David Barton and Sally Kern have a conversation.
Barton: With all of the protection we have for free speech, there’s still a number of areas where you’re not free to speak out on certain things. If you touch homosexuality, be prepared to pay a price, not just attacks, it’s gonna cost you economically, other things as well, may cost your life. This is, the way people respond to what you say about homosexuality if you criticize it and we got Sally Kern today, State Rep from Oklahoma who experienced that first time, what happens if you exercise your right of free speech and happen to say something disparaging about homosexuality.
I know there are a fair number of gay readers here, so ‘fess up: how many heterosexuals have you killed? I had no idea we had gangs of homosexuals casually beating and murdering the poor oppressed heteros.
Kern: I have to be honest with you Rick, when I was sitting there in my car that day and when she told me that those emails were coming from homosexuals, honestly, fear gripped my whole body, because I was very aware of the homosexual lobbyists and the power that they have. And people say, ‘oh you’re so brave, so heroic,’ but I’m not, I’m just a sinner saved by grace and I was gripped with fear that day. I just said, ‘Lord, what have I done?’
She did say one true thing: sitting in a car trembling in fear of the gays is not brave. Actually, it’s rather cowardly to use your fear of a class of people to push legislation that really does cause fear and anxiety.
Ha! I just posted about this in the undead thread.
This is the mind set that allows Virginia Foxx to claim that the murder of Matthew Sheppard was a sham. These poor people are acting in self defense.
I would almost have pity for their fear if there was not a body count.
Jebus, someone can’t understand the concept of free speech, being able to say anything on your mind, and the consequences of speaking your mind if you piss people off. Especially if you are deliberately obnoxious like Kern is. Kern tries to hide behind “free speech”, but what she really means is unconsequencial speech, where she is never called on her lies and meanness. *goes to find tiny violin to play in sympathy*
I don’t recall the last time a straight person was beaten for being straight, but I know last week a friend of mine was beaten for being gay.
Where did people get this idea that free speech somehow means free from disagreement, anger, or criticism. The government has no right to silence you, but that does not absolve you from responsibility for your words.
None. Although I did kick a person in the fork for sucker punching me coming out of a gay bar. I don’t like being beaten.
:Snorts: Oh yeah, such power, why we’re ruling the universe!
I find it humorous (mostly for the lack of self-awareness) when Christians complain about the economic consequences of pissing off a subset of the population.
Isn’t that the Christian Right’s primary weapon these days, economic boycott of anyone and anything that is not pro-Christian? Don’t various groups call for boycotts of businesses who have the audacity of trying to be inclusive around the Winter Solstice, wishing people “Season’s Greetings” instead of “Merry Christmas”?
I would love to see the statement “may cost your life” backed up by some evidence. Because I’m pretty sure we can find some evidence for the opposite.
“I was just practicing my right of free speech to say that homosexuals are evil, evil, evil and suddenly….E-MAILS!!! What ever did I do to deserve this!? Why do they infringe upon my rights!?”
I am beginning to assume by now that you can consistently determine whether a person is a Republican based on the number of fainting couches in their offices.
How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Sally Kern after all she has been through.!
She lost her aunt, she went through a divorce. She had two fuckin kids.
…
SHE’S A HUMAN! (ah! ooh!) What you don’t realize is that Sally Kern is making you all this money and all you do is write a bunch of crap about her.
…all you people want is MORE! MORE-MORE, MORE: MORE!.
LEAVE HER ALONE! You are lucky she even performed for you BASTARDS!
LEAVE Sally Kern ALONE!…..Please.
Perez Hilton talked about professionalism and said if Sally Kern was a professional she would’ve pulled it off no matter what.
Speaking of professionalism, when is it professional to publicly bash someone who is going through a hard time.
Leave Sally Kern Alone Please…. !
Leave Sally Kern alone!…right now!….I mean it.!
Anyone that has a problem with her you deal with me, because she is not well right now.
LEAVE HER ALONE!
;D
Unsurprisingly, she can’t verbalize what Lord said back to her, but I’m sure it was supportive, huh?
There’s a militant agenda out there.
Yeah. Nobody’s intentionally conflating “militant,” meaning “uppity,” and “military,” meaning dressing up in camo and hunting you like a yummy, yummy deer.
Nope. Nobody would do that.
So you mean that by coming out as bi to the Spawn, I have put them in fear for their lives!!!eleventy11?? That might explain why they’re both cleaning their rooms right now.
Oh, wait, no, that’s because 3 Pharynguloids are staying here tomorrow night, and DDMFM is gracing us with his brain for the next 10 days or so.
/nevermind
As Clarence Darrow said, “I never killed a man, but I read many obituaries with great relish.”
Or Twain: “I didn’t attend the funeral, but I sent a note saying I approved.”
Hey, why is my dog barking now?
A_Ray:
Oh, thank you for that.
Oh yes, definitely, straight bashing is on the rise. Titles like Kentucky straight couple and children attacked by anti straight crowd at fireworks display and Straight Couple Assaulted By Church Deacons And Victim’s Father are suddenly turning up everywhere.
Jebus fucking Christ
Why is it that every dumb right wing motherfucker out there needs a lesson on what the first amendment protects against?
It does not protect against consequences for saying stupid things like
and then me calling you a bigoted low functioning slug of an moron.
It only protects against the government not allowing you to say those stupid things.
What she felt wasn’t fear of the homosexual threat. I understand she couldn’t comprehend this totally new sensation. All her life, she’d been used to seeing the nodding heads, hearing the “Bless you!”s and the “Amen”s when she spoke, getting emails signed with “yours in Christ” and “the Lord watches over you”. And now this. People are reponding negatively.
What Sally Kern experiences is the confused anxiety reaction of a bully who is shown where she’s crossing a line for the first time in her life.
I guess gay cooties are now an internet virus.
What really amazes my is that people like Kern introduce bills designed to restrict the freedom of others and then are absolutely shocked (Shocked I tell you!) that those same people aren’t happy about have their freedoms curtailed.
And to top it off, then they wrap themselves in the cloak of victimhood and act as if they are the ones who are being oppressed.
I know, literally, dozens of gay and lesbian people who were both verbally and physically harassed for simply being who they were. And I was one of them.
For every one of these craven bigots who speak out against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, in the face of the “awesome power of the homosexual lobby”, I’d like to take them to Matthew Shepard’s grave and tell them that people like them put him in the grave.
What these people are really afraid of is that it will someday no longer be socially acceptable to put more GLBT people into the grave, with impunity.
Whatever power the GLBT lobby gets is well-earned, against all the odds, and I look forward to the day when arrogant, ignorant and vile bigots like David Barton and Sally Kern really do have to quiver in fear because of the awesome power of “teh gayz”.
Fundies should be free to express their beliefs, but no one should be free to tell them how sad, repressive, wrong and destructive their ideas are. That’s basically the world these fools want to live in.
