[quote]lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
[/quote]
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.
[quote]GumsMagoo wrote:
pat wrote:
GumsMagoo wrote:
lixy wrote:
How does condemning those crimes make him a hypocrite?
Let’s see… maybe because the Roman Catholic church helped the Nazis in world war II hoard stolen Jewish assets and remained silent to the ensuing atrocities.
Oh yeah, there’s also that sexual molestation thingy they always seem to sweep under the rug.
Please provide links to substantiate those statements. Those are pretty heavy duty accusations, you may want to actually be right.
Victim tells pope of altar boy robbed of youth - CNN.com [/quote]
And this is sweeping it under the rug how?
[quote]kroby wrote:
pat wrote:
You are concerned about statements made in 2008 with regards to events as they took place up to 1537?
Yawn. Whatever.
I gave compelling evidence that the Vatican was complicit in the very nefarious affairs he needed to chastise America over.
Let me, once again, quote:
“Americans have always been a people of hope,” he said during his homily. "Your ancestors came to this country with the experience of finding new freedom and opportunity.
“To be sure, this promise was not experienced by all the inhabitants of this land; one thinks of the injustices endured by the native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves.”
I’m sorry such evidence of the current Pope’s lack of historical understanding and diplomacy leaves you with such attention deficit, pat.
It’s reprehensible and should be called out.[/quote]
Ok so you hate the Catholic Church. The church has had a torrid history at times. That’s what happens when you mix church and state. But in the here and now, this stuff is not happening, and the church has made deliberate efforts to apologize for it’s past misgivings, so other than blind hatred of the church for things it did hundreds of years ago, I don’t see your point.
Over 2000 years the church has managed to do a couple of good things too.
[quote]GumsMagoo wrote:
And one more for ya Pat:
http://www.irsss.ca/history.html[/quote]
And this has to do with your assertion that the Church helped the nazi’s to hoard Jewish assets, how? You all over the map dude. Are you saying the churchy people have done bad things in the past so we should hate them for it forever? If that floats your canoe, then go for it.
“But in the here and now, this stuff is not happening”
Right, so why should the Pope bring up America’s past transgressions?
Anyway, see you at mass on sunday.
[quote]knutes101 wrote:
It would do us all well to read up on your priest’s assertions. [/quote]
It’s a doc I’ve seen on Swedish TV last year. I have absolutely no idea what it was called though. It was by produced by Channel 4 in Britain and I’ll post it if I manage to find it.
Please elaborate.
No. It ain’t random chance. It’s directly related to the Enlightenment.
And non-Christians have women suffrage, women’s rights and women rulers too.
Ok, “since the rise of Islam”:
Asia: Durgawati, Avantibai, Nang Chamthewi, Shila-Mahadevi, Pramodo Vardhani, Ch’en, Ela Giudit, Parmesvari Tribhuvana, Chinsong Yo Ju , Gauri Mahadevi, Revvaka, Dandi-Mahadevi, Shulü Hatun, Sri Isanatunggavijaya, Rani Didda, Alan-Goa, Thai Hau, Xiao Shi, Sri Vijayamahadevi, Guanpriyadharmapatni, Seyyedh, Shao-shi, Akkadevi, Lakshmadevi, Naib us Sultanat Sitt al-Moluk, Liu Zhangxian, Akkadevi, Rani Suryamati, Xiaohaojin, Mailaladevi, Ketala Karnataka, Sanggramawijaya (technically, she turned down the throne), Gao De fei, Cishengguangxian, Nguyen Phi, Jakaladevi, Ketaladevi, Piriyaketaladevi, Pamdambika, Khanum, Sakalendukiranaisanagunadharmalakshmidharavijayottunggadevi, Turhan Hatun, Maharani Mayamalla, Mailala, Piriyaketaladevi, Laliteya, Revakabbarasi, Jakkiabbe, Xiang Shi, Hamun, De, Meng Zhaoci, Nag Ye Hkam, Zahida Khatun, Sugala Devi, Khanum, Turhan, Lilavati, Kalyanawati, Li Ciyi, Bhagubai, Arjayadengjayaketana, Terken Khatun,
Africa and the M.E.: Kanza, Gokare, Nehanda, Nzingha, Amina, Kahina, Nandi, Hint bint Isaq, Yehudit, Gudit, Shawata, Al-Zahir Lazazdinallah, Zainab al-Nafzawiyya, Saiyida Hurra Arwa, Asma Bint Shibab, Arwa bint Ahmad, Alam, Helvis, Emma,
Scandinavia: �?sa Haraldsdottir, Gunhild, �?lfgify,
America: Xiuhtlacuilolxochitzin, Iztacxilotzin
I got ten times as many. Let me know if that ain’t enough.
