Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

ISAW you seen to mixing up forums. This is the Christianity forum not A&A.
When I said 'everyone' I was talking in the context of this thread, not the whole damned world.
Here we discuss christianity and alternatives and how they fit both us and the world we live in. Atheism is an option for people. Is it wrong to question our believes in the context of other options?
You have chosen Christianity and cant seem to see any value in anything else. OK I'm fine with that, but to dismiss atheism because of the things that some atheists have done is as off the wall as the dismissing of all theistic systems because of Muslim terrorism, Christian crusades or protestant witch hunts.
Atheism is the belief that their is no god. Full stop, it doesn't include any ideology of religion good or bad. It's all a human construct, the same as communism or liberalism or rave culture as far as an atheist world view is concerned.
Yet you continue to howl about the excess of regimes that used tactics to maintain power that would shame the devil himself. Tactics that were also used by theistic regimes at different times in history.
Evil is something that permeates every human endeavor, has done since a pink lady got bitten.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.

Being made in the image of God does not refer to our physical appearence, but to our possession of a spirit, and the ability to make good moral choices. So, even when we are straining on the jacks, or urinating, or procreating, we have the ability to love others, and even to make sacrifices for others. So, yes, at those moments it is still true that we are made in God's image.

Of course that image has been horribly marred and defaced by making the wrong moral decisions (what we, on this side of the fence, call 'sin'). Which leads rather neatly to your next question.

This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.

I think she said 'a fair chance' not 'a second chance'.

And that all depends on what chance she's talking about. If she's talking about a chance to respond to God's love, then the New Testament indicates that God has a special compassion for the poor. So I fully expect heaven to be full of Ethiopian famine victims and the AIDS infected children of South African prostitutes. Indeed, Jesus indicated that their very presence will stand in stark contrast to the proud and self-satisfied cubs of the Celtic Tiger who refused to lift a finger to help them.

ironingbored

lmaopml wrote: »

All human beings are made in the image of God

Although it may not seem like it, this is a serious question.

If we are made in the image of God, is this true for when we are straining on the toilet? Or when we urinate and procreate from the same orifice? Or is God like the aliens in Cocoon? I really don't understand how humans (with their inarguably badly "designed" bodies can be "as one" with the supreme creator of then universe.

lmaopml wrote: »

everybody gets a fair chance

This is a phrase that really irks me. Like hell everyone get a second chance; whether it be people born into famine-ravaged communities in Ethiopia or the AIDS-infected children of South African prostitutes.

ISAW wrote: »

And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck!

Let me give you an example.

The A&A forum has a number of stickies. I think every forum is restricted to six. One is usually the charter. That leaves five. what are they.
One is about laughing at and ridiculing religion.
One is about the dangers of religion.
One is about ongoing scandals (with the usual misinformed media myths about Vatican policy, and the tiny number of abusing clergy compared to the rest of society regularly trotted out)

tommy2bad wrote: »

ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism.

Nope! I'm only pointing out that atheistic regimes I define as those with "There is no God" as a central principle.
Roman Catholicv is fairly much well defined by but I have offered "According to The Vatican , the Pope , a Council of the Church, or a widespread policy among the bishops having their Imprimatur and nihil obstat," as a central principle. It is fairly broad and takes in the fact that you might do away with the Vatican or a pope and still have a fairly agreed to set of "Roman" Catholic principles.

I'm just saying if you look at history atheistic regimes killed hundreds of millions.
There are usually two responses by atheists to this.

1. They were not "atheistic regimes"
2. Catholics/the church killed people too.

To 1 i say "look at the definition I gave you " They WERE atheistic regimes.
To 2 i say "Well go on then list the killings and we can compare them to atheistic regimes"

Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism.

Attribute of atheism ="There is no God"
atheistic regimes ="There is no God" as a central principle.

Care to please explain the inconsistency you insist exists above?

Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.

And it is! Antitheistic ATHEISM. I mean wher are all the anti theistic theists? I have been quite clear that agnostics or atheists who do not attack the Church or regard the Bible as silly or even dangerous or behave as "evangelical" atheists are fine by me. It is only the ones proposing atheism as a superiour belief or proposing it as a principle by which society should live with which I have a crow to pluck! Not alone that but fundamentalists may also be religious. I don't debate fundamentalist Jews, Muslims, Christians or Nazis in this thread either but i am quite happy to elsewhere.

Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings,

you speak for "everybody" now do you? Well you would be wrong. fundamentalists ( whether they be atheistic or whatever DON'T condemn it and rather applaud it)

however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.

What exactly do you mean by "these events" and " a context that contributes to both their scale and nature"

Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism.

Aha! back to 2 above.Care to list where christianity contributed to appalling acts and list how many dead and compare it "in context" to atheistic regimes?

Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.

And that is back to "they are real atheists but atheism didn't cause it" but how can you then attribute "Christians contributed " when you don't accept the same for atheists "Atheists didn't contribute" apparently?

Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.

I dont paint all atheists or all christians with the one brush!
The point is of anyone claims "Christianity was a terrible thing for the world and continued to be" ansd attacks Christians for their beliefs then they are open to " atheism was a terrible thing for the world" F they then respond "that was not atheism that was just some totalitarian atheists" how come christians can't sauy "that was not Christianity it was just some totalitarian Christians" ?
In other words if you are going to claim belief systems have nothing to do with it how can you then ever criticise Christianity or present atheism as a better way?

lmaopml wrote: »

Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly? no?

I like reading through anyways.

It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -

It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.

All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.

Sorry Imaopml, I can't agree with your eulogy to ISAW, to me it is a distortion of terminology, a constant whataboutery , and the relentless use of sources like wikepedia which ( to me anyway) has the effect of making some of his posts unreadable.

I half suspect at this stage that it is a deliberate tactic as if he was engaged in some holy war and to give an inch or actualy participate in a discussion where we may even learn from each other is anathema to him

On your final point - the cause always matters- if you don't try to understand the cause you will never learn the lesson.

Slav, the reason I left out the Serbian genocide was not lack of awareness but I simply did'nt want to muddy the waters by bringing the Nazi element into it.

This is not to say that the Serbs have not done terrible things in their own right, but there is no doubt that Croatia has always been given somewhat of a free ride in the main because of their catholicism, the examples you mentioned, their facilitating the escape of Nazis after the war, and their behaviour in the break-up of Yugoslavia. If Frano Tuchman had survived he may been/should have been tried for war-crimes but you never hear his name mentioned in that light.

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

Not to rule but to guide.
Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
Not for His sake but ours.
Not for our sake but His on our side.

Exactly! It's the beginning of a journey, the joy is immeasurable!..and not a little inexplicable. The best of luck on yours.

he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.

Not to rule but to guide.
Not nags, more like that feeling that your have forgotten something.
Not for His sake but ours.
Not for our sake but His on our side.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.

There are few problems with this approach. First, for this purpose it's nearly impossible to clearly define true Scotsman true Roman Catholic Church Catholicism. Second, it's not as black and white: there is whole spectrum of greys between 1 and 2 and that's where all the Catholics actually fall into I believe. Third, who in practice can be a judge to decide who's true and who's not?

If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)

This is actually a very important observation. Christianity does not teach about acceptance of atrocities. But neither does Atheism. It would be fair to say, if we are trying to be consistent and apply equal standards to both of them, that neither Christianity nor Atheism itself can sparkle atrocities. Or both of them can depending on you interpretation of historical events and motivation behind each particular atrocity.

I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?

No, you cannot mix the two. Marxists don't usually identify themselves as Catholics. If they do and then they get themselves involved in sectarian crusades against, say Protestants, then this is the consequence of their Catholicism and not their Marxism because Marxism and Marxists don't give crap about sectarian differences. Similarly, it's Marxism and not Catholicism accountable for those Catholic Marxists crusading against their right wing opponents because Catholicism does not give crap about left and right in politics.

To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?

You are substituting faith with organisation. I'm not too comfortable comparing Ustaša and IRA but if solely for the purpose of this discussion we assume that some IRA actions were driven by anti-Protestant stance to the same extent as some Ustaše actions were driven by anti-Orthodox stance then indeed IRA actions were criticised by most of the local clergy and the Pope while Ustaše actions were supported by most of local clergy and the by the silence of the Pope. It does not make huge difference really: in both cases their sectarian violence would be the consequence of their self-identification with Catholicism. The only thing that would be different between Ireland and Balkans (or rather, be incomparable) is the scale of the problem.