Caine,
We at Obscure Quotes R Us are happy to oblige.
I am ashamed that Sally Kern is from my state. I am also ashamed that she won reelection, though it was a little dumb for the Democratic party here to run Brittany Novotony against Sally Kern. It was pretty obvious that Novotony couldn’t win a seat in the district that elected Kern in the first place. I’m sure that just about anyone else would have defeated her. I guess there’s always the next election.
Was that a Chris Crocker impression? For script, it was pretty good. I can hear the tears!
Anyhow, that exchange takes projection and privilege to a whole new level. I’m sure she was terrified by those emails.
I’m wondering, though, why the fact that she was in her car was relevant to her narrative?
Never mind, it’s too stupid to think about anyway.
This sinks it. Sally Kern has now replaced Hanson and Toby Keith as the worst thing ever to come from Oklahoma.
I’ve never killed anyone, but I’ve put a few mundanes knickers in a twist.
*clutching pearls*
Oh no, the evil gays are angry at me for saying something stupid! My free speech rights are being trampled!!
You know the drill, Kern: Undersized violin…sea urchin… orifice…
How awful, a transgendered woman running for office.
“How fucking dare anyone out there make fun of Sally Kern after all she has been through.!
She lost her aunt, she went through a divorce. She had two fuckin kids.”
Add this one: she was forced to disown her own son for homosexuality.
Has to hurt.
(My son had Sally Kern as a teacher in his high school, and was a friend to her son when his mother disowned him. She was actually effective as an educator in his life: she taught him that there are some really unpleasant and bigoted people out in the real world).
Still not the stupidest thing she’s ever said. I think that goes to this quote:
Time for a game of word substitution.
He was so close to being correct. Instead, he’s a loser.
What a hateful, evil woman.
You always brighten my day, A_Ray.
I so wish we had all the power ascribed to us by the frightened Rethuglicans. If the gay lobby were as powerful as Kern thinks, marriage equality would not be blocked by state constitutions in 40 states.
I would never wish for the death of a homophobic biggot like Kern, but when she does go, well, I’ll smile. I may even dance a bit.
gee, more liars for Christ, and as an added bonus a Christain who is so faithless that she’s cowering in fear in her car with nothing but emails to look at.
Sally Kern owes me a new irony meter.
She’s complaining about her freedom of speech being negatively affected by — other peoples’ freedom of speech?
Oooo, she got e-mails! So dangerous.
Would “wanker” be an acceptable epithet? Doesn’t matter, I’m using it.
Speaking as a heterosexual I would like to say to you gays, please stop. Your consensual sex with your partner(s) is infringing my right to be an outspoken bigot. I mean, I know what you do to each other, I’ve watched it on the internet. Hours and hours and hours at a time.
The very idea that you gays, with your Gay Agenda, love each other and are not different sexes from each other is evil. I know because if we let you gays have your way, then we’ll all be shagging sheep by the end of the week. Under age sheep. Of the wrong sex.
Personally, because what you gays do is icky and perverted, I am very brave to speak up about this. After all it’s part of the Gay Agenda to come round to my house and fuck me in the arse while I sleep with a massive strap on dildo. The fact that my key is under the mat and I’ll be home tonight is not an invitation, it’s merely a reflection that I live in a trusting neighbourhood.
Of course now I’ve outed your Gay Agenda I’ll be pilloried and verbally assaulted. The fact that I have bullied dozens of you people into suicide is totally overshadowed by the few thousand nasty emails you will send me. My heterosexual, conservative feelings are vastly more important than the lives of hysterical perverts who were probably being all dramatic anyway.
Lots of love and kisses
Louis
P.S. How did I do?
Kern seems sincerely frightened of her self-created ghey boogeyman, just like Michele Bachmann.
I was searching for an article about how Bachmann basically screamed and ran away from two women (lesbian activists) who were just trying to talk to her in a women’s bathroom lounge, I think it was in DC.
Instead, the first 20 hits I got were about this incident:
It would be funny if these people didn’t have so much power in our culture.
It really makes my head hurt to try to fathom the depths of cognitive dissonance they must experience.
Also, I love this kid.
As people have said: It’s a damn shame all the kids who throw themselves from bridges, overdose, hang themselve, etcs; or are beaten up by their peers; or even just sit and cry in their rooms (yes, they have reason to have their whole bodies gripped by fear, unlike some, Ms Kern) aren’t as aware of this massive, successful, terrifying homosexual lobby that rules the world. Damn fucking shame.
♪ Oh, you cruel gay kids!
Don’t you know you’re driving the fundies and bigots insane ♪
Caine,
Thank you, kind Madame. That will sustain me in my time of need.
I was just about to post a long level-headed rant about how much I hate homophobia spread by religious and political leaders, but my computer reset without warning and I lost everything. That pissed me off. So I’m just going to be concise.
Fuck all of you, you fœtid, coprophagous, hypocritical, shitstains.
That is all.
The real question remains: Can you catch the gay by swimming in a pool full of homosexuals?
Sounds like an honorary horde member already. *clenched tentacle salute*
I think Sally Kern also tried to pass legislation that no student in a school could be marked wrong on answers if they were faith-based answers.
I’ve killed two.
All girls are straight… until they’re not.
Oh yes, they are so cruel, I know exactly what she means. I’ve been personally a victim of this: My two bestest friends in college used to call me a “Quotenhete” (quota-heterosexual). Well, of course we’d tell the gay guy that as a man he was only a tolerated minority and the lesbian that she was the only one who didn’t fancy men like every sensible person in the group did…
What a disgusting, vile, malicious person, totally incapable of human decency, empathy and love is that woman?
So, she got e-mails. Funny she doesn’t mention the detailed threats of death, violence and rape that other women get from heterosexual MRAs.
I saw a piece of graffiti once which read:
“My mother made me a homosexual”
Underneath was written:
“If I gave her the wool would she make me one?”
So you’ve been warned kids. You can catch Teh Ghey from KNITTING! Must be true, saw it on a wall.
Meh hysterical* conservative is hysterical, film at 11.
Louis
*Not because she’s a woman, because she’s a Jesus freak, right wing, fulminating driveller with a persecution complex. She’s, like, so totally persecuted by the evil gays with their demands to be real proper people and everything. Won’t someone please think of the children?
What emails is she talking about?
This seems like yet another example where the Right is inventing fictitious people to fight against…
@Louis:
(*pssst* Don’t use the word “hysterical” when refering to women, it’s got a pretty awful history)
Katherine Lorraine,
Yeah my bad. I did it knowingly too. Can I retract it and replace it with “hyperventillatingly idiotic” please? If it helps I would have used the identical word about Ted Haggard or Ron Paul or Pat Robertson.
Either way, I done fucked up. My bad and thanks.
