babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » rabble news features   » The Editor Strikes Back

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The Editor Strikes Back
Sharon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4090

posted 03 June 2005 11:59 AM      Profile for Sharon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Last week, someone directed the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL) to the Mike Constable cartoon which appears on our front page. Under the headline, “Canadian Government Caught Funding Anti-Catholic Website Bashing Pope Benedict,” the CCRL sent out a press release and began a letter-writing campaign to rabble.ca. Let me tell you about the letters.

Here she is


From: Halifax, Nova Scotia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like Warren Kinsella may have been one of those letter writers:
quote:

This is yet another reason why a lot of people call anti-Catholicism "the last acceptable prejudice." And, more to the point, why is someone as smart as Judy Rebick - and others - associated with something as hateful and cruel as this? They should be ashamed of themselves. And, yes, I'd have that view even if I wasn't a Catholic.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 June 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon, you should have posted the really nasty letters you got, so people can see just what kind of people support the CCRL.

Oh, I meant to also say: good article!

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 03 June 2005 01:02 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hateful? Cruel? Anti-Catholic? Who cares?

What you might care about is:

1. Is it imaginative? (no)
2. Is it funny? (no)
3. Is it insightful? (no)
4. Is there anything worthwhile about the cartoon at all? (no)

It reminds me of that cartoon you ran back in late 2001 showing the 9/11 hijackers giving the Hitler salute to the Koran. You did run that, right? What? You were afraid it might inflame anti-Muslim prejudice? Ah, I see.


From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2005 01:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why would they give the Nazi salute to the Koran? The only religious leader in the world that I am aware of who actually gave a Nazi salute, when there were real Nazis in power to salute, in his or her life is the current head of the Catholic Church. As such, the cartoon was not only supported by fact, but given the Church's, how shall we say, "tentative" attitude towards Jews throughout its history, was an insightful comment.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 03 June 2005 01:14 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Some of us have a warped sense of humour. I snickered naughtily at the Heil Mary cartoon, but I snickered naughtily at the Heil Ferry comment too. Was that wrong?
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
April
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7882

posted 03 June 2005 01:32 PM      Profile for April     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm not suprised by all these negative comments. Over a billion people who follow a slowly-crumbling religion are bound to feel antsy.
From: Montreal | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 01:40 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A number of years ago Mike Constable created a brilliant satire with the character of "Jihad Joe" in the magazine Pirana. I would suggest that anyone who thinks that Mike is being unfair or unbalanced with his latest have a better look at his body of work. Anything political is an appropriate target for a political satirist, as it should be. He's supposed to make powerful people uncomfortable and the rest of us laugh and maybe think a bit as well. The discomfort that satire can evoke is our conscience trying to get out of the straightjacket of our ideological views.

In general, exercising our imaginations in unexpected ways can make us better people morally because we get out of our selves and look at the world, momentarily, the way other people look at it. And that's likely to make us more sympathetic to them if we have the grace to let ourselves be affected.

Both personally and in his creative activities this cartoonist has demonstrated his willingness to take risks that many other cartoonists dare not. There's something morally outstanding about someone who, for anyone who has known Mike for any length of time knows, can't stand hot air and pretentiousness and continues to mock the imperfections of the political world year after year and makes us laugh and think at the same time. It's not as easy as it looks.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 03 June 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If catholics can't stand the heat, they should pick a pontiff who ain't going to Hell.
From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 03:32 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Rufus Polson:...pick a pontiff...[?]
Hmmm.

Why, you've got to pick a pontiff or two.

[FAGIN (spoken)]
You see, Oliver...

[sung] In this life, one thing counts
In the bank, large amounts
I'm afraid these don't grow on trees,
You've got to pick-a-pontiff or two

You've got to pick-a-pontiff or two, boys,
You've got to pick-a-pontiff or two.

[BOYS]
Large amounts don't grow on trees.
You've got to pick-a-pontiff or two.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
fossilnut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8972

posted 03 June 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for fossilnut        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Over a billion people who follow a slowly-crumbling religion are bound to feel antsy.

There was very poor reporting on the influence of the Pope and so called 'Catholics' around the world. I only read one report questioning who all these 'Catholics' (all one billion were).

In fact this billion comes from adding up all the traditional Catholic populations and parts of others. France? Quebec? The Pope has less influence or following than Michael Jackson. Central America...the Catholic church barely has a presence in large parts of traditional Catholic El Salvador, etc. Brazil...there are almost no priests...no following...no masses in MOST of the country for the last 25 years.

Sure, the Pope has a lot of influence in the world but not the numbers accredited to him. A good number of 'Catholics' are only included in the numbers because their parents put a checkmark in the Catholic box when signing a form when they were born or went off to school.


From: calgary | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471

posted 03 June 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Whazzup?     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fagin, by the way, was one of the most vicious anti-Semitic caricatures ever created. Not that bigotry has anything to do with anything on this thread.
From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is the Virgin Mary supposed to represent Hitler?
From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 03:47 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Whazzup?: Fagin ...was one of the most vicious anti-Semitic caricatures ever created.

Fine. You should substantiate your claim. As your claim that some other cartoon was withdrawn. Was there a debate about the cartoon?

Edited to add: After Shakespeare's Shylock there are some who assert that Dickens' Fagin is the worst anti-semitic caricature in literature. But we still read Shakespeare and Dickens.

[ 03 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 June 2005 03:53 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Fagin, by the way, was one of the most vicious anti-Semitic caricatures ever created.

Duh.

quote:

Is the Virgin Mary supposed to represent Hitler?


Is she wearing a moustache?

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I've heard Hitler was a virgin.
From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739

posted 03 June 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for sock puppet   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard he only had one ball.
From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 03 June 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sharon: a great reply. Maybe some of these people will think before spewing any further unnecessary invective.

Naahhh.

Wonder if any of the letter writers identified themselves as USians?


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 04:10 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clear mutiny:
Is the Virgin Mary supposed to represent Hitler?

clear mutiny, a large part of the joke plays off this Catholic prayer:

quote:
Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou amongst women,
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God,
pray for us sinners,
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen.

I don't know whether you were unaware of the prayer or not, but obviously many are.

The prayer, which is part of praying the rosary, has been used as a metaphor before, as in the "Hail Mary" pass in football. The "Our Father" has also been an irreverent metaphor: there is a fiendish kind of elevator-device called a Paternoster for the good reason that it gives you just about enough time to say a fast prayer before you make your floor, or die in the attempt.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 04:15 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hail Mary
Full of grace
Thirty Chickens in a race
One fell flat and broke his face
Hail Mary full of grace.
________________________________

I was raised in a Catholic schoolyard too, skdadl.


From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 03 June 2005 04:18 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by clear mutiny:
Hail Mary
Full of grace
Thirty Chickens in a race
One fell flat and broke his face
Hail Mary full of grace.

Anyone objecting to this, please address your message to Sharon. Maybe she can get enough to make a book.

From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
gonzo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1841

posted 03 June 2005 04:19 PM      Profile for gonzo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another take on 'Heil Mary'

http://www.artatlarge.com/pages/JJJ_ARCHIVEsold/HeilMary.htm


From: BC via ON via AB via SK | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, cm: I couldn't tell. Others have asked.

I wasn't raised in a Catholic schoolyard, actually. My mum was a good RC, but we were all dreadful Presbyterians, slowly modified into United Churchers. Over the decades, everyone got much more civilized.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clear mutiny
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9494

posted 03 June 2005 04:38 PM      Profile for clear mutiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The United Church?

Land O' Goshen!

Is it like a recycling depot, skdadl?


