Dawkins calls Pope "a Nazi"

[deef]

John Paul was sometimes too friendly towards Islam imho:

[humphreyclarke]

Mar 17, 2010 15:37:35 GMT deef said:

John Paul was sometimes too friendly towards Islam imho:

Are you sure ? Maybe he is biting a big chunk out of it.

[sandwiches]

I don't think he would find it very appetizing? It is only a regurgitated version of the Bible with some rather unpalatable added medieval Arabian ingredients.

Perhaps the apparent unpopularity of the present Pope in the Muslim world relates to:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regensburg_lecture#cite_note-110

The Regensburg lecture was a lecture delivered on 12 September 2006 by Pope Benedict XVI at the University of Regensburg in Germany, where he had once served as professor of theology. It was entitled "Glaube, Vernunft und Universität — Erinnerungen und Reflexionen" (German: Faith, Reason and the University — Memories and Reflections). The lecture is considered to be among the most important papal statements on world affairs since John Paul II's 1995 address to the United Nations, and sparked international reactions and controversy.
In his lecture, the pope, speaking in German, quoted an unfavorable remark about Islam made in the 14th century by Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor. As the English translation of the pope's lecture disseminated across the world, many Islamic politicians and religious leaders protested irately against what they said was an insulting mischaracterization of Islam


Assessment of the lecture's purpose

In contrast to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy - which is now deemed a precursor to the controversy over the Pope's lecture - the media focus was not on the issues of free speech or injured religious sensitivities. Underlying the widely talked about question of whether or not the Pope should apologize, and whether or not his subsequent statements even constituted an apology, several competing and separate interpretations of his intentions have been proffered. These are, broadly and in no particular order:

* Responses to the speech ignore the fact that the Vatican advised against the US led invasion of Iraq, supports Tukey's entry into the EU supports allowing muslims in France the freedom to wear headscarves , and has been part of a long campaign to promote basic human rights for Christians in Muslim dominated countries where they are persecuted / killed (Sudan, Somalia, post-war Iraq) or marginalized (most of the rest of the Islamic world including secular Turkey).
Pope Benedict's lecture portends a parting from the Vatican's previous policies on dialogue with Islam, away from promoting harmony at all costs towards more reciprocity; that is, he wants the Muslim world opened up for Christian missions in the same way that Europe is open to Muslims and conversion out of Islam to be a legal or social possibility. In this view, according to the Pope, the position of Christians in Muslim-majority countries must be improved


I wonder if any Muslims believe that Christians and other minorities in Muslim-majority countries should have the same rights and protection as Muslims in western countries? Perhaps they believe that such a situation would lead to the unravelling of Islam?
Yet the theocracy in Iran which hangs homosexuals and imprisons Christians seeems as unpopular and repressive as most other regimes in the Islamic world.
Islamists may be able to carry out atrocities against minorities in most of the Islamic world but eventually the lid will come off the kettle?

[timoneill]

Mar 15, 2010 10:54:44 GMT deef said:

In what context did he call the pope a nazi? I don't see that in the article. Not that I could imagine a context in which it is appropiate, but still... I'd like to know.

Having got some more information from those who were at the Convention, it seems this is another case of sloppy reporting by the media. Dawkins was NOT referring to Benedict XVI, he was referring to Pius XII:



Whether it's fair to call Pius XII "Pope Nazi" is still debatable, but it is not as obviously a cheap smear as calling Benedict XVI that.

[sandwiches]

"Dawkins was NOT referring to Benedict XVI, he was referring to Pius XII:"

That would seem to be guesswork. Dawkins seems rather incoherent?

But even so:


Whether it's fair to call Pius XII "Pope Nazi" is still debatable, but it is not as obviously a cheap smear as calling Benedict XVI that.

Is it not? There is something rather distateful about people sitting comfortably in the 21st century and condemning people from this era with the benefit of hindsight as "Nazis" when they were plainly not Nazis, whatever their other failings. Was Neville Chamberlain a Nazi?

[timoneill]

Mar 17, 2010 20:05:18 GMT sandwiches said:

"Dawkins was NOT referring to Benedict XVI, he was referring to Pius XII:"

That would seem to be guesswork. Dawkins seems rather incoherent?

Dawkins seems to have forgotten Pius XII's name. But the context is clear: he's talking about the idea that dead people can perform miracles and so be declared a saint. Mary McKillop has just been declared a saint and Pius XII is being considered. Benedict XVI, on the other hand, is not dead. Clearly he was not referring to Benedict XVI.

Whether it's fair to call Pius XII "Pope Nazi" is still debatable, but it is not as obviously a cheap smear as calling Benedict XVI that.

