Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Pat Condell on multi-cultural liberals Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    Because it's a term only used by people who spout drivvel.
    Grow up.

    It's usually people who disregard an entire argument simply due to a term in which they disagree with who spout 'drivel'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    Your links pertain to, respectivly

    Papal relations with Nazi Germany
    Papal relations with Fascist Italy
    The Spanish Inquisition
    The Crusades

    Firstly it should yuo noted your reply only touches on half the objections to the Catholic Church that were originally raised, but to look at the ones you have claimed are erronous-
    The other objections were too ridiculous to bother tackling.

    Papal relations with Nazi Germany.

    To quote from the Wikipedia article you quoted-

    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    "Catholic holocaust scholar Michael Phayer concludes that the encyclical "condemned racism (but not Hitler or National Socialism, as some have erroneously asserted)"."

    We can see that even at it;s most critical of Nazism, the Catholic Church still decided that only the racist parts of Nazism deserved condemnation, and the rest of it was seemingly fine.

    But lest we forget the Papacy had in 1933 signed the famous Reichskonkordat, which was far more important than the encyclical you gave.

    As while, in 1937 the Papacy did criticise racism, at had already, among other things, got bishops to swear allegiance to the government (ie. the Nazi Party) and the Concordat gave Hitler's government a great deal of international recognition, especially among other Catholic nations.
    Overall the Papacy was still supportive of hitler's government, even in 1933 when it did not have to be, and gave Nazism a lot of help and recognition, making it appear much more reasonable to Germany's Catholics than it otherwise would have been. Not to mention, morally the Papacy should have been condemning the Nazi government, even if it could be seen as being neutral overall.
    The encyclical explicitly condemned many aspects of Nazism including the totalitarianism.

    The Concordat was set up to insure the religious freedom of the Church, nothing else.

    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    Almost exactly the same could be said of Mussolini's fascist government, although, since that is of much less significance (without supporting Hitler too at least) I will move on.
    No, the encyclical condemned and critised the very core of fascist ideology, it was not superficial.

    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    The article on the Spanish Inquisition only really compares it in its barbarity to other practices at that time. And while it could be said to be no worse than other authoirities at this time, in its use of murder and torture, this is still something the Chruch should be ashamed of, as it is still, obviously morally wrong.
    Which is the only way to go about it. The Inquisition was the better alternative to a secular practice of execution.

    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    As for the Crusades, the article merely claims what is already known. That the Crusades were at least partly about defending the Byzantine Empire, and about political and sometimes financial gain rather than a Holy War. Personally I think Catholicism has a lot more to be ashamed of than the Crusades, such as the countless millions it has killed by condemning the use of condoms.
    Yes, the Crusades were in self defense.

    And if the laws of the Vatican were consistently obeyed, there would be no to very little spreading of aids.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Avada Kedavra)
    Grow up.

    It's usually people who disregard an entire argument simply due to a term in which they disagree with who spout 'drivel'.
    Well I've never been wrong. It's based on pretty sound reasoning.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The other objections were too ridiculous to bother tackling.

    The encyclical explicitly condemned many aspects of Nazism including the totalitarianism.

    The Concordat was set up to insure the religious freedom of the Church, nothing else.

    No, the encyclical condemned and critised the very core of fascist ideology, it was not superficial.

    Which is the only way to go about it. The Inquisition was the better alternative to a secular practice of execution.


    Yes, the Crusades were in self defense.

    And if the laws of the Vatican were consistently obeyed, there would be no to very little spreading of aids.
    The Pope may have wanted to get religious freedom in Nazi Germany. And he got it (for a few years). All he had to do was accept the Nazi regime. And he did it straight away. So don't paint the Vatican as some crusaders against Nazism. One of the major factors towards the Concordat, was Hitler allowing Catholic youth groups and Catholic education. So we can see the Pope's main priority is not to save lives, not to prevent the rise of fascism, no, it is to maintain his own power base.
    And so it is no surprise that the Papal encyclical, which, depite your protestations, is widely agreed among historians to be not nearly as far as the Pope could, and should have gone, only came after the right to run Catholic youth groups was removed. The Pope gets his power taken away by Hitler, and all of a sudden he decides that Nazism is bad after all.

