Bishop refuses to take back holocaust remarks
With all due respect if I wanted to point out something to do with Iran and politics then I'd have posted a topic in the politics forum, just because I post something about a religious figure doesn't mean I'm "short sighted" or "blinded" in some way. I didn't mention Iran or Ahmadinejad for the same reaosn I didn't mention other random irrelevant subjects like Mickey Mouse or David Hasselhoff - THEY'RE NOT RELEVANT
I made a topic on one person and their reluctance to apologise, which the head of his organisation has asked for. At no point did I mention politics so you can take that to the politics forum and create a thread yourself, of which I'd be glad to weigh in with my views and won't bring up religion...just to be nice
Well then what's so remarkable that this non-exceptional instance warrants a discussion thread, while other non-exceptional instances--all too unexceptional, alas--of Islamic extremists warrants silence. This discussion should be balanced. Thankfully, I have come to the rescue.
Some rescue - like throwing a concrete block to a drowning man.
Still not with you - your point still has little relevance. Balancing the thread would indicate that you came galloping to the rescue of the reputation of the aforementioned bishop. As you know, all too well, that would prove to be too difficult.
Another tired lawyer trick - beat that straw-man to death!
Mind you, Nick - "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."Point addressed in my final comment about seeking attention.
Addressed in my penultimate comment about straw-men.
Nope - an irrelevant and incorrect comparison based upon flawed logic.
Another tired lawyer trick - Good old association fallacy!
Do I have a court now? Great - I always wanted my very own parrot jury. We can pass sentence on the cat that just stole my cream cake. I was looking forward to that.
The paperless student should know history well enough to realise that the famous piece of paper refers to Chamberlain's appeasement plan
Wow - you know that his parrots are anti-Israeli and politically correct - you must chill out at his place a lot. Such clever parrots surely deserve to be on one of those 'funniest animals' TV programmes.
I once taught a parrot to say 'Bollocks,' but that is hardly the same league.
Fair enough - 'tis an open forum. Your right to speak is duly noted. I would not wish to be accused of 'silencing' you through sneaky semantic manoeuvres.
I have the freedom to point out that you wander off into the realms of irrelevance.
As an alternative, you could always start a separate thread if you do not want to be 'topic-framed.'
- Leta Sposted 14 years ago
0Yeah, Sufi-- (oops--added after your second post--in response to your Milgram thoughts--)
I think what is amazing is how sheep-like most people are. (I've never trusted authority & only given it respect or 'use' out of necessity to get where I want to be.) I remember an exercise in a college class full of prospective teachers, actually, which phrased the scenario of the holocaust in different terms and presented them with a task--what they would do in the situation.
Only a couple people even recognized-connected the dots--that this was a metaphor for the holocaust, #1, and then, #2, the ideas of how to deal with an abuse of power were so pathetically lacking, I'm sure it would be a repeat of Milgram or the holocaust all over again--undergrad style,lol.
So, yes, literal minded-ness is a disadvantage, and can be painful--as proven by Hitler and Milgram.
And yep, absolutely, you can see this, for lack of a better term--protective device--in legitimate modern physicians distancing themselves from their patients to separate any feeling from them. A very well-known psychological occurrence.I thought that you agreed with the parrots!
Human society is very complex and nothing is straightforward.
There is no doubt that anti-semitism played a large part - Krystallnacht, yellow stars and Warsaw Ghetto showed that, but the whole thing was much more complex and largely based upon paranoia. Regimes tend to get that a lot.
A couple of examples:
Just before the war, German spies and operatives successfully spread rumours of a plot amongst the Russians. This whispering campaign reached the ears of Stalin, and the effects went beyond the wildest dreams of the gleeful Nazi party. Stalin ordered a systematic purge of the Red Army, and every capable general and officer was executed or exiled, and replaced with a useless sycophant. Through paranoia, the Red Army was beheaded, and crumbled before the subsequent Blitzkrieg.