Is it not? There is something rather distateful about people sitting comfortably in the 21st century and condemning people from this era with the benefit of hindsight as "Nazis" when they were plainly not Nazis, whatever their other failings. Was Neville Chamberlain a Nazi?

I've been over the evidence regarding Pius XII and the Nazis with a fine toothed comb and argued vigorously against those who say he was some kind of collaborator. But a case can be made that the anti-Communist obsession of most Catholics in the period meant that the condemnation of the Nazis was more muted than it could have been until it was far too late.

The point remains that Dawkins referring to Pius XII as "Pope Nazi" when he forgot the man's name is not the same as using that term as a slur on Benedict XVI's involuntary membership of the Hitler Youth.

It also shows that we can't trust the media to get the story right.

[sandwiches]

Dawkins seems to have forgotten Pius XII's name

If he can't even remember his name then he hardly seems to be in a position to be judging him a Nazi?

But a case can be made that the anti-Communist obsession of most Catholics in the period meant that the condemnation of the Nazis was more muted than it could have been until it was far too late.

And the same could be said of Neville Chamberlain and most of the English governing class before the 2nd WW, and of the US Congress which did not declare war on Nazi Germany until December 1941 after Germany declared war on the US? Were they all Nazis? Or are some people just massively ignorant in their use of the term?

[timoneill]

Mar 17, 2010 20:38:24 GMT sandwiches said:

And the same could be said of Neville Chamberlain and most of the English governing class before the 2nd WW, and of the US Congress which did not declare war on Nazi Germany until December 1941 after Germany declared war on the US? Were they all Nazis? Or are some people just massively ignorant in their use of the term?

I'm not disagreeing with you.

[deef]

Mar 17, 2010 19:40:54 GMT timoneill said:

Mar 15, 2010 10:54:44 GMT deef said:

In what context did he call the pope a nazi? I don't see that in the article. Not that I could imagine a context in which it is appropiate, but still... I'd like to know.

Having got some more information from those who were at the Convention, it seems this is another case of sloppy reporting by the media. Dawkins was NOT referring to Benedict XVI, he was referring to Pius XII:



Whether it's fair to call Pius XII "Pope Nazi" is still debatable, but it is not as obviously a cheap smear as calling Benedict XVI that.

I love it how the crowd goes completely nuts because Dawkins called Pius XII a Nazi.

His opinion on saints is pretty understandable for a protestant like me. I don't see though how it's supposed to be an argument for Dawkins too not debate theologians or anything.

I'd love to see Dawkins debate someone like William Lane Craig. Not that I always agree with Craig or think public debates are nessecarily the best method to debate such matters, but still, it'd be very entertaining and interesting.

[James Hannam]

The Pius XII thing does make me slightly uncomfortable. While the accusations against him are almost all unjustified, canonisation requires a much, much higher standard than just being a man doing his best in difficult circumstances.

That said, I think Dawkins' shirt may be a crime against humanity.

Best wishes

James

[Deleted]

Mar 17, 2010 22:02:48 GMT James Hannam said:

That said, I think Dawkins' shirt may be a crime against humanity.

You should see what ties this man wears.

[timoneill]

Mar 17, 2010 21:55:15 GMT deef said:

I love it how the crowd goes completely nuts because Dawkins called Pius XII a Nazi.

Do you think if a Christian speaker made a similar crack about Dawkins to a Christian conference you'd get dignified silence?

His opinion on saints is pretty understandable for a protestant like me. I don't see though how it's supposed to be an argument for Dawkins too not debate theologians or anything.

The argument is that he only deals with people who believe really silly things and should debate theologians who don't. He's giving an example of theologians who do believe extremely silly things and showing that this is not the preserve solely of Creationists and suicide bombers.

I'd love to see Dawkins debate someone like William Lane Craig.

I find it odd the way Craig keeps getting invoked as some kind of potential Dawkins killer - I've seen some of his debates and it seems he uses the same old tired stuff. Dawkins won't debate people like Craig because he believes in denying Creationists and their fellow travellers the oxygen of publicity.

[deef]

Mar 17, 2010 23:20:51 GMT timoneill said:

Mar 17, 2010 21:55:15 GMT deef said:

I love it how the crowd goes completely nuts because Dawkins called Pius XII a Nazi.

Do you think if a Christian speaker made a similar crack about Dawkins to a Christian conference you'd get dignified silence?

No, but I don't think many christian apologists could provoke an enthusiastic ovation of their crowd by making Nazi-comparisons.

Mar 17, 2010 23:20:51 GMT timoneill said:

The argument is that he only deals with people who believe really silly things and should debate theologians who don't. He's giving an example of theologians who do believe extremely silly things and showing that this is not the preserve solely of Creationists and suicide bombers.

