The dope on the Pope: Have you noticed that...

[CarlVK]

Whenever a well known personage lets fly with some hateful, bigoted comment, the stealth bigots of all political stripes just crawl out of the woodwork?

While examples of this queer phenomenon abound, the ones that are most notable to me are the ones regarding the world’s Muslims – Islam of course being the hot button topic these days. While I wouldn’t call the Danish press a well known personage, nonetheless it was a bullhorn to the public; and when the infamous cartoon lampooning Muhammed came out and broke the damn on Islamic anger, right on their heels were a swarming cadre of bigots cheering on the cartoonists and whining about freedom of speech and the press. Apparently, free speech is most important when you’re trying to defame and inflame one sixth of the world’s population.

When that fails, the bigots like to spin the original remarks. “Oh, he never said that – he was quoting someone else” as if the decision to use such a quote, and the context of it’s usage, had absolutely no bearing on The Pope’s intentions. That’s a very nice Get Out Of Jail Free card, if you ask me.

And of course at the end we have equivocation, finger pointing, and the good ol’ “Tu Quoque” (“You Too”) defense. As soon as the denunciation of said bigot’s remarks comes in, suddenly the finger of accusation is on the victim instead of the perpetrator. “Well what about the hate the Muslims have? What about all the heads they cut off?” A very handy irrelevant change of subject! Then the burden goes on those who attacked the bigots comments to begin with, to try and defend people who bomb and decapitate.

And the beat goes on.

I remember the good Karol Wojtila, the late Pope, enduring off and on waves of criticism for his various stands on contentious church (and world) issues. He was a conservative. I am not. But I still much admired the man, and here is why. Regardless of a difference of opinion on whether Christ owned his clothes or not (apologies to Umberto Eco), he held his humanity as the first face he presented to the world. He spoke several languages. He was a sportsman. He was a man who literally battled tyranny in his homeland (as opposed to joining up with the Youth Brigade of a vicious tyrant). He was a part of us regular menschen. He brought countless messages of peace and justice to a world spewing blood from the violence rampaging over it. He took pains not to incite, inflame or defame entire groups of people. I only wish his papal progeny were so inclined.

And what of the ants called out of the woodwork? The simmering armies of hate and prejudice, waiting safely for a word from head office that it’s OK to come out come out wherever they are, and show their deep seated hatred as a line of defense for yet another famous bigot? I expect it from the usual suspects. I certainly don’t from my own lines.

What do you think? Am I making it all up? Is there no stealth bigotry amongst our own that needs to be exposed, addressed and changed?

[CarlVK]

1. sorry, busy morning

Traffic kick

[malaise]

2. He knew what he was saying

That's my view. Let them spin.

[CarlVK]

3. I surely agree. I'm just amazed at all the equivocation

and fancy dance done by supporters of such hate amongst my own ideologues. See, that doesn't compute.

[lonestarnot]

4. He's just living up to his nazi yute days.

#8 (I don't give a damn if he was quoting Julius Ceasar, he knew what his comments would do. I just want to know how much he was paid.

1. Men are not created equal. As the most superior race on earth, Germans are true creators of culture. Since only they are capable of solving mankind's future problems, the future of civilization depends on them. Therefore, Aryan blood must be kept pure, or these superior qualities will be lost. Marriages to inferior races are forbidden. Germans must create a pure Master Race to rule the world.

2. Jews, the most inferior race, are the true destroyers of culture. They have deliberately invaded and drained all countries of the world of money and power. Therefore, the future of world power rests on either the rightful German masters of the Jews. Germans must save the world by ridding it of this Jewish poison.

3. Slavs, blacks and Mediterranean peoples rank only slightly above Jews. They are fit to live only as German slaves.

4. The German Master race will take as much land to the east as it needs for Lebensraum, or extra living space. Political boundaries are nonsense. If others resist, Germany will use its arms and take land by force.

5. Democracy and majority rule are stupid. The masses are ignorant sheep that need leading by a brilliant statesman. This divinely appointed leader is Adolf Hitler, who will rule the world with a few chosen elite. The Third Reich, or new German empire, will last a thousand years. It will be a Nazi totalitarian state with total control of government and the lives of all citizens.

6. Propaganda, or a system to spread political ideas, must be used to gain support of the ignorant masses. Since the people are dull and forgetful, propaganda must be limited to only a few points and repeated over and over again in important slogans, It is not important that these ideas be true, for people are willing to believe anything. In fact, the bigger the lies, the better.

