While I have been railing against some of the bigots in certain religious movements, it is necessary to point out that there are people out there who are vicious and whose vitriole towards all religion is unwarranted and intolerable:
“Nazi pope a clear and present danger to the civilized world,” read the headline of a reader’s letter in a forum of NYTimes.com, The New York Times’ Web site.
It wasn’t the worst abuse leveled at Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, a German. Type the words “Nazi pope” into the Google search line, and you will get nearly 700 mentions.
“Seig Heil, hail Mary!” read one post, misspelling German word for victory, which is “Sieg.”
“What can you expect from a filthy Nazi?” asked one blogger quoted, with horror, by National Review Online. The blogger went on: “…Nazi bas– wearing a dress and no doubt with a past in child-molesting.”
The Internet is of course the kooks’ playground, where anti-German prejudices are safe to disseminate for a simple reason: unlike organizations representing blacks, Jews, Italians or the Irish, their German-American counterparts hardly ever raise a fuss.
You don’t have to be a believer in the entire range of Catholic Church doctrine to recognize how disgusting and completely unfair this type of rhetoric is towards decent people of faith.
I don’t agree with many of the doctrines promoted by the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict the XVI, but it takes a special kind of idiot to equate the Pope with the type of human filth that made up one of the most murderous and vile regimes in the history of mankind. Pope Benedict VXI was forced to be in Hitler Youth- he was yanked out of seminary, and forced to become a member of the military. He had no choice, and as soon as he had a chance, he returned to his true calling. To call this man a Nazi, to associate him with the wholesale slaughter of millions, to claim that he was any of this, is simply beyond the pale.
There are legitimate reasons to dislike individuals like Randall Terry, James Dobson, and the aforementioned Ken Hutcherson, but to make baseless and nonsensical charges that debase and attack all people of faith, such as calling the leader of the Roman Catholic Church is unwarranted and has two effects.
First, it merely confirms the bizarre worldview of people like Randall Terry, convincing them that the world really is out to get them.
Second, it it makes legitimate criticisms of the excesses of some religious leaders and religious communities difficult, because when anyone criticizes them, they immediately are lumped in with the Christophobes and haters who would sink to a level low enough to call the Pope a Nazi.
All this sort of thing does is smear decent people of faith and provide scum like the Terry’s of the world with political cover to wage war on everyone.
Fersboo
I lump you with the blogger that called the current Pope a ‘nazi’.
John Cole
Heh.
ape
Most of the links that arise from such a search doubtless mention wartime facts as a quirky historical anomaly. It is Drudge who is hysterical.
Separately, Ratz is a horrible man with horrible views.
‘Ordinary people of faith’ aren’t party to international treaties and vitually none of them hold the views that the vatican holds on eg; contraception; the effectiveness of condoms in reducing the aids risk; the place of women in society etc..
They don’t use their clerical power and influence to slam down anti-fascist political movements (central america); derail human rights legislation proposed by an elected government (Argentina); intervene directly in US presidential election; insist that a pre-teen girl raped by her father carry the child (Venezuela).
Anyone is allowed to agree with these actions, maybe because of their faith. However, what cannot be denied is that they are all political actions: The Catholic Church is an international political organisation with a particular agenda (a radical, far-right agenda as far as I am concerned.)
Ratz is fair game; this has nothing to do with ‘faith’ or prejudice.
FC
For a rational critique of the Pope and his poor response to the issues in question, see Eric Muller at http://www.isthatlegal.org/
ape
Randall Terry can think what he likes.
Noone can be blamed for how their views influencee him. He probably thinks the Devil is talking to him through his TV.
(incidentally, don’t these radical christian fringe morons typcially believe that the pope is the anti-christ anyway?)
Rush/ Coulter/ Savage et al all spend all their days painting any opposition in the most lurid & sinister light they can, “The Culture of Death” is merely one of the Vatican’s phrases that has most widely appealed to them in this task.
It is grotesque to blame the victims of this propaganda haze (properly identified as ‘liberals’ of the genus ‘Traitor’; family ‘feminazi’; order ‘Moonbat’ etc..) for actions of those whom these same liberals have been trying to tell conservatives that it is unnacceptable to associate with.