    In fact, if we look at Wikipedia (your own source) we can see that

    "When the Nazi government violated the concordat (in particular article 31), bishops and the papacy protested against these violations. Protests culminated in the papal encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Concern" ) of 1937 of Pope Pius XI."

    It was only when the Concordat was violated that the Pope thought to speak out (timidly) against Nazism. Moral high ground, I think not.

    Face it, the Vatican could have stood up to Nazism, and to Fascism. It could have definitively forced people to choose between their religion, and supporting fascism. Seeing as virtually the whole of Italy, and the Nazis voting strongholds in South and West Germany were the Catholic areas, this would have been a major thorn in the side of fascism. But the Vatican went along with it.

    EDIT - Punctuation turning into smiley faces.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    The Pope may have wanted to get religious freedom in Nazi Germany. And he got it (for a few years). All he had to do was accept the Nazi regime. And he did it straight away. So don't paint the Vatican as some crusaders against Nazism. One of the major factors towards the Concordat, was Hitler allowing Catholic youth groups and Catholic education. So we can see the Pope's main priority is not to save lives, not to prevent the rise of fascism, no, it is to maintain his own power base.

    And so it is no surprise that the Papal encyclical, which, depite your protestations, is widely agreed among historians to be not nearly as far as the Pope could, and should have gone, only came after the right to run Catholic youth groups was removed. The Pope gets his power taken away by Hitler, and all of a sudden he decides that Nazism is bad after all.

    In fact, if we look at Wikipedia (your own source) we can see that

    "When the Nazi government violated the concordat (in particular article 31), bishops and the papacy protested against these violations. Protests culminated in the papal encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" ("With Burning Concern" ) of 1937 of Pope Pius XI."

    It was only when the Concordat was violated that the Pope thought to speak out (timidly) against Nazism. Moral high ground, I think not.

    Face it, the Vatican could have stood up to Nazism, and to Fascism. It could have definitively forced people to choose between their religion, and supporting fascism. Seeing as virtually the whole of Italy, and the Nazis voting strongholds in South and West Germany were the Catholic areas, this would have been a major thorn in the side of fascism. But the Vatican went along with it.

    EDIT - Punctuation turning into smiley faces.
    He defended religious freedom and you are critising this?

    And you are completely wrong on the voting areas. Protestant Prussians were more likely to support Hitler than Bavarian Catholics.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    He defended religious freedom and you are critising this?

    And you are completely wrong on the voting areas. Protestant Prussians were more likely to support Hitler than Bavarian Catholics.
    OK I didn't express myself well there. I wasn't trying to say more Catholics voted Nazi, merely that there were many Catholic areas that did poll 40-50% Nazi votes, above the national average. And the Protestant Prussian vote you're talking about is brought up by the proximity to Poland. It is no surprise that the residents of East Prussia voted Nazi, when cut off from the rest of Germany. But it is surprising, that the most Catholic areas of Germany, namely the Saarland, and to a lesser extent the Baden, and Pfalz regions voted nearly 50% for the Nazis. Well above the average. Not forgetting that before the Great Depression, it was only in the Catholic south the Nazis got any votes at all.

    My point was that had the Pope been condemning of the Nazis to a greater extent, and before 1937 at least, there would have been a lot less votes in such areas.

    And it is academic anyway. Whether or not the Pope could have made much a difference, the fact remains that he protected Catholic power rather than oppose Fascism.

    I am critising the Pope defending religious freedoms, because he did it by colluding with Fascists, by making them seem acceptable to Catholics, and that is morally disgraceful.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Norfolkadam)
    Well I've never been wrong. It's based on pretty sound reasoning.
    Your anecdotes certainly aren't 'sound reasoning'.

    Let's hope that you aren't afforded the same discourtesy and ignorance when you utter some term a person happens to disagree with, in the future.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moreiniho)
    I dislike his demeanor but he makes many salient points.
    Likewise.
    I often find I disagree with some things he says, but other times he hits the nail on the head.
    I think if the Daily Mail and the Sun were a person and angrier or more frustrated, that would be Pat Condell....sorta...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He makes a few valid points and I have to agree with some statements like "The medicine has become the disease". :yep:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    The other objections were too ridiculous to bother tackling.
    So the Catholic Church's:
    opposition to contraception
    institutionalised homophobia
    position on the marriage of priests
    position on Franco
    role in the Holocaust
    Anti-semitism
    barriers to the development of democracy pre-Cold War

    ...are all too ridiculous?

