Some of the Irish Bishops who presided over this stuff tried to resign, and the pope wouldnt let them!

Its not a catholic exclusive problem, its about the same rate as other religions (according to CBS, C4 news etc. before someone says prove it), the difference is the conspiracy to cover up. Most other religions dont have a support structure to keep them from getting caught, and to protect those that did.

Those who got caught 40 or 50 years ago, got sent off to missions in the 3rd world as "punishment". One can only imagine (or try not to) what went on in those places where there were even fewer protections in place for children.

Some spoiler content in this:
I understand that in the end, you're praising the show and the wonderful character that is Walter Bishop, but I've got to question- Your one gripe about a sci-fi show about an alternate universe waging war on us is that it's not very realistic? I just had to ask. Other than that, I couldn't agree more. Nolan is a wonderful actor, and if Fringe was a more popular program, they'd be throwing Emmys his way for his performance. He's had me to the point of tears in some scenes.
>> ^mgittle:

Despite all the terrible bunk "science" stuff on Fringe, it's a great show simply because of Walter's interactions with all the other characters.
I'm not usually one to put aside terribly unrealistic stuff, but for this show I gladly make an exception.

I'm shocked that they are finally making a WH40K animated movie! Recently read a couple of the novels by Dan Abbnett (who is writing the script) and they were great, would really translate to a dark, sci-fi horror with adult themes and epic ass kicking battles.

So I'm expecting they will make a "Judge Dredd" out of it. Cast is impressive so far though:

Terence Stamp
John Hurt
Sean Pertwee
Steven Waddington
Donald Sumpter
Johnny Harris
Ben Bishop
Christopher Finney
Gary Martin

I'm not sure this guy could be any more stupid. Here's the comment I tried to leave on his site, but it's "pending approval" and approval doesn't seem likely:
"Using YOUR numbers, the abuse rate of priests is STILL higher than that of teachers (.52% priests, .43% teachers) . Per hour, a kid is SEVEN TIMES more likely to be abused by a PRIEST than a TEACHER! This is assuming your own numbers are correct (with an average 23 hours per week with a teacher and 4 hours per week with a priest) Please tell me about school administrators covering up for and moving around their pedophile employees. Oh, that's right, that's a job for catholic bishops. Catholic FAIL!"
Also, I love the way he implies that priest abuse is all gay, which makes it the fault of the evil homos, even showing a little rainbow flag under a priest collar. I think the many girls abused by priests would beg to differ. I'm not even sure what point he's making with the abortion stuff: abuse is the fault of Planned Parenthood? Wha.....????? Is it okay to abuse and impregnate a girl as long as she has the baby??? Okay, I'll stop. GRRRRRR.

Myth: Hitler was a leftist.

Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm

Summary

Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic. Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.



Argument

To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.

The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.

However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world. This may surprise some people -- after all, wasn't the Soviet Union socialist? The answer is no. Many nations and political parties have called themselves "socialist," but none have actually tried socialism. To understand why, we should revisit a few basic political terms.

Perhaps the primary concern of any political ideology is who gets to own and control the means the production. This includes factories, farmlands, machinery, etc. Generally there have been three approaches to this question. The first was aristocracy, in which a ruling elite owned the land and productive wealth, and peasants and serfs had to obey their orders in return for their livelihood. The second is capitalism, which has disbanded the ruling elite and allows a much broader range of private individuals to own the means of production. However, this ownership is limited to those who can afford to buy productive wealth; nearly all workers are excluded. The third (and untried) approach is socialism, where everyone owns and controls the means of production, by means of the vote. As you can see, there is a spectrum here, ranging from a few people owning productive wealth at one end, to everyone owning it at the other.

Socialism has been proposed in many forms. The most common is social democracy, where workers vote for their supervisors, as well as their industry representatives to regional or national congresses. Another proposed form is anarcho-socialism, where workers own companies that would operate on a free market, without any central government at all. As you can see, a central planning committee is hardly a necessary feature of socialism. The primary feature is worker ownership of production.

