Work will set you free
The day was beautiful. It was sunny and the sky was very clear. It was a bit cold; just enough to make you want to walk briskly but not enough to make you feel uncomfortable. The driver of our coach started the journey on time. In a few minutes, we were out of the city. The country roads were guarded on each side by row after row of all sorts of trees. Golden coloured leaves were fluttering in the air as a clear sign that this is autumn. Some trees had already shed most of their leaves. They looked like skeletons but still seemed sturdy and full of dignity. From time to time, a sign on the roadside warned the driver that deer could cross the road unannounced. One had to be on guard. Small clusters of houses, generally surrounding a country church, could be seen almost at regular distances. The scene looked idyllic. I feasted my eyes on the beauty that surrounded me.
The horror then began
The guide informed us that she was going to show us a fifty-minute documentary to prepare us for our visit to Auschwitz and Birkenau – the Nazi death camps. Soon an old Russian cameraperson was on screen recounting his experiences when filming the death camps on their liberation by the Russian army.
The camp was set up by Germans in 1940, in the suburbs of Oswiecim, a Polish city that was annexed to the Third Reich by the Nazis. Its name was changed to Auschwitz now associated with the infamous camp which was first used to house Polish prisoners. In the beginning of 1942, it also became the largest of the death camps.
The sign over the camps’ gate ironically says, “Work will set you free.” What a preposterous lie is that slogan. The work provided there was the work given to slaves to dehumanise them. The freedom promised was, in reality, a life shacked in the worst possible and imaginable physical and psychological chains. Many inmates believed that only death would set them free!
The red brick buildings that flank the streets of the camp make it look like a decent village in the south of Poland. This is another lie. The nice exteriors are a futile attempt to hide the interior: horror, death, terror, agony and tears.
Sophie’s non-choice
Large photos of inmates arriving at the camp drape the walls. Children are among the new arrivals. Anyone under 14 was immediately sent to the gas chambers as he or she is deemed not to be productive. Humanity was reduced to productivity glorifying an extremely utilitarian view of men and women.
Imagine you are one of the parents in the photo. Imagine an SS officer forcibly taking your child away for you. Just imagine ….. I remembered a scene from Sophie’s Choice. An SS guard forced her to choose between her two children. One was to live and one was to die. Can you walk around in those halls of hell without shedding tears?
Irony of ironies; outside that particular block a five year old girl in warm and expensive clothes played in the open space with her mother. The smile on their face was denied to so many thousands of mother and children who happened to be at the wrong place and at the wrong time.
Who is to live and who is to die
We walk into a room full of suitcases. The victims were all asked to bring only one suitcase each. They crammed the best they had hoping to be using it themselves only to find that the best was to be stolen by their murderers. The victims wrote their names, date of birth and city of origin on the suitcases. This nourished the hope that those suitcases would be theirs to keep. Today an enormous heap gives witness to this deceit. The date of birth on one showed that the man who had it was 40 years old when he came to Auschwitz. Probably the doctor who glanced at him (there was no time for a proper medical investigation) signalled the guards the direction of the sleeping quarters. He was to be kept alive to work and slave. Another suitcase had the name of a girl who was just over five years old when she came to this death hole. She did not celebrate her sixth birthday. The sign given to the guards pointed towards the gas chamber.
We walked in the direction of the infamous building. On the outside, it looked like a normal building. The inmates were ordered to strip naked. They were told that once inside they were going to be disinfected inside. They were then packed like sardines. A chamber that could have taken, perhaps four hundred, had to cram in seven hundred. The doors are closed. From two openings on the roof, the SS emptied the contents of two tins full of pills. These change into gas if the temperature is high enough. That mass of bodies crammed into the chamber provides the heat needed to metamorphose the pills. In five minutes, everyone is killed. Five minutes of intense terror and desperation.
In the adjacent room the furnaces eagerly await to consume the corpses.
The “happy” families
We drive to the Birkenau camp (also known as "Auschwitz II") which was the largest part of the Auschwitz complex. Most gas chambers were built in Birkenau and the majority of the victims were murdered here. There are no brick houses here. Just wooden barracks hastily built. Infernal dwelling places.
There was an exception though. In one of the sub-camps which was totally segregated from the rest, families could live together. There were nursery schools and playing fields. The lucky ones wrote to their relatives and friends that the concentration camp was a good place to live in. They were allowed to do this for six whole months. The camp authorities thought that this was a long enough period for them to spread the “good” news to everyone they knew. Then they were sent to the gas chambers and a new crop of people was brought in to write to other friends and relatives.
