Strawberry Mansion High School: is this success? Would you send your kids there?

[Kieran]

Okay, so you didn't bother to read Rabbi Dalin's article. You say you've read the Koran, but what chance you'll read the Rabbi's book, if an article is even too much for you?

Have you even read "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,", which is quoted in the article you did choose to read?

You're wrong about Pius. "For Jewish leaders of a previous generation, this harsh portrayal of Pope Pius XII, and the campaign of vilification against him, would have been a source of profound shock and sadness...The campaign of vilification against Pope Pius can be traced to the debut in Berlin in February 1963 of a play, by a young, Protestant, left-wing West German writer and playwright, Rolf Hochhuth."

Just as the da Vinci Code inspired a bunch of lazy non-academician dilettantes to decide that the Church was culpable of cover-ups, a fiction in 1963 was accepted as truth by people too uninterested to discover the other side. Anti-Catholicism can be the only motive.

Why don't you just accept that maybe - just maybe - what you've been taught about the Church could be prejudicial and wrong? Not everything. Nobody claims Catholics are perfect, but don't be afraid to explore the idea that there might be another side to some of the stories you've been told, especially about WW2.

Just as it's possible that JPII wasn't a cynic in opposing the war in Iraq, but held genuine and spiritually informed feelings of pacifism...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I read the article Kieran. It is obviously pro Pius. What I don't understand is why it is the end all be all point of view about him. Just like you ask me , why don't YOU accept that maybe -just maybe- what YOU have been taught about the Church could be wrong? See what I did there? Like you say, there are different sides to different stories, we look at them through the lens of our own beliefs., which is fine, but not definitive either way.

You want Pius to be what you wish he was. I am not so closed minded to say there is no chance that he was not. But there are way too many opposing views as well. They exist. You cannot wish them away. And just MAYBE, they might have some truth too.

Same with JPII. Maybe he DID harbor genuine feelings of pacifism. But just MAYBE, he wanted to protect his organization , like other popes did in the past faced with certain situations. There is precedence, so it is not such an outlandish thought. Plus, there is nothing wrong with trying to protect your organization from unnecessary harm ! There was, and is harm however when some cover ups were allowed in certain cases to protect the church. I am not getting into those but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

I am willing to entertain any idea. That's how I work. I then decide which position I find more plausible. Sometimes I change my position and I don't feel ashamed one bit about it because that is how a scientific mind works. In light of new facts, positions change. That's the problem I face everyday, when I expect the same from religious folks.

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, if you read the article, that's all I asked for. It's written by a Jew who would have no vested interest in anything there but presenting details which others had chosen to exclude. And thankfully Pius XII's name is being rehabilitated by others who are taking the time to read extant material.

As for changing minds, I used to hate the Church with a feeling. I left it in my youth and participated against it, researched and argued spitefully against it. I was worse than the worst, for being anti-Catholic, and I took the modern western route towards other things, other thoughts, other ways of living. So I don't criticise anyone for not being Catholic, or for hating the Church, but I understand an urgency behind the same thing you do: to keep an open mind and if we argue, to do it generously and maybe with a bit of humour.

One thing we both will agree on, I reckon: when Cali starts a thread, it's not long before it's become a whole nother thread! :snigger

Take care, buddy, nice to read your thoughts, as always... :hug

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Speaking of DaVinci code, what a bad movie and horrible acting in the part of the girl who was supposed to be from Jesus's bloodline.

There were mentions of couple of facts though, one of which always intrigued me because it took place in Turkey , where I lived an hour away . Of course, it was not Turkey then, but you see my point. It was the Council of Nicaea, where the DIVINITY of Jesus was decided, by....men. Also , when to celebrate easter and such.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Buddy, if you read the article, that's all I asked for. It's written by a Jew who would have no vested interest in anything there but presenting details which others had chosen to exclude. And thankfully Pius XII's name is being rehabilitated by others who are taking the time to read extant material.

As for changing minds, I used to hate the Church with a feeling. I left it in my youth and participated against it, researched and argued spitefully against it. I was worse than the worst, for being anti-Catholic, and I took the modern western route towards other things, other thoughts, other ways of living. So I don't criticise anyone for not being Catholic, or for hating the Church, but I understand an urgency behind the same thing you do: to keep an open mind and if we argue, to do it generously and maybe with a bit of humour.

One thing we both will agree on, I reckon: when Cali starts a thread, it's not long before it's become a whole nother thread! :snigger

Take care, buddy, nice to read your thoughts, as always... :hug

Appreciate the hug...:smooch

 

[Kieran]

There were mentions of couple of facts though, one of which always intrigued me because it took place in Turkey , where I lived an hour away . Of course, it was not Turkey then, but you see my point. It was the Council of Nicaea, where the DIVINITY of Jesus was decided, by....men.

