mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 11:46am:

And negotiating with the new German government in 1933 was the correct diplomatic procedure for an executive head of state, hence the Concordat of 1933. The reason for its necessity is that Pacelli/Pius XII was an astute diplomat and intuited problems for the Vatican and the church's role in Germany based on intelligence at his disposal of the atheistic or at least anti-Christian nature of Nazism and fascism.

That Nazism evolved into the evil it became some 10 years later may encourage some to claim that Pacelli was fully aware of all its dangers and evils (or any great evil comparable to Stalinism which in 1933 it wasn't), which is grossly inaccurate.

Yes he feared Stalinism more because Stalinism had proved itself to be blatantly evil to a degree in the early 30's that Nazism and fascism had not. Most Germans and Italians saw fascism (in both its German and Italian forms) to be a force for great good. It was a very astute move on the part of Pius to reach an agreement with the German government to protect innocent Catholics' right to practise their religion unharrassed by the state.

The fact that Hitler and the Nazis misrepresented the Concordat as legitimising their policies was not the fault of Pius XII.

mozzaok wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

Yes, sorry about that I should have been more clear, I realised you weren't supporting those claims.

I'm not pro-Vatican myself, but much has been made of Pacelli as "Hitler's Pope" which is just plain wrong and unfair. Given who Hitler was, it's also an insult to the memory of Pacelli and to whatever remains of the Pacelli family.

Whilst I don't think Pius XII was any more a Nazi than Chamberlain, Roosevelt, even our beloved Menzies and all the other 'appeasers', the material point is that Ms Phillips' words "...he referred to the Pope as a Nazi ..." do not merely imply, but mean expressly that Dawkins called Ratzinger a Nazi. He did not.

Ratzinger is the Pope.
Pacelli was a Pope.

She is a journalist (allegedly). She should be able to get it right, but she can't.

Crackpot.

Geez, I wish they'd lighten up about canonisation. Of course religions would bestow supernatural awards on religious exemplars. So bloody what. At least the Vatican is not issuing fatwas on living people... Giving licence to religious filth to murder them.

Soren wrote on Mar 18^th, 2010 at 10:12pm:

Peppered with the applause and cheers from the usual embarrassing and fawning Australian audience. We Australians aren't all that informed and matured when it comes to religious thought. Being secular and mostly areligious from birth, we have an infantile comprehension of it. Anyone who says "That god stuff is all sh!t" gets a standing ovation. As if something really insightful has just been uttered.

Well as a collection of unaligned individuals, who happen to share a common idea that what is taught, spoken, and enforced upon us, about "god", and supposedly for, or under, "god", is unjustifiable, it is hardly surprising that many would stand and cheer, and throw in a good measure of, "about bloody time", as well, when someone gets public recognition for positing a contrary view to what we have had dished up to us for hundreds of years.

The vast majority of atheists seem to hold very humanistic views, and proportionally are in greater numbers than all religions, except catholicism, yet because they do not ascribe to any particular religious grouping, they are supposed to sit back as one group after another demands rights for their religions that are not offered to all, and that is the absolute last straw for me.

We are supposed to sit back and watch as they brainwash little children with their ridiculous beliefs, TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS, which is not such a big deal if they are moderate Anglicans, (who not coincidentally are more ecumenical, and far less isolationist than most), but is a big deal when the religious indoctrination is served up with a helping of anti-social, and often seditious attitudes towards all people outside of their faith, which leads to the most extreme forms of anti-social behaviour imaginable.

We saw the idiotically inflammatory Ms Phillips castigating Dawkins for being supportive of a course that was run, by a group he is associated with, for teaching children how to think clearly and logically, literally, just to teach Critical Thinking, because it did not include religion on the agenda, or as she idiotically put it, "excluded religion" from the course, as if it is unthinkable to not have religion imposed on everyone at every opportunity.
The absolute hubris of these religious twats who firmly believe they have the right to impose their idiotic fantasies onto children, even those who are not in any way asking to be proselytised to, is frankly more disturbing, than staggering, however staggering it may be.

The clear inference I choose to draw from Ms Phillips point, is that Critical Thinking, and religious teachings are incompatible, and I can see her point, as very little religious teaching can survive any fair critical evaluation.
But if I had to choose whether I want our children to develop the ability to reason and choose for themselves, or be subjected to religious indoctrination from before they have any ability to reason at all, then the choice is obvious to me, as it should be to any decent human being.

So before the apologists for religions get too carried away in seeking to protect the rights of the religious organisations in our community,undesrved rights which are already greatly weighted, unfairly, in their favour, they should take time to consider the rights of those who may not wish to have their society primarily defined by dogmas handed down from bronze age men purporting to know the will of god.

In our democratic society it should be the will of men, and the rights and freedoms of all men, that we offer our primary allegiance to.

But check with just about any religion's teachings, and see how much of their preaching actually reflects those ideals of individual human rights and freedoms, and I think you will find exponentially greater numbers of teachings that seek to usurp, rather than enshrine, those principles.

Quote:


Should I quote that back to you when Islamic schools are the issue Soren?

Should we expand the principle to include madrassahs, where only the koran is taught?

I do not seek to take away people's right to teach their religion to their children, just that it should not ever be allowed to be done exclusively, and should never be allowed as part of a child's "formal" education.

If they want to teach religion to their kids, it should be totally extra-curricular.

At least that way kids have some chance of learning at least something of reality, before they become totally committed to the religious choice their parents choose for them.