NationStates Jolt Archive

Ask heikoku - she brought up the impotent assfart that is the United Nations.

Actually, the pope did. In urging UN nations not to support a proposition asking all UN countries to eliminate prosecution of homosexuals.
And this thread is about him doing that, not the UN.

Ask heikoku - she brought up the impotent assfart that is the United Nations.

1- I'm a male.

2- This thread is about a resolution going on in the UNITED NATIONS! If you don't like it, TAKE IT UP WITH THE OP!

3- YOU came in here and decided that you might as well attack it due to not liking it.

Assfarts, maybe. Impotent, hardly.

The UN certainly looks impotent to me. NATO had to act in Kosovo without UN permission to stop yet another massacre. The UN did nothing in Rwanda.

Pretty impotent. In fact, completely.

The UN certainly looks impotent to me. NATO had to act in Kosovo without UN permission to stop yet another massacre. The UN did nothing in Rwanda.

Pretty impotent. In fact, completely.

It did fail to prevent the Iraq massacre.

The UN certainly looks impotent to me. NATO had to act in Kosovo without UN permission to stop yet another massacre. The UN did nothing in Rwanda.

Pretty impotent. In fact, completely.

Take it to another thread, ok?

It did fail to prevent the Iraq massacre.

It's a complete failure, if you haven't noticed.

Who cares what the UN votes for? It holds no real water legally, except for a handful of nations.

And who cares what the Pope says? If you ask for a universal right, it's freedom of speech. You want to deny him the right to sound off (and be perceived as an idiot)?

Nice denial of rights there.

The absurd notion that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is "tyranny" is yours to prove.

Good luck, you're gonna need it.
I don't need luck since the universal declaration of human rights is a joke both on a practical and a theoretical level,and since the UN does absolutely nothing for most of the nations of the planet then it has no right to come when it wishes and tell them how they should 'behave'.

Which is true. I don't condone any leader coming to a different country and say how things have to be done and run.

Yeah but do you condone leaders who speak at the UN on human-rights issues? 'Cause that's what the pope did in this instance.

How quickly you forget Kosovo... and Rwanda... I'm not even thinking about Iraq - but I guess it was ok for Saddam to line up a quarter of a million Shias and shoot them into ditches in the desert. Or gas Kurds. What did the UN do for them?

The UN, if it was actually effective, would be a "tyranny by majority".
The reason for the UN being 'impotent' as it were, is for its lack of actual power to do anything. If you'd done something like, I dunno, read the Charter of the UN, you'd know that peacekeepers can only go in when the sovereign government allows them to. In Rwanda, they did what they could to prevent genocides, and there are even cases of Peacekeepers saving people from armed groups. One colonel was even killed because of his involvement in saving people (in the documentary, his coffin was draped with the UN flag). Also, most of these Peacekeepers were unarmed, confronting armed death squads with only their blue vests to protect them.

And what did the US do in Rwanda again...?

Which is true. I don't condone any leader coming to a different country and say how things have to be done and run.

Cool

It's a complete failure, if you haven't noticed.

Who cares what the UN votes for? It holds no real water legally, except for a handful of nations.

And who cares what the Pope says? If you ask for a universal right, it's freedom of speech. You want to deny him the right to sound off (and be perceived as an idiot)?

Nice denial of rights there.

1- No, it isn't. Or, it wouldn't be if some morons didn't hold veto power.

2- Yes, it does. That YOU don't respect it means squat in the long run.

3- We do, when he starts trying to keep homosexuals repressed. For that matter, if YOU don't, why the hell are you still posting here?

4- Oh, come on. From the guy that wanted to deny an entire religion the right to reproduction, that sounds almost funny. Almost.

The reason for the UN being 'impotent' as it were, is for its lack of actual power to do anything. If you'd done something like, I dunno, read the Charter of the UN, you'd know that peacekeepers can only go in when the sovereign government allows them to. In Rwanda, they did what they could to prevent genocides, and there are even cases of Peacekeepers saving people from armed groups. One colonel was even killed because of his involvement in saving people (in the documentary, his coffin was draped with the UN flag). Also, most of these Peacekeepers were unarmed, confronting armed death squads with only their blue vests to protect them.

And what did the US do in Rwanda again...?

It's not the job of the US to be world policeman.

I don't need luck since the universal declaration of human rights is a joke both on a practical and a theoretical level,and since the UN does absolutely nothing for most of the nations of the planet then it has no right to come when it wishes and tell them how they should 'behave'.

:rolleyes:

Then why don't you kindly tell me what in the UDHR is it you find a "joke".

Yes, the UN does have that right with its member nations. If member nations don't follow the UN charter, then they shouldn't be member nations.

:rolleyes:

Then why don't you kindly tell me what in the UDHR is it you find a "joke".

Yes, the UN does have that right with its member nations. If member nations don't follow the UN charter, then they shouldn't be member nations.
Actually I agree on that,meaning that the UN should disband since it serves no purpose anymore.

Actually I agree on that,meaning that the UN should disband since it serves no purpose anymore.

Unfortunately for you and for my perception of your ability to read, I didn't say anything like that.

:rolleyes:

Then why don't you kindly tell me what in the UDHR is it you find a "joke".

Yes, the UN does have that right with its member nations. If member nations don't follow the UN charter, then they shouldn't be member nations.

The UN doesn't have the authority, or the ability, to do jack shit. Period.

Everyone knows that. Except you.

Unfortunately for you and for my perception of your ability to read, I didn't say anything like that.

Well actully H2 if all nations that didn't follow UN charters to the letter were kicked out there wouldn't be much of a UN left.

Well actully H2 if all nations that didn't follow UN charters to the letter were kicked out there wouldn't be much of a UN left.

What about "with varying dregrees of importance"?

Unfortunately for you and for my perception of your ability to read, I didn't say anything like that.
I meant that yes member states of an organization should abide by its rules,but since the UN is just an obsolete dinosaur we should disband it and get along with our lives.

The UN doesn't have the authority, or the ability, to do jack shit. Period.

Everyone knows that. Except you.

1- It doesn't have the ability to sanction certain countries because of the veto power by the US, and so on. And THEN you complain about the UN. Cute.

2- "Knows" is such a strong word for something that many people besides me are arguing AGAINST.

I meant that yes member states of an organization should abide by its rules,but since the UN is just an obsolete dinosaur we should disband it and get along with our lives.

Oh, in that case, you're just wrong. Okay then.

Oh, in that case, you're just wrong. Okay then.
Your opinion,no offense meant.

Let's keep the UN criticism to another thread and keep the Pope's criticism in here, m'kay?

What about "with varying dregrees of importance"?

What?

Sorry does the UN have some overriding veto in the UN. And as Psychotic said all the countries you mentioned are predominantly Muslim countries.

I assume you meant the Vatican. They do not have veto status, but they can vote, and if concensus is required....

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.Yes they are. Not as a member, but they are indeed "in" in the strictest sense of the word.

The Vatican is not in the UN. So no, they don't get to say anything.I hate to correct you, but the Vatican, while not a full-fledged UN member, has a "permanent observer" status iirc. That is, Vatican diplomats are invited to join the work (which includes making statements about proposals), but they cannot vote.

In 2000 (http://www.seechange.org/media/international%20campaign.htm), they had voting status. I have yet to find a more recent article.

Through a body called the Holy See, the Roman Catholic church exerts considerable power at UN meetings and conferences. As a Non-member State Permanent Observer, the Holy See can take part in UN meetings and conferences, and is typically granted full status at these events, including a vote on any question that is put to a vote. As the UN generally seeks consensus rather than forcing issues to a vote, this allows dissenting voices a stronger voice than they would normally have.

EDIT: They can not vote in the General assembly, but they can vote in other meetings.

Let's keep the UN criticism to another thread and keep the Pope's criticism in here, m'kay?

I said, "who cares what the Pope says?"

He's exercising a right to free speech.

And since he's saying it to the UN, "who cares what the UN says?" It doesn't fucking matter.

Unless you want to abrogate the right to free speech.

What?

Making it so that - in SOME aspects - fundamental rights - not following the laws of the UN means being outside of it. But not in others.

Yeah, more or less.

(see today's headlines of La Repubblica, www.repubblica.it)

The Vatican has voiced its position AGAINST the proposal at the UN, coming from the French government, asking all UN countries to eliminate prosecution of homosexuality. Rev.Lombardi (spokesman for the pope) says in an interview to La Repubblica that "It [the proposal] would introduce a declaration with political value, which could have impact over laws. That would lead to mark as 'violating human rights' any law that doesn't equate all sexual preferences" (translation mine, sorry for eventual inaccuracies).

It must be noted that in some countries where homosexuality is considered a crime, the death penalty is applied.

Homosexuals can be sentenced:
up to 3 years in jail in Morocco
from 2 months up to 2 years in jail in Algeria, plus a fine
up to 5 years in jail in Egypt, plus a fine
up to 1 year in jail in Lebanon, plus a fine
to death by stoning for married men who have an homosexual intercourse in Saudi Arabia (for bachelors, jail and flogging)
to death for men and to 100 floggings for women in Iran
up to 10 years in jail in Bahrein
to death in Afghanistan (not applied since years, though)
from 2 years to 10 years in jail in Pakistan (though local tribes apply stoning)
to 7 years in jail for homosexuals aged 21 or more, and to 10 years for homosexuals aged 20 or less in Kuwait.
to life in jail for male homosexuals in Uganda
to death by stoning in Mauritania and Nigeria

(just some examples...)

Interestingly enough, isn't the Vatican one of those countries who always blabber about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion? Doesn't the death sentence infringe the "sanctity of life"?

Guess what brillience incarnated...those are all muslim countries...which have nothing to do with the vatican

Guess what brillience incarnated...those are all muslim countries...which have nothing to do with the vatican

Your comment would have something vaguely resembling relevance if this wasn't about a declaration by THE VATICAN!

Making it so that - in SOME aspects - fundamental rights - not following the laws of the UN means being outside of it. But not in others.

Wait, let me back track. Those who can't abide by UN charters should be kicked out of the UN, then I said well if we did that than the UN wouldn't have that many members left than you said...

"with varying dregrees of importance" what so some countries who break rules will be allowed in and then others won't be?

