Hello darlings: you’re all Nazis
So the pope, feeling somewhat backfooted by all this fuss about a few children being groped or cuddled or raped by priests and bishops, goes on the attack in his friendly pastoral visit to the UK.
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny” (Caritas in Veritate, 29).
That vicious authoritarian theocratic homophobic misogynist hierarchical thug presumes to blame atheists for Nazism when his own fucking church was all but an ally of the Nazis and really was an ally of Mussolini and Franco.
Richard Dawkins is not terribly charmed.
This statement by the pope, on his arrival in Edinburgh, is a despicable outrage. Even if Hitler had been an atheist, his political philosophy was not based upon atheism and had no connection with atheism. Hitler was arguably (and by his own account) a Roman Catholic. In any case he enjoyed the open support of many of the most senior catholic clergy in Germany and the less demonstrative support of Pope Pius XII…
I am incandescent with rage at the sycophantic BBC coverage, and the sight of British toadies bowing and scraping to this odious man. I thought he was bad before. This puts the lid on it.
Quite. It’s simply foul – accusing people whose “crime” is refusal to believe in the invented god of the Catholic or any other church of being on a slippery slope to Nazism. Yet there are the great and the good bending the knee to this horror show. It’s revolting.
I’m used to the “Nazis were atheists” libel from fundamentalist morons like Ray Comfort, Ken Ham and their gullible followers, but I’m actually surprised to hear it from someone who (notwithstanding his other faults) I thought was at least somewhat intelligent and educated. Which raises the question: Is Benny the Rat a liar or an ignoramus?
Just for the title of this article, I think I love you :)
I saw the old sod today in the Popemobile driving past my office in Edinburgh. Everyone downed tools to gawp, I should say because of his celebrity and the big splash in the media than out of religious piety. Most people in my office, if they are Christians at all, would be Protestants. What really pissed me off was his whingeing about the secularisation of Britain and Europe. If it hadn’t been for the secularisation Edinburgh would be militantly Protestant and there would have been wild No Popery riots. I don’t suppose he came through the usual route for arrivals in Edinburgh airport, but if he did you’re greeted by a big cut-out sign saying The City of the Enlightenment.
I notice that his route avoided the whacking great statue of David Hume that sits in Edinburgh’s most picturesque street.
Wasn’t Goebels the only Nazi excommunicated – and for marrying a divorcee, at that?
Oh well I would gawp too if he drove past my window – I just wouldn’t have a pleasant look on my face, that’s all.
Yes but what the epithet pope is saying is that atheists are Nazis.
Of course Bishop Benny’s claims are vile amd dishonest-but did you really expect anything else?
This really is bizarre. To suppose, for one moment, that fascism or Nazism was the consequence of atheism is historically ridiculous. It was, in fact, a aspect of the religious reaction against modernity. Hitler, a poorly educated Roman Catholic, may have been terribly confused about his religious allegiances — in fact, many of the things that he wrote and said indicate this — but there is no sign that he saw his sub-Wagnerian religiosity as in any sense in conflict with Christianity.
Indeed, the concordat which the church signed with the Reich in July 1933, and the response of the church to the Enabling Act (March 1933), which gave Hitler dictatorial powers for four years, must have convinced Hitler that, in fact, what he was doing was consistent with Christian faith. He would have had no reason to suppose otherwise. The concordat was signed by Cardinal Pacelli, who would become Pius XII, and despite the arrest of socialists and communists, the German church continued to make positive noises about the new German government, until the freedom of the church was also impaired. It had not protested the arrest of socialists and communists, because it saw the Nazis as a bulwark against the communist threat to the East. But freedom is indivisible — something even the present pope does not recognise — and soon it would be the church’s turn to feel the restrictions which German virtues would impose.
But it is simply slander to suggest that any of this had to do with atheism. Hitler himself would have been gravely insulted had anyone dared to call him one. Indeed, it was to a large extent precisely the church’s response to communism (and its associated atheism), that led to its support of the Nazis. And by listening to Ratzi you can see why, because, for Ratzi, Christianity is a form of authoritarianism, and the church celebrated the same virtues in Hitler and the Nazis. What Ratzi said at Holyroodhouse is an outrage, and it is good to hear Dawkins responding with appropriate fury.