From: no localized | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 June 2005 04:42 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not when I am present, cm.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Krackonis
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9499

posted 03 June 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for Krackonis   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I found the cartoon to be "kinda clever"... I like the message that it sends. Basically, that given that the Vatican has made horrible mistakes the last 90 years (Abuse of children, the refusal to Castigate Hitler) I don't see anything undeserved. I certainly have said worse things in jest regarding both the pope and the virgin mary. I laughed at Family Guy too, when God had a snipe rifle pointed at Meg.. ;P

I would have written :


Pope+GWB+Corps=Nazis

with the addage: "No matter where you turn, you will find no forgiveness"

Or:

Pope - Formerly a Nazi sympathizer, fundementlist christian conservative
President - Grandfather Prescott sided with Thyssen to warprofiteer with the Nazis and buys arms companies.
fundementalist christian conservative
Vice President - The only thing legal about his embezzling and power acquisition is his title makes it legal.
fundementalist christian conservative

Or

Fundementalist - The removal of all doubt by a series of brainwashing and conniving where one individual is conditioned to have "faith" (Faith-the accepting of anothers beliefs over your own reasonings or observations). The purpose is for a theocracy/nation/corporation to have predicable response to authority and to place fear/hope as a control mechanism. Also known as "completely closed-minded". Here is a list of fundementalist types:

fundementalist christian
fundementalist muslim
fundementalist nationalist
fundementalist feminist
fundementalist capitalist
fundementalist communist
fundementalist nazi
fundementalist jew

Ain't it amazing that everything in this world that causes us no end of crap is one of these whole "faith" "closed-minded" things?


From: Moncton, NB | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 03 June 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I get tired of the "Anti Catholic" crap. The Catholic Church is a major organization that goes out of its way to garner members from other religious faiths.

As soon as they join into the game of trying to convert people, they are fair game for criticism and counter attack.

The complainers are just a group of whiners who like to dish out heat, but can't take it.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 03 June 2005 06:58 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Adam T: As soon as they join into the game of trying to convert people, they are fair game for criticism and counter attack.

For me, the key question is whether Mike Constable's cartoon is mean-spirited or amusing and enlightening in some sense. Is it good art? Why? Why not? And, since the critics have insisted upon drawing attention to the false conclusion that babble is government funded then, the other question to consider is this: should rabble.ca have Mike's cartoons adorn this site?

To the latter question I say "Yes." Mike's cartoon makes me wonder about this pontiff and I may just pay closer attention to him as a result of this cartoon. Furthermore, through the discussion, skdadl has educated me about the exact wording of a catholic prayer that I didn't know until now. It's all good.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Adam T
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4631

posted 03 June 2005 07:38 PM      Profile for Adam T     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't know if I looked at the cartoon in question. To me, the relevent issue is the idea that if one criticizes the Catholic Church or Catholics they are committing a wrong the equivalent of being racist or homophobic.

As soon as the Catholic church stays out of world affairs and stops trying to convert people: basically as soon as they become a private club, only then should they be immune from criticism from outsiders.


From: Richmond B.C | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rat lander
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9065

posted 03 June 2005 08:07 PM      Profile for Rat lander     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And this is why: Many of them seemed to suggest that one small — fairly benign — cartoon about the Pope was going to bring down the poor beleaguered Catholic Church. Come on, you people, I wanted to say. The Catholic Church is a massive, rich, powerful institution made up of billions of people around the world.

So some hate mongering is acceptable, is that it?


From: regina | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 03 June 2005 08:32 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, she's just pointing out how ludicrous it is to suggest that this cartoon could possibly harm the Catholic Church. As for hate mongering, the cartoon criticises and ridicules Ratzinger and Ratzinger alone. You can't be hate mongering by attacking a single individual.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 03 June 2005 09:46 PM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Someone's making fun of me? Harrumph.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 03 June 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If those are hate letters, then i'm a garden gnome.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 04 June 2005 02:58 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Constable's cartoon was fair comment and good political satire IMHO.

Ratzinger was a member of the Hitler Youth. While its true that his membership might have been "forced" upon him, over the decades Ratzinger has been has been a leader of the most conservative and reactionary faction within the Catholic Church.

He's consistently worked to crush any form of dissent within the church in a most authoritarian manner.

Don't forget as well, he is technically the "head of state" of a sovereign state known as Vatican City.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
mayakovsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5171

posted 04 June 2005 04:48 AM      Profile for mayakovsky     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The CCRL does not represent the Catholic Church. It is a para-church organization and from what I know about it, and some of its members, would see the church as too liberal. Yes, really! I have had a personal encounter with them. I was asked to read a poem on a friend's gay and lesbian radio show a few years back. A few days after my reading the station received a letter of complaint from the group that referred specifically to my poem and highlighted in bold all the 'naughty' words I used. They also complained that a Sinead O'Connor song was played. Nothing ever came of it and I still use 'naughty' words.

These folks don't represent all christian discourse, nor all discourse within the Catholic Church. I am curious whether the CCRL would know about Alfred Delp, a Jesuit priest who was executed by the Nazis for conspiring against Hitler. According to Mary Frances Coady who has published a recent book about him he was known as a rebel and free spirit in his religious order. But he was resolute in his defiance of the Nazis, even after solitary confinement and repeated beatings.


From: New Bedford | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 June 2005 06:04 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Did anyone notice that the present pope was in the Hitler Youth?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
lonecat
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5460

posted 04 June 2005 06:12 AM      Profile for lonecat   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I dislike the same people that the majority of members of babble.ca dislike, for all the same reasons (being regressive etc.). However, those figures are often slandered on this website, and it was only a matter of time before someone fought back against this. I hope the good folks who operate this website have learned something from this experience, that there is a fine line between legitimate and accurate criticism, and slander.
From: Regina | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 June 2005 06:30 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You are aware that it was mandatory for members of the Hitler Youth to give the Zeig Heil salute? It is logical to assume that during his period with that organization the present pope, certianly gave that salute. Given this and the fact that the person is question is Pope, can you really say that having a figure in the Popes robe give the Zeig Heil salute is really slander?

Slander is to make "a false and malicious statement or report about someone." Ratzinger most certainly did make the Zeig Heil salute, and he now wears the popes robes. What is false?

Nothing is false. Therefore it is not slander.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 June 2005 07:28 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm a Catholic, but I refuse to give the sieg heil salute to the Pope if that's what's going on. Damned Nazis anyway. Now we've gotta pray to them too ?.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 June 2005 07:40 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by lonecat:
I hope the good folks who operate this website have learned something from this experience, that there is a fine line between legitimate and accurate criticism, and slander.

Perhaps when you learn what it is, you'll tell them. Right now it's obvious you have no idea what that line is.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 04 June 2005 09:41 AM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But there's no fine line between hate speech (which is the accusation) and making fun of a pubic figure and his questionable past. That line is both thick and wide.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: No Yards ]


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 04 June 2005 10:39 AM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a Catholic, I actually took less offense to the the humour, (although I personally think that it is in poor taste) about Ratzinger's Nazi youth days. I do take serious offense to the image of Mary being sieg heiled. Perhaps it wasn't intended as such, but this is akin to the flushing of the Koran. It is ironic that the element of Catholism that is being drawn out for ridicule on a progressive website is the fact that Catholics do "worship" a woman in addition to the Trinity. I don't pretend to be able to get into Constable's head but I have to say that that cartoon comes across as a crude, classic conservative protestant critique/stereotype of Catholics. Namely, blind obedience coupled with the inapropriate worship of a woman.
From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 12:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Mary was chosen because of "hail Mary"; the joke wouldn't have worked otherwise. Although I think the no-less-than-pagan pantheon of heavenly host we Catholics are supposed to revere is overdone, the cult of Mary is pretty benign.

[drift] What is that Sunday celebration where the priest makes you stay after mass while he intones veneration for a multitude of saints? I just remember from my childhood an instance where the priest seemed to have run out of saints and literally requested adoration for "Saint A, Saint B..." It's a foggy memory to be sure, but I remember the rest of my family whining about how ludicrous (not to mention numbingly boring) that appeared to have been. Of course, this was a priest who opposed a lot of Vatican II, so maybe he was clinging to something that wasn't standard practice anymore.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:15 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Why would they give the Nazi salute to the Koran? The only religious leader in the world that I am aware of who actually gave a Nazi salute, when there were real Nazis in power to salute, in his or her life is the current head of the Catholic Church. As such, the cartoon was not only supported by fact, but given the Church's, how shall we say, "tentative" attitude towards Jews throughout its history, was an insightful comment.

From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:17 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Why would they give the Nazi salute to the Koran? The only religious leader in the world that I am aware of who actually gave a Nazi salute, when there were real Nazis in power to salute, in his or her life is the current head of the Catholic Church. As such, the cartoon was not only supported by fact, but given the Church's, how shall we say, "tentative" attitude towards Jews throughout its history, was an insightful comment.

