One can be an atheist or very secular and still not support the exclusion of religion from public life. Indeed most atheists or secular people do not support such an exclusion. The ones that do deserve criticism, as this isn’t a feature of society that most people desire.
It was a feature of some societies, though, and still is - and the Church opposed these regimes. So did Britain, as I recall.
That is what the Pope is stating - and this aspect of his address seems to be ignored rather generally here.
Extra ironic given that back when Britain was more focused on religious matters, oppressing Catholics was practically their mission statement. Increasing secularism has led to far less anti-Catholicism in the British gov’t, not more.
Your summation is inaccurate. Yes, he does not say that all atheists must, inherently, support the exclusion of religion from private life. But he does say that without religion, with secularism leading the way, inevitably we would see reduction in the worth of human life.
As to it being ignored - I certainly apologise for focusing more on the Pope’s belief that secularism and atheism will inevitably lead to downfall and ruin over his thanking countries for standing up against it. It is nice of him to say thank you. But it seems rather more important to me that this head of a vast organisation considers secularism so poorly as weighed against him saying “thanks for beating the Nazis!”. One is a politeness. The other is a condemnation of an entire way of life and political organisation.
What is the point of drawing attention to a supposed correlation that occurs in some instances (which isn’t correlation at all, but whatever) unless to imply causation?
Everything about this ghoulish old tosspot’s visit is hacking me off. First, his cardinal’s ‘Third World’ comment - if you don’t like it, piss off. Second, I’m paying for this shit. Thirdly, we should be arresting him for obstruction of justice regarding the abuse scandals that have Ratzinger’s fingerprints all over them, not venerating this outdated garbage. Fourthly, condoms and Africa. Don’t think I need say any more on that point.
There’s a figure somewhere about how many SS members were practising Catholics, but I can’t find it now.
Can someone do a chart for me, rating the spectrum from Nazi to secular humanist? We need to include Catholics, atheists, reactionaries, Protestants, and antipopes.
But he’s not just the head of “a vast organization”. He’s the head of a vast religious organization. Is it a surprise that the Catholic Church is against secularism and atheism? Did you expect him to say, “You know, religion and belief in God aren’t really very important at all. It’s perfectly fine to be an atheist.” He’s the Pope, not the head of the National Trust.
In other words, “The Pope said that? Is the Pope Catholic?”
What I personally found most entertaining was the Pope being graciously received by a Royal family whose members are banned by law from ascending to the throne if they are Catholic.
Not at all. To associate “atheists” with a regime that cranked out belt buckles adorned with the swastika and the motto “GOTT MIT UNS” is slander, pure and simple.
Exactly. The Nazis aren’t an example of some atheist anti-Christian regime; they were in fact quite Christian, had traditional Christian goals like killing Jews, and had enthusiastic support from Christians all over the world. Christian attempts to pretend they were atheists is an attempt to rewrite their own sins from history and to slam atheism simultaneously.
Yes. Nazism wasn’t an overtly Christian movement, but it was wholeheartedly embraced by large numbers of Christians. It wasn’t a LACK of belief that led to the Nazi atrocities, but TOO MUCH belief in a crackpot ideology.
And you know who else has too much belief in a crackpot ideology?
No. While speculation about pagan and occult influences in Nazism is wildly overblown, the fact is that Nazis had little use for traditional Christianity, and Lutheran and Catholic pastors were persecuted by the Reich. The Nazis hoped to subvert Christianity to their own ends by removing Jewish influences, notions of the salvation of all mankind, and ideas of mercy and producing what they termed a positive Christianity.
That means they were not traditionally Christian, and indeed traditionally Christian countries like the United States, Canada and Great Britain went to war with them.
Because different groups of Christians disagreeing with what Christianity is supposed to be like and going to war over the matter is so very unknown among Christians. :rolleyes:
What’s bizarre is that he could have used Communism as a bugbear instead, and nearly have made sense. The Soviet Union was (officially) atheistic, and was also a terrible place to live. Using the Nazis, however, is hilariously inappropriate.
The Nazis clearly had a religious element. From Hitler’s 25 Points on the Nazi Party:
I’m pretty sure “materialist” here means “excessive focus on wealth”, and not philosophical materialism - so this passage is not explicitly anti-atheist. It is, however, clearly claiming a Christian belief for the Nazi Party.
What is clever, really, is that he has succeeded in setting everyone and the media off on the Nazi thing, thus deflecting attention from the small matter of paedophile priests being tolerated and even protected.
THAT’s the clever bit. While everyone is saying
u r Nazi
no u r Nazi
etc. etc.
it works very well to drown out matters of child abuse, treatment of homosexuality, women, etc… Very clever smoke and mirrors media management. His attendance figures weren’t terrific, though:
which is rather a smaller gig than last time around (1982) when figures were given as "approx. quarter of a million" or “300,000”.
However, nobody is to notice because everybody is to concentrate on the Nazi past, which cannot exactly be changed, rather on him properly cleaning up his church’s act.
I suddenly forget the word for that thing that stage magicians and conjurers do - the name for that clever trick of deflecting the audience’s attention so that they are really **only **looking where you want them to look and seeing **only **what you want them to see. Whatever it’s called, he and his team seem very skilled at it. Not that one normally expects to pays millions in taxes (in a very depressed economy) to see such a fine example of it.
Side note: The CNN website was featuring some Scottish lady with cerebral palsy who has now, thanks to this visit, been blessed by two popes. But … I notice she still has cebral palsy. Myself, I would have expected better results.