No, but these claims are especially vile, and anyway, even if I expect them to be vile, that’s no reason not to point them out when they occur.
See? How could I possibly want Eric to start his own blog?!
Frankly many on the left seemed to be enjoying Pope bashing for their own gratification and I was beginning to think we’d over done the Pope baiting.
Now however I think the arse deserves every last drop of odium.
(Yes, I’m totally selfish.)
http://www.jesusandmo.net/
No need for further comment
Even if Hitler had been an atheist the Nazis didn’t invent anti-semitism – it had been around for centuries and Hitler just tapped the vein.
I think we should be surprised that Ratzi brought the Nazis into it, surprised and outraged. Wherever the church has any power in the world today it uses it in an autocratic fashion. The whole child abuse scandal is a direct result of its dictatorial, authoritarian ways.
To suggest for one moment that contemporary secularism is in any way related to the Nazis is about as far wide of the mark as you can get. Secularism is devoted to liberal freedoms a la John Stuart Mill. It does not believe, as the pope does, in the intrusion of the state in the private lives of individuals. So, the pope is much closer to Hitler than anyone who favours liberal secularism.
Someone close to the man should try to help him not look like a fool, even though he obviously is one. This man is supposed to be a top theologian! Good god! He’s not even in rompers yet. Yes, he does deserve all the opprobrium that people can pile on him. I wish I were over there now to protest the idiot!
He’s attempting to shift blame off himself, of course. Throw out a few red herrings to get people off his back about the hole “child abuse” issue. Suspiciously like what Hitler actually did with the Jews, but who’s counting.
I really wish that when these Liars for Jesus do the whole “Atheists were responsible for the worst genocides of the 20th century” line, they’d at least focus on Stalin and Pol Pot, who were at least nominally atheist. Pointing to Hitler is a bald-faced lie.
For once, that libel law you still have in Britain could come in handy. Why don’t you file a suit for defamation? Everybody feels entitled to their daily dosis of “offence”. Atheists and non-believers are constantly the target of insulting statements. A German bishop blamed the British for their lack of “decency” in criticizing the Pope. How about that?
Beware over-reaction; it may be what the Church is courting. I can imagine there are numerous people who will say, “Oh, no, I don’t think he was trying to say that people like Professor Dawkins are Nazis. In fact, it’s kind of outrageous to even suggest that.” You know, the old See, These People are Nuts™ card.
Unfortunately, works too often.
This is an excellent point. If it weren’t for secularism, his visit to the UK would not be possible.
Of course, Pope Ratzy has probably forgotten about all the bad blood between Anglicans and Catholics, since he made all nicey nicey with them by offering to take all the misogynists and homophobes off their hands. Class act.
[…] Ophelia Benson: That vicious authoritarian theocratic homophobic misogynist hierarchical thug presumes to blame atheists for Nazism when his own fucking church was all but an ally of the Nazis and really was an ally of Mussolini and Franco. […]
Yeah, I’d carry on with your cunning tactics of giving him guest posts. Very Machiavellian. . .
You are a star, Eric.
There are not too many other groups besides vocal atheists that could be slandered in this way (by the pope!) while the MSM greets the remarks with equanimity Substitute some other group for “atheists,” and see how it sounds. Apparently, it’s OK to talk shit about atheists.
Damn…his popey-ness has rumbled us. Guess I’d better cancel that order for hundreds of thousands of matching pink shirts (since all of us nazi atheists are evil gaysexuals, too), armbands with a big “A” picked out in a bold, (yet tasteful), contrasting colour, and all those “Heil Dawkins!” posters…
Ought to let all the religious folks out of those dirty, smelly work camps, too…only after they’ve had a shower, mind…
Wait — wasn’t Ratzinger himself a HitlerJugend? And he’s calling Hitler an “evil atheist”? What does that make him, then? Or is this all some kind of “but now I know better” thing?
Meh, I don’t much care which way round the nouns are arranged in that sentence — in this context, the intended meaning is about the same.