Your comment would have something vaguely resembling relevance if this wasn't about a declaration by THE VATICAN!

So we should ignore the list of countries that are Muslim?

the vatican does not nessicarily endorse the death penalty for it, as I said the pope has no influence over those countries, I'm sure he wasn't talking about, "Let's keep killing them!" he was talking about in general homosexual practice is not right which has been the churches stance forever

In 2000 (http://www.seechange.org/media/international%20campaign.htm), they had voting status. I have yet to find a more recent article.

WTF?
EDIT: They can not vote in the General assembly, but they can vote in other meetings.
Oh. Ok.

http://www.seechange.org/

These are a group of Catholics who want to limit the role of the Vatican in the UN to one of an NGO. This may be an opportunity for those of you who wish to limit the Vatican's power to have your voices heard.

You can 'send a postcard', apparently.

Guess what brillience incarnated...those are all muslim countries...which have nothing to do with the vatican

Right, because the UN only includes Christian countries, not teh ebul m0zlems countries.




Oh, wait...

So we should ignore the list of countries that are Muslim?

And on goes the Islam-bashing, ladies and gentlemen!

Considering that I'm making statements AGAINST letting the criminalization of homosexuality happen, maybe you should reconsider what I'm saying? And you have SOME NERVE, considering that there were sodomy laws in the US not a DECADE ago!

Guess what brillience incarnated...those are all muslim countries...which have nothing to do with the vatican

Your statement is false.

wiki: uganda, religion in uganda
According to the National Census of October 2002, Christians of all denominations made up 85.1% of Uganda's population. The Catholic Church has the largest number of adherents (41.9%), followed by the Anglican Church of Uganda, a part of the worldwide Anglican communion (35.9%). Minor Christian groups include Pentecostals (4.6%) and Seventh-Day Adventists (1.5%), while 1.0% were grouped under the category "Other Christians".
According to the National Census 2002 12.1% of Ugandas adhere to Islam.


Then again, what do I expect from someone who can't spell "brilliance"? Silly me.

Wait, let me back track. Those who can't abide by UN charters should be kicked out of the UN, then I said well if we did that than the UN wouldn't have that many members left than you said...

"with varying dregrees of importance" what so some countries who break rules will be allowed in and then others won't be?

No, no: Certain rules - regarding civil rights - would be more important than, say, taxation rules.

Again since the UN allows kingdoms and fundamentalist countries to take part in it,it cannot by rule dictate the individual freedoms or civil rights citizens of those states can or should have.

Again since the UN allows kingdoms and fundamentalist countries to take part in it,it cannot by rule dictate the individual freedoms or civil rights citizens of those states can or should have.

My point was PRECISELY that it shouldn't allow countries without certain rights in it. YOU just want it to disappear, though.

My point was PRECISELY that it shouldn't allow countries without certain rights in it. YOU just want it to disappear, though.
Ok then if the UN was the way you wanted it I probably wouldn't want it to disappear,but we're living in the real world and profit only matters.As for the Pope he's more useless than the UN,a figurehead with a massive fortune who only says crap to preserve his image.

Yeah but do you condone leaders who speak at the UN on human-rights issues? 'Cause that's what the pope did in this instance.

That I do condone. But in the case of gay rights in Spain, the Pope came here and threatened Church officials in the country that they would lose their jobs if they allowed the government to go ahead with allowing gay marriage.

That I do condone. But in the case of gay rights in Spain, the Pope came here and threatened Church officials in the country that they would lose their jobs if they allowed the government to go ahead with allowing gay marriage.

Yeah, that was a bad move. I didn't agree with it then. But he is within his right as head of church to issue warning to church people who would come out against the church doctrine. I don't think it should go all the way to denounce them based on what the politicians do independantly.

It's not the job of the US to be world policeman.

The UN doesn't have the authority, or the ability, to do jack shit. Period.

Everyone knows that. Except you.

sorry if this has been responded to:

1. If your country isn't willing to help, why should *other countries be expected to?

2. That is more of the fault of the individual nations unwilling to give certain sovereign powers to the UN. An organization cannot operate outside of the structure within it's built.


*The UN is not a singular entity, but an amalgam of over 130 nations

Yeah, that was a bad move. I didn't agree with it then. But he is within his right as head of church to issue warning to church people who would come out against the church doctrine. I don't think it should go all the way to denounce them based on what the politicians do independantly.

In Spain's case Pope Benedict even went as far as promise things to the PP and those who voted PP. He is in no position to do that.

In Spain's case Pope Benedict even went as far as promise things to the PP and those who voted PP. He is in no position to do that.

Oh? Such as, Sieptima Luna? o_O

Oh? Such as, Sieptima Luna? o_O

He basically offered the PP voters unconditional support if, going to the ballots next Sunday, they help bring back conservativsm and religious ways to the Spanish government.

He basically offered the PP voters unconditional support if, going to the ballots next Sunday, they help bring back conservativsm and religious ways to the Spanish government.

What's PP again? Gomen ne. ^_^

What's PP again? Gomen ne. ^_^

The "Partido Popular" of Spain. Nande monai, tomoyo. ^_^

Religion has no place in politics. Simple as that.

Why do you wish death upon everyone that disagrees with you?

That is standard operating procedure among extreme-leftist haters.

Back to the OP: the Vatican is, of course, correct once again. The UN has no business attempting to impose the agenda of sexual deviants on the world, and if it continues trying to do so, it should, and will, be ignored like it is ignored on most matters.

That is standard operating procedure among extreme-leftist haters.

Back to the OP: the Vatican is, of course, correct once again. The UN has no business attempting to impose the agenda of sexual deviants on the world, and if it continues trying to do so, it should, and will, be ignored like it is ignored on most matters.

the only organization ignored more than the UN is the catholic church.:tongue:

the only organization ignored more than the UN is the catholic church.:tongue:

The Catholic Church makes more money.

The Catholic Church makes more money.

Of course it does, from all that gold it stole from the Americas.

Back to the OP: the Vatican is, of course, correct once again. The UN has no business attempting to impose the agenda of sexual deviants on the world, and if it continues trying to do so, it should, and will, be ignored like it is ignored on most matters.

People who condemn consensual sexual behavior X wish they had the nerve to engage in X themselves. Nothing new. And it's quite telling, Mit, that you, who always hated Muslims, are now rooting for Islamic states to be able to jail, flog or kill its inhabitants, as long as they have a sexual option you claim to disagree with.

Of course it does, from all that gold it stole from the Americas.

Funny thing, such an accusation from a Spaniard :P

edit: unless there was some case, of which I've never heard, of conquistadors' hard-robbed gold stolen by the Church :PPP

Funny thing, such an accusation from a Spaniard :P

Indeed, because I do not try to cover the sun with my hand, unlike the Catholic Church.:rolleyes:

Funny thing, such an accusation from a Spaniard :P

Did I miss the part where she is part of an organization that STILL benefits from this?

Oh, right, she ISN'T.

Religion has no place in politics. Simple as that.

I concur religion only causes problems when it it thrown in with power, just look at all the worlds problems caused by this.

I myself am catholic and i don't personally have a problem with homosexuality, and i feel that this is becomming more of an attack on the catholic church then anythink else.

so what if some people high up have some issues with it, so what, everyone is entitled to an opinion but more impotantly people are entitled to life, which i feel out ways someones opinion.

Did I miss the part where she is part of an organization that STILL benefits from this?

Oh, right, she ISN'T.

So is Catholic Church robbing the Americas at the moment, instead?

So is Catholic Church robbing the Americas at the moment, instead?

How can they? unless you mean when they ask people to make donations in church.:mad:

So is Catholic Church robbing the Americas at the moment, instead?

It is not, but it still has all the gold. You can see it ornamenting churches all over Europe.

Meh. Abrahamic religion at it again. Typical....

What I dont understand is how some LGBT people can believe in those religions :confused:

It is not, but it still has all the gold. You can see it ornamenting churches all over Europe.

I must educate myself on the subject, I've never heard the flotas were Church-owned, and that Spain finally turned all the gold over to Mexico and Peru.

So is Catholic Church robbing the Americas at the moment, instead?

Did they ever repay us? They are an organization. Nanatsu is not.

I must educate myself on the subject, I've never heard the flotas were Church-owned, and that Spain finally turned all the gold over to Mexico and Peru.

Yes, educate yourself.

That is standard operating procedure among extreme-leftist haters.

The RC church consists of extreme-leftist haters ?

Oh, I am sorry. Telling others they should not try to stop the killing and imprisonment of people the Church dislikes is of course entirely different.

The RC church consists of extreme-leftist haters ?

Oh, I am sorry. Telling others they should not try to stop the killing and imprisonment of people the Church dislikes is of course entirely different.

Psst. You're treating New Mitanni as if he ever had a point.

Yes, educate yourself.

Why won't you tell me.

Did they ever repay us? They are an organization. Nanatsu is not.

Spain is, to an extent. Did Spain - or Portugal, you're Brazilian IIRC - repay, I admit being wrong.

Psst. You're treating New Mitanni as if he ever had a point.

Lets be fair - wishing death on people you dislike is indeed a scary extremist trait.
Unless it is done by people New Mitanni agrees with of course.Then it is laudable and just.

Why won't you tell me.

You don't know anything about the history of the Catholic Church in Spain, do you?

Spain is, to an extent. Did Spain - or Portugal, you're Brazilian IIRC - repay, I admit being wrong.

Spain has never, ever, returned any of the gold it took from the Americas, or has said it's sorry for killing and ensalving the native population. Perhaps this is odd for me to be posting since Spain is my country, but once again, I do not try to deny the undeniable. We fucked the Americas, and that's how history is.

We fucked the Americas, and that's how history is.

So we owe your country a good fucking?

So we owe your country a good fucking?

You're giving it? No, thanks Kimchi.

You're giving it? No, thanks Kimchi.

I figured something along the lines of what the US did to Iraq.

You don't know anything about the history of the Catholic Church in Spain, do you?

So tell me more. Then I'll see how much of it is new to me.

I figured something along the lines of what the US did to Iraq.

Nah.

Nah.

So you're saying we can "waaaah" about the stolen gold instead?

So tell me more. Then I'll see how much of it is new to me.

