I had a drink with a good friend of mine this arvo and she commented that she thought compared to my posts at Troppo, my writing at LP here had lacked passion. Maybe she had a point. My response was that there wasn’t too much that I had got angry about really of late - I’m desensitised, as many are, to the horrendous daily news about the latest coups against accountability and good government by the Howard government. Our eternal PM (as eternal as the perpetual wars which have nothing to do with this country that he involves us in with seeming abandon) only ever said one meaningful thing - which was to agree with the great PJK that to change the government was to change the country. And he’s been very very good at that. I can remember having a beer (in a very dejected state) with my friend Justin in 1996 in the then Treasury Hotel (now yet another faux-Irish bar) and remarking that we would be different people under the reign of Howard. How little did I know back then how different. The tide will turn one day, I have faith in that, but for the last several years, the best those of us who oppose not only the Coalition in a partisan fashion, but hate what Howard has very very successfully done to the social imaginary of this country and how he has shifted the parameters under which we all have to live, have been able to do has been to trim our sails to the prevailing wind and hope to tack a bit to the Left.
Therefore, you would think that we would welcome a strong “Lefty blogger” from Fairfax land into the ’sphere.
And we did.
But I want to say this now - I am grievously disappointed in Antony Loewenstein.
We’ve all been talking about the election of Pope Benedict XVI over the last few days in the blogosphere.
What has got me really steamed up - as an admittedly liberal Catholic, who nevertheless feels, and I’ve argued this here, and will have more to say on it in due course, that Pope Benedict XVI will be a great improvement on JP2, and will cause scandal to the ultra-orthodox - but leaving that aside for a second, is the amount of sheer ignorance, prejudice, and to call a spade a spade, old fashioned anti-Catholic sectarianism, that has been evident in blog comment threads in this last week.
Let me put this in some context.
The other worrying thing is the ludicrous, hyperbolic and irrational implications drawn by bloggers such as Antony and Darp that because the young Joseph Ratzinger - along with every other young German man - was forced to join Hitler Youth - that first, he is disqualified from the Papacy, and secondly, the implied but not substantiated allegation that the Catholic Church is the fount of all evil in the world.
Antony, for instance, wrote:
Prediction number three: being a former Nazi will do wonders for the church’s image.
All in all, a grand day for the secularists.
And the Catholic Church is accused of triumphalism? This sort of crap gives secularism (which I support in the public political sphere) a bad name.
Let me tell you something first about Germans in this country. Most German-Australians came out here in 1848 - there was no coincidence whatsoever with that year being a year of revolution in Europe - to seek political and religious freedom. Yet, in one of the two areas in which Germans settled (the other being the Barossa Valley in South Australia) - the Darling Downs in Queensland - every German town on the Darling Downs - bar one, Marburg - had to change its name in WW1. And despite the fact that German-Australians in the 30s totally resisted Nazi advances, people were interned during WW2. Australian citizens from families who’d been in this country 90 years. One of the great right-wing myths is that Australia was some sort of Anglo-Celtic homogenous country prior to Calwell’s post-war immigration programme. Not true. Simply false. Ask the descendants in Queensland of South Sea Islanders, the Chinese diaspora, the Jewish community, and the Germans. But this land of the free destroyed German-Australian culture willy nilly in the 40s. And as late as the 50s, a friend of mine’s mother who’d been subjected to domestic violence was thrown out of a boarding house in Tooowoomba in which she had taken refuge, because she was Catholic. She converted to Lutheranism.
Let’s not forget that there was no “Anglo-Celtic” ethnicity - rather Australia was torn between Irish Catholics and English, Scots and Welsh Protestants. It’s said that sectarianism in Australian culture and politics died in the 60s and 70s. Untrue. When I worked in the Queensland public service as a young clerk aged 16 in 1984, there were still entire departments that were “Mick” and others that were “Masonic”. Maybe that’s not true now, but these cultural prejudices run deep, and the prominence of the events surrounding the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI has seen some spectres return with a vengeance.
Much of the discussion of Benedict XVI in terms of his past as a young man in Hitler’s Germany on blogs has frankly displayed prejudice. The same sort of prejudice that had my ancestors afraid to speak German in the streets 60 years ago. And I’ve been horrified - not by the reasonable questioning of Benedict XVI’s policies and past - but by the slurs and insinuations that have been all too evident on some threads of late - by the rising of the ghost of sectarianism. It’s time to call a spade a spade, and invite those who haven’t examined their own cultural biases to reflect - and deal. Until you do, your self-identification as left wing is a fraud and a deception.