Why is it that the left always chooses the wrong battles? The current Pope was forced into the Hitler Youth, and then, at risk to his own life, and the lives of his family, deserted. Quit. Left with very good cause. Your equating him with the nazis speaks volumes of the ignorance of you and your ilk.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:19 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus Polson:
If catholics can't stand the heat, they should pick a pontiff who ain't going to Hell.

Going to hell for what? Desertion? Perhaps it is time for you to get off of your high horse, and start some research.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 04 June 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
The current Pope was forced into the Hitler Youth, and then, at risk to his own life, and the lives of his family, deserted. Quit.

Source, please.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 12:24 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah. Get off your high-horse and show us the research.

Anyway, no generalisations about the left Reason. If you followed the discussion when Ratzinger was chosen, a lot of people here thought his involvement in the Hitler-youth was only tangential to the strong feelings some people have regarding him.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:27 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Krackonis:
I would have written :


Pope+GWB+Corps=Nazis

with the addage: "No matter where you turn, you will find no forgiveness"

Or:

Pope - Formerly a Nazi sympathizer, fundementlist christian conservative
[/QB]


It is clear, once again, that the left speaks before knowledge. Please, look up the history of the current Pope.

To set the record straight (not that you care about truth, or reality), the current Pope was drafted, pressed into service against his will into the Hitler Youth. At the earliest possible time he deserted. Left. Quit... He did this at the risk (knowing full well) of his own life, and the lives of his family.

Guess if I put a gun to your head, and took you to a library, your peers would acuse you of being educated.

I am seeing this common theme amongst the left... People like you.

This theme is ignorance, intolerance, and prejudice.

You are truely no better then a member of the KKK or any number of the neo-nazi groups in exsistance today.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:31 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:

Source, please.



History on public record.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Yeah. Get off your high-horse and show us the research.

Anyway, no generalisations about the left Reason. If you followed the discussion when Ratzinger was chosen, a lot of people here thought his involvement in the Hitler-youth was only tangential to the strong feelings some people have regarding him.



It is the ignorant left that is making the accusations of the pope being equal to nazis, and hence the burden of proof lies at your feet.

I already know the reaction to this, you and your ilk we being screaming bloody murder, because someone has dared to call you on your ignorance, intolerance, and prejudice.

For the record, I turned my back on the Catholic Church years ago, for exactly the same traits you clowns are showing today.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 04 June 2005 12:35 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

History on public record.


sorry, Reason, but "common knowlege" and urban myth don't cut it on this board, especially when the version you are prodounding is quite a departure from what has already been documented here. So, again, source please.

From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 12:52 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:

sorry, Reason, but "common knowlege" and urban myth don't cut it on this board, especially when the version you are prodounding is quite a departure from what has already been documented here. So, again, source please.


Ok, so it is perfectly ok for you to post defamatory comments on the Pope, equating him with the most evil presence this planet has ever known... Based solely on what other "babblers" have said?

While you are conducting your own research on this one, please look up hypocrisy as well.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 June 2005 01:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Why is it that the left always chooses the wrong battles? The current Pope was forced into the Hitler Youth, and then, at risk to his own life, and the lives of his family, deserted. Quit. Left with very good cause. Your equating him with the nazis speaks volumes of the ignorance of you and your ilk.



Ratzinger left the Wermacht in May 1945. Berlin fell to the Soviets army in April. Adolph Hitler killed himself near the end of the siege.

In other words the present Pope has proven that he was willing to die for the cause Adolph Hitler, up until the cause was completely lost and Hitler dead. There is no indication that Ratzinger joins the ranks of the many Germans, Poles, Americans, British, French, Russians, Serb, Croatians, Greeks, etc. who were willing to, (and in fact did) die in order to oppose him.

That is the proven public record.

Yes, Ratzinger, says that he was forced to join the Hitler Youth, but there is no proof that he did not want to join. Nor is the fact that membership was mandatory prove that he did not want to join.

Ask yourself this: How many former members of the Hitler Youth, have the courage to say that they wanted to join?

If the Ratzinger had any integrity whatsoever, he would set the record straight on his desertion, and state for the public record that there was little heroism in deserting what remained of the Wermacht in May 1945, and actual considerable personal danger in remaining in uniform, as everyone knew that capture by Soviet soldiers while wearing Wermacht grey was a very iffy proposition.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 01:27 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:


In other words the present Pope has proven that he was willing to die for the cause Adolph Hitler, up until the cause was completely lost and Hitler dead. There is no indication that Ratzinger joins the ranks of the many Germans, Poles, Americans, British, French, Russians, Serb, Croatians, Greeks, etc. who were willing to, (and in fact did) die in order to oppose him.

That is the proven public record.

Yes, Ratzinger, says that he was forced to join the Hitler Youth, but there is no proof that he did not want to join. Nor is the fact that membership was mandatory prove that he did not want to join.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Cardinal_Ratzinger#Early_life_.281927.26ndash.3B1951.29

I am not good with short links, copy and paste as you will.

I suspect, that much in keeping with the intolerance present here, this link will be dismissed as fabrication.

So, I will speak to your accusations above...

How long have you been telepathic? Clearly you are telepathic, as you speak to what the Pope's intentions were. This despite his families history of opposition to the nazi party.

wikipedia "Ratzinger"


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 June 2005 01:36 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have read all that, and I believe all that:

And all of it proves that the Ratzinger was willing to fight and die for Adolph Hitler right up until after Hitler was dead. There is nothing that shows that the Ratzinger was willing to die in opposition to him.

Also...

quote:
The pope's brother Georg said: "Our father was a bitter enemy of Nazism because he believed it was in conflict with our faith."

Being opposed to the NSDAP becaue of its antipathy toward Catholicism is not an proof that one is opposed to the racial elements of Hitler's program.

Honestly I was really shocked and suprised that the college of Cardinals was willing to elect someone with such a dubious past.

Neither you not I can prove what was going on in Ratzinger's head in the 1940's, but the very fact that there could even be the very tiniest possibility Ratzinger might have supported the race war against Jewish people should have been enough to disqualify his candidacy. This alone shows the moral bankruptcy and arrogance of the church.

This callous disregard is plainly an insult to the memory of Hitler's many victims.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 02:37 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
I have read all that, and I believe all that:

And all of it proves that the Ratzinger was willing to fight and die for Adolph Hitler right up until after Hitler was dead. There is nothing that shows that the Ratzinger was willing to die in opposition to him.

Also...

Being opposed to the NSDAP becaue of its antipathy toward Catholicism is not an proof that one is opposed to the racial elements of Hitler's program.

Honestly I was really shocked and suprised that the college of Cardinals was willing to elect someone with such a dubious past.

Neither you not I can prove what was going on in Ratzinger's head in the 1940's, but the very fact that there could even be the very tiniest possibility Ratzinger might have supported the race war against Jewish people should have been enough to disqualify his candidacy. This alone shows the moral bankruptcy and arrogance of the church.

This callous disregard is plainly an insult to the memory of Hitler's many victims.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


Now really? You have not proved one little bit... Not even in the tiniest way that the Pope was supportive of the nazis. You claim to have read the article in question, then said,

quote:

[QB]I have read all that, and I believe all that:

Go back and re read the article before I truely make you look more foolish then you have already proven to be.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
brainsample
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9508

posted 04 June 2005 03:26 PM      Profile for brainsample     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey isnt this cartoon politically incorrect. thats what is wrong with it. It is just not PC.

Lets make a cartoon about the early feminists trying to ban all alcohol consumption. Or their firm support of eugenics - including sterilization of blacks, italians, or the retarded. The RC church isnt the only political organization with a dark past.

And dont forget, catholics were discriminated against until recently, Ontario was a staunchly protestant place and members of the RC church were minorities in every sense of the term.

If you want the RC church to get out of politics then why cant the gay rights activists shut up too. What about the feminists influence in the patriation of the constitution and Canadas Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Of course now that gay marriage is enshrined in the constitution through lower court rulings in 7 provinces, we wont have to worry about that nazi pope will we. Do you think Stephen Harper will appoint him to the top court after the next election or will we get only boring old UNBIASED judges like Rosalie Abella


From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 04 June 2005 03:31 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have you read it?