The Soviet Union failed to qualify as socialist because it was a dictatorship over workers -- that is, a type of aristocracy, with a ruling elite in Moscow calling all the shots. Workers cannot own or control anything under a totalitarian government. In variants of socialism that call for a central government, that government is always a strong or even direct democracy… never a dictatorship. It doesn't matter if the dictator claims to be carrying out the will of the people, or calls himself a "socialist" or a "democrat." If the people themselves are not in control, then the system is, by definition, non-democratic and non-socialist.

And what of Nazi Germany? The idea that workers controlled the means of production in Nazi Germany is a bitter joke. It was actually a combination of aristocracy and capitalism. Technically, private businessmen owned and controlled the means of production. The Nazi "Charter of Labor" gave employers complete power over their workers. It established the employer as the "leader of the enterprise," and read: "The leader of the enterprise makes the decisions for the employees and laborers in all matters concerning the enterprise." (1)

The employer, however, was subject to the frequent orders of the ruling Nazi elite. After the Nazis took power in 1933, they quickly established a highly controlled war economy under the direction of Dr. Hjalmar Schacht. Like all war economies, it boomed, making Germany the second nation to recover fully from the Great Depression, in 1936. (The first nation was Sweden, in 1934. Following Keynesian-like policies, the Swedish government spent its way out of the Depression, proving that state economic policies can be successful without resorting to dictatorship or war.)

Prior to the Nazi seizure of power in 1933, worker protests had spread all across Germany in response to the Great Depression. During his drive to power, Hitler exploited this social unrest by promising workers to strengthen their labor unions and increase their standard of living. But these were empty promises; privately, he was reassuring wealthy German businessmen that he would crack down on labor once he achieved power. Historian William Shirer describes the Nazi's dual strategy:

"The party had to play both sides of the tracks. It had to allow [Nazi officials] Strasser, Goebbels and the crank Feder to beguile the masses with the cry that the National Socialists were truly 'socialists' and against the money barons. On the other hand, money to keep the party going had to be wheedled out of those who had an ample supply of it." (2)

Once in power, Hitler showed his true colors by promptly breaking all his promises to workers. The Nazis abolished trade unions, collective bargaining and the right to strike. An organization called the "Labor Front" replaced the old trade unions, but it was an instrument of the Nazi party and did not represent workers. According to the law that created it, "Its task is to see that every individual should be able… to perform the maximum of work." Workers would indeed greatly boost their productivity under Nazi rule. But they also became exploited. Between 1932 and 1936, workers wages fell, from 20.4 to 19.5 cents an hour for skilled labor, and from 16.1 to 13 cents an hour for unskilled labor. (3) Yet workers did not protest. This was partly because the Nazis had restored order to the economy, but an even bigger reason was that the Nazis would have cracked down on any protest.

There was no part of Nazism, therefore, that even remotely resembled socialism. But what about the political nature of Nazism in general? Did it belong to the left, or to the right? Let's take a closer look:

The politics of Nazism

The political right is popularly associated with the following principles. Of course, it goes without saying that these are generalizations, and not every person on the far right believes in every principle, or disbelieves its opposite. Most people's political beliefs are complex, and cannot be neatly pigeonholed. This is as true of Hitler as anyone. But since the far right is trying peg Hitler as a leftist, it's worth reviewing the tenets popularly associated with the right. These include:

* Individualism over collectivism.
* Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.
* Eugenics over freedom of reproduction.
* Merit over equality.
* Competition over cooperation.
* Power politics and militarism over pacifism.
* One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.
* Capitalism over Marxism.
* Realism over idealism.
* Nationalism over internationalism.
* Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.
* Meat-eating over vegetarianism.
* Gun ownership over gun control
* Common sense over theory or science.
* Pragmatism over principle.
* Religion over secularism.

Let's review these spectrums one by one, and see where Hitler stood in his own words. Ultimately, Hitler's views are not monolithically conservative -- on a few issues, his views are complex and difficult to label. But as you will see, the vast majority of them belong on the far right:

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.