There you go, read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Spain

So you're saying we can "waaaah" about the stolen gold instead?

Your baby nation wasn't even around so, what are you yapping about?:wink:

Prove it.

There are those five countries condemning people to death for it...and those are just the ones listed in the OP...


Not that the Catholic Church has much pull in those however...

But, Meh, it doesnt surprise me, im all for gay rights, but, if your expecting to see it from a major christian organization anytime soon...

Your pissin in the wind...

Id focus on Governments with a Separation of Church and State...which id say are more likely to change...

Although it still isnt very likely, at the moment anyway...

ok. i think we got off topic.

Your baby nation wasn't even around so, what are you yapping about?:wink:

That doesn't matter. I'll claim reparations now.

That doesn't matter. I'll claim reparations now.

Kimchi, seriously, get back into topic.

Kimchi, seriously, get back into topic.

You would think that the Catholic Church would be happier about homosexuality.

After all, it comprised the majority of their actions as child sex abusers (although there was some hetero action there), and you can't tell me that all they do in those monasteries is make wine and bread all day long.

There you go, read.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholicism_in_Spain


Jump to: navigation, search
Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela

The Spanish Catholic Church, part of the global Roman Catholic Church, is under the spiritual leadership of the Pope, curia in Rome, and the Conference of Spanish Bishops.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Statistics
* 2 See also
* 3 References
* 4 External links

[edit] Statistics

There are over 37 million baptized, covering about 90% of the total population. There are 70 dioceses and archdioceses. Like the French church, the Spanish church oversees one of the greatest repositories of religious architecture (and art) in the world, including Sagrada Familia church (of Antoni Gaudi) in Barcelona, Granada Cathedral, Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela, a popular pilgrim site, Seville Cathedral, Toledo Cathedral, and Cordoba's Mezquita (officially known as the Cathedral of the Virgin of the Asumption). In 2007, over 100,000 people walked to Santiago de Compostela alone.[1] Holy Week in Seville also attracts thousands pilgrims and toursits alike. For centuries Holy Week has had a special signifiance in the church calendar in Seville, where early on Good Friday the darkened streets become the stage for the solemn processions of penitents.

[edit] See also

* List of the Roman Catholic dioceses of Spain

I think it's not what you wanted me to read.

You would think that the Catholic Church would be happier about homosexuality.

After all, it comprised the majority of their actions as child sex abusers (although there was some hetero action there), and you can't tell me that all they do in those monasteries is make wine and bread all day long.

Add to that the witch huntings and burnings, and allowing illiteracy to run rampant for prohibiting women from learning how to read and write.

All I praise the Catholic Church for was presserving some of the knowledge of the ancients. I admire their manuscripts (but I'm an art historian) and early codexes, the way these were made.

You would think that the Catholic Church would be happier about homosexuality.

After all, it comprised the majority of their actions as child sex abusers (although there was some hetero action there), and you can't tell me that all they do in those monasteries is make wine and bread all day long.

Most men who abuse male children are not homosexual.

"For the present discussion, the important point is that many child molesters cannot be meaningfully described as homosexuals, heterosexuals, or bisexuals (in the usual sense of those terms) because they are not really capable of a relationship with an adult man or woman. Instead of gender, their sexual attractions are based primarily on age. These individuals – who are often characterized as fixated – are attracted to children, not to men or women. "
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_molestation.html

I think it's not what you wanted me to read.

Oops, wrong link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Oops, wrong link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spain#Fall_of_Muslim_rule_and_unification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

Ah, these. I expected something about American gold.

UN has every right to do so. The "Government" or the "people" have to shut up when they become tyrannies by majorities. Rights are more important than "government", "people" or "sovereignty".

and yet, you bitch about George W. Bush when he violated the sovereignty of Iraq. I guess you like to pick and choose when it's ok for a governing body to violate the sovereignty of another nation don't ya?

and yet, you bitch about George W. Bush when he violated the sovereignty of Iraq. I guess you like to pick and choose when it's ok for a governing body to violate the sovereignty of another nation don't ya?

That's because I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT INVADING the crapsack countries this happens in. I'm talking about kicking them off UN or imposing sanctions.

That's because I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT INVADING the crapsack countries this happens in. I'm talking about kicking them off UN or imposing sanctions.

Like sanctions work.

Ah, these. I expected something about American gold.NOOOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

That's because I'm NOT TALKING ABOUT INVADING the crapsack countries this happens in. I'm talking about kicking them off UN or imposing sanctions.

UN has every right to do so. The "Government" or the "people" have to shut up when they become tyrannies by majorities. Rights are more important than "government", "people" or "sovereignty".

Sounds like you're ok with violating sovereignty of nations as long as it's for something you're in favor of. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, majority of humans are hypocrites.

Sounds like you're ok with violating sovereignty of nations as long as it's for something you're in favor of.
"Nations" are just abstract entities; they don't have "rights" that override the rights of actual people.

Sounds like you're ok with violating sovereignty of nations as long as it's for something you're in favor of. I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, majority of humans are hypocrites.

Again, please show where it is that I claimed to favor invasion.

To be expected from an ex-Nazi Pope.

Do we have any proof of the Ex part?

Do we have any proof of the Ex part?

That put an instant smile on my face. :D

In this one case? Because he's wishing death upon thousands of people based on who they fuck. That's why.

This is God speaking, and he is angry with you: "WHOM!"

"Nations" are just abstract entities; they don't have "rights" that override the rights of actual people.

This ^

To speak of "violating sovereignty" is really, in and of itself, meaningless. Nations are invisible lines, a nothing, a concept that has no real truth to it. Instead, you must think in terms of the people.
Use Iraq as an example: the problem wasn't, as such, that we violated some government's sovereignty; it's that we are violating the people.
Now, to a degree, we should respect the "sovereignty" of governments inasmuch as they are institutions for the people, but only to that extent. But if the government is oppressive or discriminatory, then no whining about sovereignty will mitigate the fact that we ought to apply pressure upon them to change their laws, because the government is not serving the purpose for which it ought to exist. This does not mean military invasion-- the consequences of such an action are great loss of life, destruction, chaos, all generally undesirable things. In the majority of situations, other options are better. Sanctions for noncompliance, but also incentives for compliance. The specifics on this, of course, vary based on the situation; every situation is unique and must be handled based on the relevant facts.

It's the same fallacy that some in US politics make when they speak of "states' rights." Governments can not have rights, only powers, which are the very opposite of rights-- whereas rights are about acting free from interference of others, powers are about interfering with the actions of others. Thus, we only delegate governments powers-- and thus lose freedoms-- as a part of a bargain. I trade my freedom to murder so that I can be protected from others attempting to murder. I trade a portion of my paycheck so that there are roads, police, and healthcare(well, not yet, in this case) available to me.
The doctrine of sovereignty is no more than an acceptance of the ideology that claims that governments have rights, that the abstract entity of the nation-state is more important than the reality of people.

So, in this case, the UN should pass a resolution. Discrimination is a violation against the people, even if it only directly impacts the minority in any given situation. Even if a bigoted majority favor discrimination, the human rights of the minority should not be subject to vote. Unless all of us are equal, none of us are equal.

In order to be instituted, beliefs have to be based on logic, not on mythology.

Logic is a myth.

Logic is a myth.
Boom!

The Vatican has voiced its position AGAINST the proposal at the UN, coming from the French government, asking all UN countries to eliminate prosecution of homosexuality. Rev.Lombardi (spokesman for the pope) says in an interview to La Repubblica that "It [the proposal] would introduce a declaration with political value, which could have impact over laws. That would lead to mark as 'violating human rights' any law that doesn't equate all sexual preferences" (translation mine, sorry for eventual inaccuracies).

It must be noted that in some countries where homosexuality is considered a crime, the death penalty is applied.

Interestingly enough, isn't the Vatican one of those countries who always blabber about "sanctity of life" when it comes to abortion? Doesn't the death sentence infringe the "sanctity of life"?

gasp. it is almost as if the catholic church isn't as benevolent as it likes you to think.

gasp. it is almost as if the catholic church isn't as benevolent as it likes you to think.

Gasp indeed. Next you'll hear that they tell Africans that westerners intentionally coat condoms with HIV in a conspiracy to destroy Africa, that way they'll not use condoms when they have sex, thus contributing to the spread of the virus.


Naaaah, they'd never (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm) do that...

Interesting position: The Vatican resisted turning over records involving pedophile priests because they felt that forgiveness in the eyes of God was enough, but apparently for homosexuality it isn't.

"They always want to know what Jesus would've done. They don't want to know so they can do it; they want to know so they can tell other people to do it." -George Carlin.

Ah, these. I expected something about American gold.

Boo boo bee boo, you're disappointed.:rolleyes:

Interesting position: The Vatican resisted turning over records involving pedophile priests because they felt that forgiveness in the eyes of God was enough, but apparently for homosexuality it isn't.

"They always want to know what Jesus would've done. They don't want to know so they can do it; they want to know so they can tell other people to do it." -George Carlin.

The Catholic Church operates in a bizarre logic similar to the one used by the Boy Scouts of America, where if you ban openly gay men from becoming scoutmasters it'll magically keep the kids from being molested during the jamborees.

Like if any of those nations are going to follow the UN mandate even if it passes... Thread made me lol...

Naaaah, they'd never (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7014335.stm) do that...

Yes, because one Archbishop represents the whole of the Catholic Church.

Do we have any proof of the Ex part?

The Ex was used, perhaps wrongly of me. He was, after all, one of Hitler's Youth kids. But I would like you to read through this article: http://atheism.about.com/od/benedictxvi/i/RatzingerNazi.htm.

I will quote some things in particular that explain my dislike of Pope Benedict and why, to me, he's no better than an ex-Nazi.

None of the other Germans who joined the Hitler Youth, were part of the military in Nazi Germany, lived near a concentration camp, and watched Jews being rounded up for death camps has ever become pope.

The past actions — or inactions — of such a person matter a great deal if anyone is going to treat him as any sort of moral authority. Ratzinger’s recollections of his youth in Nazi Germany makes it seem as though all the problems, violence, and hatred existed outside his local community. There is no recognition that resistance to the Nazis existed — or was needed — just outside his door.

Which is true. I don't condone any leader coming to a different country and say how things have to be done and run.