Do you realise that by following your logic you will never be able to clam any atrocities to be the consequence of Atheism simply because there is no Atheistic Pope and there is no global Atheistic organisation in charge of guarding true Atheism? Also there it would not be right to say that, for example, Communists atrocities in Russia in 1918-1938 are the consequences of Communism because in fact Comintern did not sanction them.

Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.

And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?

I don't see what's the connection between this and my example but don't we compare Atheism and Christianity (or Catholicism), and not Maoists and the Catholic Church?

I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?

It's just a sad irony. The genocide of Serbs is largely forgotten or even unknown - see how this thread did not even mention NDH together with Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri and Pinochet even though it overshadows them all combined. Historically it was not in anybody interests to make a big buzz out of it: new Yugoslav authorities were obviously interested in good relations between Serbs and Croats (and it worked pretty well for almost 50 years while they were in power); Vatican was also not interested in any publicity for obvious reasons. These days the clear message of the mass media is that the Serbs are the bad guys of Balkans: they occupied half of Croatia and Bosnia in 1990ies, they are accountable for Srebrenica massacre and other war crimes there, they oppresses Kosovars, etc. This way it's easier to justify in the eyes of public opinion any actions against Serbia as it was already the case with the NATO Belgrade bombings in 1999. By no means I see the scale as tiny - in fact it's one of the largest and cruelest genocide in the human history.

...If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.

Not by the Catholic church!

Look at the number of force conversions alone. You need priests for that, a lot of them. A project of that scale cannot be accomplished without careful planning and organising it on all levels starting from the head of the Croatian Church, through the bishops, and down to monks and parish priests.

Then a lot of Catholic clergy were involved not just in force-conversions but in mass slaughtering of civilians. Many of them were Ustaša officers. With the extremely rare exceptions no action were taken by their bishops. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

Also let's not forget that the Catholic press and pulpits were widely used to spread fascist, anti-Semitic and ant-Serbian propaganda.

the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!

The question is not whether RCC supported Nazis or not. It's sad but in WWII Croatia largely RCC were the Nazis.

Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.

Even if Vatican were in total opposition to Ustaše (and in reality they were far from it) but the Croatian Catholic Church maintained the same level of involvement into the genocide then it would make absolutely no difference to the matter of "atrocities as the consequences of Catholicism".

lmaopml

tommy2bad wrote: »

So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
What exactly is your point?
All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.

Tommy, ISAW has some kind of thing that allows him to remember points, facts etc. made by all sorts of writers, historical, and indeed contemporary too, it translates itself to boards too in his own way - in detail - point, by point - everything from many years, everything he ever read, every description, name and comprehension of same, he seems to absorb and talk about - he is not your average poster. He's like a super poster

I don't think it's fair to assume he is tiresome, when so many want to debate him tirelessly?

no?

I like reading through anyways.

It's not 'whataboutary' - it's fact! People may argue that times move on, etc, Stalin, Mao had the means of wiping out millions -

It doesn't matter about the 'cause' it's the lesson that is most important, every person with any kind of sense of freedom agrees.

All human beings are made in the image of God, everybody gets a fair chance - God is both Mercy and Justice - he's the one who nags our conscience and seeks to rule it.

And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?

So are we keeping score? Will god, big or small g, judge on a tally?
What exactly is your point?
All bad but Catholics are the least bad? only bad once a certain number of casualties are reached? Atheism is inherently bad because theirs no evidence of it ever doing anything good?
All those claims have been answered, yet you continue to repeat the same whataboutery.

lmaopml

irishh_bob wrote: »

neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment

No it was a tribal war. A war against xenophobia, supposed superiority and inferior beings, forced occupation and the brutality that ensues from same - we have a pretty crap history - and equally a pretty cool one too!!