I'm not going to re-write a very succinct explanation of Catholic doctrine which you would do well to read before spouting off some juvenile rants against the Pontiff - here's the first three sections from an article on the topic:

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Papal Infallibility


The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other "Bible Christians" often confuse the charism of papal "infallibility" with "impeccability." They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: "He who hears you hears me" (Luke 10:16), and "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Matt. 18:18).



Vatican II’s Explanation


Vatican II explained the doctrine of infallibility as follows: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith" (Lumen Gentium 25).

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17–19; John 21:15–17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

The infallibility of the pope is not a doctrine that suddenly appeared in Church teaching; rather, it is a doctrine which was implicit in the early Church. It is only our understanding of infallibility which has developed and been more clearly understood over time. In fact, the doctrine of infallibility is implicit in these Petrine texts: John 21:15–17 ("Feed my sheep . . . "), Luke 22:32 ("I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail"), and Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ").



Based on Christ’s Mandate


Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19–20) and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings (Matt. 16:18, 1 Tim. 3:15), even if individual Catholics might.

As Christians began to more clearly understand the teaching authority of the Church and of the primacy of the pope, they developed a clearer understanding of the pope’s infallibility. This development of the faithful’s understanding has its clear beginnings in the early Church. For example, Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14). In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).



Some Clarifications


An infallible pronouncement—whether made by the pope alone or by an ecumenical council—usually is made only when some doctrine has been called into question. Most doctrines have never been doubted by the large majority of Catholics.

Pick up a catechism and look at the great number of doctrines, most of which have never been formally defined. But many points have been defined, and not just by the pope alone. There are, in fact, many major topics on which it would be impossible for a pope to make an infallible definition without duplicating one or more infallible pronouncements from ecumenical councils or the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the Church.

At least the outline, if not the references, of the preceding paragraphs should be familiar to literate Catholics, to whom this subject should appear straightforward. It is a different story with "Bible Christians." For them papal infallibility often seems a muddle because their idea of what it encompasses is often incorrect.

Some ask how popes can be infallible if some of them lived scandalously. This objection of course, illustrates the common confusion between infallibility and impeccability. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad example. (The truly remarkable thing is the great degree of sanctity found in the papacy throughout history; the "bad popes" stand out precisely because they are so rare.)

Other people wonder how infallibility could exist if some popes disagreed with others. This, too, shows an inaccurate understanding of infallibility, which applies only to solemn, official teachings on faith and morals, not to disciplinary decisions or even to unofficial comments on faith and morals. A pope’s private theological opinions are not infallible, only what he solemnly defines is considered to be infallible teaching.

Even Fundamentalists and Evangelicals who do not have these common misunderstandings often think infallibility means that popes are given some special grace that allows them to teach positively whatever truths need to be known, but that is not quite correct, either. Infallibility is not a substitute for theological study on the part of the pope.

What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as "truth" something that is, in fact, error. It does not help him know what is true, nor does it "inspire" him to teach what is true. He has to learn the truth the way we all do—through study—though, to be sure, he has certain advantages because of his position.
-------------------------------------


>> ^WaterDweller:
Same gal as last year: http://www.videosift.com/video/Person-charges-the-pope
Apparently she hasn't changed her clothes for a whole year. Or she just really likes red


In response to this comment below - yeah, it's like becoming an annual tradition or something.

Kind of hard to tell from the angle seen, but it looks like the Vatican Guards took her down before she got to B16, but they took him to the ground as well as a protective (over-reactive?) measure, at least that's how it seems to look. It would make sense to do that, anyway, cover him in case she's not attacking by herself, has explosives, etc.