I agree with Currency - much of the discussion of the Papacy has been, frankly, pathetic. In the real sense of that word.
Passionate enough?
Elsewhere: Tim Dunlop agrees with my sentiments about slurs at Road to Surfdom and also has something to say on papal infallibility, Miss P makes a welcome return to posting, Guy thinks we should talk about non Pontiff related matters, Jason Soon does the shorter Ratzinger and Phil Gomes takes issue with the Church’s reaction to Spanish policy on homosexual marriage.
Update: saint writes ‘yet another Pope post’, among other things, criticising the stereotyping of Benedict’s ethnicity and making some good points about redemption and forgiveness.
Just in: Phil Gomes discusses the Australian blogosphere’s passion play.
I think the points you made about the history of sectarianism, the Germanic angle and the QPS are excellent. I just want to know why the likes of Darp and Lowenstein are so steamed up about the affairs of an institution they’re not connected with or, in any case, are conspicuously indifferent about. The only explanation seems to be an innate anti-Catholicism they’ve hitherto kept as secret as the Third Secret of Fatima. That and the kind of vengeful and scatterbrained anti-establishmentarianism they condemn in the more extreme of the paradigm-pushing Sisypheans of the neo-con right. There seems to be a view in some quarters that anti-Rome bigotry is a sexy sine qua non of modern intellectual chic. Actually, of course, it resembles the intellectual currents of the century before last. Fellas - get with the programme. And the times.
Woohoo! Passion! Yay!
What C.L. said. Is it chic to disparage the Catholic Church?
I am going to sound awfully like an RWDB here, but would Messrs Darp and Lowenstein slag off at Islam or Buddhism or Hinduism in the same way? I think not.
These are our religious beliefs - tread carefully, boys. By all means, like Mark said, engage with the political implications, but keep yr prejudice to yrselves.
I’m here, I’m queer, I’m a Catholic, get used to it!
Like Mark said - deal!
Lets find out how Catholic you are? Or rather what religion you are most compatible with.
One of the many internet tests
Religion test
I’ll add - the Catholic Church and the gospel of Jesus Christ, as Karol Woytyla said over and over, is a sign of contradiction. What has happened recently will play itself out. Wait, watch, and be vigilant. Won’t anyone stay up with me and await the signs?
To put it another way:
Thanks for the link, Vee. I suspect I don’t have to do the test thought to find out how Catholic I am. But perhaps tomorrow.
Kim, from conversations we’ve had recently, I’d venture as far to say (and I know you won’t mind my saying this) that “what has happened recently” brought you back to Catholicism.
Yep! Or rather, coalesced what had been nascent. (Don’t you love words with “sc” in them?).
“The other worrying thing is the ludicrous, hyperbolic and irrational implications drawn by bloggers such as Antony and Darp that because the young Joseph Ratzinger - along with every other young German man - was forced to join Hitler Youth - that first, he is disqualified from the Papacy, and secondly, the implied but not substantiated allegation that the Catholic Church is the fount of all evil in the world.”
Passionate this statement may be. Its accuracy I question. I think you intend absolutely to be a little tongue-in-cheek when you accuse the bloggers who have expressed doubt about the legitimacy of Ratzinger’s candidature as seeing the Catholic Church as the root of all evil, but if you’re going to pull punches you do have to accept a few.
As a Jacobs (son of Jacob), people have assumed that in history, my family were Jewish, and that this has embedded a hatred of Catholicism into our lineage. Only two problems there; ‘Jacobs’ is actually my married name (but I kept it after our divorce because I liked the name), and my former husband’s family were in fact German catholics during World War II. Only because they had emigrated to Australia a few years before the war (complete with Nazi stamps on their papers), the land which they had purchased was taken back by the state, and my ex-husband’s grandfather was gaoled for the duration of the war. So I am fully aware of the sectarianism and prejudice expressed on all sides.
Nevertheless.
The Catholic Church has been the source of its own extreme standards about true faith and what is appropriate behaviour for followers of the faith. No gay man or woman can take communion in the Church until they renounce they homosexuality and pledge to follow the “true path”. No woman can ever hope to rise to the leadership of the Church simply because she was born a woman.
As such I do not see that bloggers who question Ratzinger’s status as ‘papabile’ on the basis of his Hitler Youth history are being so very unreasonable. While genocide may not be the exclusive practice of the Nazis (as Peter noted on my blog when he reminded us of the Crusades), it would certainly seem to go against some of the basic tenets of the code of conduct. And the fact that he was compelled to join the Hitler Youth movement should be regarded as similar to being born female or gay - sorry chump, that’s your bad luck; you’re disqualified.