What, like America does? Constantly?
Good grief, this thread is silly.

The Catholic church's position on this issue is stupid, in my opinion, but it's utterly nonsensical to claim that it supports the death penalty for homosexuals, given that the Church has very vocally and explicitly opposed the death penalty across the board for some time now. It's also stupid, if predictable, to whine about how Benedict was in the Hitler Youth as if that is relevant, given that no matter how much I disagree with Benedict, there is no actual evidence to suggest that he agrees with any Nazi beliefs, and plenty to suggest that he does not. It is furthermore stupid and offensive to make comments about how all Catholic priests really want to screw altar boys. Yes, some priests did reprehensible things, and yes, the Church did a piss-poor job of handling the situation, but that in no way justifies claiming that every priest is a wannabe child rapist, given that most of them are almost certainly fairly nice guys with no interest in raping children. Come on, people. Argue against the Catholic church's position rather than fighting strawmen about capital punishment or effectively making "ad ecclesiam" comments, so to speak.

Quoted for truth.. Well said.

What, like America does? Constantly?

Not only America, China did it to Tibet, Germany did it to Poland, America does it everywhere. I don't condone it from any country. It's disrespectful.

Not only America, China did it to Tibet, Germany did it to Poland, America does it everywhere. I don't condone it from any country. It's disrespectful.

Atleast you're consistent, heh. But true, good point. I guess because they're a religion, it's a bit different to a country doing it. I expect it from religions -- it's what they've been doing forever. Countries have less of a right to do it.. Not that that excuses it entirely.

Atleast you're consistent, heh. But true, good point. I guess because they're a religion, it's a bit different to a country doing it. I expect it from religions -- it's what they've been doing forever. Countries have less of a right to do it.. Not that that excuses it entirely.

It's just that I think that who better than the people from the country in question to know how to rule the country? If the Pope wants to rule and do things his way, he has the Vatican City for that. It's a bitch that he wants to stick his nose in other countries' politics.

It's just that I think that who better than the people from the country in question to know how to rule the country? If the Pope wants to rule and do things his way, he has the Vatican City for that. It's a bitch that he wants to stick his nose in other countries' politics.

But you know he will, as will every other Pope to come.. It's the reality of religion and it won't stop anytime soon.

But you know he will, as will every other Pope to come.. It's the reality of religion and it won't stop anytime soon.

Unfortunately you're right. But the Catholic Church, as an institution, should just take it's place in ancient history and let the world move forward. And ancient history, although relevant because it tells us who we were, has no place anymore in current politics. I would hate to see a repeat of the Dark Ages when the Church was the ultimate authority. Only fear and ignorance prevail in such times, and I am a staunch admirer of Medieval art, but the rampant ignorance that was perpetuated to the masses, an ignorance that was sponsored by the Church... that's something I would never want to see happen again.

It's just that I think that who better than the people from the country in question to know how to rule the country?

You know I hate to disagree with you, Nana-chan, but - given the last eight years of 'someone from this country', and the insightful opinions that non-Americans have often given... that's not as Golden a Rule as it might be. :)

You would think that the Catholic Church would be happier about homosexuality.

After all, it comprised the majority of their actions as child sex abusers (although there was some hetero action there), and you can't tell me that all they do in those monasteries is make wine and bread all day long.

What so if they didn't think homosexual acts where wrong it would mean there wouldn't be anything wrong child abuse, and that the church would support child abuse? Or maybe your saying that only homosexuals are child abusers?

Add to that the witch huntings and burnings, and allowing illiteracy to run rampant for prohibiting women from learning how to read and write.

while you can criticise the past you can't say how bad they are now by saying hos bad there were in the past now. It would be similar to saying that Spain is an evil country because it invaded the Americas or that Germany gasses it jews.

But you know he will, as will every other Pope to come.. It's the reality of religion and it won't stop anytime soon.

Well it's the relaity of the world and we will always see government leaders do it too.

Yes, because one Archbishop represents the whole of the Catholic Church.

He is an official representative of the Church, and not some minor backwater priest-- he's an Archbishop! And, to my knowledge, the Church has yet to distance itself from his actions or condemn him in any way over them. If they don't actively support him, then the least that can be said is that they do not particularly mind him helping the spread of AIDS as long as he stops people from using condoms.
Were they to discipline him in some way, apologize, and clarify that their representatives are not to spread lies that will spread deadly viruses, then I would be a bit more understanding-- though I'd question the delay in doing so.

Unfortunately you're right. But the Catholic Church, as an institution, should just take it's place in ancient history and let the world move forward. And ancient history, although relevant because it tells us who we were, has no place anymore in current politics. I would hate to see a repeat of the Dark Ages when the Church was the ultimate authority. Only fear and ignorance prevail in such times, and I am a staunch admirer of Medieval art, but the rampant ignorance that was perpetuated to the masses, an ignorance that was sponsored by the Church... that's something I would never want to see happen again.
It's a little naive to associate the Dark Ages with fear and ignorance; it assumes they miraculously stopped in 1439. They didn't, they just took on different flavors, and the only advantage to these flavors is that they're modern ones.

He is an official representative of the Church, and not some minor backwater priest-- he's an Archbishop! And, to my knowledge, the Church has yet to distance itself from his actions or condemn him in any way over them. If they don't actively support him, then the least that can be said is that they do not particularly mind him helping the spread of AIDS as long as he stops people from using condoms.
Were they to discipline him in some way, apologize, and clarify that their representatives are not to spread lies that will spread deadly viruses, then I would be a bit more understanding-- though I'd question the delay in doing so.

All true and I agree. What I was saying though is that one obviously crazy Catholic does not truly represent the whole Catholic Church -- regardless of his position... Except maybe the Pope.... Sometimes.

All true and I agree. What I was saying though is that one obviously crazy Catholic does not truly represent the whole Catholic Church -- regardless of his position... Except maybe the Pope.... Sometimes.

I certainly did not mean to imply that every Catholic agrees with him-- merely that, given that they have neither retracted his statements nor disciplined him nor even criticized him, that I would think that his statements to have some degree of official backing, given that, again, he's a damn Archbishop-- not some backwater priest.

But plenty of Catholics, certainly, do not agree with every official point of doctrine or every action of the Church -- some think that homosexuality is perfectly fine; some think that non-Christians do not necessarily suffer unimaginable torment for eternity in Hell; some are perfectly willing to use birth control. I would not think to criticize any individual for this man's actions if they did not support them, but I will criticize the organization he speaks on behalf of until they make it clear that they do not condone his actions and that spreading lies and aiding the spread of a horrible disease shall not be tolerated.

I certainly did not mean to imply that every Catholic agrees with him-- merely that, given that they have neither retracted his statements nor disciplined him nor even criticized him, that I would think that his statements to have some degree of official backing, given that, again, he's a damn Archbishop-- not some backwater priest.

But plenty of Catholics, certainly, do not agree with every official point of doctrine or every action of the Church -- some think that homosexuality is perfectly fine; some think that non-Christians do not necessarily suffer unimaginable torment for eternity in Hell; some are perfectly willing to use birth control. I would not think to criticize any individual for this man's actions if they did not support them, but I will criticize the organization he speaks on behalf of until they make it clear that they do not condone his actions and that spreading lies and aiding the spread of a horrible disease shall not be tolerated.

Hmm, I get what you're saying and it is very disappointing that the Church hasn't come out openly against this fool. But there are priests and lay people who do openly oppose the Church's teaching. Here (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20879) is an interesting article I found which shows there are those who are Catholic and working to stop HIV/AIDs..

Hmm, I get what you're saying and it is very disappointing that the Church hasn't come out openly against this fool. But there are priests and lay people who do openly oppose the Church's teaching. Here (http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=20879) is an interesting article I found which shows there are those who are Catholic and working to stop HIV/AIDs..

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I think that the reason they don't come out against it is because the higher ups aren't against his actions.

I applaud the efforts of anybody who sets aside ideology in order to do noble work like fighting AIDS, however, even if they belong to an organization that actively subverts their goal.

Perhaps I'm just cynical, but I think that the reason they don't come out against it is because the higher ups aren't against his actions.

I applaud the efforts of anybody who sets aside ideology in order to do noble work like fighting AIDS, however, even if they belong to an organization that actively subverts their goal.

Hmm, I find it hard to believe that they aren't... But I dunno, can't say for sure. This Catholic certainly is.

I know I'm late coming to this, but damn, I love it when Pope Benny shows his true colors. And I'm eagerly waiting for all the liberal priests to backpedal in a gloriously vain attempt to reconcile what they really believe with what the Pope tells them to believe.

How soon do you think it will be before liberal Catholics and conservative Catholics part ways and we have yet another schism?

Listening to the Vatican should be a crime punishable by death... that'll shut them up.

the vatican may be a pretty window dressing, but i really don't see how its a standard of anything.

It's a little naive to associate the Dark Ages with fear and ignorance; it assumes they miraculously stopped in 1439.

Quite off-topic, but why do you place the end of the Dark Ages in 1439?

To be expected from an ex-Nazi Pope.

He wasn't a Nazi.

Boo boo bee boo, you're disappointed.:rolleyes:

Surprised? After being declared too dumb to partake in the discussion, I hoped I'll learn something new to me.

Particularly after you almost claimed it was the Church who sacked Tenochtitlan, robbed Inca and Aztec gold and drove the locals to work in silver mines, with only a bit of help from military contractors called the conquistadors. Perhaps I wasn't reading it with enough focus, but I didn't see it anywhere in the text that the Vatican was all behind this, and all that precious metals went directly into Rome's coffers.

And I hoped NSG's favourite poster wouldn't resort to Andaras-style "lol u so ful of shit u no it". If conquest of Americas was orchestrated by the Church, also being its primary direct beneficient, back it up with some sources, instead of showing how stupid I am, because I do not know the "obvious truth" that Vatican is the synthesis of all evils.

And no, the actions of Spanish theocratic Gestapo, however bad they were, does not prove anything here. Were I skilled in rhetoric, I could probably name this rhetorical figure, I'm pretty sure it has its name. Dismissing opponent's point by claiming what he argues for done something bad in a different case.

He wasn't a Nazi.

You're right, he IS a Nazi. Africa, with the AIDS? That's his own personal holocaust right there.