7. Force and fear are the only means to keep the masses under control. Reason and argument have no place in the Third Reich.

8. Give the people a single enemy to hate and to blame for all their troubles. Then they will not feel guilty and will aim all their frustrations in one direction. Blame the Jew for everything evil.

9. Thou shalt have no other God but Germany! (Hitler even proposes this to be the eleventh commandment.) Christianity is just a scheme created by Jews. Christian love, mercy, and charity must be replaced.


Ideologies of the 20th Century

[CarlVK]

7. Holy shit - that list was chilling.

But necessary. Thanks for reminding us what his generation wrought.

[lonestarnot]

11. Sound familiar?

[K8-EEE]

5. I Left The Church 2 Years Ago

Because I can't see them progressing past bullshit like this. If you go to the missions in my state (CA) you can see monuments to the Catholic church basically enslaving people in order to "save" them or "share the good news" etc. Both Islam and Christianity are religions that were spread by violence and conquest.

[malaise]

9. My mum was an obsessed catholic

I challenged the church at 12. I walked out shortly after that. No one can convince me that all religion is not evil. People can believe what they want - faith and religion are two different matters. Organized religion has caued more death and hatred on this planet than anything else.

[MorningGlow]

49. That's because organized religion is politics

Just in different robes (literally). It's a political entity masquerading as a spiritual one--and that goes for any religion, not just the Catholic Church (of which I also am an escapee, in the interest of full disclosure). I don't mean your local church/temple/what have you--folks on the local level do good work. But the giant schematic of a religion? Something as huge as that can't help but be a major player on the world political stage.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. Is it "stealth bigotry" to call the church -and the pope- on the crap for

which they are directly responsible, from covering up the actions of pedophile priests to dictating a backwards, anti-birth control stance to a planet bursting at the seams with people?

For the record, I think violent, extremist, fundamentalist muslims are full o' crap, too. Free speech is ALWAYS important, but most important when someone is trying to silence it: what *I* found appalling about that whole thing was the lengths some here were apparently determined to go to apologize for the kooks who were rioting, burning, and killing because they (As usual, the fundies are the poor, persecuted victims, again!) were "assaulted" by a bunch of CARTOONS.

[CarlVK]

8. I guess we disagree. I dont think you can hide behind free speech

when you seek to incite, inflame and defame. That's just plain anti-human.

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "hide behind free speech"

Free speech is only as good as the right of the most unpopular voices to be heard. Some people think gay folks openly proclaiming their sexuality is "incitement". Eric Rudolph was so victimized by reproductive clinics and gay bars that he "had" to bomb them.

Sorry, man. Half of my family is Jewish and I grew up in the Chicago area. I remember when the Nazis marched in Skokie. If ever, EVER there was a case of people "seeking to incite, inflame and defame", it was the folks with swastika banners walking through a town full of old Holocaust survivors.

But you know what? The had the right to do it; just like ten times as many people had the RIGHT to come out and peacefully tell them that they were full of shit. The freedom of speech which afforded the Nazis the right to march in Skokie is the antithesis of everything Naziism was about. Keeping them from marching would have been a victory for them; allowing them to expose their idiocy to the world was, conversely, a loss.

I'm sorry, but no cartoon is "justification" for rioting and killing. No one is "victimized" by a cartoon. We ALL are victimized by allowing fundamentalists and control freaks to censor speech. Funny, you call defending the right of those papers to publish the cartoons "hiding behind free speech". I call using a bunch of cartoons as an excuse to riot and kill people "hiding behind a bullshit ideology of hate and intolerance".

So, you're suggesting that we poll all six billion people on the planet, and find out what each one of them specifically finds offensive, and then ban any mention of that? Hmmmm. I'm offended by organized religion. I think it's caused more problems than it's ever solved. Maybe we should ban all mention of THAT.

[CarlVK]

15. You are responsible for your speech too.

If you intentionally say something to incite hatred, division and violence, then any real violence that results is partially your fault.

"I have rights" is no excuse for "I can cause harm wherever I want".

[Warren DeMontague]

18. Wow. What an astounding attitude.

You equate "harm" caused by looking at.. again, a CARTOON with the physical harm of rioting, burning, and killing. A-fucking-mazing.