Awschwitz and Birkenau are the work of diabolical people. Even Lucifer would be shocked by the horror and evil created there. The “scum of the earth” were then the Jews, and the homosexuals, and the enemies of the regime. To-day they are the Roma, and the illegal immigrants and …… The list can be never ending.
Will the horror ever be repeated?
In spite of everything, there is also hope because even in Auschwitz there was hope, courage, determination, love and resistance. One particular cell is the symbol of the hope and love shown by many inmates. It is the cell of Fr Max Kolbe. The brave religious priest gave his life in exchange for that of another prisoner. A large Cross, a symbol hated so much by the Nazis, springs hope in the middle of this cell where love triumphed over hate.
Perhaps the presence of the five-year-old girl blissfully playing with her mother is not just an inane irony. Perhaps it is a symbol of a better future, if we choose to live it.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
162 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 18th 2010, 07:20
@ Andrew Farrugia:
"I see no problem in providing factual verifiable evidence about these two characters, who incidentally are rabid and offensive in their hatred of religion, and Catholicism in particular".
That would not be too hard for a creationist who considers any criticism of religion rabid and offensive.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 17th 2010, 21:36
Andrew Farrugia:
Facts are not considered facts when they only exist in your imagination. Try to enter the real world a bit and you might see that your made up manicles are extremely ellusive, to the point of not existing.
You have been challenged repeatedly and not once, not even once, did you manage to substantiate your claims.
I think enough is said. Anyone reading this thread can see who has substantiated claims and who haven't. You are wasting everyone's time.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 17th 2010, 17:37
Should readers try to point out the mistakes in the NEW version of my earlier comment - ie DITCHKINS and Hitchens - and accuse me of not being able to write out names correctly, i wish to state that it is the responsibility of the moderator. I see no problem in providing factual verifiable evidence about these two characters, who incidentally are rabid and offensive in their hatred of religion, and Catholicism in particular.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 17th 2010, 17:25
I deal with FACTS, easily verifiable by following the comments i made and viewing the site i mentioned; others are merely reacting to what i post by issuing vague threats and lacing their comments with gratuitous insults and offensive epithets which leave me unimpressed.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 17th 2010, 13:35
@ Jessica DeBattista:
True, my insistence in getting a reply from Fr Borg is no flight of imagination. Your conclusion that I'm seeking the reply so that he "eats humble pie", however, is.
Is admitting a mistake (if that is actually the case) considered eating humble pie now? And in any case, I'm not even asking him to correct his mistake...I'm only asking for him to review and either confirm or correct. Its his choice, as it is also his choice whether to ignore my question, and my choice whether to insist in asking.
Perhaps its just me, but I'd gladly "eat humble pie" (if you'll insist in calling it so) if I am proven incorrect in something. It helps build one's credibility, if nothing else.
Regarding passing remarks about Fr Joe to another commenter in his own blog being unethical, you are entitled to that opinion, like I'm entitled to say that's nonsense.
There's nothing unethical about commenting about a blogger in his own blog, unless the comment itself is unethical (in which case I would ask you to explain how so).
Its not like I'm passing comments behind Fr Joe's back. Its his own blog, for goodness' sake!
Patrik Larsson
Nov 17th 2010, 09:01
Andrew Farrugia:
One last point.
"...you will also discover who tries to equate Catholicism with Nazism"
Please point that out. I have never read any such text and, I can bet, neither have you. Not once have Catholicism been equated with Nazism. Not by anyone on this forum, nor on nobeliefs.com. You have already tried this lie previously and when challenged you refused to back it up. Now you repeat the same dubious claim and we can all be sure you won't even try to justify it.
Then again, isn't that what you have done from the start. Making a claim, having it refuted. Making another claim, having that refuted. Making a third claim, also having that refuted. How many new baseless claims are you going to make before making a complete fool out of yourself?
Patrik Larsson
Nov 17th 2010, 08:52
Andrew Farrugia:
Oh, and if you want real hatred. Go to the site you so warmly recommended, look at Prof. Dawkins answers to the Reddit questions and fast-forward to the end where he reads out hatemail.
I have gone through the site a bit (thanks for the tip) and I can't understand what you are on about. Where is the hate speeches by Dawkins?