[quote]More to your point, the church instituted celibacy for reasons totally separate from some inferior opinion of their gender. There are ample sources of good work on the ideas of celibacy within the Catholic Church. Personally, I think the reasons are without merit nor valid, however, they are available for all to find and discuss.
We are all free to hate the church, their policies, etc. However, an institution over 1,800 years old requires subtlety and perspective of thought in order to understand. It is not so easy to paint a picture of it’s history with a single color in a single stroke. [/quote]
We agree then. I don’t have any reason to hate either the Church, or their current policies. They’re free to do as they will. I got dragged in all this nonsense because somebody denied the idea that the Church has concealed evidence in child abuse cases (as if any other institution would be expected to act differently in such case!) and another misinformed person pushed the idea that celibacy is a doctrine rather than ecclesial law which can be overturned by the Pope at any time.
[quote]kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.[/quote]
Their right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes.
There’s nothing more to explain.
[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.
Their right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes.
There’s nothing more to explain.[/quote]
And it does not make you just a tad suspicious that a country that swims in oil does not rebuild its refining capacities and modern oil burning power plants but chooses to build a “civil” nuclear program instead?
[quote]kroby wrote:
pat wrote:
You are concerned about statements made in 2008 with regards to events as they took place up to 1537?
Yawn. Whatever.
I gave compelling evidence that the Vatican was complicit in the very nefarious affairs he needed to chastise America over.
Let me, once again, quote:
“Americans have always been a people of hope,” he said during his homily. "Your ancestors came to this country with the experience of finding new freedom and opportunity.
“To be sure, this promise was not experienced by all the inhabitants of this land; one thinks of the injustices endured by the native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves.”
I’m sorry such evidence of the current Pope’s lack of historical understanding and diplomacy leaves you with such attention deficit, pat.
It’s reprehensible and should be called out.[/quote]
You don’t understand the nature of religion. Religion makes money off of guilt.
Most people just want to be happy. Religion teaches that putting others (or God) over yourself is truly moral and that you wanting to be happy is immoral and selfish. “How dare you drive an Escalade while others are hungry!!”
You see, if you can convince someone that they are a wretch, that they are vile, and that some religious nut holds the key to the ‘Truth’, well then, you’ve got 'em. They happily let you decide what is right or wrong and you can profit off their guilt.
Making someone feel guilty over the plights of others is the oldest con game in the book. Religion uses that very well.
shrugs i’m not sure why some of you get so ruffled over facts.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.
Their right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes.
There’s nothing more to explain.
And it does not make you just a tad suspicious that a country that swims in oil does not rebuild its refining capacities and modern oil burning power plants but chooses to build a “civil” nuclear program instead?[/quote]
Oil has got nothing to do with it. In this day and age, anyone who has a civil nuclear program is essentially buying the option to acquire a bomb. That the Iranians are thinking ahead (unlike, say, the Saudis) is all to their credit.
If you want to blame someone or something on this issue, blame the people who drafted the NPT thinking that they can keep knowledge locked up and a monopoly on nuclear technology. Retroactively changing the deal is not an option, and evidently threats and menace is only bolstering Tehran’s domestic support.
And if you don’t mind me asking, do you not think Iran has the right to enrich uranium for their civil program?
[quote]pat wrote:
You are concerned about statements made in 2008 with regards to events as they took place up to 1537?
Yawn. Whatever.[/quote]
I agree, why does anyone even care what some fruity kraut religious zealot has to say about anything?
[quote]lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.
Their right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes.
There’s nothing more to explain.
And it does not make you just a tad suspicious that a country that swims in oil does not rebuild its refining capacities and modern oil burning power plants but chooses to build a “civil” nuclear program instead?
Oil has got nothing to do with it. In this day and age, anyone who has a civil nuclear program is essentially buying the option to acquire a bomb. That the Iranians are thinking ahead (unlike, say, the Saudis) is all to their credit.