Pol-Pot had a habit of removing political opponents permanently. He soon realised that most of his opponents were doctors and lawyers, so he killed all of those. His next task was to remove all of the intellectual class, fuelled by paranoia. Further down the chain of dominoes, his troops came to believe that anybody wearing glasses was an intellectual plotter, so killed them, too. He did not necessarily order that everybody with glasses should be killed, but the 'Machine' was set in motion, so I can see where TMG is coming from.
Most of the Nazi high command did not realise the reality of the final solution - to them it was an order written upon a piece of paper, but the MiIlgram effect became magnified the further it went down the chain. We all know the results. In fact, trust me, the ones who died in the Gas Chambers were luckier than those given to the doctors - true evil. Skin crawling time again
Don't get me wrong - when I say that the high-command did not know the reality, I do not mean that this is an acceptable excuse. They were punished at Nuremburg, and few can argue with that. The Wiesenthal Centre is quite right to track down the last few criminals.
People talk about the Holocaust, but few bother to understand it - maybe we all should, so that we can see the effects of extremism and marginalization of certain groups.
Anyway, that is my rant for tonight.
See, Nick - you are not the only paperless historian
The Ouzo-Pickled Old HippyAgreed, in general--at least it all sounds very plausible. And I don't have any problem at all with saying I have not studied this part of history as much as one could or as much as you have, Sufi. Knowledge is somewhat arbitrary as people are. Interesting stuff you have produced for everyone's consideration, though, I might add. Step in the right direction, ie, your second to last para, whatever is behind the fact that it was produced. Interesting rant.
My comments were general and vacillating in nature, as they sometimes are--and people's comments in general are. LOL.
Was I mistaken, or did I think that you and Nick had a certain respect for each other?lol - I have a lot of respect for Nick's intelligence and debating skills. Just because we make fun of each other occasionally does not dampen that.
- Leta Sposted 14 years ago0
That is actually on my list to view, Ralph--but we don't see much at the theatre here--mainly when it gets to Netflix. Kate Winslet is one of my favorite actresses--don't know about sex with a 15 year old, though. That doesn't sound too 'hot,' but rather sick. lol
To be honest, in my actual opinion, It doesn't take much to see that this goes beyond neurosis and into psychosis--this scapegoating or abuse, which can be seen at many levels in human society--down to the family unit. It is my belief that those in power are often narcissistic personalities--and a little beyond being unaware. Those who would would follow these types and commit atrocities I would classify as borderline personalities---always somewhat prone to becoming the prey of the narcissists and scapegoating those weaker than they are.
Simple human weakness--just taken to the extreme.
Have you ever read "Games People Play," by psychologist Eric Berne, from the 'golden age' of self -help books, published in 1964 (read: therefore not smarmy), and reviewed very well by the likes, lol, of the New York Times, recently, so! Of course I am validated,. Transactional analysis.
This is why displays of cynicism and power detailing military might and politics, etc., and what we should know, blah, blah, coming from all angles always seem a little redundant and almost part and parcel to the problem at times--only at a very low level--to me.
But taking the good from any situation or learning what you can or producing what you can by whatever it is inspired by is a positive thing--and I would think proof of the opposite tendency as to what I just detailed above. Those who inspire these things MAY even be aware of it (then again, they may not). - Leta Sposted 14 years ago0
- Leta Sposted 14 years ago0
"Ackerman has long been Israel's most outspoken advocate in Congress. However, his idea of supporting Israel does not include punishing children. And, wonder of wonders, the Democrat from Queens blames both Palestinians and Israelis for the current horrors. In Congress, it is de rigueur to insist that the Israelis are always innocent and the Palestinians always guilty.
But, according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Ackerman said yesterday that Israeli hardliners and Palestinian terrorists are "all part of the same destructive dynamic."
The "downward spiral" in the region "comes from terrorism and the march of settlements. It comes from the firing of rockets and the perpetration of settler pogroms. It comes in daily images of destruction and the constant reiteration that 'they only understand the language of force.' It comes from tunnels in Gaza and, yes, from digging in Jerusalem as well."
Amen. "
Double Amen. Thanks, Ralph! Great post, Ralph - Thanks for posting that. A very interesting narrative.