It wasn't. The debate was the nature of Jesus divinity, and the two main combatants were Athanasius, and Arius. Arius held that Jesus was a created divinity, and Athanasius held the line that the Church had always taught - that Jesus is eternally divine.

It was a long discussion, and Athanasius didn't always hold sway, but the da Vinci Code typically took a half-heard whisper and went off roaring. It used to amuse me, people tugging my sleeve and quoting the da Vinci Code - as if it was actually drawn from history. When I'd debate the points, they'd say, "well, he couldn't write it if it wasn't true!"

"Eh, he could. It's a novel. You didn't buy it in the history section." :snigger

By the way, I often thought of it as a sneaky, cowardly novel. He knew his audience, but try write a book like that about Muhammad next time, see how that goes...

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

There were mentions of couple of facts though, one of which always intrigued me because it took place in Turkey , where I lived an hour away . Of course, it was not Turkey then, but you see my point. It was the Council of Nicaea, where the DIVINITY of Jesus was decided, by....men.

It wasn't. The debate was the nature of Jesus divinity, and the two main combatants were Athanasius, and Arius. Arius held that Jesus was a created divinity, and Athanasius held the line that the Church had always taught - that Jesus is eternally divine.

It was a long discussion, and Athanasius didn't always hold sway, but the da Vinci Code typically took a half-heard whisper and went off roaring. It used to amuse me, people tugging my sleeve and quoting the da Vinci Code - as if it was actually drawn from history. When I'd debate the points, they'd say, "well, he couldn't write it if it wasn't true!"

"Eh, he could. It's a novel. You didn't buy it in the history section." :snigger

By the way, I often thought of it as a sneaky, cowardly novel. He knew his audience, but try write a book like that about Muhammad next time, see how that goes...

Kieran, brother, come on now...You can easily understand Arius's argument, as many did, as Jesus being just a son, maybe a prefect son, but still a son not sharing the father's divinity at all, someone who is created by a divine power but not divine in itself.

I actually thought about a script where Jesus DID have a bloodline and it lead to Muhammad, and everyone sang Kumbaya together at the end, but I never got to it. I like ..uhm...living.:laydownlaughing

I already kissed you and everything man...:snigger

 

[Kieran]

Kieran, brother, come on now...You can easily understand Arius's argument, as many did, as Jesus being just a son, maybe a prefect son, but still a son not sharing the father's divinity at all, someone who is created by a divine power but not divine in itself.

Arius always believed that Jesus was divine, he just believed he was a created divinity.

I already kissed you and everything man...:snigger

I'm still digesting it. It's quite sweet... :snigger

Cheers brother, I'm off to argue tennis. There's peeps upstairs in the other forum who think Roger doesn't get to serve against Rafa - and impose his game on the left-handed rustic island brute... :lolz:

 

[calitennis127]

There was, and is harm however when some cover ups were allowed in certain cases to protect the church. I am not getting into those but I am pretty sure you know what I am talking about.

Please read the books of Philip Jenkins (scholar from Cambridge) on the clergy abuse crisis. He has exposed so many of the media's lies and slanders against the Church as false. And he also puts the actual child abuse in context of society at large.

I am willing to entertain any idea. That's how I work. I then decide which position I find more plausible. Sometimes I change my position and I don't feel ashamed one bit about it because that is how a scientific mind works.

Well, that's not how Galileo worked, nor is it how Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens worked.

And, in fact, if you knew much at all about Christian theological history, you would know there is a huge history of debate and exchange of ideas.

In light of new facts, positions change. That's the problem I face everyday, when I expect the same from religious folks.

Pope Pius XII has been researched rigorously and extensively in the last 50 years. The preponderance of evidence is so overwhelmingly in his favor that frankly there isn't much of a debate anymore.

John Cornwell wrote his nasty little book "Hitler's Pope" and he has backtracked from pretty much every argument he made since the book came out.

 

[calitennis127]

*I agree with you that regional issues, personal vendettas, economics and politics always were causes of war. BUT I bet you anything that in %90 of them, religion was the MOTIVATOR to start the war, get people going. It is very difficult to motivate people for war just by saying "Let's go get this piece of land" . When you say "This is our holy land, they are converting our people by force to so and so religion" though, life becomes a lot easier to motivate people. In the history of mankind, 2 things have always worked to get people to go to war: You tell them, their religion is under attack, or you question their patriotism when they are reluctant to go to war. No matter what the real reason might be. I know you agree with me on this because I know how you feel about Bushes wars.

