| thomasquinn 32989 12.09.2008 13:24 |
link "Religion and politics must be open to one another" says current pope Benedict XVI(former nazi youth and ultra-conservative cardinal Ratzinger). The fight between the Catholic church and secular rulers has been ongoing since the investiture controversy of the middle ages (11th century), but since the early modern era, popes have tended to have the good sense not to launch all-out attacks on secular rule. Ratzinger, however, seems intent on forcing Catholic values onto states, thus challenging divisions between state and church dating to the Revolutionary Era of the late 18th century. |
| Treasure Moment 12.09.2008 13:30 |
fuck the pope that filthy evil creature! |
| thomasquinn 32989 12.09.2008 13:30 |
Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain? |
| Music Man 12.09.2008 14:21 |
I think (or hope) that the west is well beyond listening to what the cockbag Pope has to say when formulating public policy. If you take out the word "cockbag," it reads like an informed opinion - but he's a cockbag, so let it be. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 12.09.2008 14:22 |
So would the pope feel the same way if the religion were Judaism or Islam? What about Buddhism or Hindi? Or, imagine, an atheist as head of state. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Couldn't you just see laws shift per election cycle according to the religion of individual leaders? And then what? Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity. And what of the population? Should each religion have their own leader? Their own government or country? Maybe that's what he wants... toss out the nonbelievers, the infidels, so those of 'the faith' will be true to the laws of church and state. Sounds like extremism to me. And my reply sounds like little more than rambling. Sorry, but I can't stand this kind of crap. |
| Micrówave 12.09.2008 14:29 |
I don't think he was saying that the two need to go hand in hand. Rather that they both need to be able to exist at the same time. Obviously he knows the two can't intermingle successfully. Otherwise, he may be a little off his pulpit. I don't think that either stance can conclude a prophalactic response, but thanks for the new word! UPDATE: The Pope just signed on to do 3 shows with Cheryl Crow for the Obama camp. McCain is currently fumbling thru his rolodex looking for Mandela's number. |
| Treasure Moment 12.09.2008 14:30 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain?you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence |
| Poo, again 12.09.2008 14:31 |
Congrats, Papa. Right back to Middle Ages. |
| Sergei. 12.09.2008 15:03 |
Poo, again wrote: Right back to Middle Ages.I bet he lived during the Middle Ages. Ratzinger and the hills. Since the beginning of time. |
| Micrówave 12.09.2008 17:14 |
Treasure Moment wrote:He's got us there!ThomasQuinn wrote: Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain?you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence |
| Philly Guy 12.09.2008 17:30 |
Is religion really the problem, or is it the people who abuse it? |
| Mr.Jingles 12.09.2008 18:01 |
The Vatican has little power when it comes to taking control of politics, even from Catholic majority nations. So, that's just his opinion. A dumb one that is, but nothing to worry about. |
| Raf 12.09.2008 18:40 |
Philly Guy wrote: Is religion really the problem, or is it the people who abuse it?People who abuse the power. And religion is a good "excuse" to do it. |
| thomasquinn 32989 13.09.2008 06:40 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity.Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.09.2008 09:08 |
ThomasQuinn wrote:So if I understand this correctly, "personality of law" means those who come to the US from, say, Saudi Arabia, would be within their rights/laws to stone a woman to death for a perceived infraction, while a female American in Saudi Arabia would be free to wear a halter top and short-shorts while driving herself, un-chaperoned, to a co-ed party with strangers. Yes?magicalfreddiemercury wrote: Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity.Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor. Maybe for the times it worked, but can you see that working now? At this moment, in Colorado, there is a company with a large Muslim (Somali) employee pool. These employees have walked out on the job because they've been told they cannot have their evening break time altered to allow for prayers at sunset during Ramadan. Apparently, the company has already made other adjustments to ensure the job does not hinder their ability to practice their religion. But, for whatever reason, they can't allow this additional change. And so, there’s fury as well as work slow-downs and walk-outs. Now, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, if you have a job, you follow the job description. If you're allowed two fifteen-minute breaks, and they don't coincide with your plans for the day, that's too bad. Why should a business - which has to produce a product and deal with other businesses in a business-like manner, within business hours, etc - have to alter its production schedule? What if Jewish employees there insist on leaving before sunset while Muslims insist on breaking for prayer five (?) times a day and Christians take the day off because it's Ash Wednesday and they want to go to church? What happens to the business? I see it the same for a country practicing "personality of law". Unless there were to be a total breakdown of the Western world as we know it, this can’t happen and, most certainly, the pope knows that. That kind of thinking is dangerous, IMO, and impractical. Of course, as Microwave suggested, coexistence makes sense - though we still struggle with that. However, the way I see it, coexistence must be within the non-religious laws of a country, otherwise this battle of beliefs will never subside. |