Louis
Try being an atheist and speaking out against religion or better yet just tell people your an atheist. You will never see these morons stand up for an atheist rights to speak ill of religion.
Them forcing others to pray = freedom of religion.
Someone else talking to them = Restrictin’ mah free speech!
Just remember, the Constitution is a document to be interpreted. Sometimes it helps the interpretation if you interpret a “not” in there where those foolish founders unaccountably forgot it.
Do all the baddies I’ve offed while playing D&D count? For that matter, do D&D baddies, as a population, tend to be as straight as your typical group of U.S. citizens?
(Here I paused to ponder something with all the empirical heft of Sally Kern’s fears.)
I knew I should have skimmed a couple of the tie-in novels. Anyhow, other than while gaming, my kill count stands at about -0.3 since I intervened in a couple of strangers’ accidents. Demographics lead me to suspect those random individuals were straight. Sorry to skew the curve for my more hardworking fellows!
Godwin
Nazis whining about how mean Le Resistance are to them.
The Emperor of my current setting is gay. So far it hasn’t been too important but might be a plot point as his refusal to go the traditional route and procreate to continue on the monarchy has risen questions about whether the nation will be phasing out it’s constitutional monarchy or digging up genealogies.
Oh and one PC wound up marrying a character who would be qualified as queer due to frequent shape-shifting (as a plant demigod) but was originally male…so no clue on whether that counts for them.
I have no doubt that Sally Kern receives threatening mail from gays and allies — there are stupid people of all orientations. The way she whines about it though is like a white man in Alabama afraid of being lynched by all the blacks.
and;
These people really have parted company with reality some time ago. They seem to be afraid fo something that only exists in their tiny pin heads – the murderous homosexual horde of dooooom! In the real world, homosexuals are constantly struggling against bigorty, a bigotry that often manifests as violence and even murder, but in the diseased minds* of the likes of Barton and Kern it is the vile hompophobes who are the “so brave, so heroic” champions of all that is good and pure, while the monstrous exponents of teh ghey leave their crypts by the spectral light of the midnight moon to feast on the blood of virgin GOP candidates… or something.
Its really very simple; if you spew poisonous homophobic hatred day in and day out, someone is eventually going to call you on it. The trouble is that, among their many intellectual failings, homophobes don’t seem to understand what ‘free speech’ actually means. If someone calls you a bigot for being a bigot, then this is not an oppression of your free speech. The right to free speech is not a shield against criticism or insult – it exists to stop the state or any other other group or individual from silencing you, whether by violence or any other form of censorship. A few emails telling Kern some home truths is not even close to silencing her, and the very fact that she seems to think that it is equivilent to censorship is simply further evidence that she is either out of touch with reality or arguing in bad faith.
Green is wheeling out an old chestnut here. nigelTheBold is right on the money @ 10; the use of the word ‘militant’ is not accidental – it is very much calculated. The intent is that people will link the group being described with the more usual, violent conotations of militancy. People will think of paramilitary groups or the media’s favourite hobby horse, islamic militants. Once people are in the mindset that a given group is violent and generally (but never specifically) dangerous, then they are that much more receptive to whatever lies rightwing talking heads choose to make up about them. This is why ‘militant’ is so often used as a suffix to describe any group that fundies and rightwingers don’t like. Its a favourite party trick. And so we have ‘militant’ feminists, ‘militant’ ethnic minorities, ‘militant’ atheists and ‘militant’ homosexuals. And all that a member of any of these groups has to do to be labelled ‘militant’? Simply publically state their presence rather than hiding in a corner and pretending they don’t exist to spare the delicate sensibilities of bigotted morons.
This is why it is so important that people remember that words have meanings, and should be used only according to what they actually mean. If not, it is all too easy to hide discrimination and hatred in verbal sleight-of-hand.
* I use the term ‘minds’ in the loosest possible sense here.
Of course Sally Kern is afraid, didn’t you see what we did to her hair and make-up?*
*Okay, low blow picking on what she looks like.
Ah, well, if just killing off their heterosexuality counts, than I can claim three! woo-hoo!
There’s nothing quite as funny as someone speaking, on the radio, about how their free speech rights have been curtailed.
It’s about as funny as towing around a plaster representation of stone tablets with the Ten Commandments on it claiming your right to religious freedom is being curtailed.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court of Canada is hearing an appeal by a Christian bigot who was fined by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing hate propaganda against gays.
His lawyer “wants the court system to lose its right to rule on hate speech. He says it’s almost impossible to define what hate is.”
Umm, I think the statute is fairly clear. It may be difficult for him to figure it out, but that’s no reason to get rid of the law.
I’d pray that this goes in our favour, but you know…
Really?
Correction: It’s the Human Rights Tribunal that’s appealing. The bigot won his appeal in the provincial court.
Has Kern learned nothing from Michelle Bachmann? You don’t cower in your car when you see gay people; you cower behind a bush!
(Coos in Sally’s ear): No baby. That ain’t fear. That’s me. And my big, warm Ghey. Yeah. Work it out.
Don’t worry Sally – if you prefer getting emails from angry straight people pointing out your idiocy, we’ll be happy to oblige.
And here’s a shiny new internet for you.
Stephen Colbert once claimed that he only married so he could feel superior to the gays who can’t, and therefore same-sex marriage would destroy his marriage. And this is still the best argument against marriage equality I ever heard.
#45 and 59- I think I’ve killed off the heterosexuality of numerous women. But it’s not my fault I’m unattractive.
Ibis3, denizen of a spiteful ghetto, I read that story this morning! I’m still trying to dig up more info on it. Seems this guy has been around a long time.
I’m not surprised that he won an appeal in Provincial Court. He actually had the findings repealed. This is taking place in Saskatchewan, after all.
Still, I don’t think hate speech means what he (or the Provincial Court, or the *CCLA) thinks it means.
*Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who will, apparently, fight for any cause, hypocrisy be damned.
And I can’t even convince my group to do anything besides evil lich lord becomes demigod and standard dungeon crawls. Grrr Damn, my charisma score.
Republicans vote for you?
I have finally found the courage to speak out:
All you Gayz, stop doing these unspeakable homosexual things that you do, immediately! My precious bodily fluids are being contaminated and my manhood is shriveling from the gay miasmas you produce. I had to switch from Crisco to no-name clarified butter because they looked at me funny in the supermarket. I had to throw away all the Petshop Boys CDs and switch to Manowar because it was less obvious. How far will the persecution of good straight heterosexualists go before we wake up and realize that there are some people out there who dare…. dare to exist!!??
Press Association
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 12 October 2011 17.39 BST
Tory councillor James Malliff has been suspended over his gay marriage tweet
Tory councillor James Malliff has been suspended over his gay marriage tweet. Photograph: Rex Features
A senior Tory councillor has been suspended after suggesting his party “may as well legalise marriage with animals” after David Cameron declared his support for gay marriage.