I hardly think it’s unfair to make such a parallel; that such a notion is ludicrous, hyperbolic or irrational. It’s actually quite logical. Yes, it’s prejudiced and undemocratic. Yes, it’s counter to what I would normally regard as forward-thinking. But it’s neither inconsistent, nor absurd.
I guess that wasn’t a terribly passionate punch from me; more a gentle prod. But ascribing sectarian hatred to those who are merely questioning consistency of doctrine does tend to sound like passion obscuring reason.
“… remarking that we would be different people under the reign of Howard. How little did I know back then how different. The tide will turn one day, I have faith in that, but for the last several years, the best those of us who oppose not only the Coalition in a partisan fashion, but hate what Howard has very very successfully done to the social imaginary of this country…”
I’m not quite sure what the ’social imaginary’ is, but I think what’s remarkable about the Howard government is how it can be in power for so long and change things so little for the great mass of people (I can understand how left-wing partisans might be frustrated, but they are a small minority). Australia has of course changed since 1996, but mostly for reasons that the Howard government has more managed than caused (such as a relatively strong economy) or had nothing or near-nothing to do with, such as the chances in communications, media and social relations brought on by mobile phones and the internet. Despite the left’s obession with ‘racism’ there is little evidence that is has increased, and if so only in greater suspicion of Muslims - and that is due to the actions of some Muslims, not of government.
“I just want to know why the likes of Darp and Lowenstein are so steamed up about the affairs of an institution they‚Äôre not connected with”
I was interested in this too. I am not a Catholic. I could not give a damn who is pope. I got sick of hearing and reading about it.
However, maybe they see it the same way that people care about who is US president. Even though you might not be a US citizen, the style of the US presidency affects everyone to lesser and greater degrees. I’m not entirely sure that argument applies to the Pope, however.
As I have said on other blogs:
“The actions and words of the pope and the Roman Catholic Church affect everyone on this planet, Roman Catholic or not, just like those of George W Bush and the US government.
We have a right and a responsibility to criticise it if we feel it necessary.”
No other religion has this power (at least at the moment).
What has changed with your blogging, Mark, since you left Troppo is the appearance of a religiosity not seen before. Even the colour of your blog, which you joked about it, reinforces it. Nothing wrong with that, of course, it’s just a different flavour from what we are used to from you.
“every other young German man - was forced to join Hitler Youth”
Young German Jewish men were exempted.
I’ve read the threads you’ve probably had in mind and I too think the Hitler Youth comments were drawing a long bow and probably representative of a bit of impishness on the part of some commenters like Dave Ricardo. But I would be hard-pressed to describe these comments as ’sectarian’ since most of these commenters are secular and atheist(sectarian to me connotes Protestant hatred of Catholicism) and are opposed to all organised religion. If Catholicism gets the butt of criticism that’s because it’s from a policy perspective on the Western world one of the most influential religions with implications for policies on reproductive freedom, civil rights and scientific research in ways that other religions probably are not in exactly the same way (Evangelical Protestanism is of course also influential but more so in the US and it too is highly criticised but of course does not have as its focal point a figure like the Pope, Zionism has been heavily criticised but it’s usually thought of as a secular movement, ultra-orthodox Jews being originally against the state of Israel as a heresy, Islam gets a hammering regularly sometimes justifiably and and sometimes not but is nowhere as influential yet). There are thus simply more opportunities for secularist like myself who like Jefferson pledge ‘eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man’ to criticise Catholicism and be on-topic. For what it’s worth I am an equal opportunity religion basher and have got stuck into the Dalai Lama at least thrice so far, most recently on a Troppo thread.
“I just want to know why the likes of Darp and Lowenstein are so steamed up about the affairs of an institution they‚Äôre not connected with or, in any case, are conspicuously indifferent about.”
If Catholics stop bringing Catholic viewpoints into public policy, we’ll stop caring about what the Pope thinks. Deal? Of course it’s not going to happen *nor should it*. Catholicism is a belief system like any other and entitled to equal treatment *and* scrutiny.
And Mark, I feel you’re conflating three issues here in your post namely the anti-German prejudice after WW2 and tribalist hatreds between Protestants and Catholics in the past leading to discriminatory practices which is of course despicable and secularists having a stake and being entitled to criticise organised religion. It makes your post more emotionally powerful but I don’t think they’re related at all.