You have given us all a glimmer of hope - if politicians are beginning to praise/condemn both sides equally, then a real dialogue can occur. More Ackermans and fewer Williamsons - I will certainly e-mail him with encouragement!
I don't know if you read Aya's Hub, but it gives another angle.
http://hubpages.com/hub/ISRAEL-The-Two- … the-NationThanks to everyone else who has managed to get this discussion back on the rails though, it has made for some interesting reading I can assure you.
I thought I'd mention something about soldiers as one poster had brought up the idea that commanders indoctrinate their soldiers with tales of how the enemy is evil and does horrible things: Please watch Band of Brothers, the TV mini series about a group of 101st Airbourne paratroopers...
One of the veterans who the story is based on made an excellent comment which I can't quote exactly but it went along the lines of when describing the enemy "That man and me in a different life may have been best pals, he may have liked to hunt and I'd have liked to fish but we were only enemies becuase we were told to fight and that the other was our enemy when in reality we could have been best friends"
Sorry I can't recall it correctly but I hadn't seen it in a while, seemed pretty relevant to the discussion about soldiers being told that their enemy is the evil one.
Anyway, sorry for that random off-shoot of the discussion.No worries, Junkster - Glad you enjoyed the thread (Sorry about the Iranian President's Parrots - I had drunk a lot of Ouzo by that point!)
Liked the Band of Brothers quote - very true. Expanding upon that, the US, England and Greece all suffered civil wars, one of the most evil types of conflict. The US and English civil wars were two of the bloodiest conflicts ever, and the scars still run deep for the Greeks. Ideology is a dangerous path to tread.
On another tangent, I watched an excellent series on the BBC recently, about some dude travelling around Iran and visiting the homes of normal Iranians. Great series, and it makes you realise that the Iranians are no different from the rest of us. There was a great shot of a bunch of guys in a coffee shop, smoking and playing backgammon - could just as easily have been Greece or the Italian Quarter of New York.
Just because the president is an idiot does not justify demonizing the entire nation, as happens all too often.
The ouzo inspired iranian parrot army did sort of throw me a curve ball, but no more confusing as bringing up politics in a discussion about one man of the (supposed) cloth
I see that more and more often, an out-of-touch ruler giving off the impression that all people under him are evil and twisted just like him. But the thing with wars in my mind is that religion is quite often the cause, people always argue the point but I've seen little to disprove my thought.
One of the many reasons I have for being simply void of any relgion at this point in my life.Press-ganging parrots into the army - is there no end to that man's evil!
Mind you, considering that dolphins, dogs and pigeons have been regarded as fair game for delivering high explosives, not so far-fetched.
Yup - expanding upon that, any sort of extremist ideology is dangerous, usually recruiting from the poor and oppressed. Once opinion becomes polarised, there is little room for compromise. Religion, politics and nationalism are all dangerous areas, if misused, but we are seeing a slow drift of people to extremes, mainly fuelled by ignorance and misinformation.
I do worry, sometimes.
There were many things about the last Pope that I disagreed with but, credit where it is due, he actively tried to promote inter-faith dialogue.
Don't get the same feeling with this Pope.
"Fear-mongering, right-wing, reactionary bigot," comes to mind.
You would think the vicar of christ on earth would be a little more christ-like in his attitudes.
Still, maybe I am just being unreasonably optimistic. I already see all the govs resorting to nationalism and protectionism as the economy goes into decline. Why would the churches be any different. At the end of the day - they are only interested in their own well-being.Sadly true - some of the financial shenanigans in the Greek Orthodox Church stink. Politicians, lawyers and judges are expected to steal - it is what they do best. When you can't even trust a bunch of monks, there is something seriously wrong with the world.
Agreed Ralph - For example, the Catholic Church had gained respect as a neutral party in the Israel/Palestine conflict. 'Roland' Ratzinger has managed to anger both sides.