Party chiefs took immediate action against James Malliff, a cabinet member of the Tory-controlled Wycombe council in Buckinghamshire, who is in charge of “big society and localism”.
A party spokesman said: “These comments are completely unacceptable. Councillor Malliff’s local party association has suspended him with immediate effect.”
and this is our right-wing party . . . just sayin’
As far as violence based on sexual orientation goes, the gays have a tremendous amount of catching up to do. Perhaps some forget that there was a time (not too long ago), when freely mentioning the fact that you were a homosexual could have an almost negative impact on your job, family and relationships.
Apparently things are now even and the ‘gay agenda’ has its people on the offensive. I for one have already given up the fight and will be spending every evening in a gay bar wearing leather chaps to avoid being a victim.
…it isn’t PC, but I do feel like doing some violence to some of these bigoted, right-wing, god-sucking, ass-bags. I won’t, because I’m an atheist and I have a sense of morality, but I sure would like to.
42.
But I’m not actually gay, honest, I just have sex with men.
anthrosciguy@64:
I thought that was Marcus cowering behind the bushy beard?
Now, of course he needs to be afraid.
I’ve heard that now in Uganda – there’s merciless mobs of homosexuals killing heterosexuals. Some extremist atheist group have inspired this. I think it was “the family” or something like that. Good Christians are of course utterly disgusted and protests against this.
(or did some words change place here..?)
@53 Parhelion – don’t you remember? D&D is of the devil, talk shows convinced my mother of this back in the 80’s or 90’s. So you are potentially both gay AND Satanic (though I’m sure the two are closely related or even synonyms in her head, along with atheist, socialist, Muslim, Nazi, Communist, terrorist, liberal, etc, etc…)
Peptron @42:
What, if anything, has the target gay been greased up with? Also, how long is their hair?
The Spawns’ rooms are not clean yet. Should I threaten to go full out lesbian to terrify them into getting the job done? Josh, I am, once again, in need of your Ghey Parenting Advice™…
Alright, I confess. When I hear some idiot christian discuss the evils of being gay, I ask for peer reviewed evidence of how being gay is wrong. The typical reply is that the bible says so. I then ask for the evidence that shows their idea of a god exists. At this point, I usually get a disparaging remark about gay people.
To the evangelical, fundamentalist, dominionist, any criticism of their mythology or any criticism of a position they have based on their mythology is considered an attack on their freedom of speech.
Oh, and by the way, am I the only one who is fed up by the accusation that nazis were atheists. I would love to see an atheist give a direct, honest answer, such as,
The nazis were overwhelmingly christian. The leaders were christian. The lutheran churches supported Hitler and did so from the pulpit. The vatican made a treaty (brokered by the soon to be Pope Pious)guaranteeing that the church would not oppose any assault on Jews as long as the catholics got religious school protections. The objects of their hatred, Jews and gays, were traditional christian objects of violence, oppression, and murder. In fact, one could legitimately call nazism one expression of christian totalitarianism.
See Klaus Scholder’s, “The Churches and the Third Reich,” still the definitive text on the relationship between the churches and christian support for the election of Hitler. See also Steigmann-Gall, “The Holy Reich, Nazi Conceptions of Christianity,” (most high ranking nazis were committed christians.
I took the time to write this because I saw Richard Dawkins get the nazis were atheist bullshit from that asshole O’Reilly. Next time someone does that, I hope the response is similar to what I just wrote.
I, for one, know that yesterday, after attending the Pink Dot Utah event yesterday went around to a local bible study group and physically threatened each and every one of them.
Oh wait, no, I went home, fed my animals and had dinner with my spouse. This sort of demonizing of LGBTQ people scares the hell out of me, especially with the routine nature of violence against them. I’m terrified to see politicians like this make the oppressed out to be all powerful monsters.
Jim,
Even if you neglect that most of the leading nazis were affiliated with the church, their ideology would still be diametrically opposed to what we celebrate today as new atheism and secularism which is firmly in the bedrock of critical thinking and humanism. Their worshiping of race, of one individual as their savior, and their strange spiritual ideas, would all be rejected by new atheists on rational grounds alone as being poorly or not at all supported by evidence, and that is not even the ethical side of the story.
That being said, for the sake of argument, my answer to the old claim that Stalin, Hitler etc would have been less severe if they had been christians, is the following: So, religion makes better dictators you say? That’s nice to know, but no thank you, we don’t want a dictator in the first place.
Having a religious population however makes it easier to convert them to sheeple, because they have been primed for accepting belief without critical questioning, thus enabling dictators of any kind to rise to power in the first place.
Don’t forget that the Nazi’s got their plan to deal with the Jews directly from the mouth of the slightly religious figure of Martin Luther.
SmoveBB,
that doesn’t count, he was Lutheran :)
He did a good thing, but for all the wrong reasons. There is barely a redeeming feature of this guy beyond his political aim to make the catholic church less corrupt, a science-hating (and ignorant of it, too) antisemitic buffoon in all other respects. It pains me that he is celebrated to the extend he is around here.
(If you count Luther as Catholic, then you have to count Jesus as a Jew, and the whole thing breaks apart)
slignot,
This. It’s worrisome, at least, when an already set-against minority is painted as being all-powerful monsters by the oppressing majority. It helps to legitimize the hate and the violence perpetrated against the minority.
I wonder at the capability of people who employ such hateful tactics to further their own political cause to feel things like empathy or to experience guilt as a result of the people they wilfully hurt. I imagine they mustn’t be capable of either emotion, or related emotions, to a level that I would consider typical for most humans or to a level that I would consider human at all …
Oh we had the evil villians becoming demigods…at least two to my memory
a) Mindflayer becomes the avatar of their god and the players wind up punching out Cthulhu
b) The Then Emperor’s brother and leader of the organization the party was a member of manipulates them into assasinating the royal family (they thought they were kidnapping for ransom) and seizing the throne. He becomes a tyrant and against his knowledge is used by a cult to become the avatar of their god.
c) After the above God was killed by the players (in the setting, gods can be killed when manifest on the physical realms…but they’re also not quite like the usual gods, I’ll explain more if anyone cares) a cult suspiciously similar to Warren Jeffs uses the memories of the God to bring back a facsimile…until it was killed again (the players hyjacked the ritual and magic to conjure up the memory of the guy who killed the God).
They tend to favor the RP facet of the game though. Their favorite villain so far is one with zero combat skills…he’s just a conman who so far has been able to effortlessly play everyone and get away 100% scott free after every horrible thing he’s done. The last con was selling people herbal medicine for a parasitic infection he claimed they all had and were unaware (symptoms include nausea, fatigue, depression, head ache, insomnia). The pills seemed to cause the parasite to be expelled from the bodies of the patients…except the players found out the pills themselves were the parasite egg.