So. When that kid, Matthew Shepard, was left to die on a fence in Wyoming, it's clear that the fact that he was gay "incited" the people who killed him. He "harmed" them by being openly gay, it clearly offended them and... as such, drove them to violence. So, according to you, Matthew Shepard was at fault for being killed, because he could have kept his mouth shut and not "offended" those poor boys who just wanted to live in a gay-free world.

:eyes:

[CarlVK]

21. Apples and oranges, my friend.

Comparing the Matthew Shepherd case to the topic of this thread is a masterpiece of misplaced analogies. Matthew Shepherd was an unknown individual living his life. This Pope is a major world mouthpiece for the planet's Catholics.

If you seriously dno't see a difference, I'm not sure what I can say to you at this point.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. The Pope has apologized. I'm not in charge of what the pope says.

Obviously.

I'm talking about the right of those papers to publish those cartoons, versus the "right" of people to get so offended by them that they "had" to riot and kill.

[CarlVK]

23. Excuse me, the Pope has NOT apologized.

He said in so many words that he regrets that some were made angry by his comments. That is anything but an apology. If anything, he's throwing responsibility for his stupid and hateful comments back on their intended victims.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. Oh. Okay. Let me rephrase. I'm not in charge of every *dumb thing*

the Pope says.

You seem to think that if I took issue with the Muslims rioting over a bunch of cartoons, I must be on the Pope's side. I'm not.

I think Religious Fundamentalism in general is the problem, and particularly the weird twist in our hairless ape brains that causes us to get so attached to our words and internal semantic maps through which we view reality that we feel the need to kill people whose words and internal semantic maps threaten to disrupt or conflict with our own.

[CarlVK]

26. I agree with you about religious fundamentalism, 100%

Where we don't agree is on the personal responsibility of people who take part in the right to free speech.

[Sal Minella]

27. Right. If I shoot you and then say, "I'm sorry you're bleeding," that

is not an apology in any sense.

[CarlVK]

28. I'm surprised that more people can't parse that.

Especially since that is a time honored tactic of the Right, and we've all run up against it likely more than once.

[Karenina]

13. I have many dear ones

family and friends, who are the most wonderful people UNTIL you mention Israel. They uniformly glaze over and begin to spew about Arabs being lice, cockroaches, KILL THEM ALL!!! Many here have confessed about rabidly racist family members. One draws the line in the sand to keep the peace. There is NO POINT in tossing grenades, as it solves NOTHING.

I miss JP2. His caring for mankind was genuine.

[CarlVK]

16. I couldn't agree more. The world is a lesser place now

In Wojtila's absence. I am in no way Catholic (I'm a pagan, actually) but I know a good person when I hear one.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. Sorry, I think if he had cared for mankind he could have started

by rolling back the Church's prohibitions on Birth Control, and stopped the Hypocrisy of preaching to consenting adults about their sex lives while covering up and protecting pedophile priests: Criminals who, at least when they're not wearing a Priest's collar, are generally considered very dangerous to society.

[Sal Minella]

36. And JP2 was a monster compared to beloved John XXIII.

and I'm as rabidly anti-organized-religion as they come. If we could have had John XXIII a little longer, the BC pill would have been allowed by the RC church, among other things.

[CJCRANE]

24. The killing was done by police

in the cartoon riots, not by the protesters.

[The Stranger]

34. Free speech? Is that what you would say if they ran Sambo cartoons?

What about other bigoted caricatures that so often get posted here?

Those never seem to be a question of free speech. Hint: because free speech isn't the issue here -- bigoted, hatemongering, xenophobic racists is the issue.

[CarlVK]

35. BINGO.

I should have had you write the OP of this thread instead ;)

[Warren DeMontague]

37. Yes. That is what I would say. That's what I said about the Nazis marching

in Skokie, and I had relatives who died in the camps.

Do I think the cartoons were well done, clever, or particularly witty? (Have you actually seen them, by the way?) Not really.

I do think it's interesting that you could draw a stick figure and say "That's Mohammed", and it would incite the same level of violent rage. I think anyone that overly attached to their semantic maps, dogma and belief system is SORELY in need of some self-examination, I don't care WHAT religion they are.

Do I think they were insensitive? Perhaps. Do I think they were "racist"? No, sorry- not terribly. Did I agree with some right-wingers that there was an "imperative" for US Papers to run them too? Hardly. If I was the editor of a newspaper, would I have felt the need to run them? No. Not at all.