Well the Vatican didn't say they want them all dead, just they will reject the resolution. I don't think they should be stoned, but in the end that's because I grew up in a tolerant family and have two gay brothers. If I was born in the Middle-East it would be a different story.

I dont see why people use the past to insult the Vatican, you cannot blame Germans for the Holocaust or Japanese for there horrible treatment of POWs but oh god that was nothing compared to what the Vatican did centuries ago :P

The Spanish killed the Aztecs and Incas simply as that, church had nothing to do with it really except to make sure the local population was converted...by the way :P

It's a UN Resolution, not like it will be taken seriously anyway.

Listening to the Vatican should be a crime punishable by death... that'll shut them up.

I agree with you. :)

You know I hate to disagree with you, Nana-chan, but - given the last eight years of 'someone from this country', and the insightful opinions that non-Americans have often given... that's not as Golden a Rule as it might be. :)

To disagree is human.:wink:

I'm well aware that that's not a Golden Rule, but I still think it's disrespectful that, say, I come to your country and tell your rulers how to rule. The particular idiosincracies of a country, provided there's a healthy environment, are best known by those living in the country in question.

Some countries may need added help, but that's still no reason to say a foreigner may rule a country better than a local person.

You're right, he IS a Nazi. Africa, with the AIDS? That's his own personal holocaust right there.

You're not very bright, are you?

You're not very bright, are you?

Actually, Rusty, I am. I am, however, merciful as well. Which is why I'm giving you the opportunity to rethink your challenge to my intellect before I prove it on you.

Surprised? After being declared too dumb to partake in the discussion, I hoped I'll learn something new to me.

Have I ever said you're too dumb to partake on a discussion? No. If you consider yourself too dumb to partake in a discussion, that's your own assertion. I don't know you to say those things.

Particularly after you almost claimed it was the Church who sacked Tenochtitlan, robbed Inca and Aztec gold and drove the locals to work in silver mines, with only a bit of help from military contractors called the conquistadors. Perhaps I wasn't reading it with enough focus, but I didn't see it anywhere in the text that the Vatican was all behind this, and all that precious metals went directly into Rome's coffers.

Where it comes to the Americas and Spain, yes, the Church was behind many of the injustices. Ask people from countries like Peru. Places that had their own inquisitions and that suffered their own witch huntings. Places that were ensalved not only by the conquistadores but also by the very Church claiming to come in peace to bring the love of God. Places that were stripped on their native population not only by the abuses of the Spanish, but also by Church officials.

And you fail to see that I'm not referring to the Vatican, I'm referring to the Church in Spain and the history of it in the country. Well into the Modern era, Spain had a Holy Inquisition, an organization that's well known historically to be an opressive and abusive one. And this Inquisition came to the Americas with the conquerors. Read what's farther than your nose.

But you don't need me to tell you these things, right? You're well acquianted with them. Aren't you?

And I hoped NSG's favourite poster wouldn't resort to Andaras-style "lol u so ful of shit u no it". If conquest of Americas was orchestrated by the Church, also being its primary direct beneficient, back it up with some sources, instead of showing how stupid I am, because I do not know the "obvious truth" that Vatican is the synthesis of all evils.

The Vatican is many things. Did I say it was the synthesis of all evils? No, you're coming to that conclusion of my allegations on your own. Did I also say the Vatican was behind the conquest of the Americas? No, I did not say that either. But it was as much of a direct beneficiary as the Spanish monarchy was. Go to Spain, take a look as the magnificent altars of our churches. Take a look at the gold that ornaments them richly. That gold was brought to the Peninsula, extracted from American mines with the blood and sweat and death of thousands of natives.

As for your Andaras reference, please. I am not like that troll nor I resort to insulting people. I have manners, which is something that perhaps many people here should learn. If one of your fuses is short, don't blame me for it.

And no, the actions of Spanish theocratic Gestapo, however bad they were, does not prove anything here. Were I skilled in rhetoric, I could probably name this rhetorical figure, I'm pretty sure it has its name. Dismissing opponent's point by claiming what he argues for done something bad in a different case.

I advice you to read the links I provided with thought and care. You may find and understand a few things. And if you think that by calling Spain a theocratic Gestapo you're offending me, you're solely mistaken. I'm not blind to my country's mistakes. I know them very well.

while you can criticise the past you can't say how bad they are now by saying hos bad there were in the past now. It would be similar to saying that Spain is an evil country because it invaded the Americas or that Germany gasses it jews.

All I can say about this is to please, check again the policy the Catholic Church adopts in regards to equality (women are not allowed to be priests) and gay rights.

You may not agree with something, yes, that still gives you no right, Pope or not, to interfere with the work of the government. That's precisely why there's a clear separation, in the Western World, of church and state.

And besides, why interfere with a government wanting to grant gay people the right to marry whom they will and not say something when innocent people are massacred? The Church surely didn't do a thing when Franco was killing those who opposed him when he was in power. It also turned a blind eye to the Jewish genocided in WWII.

Hmm, I find it hard to believe that they aren't... But I dunno, can't say for sure. This Catholic certainly is.

Well, the only alternate explanation that I can really think of is that they are cowards willing to let people die horrible deaths just so they don't have to hurt the organization's credibility, which... isn't much better, really.
But again, that might just be my cynic coming out.

Maybe Ratzlinger is gay, no?

Maybe Ratzlinger is gay, no?

Would you hit that?:eek2:

Google Search:

Results 1 - 10 of about 675,000 for Ratzinger+gay

Results 1 - 10 of about 53,900 for Ratzinger+not gay

So he's gay :)

Would you hit that?:eek2:

No me hace vomitar, Sieptima Luna! >_<

No me hace vomitar, Sieptima Luna! >_<

Desculpe, irmãozinho! :eek2:

You're right, he IS a Nazi. Africa, with the AIDS? That's his own personal holocaust right there.

I can always rely to get a laugh from you every now and then, H2.

Desculpe, irmãozinho! :eek2:

Todo bién.

("Hermanito"? o_O)

I can always rely to get a laugh from you every now and then, H2.

That's because you can grasp the concept of hyperbole.

Todo bién.

("Hermanito"? o_O)

No te gusta que te diga hermanito? O.o

Vamos, pues te diré "companheira".

All I can say about this is to please, check again the policy the Catholic Church adopts in regards to equality (women are not allowed to be priests) and gay rights.

You may not agree with something, yes, that still gives you no right, Pope or not, to interfere with the work of the government. That's precisely why there's a clear separation, in the Western World, of church and state.

And besides, why interfere with a government wanting to grant gay people the right to marry whom they will and not say something when innocent people are massacred? The Church surely didn't do a thing when Franco was killing those who opposed him when he was in power. It also turned a blind eye to the Jewish genocided in WWII.

Well why don't you say how bad the church is by focusing on its current teachings and doctrines rather than saying they are bad because they instituted the Spanish Inquisition.

Most certainly I think that the local government and the people of a country are the ones who get to decide how their country is run, not the Vatican, not the UN and not any other country, their leaders or other organisations. Which is part of the reason for this opposition to this proposal so that outsiders do not rule another country.

Now I can't say much about Franco but how many people knew about the Holocaust and the death camps (which included people other than Jews as well btw) during WWII? Did the Vatican have inside knowledge on what was happening? What about other countries? Did the British know thy were sending Jews back to their death when they refused Jewish refugees?

No te gusta que te diga hermanito? O.o

Vamos, pues te diré "companheira".

Me gusta, solo me sorpreende. :)

Y "companheira" es feminino. :)

Maybe Ratzlinger is gay, no?

There is only one way to know for sure... thumb screws!


What? They said it was ok....

Maybe Ratzlinger is gay, no?

He is not a member of the Republican party.

That's because you can grasp the concept of hyperbole.

Well, I see, ok then.

Thie Vatican ies naais.

It's like a Disneyland for christians. In the streets around Vatican, you can buy virtual everything holding a picture of the pope.

I was amazed that people actual do buy those stuffs.

Thie Vatican ies naais.

It's like a Disneyland for christians. In the streets around Vatican, you can buy virtual everything holding a picture of the pope.

I was amazed that people actual do buy those stuffs.

streets around Vatican City = simony fair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simony)

« O Simon mago, o miseri seguaci
che le cose di Dio, che di bontate
deon essere spose, e voi rapaci
per oro e per argento avolterate,
or convien che per voi suoni la tromba,
però che ne la terza bolgia state. »

Dante Alighieri, Inferno XIX

Well why don't you say how bad the church is by focusing on its current teachings and doctrines rather than saying they are bad because they instituted the Spanish Inquisition.

I just told you. Check it's position in regards to gender equality and gay rights. I'm not only suscribing to the Church's past, but also it's present.

Most certainly I think that the local government and the people of a country are the ones who get to decide how their country is run, not the Vatican, not the UN and not any other country, their leaders or other organisations. Which is part of the reason for this opposition to this proposal so that outsiders do not rule another country.

And I already said I agree with that. If the Pope were protesting this as the authority in the Vatican City, I do not begrudge him that. It's when he goes outside of his sphere to stick his hand in other countries' business of ruling. I gave you the case that pertains me the most, which is what he did in Spain.

Now I can't say much about Franco but how many people knew about the Holocaust and the death camps (which included people other than Jews as well btw) during WWII? Did the Vatican have inside knowledge on what was happening? What about other countries? Did the British know thy were sending Jews back to their death when they refused Jewish refugees?

Do you, sweetie, understand that I am not referring to Vatican alone but to the Church, as an institution which is supposed to see to the spiritual well being of it's followers? The Catholic Church in Germany, as an example, knew that the Jewish community in Germany, and the Gypsy and people suffering of physical condition as well as mental were slowly being confined to concentration camps.

Me gusta, solo me sorpreende. :)

Vale, hermanito entonces. :wink:

Y "companheira" es feminino. :)

El puto traductor de Google me tomó el pelo!!!:$

Now I can't say much about Franco but how many people knew about the Holocaust and the death camps (which included people other than Jews as well btw) during WWII? Did the Vatican have inside knowledge on what was happening? What about other countries? Did the British know thy were sending Jews back to their death when they refused Jewish refugees?