I just read the Concordat of 1933, and no such statement or anything even remotely like it is to be found.
Ms Kern reminds me, once more, that “free speech,” when used by a conservative, actually means “free to say anything the conservative approves of.”
This seems to be a cultural thing among the right wing: claim oppression and hatred and fear if anyone calls them out on their idiocy. As it’s been said, militant Muslims are armed with dynamite, militant Christians are armed with rifles, militant atheists are armed with keyboards.
It really, really pisses me off to hear these pasty WASP morons go on about persecution. You want to be persecuted? Drive that ugly fucking gas-guzzling SUV with the Jeebusfish decal in Iran or Afghanistan, and THEN tell me about persecution.
And, like every other LGBT person here, the number of straights I’ve beaten up for being straight is zero. I did maim one for trying to “force the dyke out of me” though. Why do these tiny-cocked MRA types think they can take on a 6′ woman in Doc Martins?
Many Christians, even of the “liberal” persuasion, do this as well.
Hazuki
As much as I approve of your swift action, please don’t go around insulting men by their penis size.
Insulting isn’t minded much here*, but the commentariat gets all upset about gendered insults and slurs and connecting misogyny to the misogynist’s penis-size or sexual frustration.
*except by tone-trolls
Madam, you win one internets.
On an intellectual level, I’m fascinated by the level of disconnect these people have with reality. I’m surprised their brains don’t explode as a result.
On a personal level, I am just livid. I have never heard of someone being attacked by a GLBT person for being straight. However, I am very familiar with the reverse being true and with the motive sometimes being derived from religious beliefs.
Unfortunately, instead of going after bigoted individuals such as you Sally, upset gay youths are either beaten by your junior cronies or take their own lives.
Fortunately, society is changing with more people accepting GLBT as part of a healthy and good society where acceptance and tolerance replaces your suffocating bigotry. I’m so sorry that you can’t stand this but perhaps you had better get out of the way before someone actually decides that what you are afraid of is actually a good idea – having people hold you to account for your nauseating bigotry.
@91
Fair enough, sorry. Won’t do it (out loud) again. Their real problem is small minds and small hearts anyway, not small genitalia.
@Thomathy,
The way in which liars and crooks get excused for anti-gay bigotry so long as they wrap it up in Jesus is fucking terrifying. The other day, I remember reading someone asking why known and easily-provable liars are granted legitimacy in media besides Fox News and ultra-conservative talk radio. It mystifies me.
This false balance that’s acceptable on LGBT issues is just like contrasting a NASA official with a guest who believes the sky is a carpet painted by god.
According to the FBI’s statistics in 2009 there were 1223 anti-sexual orientation crimes reported. Twenty one of them were anti-heterosexual. Not impressive for how oppressed straight people are.
That indeed sounds like anti-Catholic propaganda, and as CLF said, untrue as well. However, Pacelli’s inaction is well-known, there are books on this subject, like “Hitler’s Pope” by John Cornwell.. It is true that many Catholic religious leaders believed that silence in certain areas would ensure the provisions of the Treaty mainly pertaining to religious autonomy of clergy and Catholic schools. After all, a treaty with the Nazis wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.
However, there were also some prominent Catholic bishops, who did speak out, like von Galen in Münster. He spoke out against the euthanasia program (systematic murder of the mentally disabled), which then due to public pressure was dropped. He was never imprisoned by the Nazis due to his local popularity, so I leave you to ponder if this silence strategy was the right one.
That said, Hitler’s disdain of the Catholic Church is well-known as well (for instance in his Table Conversations, or shall I say Monologues). But this alone doesn’t make him an atheist. He was constantly referring to God Almighty and Providence etc. He was certainly a theist, but like many cultural Catholics was not happy with the Vatican.
So, let me get this straight*. Ms. Kern is claiming that not being allowed to oppress GLBT people is oppression against her ?
This is like the bully crying at being unable to further bully others. Sorry Ms Kern, but if you fear for your continued political career, your fears should be made to come true. I want no one like you in politics. The right to free speech does not come with the right to never be criticized for what you say.
*pun intended.
The problem, slignot, is that false balance seems to be the expected and appropriate portrayal for any issue in news media. If news media could, they’d interview destructive weather phenomena in order to have a balanced portrayal of the destruction.
It’s the same thing, whether it’s with climate change, anti-vaxxers, gays, or whatever. It’s interesting, though, that the need for ‘balance’ seems to only occur when what needs balancing goes against mainstream ideology or the ideology of the particular news medium.
Dianne, what makes those statistics more telling, is that a number of those targeted as not-heterosexual were, in fact, straight.
I wonder if any of the people targeted for being straight were actually not-heterosexual?
Correction: #99 should read ‘news outlet’ rather than ‘news medium’ in the last sentence of the last paragraph.
@Thomathy re: false balance.
I remember reading somewhere a couple months ago (escapes me at the moment) a breakdown of shifts in how news media operated. Journalists used to be taught much greater emphasis on truth and factchecking what they reported on (not to mention challenging those they interviewed when they lied), but at one point a lazy method of just allocating equal time to opposing viewpoints took over without any consideration of how truly equivalent the two were.
You put a real climate scientist alongside a complete denialist and then pretend that’s an accurate representation of anything. Now truly equal time would be something like a hundred scientists each given the same time as the denialist, but that’s not how it works.
The anti-reality position on any issue thrives when it can hide or distract from solid evidence. For example, it seems clear the biggest reason that the groups involved in the Prop 8 trial are so worried about the tapes becoming publicly available is the truly weak evidence that was the best defense they could mount.
re false balance
it’s just the same crap as “teach the controversy”
And here I was feeling so empowered as an Atheist, having the same powah as a terrorist, dontcha know (see the thread on Dispatches about church state separation = terrorism)!
Now I am jealous of all the power that teh geyz have. *sigh*
Josh:
I laughed so hard that I peed a little.
You owe me a new pair of undies, Josh.
“I have to be honest with you Rick, when I was sitting there in my car that day and when she told me that those emails were coming from homosexuals, honestly, fear gripped my whole body, because I was very aware of the homosexual lobbyists and the power that they have.”
How is it that somebody like this can get elected?
That gay bullying can be *so* vicious, you know?
Gay Bullying
At Carbon based, #88:
The agreement between the vatican and the nazis in 1933 that guaranteed that the vatican would not oppose an assault on Jews was a secret agreement not available in the public concordat. James Carrol, a former priest, got the documentation directly from the vatican and published it in “Constantine’s Sword.” The TV documentary is extraordinary and worth watching.
As to someone claiming that this seems to be catholic bashing: let me add the inquisitions, the war on birth control,and the war on gays. It doesn’t take much to bash the catholic church because it has a long list of atrocities.
Sorry Carbon, I had meant to include this in my listed citations in my first post.