Among other things it notes that Ratzinger watched "Jews being herded to death camps."

Does the Ratzinger do anything about this? No.

quote:
In late April or early May, days or weeks before the German surrender, Ratzinger deserted. Desertion was widespread during the last weeks of the war, even though punishable by death (executions, frequently extrajudicial, continued to the end); diminished morale and the greatly diminished risk of prosecution from a preoccupied and disorganized German military contributed to the growing wave of soldiers looking toward self-preservation. On his way home he ran into soldiers on guard, but they let him go.

Everything confirms what I have said.

Ratzinger proved time and time again that he was willing to fight and die dor Adolph Hitler, joining and rejoining "patriotic" organizations, even though he was quite aware that "Jews being herded to death camps." He deserted at the very last moment, when everyone else was doing it, and there was a "greatly diminished risk of prosecution" -- so much so that when he was on "his way home he ran into soldiers on guard, but they let him go."

There is no indication that he was willing to fight and die in opposition to Hitlers regieme whatsoever. He was at least obedient to the very end.

There is absolutely no indication that he opposed the race war against the Jews, or even the war in general. As such there is no way that you can prove that he was. Given that you can not prove otherwise, the decision of the college of Catholic Cardinals is a shocking slap in the face to the millions killed during the war.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 04 June 2005 04:40 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by brainsample:
And dont forget, catholics were discriminated against until recently, Ontario was a staunchly protestant place and members of the RC church were minorities in every sense of the term.

[tongue in cheek]

Yes, and that experience has made the Catholic church oh-so-tolerant of other minority groups...

[/tongue in cheek]


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 04 June 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Ratzinger proved time and time again that he was willing to fight and die dor Adolph Hitler, joining and rejoining "patriotic" organizations

Um he was drafted into the Hitler Youth when it became mandatory but found a way out and then was drafted into the whermacht when it too became mandatory but found a way to never use a gun. How is this joining and rejoining? There is no evidence he 'joined' anything


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:04 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cueball:
Have you read it?

Among other things it notes that Ratzinger watched "Jews being herded to death camps."

Does the Ratzinger do anything about this? No.

Everything confirms what I have said.

Ratzinger proved time and time again that he was willing to fight and die dor Adolph Hitler, joining and rejoining "patriotic" organizations, even though he was quite aware that "Jews being herded to death camps." He deserted at the very last moment, when everyone else was doing it, and there was a "greatly diminished risk of prosecution" -- so much so that when he was on "his way home he ran into soldiers on guard, but they let him go."

There is no indication that he was willing to fight and die in opposition to Hitlers regieme whatsoever. He was at least obedient to the very end.

There is absolutely no indication that he opposed the race war against the Jews, or even the war in general. As such there is no way that you can prove that he was. Given that you can not prove otherwise, the decision of the college of Catholic Cardinals is a shocking slap in the face to the millions killed during the war.


Clearly you are not willing to debate... This is another trait of your ilk. You are currently painted in a corner, and yet you insist in meandering all over the place with half assed arguements.

First point, do the math, and tell me how old he was at that age... Were you brave enough to even go to the corner store and face reality at that age? I doubt it, as you can not face reality now.

There is no proof, none, nil zilch... ABSOLUTLY ZERO. That the Pope, was or is sympathitic to the nazi cause, and yet there IS proof that he was plainly in opposition to it.

I have also taken note that you do not debate the fact that I have infered that you are ignorant, intolerate and prejudiced. Interesting.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:18 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

[tongue in cheek]

Yes, and that experience has made the Catholic church oh-so-tolerant of other minority groups...

[/tongue in cheek]



I would argue thet Catholic Church is FAR more tolerate then the left is currently. It would seem that the only correct views are the views of the left... Nothing is open to debate.

Take for instance the Church's stance on marriage. Is there any debate as to the idea that marriage is a religious occasion? No, you couldn't make up any arguement to say that it isn't. In fact, for the Roman Catholics out there, it is one of the most special of religous times.

Given the religous aspects, and the fact that homosexuality is a sin in most churches (actually, most religions) why would same sex marriages be an issue? Why can a gay couple not be in a same sex union? Why the insistance on forcing this on the churches?

I love seeing the hypocrisy. The screeching, the demands, and yet when a different view comes to the table, watch the intolerance spew forth.

All this screeching to tax churches... Tell me, if you clowns get your wish, will you pick up the slack created in the charitable realms?

Will you, Hephaestion, go work the steam line in a soup kitchen? Will you house AA meetings in your basement? Will you allow Boy Scouts or Girl Guides to hold meetings the next night? Perhaps you will offer sanctuary for an illegal immigrant, who really should be staying in Canada for protection.

As we can see, the churches are all evil... Perhaps society would be better if they did not exsist.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 05:26 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why the insistance on forcing this on the churches?

That's a lie. No one is forcing anything on the Church. Why is this lie still being repeated, Reason?

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 04 June 2005 05:30 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For that matter, why do the hysterical legions campaigning against equal marriage rights want to force their views on the Unitarians, the United Church, and the others who DO want to perform same-sex marriages?
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 04 June 2005 05:33 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
...speaks volumes of the ignorance of you and your ilk.

...

I already know the reaction to this, you and your ilk...

...

This is another trait of your ilk.


Got ilk?


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:44 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

That's a lie. No one is forcing anything on the Church. Why is this lie still being repeated, Reason?

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


Really? Well then, perception is reality in this case. You stated your perception, and yet, I am seeing "tax the church" bumper stickers now... I wonder what that is about. Oh wait, I already do know what it is about.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:46 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
For that matter, why do the hysterical legions campaigning against equal marriage rights want to force their views on the Unitarians, the United Church, and the others who DO want to perform same-sex marriages?

Point for the record, I am for gay/lesbian rights... Christ we're all pink inside, who cares who you are sleeping with.

That aside, the Church has it's right to perpetuate it's doctrine the way it sees fit. It is, after all, a voluntary organisation (though it wasn;t always so).


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 04 June 2005 05:48 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

and yet, I am seeing "tax the church" bumper stickers now... I wonder what that is about.


What its about is those Churches that insist on sticking their noses into public policy lobbying and advertising. As such, they contravene their tax-exempt status. So, its very simple - "shut up, or pay up".


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:51 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:

What its about is those Churches that insist on sticking their noses into public policy lobbying and advertising. As such, they contravene their tax-exempt status. So, its very simple - "shut up, or pay up".


And you will pay up when they get taxed? Do have any idea how much good they do in the world? Even an inkling?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:54 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Tape_342:

Got ilk?


LOL!

I guess I over used that one today.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 05:55 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Really? Well then, perception is reality in this case. You stated your perception, and yet, I am seeing "tax the church" bumper stickers now... I wonder what that is about. Oh wait, I already do know what it is about.

You didn't answer the question I asked you. And feel free not to; I'm not a fascist. But no one is forcing any Church to change their long-standing practices.

As far as tax-exempt status is concerned; if the churches insist on trying to influence the politics of a secular democracy, then they should be subject to the same tax laws that all political advocacy groups are.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 05:58 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by James:

What its about is those Churches that insist on sticking their noses into public policy lobbying and advertising. As such, they contravene their tax-exempt status. So, its very simple - "shut up, or pay up".


Further, for the Catolic Church, marriage IS a religious occasion. Hence the reason why the are interested.

I noticed that the Church hasn't said a word about same-sex unions tho. We is it not acceptable to put union on the same field as marriage? I have no intention of ever getting married (I walked away from the church a long time ago), so, a civil union is the option for me.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 June 2005 06:05 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

You didn't answer the question I asked you. And feel free not to; I'm not a fascist. But no one is forcing any Church to change their long-standing practices.

As far as tax-exempt status is concerned; if the churches insist on trying to influence the politics of a secular democracy, then they should be subject to the same tax laws that all political advocacy groups are.


Now, a debate... There are elements out there that are attempting to force their will on the Church. Remember that marriage is considered one of the most holy of times to the Catholic Church. Of course the Church will now take exception to people attempting to re-write the definition of marriage... This is only natural.

Why does the definition of marriage have to be re-written? Why not bring civil unions on to the same playing field?