    - and I've not even mentioned the incidences of institutionalised child abuse.

    The Associated Press summarised a list of apologies from the Vatican in recent times at http://www.news24.com/News24/World/N...000202,00.html

    My point still stands - that the list of things the opponents of the Vatican and the Catholic Church can use against it is significant. The number of apologies in recent times - even having to tackle those issues in the first place puts it as an institution on the defensive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rhyus)
    So the Catholic Church's:
    opposition to contraception
    institutionalised homophobia
    position on the marriage of priests
    position on Franco
    role in the Holocaust
    Anti-semitism
    barriers to the development of democracy pre-Cold War
    1) If the teachings on sexual behaviour of the Church were followed, then they would be no problem.
    2) "homophobia" is a nonsensical propaganda word. HERE is my article on the term "homophobia".
    3) How is that bad if priests can't marry? It's a tradition.
    4) The Church was neutral during the Spanish Civil War. And Franco was better than the communist alternative.
    5) There was no role.
    6) The Church is very anti-rascist. Mit Brennender Sorge shows this.
    7) Can I get specific examples?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    1) If the teachings on sexual behaviour of the Church were followed, then they would be no problem.
    2) "homophobia" is a nonsensical propaganda word. HERE is my article on the term "homophobia".
    3) How is that bad if priests can't marry? It's a tradition.
    4) The Church was neutral during the Spanish Civil War. And Franco was better than the communist alternative.
    5) There was no role.
    6) The Church is very anti-rascist. Mit Brennender Sorge shows this.
    7) Can I get specific examples?
    1) The Church well knows that while abstaining from sex before marriage would lessen the spread of AIDS, that it is an unrealistic aim, and that contraception would be a more pragmatic option to adopt, instead, or alongside current church doctrine, and that its refusal to do so has lead to the deaths of millions. And it is responsible for this.

    2) Your article on homophobia says that it fine to oppose gay marriage, because the etymology of the word "homophobia" is incorrect. You are scraping the barrel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    1) The Church well knows that while abstaining from sex before marriage would lessen the spread of AIDS, that it is an unrealistic aim, and that contraception would be a more pragmatic option to adopt, instead, or alongside current church doctrine, and that its refusal to do so has lead to the deaths of millions. And it is responsible for this.

    2) Your article on homophobia says that it fine to oppose gay marriage, because the etymology of the word "homophobia" is incorrect. You are scraping the barrel.
    1) You are condemning them for being morally consistent? The ones who advocate rampant sexualism are to blame.

    2) It mentions nothing of the sort. I was critising the term "homophobia" as being both etymologically incorrect and inherently a propaganda word. How it is "scraping the barrel" to critise the use of a propaganda word is beyond me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    1) You are condemning them for being morally consistent? The ones who advocate rampant sexualism are to blame.

    2) It mentions nothing of the sort. I was critising the term "homophobia" as being both etymologically incorrect and inherently a propaganda word. How it is "scraping the barrel" to critise the use of a propaganda word is beyond me.
    1) I am condemning not their moral consistency, but their inability to change what they preach based on it's effectiveness. They Vatican had the chance to save millions of people's lives, by allowing the use of a condom. They refused that chance, they knew the consequences, and so instead of admitting that abstainence wasn't effective, they decided to let those millions die.

    2) It is scraping the barrel, because Prince Rhyus criticised the Vatican for being homophobic, and your counter-argument was merely a discussion on the etymology of the word homophobic, and had nothing to do with the fact the Vatican has discriminated against homosexuals for years, and still does.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    1) I am condemning not their moral consistency, but their inability to change what they preach based on it's effectiveness. They Vatican had the chance to save millions of people's lives, by allowing the use of a condom. They refused that chance, they knew the consequences, and so instead of admitting that abstainence wasn't effective, they decided to let those millions die.

    2) It is scraping the barrel, because Prince Rhyus criticised the Vatican for being homophobic, and your counter-argument was merely a discussion on the etymology of the word homophobic, and had nothing to do with the fact the Vatican has discriminated against homosexuals for years, and still does.
    1) Abandoning the teaching on the issue of contraception would mean the Church abandoning all of it's current positions on the morality of sexuality. Those who are to blame are those who support rampant sexual activity, agree?