At 97:
The Table Top account of Hitler cannot be trusted. It was translated by Frenchman, François Genoud, and the original German source contains none of the anti-christian positions attributed to Hitler. It was through the French translation that the information was translated into English.
As to the provision in the concordat, it was a secret provision not made known to the public. The documentation exists for it and can be found in James Carrol’s “Constantine’s Sword.”
Who? Where?
I had no idea we had gangs of homosexuals casually beating and murdering the poor oppressed heteros.
and gangs of grannies and vicious Keep Left signs, too!
well, it got silly
Who? Where?
hey, transgendered people in office here in NZ is old news!
I give you, Georgina Beyer
Oh, I know of some, I just don’t know of any related to this topic.
I took the time to write this because I saw Richard Dawkins get the nazis were atheist bullshit from that asshole O’Reilly. Next time someone does that, I hope the response is similar to what I just wrote.
I’d note Richard is well aware of this himself.
the reason he didn’t respond to Oreily in that instance is it was just one of a school of red herrings that Oreily tossed out there in the space of a minute.
it wasn’t related to anything Richard wanted to talk about.
If that were an actual debate, things might have gone differently…
but do you really think Richard would even bother trying to debate Oreily in a formal setting?
it would be totally pointless.
if it were done with a mediator, the entire debate would consist of the mediator trying to prevent Oreilly from Gish-galloping.
This false balance that’s acceptable on LGBT issues is just like contrasting a NASA official with a guest who believes the sky is a carpet painted by god.
It’s been my firm belief for ages now that Americans have been deliberately lead to accept the fallacy of the golden mean.
that the “truth” always lies somewhere in the “middle”.
Ragustis @ #39: That’s actually exactly what came to my mind too.
She thinks that other people having the same right to free speech as she does is oppressive. …I see.
And the Republicans complain about minorities clinging to victimhood, presumably based on specious evidence. Interesting.
Some people really think “freedom of speech” means “freedom from criticism”.
How do you survive into adulthood being that dumb?
Despite the fact that sexual frustration and insecure masculinity demonstrably feed into misogyny in many cases?
Hazuki @ 94 said,
Okay, now that gets you an internet.
Jek,
Money.
Funny enough…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gay-black-youths-go-from-attacked-to-attackers/2011/09/27/gIQA2JV52K_story.html
I do not typically support violence as an answer to problems but the underdog-supporter in me appreciates seeing some gay kids that are not going to take s**t anymore.
^_^
Jim at 109:
The Table Conversations were indeed controversial, but I remember reading the bits about Hitler’s disdain of the Catholic Church in German, which I would presume to have come from the sources, and not a translation from the French/English, but I’ll grant you that. (as my point that Hitler was not an atheist would stand either way)
Regarding the secret annex. I’ve checked some sources and none mention what you said, so I’d have to think that might not be a consensus opinion among historians. Not even Wikipedia mentions it, in either the English or German version. What is mentioned is a secret annex concerning exemption of church personnel from military service, which had to be kept secret at the time due to the fact that Germany was still under the obligations of the Versailles Treaty. What is mentioned are negotiations about neutrality of the Vatican in political matters, and I think Pacelli might have discussed the issue of the treatment of the Jews, but nothing was put into an official document, secret or otherwise. (There are some provisions in the treaty that imply certain things, like obligations of the clergy to “pray for the welfare of the German people”, and also that Catholic associations are not allowed to be involved in political matters etc.) What exactly is James Carroll referring to? Diplomatic papers, or an actual annex to the treaty?
Hitler’s disdain of the Catholic Church
…was in no way related to whether he considered himself a christian or not.
In fact, at the time, it is far more related to the fact that the Catholics had long held power through the Center Party in Germany, even before the Weimar Republic.
The Center Party was simply another hurdle the nationalists had to dismantle in order to gain complete control of the country.
Regarding the secret annex. I’ve checked some sources and none mention what you said, so I’d have to think that might not be a consensus opinion among historians. Not even Wikipedia mentions it
you mean this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat
Nope, the keyword here being secret. Read Jim’s posts in 107 and 108, and the posts he is referring to for more context.
The Centre Party was indeed a political factor, and since Bismarck’s times, political leaders in Germany looked at the political influence of the Vatican with suspicion, but independent of that, the Tabletop Conversations seemed to indicate a more personal reason for his antipathy towards the Catholic Church.
@Azkyroth – I suspect that sexual frustration and insecure masculinity are basically uncorrelated with actual penis size, just as breastfeeding skill or lack thereof is not dependent on actual breast size.
the Tabletop Conversations
you mean Table Talk? or something else?
Jim at 109 called them Tabletop Talks, well the German term would be “Tischgespräche”
http://www.tischgespraeche.net/
The above links leads to a play based on the notes of Martin Bormann. There’s been a lot of controversy about the notes, and Hitler’s views of religion it allegedly presents…
Read Jim’s posts in 107 and 108
yeah, I read those, and was wondering where the “secret” part was?
it seemed to be an overall part of the konkordium, AFAICT.
there was no secret that the Catholics in Rome were far more concerned about the influence of the leftists than they were about anything regarding jews in European politics overall, not just with Germany.
if not explicitly condoning Hitlers use of antisemitism, they certainly turned a blind eye to it.
even the wiki I linked to is pretty clear on that.
There’s been a lot of controversy about the notes
you could say that.
Table Talk is not a source I would rely on for any particular piece of information without a lot of independent confirmation from outside sources.
In short, I wouldn’t trust it at all as a primary source.
The Reichskonkordat was a treaty, whose provisions were made public at the time. There is one known secret annex to the treaty, about the military service exemptions for clergy. Annexes are regarded to be part of the treaty and binding (like the famous secret annexes of the Hitler Stalin Pact).
It’s a huge difference from diplomatic papers and negotiations which could be fluid over time.
Nonetheless, regardless of whether there was a secret annex or not, no-one but the staunchest Catholics still believe that Pacelli was a tireless defender and protector of persecuted Jews. In 1963, there was a play by Hochhuth which was instrumental in the German speaking countries in calling attention to this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Deputy
Addendum to 133: the issue raised by Jim was that according to James Carroll, there was another secret annex saying that the Vatican would remain silent about the treatment of Jews, as long as the Nazis would guarantee the privileges the Catholic church had traditionally enjoyed in Germany.
I find this highly unlikely, for legal reasons alone. The Reichskonkordat is still in effect today (and the reason Catholic archbishops receive their salary from the government!). If such an annex would have been part of the treaty, it would have been declared null and void after the war. I wish it would have, because it is the cause of many unreasonable benefits and privileges that remain to this day, and most politicians lack the political will to do anything about it, citing those “treaty obligations”
Crissakentavr at 110, I was responding to a fool using the moniker of Zerple. The fool said this.