But none of that is the same as saying violent riots were somehow "justified" or "understandable" because of... wait for it... a bunch of fucking CARTOONS. Period.

Edit: I also don't know what "bigoted caricatures" you're talking about getting posted here. Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on that. DU has rules. Free speech doesn't mean you can say anything, anywhere. If you want to speak here, you have to abide by the rules of the place. That's not government restricting your speech, that's just the way it goes. Nor does free speech mean that all speech is wonderful. I support the right of people to make an ass of themselves. That goes for newspapers, too- they're not allowed to libel people or present falsity as fact... however, printing cartoons that might offend someone may be poor taste, but it's not libel. If I rioted violently every time a cartoon offended the crap out of me, or even presented a totally bogus picture of reality, Mike Ramirez's run in the LA Times would have had me rioting every god-damn week.

The proper answer to those cartoons, in my mind, would have been peaceful protests and an opportunity to educate people about Islam. And, bottom line, if you don't like what the paper says, don't buy the paper.

[REP]

39. I've Seen The Cartoons; Some Were Clever and Non-Offensive

There was one that was merely an illustration of a generic man (there was another thing going on about illustrations for a children's book, and this one was in that vein) and one that made fun of the publicity-seeking author; another had Jesus and Buddha as well as Mohammed. Only a handful were clearly provocative; most were mildly clever (a few were just awful on all levels).

I agree: cartoons are not worth killing over; nor is the insensistive babblings of an old man in a dress. The best antidote to speech one finds unpleasant is MORE SPEECH, not shutting up the offensive speaker or killing the speaker.

Faith may be worth living for; it may even be worth dying for; but it is not worth killing for. Cartoons and speeches are not deadly attacks that must be met with death.

[The Stranger]

40. I don't really give a shit about the paper. I am more concerned with the

fucking religious fanatics fucking the rest of us into endless world wars; meanwhile, they each wait for their "deliverance," and the only planet we have (or the rest of us have) so far is being rendered unlivable.

I think those of us who have not yet been brainwashed (are you out there?) need to DE-ESCALATE the bullshit rhetoric, and the megaphone press, and the war-mongering and hate-mongering bigots who are lusting for more bloodshed.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. I agree. But if that means we censor the world to fit the sensibilities

of said religious fanatics, no thanks.

I think it was not a very wise provocation on the papers' part. But that doesn't justify the response.

[The Stranger]

43. Again (again), no one is censoring anything.

We are simply explaining that if you post bigoted cartoons in a world where war is now the rule, and portraying people's "prophet" as a pedophile, especially when those people have had this "war" declared against them, expect blowback.

The point is to try to de-escalate the situation and to avoid blowback. There was no prior restraint attempted or even advocated. This is not about free speech (again (again (again))).

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Who is "we"? First off, I said I didn't think printing the cartoons was a

terribly good idea.

Second: I must have missed the one portraying Mohammed as a Pedophile. And lets be honest, again- it's fairly clear that ANY representation of the prophet -even, like I said before, a stick figure- would have set 'em off.

Third: Not having been involved with printing these things, it's not within the realm of my abilities, or my job for that matter, to de-escalate anything. It's also not my job to bend over backwards in an attempt to apologize for people who riot violently over cartoons. The people who rioted violently can "expect" whatever response the rioting generated, as well.

Fourth: It's not about free speech? Funny, when one seems to be justifying the actions of violent rioters and blaming non-violent cartoonists, however offensive their message may seem, I *do* think it's about free speech. Here's an example- one of my favorite movies of all time is Monty Python's Life of Brian. Now, I remember when that movie was in the theaters. Because the movie dealt with the time of Jesus and ancillary themes like the sheep-like tendency of people to follow leaders and messiahs, I remember that there were widespread protests against the film in the "Christian" community. The protests were, however, peaceful. Had those people offended by the film gone ape-shit, burned down theaters, attacked moviegoers, and issued death threats to Eric Idle and John Cleese, would that have been "expectable blowback"? Would you be sitting here working overtime to try to understand why they felt the need to react so violently to a piece of film?

[The Stranger]

48. Again (again (again (again))), it is not about free speech (still).

No one issued an order of prior restraint preventing the publications. No one passed a law saying the paper couldn't publish what it published. Maybe you think that is "funny," but, again (again (again (again (again)))), it isn't about free speech.

People don't like what was said or printed. You don't like it that people don't like what was said or printed. I couldn't give a shit either way. No restriction on free speech in any way. Next question.