| Hitman 13.09.2008 19:36 |
ThomasQuinn wrote: link "Religion and politics must be open to one another" says current pope Benedict XVI(former nazi youth and ultra-conservative cardinal Ratzinger). The fight between the Catholic church and secular rulers has been ongoing since the investiture controversy of the middle ages (11th century), but since the early modern era, popes have tended to have the good sense not to launch all-out attacks on secular rule. Ratzinger, however, seems intent on forcing Catholic values onto states, thus challenging divisions between state and church dating to the Revolutionary Era of the late 18th century.hey your closed mind is tresspassing my patience's borders: all i read in your post is hate and lots of ignorance. now the whole speech of the POpe wasmeant to create a dialogue between Church and State. A dialogue that certain people like you doesn't want to open. What's wrong with that? it's not the first time you "delight" us with your anti-religious ideas. i invit eall the reader of this post not to believe to this insane interpretation given to this speech, and i'm sure everyone has a bit more "culture" to avoid believing in this distorted anticlerical opinions about the Church. |
| Raf 13.09.2008 19:58 |
Hitman wrote:What kind of "dialogue" do we need between government and church? Tax isentions for churches? Laws filled with religious ideas, discriminating people from different religions?ThomasQuinn wrote: link "Religion and politics must be open to one another" says current pope Benedict XVI(former nazi youth and ultra-conservative cardinal Ratzinger). The fight between the Catholic church and secular rulers has been ongoing since the investiture controversy of the middle ages (11th century), but since the early modern era, popes have tended to have the good sense not to launch all-out attacks on secular rule. Ratzinger, however, seems intent on forcing Catholic values onto states, thus challenging divisions between state and church dating to the Revolutionary Era of the late 18th century.hey your closed mind is tresspassing my patience's borders: all i read in your post is hate and lots of ignorance. now the whole speech of the POpe wasmeant to create a dialogue between Church and State. A dialogue that certain people like you doesn't want to open. What's wrong with that? it's not the first time you "delight" us with your anti-religious ideas. i invit eall the reader of this post not to believe to this insane interpretation given to this speech, and i'm sure everyone has a bit more "culture" to avoid believing in this distorted anticlerical opinions about the Church. As an atheist, I feel trapped just to think there are things I can't do because the Catholic Church (which to me is just a very old institution that spreads lies and tries to control people's lives) thinks they're wrong. The fucking Pope picked up a fight with our government back in 2007 because of our policy of giving free condoms, in some occasions giving free day-after pills and because legalization of abortion for babies with no chances of actually surviving after birth was being discussed. I think the Catholic Church and all other religious institutions have the right to have their own set of rules. But they're supposed to tell THEIR PEOPLE to follow those rules. It's not the President's, the Prime Minister's or the congressmen's task to tell people what God wants. They're supposed to defend our individual rights, period. Maybe by dialogue you didn't mean accepting whatever the Pope says - but to HIM, that's what it means. Benedict XVI has IN FACT been trying to interfere in governments. We are not supposed to let it happen. Aren't western countries democratic, don't they give people freedom to follow any religion they want or even to follow no religion at all? How can you feel free to follow jewish traditions if you are forced to follow christian rules? How can you feel free to be an atheist if you have to follow catholic rules? The pope should go back to his cathedral and pray, that's what he's supposed to do. If he wants to make politics, fine. He's got his own country since the 30's. He can make politics over there, and let other politicians take care of their countries' politics. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 13.09.2008 22:38 |