Pope Pius XII (quod wiki) knew. We might argue that he didn't do very much against the Holocaust because he feared that he could become a target for nazis and fascists, but he knew.

excerpts from wiki follow:

In 1940 Pius asked members of the clergy, on Vatican letterhead, to do whatever they could on behalf of interred Jews.[148]

In 1941, Cardinal Theodor Innitzer of Vienna informed Pius of Jewish deportations in Vienna.[142] Later that year, when asked by French Marshal Philippe Pétain if the Vatican objected to anti-Jewish laws, Pius responded that the church condemned antisemitism, but would not comment on specific rules.[142] Similarly, when Pétain's puppet government adopted the "Jewish statutes," the Vichy ambassador to the Vatican, Léon Bérard, was told that the legislation did not conflict with Catholic teachings.[149] Valerio Valeri, the nuncio to France was "embarrassed" when he learned of this publicly from Pétain[150] and personally checked the information with Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione[151] who confirmed the Vatican's position.[152] In September 1941 Pius objected to a Slovakian Jewish Code,[153] which, unlike the earlier Vichy codes, prohibited intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews.[154] In October 1941 Harold Tittman, a U.S. delegate to the Vatican, asked the pope to condemn the atrocities against Jews; Pius replied that the Vatican wished to remain "neutral,"[155] reiterating the neutrality policy which Pius invoked as early as September 1940.[149]

In 1942, the Slovakian charge d'affaires, told Pius that Slovakian Jews were being sent to concentration camps.[142]

On September 18, 1942, Pius received a letter from Monsignor Montini (future Pope Paul VI), saying, "the massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms."[142] Later that month, Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned Pius that the Vatican's "moral prestige" was being injured by silence on European atrocities — a warning which was echoed simultaneously by representatives from Great Britain, Brazil, Uruguay, Belgium, and Poland[157] — the Cardinal Secretary of State replied that the rumors about genocide could not be verified.[158] In December 1942, when Tittman asked Cardinal Secretary of State Maglione if Pius would issue a proclamation similar to the Allied declaration "German Policy of Extermination of the Jewish Race," Maglione replied that the Vatican was "unable to denounce publicly particular atrocities."[159]

He is not a member of the Republican party.

Ah, but they're plenty of gay people outside the US, as well. And he WOULD be in a pretty far-right party, so he MUST be gay. :D

Question for the pope:

Can we be homosexual if we swear we do not penetrate?

Question for the pope:

Can we be homosexual if we swear we do not penetrate?

HK, you're making me laugh.:D

*snipped for length*

So they did know about it, and did indeed speak ouit against it and was against it, but didn't want to say to much in order to protect themselves. I wonder if he had been much more vocal and tried to stop would Hitler move into Vatican City and even install an anti-pope? I shouldn't go on these flights of fancy on alternative history's

With who have all those Vatican men sex?

I just told you. Check it's position in regards to gender equality and gay rights. I'm not only suscribing to the Church's past, but also it's present.

Well yes I am aware of their positions, and I wouldn't have an problem people criticising them for that, but their past is different, to say why the church is bad because of what they did now is similar to saying that the US supports slavery because they previously had it.

And I already said I agree with that. If the Pope were protesting this as the authority in the Vatican City, I do not begrudge him that. It's when he goes outside of his sphere to stick his hand in other countries' business of ruling. I gave you the case that pertains me the most, which is what he did in Spain.

Yeah I know you did, I was just agreeing with your agreement :tongue:

Do you, sweetie, understand that I am not referring to Vatican alone but to the Church, as an institution which is supposed to see to the spiritual well being of it's followers? The Catholic Church in Germany, as an example, knew that the Jewish community in Germany, and the Gypsy and people suffering of physical condition as well as mental were slowly being confined to concentration camps.

Well yes ok then and I didn't understand I thought when you said the church the Vatican and the church as one and the same. Now some did indeed come out and they didn't speak out as much as they could have, though I wonder if the church in Germany had fear when they only said general stuff like they are against anti semantic laws.

With who have all those Vatican men sex?

This one doesn't make sense?

So they did know about it, and did indeed speak ouit against it and was against it, but didn't want to say to much in order to protect themselves. I wonder if he had been much more vocal and tried to stop would Hitler move into Vatican City and even install an anti-pope? I shouldn't go on these flights of fancy on alternative history's

I actually wonder about that too. Perhaps Musolinni wouldn't have let him set foot in Italy. But he did claim that Hitler betrayed him. Risottia, mind clarifying what transpired between Musolinni and Hitler?

Well yes I am aware of their positions, and I wouldn't have an problem people criticising them for that, but their past is different, to say why the church is bad because of what they did now is similar to saying that the US supports slavery because they previously had it.

I understand that. But history is supposed to teach us so we don't commit the same mistakes. I will clarify though that, I never had a problem with John Paul. But having Ratzinger makes me iffy.

Yeah I know you did, I was just agreeing with your agreement :tongue:

Agreed. :tongue:

Well yes ok then and I didn't understand I thought when you said the church the Vatican and the church as one and the same. Now some did indeed come out and they didn't speak out as much as they could have, though I wonder if the church in Germany had fear when they only said general stuff like they are against anti semantic laws.

The Vatican is the Holy See, where the Church's heart is located, but the Vatican and the Church, since the organization is divided in bishoprics and archbishoprics throught the world waren't always immediately aware of what's happening in one of the other. You see what I'm getting at?

I understand that. But history is supposed to teach us so we don't commit the same mistakes. I will clarify though that, I never had a problem with John Paul. But having Ratzinger makes me iffy.

Well indeed and we shouldn't forget what did happen, may be I get defensive because I have heard to many times that because of my German ancestry I must be a NAZI and hate all Jews because all Germans do, so my justification and reasoning extends to everything else. (I know you didn't say that Nanatsu but that may have influenced my thinking)

The Vatican is the Holy See, where the Church's heart is located, but the Vatican and the Church, since the organization is divided in bishoprics and archbishoprics throught the world waren't always immediately aware of what's happening in one of the other. You see what I'm getting at?

Yes I do see what you are saying there. And yes they would even individual dioceses would have different views and opinions on various issues, so yeah I see what your getting at.

Well indeed and we shouldn't forget what did happen, may be I get defensive because I have heard to many times that because of my German ancestry I must be a NAZI and hate all Jews because all Germans do, so my justification and reasoning extends to everything else. (I know you didn't say that Nanatsu but that may have influenced my thinking)

I conceed that I am prejudiced against Ratzinger because of his history as one of Hitler's Youth. I know he wasn't a member of the Nazi party. If my assertions, in any way offended you, Blouman, it wasn't my intention.

Yes I do see what you are saying there. And yes they would even individual dioceses would have different views and opinions on various issues, so yeah I see what your getting at.

Thanks for understaning my argument.

Without the Vatican, this thread would not exist.

I conceed that I am prejudiced against Ratzinger because of his history as one of Hitler's Youth. I know he wasn't a member of the Nazi party. If my assertions, in any way offended you, Blouman, it wasn't my intention.

Oh it wasn't that, after all I have said the same thing (that is don't judge on the past) to another poster who tried to say why I shouldn't support a party and it is hypocritical because in the past it had conscription as part of it's policy.

Thanks for understaning my argument.

Perfectly alright :)

Without the Vatican, this thread would not exist.

You wish! This is NSG. We would have found a way.

You wish! This is NSG. We would have found a way.

yeah there are a lot of other homophobic churches out there.

I'm wondering if there's something as homophobic homosexuals.

I'm wondering if there's something as homophobic homosexuals.

I'm sure there must be a case or 2. :p

I conceed that I am prejudiced against Ratzinger because of his history as one of Hitler's Youth. I know he wasn't a member of the Nazi party. If my assertions, in any way offended you, Blouman, it wasn't my intention.

Oh, so you hate all Germans.

Oh, so you hate all Germans.

Listen carefully, troll: While I am certain Nanatsu no Tsuki is perfectly capable of defending herself against the likes of you, I would like to point out that I AM still going to use you as my plaything in this forum should you ever offend her. That being said, she questioned RATZLINGER'S history, not anyone else's, and certainly not all Germans'. So you should feel free to discuss the very few things you actually have one iota of knowledge about.

Ok, the Vatican is hating homosexuals, fair for me.
But what do they say about bisexuals?
I never hear the Vatican complain about that specific disease.

Does this mean, you can enter the backdoor if you enter the front door as well?

I'm wondering if there's something as homophobic homosexuals.

Only if you define homophobics as anyone who while not having an aversion and/or a fear of homosexuals (as the definition of a phobia is) but may still be against various laws such as allowing them gay marriage or something else then yes there would be some.

And I suppose there would also be some who have an aversion to their own in fact I can tell you that is the case.

Listen carefully, troll: While I am certain Nanatsu no Tsuki is perfectly capable of defending herself against the likes of you, I would like to point out that I AM still going to use you as my plaything in this forum should you ever offend her. That being said, she questioned RATZLINGER'S history, not anyone else's, and cartainly not all Germans'. So you should feel free to discuss the very few things you actually have one iota of knowledge about.

I have the troll on Ignore List. Whatever he says is of no importance. Feel free, though, to play with him all you want, hermanito.:wink:

Oh, so you hate all Germans.

I would like to think she likes me, I like her :wink:

And no that isn't what she was saying at all

I have the troll on Ignore List. Whatever he says is of no importance. Feel free, though, to play with him all you want, hermanito.:wink:

It's a Hinamori-Hitsugaya thing. :p

It's a Hinamori-Hitsugaya thing. :p

And I like it that way, Ni-san!:D

Oh, so you hate all Germans.

Actually, because of the never-enough-remembered fact that even Germans are born and die eventually, most of the germans living today have never been in the Nazi Party or in the Hitler Youth.

Quite a trollish thing to say, that statement of yours. Shame on you, pal.

I would like to think she likes me, I like her :wink:

And no that isn't what she was saying at all

I like the Blouman kid. And he knows it.:wink:

Smell that? You smell that?
Troll, son. Nothing in the world smells like that.

[kneels]

I love the smell of trolls in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill flamed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know that trolling smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...