Read this report in the Age. Makes me sick. Not about Pope in UK, but about nasty new atheists and their witch hunt against the nice Pope.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/atheists-bent-on-painting-pope-as-a-rapehappy-ogre-20100916-15ek7.html
Perhaps, the Pope would care to read about the genocide in Rwanda:
“Far from condemning the attempt to exterminate the Tutsi, Archbishop Augustin Nshamihigo and Bishop Jonathan Ruhumuliza of the Anglican Church acted as spokesmen for the genocidal government at a press conference in Nairobi. Like many who tried to explain away the slaughter, they placed the blame for the genocide on the RPF because it had attacked Rwanda. Foreign journalists were so disgusted at this presentation that they left the conference.”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno4-7-03.htm#P893_245534
I just read the website where that article came from. Seems to be a gnu atheist bashing zone.
http://www.spiked.com
Here’s the comment I left at the Age:
Ahh, so it’s the gnu atheists fault? Gotcha. Glad to know that. Considering that Dawkins, Harris, et al. have only been publishing for a few years, and have only published a few books they must be great writers to have managed to get the church to cover up abuse for decades? But there was no big cover up according to you and the church isn’t so bad. Guess that’s why the cleanskin Pope in Scotland said that atheists are Nazis. Funny, I recall Hitler being a Catholic and the church having a concordat with the Nazis (as a bullwark against communism) and most Germans at the time being Catholic and Lutheran. But I guess that must have been a lie spread by new atheists (Dawkins probably) as is the terrible calumny that the church supports and enables child rapists? Glad we’ve got Brendan on the case to tell us the truth.
Well, some Nazis were atheists,some were Catholics.some were Protestants and some believers in other religions,all bound together by the long Christian tradition of anti-Semitism, that was political Nazism. However, the SS was at the black heart of Nazism and that organization can only be described as a religious cult.
Why didn’t his Oiliness mention the Roma, one of the forgotten mass victims of the Nazis? We should also ask his Odiousness about the ‘Rat Lines’ and the complicity of Catholic clergy in the post war escape of Nazi war criminals.
A bald-faced liar*. There is no way someone who was in Germany participating in Nazi-support[ed|ing] groups can honestly claim that it was an atheistic or atheist-motivated movement (gott mit uns, ffs). He knows full-well Hitler claimed to be a Catholic, and his power was based in Catholic and Lutheran masses.
*It occurs to me that I’m not sure if the l-word is OK here post-migration from the old server where it was verboten. Remove if needed, I simply feel it must be said (and less will not do).
Paula Kirby has an interesting post on RD.Net that Ratzi make this slur to piss off protesters so they’d rage against him about being called Nazis instead of the embarrassment of being called an enabler of child rapists.
Paula rocks. She’s covering the popevisit for the Herald, and she’s been fuming away at Facebook. She told me about the Dawkins link to the transcript.
spiked – yes – that’s the Institute of Ideas people that I was muttering about a day or two ago. Masses of stupid reactionary atheist-hating there. Brendan O’Neill; ugh.
Oh I see, Brendan O’Neill wrote the article in the Age. Ian just sent me a link to that. Well ugh again.
[…] By tildeb Because, borrowing Ophelia Benson’s accurate description of him at her blog, he embodies his religion’s dogma, which just so happens to be vicious, authoritarian, […]
Brian: “Paula Kirby has an interesting post on RD.Net that Ratzi make this slur to piss off protesters so they’d rage against him about being called Nazis instead of the embarrassment of being called an enabler of child rapists.”
That’s a bit too Machiavellian for me. If the choice is between Papal blundering and a cunning Papal plan. I’ll stay with Occam’s Razor and papal foot-in-mouth. Ratz’s problem with his blame-the-atheists trope is very similar to Brer Rabbit’s problem with the Tar Baby. He apparently did not see this reaction coming.
Talk about a public relations disaster. It’s all there in the comments below the Age article you linked to.
Ian, you might be right. Still, I think that it’s best that UK protesters do protest the church’s enabling and covering up of child abuse than get caught up in the pope’s slander.