Brittany Novotony is a transgendered woman.
there was another secret annex saying that the Vatican would remain silent about the treatment of Jews, as long as the Nazis would guarantee the privileges the Catholic church had traditionally enjoyed in Germany.
I find it highly unlikely that they needed to even say it, secret or not.
it was already obvious, as I pointed out.
It does make a difference if something like this is part of a treaty or not. We’re not talking about just “saying”, but as making it part of a binding agreement. If you won’t see the difference, I can’t help you.
Pacelli was very intent on making sure the treaty would be recognised as still in effect by the Allies after the war.
…which was my point.
there is little point arguing over whether or not there were secret konkordia on that issue, given that there was no reason or need to even KEEP it secret at the time. And there was plenty of evidence, which I just provided a tiny piece of, to show that indeed they did not even bother.
antisemitism was hardly a uniquely a feature of the late Weimar republic, after all, it has deep roots in Europe, both religious and political.
Hell, antisemitism was actually much more prominent as a secular argument in France in the late 1800s than it was in Germany.
It does make a difference if something like this is part of a treaty or not. We’re not talking about just “saying”, but as making it part of a binding agreement.
but there were MANY agreements, not just the one I cited, going back decades.
have you read all of them?
I rather doubt it.
have you even read the full text of the one I cited?
I know I haven’t, but my point is, and why I cited what I did, was to point out that there is no reason NOT to expect this was a part of the accords, in writing, at some point.
and it didn’t even NEED to be secret.
We’re not talking about just “saying”, but as making it part of a binding agreement.
a binding agreement that apparently wasn’t terribly binding, by either side?
I think we’re still talking past each other. The Reichskonkordat was agreed upon by the Nazis, not by the Weimar government.
The point wasn’t about the German stance on Jews anyways, as history is quite clear on this, but on the Vatican’s. There were some courageous bishops like the aforementioned Galen, who also (cautiously) spoke out against antisemitism, it’s not all black and white. Pacelli has often been portrayed as a man “agonising over the plight of the Jews”. So whether such an agreement would have been put into a treaty or not is historically and politically relevant.
Of course, the Nazis broke treaties as they saw fit. But if you have ever looked at diplomacy, you’ll notice that every little word and gesture counts.*) A treaty is only as good as your country’s word, but making something explicit in a treaty obliges you much more than unofficial verbal promises.
*) the first West German counsul-general to Leningrad counted it as one of his biggest successes in life that he succeeded to spell “Tallinn” with two N instead of “Tallin” as preferred by the Russians. He risked his career on this, and was lucky the Russian foreign minister agreed on this. The Estonian spelling indicated that Western Germany did not recognise the claim of the Soviet Union over Estonia, while the Russian spelling would have.
Nope. Treaties are the most important types of documents in international relations. Their texts are studied closely. We would know if something like that would have been part of an official treaty, secret or not. The Reichskonkordat was signed in 1933, just barely after the Nazis came to power. It wouldn’t have been politically expedient to commit antisemtism to paper. As late as Nov. 9, 1938, there were reports by the security apparatus that ordinary citizens were appalled by what happened during the Reichskristallnacht. In 1933, the Nazi regime was much more interested in window-dressing anyhow…
The Reichskonkordat was agreed upon by the Nazis, not by the Weimar government.
I’m talking about both things.
those konkordia were a regular feature of interaction between the german goverment and Rome for decades.
I’m ALSO talking about what might have been agreed on when they met to discuss the Konkordia of 33.
you’ll notice that every little word and gesture counts.
exactly! this is what I’m talking about. There was no need to put deference to legalized antisemtism in writing, because it was already pretty obvious they agreed on this issue to begin with.
Rome only cared about making sure they still had some guarantee of influence in the German State under the “new rules”, as it were, which is understanble that they would want THAT in writing.
as to what they agreed to to get it, it was rather obvious at the time that they didn’t even NEED to write down that they wouldn’t interfere with the new government’s attempts to make antisemitism the law of the land. Hell, they didn’t ever disagree! It was not a point they needed to concede in writing as part of the agreement.
That’s as clear as I can make this point. There was no need for a secret agreement; there was nothing to concede on this issue!
The question is whether there was agreement. While the Nazis were admittedly antisemitic, the Vatican has insisted it wasn’t, merely powerless, or indifferent. Thus, this issue matters.
In 1933, antisemitism wasn’t the law of the land, at this point, Jews were a group that faced discrimination by many parts of the population (they had achieved (more or less) legal equality after the emancipation edicts of the 19th century). Antisemitism was then made into law step by step, as you can read up in any history book.
Some prominent Catholics, as the aforementioned Galen, were also opposed to the rabid antisemitism displayed by the Nazis, and coupled with the Nazis’ general distrust in the Vatican, it would have made sense from the Nazi point of view to actually commit the Vatican to keep its silence on the matter. As I said some prominent Catholic bishops did raise the issue publicly.
It wouldn’t have been politically expedient to commit antisemtism to paper.
I totally disagree with this.
in fact, in europe at the time, it hardly would have raised an eyebrow.
the only real concern was for the influence of the communists.
which, for the last time, is exactly why I quoted the bit I did, which details that Rome didn’t EVEN RAISE THE ISSUE of the new German government passing laws severely curtailing the rights of jews in Germany.
I also would recommend reading Richard Evans book
The Coming of the Third Reich
I think it lays out the case quite clearly (and with endless references, btw, which makes it a great source of primary material) that “politcal expedience” wrt to what the germans planned to do Jews was simply not a relevant care to Rome.
On the contrary, as I said, the biggest concerns by far were communist influence and leftist revolutions, along with maintaining a viable Center Party.
This was the same across most of Europe for that matter.
the Vatican has insisted it wasn’t
last time:
what was happening in Germany right before they went to discuss the 33 konkordium?
the Nazis were passing laws removing the rights of jews in Germany.
this was all over the news.
Was it even raised as an issue during the discussion?
no, it wasn’t. as quoted, these new laws “did not impede discussion”.
If the Vatican really had any concerns about antisemitism, it most certainly could have raised them, RIGHT THERE.
they didn’t raise any objections, or feel the need to concede any issue, because there wasn’t any disagreement. Hence, no need to concede anything in writing on that point.
what happened was tacit approval of exactly what the nazis were doing, and this should not have come as any surprise to anyone at the time.
it did not need to be in writing, period.
Now you’re misunderstanding me again. It would not have been politically expedient for Berlin to commit it to paper openly, as the Nazis just had come to power, and it needed to step carefully. However, it would have made sense to do this in a secret annex.
The political factors concerning the Vatican wrt to the German situation are well-known, I’m not even sure where our disagreement is. The original issue is whether there was a secret annex or not. It is just one little factor in assessing the Vatican political stance, nothing less, nothing more.