I like the Blouman kid. And he knows it.:wink:

Yes I know I just wanted to hear it one more time :tongue:

Listen carefully, troll: While I am certain Nanatsu no Tsuki is perfectly capable of defending herself against the likes of you, I would like to point out that I AM still going to use you as my plaything in this forum should you ever offend her. That being said, she questioned RATZLINGER'S history, not anyone else's, and certainly not all Germans'. So you should feel free to discuss the very few things you actually have one iota of knowledge about.

ALL young Germans were part of the Hitler Youth. Nanatsu just said that she hates them. Which I take as a personal insult as my grandfather was in the Hitler Youth.

So, Nanatsu; you got any beef with my dad, too? He was in Vietnam, you wanna call him a babykiller?

ALL young Germans were part of the Hitler Youth. Nanatsu just said that she hates them. Which I take as a personal insult as my grandfather was in the Hitler Youth.
Hating a person =/= insulting him.

Oh, so you hate all Germans.

ALL young Germans were part of the Hitler Youth. Nanatsu just said that she hates them. Which I take as a personal insult as my grandfather was in the Hitler Youth.

So, Nanatsu; you got any beef with my dad, too? He was in Vietnam, you wanna call him a babykiller?

Blatant trolling. Cut it out now.

Blatant trolling. Cut it out now.

How is it trolling? She insulted ME.

ALL young Germans were part of the Hitler Youth. Nanatsu just said that she hates them. Which I take as a personal insult as my grandfather was in the Hitler Youth.

So, Nanatsu; you got any beef with my dad, too? He was in Vietnam, you wanna call him a babykiller?

Perfect.

You mean the part in which she said she was prejudiced AGAINST RATZINGER because of HIS STORY in the Hitler's Youth? The fact that Ratzinger did jack shit against it while there were other Germans, Oskar Schindler comes to mind, who did quite a lot? Was your grandfather in them like Ratzinger was, not doing a thing against them, not even with subterfuge, as opposed to Schindler? If he was, guess what: He DESERVES WHAT HEAT HE GETS.

That you are unable to interpret a statement beyond seeing it as a generalization is YOUR problem, YOURS AND YOURS ALONE.

That you compare Nazism and Vietnam is idiotic, and reeks of lack of knowledge of basic history.

And that you take an insult about Ratzinger to mean an insult to all Germans in general and your dear old grandfather (wonder how he'd react to being used as a PROP by you) in particular shows your inability to discuss without resorting to idiotic distortions and misrepresentations.

I don't even know why I'm wasting my breath on the likes of you, but there you have it. This conversation is over. You would do well not to humiliate yourself further.

How is it trolling? She insulted ME.

So, you're Joseph Ratzinger now? Cute. Show me how much Latin you know, Benny.

ALL young Germans were part of the Hitler Youth. Not actually true. My Grandfather, for one, wasn't. However, FO is correct in pointing out that you often didn't have much of a choice in joining the HJ, Pimpfe, or BDM.
So, you're Joseph Ratzlinger now? Cute. Show me how much Latin you know, Benny.If you have to spout nonsense, you could at the very least learn how to spell his name.

Not actually true. My Grandfather, for one, wasn't. However, FO is correct in pointing out that you often didn't have much of a choice in joining the HJ, Pimpfe, or BDM.
If you have to spout nonsense, you could at the very least learn how to spell his name.

1- Still doesn't justify Rusty claiming offense or claiming Nanatsu was offending him.

2- Fixed. I have no idea what is it that drives me to make this one mistake so often. I guess I should just call him Hitler Jugend Papst instead.

You mean the part in which she said she was prejudiced AGAINST RATZLINGER because of HIS STORY in the Hitler's Youth? The fact that Ratzlinger did jack shit against it while there were other Germans, Oskar Schindler comes to mind, who did quite a lot? Was your grandfather in them like Ratzlinger was, not doing a thing against them, not even with subterfuge, as opposed to Schindler? If he was, guess what: He DESERVES WHAT HEAT HE GETS.

Unfair comparison, Ratzinger and probably his father were in their teens during the war and when Hitler came to power Ratzinger was a very young boy. Now how could they know exactly what was going on? Did you know everything that was going on in Brazil when you were very young? Would you know as much if the government was controlling your information and spreading propaganda? No you would Schindler was an adult and in his 20's and unlike a child was able to see a lot more of what was going on. So no, H2 he does not deserve the heat that he gets.

1- Still doesn't justify Rusty claiming offense or claiming Nanatsu was offending him.Not offense, but any statements insinuating that Ratzinger was a Nazi based solely on the fact that he was coerced to join the Nazi youth organization are pretty dumb, and he was correct in pointing that out.
2- Fixed. I have no idea what is it that drives me to make this one mistake so often. I guess I should just call him Hitler Jugend Papst instead.Also incorrect, as shown above.

1- Still doesn't justify Rusty claiming offense or claiming Nanatsu was offending him.

Indeed. I did not post the fact that Ratzinger was in HY to offend FO. Actually, he's on my Ignore List. I was talking solely about Ratzinger, not about Germany as a whole.

Same thing as I don't think all Germans are ex-Nazi or Jewish haters. I know they're not. That FO takes offense is both ridiculous, because he's not German, and trollish.

Not actually true. My Grandfather, for one, wasn't. However, FO is correct in pointing out that you often didn't have much of a choice in joining the HJ, Pimpfe, or BDM.

How did he get out of it?

How did he get out of it?He was 3 when the war started, and the family fled when he was about old enough to join the Pimpfe. Plus, his father managed to dodge the draft. Living in East Prussia may have had something to do with it as well, but I never really bothered to ask.

Not offense, but any statements insinuating that Ratzinger was a Nazi based solely on the fact that he was coerced to join the Nazi youth organization are pretty dumb, and he was correct in pointing that out.

I did not insinuate that at all, Laerod. Actually, I clarified my point several posts down this thread, since I did make a mistake. If you want to read these, I'll link you to them.

I did not insinuate that at all, Laerod. Actually, I clarified my point several posts down this thread, since I did make a mistake. If you want to read these, I'll link you to them.Heikoku, on the other hand, keeps doing it. It's a general statement meant to apply to anyone doing it.

Heikoku, on the other hand, keeps doing it. It's a general statement meant to apply to anyone doing it.

Heikoku is actually reacting to FO's stupidity. I don't condone generalizations, true, but I do understand H2's reaction. FO is a troll.

Heikoku is actually reacting to FO's stupidity. I don't condone generalizations, true, but I do understand H2's reaction. FO is a troll.

Gracias. :D

That FO takes offense is both ridiculous, because he's not German, and trollish.

Well, for one, my mother's German, and European-Australians keep very close ties to their mother countries and take great pride in their heritage. It's not like America where everybody integrates as soon as possible.

Heikoku is actually reacting to FO's stupidity. I don't condone generalizations, true, but I do understand H2's reaction. FO is a troll.Heikoku isn't all that innocent. He's been trolling as well, as far as I can tell. FO being a troll doesn't excuse his behavior.

Heikoku, on the other hand, keeps doing it. It's a general statement meant to apply to anyone doing it.

Generally speaking, I would not mark Ratzinger's past in the Hitler Youth if he preached anything remotely resembling tolerance.

Oh, and, what Nanatsu said. >.>

Well, for one, my mother's German, and European-Australians keep very close ties to their mother countries and take great pride in their heritage. It's not like America where everybody integrates as soon as possible.And yet, you don't speak a word of German...

Well, for one, my mother's German, and European-Australians keep very close ties to their mother countries and take great pride in their heritage. It's not like America where everybody integrates as soon as possible.

And what the hell is it that you want? An apology? Considering she did not criticize all Germans OR your family and considering you are the one using your family as props in an Internet spar, I can be pretty sure you're not getting one and fairly certain as to why not.

Generally speaking, I would not mark Ratzinger's past in the Hitler Youth if he preached anything remotely resembling tolerance.

Oh, and, what Nanatsu said. >.>He does. If you paid attention to his speeches, you notice. He just happens to be intolerant of gays, which stands in stark contrast to his behavior towards a number of other groups, in particular other religions.

And yet, you don't speak a word of German...

They never bothered to teach me when I was young. One set of grandparents wanted me to speak German, the other set wanted me to speak Ukrainian, so my mother ended up only teaching me English.

Heikoku isn't all that innocent. He's been trolling as well, as far as I can tell. FO being a troll doesn't excuse his behavior.

I can understand that, perfectly. But sometimes with trolls like FO, losing one's temper is unavoidable. Heikoku isn't all that innocent as you claim, but I do understand, once again, why he's doing this.

As for FO's motives, I don't understand nor care about. But by all means, if you think my posts regarding Ratzinger and Hitler's Youth are offending you, as a person and as a German, have my deepest aplologies.

He does. If you paid attention to his speeches, you notice. He just happens to be intolerant of gays, which stands in stark contrast to his behavior towards a number of other groups, in particular other religions.

That's true, he's been very reconciliatory towards the Muslims.

As for FO's motives, I don't understand nor care about. But by all means, if you think my posts regarding Ratzinger and Hitler's Youth are offending you, as a person and as a German, have my deepest aplologies.

Thank you.

And yet, you don't speak a word of German...

Ich sprache nur ein bischen. Mein vater... er... was in Germany for a while, and I picked some up from his habit to speak whatever foreign language he knew at me. :p

As I said, nur ein bischen. :p

And yet, you don't speak a word of German...

Sorry but what does that have to do with it? You can keep close ties and find out information on the tradition and culture of the father country and even act as though you are in it, without needing to know the language. I would say he is correct a lot of Australians do have some sort of connection back with the country of their family, even I keep it on the Bavarian side, but I can speak some German though. :p

Generally speaking, I would not mark Ratzinger's past in the Hitler Youth if he preached anything remotely resembling tolerance.

Oh, and, what Nanatsu said. >.>

Him personally or what the religion says?

I would say he is correct a lot of Australians do have some sort of connection back with the country of their family, even I keep it on the Bavarian side, but I can speak some German though. :p

Man, we built up an entire industry around not integrating. It's called the sports industry.

Him personally or what the religion says?

He's the POPE. His religion says what HE says. :p

I can understand that, perfectly. But sometimes with trolls like FO, losing one's temper is unavoidable. Heikoku isn't all that innocent as you claim, but I do understand, once again, why he's doing this.