The idea of de-escalating war-mongering, de-humanizing rhetoric is what we Progressives do. You see, war kills people. But some war-mongering, hate-mongering, bigoted types love to hype up the other side (and its reaction to their own rhetoric) in order to foment hate and take us all on an express train to hell (war). We Progressives are trying to prevent another war.

[peacetalksforall]

10. Their were many groans when this Pope was elected, has he

lived up to the expectations of some or many. Foot in the slipper or the mouth? Was it an appropriate or legitimate 'quote'? Was it damaged in translation?

A nun in Africa has been killed?

[Jackpine Radical]

14. The Dope on the Pope? I opened this thread expecting to find

a picture of the chimp sodomizing the Pontiff. One Primate riding another, if you take my meaning.

[Joanne98]

17. I think the muslims are right on this one.....

I supported the cartoonists but this Pope is so far right that I wouldn't be surprised if he was working with Bush to bring back to crusades. He's been giving speeches that sound exactly like they were written by James Dobson. "The culture of life". He's been interferring in Germany elections by supporting Merkel. I think he's a snake in the grass and I'm glad someone called him on it.

[CarlVK]

19. For the record, I'd feel the same about a Mullah stoking violence

against an entire faith. I know a few have, and they have my condemnation too. It's just that the Pope has a far greater media reach than the mullahs do, who are generally more relevent in rank to a bishop or archbishop.

[CarlVK]

29. Here is the so called "apology" that Ratzy made.....

"Pope Benedict XVI is "extremely upset" that Muslims have been offended by some of his words in a recent speech in Germany, the Vatican said Saturday."

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/AOL/world/national/2006/09/16/pope.html



Ahem. Does that sound like an "apology" to you?

Also, notice the typically lying headline for that story. If I didn't know better (and maybe I don't) I'd say the Vatican has Karl Rove on retainer.

[CJCRANE]

30. I first knew something was up

when the story of the kidnapped Fox News reporter came out, who was forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint (by an unknown assailant).

Then "Azzam the American" released a video with the same "convert or die" theme.

Then the Pope comes out with the same accusation against Islam.

So, in reality you have the actions/words of just THREE people but which have travelled round the world and reinforced and fuelled the hate and prejudices of millions and given the image that muslims are hellbent on invading the West and killing or converting anyone who gets in their way.

A very interesting phenomenon.

[CarlVK]

31. Almost seems.....coordinated, doesn't it?

[CJCRANE]

32. Yes, it does seem so.

Of course we have no evidence, however I think I'm right in saying that Jeb Bush is a Catholic and was on a committee/board with Ratzenberger before he was Pope..?

So, I guess it's not beyond the realms of possibility that it is co-ordinated if we look at how just ONE person can dominate the news cycle, e.g. Teri Schiavo, John Mark Karr etc. It's clear the neocons know very well how to manipualte the MSM and take advantage of their gullibility and have back-door connections to "shape the circumstances" (as Iran-Contra, funding the Mujahideen, links to bin Ladens etc show).

[CarlVK]

33. And remember how much support powerful Catholics gave....

the nascent Rightwing movement back in the early 80s. One such group practically funded Limbaugh all by itself. I can't recall it's name right now, "Capital" something.

I am suspicious these folks are mostly Opus Dei, not the more moderate Catholics.

[CJCRANE]

38. Although in this case

I don't think Jeb Bush called up the Pope and said "we need a distraction, can you drop an anti-islamic reference into one of your academic lectures"...

However as you mention, I think the RW does have influence with some elements in the church (and vice versa) so it's possible they share similar views on these kind of subjects.

[CarlVK]

46. Yes, Catholics used to be roundly hated by the KKK South

But it seems, with the advent of the New Right in the 1980s, there was a bit of a collusion going on. Not real public, but a collusion none the less.

[deaniac21]

41. I invite you to read the remarks for yourself then you can comment

with intelligence on the matter.

http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748

[CarlVK]

47. I've read them, thanks. Show me where Ratzy helped rather than harmed

in this instance. Was it the best thing in the world to knowingly inflame Muslim passions at this time? See, I don't think so. If there is a monster in the bush that grows in the middle of your path, there is a time to walk one inch around it, and a time to walk several feet around it.

[TheFriedPiper]

45. We should just ignore religious leaders like we do other crazy people

Why do we pretend these people have any more validity than any other nut?