Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:Sure, just because Nazis were aggressive atheists doesn't mean aggressive atheists are Nazis. I confess to not seeing any irony in the comparison, however . . .

Umm, the SS didn't have "God is with us" on their belt buckles because they were atheists... Seriously, Nazism was not atheist. It was often in conflict with the church because it wanted absolute power over everything, including the church, but they weren't actually hostile to belief. Indeed, German Prostestantism was part of Hitler's idealised aryan tradition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wizard12 wrote:+ 1 to this, we have to remember that from around 1942/3 to 1945 the Hitler youth was compulsory for both boys and girls. This means the majority of people over 60ish who lived in Germany will have been in the youth.

Yeah, he joined as it was compulsory and got out as soon as he could. Fair enough, I think it's reasonable for the rest of us to let it go.

But when he starts making goofy claims about some other groups proximity to the Nazis...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

wizard12 wrote:And what about those Catholic members who worked against Hitler. We have to remember (note I do not in anyway think what Hitler did during the war was right or good, I'm just stating this) that Hitler managed to pull Germany out of financial ruin, give jobs to many people and pretty much saved Germany from the treaty of Versailles. Also remember that the extermination camps were relatively secret IIRC. Not many people knew about them. There were rumors but nothing really concrete until the allies reached Germany.

Not true. Anyone who cared to know about what was happening knew. Ultimately the fate of Jews, Roma, gays and the rest wasn't something a lot of people cared enough to find out about.

I must say that the "Gott mit uns" was never Nazi but belonging to the Wehrmacht (because it drinks from the Prussian tradition that Hitler hated) The SS did use the "Meine Ehre heißt Treue", (My Honour is Loyalty) logo marking the difference that they did not belong to the "old" order.

M.

Manchu wrote:There is a lot of irony in this thread, but it's not the alleged irony that's being noted.

Boy, ain't that the truth.

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:The history of the Catholic Church is riddled with aggressive histories all of its own. Just another layer of irony.

Because nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition...

Hmm, you seem like you don't like the Spanish Inquisition. Tell me, do you think they were wrong to assault people based on those people breaking the mandates of their religious authority by, say, practicing witchcraft?

Orkeosaurus wrote:Manchu, you're a religious guy, so here's a hypothetical question: if the pope declared a religious practice to be against catholic doctrine, and a high-ranking bishop did it anyways, would devout catholics be justified in physically attacking him to bring him to justice?

I'd recommend reading up on this guy.

Err... that's too much to read.

(My plan isn't working the way I thought it would.)

The Catholic Church does not advocate violence in any situation that I can think of.

I was pleased to note that the Popemobile was actually the official name for the Pontiff's mode of transport.

Ahtman wrote:Atheism is like a simile.

Atheism is a metaphor.

terribletrygon wrote:An old guy with a stick.

Here's a picture.

On the coverage, I think that the BBC was probably just about as even as they could be considering the comparable number of complaints.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Hmm, you seem like you don't like the Spanish Inquisition. Tell me, do you think they were wrong to assault people based on those people breaking the mandates of their religious authority by, say, practicing witchcraft?

...Or being Jews or having a slight difference of opinion about the nature of God.

You guys are getting in between me and hot tips for our current game of mafia.

Monster Rain wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Atheism is like a simile.

Atheism is a metaphor.

terribletrygon wrote:An old guy with a stick.

Here's a picture.

On the coverage, I think that the BBC was probably just about as even as they could be considering the comparable number of complaints.

His hat isn't quite insane enough to be the pope.

I'm confused. Why do people care about the Pope?

I mean, isn't this the guy who lets child rapists run amok in his church? Why the hell would I seek spiritual guidance from this guy?

Manchu wrote:The Catholic Church does not advocate violence in any situation that I can think of.

Well, things change. Sometimes they change back.

Amaya wrote:I'm confused. Why do people care about the Pope?

I mean, isn't this the guy who lets child rapists run amok in his church? Why the hell would I seek spiritual guidance from this guy?

Well, for one thing this is the 5th Pope in the last 50+years, so laying the blame for what some would call rampant pedophelia within the Catholic Church at his feet is somewhat silly. Benedict has only been Pope for about 5 years. His predecessors John Paul II (78-05) and Paul VI (63-78) (JP I '78 died after only 33 days as Pope) would hold more blame for that situation.

Also people "care" because he is the only major figurehead of any of the worlds religions that people can actually identify. Name the absolute top Muslim Holy man? Buddist? Shinto? Jewish? Rastafarian?
Ok how about the closest position to Pope..... Name the Head of the Anglican Church..... As in the Archbishop of Canterbury, which is the closest position to Pope within that church.
Face it, the Pope is defacto Church Royalty and the only one most people know of.

Nearly everyone know of the British Royal Family.... how many know of, or even CARE about, King Albert II of Belgium, Queen Beatrix of The Netherlands, King Harald of Norway, or Prince Quentin Kuhio Kawananakoa of Hawaii?

Well, the Dalai Lama is a contestant in that regard. And also has a better track record, unless I'm mistaken about the lack of reports regarding Tibetan Monks and peadophile charges.

Dalia Lama > the Pope 7 days out of the week.

The difference is that one of them doesn't lead a pseudo-pagan cult of personality.

True enough but that Dalai Lama is not the top of ALL Buddists, just one sect that happens to cover 90% of Tibet.
Of course Baptists, Protestants, and even the Mormons lack a single "official" leader for their people.
So a visit from the Pope to any country is treated like a a Royal Visit, thus the Audience with the Queen.

The Pope is a head of state (The Vatican). His state visits are handled the same way as those of any other head of state.

The Pope John Paul II visited the UK in 1986 but it wasn't a state visit, just a pastoral visit, so he wasn't met by the Queen.

The Dalai Lama is also a Head of State, Tibet, in exile.

The Dalai Lama seems to get his share of press when he travels though, doesn't he?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, the Dalai Lama is a contestant in that regard. And also has a better track record, unless I'm mistaken about the lack of reports regarding Tibetan Monks and peadophile charges.

Actually, I've heard they had a few problems in that regard as well.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, the Dalai Lama is a contestant in that regard. And also has a better track record, unless I'm mistaken about the lack of reports regarding Tibetan Monks and peadophile charges.

Actually, I've heard they had a few problems in that regard as well.

The Dalai Lama has been accused of 1st disapproving of the Dorje Shudgen sect worshipers and when that failed of either ordering or at the very least allowing people close to him of carrying political assassinations of the members of that sect.

The second is pretty much the same accusation being used against the Pope.

Oh BTW this was by opposing Tibetan exiles groups, the Chinese media have published worse crimes/sins about te Dalai Lama but in that regard the hold the same water than News of the World.

M.

Kilkrazy wrote:Over 150 complaints were received from people who felt the coverage was too sympathetic.

Nearly 200 complaints were received from people who felt the coverage was too unsympathetic.

Actually that says: 'controversial but covered fairly'.
You cant stop complaints over something like this, however an imbalance in complaints would be indicative, a rough parity of complaints simply means there are 350 screamers out there, and how one written complaint means 5000 angry viewers this looks about right.