Rewinding back to the period just after the election, didn’t mainstream conservative partisans (inc. JC?) poor scorn on the idea that Bush’s victory could in large part be ascribed to an unnaceptable christianist fringe?
Dodd
I confess I find it extremely amusing to see Catholic doctrine refered to as either “radical” or “far right”. Of course, my experience with Catholics (four years of high school and youth group) is mainly with the more liberal post-Vatican II variety than the traditionalists. But still… to call ideas that have been more or less consistent for, um, well, *centuries* “radical” is plain nonsense (nor are anywhere near the percentage of Catholics you assert out of tune with those ideas – American and European ones may largely be so, but you need to be informed, since you seem ignorant of it, that brown people in Latin America and Africa – the two regions in which the Catholic faith is growing by leaps and bounds – are, in fact, people, too. And they are far more likely than not to follow Church teachings). And to call a man who chose his name Benedict because he wants to emulate the last Benedict and be know known as a peacenik an exemplar of the “far right” is almost as inane.
Your dictionary is a little out of synch with reality. Or perhaps you just get all your debate points from the usual left wingnut well where anyone to the left of Lincoln Chafee is automatically called a “radical, far-right extremist.”
James
It’s worth noting, as you have on several occasions, the difference between who is actually making the charges on the left and the right. On the left, you have the militant anti-religious fringe saying truly irresponsible and condemnable things about the Pope.
On the right, you have the highest-ranking officials of the Republican party and their key influencers launching bigoted attacks against anyone who dares oppose the President’s judicial nominees.
So while your readers no doubt appreciate being reminded of the lunacy of both extremes, we’re better served with a reminder that one extreme actually IS the modern Republican party.
Rick
John,
Looks like your attempt at “walk-back” is a bust. You sought to draw flies; you got ’em.
Make the best of it.
Cordially…
John Cole
What “walk-back” are you talking about?
John Cole
Oh, I get it. You really are one of these nut jobs who thinks that I hate Christians. I don’t- I hate people who attempt their foist their religion on me, and when I refuse to adopt their moral code, they try tto use the power of government to coerce me. IF that is what you mean, guilty as charged.
BTW, you might want to know what you are talking about (a novel concept). I know how I feel abut religious people, and I know what I have said in the past.
Now run along somewhere to another site and tell them how I have cracked up and my site is in a sad state of demise because I hate all christians. I don’t have enough time to deal with the damned lies anymore.
ape
How many of the left-wing extremists have said, “Ratz is a Nazi in the sense that he currently a member of the National Socialist Party”. I’d say zero. They are jokingly referring to this quirk of history.
However, mr. ratz thinks your girlfriend is promoting homosexuality because she uses contraception instead of risking pregnancy whenever she has sex. i don’t care how many people think this is true or reasonable: it isn’t.
it also DOES affect people who are not catholics because the catholic church affects the disposition of the law on matters of this kind in many countries. i would have thought someone iwth faith in god would have left it to him rather than struggling ceaselessly for democracy-bypassing concordats with foreign states.
those who say criticism of the vatican is anti-religious bigotry are ignoring the fact that the vatican likes to style itself aand to some extent acts as a nation state.
When Archbishop Baseotto (employed by the state of Argentina as directed under an international treaty with Ratz’s Vatican) said that anyone who (legally) distributes condoms should have a stone tied round their neck and thrown in the sea (in a precise echo of the actions of the Fascist Junta of Argentina for which he has exonerated them), the Vatican refused to fire him.
But those ‘Liberation Theologians’, yeah, they’re hateful.
unlike the Nazis, with whom the Vatican signed a concordat.
why do I raise that lacuna, that frivolous canard? it must be because im an evil liberal moron. trying to associate the vatican. it’s not typical of the Church work (which represents ordinary christians.
nor is the concordat with the fascist dictatorship of salazar in portugal (signed in 1940 and still in force) or the concordats with Poland, Slovakia, Latvia, the EU & ~80 others; and the attempt to have all these ratified in perpetuity by the EU constitution.
you can’t do any of this crap and then shout about ‘freedom of conscience’ when you get criticized. the victims of the counter-reformation had a right to do that.. they were private citizens exercising their beliefs.
the catholic church is a political organisation. what if their was an ongoing 50-year paedophile scandal in the democratic party, with senators being surreptitiously shifted from seat to seat?