One of the somewhat negative things about blogs I think is that it feeds the problem of people crapping on when they have absolutely nothing to say. This is a Big Issue, I must comment on it, and I must do it is an entertainting/controversial/whatever way. The Pope thing is a Big Issue which has been covered with tiresome ubiquity by Big Media therefore its an obvious choice for a blog post so if you don’t have an opinion you must manufacture one. I haven’t joined the discussion (or the ones on the Bible here at LP)for the reasons Tim D outlined, you catholics/xtians can sort it out amongst yourselves.
I agree the Hitler youth things is a horrible and ridiculous slur. Same as when it was used on Sid Spindler.
Kim, if it makes you feel any better, if I had a social/political blog I would get stuck into the Buddhists and the Hindus and the Jews and the Muslims as much as the Cattleticks or my former posse, the Anglicans. Or the Aten cult, the Incans, the Vikings or any of the others in the graveyard of dead gods.
Mark,
Oh my. Thank you.
You have captured the grief, anger, shock and shame that is all pervasive in me as a citizen in HoWARd-tainted Australia. I had to hide under my doona in ‘96 when the news came that JPK did not make it and felt we had let him down. We threw him at the wall like a toddler might a puzzle piece that doesn’t fit in after only a few attempts.
I know Australia will one day have a change of government. My question is “Will anyone remember what the left looked or felt like or will we settle for right-lite?”
…I sense a mixture of overwhelming hopelessness then nihilism then ennui. Or as Emily Dickenson put it “Pain, stupor then the letting go.” I feel like shouting every day that we are still in a war in Iraq! I blog therefore I might be.
Anticipating another broadside from M’sieur Bahnisch for being unthinkingly broad-brush, not to mention being RWDB-isch, the left just loves its hate objects - Howard, Bush, Blair, now Benedict. If they didn’t exist it would be necessary to invent them, to paraphrase a well-known recidivist Catholic. Without them it would just wither on the vine. The election of Bendict was an opportunity to invent one: unfailingly, the left went to work with its accustomed venom, and got its hob-nailed boots stuck in, with the unedifying results we have recently been witnessing.
Exchange “left” for “right” Rob, and switch the names, and that para would be just as true.
What names would you switch for which, Amanda?
And why would you want to get ’stuck in’ at all? Especially the Aten cult - Egyptian Middle Kingdom, right? What have you got against Akhenaten?
I probably wouldn’t get stuck in at all. I am a wuss at heart. I like ol’ Ake’s lips, very sensual.
Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Sweden, Gough, Keating, Sweden. Off the top of my head. There are idiots all over.
Well, as one of your actual RWDBs, Amanda, let me say I don’t hate any of them:
Clinton - OK president, especially in his second term
Kerry - silly twit
Gore - probably would have been alright once the realities of life had sunk into his manicured epidermis
Gough - complete f***wit, found new career as a clown
Keating - nasty bovver boy; really did not like this guy, even if I voted for him. The original Bourgeois Gentilhomme, with apologies to Moliere. Typical of the man that he pretended to like Mahler. I mean, you have to (pretend, I mean, unless you’re talking about his lieder)
Sweden - nice flag, good place to visit - once.
Quite mild hate stuff really, and of course OT.
So generalisations are just fine when they’re against TLWTI* but you want to be treated as an individual. Uh huh.
*The Left, Whatever That Is
“[Howard] only ever said one meaningful thing - which was to agree with the great PJK that to change the government was to change the country. And he‚Äôs been very very good at that.”
This is an odd statement in an odd post, Mark. What are you complaining about? That Howard was better at it than Keating? And ‘great’? Give me a break.
And this:
“…we would be different people under the reign of Howard. How little did I know back then how different.”
Why? How? Did Howard change you? All that happened was that the government changed. It’s this weird thing called democracy. It’s supposed to happen.
What enormous power you seem to impute to pollies.
Amanda, no, I’m quite happy to be part of the general RWDB mould, and seen as such. Quite happy here, with my faceless companions.
Anyway. My favourite religious story of recent days is this guy - an episcopalian priest, no wait, he’s a druid. No, wait …
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2353
The Passion of the Mark - torture for the rest of us.
Honestly, you katholic kids need deprogramming. A wealthy multinational corporation peddling opiate to the poor huddled masses changes its CEO and all it takes is a whoosh of chasuble and whiff of incense for you to close ranks with bigots and hypocrites. It’s like reading Lord Flint of Woollarha moaning about insufficient respect being shown to Big Ears, that other medieval relic, and his new nag.