This really shouldn't surprise anyone that he says this; it's job security. Europe has been moving in a firmly secular direction since the Enlightenment, with many other "Western" countries following suit (though I do wish the US would pick up the pace a bit). That's why he's the attack dog that he is. He sees the papacy's influence and power waning, as millions of Europeans decide they don't need to listen to the papacy anymore, even if they are Catholics. He's trying to make sure the power and prestige of the papacy survives, and that the papacy doesn't wind up a relic of lost times, something that you read about in a history book but can't relate to. It's like the last throws of a drowning man who knows he's going down but can't accept it. |
| YourValentine 14.09.2008 05:32 |
First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country. |
| Treasure Moment 14.09.2008 13:38 |
YourValentine wrote: First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country.being catholic is euqalliy disgusting as being a nazi, they are both wicked and evil |
| thomasquinn 32989 15.09.2008 06:33 |
Treasure Moment wrote:Fanaticism is evil. Most Catholics are not fanatics; this guy is (he endorses Opus Dei, the Catholic equivalent of Islamists). As for YV's touchy response: many young people dissented, at great personal risk. This guy loves talking about morality and steadfastness in the face of danger, but was too much of a coward to practice what he preaches. Therefore, I blame him for having accepted the Nazi regime. If he weren't so full of it on that count, I wouldn't hold it against him.YourValentine wrote: First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country.being catholic is euqalliy disgusting as being a nazi, they are both wicked and evil |
| Mr.Jingles 15.09.2008 08:16 |
Treasure Moment wrote:My grandma is a Catholic, and even though I was raised Catholic and I've chosen not to follow any sort of organized religion she respects my point of view. She also understands the reasons why people like me have decided to stay away from Catholicism and criticizes the highest authorities of the Church for not doing nearly enough toYourValentine wrote: First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country.being catholic is euqalliy disgusting as being a nazi, they are both wicked and evil I've always admired my Grandma's willingness to help others. Back when she wasn't so old she joined this Catholic charity that collects food and clothing and takes it to poor neighborhoods where people need it the most. Regardless of what kind of faith people followed, everyone was encouraged to be help in any way they could. Yes, my grandma is indeed a Nazi. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 15.09.2008 08:34 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: My grandma is a Catholic, and even though I was raised Catholic and I've chosen not to follow any sort of organized religion she respects my point of view. She also understands the reasons why people like me have decided to stay away from Catholicism and criticizes the highest authorities of the Church for not doing nearly enough to I've always admired my Grandma's willingness to help others. Back when she wasn't so old she joined this Catholic charity that collects food and clothing and takes it to poor neighborhoods where people need it the most. Regardless of what kind of faith people followed, everyone was encouraged to be help in any way they could.This is so beautiful. I would like to have known someone like your grandmother. I'm afraid my experience with those 'of the faith' has been quite the opposite. It's been more of an evangelical stand where they are right and deserving while the non-believers will suffer in hell for eternity. And while the pope is only a man, many followers are so crazed by his word they'll treat it as, well, gospel. The very fact that religious issues come up as talking points during our presidential campaigns shows how church and state are blended in society's mind. A simple hint from this guy for further connection is a dangerous thing and, of course, he knows it. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 15.09.2008 09:33 |
Good point, Magical. I suppose the saving grace is that the US will never be Catholic...we are too strongly puritanical for that. But we've had a very strong tie with religion for the last eight years. And what have we gotten out of it? Abstinence only education in schools that has been proven to not reduce the rates of teen pregnancy for one thing. Federal funding of faith based programs for another, which has cut funding from other non-faith based educational institutions. What a great deal. I can see where a closer tie is needed. (BTW, that's meant to be sarcastic) |
| Yara 15.09.2008 09:44 |
YourValentine wrote: First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country.I love you. It's serious. I'm deeply in love with your brain. :-))) Your posts are like ray of lights shining in the darkness. I can't thank you enough for your thoughtful posts. Your thinking is crystal clear and your writing is a joy to read. You're both bright and knowledgeable. Take care. |
| Yara 15.09.2008 10:23 |