John Cole
Ape- It is possibole to have differing viewpoints than the Pope on all of the issues you stated, without characterizing him as a horrible man, or, as I have stated, a Nazi.
ape
JC – yes it’s possible. However, noone’s inspiring randall terry by saying what they think.
S.W. Anderson
Excellent post, John. Important points made well.
Who gets to be pope and how much influence he will have is really a matter for Roman Catholics. Those of us who are not Roman Catholics should show some respect, not just for the new pope but for the millions of our neighbors, friends, family memebrs, etc., who are Catholics.
It’s also not helpful to add to what some religious zealots like to claim is a growing anti-religious atmosphere. Some of them see a chance to harness power by generating paranoia.
Dodd
How many of the left-wing extremists have said, “Ratz is a Nazi in the sense that he currently a member of the National Socialist Party”. I’d say zero.
Atrios has taken to calling him “Ratzi” – a transparent insinuation of precisely what you say “zero” left-wingers are saying. Meanwhile, the ADL is rising to Pope Benedict’s defense. Forced to choose, it’s pretty easy to decide who’s more qualified to judge a public figure’s affinity for National Socialism.
I’m no Catholic and, frankly, don’t really care one way or another who the Pope is or what he thinks about, well, much of anything. But it annoys me a great deal to see excrement hurled at perfectly decent people for no reason other than that they don’t agree with those doing the hurling. And spare me the rejoinders about Tom Delay, thank you. I’ve already heard them all – and none compare to the unconscionable nastiness being flung at this Pope the last few days.
Rick
Now run along somewhere to another site and tell them how I have cracked up and my site is in a sad state of demise because I hate all christians. I don’t have enough time to deal with the damned lies anymore.
John,
Been there, done that. Except I’m not saying–and will need much evidence to believe–that you hate all Christians, or even a few.
Just that you’re way, way to easily rolled by the hostile secularists and lefties eager to distract attention for their manifest failures by inventing bogeymen. Since Balloon Juice’s style has always been “high dudgeon,” maybe this was predictable.
Do extreme, dangerous Christians exist? Sure, but they’re numbers are puny, and their message is such that they’ll never be a force.
A potential danger? Yes, but less so than that crypto/pseudo/kinda/sorta-communists capture (here’s dudgeon: “complete their capture) of the Democrats.
My stance here and on other sites lamenting your frothings is that you feel a wee acorn boink off your noggin, and conclude the GOP sky is falling. That acorn is just a buncha church-going folks (among whose number I’m not found) finishing their migration from the Democratic party. Coming to the big tent for the revival.
Coalitions will often have mutually replellent elements, but I guess with the Democrats’ embrace of sewer statist elements–extreme enviros, misandrous feminists, abortion worshippers, ex- (we sure?)Klansman; basically the bad guy recruiting scene in Blazing Saddles–something had to give away. So the Bible thumpers walked, and I guess their few dozen theocracy advocates came with them. Theocracy’s electoral throw weight? Zero, thus my twitting your month-long hyberbole over this non-issue.
Now, I specifically and categorically deny even hinting that you hate Christians. I seek no apology (because such things really aren’t done in keyboard wars), but only an explanation, if you’ll be so kind: to the extent that I’ve ever come to your attention, what “lies” have I peddled about you?
My opinion is that you’re way over the top and emotional on this matter, much like Andrew Sullivan. But has that opinion led me to outright lies about you?
No. But your answer may differ. I’d be interested in a summary, if so.
Cordially…
Ampersand
Historically, it’s not true that no one could resist being recruited into Nazi Youth; other did.
Of course, it’s reasonable to say that the people who resisted the Nazis were morally extraordinary people; moral heroes, really. I don’t think people should be condemned for being ordinary; the Pope, in his youth, did what any morally ordinary person in his position would have done.
However, considering how rarified a position being Pope is, I think it’s… notable… that the new Pope, when put to the test, was not a morally extraordinary person. Considering the honors and privileges of his position, is it really unreasonable to expect that the Pope should be a person who has, in his life, displayed more moral courage and better moral judgement than is ordinary?
