Which is a bit of a redundant point to make given that everyone knows, outside of perhaps Richard Williamson, that it was Jews in particular in the second world war who the Nazi's tried to exterminate. But the irony of trying to link extreme atheism to Nazism is that the Nazis didn't just pick on people of faith, they picked on people of different ethnicities and political viewpoints, the disabled, the mentally ill and the homosexuals who live a lifestyle that in the Pope's eyes excludes God from their lives and are contrary to natural law.

Well yeah, but what you actually said was "I thought the interesting thing about that quote is the part "especially the Jews", as if it was a greater sin to kill people who believed in God and followed similar teachings than those that didn't.
" which was fucking moronic as it was clear the pope meant they were particularly persecuted, and made no suggestion whatsoever that killing people of faith was a worse sin. So yes, anyone with a brain knows the Jews had it worse than most in the second world war, but you seemed to fail to pick that up and talk rubbish instead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

Comparing Atheists to Nazis, another turkey from Popemeister!

Just thought I would give my two cents on the Papal mass at Bellahouston Park.

I would probably describe myself as a lapsed Catholic in the sense that I don't practice my religion anymore by going to church, although I would say I was agnostic rather than an athiest. As for the event and visit itself, I thought it was a fantastic spectacle and not only made me slightly proud of my Catholic heritage - it made me very proud to be Scottish. The negativity surrounding the visit was swept away in a tide of joy and respect. Nothing could have spoiled the success of the day and I actually had a lump in my throat on a few occasions.

All the believers got what they hoped for and more, and in my opinion, all the overly militant and aggressive secularists and atheists did not. A massive own goal in the weeks leading up to the Pope's arrival in the UK by those who constantly attacked the Church thinking that was the popular view. There was easily more than 100,000 people there and it was a very special occasion indeed. The claims that there were only 65,000 there in the media are utterly derisory.

Will be a day I remember as long as I live.

Without the "Taxpayers" money the visit could have possibly not happened, (although I'm sure it probably still would have), but for the state to reject a state funded visit would, in a sense, be a symbolic rejection of the religion as a whole. At least that's how I see it.

It is, and the 65,000 in attendance is a pitiful turnout in comparison to the last time. Which is a major victory for secularism and tolerance.

There was well more than 65,000 in attendance believe me. There was about 80,000-100,000.

Aye, it looked to be more than 65,000 there.

Aye gotta agree with the above it looked at lot more than stated...

I've got relatives who still have commemorative plates and things from a visit he did in 1982, but I've never understood what the big excitement is about going to see the pope. What makes it more thrilling than a standard, boring mass? Is it the sheer number of people there or do they actually put on a good show? More importantly, did they dish out communion for everyone?

I thought that the pope was a Nazi? Well in his (Hitler) youth at least.

Any how wasn't Italy a Fascist totalitarian state under Mussolini in the WW 2 on the same side as the German Nazis, correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the Vatican has done much for world peace.

To be fair, he didn't really have much choice.

Membership to the Hitler youth was compulsory for all boys when they reached 14 years old.

Jesus this gets worse!!

Does anyone read anything or just go word for word of what some journo has done to sell a rag!!!

The thing with the cost as well its the done thing with an invite as the queen was in canada at cost to them...

Loads of people have got something to say about it but at the end of the day the pope was in Scotland and the people were on the streets to see him, get a picture or go to his mass in glasgow...

The popes a bigger draw than most things going on in the world right now...

With the scandals do anybody actually think that the pope hears about half this stuff?? Or is it brushed under by some doo gooder that thinks it shouldnt go up that high?? When maybe the pope might actually do something if he heard about it... Does Cameron here about every bad cop that is in the uk??

The Church is huge and things wont get though to the pope!!

Yep, very true perhaps I was a little harsh saying that.

Calm down, Aidan.

It's just that bashing the Catholic Church and the Pope is the "in thing" just now.

That was evident with the small groups of well-meaning students in their designer retro gear who were protesting against him in Glasgow.

Religion isn't cool. If the student types protest against Islam they'll likely get their heads chopped off or get fucked up by militant fundies, so the Catholic Church are really the only (and safest) option left.

It's what they do until they leave Uni, get a job and a mortage and start voting for the Tories.

I calm David im not even a catholic but aye he will disappear off the radar after his visits and we will go back to moaning about the governement!!

I love those well meaning students in designer retro gear tits!!!

Some of us never stopped doing that, as Patdfb can surely attest to

If they're a bad enough cop that they make it into the press, he hears about it.

WWE is huge and things wont get through to the McMahons!!
RBS is huge and things wont get through to Fred Goodwin!!

The vatican has confirmed that during his state visit to the Uk, the pope hopes to focus mainly on his prominent role as a member of the Nazi youth movement in Germany in the 1930's.
"This way the pontif can deflect attention away from his embarassing links to the catholic church," insisted Cradinal....
credit to private eye for that one)

Yeah, it's all just a fashion statement

That's such a weak, weak argument. I find it almost impossible to take anything you say in this thread seriously anyway, because all I see is a big flashing BNP VOTER sign that I can't shake.