There was a time when fighting was necessary imo absolutely, not anymore - thank God. Leaps and bounds, but we still retain that distinct Irish rebel thing, although it's got very pacifist, we fight with words now - we just have to learn where to engage that passion for Irish people as a whole, we were always unique, not the same as northern europe or south europe - I like that we are ourselves.

I hope we always remember that we fought to be ourselves - that's my hope.

irishh_bob

ISAW wrote: »

You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.

They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.

I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.

In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church

neither the provisional IRA or any other ira umbrella group were driven by anti protestant sentiment

tommy2bad wrote: »

I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts

HAve I?
Consider yourself proved wrong again.
And don't presume to speak for me.
And if you claim to represent reason then well...

The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values.

Oh did they? But they didn't have "Christian " values?In spite of the fact that ALL were founded by Christians and atheists and humanists represented a tiny minority of the people framing these core values?

Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant.

Indeed it isn't ! I agree. They were Christian as it happens.

We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion.

Nope. the discussion is who framed their constitutions. Not atheists. Christians. The "secularists" in the Us for example were predominantly Christians who didn't want inter denominational rows which they knew of based on the European experience of that time.

Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.

And you are aware the anti-theist atheistic States killed much more than even the Muslim fundies?

I am assuming that I represent the voice of reason because ISAW has stopped reading my posts

None the less;

Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?

The US, Ireland GB France all had humanist values as their core values. Whether the members were humanist atheist or Christian isn't relevant. We are talking about values that inform the actions. A secular state rather than a theocracy is the discussion. Yes I conceder anti theism just as much a theocracy as a Muslim state under Sharia law.

ISAW wrote: »

Yes.
Are you suggesting there is none?
Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?

Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
As many as possible please.

again you are positing an either or situation ISAW ( which along with ''more or less'' seems to be your method of analysing everything).

As I said before history is a continuum and in the western world in particular I believe we are into an age of secular humanism so we will have to wait and see how it plays out. But you can see humanist contributions all over the place if you care to look.

There is little point yet again listing a load of fascist regimes that were predominantly catholic. All I ask is that you be consistent in your arguments. If in your view the catholic church and catholicism is not responsible for all those dictators then I don't see how you can abandon that position when it comes to atheism.

Fascist/totalitarian regimes are about the pursuit and maintenance of power at any price- that is the only belief system than they are imbued with.

irishh_bob wrote: »

the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings ,

You are referring to the Official IRA not the Provisional IRA. You know Eamon Gilmore's old pals.
While I am aware that many Protestants fought for Irish independence it is quite clear that from the 1960 on Republican Areas are readily identified with Catholics. And while the Loyalist para-militarists were more sectarian there are indications that Northern hard line Republicans did look upon themselves as overwhelmingly Catholic.

They were certainly not Marxist and that is what caused the Official /Provisional split.

that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic

I agree with that comment. The IRA and provos in particularly were not sectarian in their targets. But it would be common place for hard liners to describe loyalists and Republicans as "protestant" or "Catholic" even though the REpublican Movement as a whole was not so.

In fact you make my case for me. Croats were nororiously anti-anti-Catholic even though they did not represent nor were recognised by the Catholic Church

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?

Yes.
Are you suggesting there is none?
Marien can you list the number of humanist centered governments that brought great things to society wher all or the vast majority of the people involved were humanists?

Can you list the Totalitarian regimes which were Catholic Church controlled and not atheistic?
And the ones that were and Totalitarian and atheistic?
As many as possible please.

irishh_bob

ISAW wrote: »

Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.

Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)

Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"

I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?

Look again.

To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?

And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?

I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?

Not by the Catholic church!
your source begins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs

the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.

the ira were not fanatically catholic or anything like it , they followed a marxist philosophy in many ways , grotesque as it was , thier choice of victims was based on thier political leanings , that unionists happened to be protestant was coincidental , the loyalist terrorists on the other hand were fanatically anti catholic

ISAW, do you see a difference between atheism -humanism-totalitarianism ?