I also think it’s ironic that, if instead of being a Nazi in his youth (and later renouncing it), the Pope had been openly gay in his youth (and later renounced it), then there is very little chance that he could have won the election.
fwiffo
Forgive me if I don’t feel too much sympathy for someone who has been an enabler for child molsters.
wild bird
More anti christain bogotry from the infamous New York Pravda(Times)americas most far left-wing news papers and its muk raker FRANK RICH what a way to greet the new pope and this from the infamous bird cage liner
David R. Block
John,
Considering that two posts prior to this you have “Religious Zealots” as one of the titles, it does appear that it is difficult to fully comprehend exactly what your point is. Add to that the “you guys” lost CK post, and you don’t look too friendly towards religion yourself.
I’m just saying…..
I’m wondering what the John Cole criteria for “religious zealot” are? For in one post you seem to condemn them, and in another you seem to condemn those who condemn them, which would seem to include condemning yourself, no??
Now why would anybody misunderstand that????? ;-)
John Cole
It is simple- people who want to replace asll of laws with “God’s law” and who want me to live by a moral code created by their faith and will stop at noithing to accomplish it- zealots.
People who can’t recognize that religion has played an important role in contributing to the lives of billions, and who furthermore confuse disagreement with church doctrine and insist on calling the leader of a church a Nazi- idiots.
I don’t have time for either one.
John Cole
Rick- Since the election, and since the Schiavo affair, certain elements within the frigne religionist movement have been emboldened. I really don;t have time to go through the whole list, but if you look at the attacks on the judiciary, the Schiavo mess, the pharmacy flap, the attacks on gay rights, the same groups over and over again are showing up- Focus on the Family et al.
And their intents are clear. Do I get hot-headed and irrational about the issue- guilty on the former, nont guilty on the latter.
It isn’t irrational to clearly recognize that a radical element is controlling or at least appears to control my party, and I don’t like one bit of what they are trying to impose.
M. Scott Eiland
“Forgive me if I don’t feel too much sympathy for someone who has been an enabler for child molsters.”
I see your point–but what does the U.N. have to do with this discussion?
Kimmitt
abortion worshippers,
Weirdest idea for a patron saint ever.
Rick
John,
Thanks for the favor of a reply.
I would point out that “emboldened” is nowhere near “empowered.” If such genuine theocrats as exist attract enough votes to ever so much as win a city council or red-state county commission, then they’d certainly bear watching. They’re certainly not worthy of the professions of bowel-voiding fear that some of your new correspondents have expressed.
Furthermore, since when are fringers of left or right ever retiring? It’s their nature to be outlandish and forceful. And really, they’re just exercising their rights to free speech and dissent. That’s certainly a favorable formulation, but it’s the truth.
If your concern is for rotten apples spoiling the barrel, well, ALL politics is thus ruined. No, for pubbies this is (no pun intended) a cross to bear. Just as the Dems have the Movon/Mooron/Kossack/Soros burdens, and other baggage. It’s the lay of the political landscape.
Your issue would seem to be more with “social conservatives”, and their religious aspect–likely preponderant–is your short-hand. If I’m correct, you should direct your fusillades at that broader category, because theocrats are certainly damned few, and offer no honestly stated program that will attract significant votes.
Frankly, I have no terror of assailing the judiciary when warranted, as that branch has assumed a greater, quasi-legislative and executive role in our governments than that to which is entitled. Which is practically none.
I believe our liberties are threatened more by make-it-up-as-you-go-along robed elites, than by denunciations from the Senate or House chambers. And the Republic has survived Andy Jackson’s contempt for the SCOTUS, the Impeach Earl Warren “movement” I distantly remember, and the shameful assaults on Bork and Thomas. Suddenly, the lifer judges are big babies? Please.
Cordially…
Halffasthero
“It isn’t irrational to clearly recognize that a radical element is controlling or at least appears to control my party, and I don’t like one bit of what they are trying to impose.”
Well put.
Judges are not perfect and, in fact, nothing really is. I prefer things as they are instead of giving authority to those people. They care less about “right and wrong” than they do about their religeous agenda. The Schiavo case, et al was only an excuse to go after them.