If you want to blame someone or something on this issue, blame the people who drafted the NPT thinking that they can keep knowledge locked up and a monopoly on nuclear technology. Retroactively changing the deal is not an option, and evidently threats and menace is only bolstering Tehran’s domestic support.
And if you don’t mind me asking, do you not think Iran has the right to enrich uranium for their civil program?[/quote]
Sure, but Europe has the right to really, really not want them to have a civil nuclear program and to make things very inconvenient for Iran.
[quote]orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
orion wrote:
lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
lixy wrote:
True. But I don’t support Iran in the way that you’re trying to portray it. I support Iran’s sovereignty over its own land, the right of its inhabitants to be ruled by people who weren’t put in power as pawns of some imperial power, their right to not be bombed or invaded in blatant aggression, and finally their right to civil nuclear energy.
Their “right” to civil nuclear energy? Explain.
Their right to develop nuclear energy for civil purposes.
There’s nothing more to explain.
And it does not make you just a tad suspicious that a country that swims in oil does not rebuild its refining capacities and modern oil burning power plants but chooses to build a “civil” nuclear program instead?
Oil has got nothing to do with it. In this day and age, anyone who has a civil nuclear program is essentially buying the option to acquire a bomb. That the Iranians are thinking ahead (unlike, say, the Saudis) is all to their credit.
If you want to blame someone or something on this issue, blame the people who drafted the NPT thinking that they can keep knowledge locked up and a monopoly on nuclear technology. Retroactively changing the deal is not an option, and evidently threats and menace is only bolstering Tehran’s domestic support.
And if you don’t mind me asking, do you not think Iran has the right to enrich uranium for their civil program?
Sure, but Europe has the right to really, really not want them to have a civil nuclear program and to make things very inconvenient for Iran. [/quote]
Sure, you don’t see me contest that right. Violence, on the other hand…
“That was one heck of a speech,” President George W Bush was overheard to remark to Pope Benedict,
I heard on the news that this pope guy is fluent in 10 different languages. That is pretty damn impressive, I can barely speak one language!
[quote]lixy wrote:
“That was one heck of a speech,” President George W Bush was overheard to remark to Pope Benedict,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7349513.stm[/quote]
I keep thinking about the field day Jon Stewart will have with all this pope shit. He will do his little GWB impersonation like:
“I am honored to be here with his pope-ness. His pope-i-fication has pope-i-fied me…heh, heh, heh.”
Just for the record, I HATE Jon Stewart, but his show is hilarious.
While I pretty much disagree with the ascertions of the OP, I’m not a fan of Ratzinger, and I thought it was a very back-wards facing decision to make him pope. I think it’s sources like this, which make me cringe:
Vatican told bishops to cover up sex abuse
"The Vatican instructed Catholic bishops around the world to cover up cases of sexual abuse or risk being thrown out of the Church.
The Observer has obtained a 40-year-old confidential document from the secret Vatican archive which lawyers are calling a ‘blueprint for deception and concealment’. One British lawyer acting for Church child abuse victims has described it as ‘explosive’.
[…]
Lawyers point to a letter the Vatican sent to bishops in May 2001 clearly stating the 1962 instruction was in force until then. The letter is signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the most powerful man in Rome beside the Pope and who heads the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the office which ran the Inquisition in the Middle Ages."
Also, there’s a transcript of a Panorama programme from 2006 which gives more detail and strengthens the view that this type of abuse had been known and de facto covered up for a long time:
Sex crimes and the Vatican: Transcript
In his current role as pope, Ratzinger may really trying to mend what was broken (by the church) - but as a person he may not have been the right person for the job.
Is he a hypocrite? Pretty much all ‘moral authorities’ are. Seems to go with the job. So may answer would be ‘yes’ and ‘what’s the big deal?’
Makkun
Lixy,
Your excellent work with Wikipedia has made me shut my mouth about women in Power in the Islamic World. I need to google each of these ladies to get a better idea how they faired with a western lady…
As for the Christian Church being one of the most open towards women, I do not have the time today to respond. Can I have a raincheck?
Great response. I am pleased to have some work ahead of me.
Let me get this straight. The man described America in general as a land of hope, built upon the ideal of freedom, but because he rather briefly mentioned nasty episodes in our history, he’s a bad fella? Were we listening to same guy? Huh?