Fighting for the Nazis is ALWAYS a question-mark over ANYONE’s character. Does it disqualify you to be pope? Fuck no: there’s been much worse. As feudal overlord of a medieval enterprise Ratzinger’s positively enlightened compared to some of the troglodytes the church has thrown up.
I don’t buy into this catholic persecution complex, either. You’re all martyrdom junkies. If I have to read another post by Noughty about wrestling with his conscience after wrestling with blokes I’m gonna hurl.
Fighting for the Nazis is ALWAYS a question-mark over ANYONE‚Äôs character. Does it disqualify you to be pope? Fuck no…
Goebbels-like mendacity of that kind proves the essence of what Mark was arguing Fyodor. You know what you wrote is a lie but you wrote it anyway. If it wasn’t for the men and women the Catholic Church has “thrown up” there wouldn’t be any higher culture in existence today, anywhere. There wouldn’t even be the humane secularism that many critics of the Church profess.
So why your Nazi remark? I dunno - maybe some Mick kids punched you out when you were a kid; maybe you’re jealous because your own denomination is an historical irrelevance; or maybe your grandpoppa was a bigoted old apron-wearing Masonic goatrider. Who really cares?
Just don’t be another whining nineteenth century moron. Try being a whining contemporary moron instead. If you don’t like the Catholicity of some blogs, then don’t read them, start your own (which Noughty has the balls to do) or shut the fuck up.
Nice one, CL. That’s some real passion for you, Mark. Game on!
“If it wasn‚Äôt for the men and women the Catholic Church has “thrown up” there wouldn‚Äôt be any higher culture in existence today, anywhere.”
There was “higher culture” before the church, and there was “higher culture” after. I invite you to persecute that argument and we’ll see just how good is your grasp of history.
“There wouldn‚Äôt even be the humane secularism that many critics of the Church profess.”
You’re joking, right?
“I dunno - maybe some Mick kids punched you out when you were a kid”
You can do better than this, CL. Ad hominem? I must have hit a nerve. I’ve never been knocked out, though it’s been tried. Why do you assume I’m not Irish?
“Maybe you‚Äôre jealous because your own denomination is an historical irrelevance.”
I have no denomination. Was never given one, never chose one.
“…or maybe your grandpoppa was a bigoted old apron-wearing Masonic goatrider”
The only time my granddad wore an apron was when he was manning the BBQ. The “goatrider” aspect was a nice touch, BTW. Classy - very…Christian of you.
“Just don‚Äôt be another whining nineteenth century moron. Try being a whining contemporary moron instead.”
I’ll do my best. I’m just having difficulty giving up backward beliefs.
“If you don‚Äôt like the Catholicity of some blogs, then don‚Äôt read them, start your own (which Noughty has the balls to do) or shut the fuck up.”
It’s precisely the lack of catholicity that pisses me off, CL. And I won’t shut the fuck up, thanks.
Whilst raising the Pope’s former membership of Hitler Youth is a cheap shot, it’s not only his opponents that have strayed in the direction of Godwin’s Law.
In the Currency Lad post Mark cites approvingly, Ken Parish is accused of supporting “the eugenics programme of Dr Mengele” and “the unfulfilled bio-tech agenda of Nazism”. What a joke.
Why do you assume I’m not Irish?
For some reason I’ve always assumed you are! Not sure why, though.
It’s the red hair.
I’m not backing Currency holus bolus, I should say, Rob, I agree his characterisation of Ken in those terms is an instance of Godwin’s Law.
Ok, a few responses:
(a) I don’t at all say that people who aren’t Catholic shouldn’t criticise the Catholic Church - that would be ridiculous. Clearly it’s a very important institution for all sorts of reasons and people have a right to have a say.
(b) Nor am I stigmatising every single comment or post as being laden with prejudice. Some are, many aren’t.
(c) I don’t thank I’m conflating anything when I talk about sectarianism and anti-German prejudice. In both cases - in Australian social history - what was at work was the attitudes and social and political power of the dominant Anglo folks - and prejudice was used against both the Irish and other Catholics and those from non-British ethnicities to reinforce Anglo power.
(d) People don’t have to be conscious of sectarianism to be sectarian. It’s a cultural strand that runs deep. I’m thinking in particular of various comments that came from a clearly Protestant position and retailed various myths and slurs that are current in some quarters of Protestantism about Catholicism. But I’d argue that apart from this “obvious” sectarianism, much of the tone of the discussion reflects a broader unease with Catholicism that’s still present in Australian society even if rarely articulated.
Thanks for the support Mark. This Godwin’s Law stuff should itself be subject to some cyber-statute which states that reference to it to render a debate over is itself a transparent polemical ploy. (Irving’s Law, maybe). What, the Nazi episode should cease being an abject series of moral lessons for humanity? What obscurantist bollocks.