As for FO's motives, I don't understand nor care about. But by all means, if you think my posts regarding Ratzinger and Hitler's Youth are offending you, as a person and as a German, have my deepest aplologies.I honestly haven't read your posts, so I'm not going to judge them. What I do know is that Heikoku has been nearly as disruptive as FO, and that he has been making trollish statements about Ratzinger even before FO started involving himself in his thread. That's in part why I responded when I did and how I did.

He's the POPE. His religion says what HE says. :p

Well then yes and no but still.

Actually let me ask you this. Are you posting stuff at the moment to play with FeO and not really believing everything you say? I would like to know so it doesn't infuriate me when an obivously smart poster begins to talk some nonsense (such as because a 12 year old didn't speak out that means he endorsed it)

Sorry but what does that have to do with it? You can keep close ties and find out information on the tradition and culture of the father country and even act as though you are in it, without needing to know the language. I would say he is correct a lot of Australians do have some sort of connection back with the country of their family, even I keep it on the Bavarian side, but I can speak some German though. :pCan't really claim the "close ties" if you can't communicate in their mother tongue.

Well then yes and no but still.

Actually let me ask you this. Are you posting stuff at the moment to play with FeO and not really believing everything you say? I would like to know so it doesn't infuriate me when an obivously smart poster begins to talk some nonsense (such as because a 12 year old didn't speak out that means he endorsed it)

Answered in private.

Man, we built up an entire industry around not integrating. It's called the sports industry.

Well indeed and part of the reason why when the A-league was formed they banned ethnic teams from joining. Though people do integrate at some point and accept the Australian way, of course there are those that actively seek to ensure that all Australians act the way they want to back in their homelands or because that's the way it was back there means they should be allowed to do it here.

Can't really claim the "close ties" if you can't communicate in their mother tongue.

Which is why FO is overreacting and attention whoring.

Well indeed and part of the reason why when the A-league was formed they banned ethnic teams from joining. Though people do integrate at some point and accept the Australian way, of course there are those that actively seek to ensure that all Australians act the way they want to back in their homelands or because that's the way it was back there means they should be allowed to do it here.

Hey, we still produce assloads of the players that Australia rely on. I'm not too concerned.

Which is why FO is overreacting and attention whoring.You'll be shocked when I tell you he's vastly improved on the whole "I'm German" front. He used to be worse.

You'll be shocked when I tell you he's vastly improved on the whole "I'm German" front. He used to be worse.

He was? Dear gods. I can't imagine him being worse than he is now. He's quite bad as it is.

Can't really claim the "close ties" if you can't communicate in their mother tongue.

Tell that to Melbourne Croatia supporters and I'll collect what's left of you afterwards. :p

You'll be shocked when I tell you he's vastly improved on the whole "I'm German" front. He used to be worse.

I still consider myself German. If every other damn European-Australian considers themselves Croatian/Greek/Italian/Maco, I'm definitely calling myself German.

Tell that to Melbourne Croatia supporters and I'll collect what's left of you afterwards. :pThey'd have to come and get me, and the neo-nazis they have running around where I live don't take kindly to foreigners... =P

Can't really claim the "close ties" if you can't communicate in their mother tongue.

Well I suppose that is true and part of the reason why I have learnt it over the years. But you can still learn about it and feel a connection to it without needing to know the language, a lot of (I will say in my experience from many other immigrant Germans) will learn the language of the country that they go to and integrate while still maintaining their German ancestry and teaching the cultre and history and tradition of their regions. For example my grandfather when moving to Australia learnt English and didn't teach it to my father or really speak it around him yet still taught him about Germany and the culture and the traditions that occurred in Germany and even lived it.

Well I suppose that is true and part of the reason why I have learnt it over the years. But you can still learn about it and feel a connection to it without needing to know the language, a lot of (I will say in my experience from many other immigrant Germans) will learn the language of the country that they go to and integrate while still maintaining their German ancestry and teaching the cultre and history and tradition of their regions. For example my grandfather when moving to Australia learnt English and didn't teach it to my father or really speak it around him yet still taught him about Germany and the culture and the traditions that occurred in Germany and even lived it.I'm not disputing the "ties", I'm disputing the "close".

Us "real" Germans get rather ticked off when people who don't even speak the language properly or set foot in the country use their ancestry to call themselves "German" or "Prussian". The nazi twins that made up Prussian Blue were a particularly irritating example, made all the worse by linking to sites selling Bavarian clothes as typically German, of all things.

Well I suppose that is true and part of the reason why I have learnt it over the years. But you can still learn about it and feel a connection to it without needing to know the language, a lot of (I will say in my experience from many other immigrant Germans) will learn the language of the country that they go to and integrate while still maintaining their German ancestry and teaching the cultre and history and tradition of their regions. For example my grandfather when moving to Australia learnt English and didn't teach it to my father or really speak it around him yet still taught him about Germany and the culture and the traditions that occurred in Germany and even lived it.

Well, you see. My mother's side of the family, on her father's side, claims German ancestry. Apparently the family hails from Frankfurt or something.

One of my surnames is Bosch. I don't feel any connection or ties, whatsoever, to that part of my ancestry. I am an Asturian and a Spaniard, nor more no less. I'm not a Spanish-German or anything. I am a Spaniard.

I'm not disputing the "ties", I'm disputing the "close".

Us "real" Germans get rather ticked off when people who don't even speak the language properly or set foot in the country use their ancestry to call themselves "German" or "Prussian". The nazi twins that made up Prussian Blue were a particularly irritating example, made all the worse by linking to sites selling Bavarian clothes as typically German, of all things.

Prussian Blue are pathetic, they're probably hardly German at all and I doubt they have any known relatives in Germany.

I'm not disputing the "ties", I'm disputing the "close".

Us "real" Germans get rather ticked off when people who don't even speak the language properly or set foot in the country use their ancestry to call themselves "German" or "Prussian". The nazi twins that made up Prussian Blue were a particularly irritating example, made all the worse by linking to sites selling Bavarian clothes as typically German, of all things.

Well according to the law of Bavaria a son of a Bavarian is a Bavarian. But yes ok I can see where they are coming from, while I say I have German ancestry I wouldn't call myself a fully fledged German in the same was as those Germans who have grown up inside Germany.

And by your last comment on the clothes do you mean when they sell say lederhosen and say that all Germans wear this or something?

Well, you see. My mother's side of the family, on her father's side, claims German ancestry. Apparently the family hails from Frankfurt or something.

One of my surnames is Bosch. I don't feel any connection or ties, whatsoever, to that part of my ancestry. I am an Asturian and a Spaniard, nor more no less. I'm not a Spanish-German or anything. I am a Spaniard.

And I can understand that, though it may be because I was grown up with some German influence beside me. I am first and foremost and Australian but personally I do feel some connection to my family's history and will say that I have German ancestry and that may have just been the way I was brought up.

Well according to the law of Bavaria a son of a Bavarian is a Bavarian. But yes ok I can see where they are coming from, while I say I have German ancestry I wouldn't call myself a fully fledged German in the same was as those Germans who have grown up inside Germany.Well, Bavaria isn't all that German =P
And by your last comment on the clothes do you mean when they sell say lederhosen and say that all Germans wear this or something?You can't claim Prussian heritage if you do something to benefit the Bavarian stigma associated with Germany. It's treason, plain and simple.

And I can understand that, though it may be because I was grown up with some German influence beside me. I am first and foremost and Australian but personally I do feel some connection to my family's history and will say that I have German ancestry and that may have just been the way I was brought up.

It may very well be that. German, for example, died a long time ago in the family. No one speaks it, not even my grandfather. So, I didn't grew up with connections to Germany.

You can't claim Prussian heritage if you do something to benefit the Bavarian stigma associated with Germany. It's treason, plain and simple.

You're right, they do give Germans a bad name. The first thing that comes to mind, after WWII, is lederhosen.

Incidentally, the spellcheck on "lederhosen" suggests "cirrhosis", which is another thing that the Bavarians are associated with.

The fact that Ratzinger did jack shit against it while there were other Germans, Oskar Schindler comes to mind, who did quite a lot?

Dude, Schindler was an adult man with a fair amount of money and influence. Ratzinger was a CHILD. You really don't think that makes a teensy-weensy bit of difference in how much they can do?

Incidentally, Schindler, unlike Ratzinger, actually WAS a member of the Nazi party. Clearly, you should loathe him. :rolleyes:

Dude, Schindler was an adult man with a fair amount of money and influence. Ratzinger was a CHILD. You really don't think that makes a teensy-weensy bit of difference in how much they can do?

Incidentally, Schindler, unlike Ratzinger, actually WAS a member of the Nazi party. Clearly, you should loathe him. :rolleyes:

Adlai Stevenson (long ago, a Democratic candidate for President, a senior statesman and intellectual) killed a little girl with a rifle when he was at a birthday party (he was 12, IIRC).

Should that have disqualified him from any of his later posts? Would you have used that as justification not to vote for him for President?

I dont see why people use the past to insult the Vatican, you cannot blame Germans for the Holocaust or Japanese for there horrible treatment of POWs but oh god that was nothing compared to what the Vatican did centuries ago :P


You can 'blame the Vatican' because Catholicism, unlike 'being Japanese', for example - is an ideology.

I dont see why people use the past to insult the Vatican, you cannot blame Germans for the Holocaust or Japanese for there horrible treatment of POWs but oh god that was nothing compared to what the Vatican did centuries ago :P

Does the Vatican regret what it did centuries ago ? Did it denounce the Popes of that time as being wrong, or as not representing Gods will ?
Or do the people who ordered the massacres and torture still receive fill honours and reverence ?

Does the Vatican regret what it did centuries ago ? Did it denounce the Popes of that time as being wrong, or as not representing Gods will ?
Or do the people who ordered the massacres and torture still receive fill honours and reverence ?

They did issue some vague apologies about it.

They did issue some vague apologies about it.
That's what Vatican II was, wasn't it? Or it had those elements in it?

They did issue some vague apologies about it.

And yet they still honor the popes who ordered the Crusades and Inquisitions.

Quite off-topic, but why do you place the end of the Dark Ages in 1439?
I'm not sure. Maybe I was thinking Gutenberg's printing press was first used in 1439. Or maybe a specific date adds an air of authority; I don't remember my reasoning.