Dear Troops,

We appreciate your sacrifice and service, provided you're not injured or raising questions about your (mis)use. Please note that aforementioned appreciation will not be extended beyond your final tour of duty, nor if one of the previously-mentioned conditions arise. Appreciation does not imply financial remuneration. Appreciation shall be collected in the form of Wal-Mart ads featuring you (or a Hollywood likeness of someone who corporate America thinks you should look like), the occasional shot at a sideline seat during an NFL games (actual odds of winning equal 1:the total number of troops in uniform), and yellow ribbons tied to every standing vertical thing within sight of an airbase, fort, deployment center or military cemetery. Appreciation may occasionally take the form of your life being risked for political ends outside the scope of your current mission.

We, the kings, queens, bishops and knights thank you for your service. Just remember, when you're a pawn, sometimes you're going to be rooked.

John Shelby Spong, retired Episcopal bishop from Newark, N.J., talks about why Christianity must change its view of hell. Spong is one of the leading spokepersons for liberal Christianity.

It's a political statement of course. They're not punishing him because of his beliefs, they're punishing him because he's public about it. I'm sure they're not so deluded as to think that all the Catholics in America who receive communion are also staunchly against Abortion. Just like you can be Gay and be a Bishop or a Priest...just make sure no one finds out. So it's not a principled stand and that should be pointed out.

EDIT: Grammar

You must consider yourself pretty clever, but are you clever enough to realize that Rooks, Knights, Bishops and even the Queen are pawns? Its true that a Queen is more powerful than a Pawn, and certainly what better way is there to entice someone to your ends than by dangling the promise of promotion over their heads?

It's lasted me so far, and done its job in things. I'm not getting anything out of supporting Health Care Reform in USA. Thanks to Mass Health in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I already get the best health care. I would fairly wager, its better in content and amount then alot of other plans in other states. But experience and observation has taught me, that no one should be without health care coverage. Be they healthy or not. Young or not. Poor or not. Best way to deal with cancer, is to spot it early. Best way to fight alot of the diseases that ravage humanity (like AIDS, or H1N1), is to spot it early and eliminate it. Best way to deal with Depression, is to have more therapists who are trained to diagnosis it quickly, and work on someone to heal a deadly wound.

You want to play little games with other people's health?

But you are wrong to think that the Queen is the most powerful piece...the King is, for even though he can move but a space at a time, he has convinced every other member of the board to risk their lives in the service of his ends.

No, the King is not the most powerful. He's the most integrated component of the whole. Since, to win, a King must have one other peice. If both sides have just a King, its a forever stalemate. And obviously, you've never played Nightmare Chess from Wizards of the Coast.

So I guess I'll ask you again; how confident are you that you aren't playing the role of the pawn, spending, wasting, and even risking your life trying to obtain some carrot danging in front of your face...be it women, knowledge, wealth, fame, power - all for the service of some king, who has his own agenda; one who equates the value of your life with that of an ordinary chess piece?

As I stated before, I'm not a pawn. To be a pawn, one must have something to gain. I myself have nothing to gain, nor lose, regardless of how health care reform turns out in the USA. Count me a liberal. But I do get concern with the health of my country men (and women). Their finanical well-being is key to solving this ressession that the USA is in. But if health care contuines on its current track, the amount Americans pay for health care will be about double what they do now. They cant afford it now. What planet do conservatives/republicans live on, that makes them think, Americans will afford it anymore in five years?

Mr. Obama, is not a King, nor a dictator. He's been holding himself responsible for his actions and words. Something the previous president could not accomplish. Might be one of the reasons, republicans arent in the White House.

Now, what if that chess peice you were talking about, held within it, a micro-chip containing the Cure to Cancer. How valuable would that be? How quickly do you think I would become a multi-TRILLIONAIRE?

In reply to this comment by Nithern:
In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
In reply to this comment by Nithern

You must consider yourself pretty clever, but are you clever enough to realize that Rooks, Knights, Bishops and even the Queen are pawns? Its true that a Queen is more powerful than a Pawn, and certainly what better way is there to entice someone to your ends than by dangling the promise of promotion over their heads?

But you are wrong to think that the Queen is the most powerful piece...the King is, for even though he can move but a space at a time, he has convinced every other member of the board to risk their lives in the service of his ends.