Taxing the church will not have a good end... Frankly, the churches in my home town are not doing so well at the collection plate, and yet they still manage to run soup kitchen's, youth organisations, AA meetings, etc etc. These are services to a community which very few are willing to perform. Even an agnostic such as my self can appreciate that there is some good there, good which should be allowed to flourish.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 06:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Now, a debate... There are elements out there that are attempting to force their will on the Church. Remember that marriage is considered one of the most holy of times to the Catholic Church. Of course the Church will now take exception to people attempting to re-write the definition of marriage... This is only natural.

No there aren't. It's quite clear no one is forcing the Church to do anything different. How do you think the Catholic Church gets away with discriminating against women, despite the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? You're not answering my question, you're just dissembling. That is of course, a sin, in case you don't know.

quote:
Taxing the church will not have a good end... Frankly, the churches in my home town are not doing so well at the collection plate, and yet they still manage to run soup kitchen's, youth organisations, AA meetings, etc etc. These are services to a community which very few are willing to perform. Even an agnostic such as my self can appreciate that there is some good there, good which should be allowed to flourish.

I'm not in favour of taxing Churches. I just want Church hiearchies to understand their place in a secular democracy; that their place is properly in the realm of personal spirituality and not in the realm of social policy in a diverse society.

If they maitain their role is otherwise, then some of us can legitimately ask that they be taxed the way other advocacy groups are.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 04 June 2005 06:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
All this screeching to tax churches... Tell me, if you clowns get your wish, will you pick up the slack created in the charitable realms?

Will you, Hephaestion, go work the steam line in a soup kitchen? Will you house AA meetings in your basement? Will you allow Boy Scouts or Girl Guides to hold meetings the next night? Perhaps you will offer sanctuary for an illegal immigrant, who really should be staying in Canada for protection.


No, I likely won't, but that is exactly the kind of thing my taxes should go to support.

But you left some things off the list. I won't molest small children, either. I won't cover up for child molesters, and help them evade prosecution, either. I won't add to the tragedy of the AIDS crisis in Africa by telling lies about the effectiveness of condoms and working ceaselessly to prevent their distribution. I won't spread hatred and lies about gay people, while telling everyone that I really love them.

I could go on and on, but there's a LOT of things I wouldn't do that the Roman Catholic heirarchy has no problems doing.


From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 04 June 2005 06:44 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Why does the definition of marriage have to be re-written? Why not bring civil unions on to the same playing field?

Because

a) it can't be done constitutionally
b) it's inherently discriminatory

You, however, are more than welcome to convince your fellow heterosexual to petition the government to reserve marriage for homosexuals only and have heterosexuals allowed only to have civil unions. If you find anything to be even slightly unfair about this, you have your answer as to why we will never accept it. If you don't, then go for it. I wish you luck.

quote:
Marriage and civil unions are two distinct ways in which couples can express their commitment and structure their legal obligations. Civil unions are a relationship short of marriage and are, therefore, provincially regulated. - Supreme Court of Canada

quote:
In this case, same-sex couples are excluded from a fundamental societal institution – marriage. The societal significance of marriage, and the corresponding benefits that are available only to married persons, cannot be overlooked. Indeed, all parties are in agreement that marriage is an important and fundamental institution in Canadian society. It is for that reason that the claimants wish to have access to the institution. Exclusion perpetuates the view that same-sex relationships are less worthy of recognition than opposite-sex relationships. In doing so, it offends the dignity of persons in same-sex relationships. - Ontario Court of Appeal

quote:
In my view, this is the only road to true equality for same-sex couples. Any other form of recognition of same-sex relationships, including the parallel institution of RDP's, falls short of true equality. This Court should not be asked to grant a remedy which makes same-sex couples "almost equal", or to leave it to governments to choose amongst less-than-equal solutions." - British Columbia Court of Appeal

quote:
The creation of civil union in Quebec carries a certain recognition but it is not the institution of marriage. - Quebec Superior Court.

There is no credible legal opinion in Canada that civil unions are in any way acceptable. Moreover, marriage is ALREADY legal. The only way to stop it is to override it with the notwithstanding clause. How can a regime that can only be instituted by overriding the rights of gays and lesbians possibly be equal?


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 June 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It seems that some like Kathy Shaidle are not liking that Sharon stood her ground and fought them back and pointed them out to be the liars that they are and then had the audacity to post about their nasty words and illuminate their hypocrisy here.

BTW good work Sharon!

quote:
Well, Shar, maybe they're expressing 30 years of pent up frustration at the damage your radical agenda has had on our country. Maybe your site shouldn't be a cheerleader for every dangerous societal trend from socialism at home and abroad to free abortion on demand.

Here we have your typical dimwitted leftist, just not clear on the concept.

Believe me, Sharon baby, not even a million cartoons can bring down the (decidedly non-beliguered) Catholic Church, because "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I have that on a slightly higher authority than Noam Chomsky. http://relapsedcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/06/stupid-people-are-funny.html



From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 04 June 2005 09:51 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I wonder if she reads rabble regularly. If so, perhaps she could learn to spell "non-beliguered" properly.
From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911

posted 04 June 2005 09:54 PM      Profile for Américain Égalitaire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
remind: I read her whole screed and could not help but keep thinking THIS is a follower of Jesus Christ? Man this woman can out-spew any of us in our highest dudgeon when it comes to vitriol.

She seems to want a lot of people DEAD. Not very Christ-like if you ask me.

Kathy needs to understand that her own hate will consume her.


From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 June 2005 10:38 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeh AE, well kathy, miss lapsed Catholic her self, because she is divorced, has some serious issues alright. And one them is she is trying to out do Rachel Marsden, for Anne Coulter of the north title. Now that Rachel has a National Post spot she must be doing a slow burn.

Plus, she has a whole lot more issues on a much more serious note, that I shall not go into here in public, unless she continues this mindless spew.

One of her pet causes would be, if Canada does not join the USA to please her, the continent should be split in half length ways so each half gets a warm climate.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 04 June 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
No one say anything bad about the Shaidle-meister. She's one righteous dudess, and absolutely not a wacko who reclaimed her Catholicism to deflect attention from a life you and I (ie, Godless heathens) wouldn't even dream of sinking to.

[ 04 June 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 04 June 2005 11:32 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
With what I know, I know for a fact I would not have sunk to those inhumane depths. And I do not think I will be running for public office anytime too soon. In fact, it would take a different lifetime. But some things are just not righteous under any circumstance or reasoning.

Having said that, Hinterland it seems you may know more than I about others things, well maybe the same things I suppose, but do you care to share? I cannot, no matter what kind of spew she spews.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 04:16 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

There is no credible legal opinion in Canada that civil unions are in any way acceptable. Moreover, marriage is ALREADY legal. The only way to stop it is to override it with the notwithstanding clause. How can a regime that can only be instituted by overriding the rights of gays and lesbians possibly be equal?



The point I was trying to get at (out of pure selfishness, because I would refuse a proper marriage), why be so fixated on marriage. Why not civil unions?

Those of us, who do not believe in the church, should be recognised in the way of benifits (my job is particularly hazardous, and hence, should I meet that special someone, she should not be left in the cold because I believe that marriage is NOT the only way).

I can accept that marriage is a religous instituion, despite my "heathen" ways... Why is it that there are those that choose to fight reality? No amount of arguement will change the mind of 3,000 yrs + of doctrine (I am of course including the collective Hebrew roots of the Christians).

Instead of fighting another's opinion, why not fight to have a current idea updated?

Let the Church have it's beliefs (as shallow as they may be), fight to bring civil unions up to par with marriages, and all win.

Why is it, that the all win scenario is unacceptable?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 05:12 AM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
Go back and re-read my message. And if you still can't understand it, accept the fact that you're really just not capable of discussing the issue.
From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 June 2005 09:15 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's the thing. I have nothing against any religious group entering the public fray over any issue. But to snivel "bigotry" whenever their ideas are critiqued shows a lack of genuine willingness to be part of any real debate.

The Catholic Church, like any religiously inspired group, want to eliminate debate, and they will hide behind the skirts of scurillous accusations to accomplish that end.

Tax the Churches.