While I think of it, Hitler was baptised and raised a Catholic. According to Church doctrine, it is possible that after he died he served a bit of time in Purgatory and then was allowed into Heaven fully cleansed.
If the Pope was so inclined, he could have Hitler banned from Heaven, just in case. It’s all there in the power Christ conferred on St Peter.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this precaution was never taken; by any pope since WW2.
I cannot for the life of me understand why this precaution was never taken; by any pope since WW2.
Wouldn’t the very act alert people to the fact that Hitler died in good stead with the church. It would sort of make claims that Hitler was the result of atheism/secularism more difficult. Or is that too Machiavellian?
Oh they can still claim that – you see Hitler is what happens when a good Catholic boy is exposed to a world full of atheist evilness.
Andrew Brown has contributed his eunuch’s mite in the Grauniad…
you see Hitler is what happens when a good Catholic boy is exposed to a world full of atheist evilness.
But if was a good Catholic boy, then how did he manage to do so wrong? After all, being a good Catholic boy, he’d have a grasp of God’s unwavering, objective morality. He wouldn’t be able to do wrong, having grasped the Platonic good that is God’s unwavering, objective morality. Thus I conclude that Hitler was no true Scotsmans, erm good Catholic boy.
Did I just argue that Hitler was an atheist? Bad Brian. No cookie!
“Wouldn’t the very act alert people to the fact that Hitler died in good stead with the church. It would sort of make claims that Hitler was the result of atheism/secularism more difficult. Or is that too Machiavellian?”
I grant you that that is a reasonable explanation for an otherwise baffling problem. But looked at another way, setting up an elaborate and highly publicised ceremony in St Peter’s to formally close the gate of Heaven to Hitler (or if he is already inside, to chuck him out) would be a big PR boost for the Church in its fight with militant atheism. It would be saying to all and sundry ‘for us, principle comes first. Let this be lesson to all, on what can happen to those who let themselves be persuaded away from the one true path.’ Or something like that.
I’m surprised they haven’t thought of it.
I’m surprised they haven’t thought of it.
Ian, I was raised Catholic. There never was admission of institutional failure. Some bad apples, spoiling the image of the great church, yes, but no admission that the church could be less than perfect. I just can’t see it happening.
The Hitler Youth song begins with the words:
“God is struggle, and we are struggle,
And that is why we’re here.”
[Source: Joachim Fest.]
Ratzinger will remember the words from his days in the Hitler Youth.
So when he claims the Nazis were atheists, remember that he isn’t “mistaken”. He knows, at first-hand experience, that what he’s saying isn’t true. It’s not just vicious bigotry; it’s a deliberate lie.
Oh has he (Andrew Brown). Argh, no link, Tim!
Oh gawd, I’ve found it.
What makes you think the pope doesn’t deserve invective, Andrew?!
I assume Mr Mooney will have a post on this as well, explaining how it is the fault of the atheists that the poor defenceless Pope reacted this way.
Minchin is right…
I’m not sure I even believe Andrew Brown’s claim that he’s an atheist. It seems impossible that someone who didn’t believe in God could be so cravenly deferential to and defensive of organized religion, so constantly as Andrew Brown is. It would be like watching a gay man spend all of his column inches defending the National Organization for Marriage, or being outraged over other gays protesting the convert-them-to-straightism psychological abuse programs. Would we actually believe he was gay?
Hitler was also a vegetarian.
Using parallel reasoning, I could argue that all vegetarians are potential fascists. In fact, that might be that their logic tells them that all these carnivores who slaughter defenceless animals and indulge in other unspeakable practices (like drinking the blood of unbaptised young animals) ought to be exterminated. Next thing we know will be the dreaded VV (Vegetarian Vengeance) troops descending on carnivores in their homes and hauling them off to abatoirs.
Remember this, next time you meet up with a vegetarian.
Well, a few people have pointed it out first, but it needs saying a lot. There may be some excuses for people born too late, but for someone who was actually in the HJ to pretend not to know that atheism and godlessness were frequently and publicly named as enemies by Nazi Germany, despite its sometimes ambiguous relationship with some forms of Christianity, is an affront of barely imaginable proportions. The man has removed himself from civilised discourse. This is true villainy.