It is so nice to see you guys standing up for a principle instead of taking firm stands on either sides. Earlier when Gaza strikes were taking place there was outcry against Israel and now there is outcry against those who try to deny the sad period in our history called holocaust. Sometimes I think it is the broad minded people like you folks who are able to see things from bigger picture. I really admire you all
- Too right. It looks as though there are even a few rationalists in the catholic church -
http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyl … CV20090216But you are not a highly respected bishop. No offence
That is the problem with believing in god. Unless you subscribe to the idea that not everything is down to god? Random chance?
So, either god had a hand in the New Orleans disaster or god does not have a hand in everything................
Hence the atheism.Maybe they are Borgs - Assimilate.
- jgrimes331posted 14 years ago0
Hi Mike, but isn't the church trying to force the Bishop to apologize?
For what I understand, he has an opinion about the Jewish Holocaust that differs from the opinion of the Catholic Churches Vatican. If that is the case and he is just one man, why is the Vatican getting involved and trying to force him to apologize? Is he not entitled to his opinion? I don't know. That is what I was asking.
I think that it is a big deal as yes it is because of religion and I was brought up to think of priests and the clergy were impartial and non-controversial figures in the community. Now there's all the talk of amny child abusers and this special bishop who wants to deny something tragic.
That being said I still think someone of his status should not be making views like this public, as it does nothing good for his views and the organisation as a whole, just like if someone was vocal in their job about how they hated one race or religion. I think that he said something like that in the first place was dumb and it's clearly a big deal with the current regime as this pope they have, wasn't there something about him being in the Hitler Youth??
So I guess Mark was right it is self-preservation after all! Good question. I am not stating that he should or should have. I stated that was MY opinion of the man. I NEVER said he should be reinstated either. I can't pretend to think like the pope or a pope's adviser knowing what facts he'd gathered or was given. I live in MO, USA not the Vatican. Never been either.
I think, I THINK anyone who doesn't fully recognize the horrific circumstances of the holocaust, might be a little touched in the head. MY OPINION. I don't know how the Pope feels and I won't pretend I have the power to do anything about it.
The bottomline still... is the fact that the Jews let 1 persons views get in the way of peace. That, again tells ME, that the they were looking for an escape goat to get outta of the meeting anyways. He is too incidental in the BIG scheme of things. Or at least I think so...
I didn't see the purpose of canceling. I saw the greater need to move forward. Thanks.Well if you want to be pedantic about spelling then I thought I'd point out that there is no such thing as an escape goat, there's a scapegoat but even that isn't the right word in the sense you used. A scapegoat is typically someone who gets all the blame for some sort of problem or wrongdoing.
Unless that's how you spell it over in the US or there are escape goats which you use to ride off away from religious discussions?Thanks for the spelling lesson.
As for riding off away from a religious discussion.... I went to bed. Is that okay? Getting a goodnight sleep, that is? When you sleep, are you running off?
Now back to the subject at hand: (is that phrasing okay with you? Any misspelled words?)
I woke up this morning, still thinking that the Jewish members that were to meet with Vatican officials, still let 1 measly little bishop get in there way of peace talks. So were they really interested in peace or an inconsequential man?
I thought maybe you might be thinking Africa. But like I said, over here, South America is what comes first to mind- usually.
- jgrimes331posted 14 years ago0
....So am I correct in thinking that you think this is all the Catholic Churches fault? Respectfully thinking I might add.
Oh, well I still thought that at the end of it all, even though this thread didn't direct it that way 100%, that the Catholic Church was still the reason for "AIDS" in Africa, causing Catholics to take part in Genocide. We did get on the topic of AIDS and administering of drugs to children- via the Genocidal killing of Africans by way of the Catholic Church? Didn't we? My mistake, Teresa- please accept my apologies.
I see...
I thought you said, LondonGirl that the Catholic church was guilty of Genocide. I must have missed the part where you laid blame to anyone else, other than the Catholic church. "Aids" being the what when and how... Is it unreasonable to think someone could draw that conclusion from your posts? All common sense aside...
If the Catholic Church is the sole reason of the Genocide occurring in Africa, or for that matter, having known participation to that type of action- are you speaking of the Catholics or are you referring to the Vatican? Again, respectfully inquiring.