Besides your fundamental errors, I will point to this: the "Bushes wars" were not religious wars in the slightest. The second one, in particular, was indeed a crusade - but the crusade of a secular political ideology known as neoconservatism. We know that neoconservatism had to be secular, or else Hitchens would not have supported it so openly.

The neoconservatives (Bill Kristol, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, etc.) were not Christian at all, nor did they call for war on the basis of expanding Christianity. They called for "spreading democracy across the world" in the vein of Trotsky and Robespierre. They explicitly called for global political revolution after 9/11. This had nothing to do with "religion" or Christianity, and it was this messianic SECULAR political ideology which took hold of Bush's mind in the aftermath of 9/11.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, why did Pius sign the Concordat with Nazi Germany? What was the result of it/ Blind eye was the result of it. The Catholic Church, as an organisation, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state. Individuals might have. Vatican new the murder of the of the Jews very early, and some individuals DID try to help, but the official policy did not help anyone. Concordat stopped that.

Lies, errors, lies, errors, lies, errors, lies, errors, and more lies and more errors.

I'll address all of this later.

Good Heavens.....I don't know where to start.

"The Catholic Church, as an organization, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state."

No wonder people buy into Dawkins' blather.....

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

*I agree with you that regional issues, personal vendettas, economics and politics always were causes of war. BUT I bet you anything that in %90 of them, religion was the MOTIVATOR to start the war, get people going. It is very difficult to motivate people for war just by saying "Let's go get this piece of land" . When you say "This is our holy land, they are converting our people by force to so and so religion" though, life becomes a lot easier to motivate people. In the history of mankind, 2 things have always worked to get people to go to war: You tell them, their religion is under attack, or you question their patriotism when they are reluctant to go to war. No matter what the real reason might be. I know you agree with me on this because I know how you feel about Bushes wars.

Besides your fundamental errors, I will point to this: the "Bushes wars" were not religious wars in the slightest. The second one, in particular, was indeed a crusade - but the crusade of a secular political ideology known as neoconservatism. We know that neoconservatism had to be secular, or else Hitchens would not have supported it so openly.

The neoconservatives (Bill Kristol, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, etc.) were not Christian at all, nor did they call for war on the basis of expanding Christianity. They called for "spreading democracy across the world" in the vein of Trotsky and Robespierre. They explicitly called for global political revolution after 9/11. This had nothing to do with "religion" or Christianity, and it was this messianic SECULAR political ideology which took hold of Bush's mind in the aftermath of 9/11.

Dear Cali,
If you just read what I wrote properly, you would have seen that I agree with you %100. Bushes wars got NOTHING to do with religion. But when Bush got on tv and said "God is on our side" what the heck did you think was going to happen? I said, clearly, that religion, in most instances, was not the reason for war, but the great MOTIVATOR for it. It got people riled up.

Noeconservatism is not secular or atheist . It is economical, and it will use religion endlessly to reach its goal. Hitchens supporting it does not make it a secular policy. What kind of logic is that, becasue Hitchens support it, it has to be secular. Hitchens saw an opportunity there , that's all.:nono

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Also, why did Pius sign the Concordat with Nazi Germany? What was the result of it/ Blind eye was the result of it. The Catholic Church, as an organisation, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state. Individuals might have. Vatican new the murder of the of the Jews very early, and some individuals DID try to help, but the official policy did not help anyone. Concordat stopped that.

Lies, errors, lies, errors, lies, errors, lies, errors, and more lies and more errors.

I'll address all of this later.

Good Heavens.....I don't know where to start.

"The Catholic Church, as an organization, did not protest against any of the anti-Jewish policies of the Nazi state."

No wonder people buy into Dawkins' blather.....

Great to see you have an open mind about everything Cali. Don't bother. If in an argument one person thinks he knows everything , and what other's know or believe are always wrong and lies, that argument, as this one, never goes anywhere.

 

[calitennis127]

*I agree with you that regional issues, personal vendettas, economics and politics always were causes of war. BUT I bet you anything that in %90 of them, religion was the MOTIVATOR to start the war, get people going. It is very difficult to motivate people for war just by saying "Let's go get this piece of land" . When you say "This is our holy land, they are converting our people by force to so and so religion" though, life becomes a lot easier to motivate people. In the history of mankind, 2 things have always worked to get people to go to war: You tell them, their religion is under attack, or you question their patriotism when they are reluctant to go to war. No matter what the real reason might be. I know you agree with me on this because I know how you feel about Bushes wars.

Besides your fundamental errors, I will point to this: the "Bushes wars" were not religious wars in the slightest. The second one, in particular, was indeed a crusade - but the crusade of a secular political ideology known as neoconservatism. We know that neoconservatism had to be secular, or else Hitchens would not have supported it so openly.