Dawkins contributed tremendously to the wealth of human knowledge and Hitchens is after all considered to be one of the most important intellectuals alive today.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 17th 2010, 06:37
Ms Debattista:
Regarding the comment by Andrew Farrugia below, you might wish to note that neither I, nor Richard Dawkins, and nor Christopher Hitchens have any connection with nobeliefs.com, so I will not be wasting any time discrediting Andrew Farrugia's slanderous comments on that website.
Andrew Farrugia would spend his time better in disproving whatever I have said and proving what he said, instead of creating straw men and attacking people who are not even participating in this blog.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 17th 2010, 00:17
@ Kenneth Cassar: “I never asked for an apology, so I'll take it that this is the result of one of your "flights of imagination".
Kenneth as you rightly say, “I am not stupid.” Your insistence to get Fr. Joe to answer your question, in the hope of getting him to eat humble pie, is no flight of imagination. Anybody can see it from miles away.
And what’s more, I find that passing remarks about Fr. Joe to another commenter is rather unethical.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 16th 2010, 21:51
Andrew Farrugia:
Every point you have made have so far been proven wrong and instead of trying to either retract or strengthen your position you just jump to the next issue. The only conclusion to be drawn from it is that every argument you have made has failed, ergo that discussion was lost by you. You simply don't have the ability to justify your rants.
When you make an argument that is being amply answered to you can either:
A) Justify your argument by submitting further support for it
B) Retract or correct your argument
C) Stay silent or try to jump to the next argument
With A) and B) you move the discussion forward. With C) you automatically and instantly lose.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 16th 2010, 18:01
Ms Debattista
With all due respect, just go to nobeliefs.com and you will discover all the bile, hatred and poison that will last you more than a lifetime, and you will also discover how the new "gods" of post-modernity i.e. DITCHKINS and Hitchens are featured prominently there; you will also discover who tries to equate Catholicism with Nazism. Enjoy but watch out that you do not wallow in it.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 16th 2010, 15:51
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Oh, so now its arrogant to ask on-topic questions. Wonders never cease.
You'll notice that I'm "stubbornly" persisting in asking that question only because Fr Joe is stubbornly refusing to answer it. Is it so hard to say "I stand by all that I wrote" or "I acknowledge my mistake"?
I can understand when Fr Joe - as he once said to my brother - refuses to answer an off-topic question. But you will perhaps concede that my question is on-topic and quite relevant to the discussion.
As for me supposedly believing that I have universal knowledge at my fingertips, I won't waste time replying at length to ad-hominem attacks. I'll just say that that's only in your imagination. Same goes to having a "superior mind".
The question I asked is not a matter of opinion, and even if it was, then I'm just asking Fr Joe's opinion.
I never asked for an apology, so I'll take it that this is the result of one of your "flights of imagination".
Finally, you might wish to note that in refusing to correct an error, one would be persisting in that error. You're not stupid...you know this as well.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 15th 2010, 11:06
@ Kenneth Cassar: “What I cannot understand is what's keeping Fr Joe Borg from correcting his mistake on the Nazis and the cross.”
What I cannot understand is why you so arrogantly and stubbornly persist in asking that question. You seem to believe you have the universal knowledge at your fingertips - with all your insistence on rationality and logic, almost as if your mind is superior to others’. It is not! You just have a different opinion. That’s all!
Everybody is entitled to his opinion and nobody owes anybody an apology if they truly believe in what they say, and even if they don’t, no one has the right to demand an apology. After all, who knows what the truth is?
The truth is never wholly revealed for man has many sides to his character and he is likely to show only the side that he knows would please the majority.
“To err is human. To persist in error is diabolical.” You say.
Kenneth, I do not see Fr. Joe persisting, but I do see you – persisting…..
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 15th 2010, 07:41
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"I am not particularly interested to know why he chose that motif".
And yet, you nonchalantly draw up your own conclusion. Says a lot.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 15th 2010, 07:38
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Actually I do not understand the fuss kicked up about the cross".
What I cannot understand is what's keeping Fr Joe Borg from correcting his mistake on the Nazis and the cross. Some people kick up a fuss because they believe in truth and believe that the end does not justify the means. Others, perhaps because they believe that the end justifies the means, are not interested in the facts and will bend them at their will.
To err is human. To persist in error is diabolical.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 12th 2010, 16:23
@ Kenneth Cassar: “.....I'd rather devote my time discussing or debating known facts, than flights of fancy. But just to be clear, if you wish to stretch your imagination so that you see the swastika as a broken cross, who am I to argue? Your imagination is your own.”