From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 June 2005 09:33 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Boy talk about thread drift- I thought this discussion concerned the recent issues raised by the juvenile Anti-Catholic cartoon Rabble posted.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 June 2005 10:06 AM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, well, maybe we thought we'd let it drift to the assinine Danato cartoon (that doesn't narrow it down much, does it?) that portrayed Mayor David Miller as Adolf Hitler.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
PitaPlatter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8256

posted 05 June 2005 10:51 AM      Profile for PitaPlatter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hi Tommy- This link is appropriate-IN THE FUTURE, EVERYONE WILL BE HITLER FOR 15 MINUTES- fair and balanced.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:
Go back and re-read my message. And if you still can't understand it, accept the fact that you're really just not capable of discussing the issue.


Wow, your alias is really fitting for you, eh? Some day, you will discover reality... I pity you for when that day happens.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 June 2005 11:32 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Knob.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
TemporalHominid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6535

posted 05 June 2005 12:04 PM      Profile for TemporalHominid   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Go far enough left and you end up on the right.


The similarities between the left and the right are numerous.

re: the cartoon itself and a lot of comments I have seen on various threads about Catholic Faith, Popes, or things:

Catholics are demonised. Both the left and the right are adept at demonising. The left and right have their prejudices, and some individuals act on those prejudices.

The "Hail Mary" was high jacked, and in the context of Catholic Faith: is it any wonder people reacted the way they did in those letters? Sharon Fraser, who by the way has some great arguments for supporting the creating and diplaying of the cartoon (free speech issues?)and puts "one cartoon" in perspective, says she was hurt and angered by comments in the letters. Well... rabble.ca, Mike Constable, Babble's members, and or posters have made some comments that have hurt and angered Catholics, Christians, and Humanists.

There are always consequences for making policial or social statements in any media.


I have observed a demonstrated demonisation of Catholics, Jews, Germans, on babble and many of the comments are close relatives to the prejudice and bigotry demonstrated by individuals on the right. Whatever "crimes" Catholics or Jews or Germans perpetrated in the past should not be generalised to individuals in Catholic, Jewish, or German communities in the present.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]


From: Under a bridge, in Foot Muck | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:


Wow, your alias is really fitting for you, eh? Some day, you will discover reality... I pity you for when that day happens.


It's you who can't face reality. You wish to disregard the law and reality in order to impose something on people against their will, and when the reasons why it can't happen are explained to you, all you can do is say, "but why?"


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 05 June 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let's avoid the personal attacks on Kathy Shaidle. I disagree completely with where she has decided to position herself on this and almost every other issue, but she's been through a lot of shit that contributed to it. She's a very damaged person, and it's a shame she's lashed out at former friends, but let's lend her the compassion she doesn't lend to others. (And who knows, she may get pissed off at her current friends and re-re-lapse some day!)
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 June 2005 01:49 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Oh, I know...but it's just so numblingly, annoyingly familiar...the born-agains viewing their pre-born life experience as simply vanishing with the conviction of faith. I've got a stupid father who's trying the same dodge (...he's trying to shave a few eons off purgatory, I'm pretty sure). As if God is that stupid.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Tommy_Paine
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 214

posted 05 June 2005 01:51 PM      Profile for Tommy_Paine     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It was a lot easier back in the old days when you could just purchase an indulgence.
From: The Alley, Behind Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Thrasymachus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5747

posted 05 June 2005 01:54 PM      Profile for Thrasymachus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We Catholics just have to say a quick sorry at the end. See the Church has gotten more progressive, what used to provided for a nominal user fee is now being provided free of charge.
From: South of Hull | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pythagoras
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8409

posted 05 June 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for Pythagoras     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Does anybody remember the Kurt Waldheim affair?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim
If the thin-skinned amongst us could set aside the format of the thought-provocation, we might examine some issues it raises. Does this pope represent an old boys' network glossing over a questionable past? Should a religious leader be above reproach, es[pecially one who is said to be infallible Is the person infallible or just the person once they become pope? If we assume, as the Waldheim investigators did that a participant in such affairs knew more than they now let on, does this pope represent the converted and redeemed? That would depend on his actions since leaving the Hitler Youth. Has he shown the qualities of mercy and compassion or did he just play Vatican politics well? In any case, these are all legitimate concerns of all people of the world, when the person under scrutiny is seen as a world leader both politically (the papal Nuncio is usually top of the list at any diplomatic gathering) and morally.

From: Ubiquity | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 02:21 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Let's avoid the personal attacks on Kathy Shaidle. I disagree completely with where she has decided to position herself on this and almost every other issue, but she's been through a lot of shit that contributed to it. She's a very damaged person, and it's a shame she's lashed out at former friends, but let's lend her the compassion she doesn't lend to others. (And who knows, she may get pissed off at her current friends and re-re-lapse some day!)

Okay swallow, let's avoid personal attacks on Kathy. Though I am not sure your post qualifies for avoidance.

And heh, who hasn't been through a lot of shit, but most of us do not come out of it lacking compassion and humanity.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 05 June 2005 02:43 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hmm, yes. I guess my post doesn't really qualify for avoidance. Oh well. Mea cul... well, you know the rest.

Hey, if the user fees have been abolished, maybe the Catholic church really is the most radically socialist organization in the world, as a Toronto Sun hack is rumoured to have claimed.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 03:37 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

It's you who can't face reality. You wish to disregard the law and reality in order to impose something on people against their will, and when the reasons why it can't happen are explained to you, all you can do is say, "but why?"



The left would have all beleive that nothing will be forced on the churches. I have made the arguement, which you ignored, that marriage is a religious thing (especially to the Catholics)... In ignoring, you posted the following gem...


quote:
You, however, are more than welcome to convince your fellow heterosexual to petition the government to reserve marriage for homosexuals only and have heterosexuals allowed only to have civil unions. If you find anything to be even slightly unfair about this, you have your answer as to why we will never accept it. If you don't, then go for it. I wish you luck.

You will never accept the term "civil union"? Why is that? If it is given the same rights and privildges as marriage (in effect being marriage, just different wording), why is it that civil union is such a wrong thing?

Nothing will be forced? That is a crock and you know it. This issue IS being forced, the elft is using the shield of political correctness, and slandering all who disagree with the word bigot (hence deminishing the term in such a way that the real bigots are hiding out in the open now).

This is reality. Marriage IS a religious term. It is the accepted norm within our society that it is a religous term. Attempting to change the definition of marriage is perceived as a direct attack, resulting in people defending against this attack, and then being labeled as a bigot.

Frankly, the biggest bigots I have ever met reside on the left side of the fence...


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 03:39 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by swallow:
Hmm, yes. I guess my post doesn't really qualify for avoidance. Oh well. Mea cul... well, you know the rest.

Hey, if the user fees have been abolished, maybe the Catholic church really is the most radically socialist organization in the world, as a Toronto Sun hack is rumoured to have claimed.


Beleive in the Church or not (I choose not), the church does do a lot of good in the world.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 June 2005 03:43 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
This is reality. Marriage IS a religious term. It is the accepted norm within our society that it is a religous term. Attempting to change the definition of marriage is perceived as a direct attack, resulting in people defending against this attack, and then being labeled as a bigot.

*sigh*. It really doesn't get any stupider than this.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 03:51 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:

*sigh*. It really doesn't get any stupider than this.


You are right, it doesn't. Perhaps you could argue the point instead of labeling it as stupid.

Define marriage

You all claim I am missing the point, all the while you are
COMPLETELY ignoring my point. Ignoring and dismissing a point is not how arguements are won... And frankly, these are the kinds of tactics that the neo nazis and revisionists use. It is the last bastion of the witless.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 05 June 2005 03:57 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Mellow out, you hysteric. First of all, why don't you address the dilema that presents itself when religions, such as the United Church and Reform Judaism, see no problem with marrying same sex couples? Does marriage then still remain a religious term, or does it suddenly become something different for you as well?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
HeywoodFloyd
token right-wing mascot
Babbler # 4226

posted 05 June 2005 04:01 PM      Profile for HeywoodFloyd     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok.

If a civil union is meant to confer all the legal rights of marriage to a relationship, then it is a state sanctioned union.

quote:
In modern times, the term marriage is generally reserved for a state sanctioned union. The phrase legally married can be used to emphasize this point.

There is only one term for a state sanctioned union. Marriage.


