Thursday, September 16, 2010

The Idiotic and Offensive Pope

Oh my word, take a look at this for an example of Papal crassness and stupidity taken to an extreme:
Even in our own lifetime, we can recall how Britain and her leaders stood against a Nazi tyranny that wished to eradicate God from society and denied our common humanity to many, especially the Jews, who were thought unfit to live. I also recall the regime’s attitude to Christian pastors and religious who spoke the truth in love, opposed the Nazis and paid for that opposition with their lives. As we reflect on the sobering lessons of the atheist extremism of the twentieth century, let us never forget how the exclusion of God, religion and virtue from public life leads ultimately to a truncated vision of man and of society and thus to a “reductive vision of the person and his destiny"
Yes, Britain did indeed fight the Nazis and quite rightly too. The totalitarian regime of Nazi Germany was a nightmare, and it needed to be fought by any nation or movement that claimed in anyway to me moral. Britain fought the Nazis. What did the Vatican do? At best - at very fucking best - it sat on the fence in World War Two.

Furthermore, many people opposed the Nazis and some did so for reasons other than religion. The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis. And as an FYI, Ratzinger, the Soviet Union was atheist.

But that's just background noise to the truly ignorant and offensive rubbish that the Panzer Pope is spouting. The idea that Nazism represents "atheist extremism" is palpable, insulting nonsense. In fact, if anything, the structure of Nazism resembles that of religious orders, and in particular the Catholic Church. The Führerprinzip closely resembles Papal Infallibility. Both belief systems were big on ceremony, of performing in stupid costumes, and to a large extent are based on meaningless, fabricated myths. But the biggest similarity lies in the fact that both belief systems are based on blind obedience. You have to believe absolutely in the teachings of the Church, just as absolute belief in Nazi propaganda was demanded by that regime. There is no allowance for freedom of thought under Nazism or the sort of religion espoused by the Vatican. Unlike in atheism, which is predicated on questioning what was the greatest authority in human life for centuries - that of God.

Sure, you could argue that Catholicism believes in God, while the Nazi regime believed in nothing. But this isn't true; Nazism adopted much of the structure of religion, but just changed the position of their God. Christianity sites God in heaven; Nazism had God in earth in the shape of the Führer.

Furthermore, the exclusion of God, religion and whatever corrupted concept of virtue the Church has from public life does not lead to a truncated vision of the person and of their destiny. On the contrary, the removal of the need to adhere to outmoded, out-of-date archaic teachings from millennia ago actually frees humanity up to achieve more. Stem cell research - banned by the Catholics - helps alleviate suffering and extend lives. Contraception - banned by the Church - helps slow the spread of the HIV epidemic. And so on. The removal of God from public life is a healthy thing. Furthermore, such a move does not bring about the removal of morals from society; "thou shalt not kill" does not need to be backed up by the threat of hell; it becomes intuitively plausible for an atheist through the use of empathy with fellow humans.

And where does this idea that Catholicism is synonymous with morality and virtue come from? The Church has, at best, a dubious record when it comes to morality. It isn't just the recent scandal over paedophilia that shows the Vatican's dubious approach to basic, moral concepts like you shouldn't let people rape children and then cover it up. Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour and, in far too many cases, horrific cruelty. So forgive me, Ratzinger, if I don't buy into your concept of virtue. It really isn't working for me on any level.

This is meant to be the Pope extending the hand of friendship to people in the UK. Likening those who have legitimate concerns about religion or who just plain and simple don't believe in religion to Nazis does not strike me as a good way to go about that.

Labels: , , , , ,

3 Comments:

At 2:34 pm , Anonymous Billy Jonas said...

Umm, you're using wiki as a reference?

"The Soviet Union opposed the Nazis" in 1939 they didn't, they even helped take over Poland. They didn't oppose the Nazis until they were invaded by them in the middle of 1941. In fact they did everything in their power to not provoke Hitler and even waged a war of conquest in Finland (well attempted to). As for the ordinary people, I don't think being 'liberated' by the Soviets in 1944/5 was much better than being 'liberated' by the Germans in 1941/42.

And while the Soviet Union was athiest, they relaxed their stance and reopened churches during the war as people naturally returned to it for solace.

So what if their structures were similar; all that proves is that their structures are similar. If you're going to use that as proof of non-athiesm, then you'll have to say that the Soviet Union, which you called athiest, wasn't as they too used the same structures and cult of personality as the Nazis and the church (as did Mao, and the Korean Kims).

"Going right back to the Spanish Inquisition it should be plain to see that religion can be linked to immoral behaviour"
Or you could equally argue that immoral behaviour is natural and that people seek to justify it by any means possible. The church used the stake to save the soul, the jacobins used reason and terror to save society, greenpeace use terrorism to save gaia.

Or put another way, people don't religion to be cunts, they are perfectly capable of doing it by themsleves.

 
At 7:22 pm , Blogger TonyF said...

I suspect the Pope's main worry about a strongly secular society is the loss of money being piped into his pockets. And the lack of choir boys to bugger. His horrid religion is only there to support him and his hierarchy, they don't give a stuff about anyone else.

They spout on about 'good works' FFS Hitler was kind to animals. Allegedly. Take AIDS for example. A few condoms would do more to stop it and save lives, than any number of drugs. Condoms are cheap too. I wonder if the Holy See has any drug companies in it's pockets?

 
At 9:00 am , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

Billy Jonas,

Yes, I'm using wikipedia as a reference. This is an informal blogpost, not an academic text, so wikipedia will do. If you don't like that, bugger off somewhere else.

Your waffle about the Soviet Union doesn't change the fact that it did oppose the Nazis when it had to. Unlike, say, the Vatican. Furthermore, the fact that the Soviet Union relaxed its attitude towards religion for pragmatic reasons during the war does not change the fact that it remained an atheist state.

I don't deny that the Soviet Union was similar in structure to both the Nazi regime and the Catholic church. The former two regimes just substituted ideology for religious dogma. The end result for the people remains, in all three cases, oppression.

Your final waffling points simply make my case for me - I was criticising Ratzinger's false argument that religious regimes are somehow more virtuous that none religious regimes. They're not; humans can be just as cruel in the name of God as they can be if they don't recognise God.

Your argument, if I can call your wibblings that, is all smoke and mirrors. You have done nothing to combat the central notion of my post - that Catholicism is closer to Nazism than atheism.

TNL

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home