A Robed Elite
Thanks for spilling the beans, Rick. We had every one fooled, or so we thought. For sure the people would suspect the politicians constantly interjecting theology into EVERYTHING.
But as you say, it is all okay. They are merely “social consevatives” or unelectable theocrats. Quite the nuetered bunch..eh?
I now announce the dissolution of the N.A.R.E.(National Association of the Robed Elites) due to two main factors:
1) The Florida chapters shenanigans
2) The slick detective work of commenter Rick.
Rick
ARE,
Aw shucks. Thank you…thank you very much.
Now back to the hyperbolic hysteria program.
Cordially…
Tim Larned
As someone who has voted Republican I can say I’m really nauseated by the comments of some people on this site. I think in the next election the only way to clean this party out from people who have an attitude that is totally alien to the inclusive Republicanism of Ronald Reagan is to either NOT vote or vote Democratic. I think only if our party suffers a defeat in key areas in 2006 can we get it back on track instead of handing it over to people who want to basically toss out the system of government we have had and that Republicans have worked so hard to preserve for many years. OH YES: I am a fan of the present Pope, as well as of John Paul II. Some people in my party don’t realize that they are scaring people away — including Republicans and if some battles they’re waging are won they’re going to pay come election time. I didn’t expect this kind of thing when I cast my vote. I won’t be fooled again and will only invest my vote in a party when I know it upholds the values my father and grandfather fought for.
Rick
This ‘tood cuts both ways. There seem to have been a great many Democrats–a prominent example is the respected maverick Sen. Zell Miller–who were scared away from the national party. Or nauseated.
Now, what lessons have the Democrats learned? Become more shrill and scary, it seems.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
respected maverick
Apparently you didn’t see that speech at the RNC. Scary stuff.
Inspector Callahan
Apparently you didn’t see that speech at the RNC. Scary stuff.
The only ones whining about the Miller speech are democrats and lefties. And I defy one of you to mention something actually “scary” that he said.
TV (Harry)
Rick
I think the “scary stuff” was invoking the image of President Jean Francois Kerry, and his wife Evita.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
When he shouted, “SPITBALLS?” and I had the sudden realization that a sitting Senator of the United States of America was a complete loonjob . . . that was scary.
Also, the part where he grew fangs and drained a black lamb dry in three minutes.
Rick
And every time (disrespected, sock-puppet Sens.)Chuckie Shumer and Ted Kennedy limber up their lips, that’s loonier and scarier still.
Cordially…
Pudentilla
Well, as someone who has to suffer her lifestyle (middle-aged, middle-class, attends church weekly and serves on a town board – oh and gay in a relationship that has long outlasted the median length of heterosexual marriages) being called “intrinsically morally evil,” let me tell you it takes every ounce of Christian charity I possess to give Ratzo the benefit of the doubt.
He had his confrontation with evil at an early age and in perilous circumstances. He made his choice and I am perfectly entitled to note that he, like Christians since Peter (and no doubt as I would have), failed when put to the test. It is true that many Christians faced a comparable test and died rather compromise, rather than not actively resist the Nazis – and I feel pretty comfortably about calling Nazis intrinsically morally evil.
The point of Christianity, however, is that we aren’t defined by our failures – we may be redeemed despite them. What Razto learned from his own failure when confronting evil, however, was a desire for authoritarian control of all contemporary moral disputes confronted by Catholics – and unrestrained and unapologetic bigotry – an odd lesson to learn from the Holocaust.
And now he, a sexist homophobe, is the leader of a billion Catholics and willingly and actively seeks, as an oligarchically and secretly (i.e. – not sharing democratic values) selected leader, to impose his cruel and hideous desecration of the Christian promise of love and redemption upon any and every country in which Catholics reside.
But let’s be nice to him. Let’s not notice the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. Let’s not be impolite. If he wants to insult my human dignity, well he’s the pope, he get’s too. But if someone calls out a man, who thinks nothing of judging and condemning others, for his own obvious failures and failure to learn even a dram of self-doubt, much less compassion from that failure – well, that’s just going too far.