Yara wrote:YourValentine wrote: First of all the Pope was not a Nazi. It would be good if you criticize him for what he actually does or did but repeating the tabloid rubbish about him being a Nazi in his youth only discredits your own intellectual honesty. He was registered into the Hitlerjugend like everybody else, it was not an act of choosing. He did choose to stay in the Catholic youth which made him unpopular with the Nazis. About the speeches in Paris: the pope really did not "attack" the separation of state and church, he said that Catholics should re-introduce their religion into daily life and that the Christian religion is the ethical basis of our culture and should be upheld. You can disagree but it's totally normal that the Pope would say that, it's his job. Of course, he is also hinting at what many Christians find "agressive" behaviouur of muslims in Europe who are very visible in former Catholic dominated countries . Apparently, the Catholic church feels threatened. It's certainly different in South America where the church seems to have more power, so yes I think it's outrageous when the pope interferes in the law making of a country in order to impose his morals on a whole country.I love you. It's serious. I'm deeply in love with your brain. :-))) Your posts are like rays of light shining in the darkness. I can't thank you enough for your thoughtful posts. Your thinking is crystal clear and your writing is a joy to read. You're both bright and knowledgeable. Take care. |
| Yara 15.09.2008 11:00 |
I need to learn how to edit things instead of replying to myself in order to correct my errors. Reading me once is boring enough. Forcing people to do it twice is ruthless. But this time it was worth the effort because the shining light of YourValentine deserves to be spread all over. :-)) |
| princetom 15.09.2008 11:04 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: The Vatican has little power when it comes to taking control of politics, even from Catholic majority nations. |
| Micrówave 15.09.2008 11:21 |
princetom wrote: Hum.. youre wrong. the vatican still has political power. a few years ago those clericals decided to close all institutions which women can go to for aborting pregnancyWhat? Are you crazy Prince? First off, the vatican CAN'T shut down abortion clinics or medical offices. Not even their secretaries can. Or did you mean Clerics? The clinic down the street is open 5 days a week. Even on holidays. "We're there when you need us... bring us your fetus." |
| princetom 15.09.2008 13:47 |
my fault... i did not mean clinics themselves but facilities where women could get psychological advice, which is a neccessary thing by law, in order to visit a abortion-clinic. if i remember correct it was about half of the facilities closed because they got financed by the church... this resulted in leaving vast areas of germany without giving women the possibility to abort their pregnancy... (btw: i do not like the idea of aborting anyway...but there may be reasons...) strange topic... but it gets even more strange... short time ago the german clerics created about 3000 jobs for exorcists in germany. so every county now has its own. unfortunately i didn't check what it needs to become an exorcist. |
| YourValentine 16.09.2008 14:14 |
@ Yara - thanks for the compliment. Actually, I think I am not brighter than the next person but I can tell you that the "edit" button is the left button on top of your message. If you place your mouse pointer on the buttons, it shows you the function of each button (edit, reply, reply with quote) @ Thomas Quinn: I am not touchy and I am the first to call a Nazi a Nazi. Ratzinger was not a Nazi, he was registered into the Hitlerjugend at the age of 14 and you could not un-register. At the time he visited a Catholic school which was not received well by the Nazis. Maybe he should have shot the local Top Nazi and then he would have been a hero but maybe that is asked a little too much from a 14 year old who had enough on his plate being in a religious school. It's very easy to blame people from your comfortable position at a keyboard. I wonder how much you would risk in such a situation. If Ratzinger was a Nazi I am a Protestant because I was baptized when I was 3 weeks old. Too bad I did not bite the priest's hand to make him stop but I had no teeth at the time. @ princetom: Pope John Paul II forbade the German Catholics to do the legally required consultations of women who want an abortion. The Catholic consultations were always designed to encourage women to keep the child and not to abort. The head of the German Bishops, Cardinal Lehmann tried to convince the pope that Catholic women are better off when they are advised by the church than by an organisation which does not encourage them to change their minds but in the end he had to obey the pope. I don't think there are big areas with no places to go and I think the Catholics only put pressure on women and it's good they stopped. Actually, I think the mandatory consultations are humiliating and totally unnecessary. About the exorcism - only a tiny minority in the Bavarian mountains believes in exorcism. The 3000 new jobs are for all of Europe, mainly Eastern Europe and Italy. I don't think there is a big demand for exorcists in Germany :-)However, I think that is really something to criticise - not Ratzinger's Hitlerjugend membership. |
| princetom 16.09.2008 20:31 |
about the aborting-discussion: (right ahead: i'm not pro-abortion anyway!) there where a certain number of jobs to be vanished in closing down facilities and therefore the vatican proved it's political influence...