The neoconservatives (Bill Kristol, William Kristol, Michael Ledeen, David Frum, Charles Krauthammer, Richard Perle, etc.) were not Christian at all, nor did they call for war on the basis of expanding Christianity. They called for "spreading democracy across the world" in the vein of Trotsky and Robespierre. They explicitly called for global political revolution after 9/11. This had nothing to do with "religion" or Christianity, and it was this messianic SECULAR political ideology which took hold of Bush's mind in the aftermath of 9/11.

Dear Cali,
If you just read what I wrote properly, you would have seen that I agree with you %100. Bushes wars got NOTHING to do with religion. But when Bush got on tv and said "God is on our side" what the heck did you think was going to happen? I said, clearly, that religion, in most instances, was not the reason for war, but the great MOTIVATOR for it. It got people riled up.

Noeconservatism is not secular or atheist . It is economical, and it will use religion endlessly to reach its goal. Hitchens supporting it does not make it a secular policy. What kind of logic is that, becasue Hitchens support it, it has to be secular. Hitchens saw an opportunity there , that's all.:nono

How on earth was religion a "motivator" for Bush's wars? I don't care if some Christian assemblies in Missouri got excited with a "God is on our side" speech. The people who advocated and orchestrated the Bush wars did not do so for Christian or religious reasons. They were non-Christian or very apathetically Jewish - people like David Frum or Bill Kristol.

As for neoconservatism - for you to not say it is secular is laughable. There is nothing "religious" (in the conventional sense at least) about it. It is a thoroughly secular ideology.

 

[calitennis127]

The minority of Americans who got excited by some religious or pseudo-religious rhetoric about the Iraq wars were irrelevant anyway. They had no political power, and with different influences they could have just as easily been made into peaceniks. Nothing they ever thought or said caused the U.S. to go to war.

It was the ideology of neoconservatism that got America into war - and most flag-waving right-wing Christian people in America don't have the slightest clue of what "neoconservatism" is anyway.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

The minority of Americans who got excited by some religious or pseudo-religious rhetoric about the Iraq wars were irrelevant anyway. They had no political power, and with different influences they could have just as easily been made into peaceniks. Nothing they ever thought or said caused the U.S. to go to war.

It was the ideology of neoconservatism that got America into war - and most flag-waving right-wing Christian people in America don't have the slightest clue of what "neoconservatism" is anyway.

Cali, I wish you you understood me that I agree with you.

Answer me this: Can anyone today, neocon or otherwise, be elected to the congress or the senate, after declaring he or she is an atheist? Religion has huge political power in the USA.

Religious rhetoric is never irrelevant. It touches people in a very fundamental way. Also, put the US public aside, what do you think the Iraqi people thought? It works both ways. You will not find one Iraqi who thought " Oh my god, neocons are coming to implement their economic and political agenda" They think their way of life, which includes their religion of course, is under attack. Of course this does not have to be true at all, and that's the part you refuse to get. It does not matter if it is true or not. PERCEPTION is all that matters.

Being so open to be easily manipulated because human beings are weak, religion will always be used as an excuse to go to war. People will always by into it. History is solid on that.

 

[calitennis127]

Answer me this: Can anyone today, neocon or otherwise, be elected to the congress or the senate, after declaring he or she is an atheist?

Probably not - but this does not mean that Americans are highly religious either. There is a huge spectrum of belief ranging from fanaticism to mouthing a couple platitudes about God being important to you.

Americans are not a highly religious people. We live in a country, for goodness sake, that has turned the non-Christian Kardashians into international celebrities. That should tell you something about our culture.

I can just as easily turn the question around on you and ask if a serious Christian could possibly be elected as president? This could never happen today.

Religion has huge political power in the USA.

So do corporate interests, media conglomerates, educational institutions, foreign lobbies, and activist groups.

Why are you singling out "religion", which I would contend is less significant than pretty much everything in that list?

Religious rhetoric is never irrelevant. It touches people in a very fundamental way.

I don't care how it makes them feel in their tummies. We are talking about whether religion is uniquely horrible for causing wars and consequent human suffering. In the case of the Iraq war, the fact that a segment of the American population was riled up by right-wing preacher demagogues about the righteousness of the mission had no bearing on why or how the country went to war - against Iraq of all countries. The decision was made by a small cabal of planners and advisers in Washington D.C. - a group that was educated at our most prestigious universities. And Harvard and Yale today are as hostile to Christianity and a Christian view of the world as Sam Harris.