I hereby accuse the catholic church (not the ignorant individuals who belong to the church, the institution) and the Vatican of collusion with the Nazis during the systematic attempted genocide of the Jews during WWII, covering up the molestation of young children by catholic priests, helping to spread AIDS by forbidding their "flock" to use condoms, general hypocrisy, actively lying to protect their monetary and political influence, war-mongering, and spreading religious hatred.
And yes, there is evidence for all these things.Thank you.... Finally someone who is not afraid to stand behind his words. Mark, I respectfully disagree with you that the Vatican or the Catholic church is committing genocide in Africa.
As for the ignorant individuals who belong to the Church... I don't think they are responsible either.I never said they were committing genocide. I said they were helping to spread AIDS.
Surely the membership of the church have some responsibility for the actions of the church?
Or is no one ever responsible? Like the governments and the banks.
I already have that on my blog with some other ones :
http://markpknowles.com/a-collection-of … tisements/
I have a hole bunch of funny condom ads -
http://markpknowles.com/funny-condom-advertisements/
Went to check out your condom pictures... GREAT FUN!
Mike - what are you trying to prove here? I am pretty sure you are celibate, but this is not a viable option for most of the world's population.
Condoms are an effective barrier to AIDS. Why are you arguing that they are not?
Go forth and multiply........ ?
That is exactly the point Mark. Condoms are not an effective barrier to AIDS. The 90% effectiveness (or less) with condoms and the results in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Botswana have proven this. The genocide bull shite got me started.
How is anyone going to go forth and multiply using a rubber. Well maybe 10% of the time.
As I clearly stated above, fidelity AND condoms are essential in the fight against HIV. You are cherry-picking my words to suit your own argument - I am faithful to my partner, so your comparison is irrelevant.
The failure rate is actually 95 to 99% - still not perfect, but I will run with yours, for the sake of argument.
The chance of contracting the virus from a single heterosexual exposure is less than 1%, or 1 in 100 times. If you multiply that by the chance of condom failure, at 1 in 10, you arrive at a chance of conrtracting HIV of 1 out of every 1000 times, better odds. That is very conservative, - if you take the 99% rate, or 1 in 100, you arrive at 1 out of every 10 000 times. The rate of transmission is actually less than 0.5% - can you see where this is going?
Your figure of 90% actually supports the case for distributing condoms
Of course, amongst a population of millions, with multiple sexual acts, this is still a significant proportion, hence my support for education about fidelity, too.
Edit: "The current likelihood of male to female infection after a single exposure to HIV is 0.01-0.32%"
From:
Downs AM, De Vincenzi I. Probability of heterosexual transmission of HIV: relationship to the number of unprotected sexual contacts. European Study Group in Heterosexual Transmission of HIV. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1996 Apr 1;11(4):388-95.
Wiley JA, Herschhkorn SJ, Padian NS. Heterogeneity in the probability of HIV transmission per sexual contact: the case of male-to-female transmission in penile-vaginal intercourse. Stat Med 1989;8:93-102.
Proper sources
That is my sort of scripture!
Sufi I asked that question from the perspective of an African seeing that is who we are talking about. You didn't answer my question. The problem with the propagation of condoms in Africa where HIV and AIDS are epidemic is that it is giving Africans a false sense of security.
Even the high priest of atheism, peace be upon you oh salami, agrees that abstinence and fidelity would be 100% effective.
So have we come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is not committing genocide in Africa by recommending abstinence and fidelity? What a ridiculous thought coming from a lawyer and lodge member.You never put the question like that - you actually asked if I had chosen Africa rather than Greece. With due respect, that is not from the perspective of an African
Studies in Thailand have shown that a dualistic approach is the most effective way. Promoting abstinence and not safe-sex education is a futile path. Believe it or not, Catholics have been known to lie and have affairs/visit prostitutes, just like any other group.
People did not suddenly start having multiple partners because condoms were distributed - they were doing it for a long time before that. Again, I refer you to the figures above - one chance in thousands of contracting HIV is better than 1 in 1000.