From: Edmonton: This place sucks | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 05 June 2005 04:03 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, I've seen polls that would refute that claim that marriage is accepted as a religious term.

Huge numbers of hetero couples who were married in civil ceremonies consider themselves married and would be outraged if anyone tried to take that designation away from them. Like, huge numbers -- probably a majority.

The Liberals were just being realistic when they considered the option of "civil unions" and then rejected it, mainly because they knew how many non-religious heteros would be up in arms against any such change.

And as Hinterland says, there are churches that are happy to perform same-sex marriages. It is hardly up to one denomination to tell all the others what their sacraments may consist of.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 June 2005 04:09 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hinterland: *sigh*. It really doesn't get any stupider than this.

It's not just "stoo-pid". It's the private property crowd applying their shallow weltanschauung to spiritual matters. I mean, think about it.

quote:
Reason: This is reality. Marriage IS a religious term. It is the accepted norm within our society that it is a religous term. Attempting to change...

Implicit in this idiotic tirade is the idea that ownership of the meaning of the term somehow "belongs" to a favoured group the way the Buick in my driveway belongs to me.

quote:
Reason: Attempting to change the definition of marriage is perceived as a direct attack, resulting in people defending against this attack, and then being labeled as a bigot.

Again, this makes no sense unless I somehow "own" the word and its meaning. Why can't these people share the bounty of all things: language, mother earth and perhaps most of all, love? Because it's against their bourgeois values.

Socialism may have taken a terrible pounding these last few years but it will never be as spiritually empty as such values.

[ 05 June 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 05 June 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The light of "Reason" has extinguished itself.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 06:30 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Again, this makes no sense unless I somehow "own" the word and its meaning. Why can't these people share the bounty of all things: language, mother earth and perhaps most of all, love? ...Socialism may have taken a terrible pounding these last few years but it will never be as spiritually empty as such values.

Thank you for posting this, the same thing has been running through my thoughts. And it seems this sect of people are attempting to own a few words.

Like you say, marriage is one, and Christian is another. It is, somehow perceived that declaring ownership validates a position. It matters not that it cannot be validated in the reality of a democracy.

This sect's argument that they have a traditional right to own marriage, as a word, because it is "traditionally" religiously based is not only false, it is anti-democratic. Making one federal government exemption to the use of the word marriage as being traditional to only churches kills democracy. It is no wonder this sect is fighting it so hard, achieving it would mean one more step on the way out of democracy. They are really democracy haters one could say.

democracy = the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 06:39 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I have made the arguement, which you ignored, that marriage is a religious thing (especially to the Catholics)

Everything is a religious thing to religious people. Catholics believe birth countrol and divorce are subject to their rules, but we don't allow them to impose their beliefs on others. Marriage is primarily a state institution, not a religious one. In most countries it's not a religious one AT ALL.

I propose instead, that if religions are so worried about being forced to perform same-sex marriages, the solution is simple. We take away the right for them to perform any marriages at all, like most countries have done. People will have a civil marriage that is legally binding, and afterwards they can do whatever they want in church.

Marriage belongs to the state and those who choose to marry, both gay and straight. The churches are welcome to participate in it, but their participation is not in any way integral.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 06:41 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
You will never accept the term "civil union"? Why is that? If it is given the same rights and privildges as marriage (in effect being marriage, just different wording), why is it that civil union is such a wrong thing?

As I said, read my first reply to you. By its very nature, it cannot EVER be given the same rights and privileges of marriage, because by definition it is a lesser status. You are welcome to convince heterosexuals to accept it for themselves. Speaking for MY people, take your kind offer and shove it.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 05 June 2005 07:39 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by RealityBites:

Everything is a religious thing to religious people. Catholics believe birth countrol and divorce are subject to their rules, but we don't allow them to impose their beliefs on others. Marriage is primarily a state institution, not a religious one. In most countries it's not a religious one AT ALL.

I propose instead, that if religions are so worried about being forced to perform same-sex marriages, the solution is simple. We take away the right for them to perform any marriages at all, like most countries have done. People will have a civil marriage that is legally binding, and afterwards they can do whatever they want in church.

Marriage belongs to the state and those who choose to marry, both gay and straight. The churches are welcome to participate in it, but their participation is not in any way integral.



So, whe do you plan to force religous people to wear some some of sign. Say perhaps a yellow star?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scout
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1595

posted 05 June 2005 07:55 PM      Profile for Scout     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, whe do you plan to force religous people to wear some some of sign. Say perhaps a yellow star?

I think you have crossed the line here.


From: Toronto, ON Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 05 June 2005 08:37 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The CCRL does not represent the Catholic Church. It is a para-church organization and from what I know about it, and some of its members, would see the church as too liberal. Yes, really! I have had a personal encounter with them.

They are independent of the RC church but I believe all members are people who attend church faithfully and subscribe to the articles of faith and doctrines of the RC church. They are not sedavacanists or anything like that.

And, yes, they would be concerned about liberal influences on the RC church.

quote:
I don't pretend to be able to get into Constable's head but I have to say that that cartoon comes across as a crude, classic conservative protestant critique/stereotype of Catholics

Thrasymachus I agree that the protestant church has been unkind over the years to the RC church but I don't believe that Constable is speaking from a conservative protestant position.

quote:
Lets make a cartoon about the early feminists trying to ban all alcohol consumption. Or their firm support of eugenics - including sterilization of blacks, italians, or the retarded

That's been done - although not here to my knowledge.

quote:
Take for instance the Church's stance on marriage. Is there any debate as to the idea that marriage is a religious occasion? No, you couldn't make up any arguement to say that it isn't. In fact, for the Roman Catholics out there, it is one of the most special of religous times.


For me marriage and faith are greatly intertwined. It's a very solemn but great religious celebration. I agree.

The people that get married outside of a religious context but have legal marriages that they cherish would't see marriage as a religious event.

Can two atheists be married? Of course.

quote:
Why can a gay couple not be in a same sex union? Why the insistance on forcing this on the churches?

I believe that they can be in a same sex union just as heterosexual couples can choose to live common law. I believe what is being requested is to have the full range of options available to any other couple.

My understanding is that there is an exemption in the bill so that people of faith do not have to marry persons who are gay if that is outside of their beliefs. I am truly not able to understand why it's re-surfacing, perhaps I am missing something. This particular issue makes my head spin.

The church has always had the right to decline heterosexual couples so I would imagine that they would not be forced to marry a gay couple.

quote:
Will you go work the steam line in a soup kitchen? Will you house AA meetings in your basement? Will you allow Boy Scouts or Girl Guides to hold meetings the next night? Perhaps you will offer sanctuary for an illegal immigrant, who really should be staying in Canada for protection

Many people here give of their time and energy to various social causes.

The RC has made an admirable contribution to various social issues IMHO.

quote:
That aside, the Church has it's right to perpetuate it's doctrine the way it sees fit. It is, after all, a voluntary organisation (though it wasn;t always so).

Right.

quote:
Let's avoid the personal attacks on Kathy Shaidle. I disagree completely with where she has decided to position herself on this and almost every other issue, but she's been through a lot of shit that contributed to it. She's a very damaged person, and it's a shame she's lashed out at former friends, but let's lend her the compassion she doesn't lend to others

You are very charitable Swallow.

quote:
And heh, who hasn't been through a lot of shit, but most of us do not come out of it lacking compassion and humanity.


If that's true how did the world get so messed up?

quote:
This is reality. Marriage IS a religious term. It is the accepted norm within our society that it is a religous term. Attempting to change the definition of marriage is perceived as a direct attack, resulting in people defending against this attack, and then being labeled as a bigot.

The term marriage has very real ties to the church which I am not disputing. When the term got re-framed to include couples who lived together outside of marriage (which is in opposition to church teaching) there were not rallies at parliament or equivalent campaigns. The church fell silent.

I'm not quite certain if this is wanting to keep a definition of marriage that is a precise reflection of church teaching why everyone's voices have been silent until now.

Mostly when I ask that I don't get an answer. Recently I did get a fairly decent answer which I appreciated but I'd like yours please.

quote:
The Liberals were just being realistic when they considered the option of "civil unions" and then rejected it, mainly because they knew how many non-religious heteros would be up in arms against any such change.