I stand by what I said. Stem-cell research, farming of embryos, abortion, euthanasia, late-term abortion, the bumping off of Terri Schiavos - all supported or lamely flirted with by Parish as though any one of them were ethically reformable and all foreshadowed by Dr Mengele. (Ken also called the Catholic Church “evil”). Those who can’t see that are deluded babies, intellectually speaking. You’ll forgive me Rob if I don’t get teary-eyed about being called a joke by an apologist for David Horowitz.
Lawyers, Ken and Rob included, are usually illiterate in the higher humanities and on the substantive moral questions of the day and should be a bit more humble about things they know very little about. First graduate Rob, then generate some authoritativeness based on something more profound than the chats you have about Dr Geoff at Labor branch meetings.
I’ve only just discovered Godwin’s Law CL but I believe Godwin’s Law itself does that.
It depends on the context of the discussion.
that is if its invoked deliberately it nullifies the effect of a lost argument. Don’t quote me though I’m working from my untrustworthy memory.
If nothing else Mark, you’ve generated some passion in some of your readers.
In recent days I have heard reams of commentary, via Radio National and, per News Radio, from the BBC, Deutsche Welle, Radio Netherlands and NPR (US) plus ABC TV and SBS. Ratzinger’s time in the Hitler Youth was frequently mentioned, but universally treated as unremarkable and/or basically irrelevant (appropriately, in my view). The worries seemed to centre more around his attitudes to women, the use of condoms, the celibate clergy, homosexuals, the centralisation of power in Rome etc. If any group was more critical, more worried and more disappointed than any other it seemed to be liberal German Catholics.
Pretty much universally, though, there was deep respect for his ability, his clarity of thought, his culture, his approachability, courtesy and kindness on a personal level. Most thought that he may turn out to be more liberal than his reputation heretofore would lead us to believe.
As a disclosure, I grew up in an enclave of Lutheran German farmers north of Miles (past Toowoomba and Dalby) and can attest to the accuracy of Mark’s post from my own experience. Since then I’ve graduated to what Vee’s test categorises as ’secular humanism’ (near enough) but am not anti-Catholic. Our youngest son (who professes to being an atheist) attends a Catholic school in the Edmund Rice tradition. Nevertheless, one year he won the Personal Faith and Development (scripture?) prize, a sign of progress from the circumstances prevailing in my youth, I think.
I do think the papacy is an issue that concerns every-one and thought Immanuel Wallerstein had a pretty good take on the Church, the last couple papacies and the task facing the papacy now. He thinks aggiornamento is irresistable, so it will be interesting to see what he thinks of Benedictus XVI.
I think his name is *Loewenstein and it might be nice to spell it correctly on Pesach.
Other than that, I agree with most of what you said Mark. You might be very interested to read Benedict XVI’s views on interreligious dialogue in Communio http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger25-1.pdf or just read the run down I am about to write whenever I get around to posting.
Oops, yes, yr right about the spelling, Dreaddie, I’ll fix it. Thanks for the link.
We have been able to name sectarianism in our society as a vile, destructive thing.
It is partly in this context that us non-Catholics get alarmed by the frightening arrival of Pope Benedict, who is now demanding civil disobedience from Spanish Catholics since Spain is putting in practical laws ensuring equality for homosexuals.
How can I argue with someone who believes this as an article of faith? It just comes down to numbers - there are currently more of us than there are of them.
When the religious right in parliament is raising third trimester abortions as a political issue - hundred thousand abortions a year says Boswell - then he is distorting the fabric of our politics. We have to fight out, once again, the agenda of a two thousand year old (less than that actually, but this is what it claims in the brochures) theocratic patriarchy that claims to represent a God worked out in the two thousand years before that by tribal people in the Near East.
I do feel angry that we have to get back on that treadmill.
There are many Roman Catholics who I admire intensely, even though I disagree not only with their beliefs but that belief should be motivated by faith. But when Archbishop Romero was murdered in his own cathedral, what did the Pope do? When he made all those Saints, was Romero on the conveyor belt? There’s a lot of bastardry in the positions promoted by the last Pope, and we should fear the possibility that Benedict will be the same.
And that’s why we on the blogosphere talk about the papacy.
———————————-
It’s very easy in our discussions to keep changing modes. There’s a strand which is logical and serious and shows full respect to the participants in the dialogue. There’s a strand which is a bit rambunctious and debatish with the occasional punchup outside the pub. And there’s a strand that is about satire and transgression and sheer fun, which plays to the complex realm in which this is all the activity of small, self-important, ironic, hilarious, tragic, passionate mammals.