You should read up on that book you cited again. You seem to be under the impression that the Nazis introduced all anti-Jewish laws at once.
Timeline
March 30, 1933: Hitler becomes chancellor
July 20, 1933: Reichskonkordat is signed. Presumably negotiations took place in the months before.
So between March and July, the Nazis organised a boycott of Jewish shops (which they probably had been doing already as an opposition party), and April 7 was when government officials of non-Aryan descent were fired. May 10 was the date of the book burnings. These are undoubtedly despicable actions and laws, but the worst laws were yet to come, the Nuremberg laws, for instance, were passed in 1935. From a Vatican p.o.v. you could delude yourself by saying that it wouldn’t go much further, at least in the summer of 1933. It’s not like many people took “My struggle” seriously at that point.
The Vatican was interested in preserving its privileges and that was probably a factor in not raising a stink, and as the laws got worse and worse, their excuses grew flimsier and flimsier.
Remember: this was still a time where the conservatives thought they could manipulate and control the Nazis, and the nobles didn’t care if some Jews lost their government positions over this.
oh sorry,
it was January 30. not March 30.
Hitler’s appointment to chancellorship.
You seem to be under the impression that the Nazis introduced all anti-Jewish laws at once.
why would you say that?
I never did.
You want to argue with the actual quote I posted from the wiki I cited?
do that.
Well, your quote doesn’t help much, because Papen was exactly one of those conservatives trying to control Hitler. He is not exactly a neutral observer, and his memoirs reflect his point of view.
A) What Mattir said.
B)Many men go through life with those issues and don’t turn into MRA assholes. To use this as part of an insult insults them.
There may be a corellation and I don’t doubt that there’s a causal relationship, but it’s neither if A then B, nor if B than A.
@134, Pelamun
If memory serves, it was a document directly related to the concordat. In the documentary, Carrol presents it. He was very careful to show how he got it and what it said. I don’t own the documentary, so I can’t be more specific.
However, since you are interested in the subject, I suggest that you watch Constantine’s Sword. It is critical, but fair. Carrol used to be a priest and has a great love for the church, so it is not unfairly balanced against the catholics.
Carrol made the documentary about the rise of christian anti-semitism in general and its history.
I would also suggest “The Churches and the Third Reich,” by Klaus Scholder. He was a Lutheran pastor and an academic historian. His history of the role of christians, particularly protestant clergy, in supporting Hitler is extremely well documented, although a bit tedious to read.
What surprises me the most about the history of the nazis is how a very christian supported movement quickly got branded both pagan and atheist, both of which are incorrect. My suspicion is that in a still fairly christian Europe and more than fairly christian US, the idea that christians could behave so, so badly was just too much for many to take, hence the pagan/atheist propaganda.
wow, I just managed to spell “than” correctly once and mess it up once. Must be a new record..
He is not exactly a neutral observer, and his memoirs reflect his point of view.
it’s not a “point of view” to mark which laws were being passed in Germany at the time the meeting for the Konkordium was taking place though.
so, you’d have to accuse him of outright lying about that.
Isn’t it telling how easily a story about Sally Kern turns to an in depth discussion about Nazis ? Mthinks there may be a moral there…
So hypocritical. Homophobia is so fucking tolerated it makes me sick. Ive talked about it before (http://thoughtsofcrystaleye736.blogspot.com/2011/10/making-distinction-between-personal.html), but do they not hear themselves?! With all the discrimination against the gay community, with the fact that gay citizens do not have full rights, with how normal it is to hear homophobia spouted on tv, they talk about the power of gay lobbyists and the fear the homophobe should be willing to face? disgusting
I have no idea of how reliable a witness Mr. Carroll is, and I have not read his book. However, I find it hard to believe that the Pope who issued the encyclical Mit brennender Sorge would have agreed to such a “secret agreement.”
Papen was a Catholic, a member of the Center Party, and didn’t have any interest in jeopardising the Konkordat (I don’t know why you keep writing konkordium, there is no such word in German, unless you’re talking about Star Trek). If he had led any credence to the idea that this was a binding factor in the negotiations, this might have threatened the post-war validity of the treaty. Wouldn’t be too speculative for him to white-wash matters.
Anyways, be it as it may, my point is that after the war, the Vatican tried to appear as the great defender of Jews during the war. A secret annex would have been a definitive piece of counter-evidence. Memoirs, notes they all are by individuals, can contradict each other, and so forth. Many historians have tried to understand Pacelli’s personal stance. He is on record to have tried to intervene on the behalf of Jews, but much later when the Vatican’s influence was greatly diminished.
Oh yes, I sometimes keep forgetting that Ratti was pope until 1939, because Pacelli already was behind a lot of Vatican policy including Mit brennender Sorge. But regarding Pacelli, who was nuncio to Germany from 1917 to 1930, before becoming the pope’s “prime minister”.
About Pacelli’s motivations, Wikipedia says thus:
For me, the important point is, that the Vatican no longer is seen as a defender of Jews. The exact motivations of the various players in the Vatican, we may never know.
Jim, regarding “Constantine’s Sword”: this is actually a 700-page book from 2001. Haven’t found an electronic version yet, but it’d go on my reading list.
As for why the Nazis are often portrayed as pagan or atheist:
Because some top Nazis were. The names Alfred Rosenberg and Heinrich Himmler come to mind. Since Hitler was always playing his game of divide et impera, probably every top Nazi believed he was on their side.
Atheism: due to the political influence of the Centre Party and the patriotic stance of the Lutheran church as compared to the Catholic church, the Nazi party always had more support in Protestant areas than in Catholic ones during the Weimar Republic, this could already lay the seeds to a post-war myth of resistance. Nevertheless, the Nazis did see church organisations as political rivals to their own and actively took measures against such organisations. After the war, with the shock of what had happened, it is easy to see that this would lead to a complete reinterpretation of such measures. I’m not sure how much the pagan views of some top leaders were known, but together with anti-Communism coming into fashion in the 50s, the idea of fighting godlessness, first against the Nazis, then against the Soviets, became the way to frame these issues.
sorry for some incoherent sentence structures there, again too much rearranging without previewing…
Hitler’s Pope is notorious for its unreliablity. While it is certainly true that Pius XII did remarkably little to help the Jews during the Holocaust, Hitler’s Pope is a hatchet job.
So Sally Kern – fearless intrepid reporter – sits in her car shitting herself over the perceived threats that surround her?
What, like now gays are the new evil neighborhood turkeys?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=237_1318107725
Anyway, I bat for both sides so for my victim corpse-stash count, make it any number you like then half it.
Sally might feel safer in a cab: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TpshRoUzpGc
Wait, I thought I was supposed to be recruiting people, not killing them. Why didn’t I get the memo? Or am I just supposed to kill people who refuse to convert to my homosexual lifestyle?
I just like the information loads, We do we do desire you would probably blog a little more about this.