It's a rather lacking argument, I must say. Of course there are theologians who believe extremely silly things. How does it follow from that that there is no theologian worth debating?

Mar 17, 2010 23:20:51 GMT timoneill said:

]

Mar 17, 2010 21:55:15 GMT deef said:

I'd love to see Dawkins debate someone like William Lane Craig.

I find it odd the way Craig keeps getting invoked as some kind of potential Dawkins killer - I've seen some of his debates and it seems he uses the same old tired stuff. Dawkins won't debate people like Craig because he believes in denying Creationists and their fellow travellers the oxygen of publicity.

Even if Craig is a creationist, which in my opinion he isn't, it's still perfectly irrelevant. Dawkins deems himself to be qualified to answer the grand ol' 'God-question', even though he's a natural scientist with no relevant expertise in philosophy and theology.
Craig has a PhD. in philsophy and theology, has way more expertise on the God-question than Dawkins will ever have and is known by friends and enemies to be one of the most competent to debate this subject. If Dawkins is so confident that he holds the right position and has the right answers, what better way to prove that than beating one of the best the opposite side has to offer in a public debate?

Frankly, if there is any suitable christian opponent to debate the question 'Is God A Delusion?' it's Craig. Saying Craig is a creationist is irrelevant if that's not the topic of the debate. Dawkins claiming "Craig's only claim to fame is that he's a professional debater" is downright ludicrous and annoyingly arrogant.

I know of no good reason for Dawkins to not debate Craig. Maybe he has one, but I haven't heard it. Now it only seems Dawkins is slightly scared to debate Craig, and to be honest, I think rightly so. I tend to think Craig would crush Dawkins on the 'God question'.

[himself]

I have to say that, based on the documents secured after WW2, the Nazis themselves were under no illusion about the Pope's sympathies and behind-the-scenes actions. There was a reason why the NY Times held him up as the only public figure speaking out, albeit in diplomatic language, and why Golda Meir proposed the planting of an entire grove of trees in his honor. He had agreed to act as an intermediary for the Oster conspirators, and may have been complicit in von Stauffenburg's conspiracy as well. At one point the Nazis had a plan to kidnap the pope. The pope got wind of it and made arrangements that if it were carried out, his abdication would be automatic. The Nazis would not kidnap a pope; but only plain old Fr. Pacelli.

What post-moderns crave most of all is the dramatic but useless public gesture. That, they don't see.

[timoneill]

[

Mar 17, 2010 23:49:01 GMT deef said:

Mar 17, 2010 23:20:51 GMT timoneill said:

Do you think if a Christian speaker made a similar crack about Dawkins to a Christian conference you'd get dignified silence?

No, but I don't think many christian apologists could provoke an enthusiastic ovation of their crowd by making Nazi-comparisons.

Hmm, I think you may be overestimating human beings.

It's a rather lacking argument, I must say. Of course there are theologians who believe extremely silly things. How does it follow from that that there is no theologian worth debating?

I don’t believe he was talking about whether they were worth “debating”. He was noting that he’s accused of only “going after the easy targets” and not taking on wise and sober theologians. He’s pointing out that these theologians believe things which are every bit as silly as the “easy targets”.

Even if Craig is a creationist, which in my opinion he isn't, it's still perfectly irrelevant. Dawkins deems himself to be qualified to answer the grand ol' 'God-question', even though he's a natural scientist with no relevant expertise in philosophy and theology.

Craig has a PhD. in philsophy and theology, has way more expertise on the God-question than Dawkins will ever have and is known by friends and enemies to be one of the most competent to debate this subject. If Dawkins is so confident that he holds the right position and has the right answers, what better way to prove that than beating one of the best the opposite side has to offer in a public debate?

Frankly, if there is any suitable christian opponent to debate the question 'Is God A Delusion?' it's Craig. Saying Craig is a creationist is irrelevant if that's not the topic of the debate. Dawkins claiming "Craig's only claim to fame is that he's a professional debater" is downright ludicrous and annoyingly arrogant.

I know of no good reason for Dawkins to not debate Craig. Maybe he has one, but I haven't heard it. Now it only seems Dawkins is slightly scared to debate Craig, and to be honest, I think rightly so. I tend to think Craig would crush Dawkins on the 'God question'.

Again, I’ve seen Craig’s debates and he seems to be more style than substance. I watched the one he had with Hitchens which Christians generally regarded he “won”. Sorry, but perhaps I was seeing a different debate to them. Either way, I don’t think those types of encounter prove very much apart from who has the more polished patter. Or who can pander to the inclinations of the crowd there on the night better.