I am blogging on this one too.
http://blogs.timeslive.co.za/expensive/2010/09/17/the-pope-is-a-liar/
I figure he is a prophet for profits too.
Come on, give the guy a break.
He’s 83 years of age. Maybe he’s forgotten. It’s not like his memory is infallible, is it?
Oh wait..
To be serious, having grown up in an Irish Catholic background I tend to have a sensitive ear for the style of argument that Catholic apologeticists employ in these debates. One thing that you quickly become familiar with is the fact that Catholic apologeticists almost invariably use the ‘Hitler was an atheist’ argument. Just look at any Dinesh D’Souza debate to see what I mean. One can see why they would want to do it; if all the 20th century dictatorships had been atheist then their argument becomes that much stronger. Having the most famous dictatorship headed by a Catholic invites the obvious point that totalitarian dictatorship rather than religion is the common feature.
One can also see why Catholic apologists have a particular hatred of the gnu atheists. Their major argument against atheism is the destruction caused by ‘old’ atheists like Stalin, Mao (and Hitler!) and yet they rail against a ‘new aggressive atheism’ which, if examined even slightly, is clearly a very different philosophy than that employed by the communists or Nazis. The fact that their argument is such a double edged sword must make wielding it in open debate a most uncomfortable prospect.
Come on, give the guy a break.
He’s 83 years of age. Maybe he’s forgotten. It’s not like his memory is infallible, is it?
Oh wait..
To be serious, having grown up in an Irish Catholic background I tend to have a sensitive ear for the style of argument that Catholic apologeticists employ in these debates. One thing that you quickly become familiar with is the fact that Catholic apologeticists almost invariably use the ‘Hitler was an atheist’ argument. Just look at any Dinesh D’Souza debate to see what I mean. One can see why they would want to do it; if all the 20th century dictatorships had been atheist then their argument becomes that much stronger. Having the most famous dictatorship headed by a Catholic invites the obvious point that totalitarian dictatorship rather than religion is the common feature.
One can also see why Catholic apologists have a particular hatred of the gnu atheists. Their major argument against atheism is the destruction caused by ‘old’ atheists like Stalin, Mao (and Hitler!) and yet they rail against a ‘new aggressive atheism’ which, if examined even slightly, is clearly a very different philosophy than that employed by the communists or Nazis. The fact that their argument is such a double edged sword must make wielding it in open debate a most uncomfortable prospect.
Ooops, double post.
He’s obviously never watched Faulty Towers even the most basic research would have shown it’s not done in Britain to mention the war with Germans present. Even if it is a German who brings it up, even if that German was a member of the Hitler Youth, even if that German knows Hitler was an atheist because he checked the Vatican receipts for all the Nazi stolen art they horded, even if the same church claimed Hitler was “Avenging for God” during the Holocaust, even if Hitler was an alter boy. Even then, don’t mention the war.
Can I make a correlation? Both Hitler and Stalin trained to be Priests and then went on too…
It’s just horrendous, isn’t it? And Dawkins is right, it’s not just that the Pope’s said such appalling stuff, it’s that the BBC and others are queueing up to kiss the guy’s arse even after he’s said such appalling stuff. They may as well run a banner along the BBC news coverage which states: “Atheists, women, gay people, abuse survivors… we don’t give a fuck about you! License fee please!”
At least Channel 4 broadcast Peter Tatchell’s programme ‘The Trouble With The Pope’, although not until the announcer had fretted about its ‘controversial’ nature. *eye roll*
In any case, I suspect Paula at RD.net might be right, and this may be a deflection tactic. Or, he might just be saying it because he can, as it’s quite clear that no-one in authority in the UK is going to stop him from spouting this hateful crap.
Sigh. Three more days of this horror show to come.
@jan frank, I’m a vegetarian (vegan actually). So added to the fact I’m an atheist, would that make me a Double Nazi or Nazi squared?! Either way, be afraid everyone… (actually Hitler wasn’t really a vegetarian – a bit like he wasn’t really an atheist).
I’m quite enjoying his (arse-)Holiness’s visit so far.