So I guess I'll ask you again; how confident are you that you aren't playing the role of the pawn, spending, wasting, and even risking your life trying to obtain some carrot danging in front of your face...be it women, knowledge, wealth, fame, power - all for the service of some king, who has his own agenda; one who equates the value of your life with that of an ordinary chess piece?

In reply to this comment by imstellar28:
In reply to this comment by Nithern

How confident are you that you aren't a pawn, about to be sacrificed as part of a game you didn't even realize you were playing?

Even pawns have the ability to become Rooks, Knights, Bishops, and (the most powerful peice in the game) the Queen. If I have to serve as a pawn for now, then that's how the game is played. Anyone that's played me in chess knows, I'm deadly with pawns.

Also, am I nuts, or is that Bishop just totally worthless? I mean really, at least Mrs. Pepperpot fought back a bit with what could be called sort-of-logical points. He was just a dogma-spouting, non-thinking, lump on a log.

I'm a bit disappointed - this is a *long series. I was looking forward to it being a Hitchens vs. Fry debate based on the headline - this is actually a classic 4-way debate, which is fine - but we missed out on some serious potential comedy and went for.... wow.

OMG Hitchens is such an ass right off the bat. DUDE - the Crusades? Why should we apologize for that? They were AWESOME. Have you played Assassin's Creed?

But seriously, Poland was historically the most tolerant country in Europe. That's why the Jews fled ENGLAND and other Western countries to POLAND, which gave the Jewish people a home. Not to say that Eastern Europe is a haven of tolerance these days, but if you're going to cite how things were a thousand years ago, I'm going to call you on your b.s. as well. where they were then slaughtered by Nazis.

Oh, who denied asylum to boatloads of Jewish refugees? The oh-so-enlightened Western countries. Yeah, bravo hypocrite.

Oh, and Hitchens, FOAD - at least that's what you're encouraging other people to do by encouraging them to have sex with everybody instead of being monogamous? And hey, if you don't use condoms properly you can in fact get infected - so big huge caveat guys.

Condemning Fry? We don't do that.

This isn't a debate on his part, Hitchens is being a liar and a slanderer. Shame on him.

Good on the MP for her rebuttal. After all, the God of Catholics is Jewish. Accusing Catholics anti-Semitic is beyond ridiculous.

Now Fry's intro, on the other hand, reeks of class even if I don't agree with the overall POV. And what's this about "torturing" Galileo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei Source please.

Also, Fry, you doth protest too much. You are not morally evil. You can choose to be good or bad, just being a homosexual does not mean anything about your personal morality - God loves you and Catholics love you and welcome you to the Church. If you choose to exclude yourself through ridiculous and misleading claims. Obsessed with sex? No, I don't know which church you're hearing about, but that seems to be what you're obsessed with, because it's the only thing you talk about.

FYI, there's a difference between loving respect and your hysterical "fear". I'm sorry if you were abused as child - but there's a ginormous difference.

"Of which policy are you most ashamed" - is that the new version of "have you stopped beating your wife senator?" Madness.

The Bishop's speech was a bit dry, but his response was spot on.

Oh snap, clever response from Widdencombe, keeping in the spirit of the debate. In reality, women will probably be allowed to become priests (priestesses?) one day - but you have to keep in mind ridiculous schisms would result if they jumped head-first into a barrel of madness and change. Just see how up-in-arms Americans get over changes to health care. Things are a bit more subtle and complicated than that.

Catholics aren't there to judge you - they're not going to declare Fry to be in a state of mortal sin (i.e. do you love God?), that's something for him to deal with in his own conscience, as we all do.

Bonus observation: note which side admits humility. That means admitting you're not perfect but are working on becoming better.

Catholics win the debate by default. You can't come up with lies and falsehoods and come out ahead. Proper debates will include an opportunity for final rebuttals. Not to mention con side picked a single topic instead of perhaps 20 potential lines of conversation - cons resorted to falsehoods, and fails to counter the fact that the Church is a Force for Good.

