RedZepperin

I would suggest that you read any standard work on the motivation of the Nazis, and you will find that Catholic anti-Semitism is high up the list. They may all be wrong, of course...

As to the inaction of Pius XII lending credence to that view, what do you think? It may be that he put the preservation of the Vatican above the survival of the Jews. That, in fact, is my belief, because I am deeply cynical about the motivation of religious leaders. However, many would see it the other way.

What do I think? I'm in no position to defend the Vatican on that subject as I have insufficient evidence. I'm prepared to admit it. You should have the grace to admit that you do not have sufficient evidence to attack it either.

Just to help you along there, Aizoon. Pope Pius XII (before being Pope) did speak out against Nazism through the encyclical. You didn't know that but chose to attack him anyway. During the war, we all, all let down the victims of the Holocaust. One Archbishop of Canterbury did speak out, his successor (during the war) did not. The US press was extremely quiet on the subject. The list goes on.

What baffles me is that the Catholic Church comes in for such a particular bashing on the subject. Also: look up how many members of the Catholic clergy were murdered by the Nazis, and look up the Nazi leaders' views on the Catholic Church.

Aizoon: I'm still at a loss to see what backs up your assertion that:

There are good reasons for believing that the motivation for the Holocaust was Catholic hatred of Jews, and the inaction of Pope Pius XII would tend to lend credence to that.

Where is your evidence?

No, he didn't. That was his predecessor, Pius XI. .

Signed by Pius XI, drafted by Mr Pacelli who went on to become Pius XII and was in the know, because he had been papal nuncio to Germany. He was credited by Pius XI for having drafted the encyclical ("Mit brennender Sorge") which criticised Nazism. It caused the Catholic Church no end of problems in Germany (a mainly Lutheran country, by the way but it's not fashionable to criticise Lutherans apparently).

No, but he didn't rush to condemn it, either.

Did he not condemn it in the encyclical "Mit brennender Sorge" in 1937 (the authorship of which he was credited with)?

There are good reasons for believing that the motivation for the Holocaust was Catholic hatred of Jews, and the inaction of Pope Pius XII would tend to lend credence to that.

So the Pope didn't act because his faith motivated the Holocaust. Is that what you are saying?

Nonetheless, some of us are old enough to remember Franco's Spain and De Valera's Ireland.

An expert on Spanish history as well? Please go on.

I have good friends who had the sh1t beaten out of them for asking the wrong questions - admittedly in Ireland in the 50's.

The Irish are made of sterner stuff. We didn't dare to in England. But we got beaten up anyway!

Happy days.

What then is your explanation for the multiple outrages regularly carried out throughout the world whose only common factor is adherence to Islam? Coincidence perhaps?

Has it not occurred to you that there are other factors involved, Edward?

I guess Catholic teachers would have beaten it out of me or brought in the theological big guns.

A non-believer would not have felt out of place at an RC school 30/40 days, I can assure you. And the level of violence you received was not proportionate to your degree of faith.

I am content to say there are no fairies at the bottom of my garden.

You are also content to say that you have a hedgehog that talks.

And before you say it, Aizoon. I suspect you are a lapsed Catholic anyway. That hedgehog thing has a distinct "guardian angel" feel to it.

Who's being bullied? Vigorously disagreeing with somebody's ideas is not, in my book, bullying them. If anyone wants to attack my atheism and my detestation of organised religion, let them feel free to do so. It's called freedom of speech, although it's becoming increasingly rare because of those who are afraid of serious debate. Your views have no right to be immune to criticism and neither have mine.

Personal abuse is another matter and, in my opinion, a sure sign of a lost argument.

I would suggest that it's fairly important to know the difference.

I'll be honest with you, I haven't really read through this thread in detail but there appears to be a chap on here whose religion is being insulted. I would regard that as bullying. On a separate point, I do find the attitude of people who these days call themselves "atheists" to be a lot more aggressive than (I imagine) they are aware of. Why say "left-footers", for example? How many derogatory terms are there for religious people? How many are there for atheists?

is there something intrinsic to the religion itself which generates the extreme crimes that we see time and time again?

No.

Er. I think it's more about how people use religion - any religion - to justify oppressing others.

The point about Boko Haram and the Chilean nuns is that they would both claim that their appalling behaviour stems directly from their religious beliefs.

I think you will find that no one has yet tried to justify child abuse on the grounds that he was an Australian painter.

I'm confused. We can bully any religious person because of appalling acts perpetrated by a minority of religious people but the same does not apply to Australian painters?

I'm not sure how this thread started but it appears to consist of pinpointing some outrageous behaviour by someone, relating it to their religion or nationality or something and then blaming everyone else in their religion or nationality for the same behaviour.

Is that how it goes?

OK. Any Australian painters on here?

Crikey. And I thought it was tough being a Catholic on here!

Queen of the South is the only football club to be mentioned in the Bible. 

Surely Corinthians get a mention...?

Is anyone actually taking a note of these cock measurements?

If you were trapped on a desert island would you rather be stuck with SOD or SC?

You'd probably kill SC after a couple of weeks but have topped yourself after a couple of hours in SOD's company.

On this site or ziderheads, can't remember which, I not only said O'Driscoll would not be a success, but explained my reasons.

 

On ziderheads at the beginning of August when most were saying we'd either go up automatically or play offs or mid-table at worse, I said O'Driscoll would take us down again.

I remember reading a post by NickJ on ziderheads, during the SOD honeymoon period when most of us still had the horn, saying that SOD would not be successful here.

That thread probably disappeared in one of the frequent ziderhead crashes.

I can't be arsed to read through all this thread (sorry, but it goes on a bit), but, if not stated already, this is not the first time that SC has said "I'm a winner". He said it in a recent interview too. It's part of his repertoire. Enjoy.

Yes, but the difference is Cotterill has been hammered by a significant minority since the day he arrived, mainly if not exclusively by those who bought into SOD's rhetoric about long term player development. Those people have expressed disappointment at SOD being sacked, that's fair enough its their opinion, but they have gone further than that with insults of Cotterill which have been personal, unnecessary, and unfounded.

 

In response, others have come to Cotterill's defence and in doing so have inevitably compared Cotterill's record here with SOD's.

 

 

The out and out hostility from some towards Cotterill, who I have to repeat is on OUR SIDE, while he is here and trying to do a job for us, is IMO unforgivable and far less understandable than criticism of SOD who is no longer here.

Some people seem more concerned about supporting their "forum reputation" than their football team.

I'm going to go with Flint then. Thank you all.

Good bloke to go with. Just won a penalty for City I think.