I’d rather we weren’t paying so much for it, but I do support religious leaders coming here and spouting their ahistorical horseshit in such a very public manner.
I’ll be surprised if there’s any kind of long term Catholic resurgence from this visit, I suspect a close up view of this old horror will move people in the opposite direction and far more quickly than we could ever hope to.
…. and he mentioned the war!
re : Hitler the vegetarian.
I’m not a Hitler expert, but as per some recent letters to Private Eye’s Pedantry Corner, it appears Hitler was never a vegetarian (his personal chef recorded that his favourite dishes included wood-pigeon and sausage)
Apparently the idea that he didn’t eat meat originated with Goebbels who wanted to project the image of der fuehrer as a sort of holy ascetic.
I was baptised CofE. I got a spoon. You may say that religion never does anything for anyone, but my spoon says otherwise.
Did Hitler train to become a priest? I thought he just wanted to become one when he was a child.He also failed to get into art school.
@Aj
My goodness. Shows you can’t trust anyone.
Of course, if our beloved Pope really believes doing things the old way (everything in Latin, hands above the blankets when you sleep, etc.) he probably doesn’t eat meat either on Fridays.
So perhaps both Hitler and the Pope are part-time vegetarians. I still feel we should look out for the VV
I’m not too up on catholic doctrine, but isn’t the fact hitler committed suicide enough to bar him from heaven?
Also, hitler wasn’t a vegetarian – it’s a common mis-conception; i’m not sure if that detracts from the point that was being made, but pedantry compels me to point that out
“Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.”
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
Here’s the Roman Catholic perspective on Suicide
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm
[…] tildeb @ 6:42 am Because, borrowing Ophelia Benson’s accurate description of him at her blog, he embodies his religion’s dogma, which just so happens to be vicious, authoritarian, […]
Y’all beat me to it, but you can pretty much guarantee that, if the RCC were asked in its own, black, heart, it would be the suicide thing they really held against Hitler, on the ‘immortal soul’ front.
Meanwhile:
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/264964/
Josh #50.
Andrew Brown is no atheist, his protestations to be one are merely a figleaf to enable him to claim a position of neutrality from which to fling his dirt at atheists. He has a particular fondeness for catholics – his wife is one, I think. When the child rape scandal erupted, Brown penned not one or two articles in defence of the RCC, but half a dozen. It was a quite disturbing, since even our ever so wishy washy Lady Bunting had no great enthusiasm for the church at that point.
Ophelia, did you get that lovely AB effort where he alluded to critics of the papal visit being stalinists?
Stalin and no-Popery
“I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives.”
Very selective indeed, considering Pope John Paul II publicly asked forgiveness for the sins of Roman Catholics through the ages. The pope and several other Vatican leaders conducted a “Day of Pardon Mass” at St. Peter’s Basilica. To the Jews he said, “We are deeply saddened by the behaviour of those who in the course of history have caused these children of yours to suffer, and asking your forgiveness we wish to commit ourselves to genuine brotherhood.” The church is very clever at spin-doctoring to suit the occasion.
In reference to the Inquisition, Cardinal Ratzinger once said “Even men of the church, in the name of faith and morals, have sometimes used methods not in keeping with the Gospel.” The pope responded, “Have mercy on your sinful children.” Some Jewish leaders were unimpressed. Israel’s chief rabbi, Meir Lau, said he was “deeply frustrated” by the pope’s failure to mention the Holocaust by name. Leaders from several Jewish organisations have been pressing the Vatican to open its World War II archives to investigators. They claim that, at best, Vatican leaders and Pope Pius XII, remained silent during Hitler’s genocide against the Jews and others.
Britain is being sadly used as a global soapbox by the pope, to wage war with the atheists; by bringing across the global message of ‘aggressive secularisation.’ The British people too are paying dearly for the pope’s aggressive proselytisation platform. The visit is supposed to be a State one, yet it seems, as though most of the events on his itinerary are ‘religious’ orientated.
Scotland was used by the queen to thank the pope for the tremendous input of the Vatican in securing peace in Northern Ireland. The British government, in general, seems to be appeasing all religions.