We have our clowns and our bullfighters. Darp is a fabulous example. it is pointless to say that they are not being logical - they are not trying to build an argument.
——————
- Just as a point of information - I think Mark is slightly wrong about the politics of German loyalty in the 1930’s, although I absolutely share his horror about the persecution of Lutherans and people of German background.
In South Australia there was a rousing fight about whether Triumph of the Will would be shown. The Left tried to prevent it, but it was projected both on the exterior wall of a building in the city and in a cinema in the Barossa. There was a Nazi strand among German descendents, which the German government endeavoured to support. It all came to a head in the 1938 motorcycle grand prix, in which a German government supported team ran an NSU, under the command of the Baron who came back here in the 1950’s to organise the new Volkswagen factory. So it was a lively era which ended with our disgrace.
———————–
While we have named sectarianism in our society, there is a another strand of nastiness we tiptoe around - and that is snobbery. Actually it is the elitism that corrodes democracy, that says I am more important than you so I should get more.
“Lawyers, Ken and Rob included, are usually illiterate in the higher humanities and on the substantive moral questions of the day and should be a bit more humble about things they know very little about. First graduate Rob, then generate some authoritativeness based on something more profound than the chats you have about Dr Geoff at Labor branch meetings.”
Well said, David!
My, my, CL. I know this post was a call for “passion”, but need you go so far overboard?
I did not call you a joke, but rather your statements. And I still don’t think you meant them seriously; they’re just part of your tough-guy, black-and-white, RWDB facade.
Still, what would I know? I’m an ALP member and law student, and therefore ineligible to comment on such matters. Only the Chosen Few are entitled to join a discussion — as long as they don’t question CL’s rhetorical excesses.
Yeah, Rob, I don’t think establishing qualifications for commenting is at all in the spirit of the ’sphere!
As for C.L., I suspect he’s a pussy in real life (like many of us) and the RWDB excesses are part of the performance art that is Currency Lad writing.
Well said, indeed.
David’s befuddlement is entirely reasonable and understandable. For years the left has thought it had it all sorted. Done religion, done abortion, done contraception, done God. Then, quelle horreur, it turns out that they haven’t been ‘done’, after all. People still worry about the morality of late-term abortions, silly duffers. They even purport to believe in the tenets of a 2000 year old theocratic patriarchy, the mugginses. The left sorted all this stuff out ages ago. Why don’t people listen?
Yeah, we’re back on the treadmill again, alright.
Rob: I withdraw my stupid rhetorical excesses regarding you.
Rob, you forgot to ask us to accept blame for all Stalin’s crimes…
I thought you meant the other Rob, C.L. - the one Mark agrees with. I’ve only agreed with Mark once in my life and I don’t look forward to repeating the experience.
Yes, I think C.L. means Robert.
Rob, you really like disagreement?
Get back to you after The Bill, Mark.
So the Catholic church has another Pope. So What! Nothing will change. Condoms are still evil. Women are still the root of all sin. Homosexuality is still a satanic perversion and female priests???? Well, let’s just hold our collective breath and wait for the proverbial to freeze over, shall we? AIDS? well, that’s the result of women and homosexuals in combination with the aforesaid condom being abandoned as the church so rightly decrees, which only goes to prove that while good Catholics can resist many temptations, only the holy Cardinals can resist them all. Or can they?
Actually, Niall, it looks like there might be a change on condoms.
Rob, if you don’t get an answer from me when you come back, I’ve just had a text from a friend who’s been out to dinner and she’s asked me out for a drink at the Sunbar… so logging off for the evening as I Popper-out!
Back from the Saturday night of a sad loser. Boy, what a crap show The Bill has turned into.
For Mark on return:
It all depends on who I’m disagreeing with, Mark.
As for left-wing culpability, I’m going to do the lazy thing and quote myself at the place that cannot be named, as opposed to the blog that cannot be named.
OT, but it’s Mark’s fault for raising it. He knows it’s a governing obsession that blinds me to all reason
Non-revisionist lefties might want to leave at this point. I’ve been told you have to be a Nazi to read what follows, so be warned.
I couldn’t have put it better myself. I even agree with some of it.
(Thanks for the bandwidth, Mark, and the html code for the quote.)
I posted a reply to Mark, but it’s awaiting moderation. Sheesh.