Anyway, here's a video: http://whythatsdelightful.wordpress.com/20...ero-of-the-day/

And as far as this stuff from the guy saying that the scandals wouldn't getting back to the Pope because the church is so huge, you must have missed the part where the Pope himself covered up cases of abuse.

watched a program on it the other night and there is no confirmation that he actually dealt with it.

Unless the pope came out and said yes i knew about it and yes i dealt with it..

What the program said is his office dealt with it!

As i said who is too say that some doo gooder aid isnt taking it out of his hands...

The fuck?

The Pope was the guy when it came to dealing with this. It's actually the biggest defence of him, is that if anyone in the Catholic Church was doing anything, it wa him. The case against is that he didn't really do much, and sent out the letter to priests basically saying 'what happens in the church stays in the church'.

This is the first time I've seen someone try to plead ignorance with regards to Benedict's knowledge of Child Abuse scandals in the Catholic Church.

Bashing the Catholic Church has been the 'in thing' my entire life.

I'll bash pretty much any church but I was bought up to distrust the Catholic Church more than any other, and not just because it's the Church of choice on Merseyside.

And, as someone who's going to the rally in London tomorrow, I'm not doing it because it's 'fashionable'. I'm doing it despite the fact that I was raised Catholic, and there's a strong chance that my doing this will upset people that I care about. I'm not doing it because I'm scared to approach Islam, because I think the concept of Islamic terrorism isn't exactly something that isn't discussed on the front pages, constantly, of British newspapers.

I'm doing it because I believe it's the right thing to do. I'm doing it because I detest the hypocrisy of someone with such a damaged moral sense preaching morals. I'm doing it because of the institutionalised sexism and homophobia within the religion I was raised in. I'm doing it because of the cover ups, not because I believe there is an inherent link between priests and paedophilia. I'm doing it because I'm angry that it's cost the British taxpayer so much in a time of recession. I'm doing it, finally, because the Pope has directly linked Nazi's and atheists, and that's been the final straw between thinking the rally is a good idea and actually going myself.

Wanneer begon ik over de overheid te jammeren? Wanneer begon ik over de overheid te jammeren?



Surely that isnt too subtle?

It's like Davids BNP support has just fallen off the radar. Bizarre.

The other entirely valid point made is Chris B's about it being the right thing to do, preaching horrible, hateful exclusionary backward messages under the guise of morality is frightening, the fact people still buy it is scary, the fact people hide his atrocities behind the good old "It's cool to hate on them" or "You wouldn't do it to Islam" arguments renders the people who think these opinions hold water even less relevant.

The lunatic posts in here are just not fit for a response. Seriously. No-one here can accuse me of ducking a question, but there's just no way to respond to such raving, foaming-at-the-mouth, bloodthirsty rants. I will pop in later on and dissect both the Tatchell libel and the utterly bizarre discussion of the situation in Belgium, but I think it's safe to say that "debate" is a long forgotten concept in this thread so I'm not going to stoop to it any more.

Kenny, I have no problems with you ignoring the excesses in this thread, but I'm fairly certain there have been some good, intelligent points in here as well. You're tarring all of us with the same brush, something that I'm pretty sure you'd have a problem with people doing to Catholics.

At least he isn't tarring all of us with the same brush as the Nazis just yet for our "aggressive secularism". Personally I lost interest in debating Kenny when he revealed that he thought the sexual conduct of a certain segment of society was repugnant. People will be sarcastic dicks when you make goad-worthy statements.

That's my motto.

This notion of aggressive/militant secularism/atheism is a strange one.

Atheism is a by-product of religion, which wouldn't exist if people hadn't invented and plagiarised these myths about deities in the first place. For me, there was no choice in becoming an atheist, which makes the stigma and vilification associated with atheism hard to tolerate. I'm not an atheist to be cool or rebellious, I just can't suspend my disbelief to the point where I can even begin to entertain such ideas anymore.

As long as he continues to support religion and all the unpleasantries and contradictions that come with it, the Pope is in no position to complain about atheism. It seems that a regular atheist doesn't believe holy books to be factually correct and leaves it at that, whereas the militant atheist is willing to point out any inaccuracies, lies and offensiveness in the interests of equality, truth and progress. If there is indeed a rising tide of such activity, I fail to see how it could be considered negative in any way.

All I've seen is the same lies and misinformation I've already discredited, except said in a more aggressive and angry manner.



1. The pope's statement was regarding the people who have tried, over the last 100 years, to remove God from society and have ended up with particularly inhuman societies. He highlighted the Nazis, but he could just as easily have mentioned Stalin or the Red Terror. Bear in mind that to someone who believes abortion is murder, this country allows (and liberal atheists tend to vigorously promote) mass murder on an unprecedented scale.
2. I'm pretty sure I never said any such thing.



Well, it's a piece of nonsense to proclaim yourself a campaigner for tolerance, justice and equality and then try to silence a minority. It's equally strange to speak about promoting the welfare of the poor and oppressed then campaign against the Church, which has been one of the primary voices of those poor and oppressed for centuries. Above all though, it's despicably hypocritical to claim to support the scientific method and to only believe things that are provably true, then use vile smears, lies and half-truths to try to rouse hatred for an organisation and its members. That's the story of the New Atheism, though.