I saw his ludicrous pimpmobile gliding past my office yesterday as well (wonder if KB and I work in the same place….) and I’ll admit, I went to the window to gawp. But then I did much the same when the PM turned up a few months back too. Sad little celebspotter that I am
But anyways, the BBC’s coverage has begun to really grate. There’s even been a remarkably soft-touch documentary on the Vatican, following the lives of various people who work there and signally failing to ask any difficult questions. And yet, and yet… the place *still* came across a a fundamentally very creepy organisation and a cult of personality (See http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tr2p3/Vatican_The_Hidden_World/ if you’re interested)
Just for the sake of historical accuracy (pedantry, if you will), there is some dispute over the question of Hitler’s vegetarianism. Wikipedia has a page dedicated to the question, which you can read here. From a cursory reading the evidence does seem to favour Hitler’s vegetarianism. Perhaps Hitler’s chef was just showing off.
@Amy. It’s strange, isn’t it, that the pope castigates the cult of celebrity, but he doesn’t seem to mind benefitting from it? Surely, the sychophantic way the press is responding to this horrible man is because of his celebrity, not because of the moral stature of the corrupt institution he represents so mindlessly. There is a rather good editorial this morning in the the New York Times. This paragraph is particularly pointed:
As I suggested earlier, the man is an autocrat, and has totalitarian sympathies. No wonder the Roman catholic church signed a concordat with the Nazis. This is something that should not be forgotten. The church’s instincts are still the same, and it is far more likely to side with dictatorships than with democracies. This is the organisation, after all, that kept, until the 1960s, a list of prohibited books, and required priests to take an oath condemning modernism. It was Pius IX who drew up the Syllabus of Errors, amongst which is the error that “The ecclesiastical power ought not to exercise its authority without the permission and assent of the civil government,” or the one where it is claimed that “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Ratzi has left us in little doubt that he fully shares the view that these are indeed errors.
@Eric: Yes. I think it’s probably a mixture of a deferential attitude towards powerful figures, a certain awe of celebrity and a fear of criticising religious beliefs (because they’re just so darned sacred and special). Some of the press agree with those beliefs of course.
It’d be interesting to see just how far the Pope would be allowed to go by this country’s government and media. He’s already called atheists Nazis, he’s already said homosexuality is evil, he’s already told lies about condoms, he’s already covered up for child abuse and made excuses for it. What would he have to say or do for the BBC to criticise him never mind take him off air? What would he have to say for the govt to boot him out of the country or even just distance themselves from him? Would he actually have to declare holy war?
Easy: If he criticised Islam.
The church’s instincts are still the same,
With the greatest (or as great as a bottom dweller such as I can manage) respect, this is why I didn’t get your I’m surprised they haven’t thought of it.
That was to Ian of course, but I couldn’t turn of the italics from a quote, so I posted this.
And yet this is officially a State visit (ie. as head honcho of that feudal anachronism, the Holy See), right? Hence, the meeting with the Queen, and the host country picking up the tab. Now someone tell me: could any other Head Of State or Government get away with anything like that level of moralizing and kvetching about the host country’s internal affairs and social milieu, without it causing a major diplomatic stink? When ordinary Presidents and Prime Ministers visit even the worst human rights abusers in the world, they raise the issue (if at all) in the most understated and oblique manner.
But His Arse-Holiness is Special. Very Special.
@C Anders: Ha. You’re probably right. Criticising other faiths would be Bad And Wrong but atheists are fair game.
Let us not forget that it was also addressed to a monarchy that has it’s own history of using regilion for nefarious genocidal (is that a purposes.
But I’m actually buying in now to this model of extreme atheism, do we get our own tv channel like Xtreme sports? Maybe if we retagged it Xtreme-8eism we would. To be honest this whole learned academic rational approach has had it’s day Jo-Ratz has a point, we should be looking at Jackassing up our message bringing it to the yoof.
At least I think that’s what he was on about.
“Let us not forget that it was also addressed to a monarchy that has it’s own history of using regilion for nefarious genocidal (is that a word) purposes.”
I meant.
Another amusing point about the Pope’s visit to Glasgow, he had a crowd of only around 65,000 – a week ago it was expected to be around 100,000 strong.