I am sure that people who are in married relationships or planning to be would not want it re-framed.

quote:
I propose instead, that if religions are so worried about being forced to perform same-sex marriages, the solution is simple. We take away the right for them to perform any marriages at all, like most countries have done. People will have a civil marriage that is legally binding, and afterwards they can do whatever they want in churc

I don't like that solution at all. I also think it would solve very very little.

quote:
So, whe do you plan to force religous people to wear some some of sign. Say perhaps a yellow star?

There are occasions when I, myself, think people can go too far in criticizing religion. I don't think that occured in that specific exchange and it wasn't called for IMHO.


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 08:55 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
And heh, who hasn't been through a lot of shit, but most of us do not come out of it lacking compassion and humanity.

If that's true how did the world get so messed up?


If I believed the world was really so screwed up, as never before, it would be because the world is controlled by those who have never been through anything in their life, let alone have their silver spoon removed from their mouths.

Nor


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 05 June 2005 09:02 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh..that was almost tongue and cheek...I just sometimes how we got to where we are on some issues...I meant nothing cross by it.
From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 09:03 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:


So, whe do you plan to force religous people to wear some some of sign. Say perhaps a yellow star?


Here's a clue for you. It's not the folks who were trying to impose their beliefs on others who wore the stars. You don't speak for religious people. You speak for your religion. There IS a difference.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reality. Bites.
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6718

posted 05 June 2005 09:11 PM      Profile for Reality. Bites.        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:

quote:
------------------------------
I propose instead, that if religions are so worried about being forced to perform same-sex marriages, the solution is simple. We take away the right for them to perform any marriages at all, like most countries have done. People will have a civil marriage that is legally binding, and afterwards they can do whatever they want in churc
--------------------------------------------------
I don't like that solution at all. I also think it would solve very very little.

Well of course you wouldn't like it. Most Canadians wouldn't, including those who have no ties to a religion. The system of also allowing clergy to solemnize weddings works well for all concerned and I see no reason to change it.

Nevertheless, that IS the norm in most western countries. I raise it simply to illustrate the utterly false premise that legal marriage is inherently religious. Religions are involved in legally marrying people only because the state allows them to be. People like Reason need to be educated on that point.


From: Gone for good | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 June 2005 10:16 PM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hailey:
Oh..that was almost tongue and cheek...I just sometimes how we got to where we are on some issues...I meant nothing cross by it.

You know, I witnessed a conversation today, that illuminates my point that it is those, that have been through difficult times that have compassion and understanding and it is those who have not, that seem to have the ugliest hearts going.

It was about what a religious fellow would do to his sister if she had an abortion after being raped...


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 05 June 2005 10:51 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Clearly you are not willing to debate... This is another trait of your ilk. You are currently painted in a corner, and yet you insist in meandering all over the place with half assed arguements.

First point, do the math, and tell me how old he was at that age... Were you brave enough to even go to the corner store and face reality at that age? I doubt it, as you can not face reality now.

There is no proof, none, nil zilch... ABSOLUTLY ZERO. That the Pope, was or is sympathitic to the nazi cause, and yet there IS proof that he was plainly in opposition to it.


I wsa the first one to state that I can not prove that Ratzinger supported the racial program of the Nazi's I simply pointed out that you can porve that he did not. My point was as I satetd above, and I will reiterate again as you seem completely incapable of simple comprehension:

Me:

quote:
Neither you not I can prove what was going on in Ratzinger's head in the 1940's, but the very fact that there could even be the very tiniest possibility Ratzinger might have supported the race war against Jewish people should have been enough to disqualify his candidacy. This alone shows the moral bankruptcy and arrogance of the church.

This callous disregard is plainly an insult to the memory of Hitler's many victims.


However I have presented a certain amount of coircumstantial evidence that shows that Ratzinger was not an opponent:

Question: What did Ratzinger do after being posted to guard a BMW plant, which use Jewish slave labour in 1943:

1) Quit the army, immediatly?

2) Protest the abuse of humanity?

3) Work loyally guarding an Luftwaffe base, work loyaly in Hungary building anti-tank defences, serve loyally as an infantry man in the Wermacht and then wait until after Hitler was dead and Brlin Captured to join the tide of deserting German soldiers?

If Ratzinger was such a stalwart humanitarian, and his May 1945 desertion is evidence that he was willing to risk death by standing up to the NSDAP program of racial extermination, why did he not quit in any the previous 2 years, after he had witnessed Jews being used as slave labour?

AND BE AWARE THAT MANY GERMAN SOLDIERS DID REFUSE DUTY FOR EXACTLY THESE REASONS.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 06 June 2005 05:13 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quitting the army was not and never was a option. You were, you were in.

Protesting you could do but realistically that as a option ended in 1942ish for the majority of soldiers. The fact that he was sent to hungary pretty much shows him to have been a crappy conscript and unwillling to do much.

And the timing of his desertion is pegged at between march and may 1945. Given that Hitler killed himself on April 30 and it was announced as death in battle, he prob deserted before it happened but even after wouldnt show much


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 June 2005 05:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
None of the bios I have read say that he deserted anytime before late April -- around, or shortly after, the time that Hitler was dead and the last resistance of the SS international brigades at the Reichstag was snuffed out.

The Wykepdia bio linked to by Reason seems to be the stock one floating around on the net and that is what it said.

Quitting was an option. Many German soldiers deserted throughout the war. One story I read described how a Wermacht soldier was ordered to help supervise movement of Jews in and around the Luftwaffe base they were guarding in Russia. This soldier quickly realized what was going on, and removed his uniform so that he was naked, and refused further orders. He was shipped home. He (a Catholic) said later that it was the only Christian thing to do.

You will find that story in the Third Reich: A New History, by Michael Burleigh

Surely there could be reprecussions, but sometimes individuals, and also whole units simply let their orders go in one ear and out the other when it came to persecuting Jews. Well, that takes very brave men and women and we can't expect everyone to be heros, so that is not not an indictment in itself.

It is implied by the Pope's supporters that the Ratzinger deserted at great risk of summary execution. No. In fact the Ratzinger waited until the chances of summary execution were very small.

Most summary executions of deserters happened when the Wermacht and SS were rounding up the last stragglers retreating from Kurland between February and March to fight at Sealow hieghts -- the last natural defensive position before Berlin.

By May, and after Hitler's death, and the fall of Berlin, even formations that maintained organizational intergrity (e.g. 9th Army in the forest south of Berlin) were operating on the idea of fighting a series of rearguard actions against the Russians to cover their retreat to the British and Americans lines so that they could surrender to them, rather than fall into Russian hands. Others simply ran as far from the Russians as possible -- Ratzinger seems to be one of these as he spent time in a camp in Italy.

That is the general picture of events as described in: The Fall of Berlin 1945" by Antony Beevor

In other words it is obvious that the Ratzingers actions followed the patern of the rest of Wermacht, whose main priority in May was not fighting for a dead cause, but getting out of the way of the Russians who were very much more likely than the SS to capture German soldiers and shoot them.

Up until that time he was loyal. If Ratzinger had deserted in late 1944, that might have been a sign of some opposition but he did not. So, the desertion deal says absolutely doodly-squat, in regards to Ratzingers views on the NSDAP or his personal character.

Summary: Whatever went on in Ratzintgers mind, there is absolutely no evidence that he opposed Hitler, at all. If there is no evidence that he opposed him there is no way it can be proven that he did not support all or part of his program, except Ratzingers word.

Well, Eicheman said he was a Zionist under oath, so what? What we do know is that he served loyaly right through to the end.

[ 06 June 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
1proudhomophobe
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9537

posted 06 June 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for 1proudhomophobe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Equal rights for all huh. Same sex marriage as a positive step forwards. Next thing we'll be validating the mormons and thier polygamous relationships. Can it be long till somebody takes the government to court for the right to marry thier pet. Discrimination is a bad thing, no matter who it's against. Did we say it was wrong for adults to have sex with children, well sorry but isn't that just more discrimination. Where and when does it all end?


From: canada | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 06 June 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Right here in realityland - guess we won't be seeing much more of you. Buhbye.
From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
audra trower williams
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2

posted 06 June 2005 08:53 PM      Profile for audra trower williams   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
INdeed!

Also, too long!


From: And I'm a look you in the eye for every bar of the chorus | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca