catholic, now considers herself a "member of the Catholic community," in protestation against the sex abuse and against people like Donohue and Ratzinger.
If he is a true representation of a Catholic then I am likely to be chosen the next Pope.
you mean the fact that he as a young man left his post and gave himself up to the 'enemy' without ever firing his gun?
Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[9] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[10] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[11] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[10] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.
So far as I can tell, Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941. From then until 1943 he remained a member, if a poor one. Then he was in the regular military until 1945. He didn't do any deserting until his unit had collapsed and the war was effectively over. This is not a profile of moral courage, but rather quite the opposite. This is an ordinary guy who didn't go out of his way to make any waves.
You're not much of a deserter if you wait until your side's lost to desert. In fact, the way he behaved maximized his use to the war effort. If Ratzinger took serving in Hitler's military machine as seriously as he takes a life-saving abortion, he'd have arranged for his own excommunication for that level of involvement.
you mean the fact that he as a young man left his post and gave himself up to the 'enemy' without ever firing his gun?
Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[9] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[10] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[11] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[10] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.So far as I can tell, Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941. From then until 1943 he remained a member, if a poor one. Then he was in the regular military until 1945. He didn't do any deserting until his unit had collapsed and the war was effectively over. This is not a profile of moral courage, but rather quite the opposite. This is an ordinary guy who didn't go out of his way to make any waves.
You're not much of a deserter if you wait until your side's lost to desert. In fact, the way he behaved maximized his use to the war effort. If Ratzinger took serving in...
When I get the chance I will find a few links for you that say a bit otherwise.
you mean the fact that he as a young man left his post and gave himself up to the 'enemy' without ever firing his gun?
Following his 14th birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was conscripted into the Hitler Youth — as membership was required by law for all 14-year old German boys after December 1939[9] — but was an unenthusiastic member who refused to attend meetings.[10] His father was an enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was taken away by the Nazi regime and killed during the Aktion T4 campaign of Nazi eugenics.[11] In 1943, while still in seminary, he was drafted into the German anti-aircraft corps as Luftwaffenhelfer.[10] Ratzinger then trained in the German infantry, but a subsequent illness precluded him from the usual rigours of military duty. As the Allied front drew closer to his post in 1945, he deserted back to his family's home in Traunstein after his unit had ceased to exist, just as American troops established their headquarters in the Ratzinger household. As a German soldier, he was put in a POW camp but was released a few months later at the end of the war in the summer of 1945. He reentered the seminary, along with his brother Georg, in November of that year.So far as I can tell, Ratzinger joined the Hitler Youth in 1941. From then until 1943 he remained a member, if a poor one. Then he was in the regular military until 1945. He didn't do any deserting until his unit had collapsed and the war was effectively over. This is not a profile of moral courage, but rather quite the opposite. This is an ordinary guy who didn't go out of his way to make any waves.
You're not much of a deserter if you wait until your side's lost to desert. In fact, the way he behaved maximized his use to the war effort. If Ratzinger took serving in...
When I get the chance I will find a few links for you that say a bit otherwise.