ISAW, I think your being pedantic about the extent that something can be attributed to atheism or catholicism. Especially galling when all along everyone has been pointing out that your attributing of atrocities to atheism isn't consistent with any attribute of atheism. Anti theism is the windmill you should be tilting at.
Everybody condemns genocide and ethnic or sectarian killings, however being unwilling to admit that thees events happen in a context that contributes to both their scale and nature isn't helping define the problem.
Unfortunately Christianity has in some contexts contributed to appalling acts, as has anti theism which comes from a reaction to theism rather than atheism. Yes you can describe a regime thats anti theistic as atheist but that leads to misatribution of the cause.
Your as guilty of painting all with one brush as the anti theistic atheists that you disagree with so venomously.

Slav wrote: »

Why?
Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.

Because the original question actually asked "as a consequence of their Catholicism" ?

Now either it is Catholicism as in the Roman Catholic Church or it is their Catholiciam which is either
1. Not Catholicism at all i.e. not Roman Catholic Church
or
2. the exact same as Roman Catholic Church Catholicism.

Are you claiming Pinochet etc. was 1 or 2?
If 2 how come Roman Catholic teaching and authorities agreed with some aspects of their regimes but broadly rejected the atrocities . ( Don't forget it is the atrocities by these regime which the OP raised and not the things with which the RCC would be in agreement.)

Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?

Yes in the case of 2 above. Although there is no necessity for the Vatican per se. One can argue about the necessity of a pope. But certainly that is the current manifestation of the hirearchy. Certainly the bishops ( or the Vatican in this case Or Latern in the Past or a council) worldwide acting as a "widespread organisation of authority" would be easily construed as "associated with catholicism"

I mean if yuou want to press the issue Marxism could be "associated with Catholicism" just as much as Right wing dictators since much of the "good" in Marxism is to be found in Catholic social teaching. does that mean The Vatican or the church is responsible for atheistic Stalinist atrocities too?

Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.

Look again.

For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism.

To the extent that to some of the IRA killing "Protestants" was a consequent of them being from a "Catholic" area.
While they were doing this clergy were preaching against such actions. Was the pope supporting the IRA or Loyalists too? And don't forget priests and brothers did join Irish revolutionary movements in the past.

At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usta%C5%A1e
Fiercely nationalistic, the Ustaše were also fanatically Catholic

Does that mean they represented the will of the Church
Put it this way:
Fiercely nationalistic, the IRA were also fanatically Catholic
does that mean the IRA were acting for local bishop or the church as a whole?

Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.

And the Maoists may have had some good things and some bad things to their regime.
How many of the bad things were a consequence of the Catholic church?

And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself?

Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.

I put it in bold for you already if as you suggested it is it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland. If you already suggest it is a tiny scale then the idea of it being large scale or widespread is not a runner is it?

Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.

Not by the Catholic church!
your source begins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs

The Serbian Genocide refers to the attempt in extermination made towards ethnic Serbs in 1939-1945 by predominantly ethnic Croat Fascists and Nazi (Axis) occupational forces.

the RCC didn't support the nazis in WWII!
Pavelić's regime was not officially recognized by the Vatican.

Morbert

ISAW, you responded to my post #1822 twice, with the exact same silly straw men, unreasonable inferences, and irrelevancies. My latest post was #1830. That is the one you need to respond to.

Slav

ISAW wrote: »

Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?

In the case of
"...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.

Why?

Maybe you have a point but I fail to see it.

Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?

Not sure what's the point of that either. Leave it as the "consequence of", I see no difference to be honest.

For example, the genocide of Serbs by Ustaše was the consequence of their Catholicism. At the same time genocide of Jews by the same Ustaše was not the consequence of their Catholicism but the consequence of their anti-Semitism and political needs to serve their big brother.

Same, the persecution of religious leaders in the early days of Soviet Russia can be counted as the consequence of their Atheism. At the same time the persecution of independent farmers by the same people was not the consequence of Atheism.

What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?

Yes .
When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."

Again your reasoning remained hidden from me...

Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.

Assuming your stats to be true and without dismissing that it was wrong, you already argue against yourself ( in bold above) by putting the numbers into context.

And again I have difficulties understanding you. Why and how do I argue against myself?

Please consider me mentally challenged: I need the full logical chain in order to try to comprehend what you are saying. Conclusions alone are apparently not enough for me to get the point.