The Iraq war was strictly the fault of political schemers under the influence of a non-Christian ideology. The fact that Perle and his ilk used the Republican Party as a toy for their goals really does not reflect poorly on religion itself. The neoconservatives were simply clever in attaching their messianic political pronunciations with some vengeful nationalist rhetoric that had appeal to virtually all quarters of America in the aftermath of 9/11 anyway.

Also, put the US public aside, what do you think the Iraqi people thought? It works both ways. You will not find one Iraqi who thought " Oh my god, neocons are coming to implement their economic and political agenda" They think their way of life, which includes their religion of course, is under attack.

And how is that wrong necessarily? Anyone with a brain knows that "separation of church and state" is impossible as a complete human social condition. Jefferson was making reference to a specific context in Connecticut, with overbearing Puritanical preachers. He was not saying that everywhere and anywhere, churches and governments were to be completely disconnected from each other. This is obviously impossible, because they deal with many of the same matters.

For instance, I don't see atheists condemning religion for its moral denunciation of murder or lying. In fact, many of them would, for example, praise JPII for his seemingly favorable stance toward doing away with the death penalty. But then, when the issue turns to gay marriage or abortion, all of a sudden it's "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

The point is - government and religion overlap in hundreds of ways. You cannot keep them eternally and distinctly separate.

So, in the case of the Iraqis, it would make complete sense for them to see the U.S. invasion as an attack on their way of life (especially since Shariah law is overtly political). What's more, after 9/11, the neoconservatives and many other commentators insulted the backwardness of the Middle East and its lack of acceptance of modern values and modern economics. So how could the Iraqis not see the U.S. invasion of Iraq as an affront to their way of life and their religion?

In fact, Hitchens wanted the U.S. to go into Iraq precisely to target the Islamic religion.

Being so open to be easily manipulated because human beings are weak, religion will always be used as an excuse to go to war. People will always by into it. History is solid on that.

History is solid on religion being one of many reasons why wars occur, and history is also solid on religion affecting war in myriad ways besides just fanatical Crusader-jihadist style bloodlust.

And you should give much more credence to how political ideology and political mythology fanaticizes people. In 2004, George Bush wasn't a Christian so much as a messianic politicized ideologue. He sounded more like Woodrow Wilson and Vladimir Lenin than a priest. The guy was calling for global political revolution.

 

[calitennis127]

Also, why did Pius sign the Concordat with Nazi Germany?

To protect Catholics in Germany. Dalin explains this clearly. The following information is drawn from my notes on his book.

The Nazis may have wanted the Concordat to make themselves look legitimate and to advance their interests, but the Papal See was forced to go along with it to protect German Catholics. The Nazis more or less blackmailed the Concordat out of Cardinal Pacelli (the future Pope Pius XII), who was serving as Vatican Secretary of State in 1933. In the space of three weeks of negotiations between the Nazis and the Papal See, Hitler had ordered the arrest of ninety-two Catholic priests, searched the premises of sixteen Catholic youth clubs, and closed down nine Catholic publications. This is why Pacelli told Ivone Kirkpatrick, the British ambassador to the Vatican, that in negotiating the concordat a pistol had been pointed at his head and he had no alternative.

Moreover, the Nazis were the ones who proposed the Concordat, not the prelates in Rome. If the Vatican had rejected the Nazi offer - with the Nazis already harassing Catholic clergy, Catholic organizations, and Catholic media - it would have put its people in serious danger.

The point is - the agreement was coerced out of Pacelli.

Dalin also explains the background of concordats in general. The Vatican signed 38 of them in total between 1919 and 1933. Pope Pius VII entered into numerous concordats with Napoleon, starting in 1801. And later in the 19th century the papacy negotiated concordats with numerous states, including Prussia, Belgium, and Switzerland. In each case, the agreements were meant to protect Catholic rights and the freedom of Catholics in those territories.

Pius never spoke openly and explicitly against Hitler, except one time, a month after the war was over, when he was addressing the college of cardinals.

Before becoming Pope, the Nazis referred to Pacelli as the "Jew-loving cardinal".

 

[calitennis127]

I wonder if Federberg went to a high school like this or grew up in a neighborhood like this. I'm sure he did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsRw8wFjyI

 

[Riotbeard]

And how is that wrong necessarily? Anyone with a brain knows that "separation of church and state" is impossible as a complete human social condition. Jefferson was making reference to a specific context in Connecticut, with overbearing Puritanical preachers. He was not saying that everywhere and anywhere, churches and governments were to be completely disconnected from each other. This is obviously impossible, because they deal with many of the same matters.

I just wanted to point out that Jefferson wrote a bill separating Church and State in Virginia in 1786...

An Act for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786)