    2) That wasn't a counter argument, I was merely contesting the use of the propaganda word "homophobia". How is there "discrimination" against those with homosexual desires?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    1) Abandoning the teaching on the issue of contraception would mean the Church abandoning all of it's current positions on the morality of sexuality. Those who are to blame are those who support rampant sexual activity, agree?

    2) That wasn't a counter argument, I was merely contesting the use of the propaganda word "homophobia". How is there "discrimination" against those with homosexual desires?
    1) What powerful and influential organistion, on the scale of the Vatican is "supporting rampant sexual activity"? People have sex because they want to, but they decide not to use condoms, partly, because their religion tells them to. Now I know they are being hypocritical by ignoring the church on sex, but listening about condoms, but that is the way it is right now, and if the church accepted that, and abandoned this one position on contraception, which is arbitrary itself, it would safe milions of lives. Surely that is more important than church tradition.

    2) The reason homosexuality was illegal for centuries was due to religious, especially Catholic influence. Any Pope could have said it was OK, and that would have freed millions from oppression and secrecy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    1) What powerful and influential organistion, on the scale of the Vatican is "supporting rampant sexual activity"? People have sex because they want to, but they decide not to use condoms, partly, because their religion tells them to. Now I know they are being hypocritical by ignoring the church on sex, but listening about condoms, but that is the way it is right now, and if the church accepted that, and abandoned this one position on contraception, which is arbitrary itself, it would safe milions of lives. Surely that is more important than church tradition.

    2) The reason homosexuality was illegal for centuries was due to religious, especially Catholic influence. Any Pope could have said it was OK, and that would have freed millions from oppression and secrecy.
    1) But they can't just abandon this one issue as it is central to their moral teaching. And how is it "artbitrary"?

    2) I thought you said that this was current "discrimination"? Is there current "discrimination"?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    1) But they can't just abandon this one issue as it is central to their moral teaching. And how is it "artbitrary"?

    2) I thought you said that this was current "discrimination"? Is there current "discrimination"?
    1) I see the banning of condoms as arbitrary, as it is something created by the Catholic Church and not required by the rest of Christianity, and it was not a long standing tradition, only a fairly recent decision, in the history of the Vatican. While sex before marriage rules have existed since the times of the Bible and before, rules on condoms have clearly not. And I don't know about you but I think that millions of lifes are worth more than any such rulings made by the church, which could have been changed.

    2) There is still discrimination against homosexuals by the church.

    Source - http://www.informedconscience.com/church.asp

    Quote-

    In a nutshell

    The Catholic Church teaches that:

    It is not sinful to be homosexual (gay).
    It is sinful to engage in homosexual acts (gay sex).

    And before you say it is not discriminating against homosexuals to bad homosexual acts, we both know that it is. Being banned from having sex with the gender you are attracted to and with people you love is discrimination.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The_Octopus)
    1) I see the banning of condoms as arbitrary, as it is something created by the Catholic Church and not required by the rest of Christianity, and it was not a long standing tradition, only a fairly recent decision, in the history of the Vatican. While sex before marriage rules have existed since the times of the Bible and before, rules on condoms have clearly not. And I don't know about you but I think that millions of lifes are worth more than any such rulings made by the church, which could have been changed.

    2) There is still discrimination against homosexuals by the church.

    Source - http://www.informedconscience.com/church.asp

    Quote-

    In a nutshell

    The Catholic Church teaches that:

    It is not sinful to be homosexual (gay).
    It is sinful to engage in homosexual acts (gay sex).

    And before you say it is not discriminating against homosexuals to bad homosexual acts, we both know that it is. Being banned from having sex with the gender you are attracted to and with people you love is discrimination.
    1) If they Africans don't follow their policy on sex, what makes you think they will follow your policy on condoms?

    2) How is that discriminating (not that discrimination is actually always bad)? They condemn the morality of homosexual acts (which is consistent with their views on sex as a whole) and I don't think that they want to punish those who commit those acts, so what's the problem? It seems like you are so willing to accuse those who don't agree with your PC agenda as "discrimnators" and "homophobes".
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Should the Catholic Church even be relevant here? It's not like the UK is a Catholic country, nor has it been for oooooh, years.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 11, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.