Kenny, you're not going to get anywhere here.

It's not worth the energy spent tapping the keys.

Encase you missed it top of the page.

Nope, I didn't miss it.

Sorry auto spell check did that. Nice of you to point it out and still ignore the post.

I didn't ignore anything.

I said i'd read it, didn't I?

Remember when you said that tax money shouldn't go to the Church? How about how the majority of this visit has been funded?

That wasn't exactly what I said. I said I had my doubts about it, since it had potential to place unreasonable pressures on the Church's ability to do as it pleases. But still, that's a completely different issue to whether the taxpayer should fund security and so on for a state visit by an invited head of state. I'm utterly disgusted by the behaviour of the Saudi government and often by the Pakistani government and the Israeli government and even the American government on a few occasions. It doesn't mean I think we should break off diplomatic relations and stop treating them with the respect their standing as independent states warrants. The pope was invited here by the then PM on behalf of the queen. The protocol says that the host country pays for a major chunk of the costs of such a visit. That's just how the game is played.

Did you?



ToMAHto, toMAEto...?

Oh, hey, look at the rest of that post. lol.





How much of what has taken place has been 'state' events? I mean, if it turns out that the tax money only went to the head of state/westminster/palace stuff, fair enough. But I'm at a loss as to why that was so expensive.

So was it a standard head of state visit? Or was it more than that?

Since I have a few minutes to spare, I might as well take a hatchet to this appalling piece of "journalism."

Firstly, 476 cases over fifty years averages out to fewer than ten per year. Obviously that's ten too many, but it's not some out of control epidemic, particularly not when a handful of the priests named have been responsible for multiple cases over long periods of time.

Now, from that article:



There are only eight dioceses in Belgium. How many is "almost every"? Seven? Six? One way or another, if even one diocese is "clean" then that's 12.5% of the country. I think we can say that fairly substantial parts of the country escaped sexual abuse of minors by one or several church members.



I'm sure glad there's someone to blame for this guy's later behaviours.



Well that's good news, isn't it? Oh, wait...



Well no, except that the number of reported cases has tailed off during the very period that child abuse became something that people were able to talk about and that was generally taken much more seriously and understood far better than in decades past. Seriously, how can anyone put those two sentences together and not question them?



So around half the alleged abusers cannot even question or challenge these claims? It's just as well there's a large, well-funded organisation around that takes responsibility for these things, isn't it? Otherwise your dead abuser would just be a grave for you to spit on. As it is, there's a whole world of money to be made from guilt-tripping the Church over your alleged suffering.



The implication there is that Danneels was an abuser. He was not, and there has never been any suggestion that he is. Use of the word "warned" is loaded, too. In actual fact, press reports at the time suggest that Danneels recommended that the nephew wait the short time until his uncle retired before going public, most likely because it would not only be embarrassing for the Church but also would make the whole thing a greater media circus which surely doesn't help the victim either. Danneels also called on Vangheluwe to make a private apology (which he did) before the nephew decided to break the story anyway. I won't argue that that's necessarily the right course of action to have taken, but it's not wholly unreasonable and it certainly doesn't constitute "being exposed for child abuse."

That's a pretty dishonest statement to make, leaving out the fact that societies which try to forcibly make religion part of the social structure, i.e. fundamentalist ones, have countenanced just as many deaths, if not more, over the course of history. Christian, Islamist and even Israel have committed numerous atrocities in the name of supposedly "protecting" their religions.

Dysentery is the one of the biggest killers in the world. Should that mean we can't talk about AIDS? Anyway, what anyone other than the Church itself does is not the pope's to defend. When it comes to the 20th century, atheistic communism and Nazism have claimed millions of lives. The Church probably can't come close to those figures over its whole history.

Not if you're going to claim that AIDS is the only killer disease in the world.



When he's talking about "religion" in general and not specifically the Church, he's making it his to defend, as far as I can see. You can't champion religion against the evil atheists and then say: "Oh, I was only talking about us."

And you can't possibly claim that "religion" has claimed more lives in the 20th century than atheism, regardless of your feelings on the pope's rhetorical stylings.

This lame duck deflection crops up so much. Generally, (and off the top of my head, I can't think of any examples where it's not the case) people or regimes who are atheist aren't committing the acts they're committing in the name of atheism, they just happen to be monsters who don't believe in God. That's as opposed, say, churches saying that condoms help the spread of AIDS, because of what it says in the bible. Atheism hasn't claimed those lives, more, cunts who wanted money/power/land/whatever.

Weeeell, the pope wasn't exactly saying that anything was done "in the name of atheism" (although the Red Terror in particular and elements of both Hitler's campaign to destroy the Church and Stalin's purges most certainly were "in the name of atheism"), but rather that certain people drove God out of their societies and were left with something extremely ugly. I'd say there's a bit of a chicken/egg question over that, but that's what was said.

Hitler was catholic, right?

Yes, this is consistently and annoyingly ignored. The catholic church has a central part in Nazi doctrine and in helping war criminals escape to South America.