- jgrimes331posted 14 years ago0
Thank you Julie and to you. And you have no reason to apologize to anyone in here.
I just find it completely ridiculous to have to defend the Catholic Church against the false accusation of genocide because it tries to propagate abstinence and fidelity in Africa.
What next.No accusation of genocide here - just disagree with promoting fidelity rather than condoms.
Both approaches are needed for stopping the spread of HIV.
As for the drug companies..............possibly another thread!
EDIT: With knol on that one - people are going to have sex!Which of course begs the question as to why you feel the need to defend the catholic church?
Their part in the holocaust is well documented. And the reason for this discussion is one of their high-ranking politicians. No one could argue that they did not murder thousands spreading their religious hatred during the Auto da fe. Yet still you feel the urge to defend this political money making machine.
Why?
Nice twisting of words though. Very impressive. Very christian. God must be very proud.Yeah. Go ahead and make it about you even though I was clearly speaking to some one else.
Feel included now? Better?
I tried to make analogies such as this... But was quickly told they were "false analogies".
However; I think analogies do serve a purpose in debate. So Knolyourself.... if someone says to jump off a 100 ft rocky cliff, are you going to jump?
People in Africa have brains to think with, the same as we do..... They themselves are choosing not to wear condoms or practice safe sex. I don't know of any "Catholic" gunmen pointing a gun at anyones head, declaring them to NOT use a condom. Do you? Do share there names please...
What's hell? Are you talking about Sheol? Fire and Brimstone? The "Underworld"? Please....
I have that same PROCLAMATION pointed my direction everyday too. It's a proclamation not a gun.
But yet I have a free thinking brain. OH MY!
So bottom line you'd jump... I see. Thank you.
Good call, London Girl.
Actual facts are not really welcome here. Sorry.
Lithium and beliefs are the order of the day.I suppose that it is the religion forum!
Not a big fan of dangerous junk science, as you probably noticed.
Sadly, not available here - I will check if they have it online
New Scientist generally has a lot of articles slagging off junk science, and they specialise in the Ig nobel awards - always worth a laugh.
http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html
I love the dog-to-human translation deviceMaster Splinter!
- Great new avatar! Now you just need to understand Dutch spoken backwards!
Related Discussions
- 121
Catholic School Student Suspended For Protesting Trans Bathroom Policy
For context, the details aren't the point, the action is. That the student appears to be an activist is only important relative to what is claimed and reported to be his 'bullying' behavior: whether it was as innocent as the student claims or as strident as his background might indicate.It...
- 18
Who Is Superior: An Apostle or A Bishop?
Who Is Superior: An Apostle or A Bishop?
- 76
Is Jesus God? Or the most illuminated prophet of all times?
KW: Jesus, Christianity, Catholic Church, Christ, Buda, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Gospel of John, Gospel of Thomas, Nicene Council, Description: The article discusses the controversy about Jesus being God or an illuminated Rabbi, a hot issue in the initial centuries after Jesus death. Is Jesus a...
- 297
Atheism,Objectivism,Reductionism-The devolution of Homo Sapiens
The common thread that weaves through Atheism,Objectivism and Reductionism is the belief that reality can and must only be rationalized purely on the basis of its material or physical form.Atheism posits that anything that is not sensed in any physical way (seen, smelled, tasted, heard and touched)...
- 64
The Solution to the Problem of Sin in the Hebrew Sanctuary System
This thread is an effort to discuss the doctrine of sin and salvation within the Christian religion.We will have to begin by discussing the problem of sin and then the measures taken to deal with it in the wilderness sanctuary. We will then proceed to show how the sacrifices met their fulfilment in...
- 45
An Open Letter To Hubpages_ ATTN: wrenchBiscuit Attacked By Angry Mob
Here I am posting 7 derogatory comments I have received on one thread in less than one day! If you follow the thread you will see that I did not insult anyone, nor did I respond in kind to their insults. Please, I could care less about censorship, in fact I am adamantly against it. They did...