Well let me enjoy the opportunity to firmly part company with numerous dear colleagues. For those of us who feel our pagan celtic heritage, the roman catholic church holds the status of a conqueror, to whom we will never finally submit. For those of us who feel our socialist heritage, the same church has been an instrument of socal conservatism. Believe what you will, by all means, but I for one might be allowed to say that I’d be glad to be jack of the whole medieval show, forthwith.
I took the liberty of approving Rob’s comments, Mark, because you said you were out for the evening. Hope you don’t mind!
Thanks, Rob. I was about to try an evil scheme to subvert the noxious filter.
No probs, Rob(ert)!
Had a very nice evening… except why does Stella Artois beer have that annoying white thingy stuck to the top of the bottle?
Rob - so please provide some evidence that the “Left has gone mad”. I feel boringly sane a lot of the time.
Rob (not Robert) aka Snide Robert as opposed to Smart Robert, can you explain to me how I am actually supposed to debate issues with the aforementioned believers in this 2000 year old theocracy?
For you, these issues are an article of faith. All we can do in a democracy with that point of view is count the numbers.
You might like to transpose the issue slightly. If a Muslim of a particularly narrow and fundamentalist kind comes to you and says that legislation should be promoted which provides for the stoning adulterers, how would you argue with them?
That is what I am saying about the intrusion of religious beliefs into the realm of civic affairs. And I am irritated by it, as I suspect you would be irritated by the confrontation with this particularly narrow minded Muslim.
It doesn’t matter what faith you are talking about. Hard line faith constructs a problem for democracy.
Well, it’s in the rest of the article, Mark, and it’s not online. However, this is the punchline, such as it is:
If I may say so, I don’t think you should let me do this. It’s completely off topic anyway. [/scuttles]
“For you, these issues are an article of faith.”
David, I’m not a believer, I’m not a Catholic. I have every respect for those that are, but I was simply making a political comment on political commentary.
“It doesn‚Äôt matter what faith you are talking about. Hard line faith constructs a problem for democracy.”
I entirely agree. It’s one of the reasons I’m not a believer. (Although I have a hard line faith in democracy.)
It’s quite possible to have faith and yet support secularism in the public sphere. There’s also a respectable argument from Vatican II’s constitution on religious liberty to justify it (largely inspired by the work of the American Jesuit Charles Murray) should one feel the need for such a justification. Pope Benedict would do well to consider these arguments in the Spanish case, but old habits die hard. The guy would hardly have taken the reins yet, however. We’ll see.
Since no-one has answered my question arising out of my night out about why Stella Artois beer has an annoying plastic thing at the top of the bottle, I’m off to sleep. Night!
Good beer. Probably to stop people drinking too much of it.
Only had 3 in 2 and a half hours, Rob. Night!
Ps - second thing we’ve agreed on - good beer!
Night.
I think we agreed about Cat People (40s version) and Natassja Kinski in the 80s version as well, on reflection!
Perhaps it’s the lid, Mark. In which case I can understand why it was so annoying.
I don’t drink Stella myself. It’s very bland.
We’re getting there, Mark.
Kim, if you’re lurking nearby and have not been totally alienated by my last posts, have you caught up with ‘I Walked with A Zombie’ yet?
What’s a better beer, then, Robert? Cascade?
I prefer darker beers. A couple of the James Squires are good, like the Amber Ale and Porter.
Tooheys Old is a taste I share with Ken Parish.
Mmmm, I can agree with you on that one. Matter of fact, that’s what I was drinking on Friday night (that and Newcastle Brown Ale).
Sorry if I’ve killed your nice post with my Blair-ite sledgehammer, Mark.
Mark,
The annoying white thing is, I suspect, the belt part of a “belt and braces” approach to bottling. That is, it keeps the bottle top on.
At the risk of offending you even further, I cannot FRACKING BELIEVE you like Tooheys Old! WTF?!! It’s fizzed-up ersatz porter and an absolute abomination.
[/rant off]
Yes, but when there aren’t many decent porters on tap, Old is most welcome. Besides, it’s cheap enough to get completely hammered on.
So is VB, but everyone has their level.
Well, I hate to tell you this, Fyodor, but I drink (not sure about like) VB as well.
I will put up a post shortly on the politics of beer - in the weird world of leftie Brisvegas, there were some years ago political reasons for choice of beer (alcoholic correctness?)…
Rob,
Re: your big post with the big quote.
Yawn.
Pol Pot et al simply aren’t applicable to young (28) lefties like me. You seem to be confusing lefties with red-badge wearing socialists, which, are rare as hens teeth and about as believable.
Pret