I've witnessed properly judged debates, and know the voting was simply silly but revelatory of what you witness here - overall a weak debate, with one side offering up solid points but not really engaging the audience, the other simply resorting to hysterics and demagoguery.

I'd be much more interested in seeing the four debaters arguing the opposite POVs, this was rather stultifying.

Gay Marriage: There are people out there who just don't want to shake things up; people who like the status quo and want to see marriage remain M/F only. Exactly what's going on in their heads, I can't say. I'd be interested to find out and I know that won't happen if I scream obscenities at them before they have the chance to explain it.

Illegal Immigration: First, the omission of "illegal" in my first post was just an oversight on my part. I really don't see why anyone would support illegal immigration, honestly. I think the claim that some people do is more likely a distortion. People, generally liberals, argue for better treatment of illegals and against the assload of money we spend trying, and failing, to stop them at the border. Wingnuts then point at those people and claim that they're in favor of illegal immigration. That one feels like runaway douchebaggery to me.

The Holocaust: This guy is labeled an antisemite for his beliefs about the Holocaust. If you're looking for "the point" to denying the Holocaust, then you're way off the mark. It's not as if there is a "point" to believing in the Holocaust, either. That's what you and I, presumably, believe because that is what the evidence presented to us suggests. Some people have interpreted the evidence differently or have been exposed to different evidence. I think most of those people are probably nuts but it's a complete logical fallacy to jump to antisemitism from there.

War on Terror: You've made my point for me here. Everyone I know who is against the war fully supports the troops. We want them home and safe rather than risking their lives to protect us from absolutely nothing. However, anyone who was against the war during the Bush administration was labeled as anti-American, unpatriotic, an appeaser or accused of hating the troops. It's a bullshit accusation intended to shut you up or drown you out and that's it.
---
It seems like you may have mistaken my list of examples for my personal positions and that's not the case, so I can't really make any arguments for these things. The only argument I'm making is that you shouldn't assume your preconceived notions are true and shut out those opposing viewpoints as a result. Have your preconceptions if you must, but give the person the chance to prove you wrong.

>> ^Shepppard:
What possible reason other then either being a bible thumper or homophobe is there for objecting gay marriage?
I'm asking legitimately. Two people love each other, they want the same treatment as everybody else. Unless it's wrong in the eyes of the lord, or you don't like seeing a man holding another mans hand, I see no actual valid reason for it.
Now, Beck says he opposes Illegal immigration, big difference to just immigration. I can understand not wanting illegal immigrants, even though they too are just a group of people looking for a better life, but the ones who come over legally, apply for a visa or citizenship.. if they take a job away from an American, then they deserve the spot more then the American, they were more qualified.
I don't see the point of denying the holocost, when there are still survivors OF the holocost, and documents, eyewitness accounts, films, and still photographs proving that millions of Jewish people were encamped, and killed, during WWII. True, you can argue that you don't care about the jews, you just don't believe it happened.. but I don't understand the reasoning for it. Any hard look at the facts would prove that it happened, and unless you really did have some ulterior motive you'd change your views.
Of course you can oppose policies without being a racist, anybody claiming you ARE one is a loon. Obama is NOT the first ever president of the u.s.a. and as far as I know, for each and every president before him, there was at least one group of people that thought "Hey..we don't like you, or your policies, BOO!"
You can oppose the war on terror without hating the troops makes no sense to me. Most people who are against the war seem to be against it because they feel that American blood shouldn't be shed in a senseless war, and want to bring them HOME. I don't understand your point there at all.
Abortion, I agree with you on. My mother is adopted, and while I'm still pro-choice, she is against abortions. If whoever gave birth to her decided on having an abortion instead, she would never have been here.
Look, I'll stop picking apart your post now, because I know the point was actually to promote having an open mind, but your examples given are slightly..flawed. By all means, if you have means to correct me, do so, I will gladly look at all the evidence given to me. But honestly..
some things, some pre-concieved notions, they're honestly true.