JPII drew a crowd of 220,000 in 1982.
I would love to see a few WWII historians getting op eds published bashing the pope on the basis of historic fact. I feel like NAs have been pretty good about not beating up the RCC about its Nazi collaborations, but the gloves should be off here.
Actually, a Chris Hitchens article on this would be lovely.
Sorry about the combative imagery. I know there’s been a little much of that lately.
Amy Clare
“You’re probably right. Criticising other faiths would be Bad And Wrong but atheists are fair game.”
But Atheism is just like any other religion and needs faith! :)
Or, for a more puerile but basically on-the-ball take on Mr Ratzinger’s speech:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/pope-congratulated-on-size-of-his-balls-201009173095/
mirax, no, I mised the Stalinism bit – it was late in the day and I was skimming hastily before having to rush away. I will read it in a more beady-eyed fashion today.
It’s going to be a busy few days, I suspect. Pope-swatting duties.
Christian Logic Fail:
1. It’s never OK to criticize faiths — even Islam is hands-off. We must respect people for their faith.
2. Atheism is a faith, because they can’t prove there’s no God.
3. Atheism leads to Nazism! Let’s demonize atheists!
This is an example of the kind of rigorous logic the great theological thinkers come up with?
i have posted this already on RDnet but here i want to say it again. Karlheinz Deschner has proven that there is a detectable red line from christianity to nazism, especially for the holocaust. All war long catholics has prayed for their führer in every parish allover germany till the last month of the war. The book is 800 pages long with 110 pages of references. I don’t know if “abermals krähte der Hahn” is translated in english but is worth reading. Rome has done nothing to stop or prevent the war, like they have never done.
karlheinz deschner with his book “abermals krähte der Hahn” has final proven that there is a red line from christianity to nazism, especially for the holocaust. All germans has prayed for their “Führer” all war long in everery parish and with every parisch magazine, till the last months of the war.
[…] about sums it up with uncommon […]
“I saw his ludicrous pimpmobile gliding past my office yesterday as well (wonder if KB and I work in the same place….)”
@ Patrick – Tollcross by any chance?
“spiked – yes – that’s the Institute of Ideas people that I was muttering about a day or two ago. Masses of stupid reactionary atheist-hating there. Brendan O’Neill; ugh.”
Spiked has really surpassed itself over the Pope. Spiked loves liberal elite bashing. Its stance seems to be that in the old days it would have been theological differences that got people out against the pope, nowadays it’s just that liberals can’t stand a difference of opinion. The idea that liberal and other pope bashers might be extremely pissed off by actual policies and actions of the Vatican is something that they don’t consider. It isn’t transubstantiation that gets people exercised but an organisation abusing its power – as a big corporation might, or a nation state. If it was President Sarkozy making a state visit and lecturing us we wouldn’t take it, especially with the present actions of the French government against the Roma. Why should we take it from the Pope?
@KB Player – No, East end of Princes St. Live in Tollcross though.
Of Spiked – I’m not sure that they’re reactionary so much as contrarian for the sake of it. Generally, I can’t help but be reminded of a tiresome attention-seeking teenager, in journalistic form, but occasionally, usually when received ‘liberal’ opinion is (to my mind) wrongheaded, they can be a breath of fresh air. I’m a little mystified why the likes of Claire Fox and Frank Furedi get as much mainstream media attention as they do though
http://www.secularism.org.uk/hitlers-election-poster-uses-the.html
Of course, it can’t even get any more galling, but if you stop to think who the Nazis targeted for elimination, it’s mainly those (Jews, atheists, communists) whose common crime was not to be Christian.
[…] Ophelia Benson was livid: That vicious authoritarian theocratic homophobic misogynist hierarchical thug presumes to blame atheists for Nazism when his own fucking church was all but an ally of the Nazis and really was an ally of Mussolini and Franco. […]
[…] Ophelia Benson was livid: That vicious authoritarian theocratic homophobic misogynist hierarchical thug presumes to blame atheists for Nazism when his own fucking church was all but an ally of the Nazis and really was an ally of Mussolini and Franco. […]