YourValentine wrote: @ About the exorcism - only a tiny minority in the Bavarian mountains believes in exorcism. The 3000 new jobs are for all of Europe, mainly Eastern Europe and Italy. I don't think there is a big demand for exorcists in Germany :-)However, I think that is really something to criticise - not Ratzinger's Hitlerjugend membership.checked it and you're right... had an old 'tagesschau'-report in mind where they told every county ('bistum') gets its own and projected this on germany, not europe... sorry... nevertheless...technically that's one exorcist per 1.000.000 people... interesting...can't wait to get to know mine... :-D but not only hardcore-bavarians believe in exorcism... you'll find some reports on practiced exorcistms in paderborn and requests from hamburg and schleswig-holstein/mecklenburg (check 'die welt'-online...). seems to me that the problem's growing...and NOT ONLY to be projected on the hillbillies... |
| Yara 16.09.2008 20:45 |
YourValentine wrote: @ Yara - thanks for the compliment. Actually, I think I am not brighter than the next person but I can tell you that the "edit" button is the left button on top of your message. If you place your mouse pointer on the buttons, it shows you the function of each button (edit, reply, reply with quote)Thanks. :-)) And, above all, gentle and kind. :-) Well, I think you're very bright, really. Much more so than most people I know, at least. :op I really love to read your posts. REALLY. :-)) *hug* |
| magicalfreddiemercury 16.09.2008 21:50 |
princetom wrote: about the aborting-discussion: (right ahead: i'm not pro-abortion anyway!)Just to clarify... few people are pro-abortion but rather pro-choice. |
| thomasquinn 32989 18.09.2008 06:11 |
YourValentine wrote: @ Thomas Quinn: I am not touchy and I am the first to call a Nazi a Nazi. Ratzinger was not a Nazi, he was registered into the Hitlerjugend at the age of 14 and you could not un-register. At the time he visited a Catholic school which was not received well by the Nazis. Maybe he should have shot the local Top Nazi and then he would have been a hero but maybe that is asked a little too much from a 14 year old who had enough on his plate being in a religious school. It's very easy to blame people from your comfortable position at a keyboard. I wonder how much you would risk in such a situation. If Ratzinger was a Nazi I am a Protestant because I was baptized when I was 3 weeks old. Too bad I did not bite the priest's hand to make him stop but I had no teeth at the time.You read my rationale, I hope? As I said, I am holding it against him merely because he is so eager to tell everyone else to risk their lives in defense of 'morality' and 'religion', but didn't himself. |
| Cwazy little thing 18.09.2008 13:10 |
I tend to think there are that many religious people in the world that there should always be a dialogue between religion and state, but the state should be independent from any religion. I think every single religion - catholic, church of england, puritan, jewish, muslim etc have extreme elements which are guilty of a large number of bad things. Religion is a hideous weapon in the hands of the wrong people, and that is whats wrong with the world. Probably has been for a long time. Picking on a particular religion or person within it is usually unwise - certainly when you take a blanket view like TM (you really are an arsehole) - all this demonstrates to me is that you are worse than anyone or anything you are criticising. A little tolerance goes a long way, and if everyone would give a bit, the world would be a far more peaceful place. |