Regarding the stats: the number of Ustaše victims are estimated to be between 300,000 and 800,000 by different sources. If we take wikipedia figures as a starting point it states 330,000-390,000 killed, 200,000 force-converted and another 250,000 expelled. The vast majority of that are Serbs with the second largest group being Jews (37,000). The Serb population of Croatia in 1941 as reported by Germans was 1,925,000 (or 30% of the total population). If we take the lower figures and don't count expelled then it would make every forth Serb killed or force-converted.

Slav wrote: »

ISAW, with all respect, but isn't this ^^ a classic "true Scotsman" example? Do crimes against humanity need to be approved or initiated by Vatican in order to be associated with Catholicism?

In the case of
"...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism." Yes.

Why don't you give me a definiition of "associated with Catholicism" and we can apply the SAME standard to "associated with atheism or atheistic regimes"?

What about other faiths which are unfortunate enough not to have a Pope - are they completely immune to any acquisitions with the connections to atrocities for that matter?

Yes .
When discussing "...the regimes of Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, Pinochet and a host more were as a consequence of their Catholicism."

Ustaša anyone? About every forth or even third Serb in Croatia was killed or forcibly converted to Catholicism. Plus thousands of Jews and Roma. Maybe it's a tiny scale looking at the things from today's Ireland
but I guess the scale was not that tiny for Serbs.

Assuming your stats to be true and without dismissing that it was wrong, you already argue against yourself ( in bold above) by putting the numbers into context.

ISAW wrote: »

Thats "only true Scotsman" I think. No?

Anyway I 'd have to look at each of these regimes. I can't see how Mussolini, Salazar, Franco, Galtieri, and Pinochet were acting under orders from the Vatican.

Ill have to go from memory.
Pinochet was hugely supported by the USA. The CIA were up to their gills in Chile. Actually it was on 9/11 they assisted in deposing Allende. Does that mean Chile was a Capitalist Republican Democracy like the US?

As for Salizar. Im not aware of the Pope assisting him or him acting on vatican orders. Im prepared to accept some clergy or bishops did the wrong thing in backing fascism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant%C3%B3nio_de_Oliveira_Salazar#Salazar_and_the_Catholic_Church

If you look you will find similar I'm sure for Hitler Mussolini etc. The church didn't approve or back terror torture or slaughter by these people. Similarly for the Spanish inquisition ( which was backed by some pope). It was limited in the damage done and the spread of its influence during the Spanish Preponderance within the Church. It is frequently overhyped and compared to atrocities of the Nazis Mao Stalin etc. Yes it was wrong but it was in no way "widespread" and tiny in scale compared to atheistic regimes. That does not dismiss it , it just puts it in context.

We all make mistakes . Even Peter himself denied Christ. But acceptance of that does not make it a just action. It may however be justified. i don't mean made just.

A youth once sped through his home town at 120 m.p.h. Since everything was horse-drawn in his country town, there was no laws against speeding. So the council passed a law saying that 60 m.p.h. was the maximum speed, and that any transgressors would be fined $10 for every m.p.h. over the speed limit.

On his way back through the town, the speedster decided to pull the same prank. He was apprehended, tried, and found guilty by his father, who was the town's only judge. He was fined $600. He had no money and no words of defense.

The judge came down from the bench walked over to the court clark reached into his pocket and proffered $600 saying "Justified".

It does not make a sin right when someone pays the fine for it.

Maybe the judge said "go and don't speed again" ?

Who said anything about the Vatican ? Correct me if I am wrong but you have said either here on on the Child Abuse thread than every Bishop manages an autonomous unit. That it is not centralised like a corporation.

But even were that so that it not the point I was asking- would you accept that these men infused as they were with the catholic faith and that this was responsible for the regimes the controlled ? I can list lots more but that is not the issue.

Forget the CIA/Allende - this is well known but has little to do with how Pinochet ran the country thereafter. They were fellow travellers for a period of time- but lets not get sidetracked on that one.

I am sorry but I just don't understanded your speeding son analogy and its relevance.

By the way I agree with you on the Inquisition , poorly understood and greatly exagerated- more a product of Elizibethan England propaganda , which by todays standards was little more than a rogue state. Obviously I am not saying it was right though.