Well I see the swastika as a broken cross. Others see it as a spider (weaving a web of evil maybe – who knows?)
I am not particularly interested to know why he chose that motif. It is quite an attractive motif in fact. Pity that Nazism had to give it such a bad name!
Our imagination is part of our make up Kenneth - without it we are in a rut - and Hitler had it aplenty. How else could he have conjured up such a devilish plan to exterminate the Jews?
Whatever he wrote in Mein Kamf may have a lot of truth as he saw it, but there might also have been ulterior motives as well and Hitler was artist enough to know how to play with people’s emotions through his oratory and literary gifts.
Actually I do not understand the fuss kicked up about the cross.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 12th 2010, 15:42
There is, indeed, no kind of remedy for some people's delirium. And they require proof / evidence of who is equating A with B. Sorry, but i can only reply with my famous quote: continue to wallow...
Patrik Larsson
Nov 12th 2010, 15:19
What I can't understand is why people struggle so much with the thought that the nazis after all was in general Christians. Just as the fascists in Italy, the thugs of Franco in Spain and the beastly Ustasi in Croatia. This is historical facts, not a matter of opinion. By the same thought Maoists was in general Atheists, as was Leninists, as is North Koreans today (although paralells with religion is very easy to make there).
Why is it so important to play this pretend game of Christianity being this perfect ideal, which can not have spawned such evil.
History is mainly written, often regrettably, by the winners. That said, we have a fairly good grasp of the last hundred years of history and the need to rewrite it is really shameful. If you feel tainted by happening to have the same affiliation as some of these barbarians then tough, that's just the way it is. It doesn't mean you follow the same path.
Then you keep pretending that the cross is this catalyst, which only can lead to good things, while history clearly shows you wrong. Stop and think for a moment please.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 12th 2010, 14:59
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"And who is to know why Hitler chose said motif?".
He explained it in Mein Kampf. However, I do not blame you if you do not believe his version (you will find it in the wikipedia link on the swastika that I have already posted). That said, and irrespective of all the evil Hitler caused, I do find his version far more credible than your conspiracy theory.
In any case, I'd rather devote my time discussing or debating known facts, than flights of fancy. But just to be clear, if you wish to stretch your imagination so that you see the swastika as a broken cross, who am I to argue? Your imagination is your own.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 12th 2010, 12:39
@ Some..
Part 2.
I remember from my childhood that it was a custom to dress a child in a saint’s costume after a grace received. I remember my sister, barely four years old, going about dressed as St Rita when through the intercession of said saint she survived a severe case of gastroenteritis.
It was an accepted and lauded practice at the time for society was still very much religiously oriented. Which brings to mind the abuse of wearing nun’s clothing as a carnival costume to day – hardly the same connotation/association, but sadly freedom of expression gives our society the right to ridicule symbols which were once revered.
The swastika is another symbol which had been desecrated through the nefarious practices of the Nazis. And who is to know why Hitler chose said motif? I am prone to flights of imagination and I cannot rid my mind from a niggling thought that Hitler chose it as a diabolical joke on his people. It is a cross – but a broken cross…..
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 12th 2010, 12:36
@ Some….
Part 1.
Interesting reading about the swastika symbol and its origin from primitive man!
Incidentally it set me thinking about another symbol originating from primitive times – the mask.
Originally the mask had a different function to what we attribute to it nowadays.
The use of the mask was not the hiding of an identity but rather the infusing of the wearer with the attributes of the spirit it represented and the power the said spirit could exert.
Different times call for different applications of established symbols.
Continued....
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 12th 2010, 11:04
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Believe what you want. You may believe that the earth was "created" in six days, for all I care. Good bye.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 12th 2010, 10:28
Will be man enough to admit that you are right about the design and origin of the swastika (see there is no problem or any loss of face in acknowledging one's gaffes) ; my point was (not particularly well expressed - see another failure of mine) that the swastika became (and is still ) synonymous with Nazism. On the other hand, i still hold on to my claims about the Nazis and the Cross ( the symbolic Christian One).
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 12th 2010, 09:09
@ Andrew Farrugia:
"...so much so that they (Nazis) designed their own warped version of it - the pernicious swastika - just like devil-worshippers come up with their particular contortions of the Cross".
Now I know I'm really wasting time. You clearly have no idea. The Nazis designed the swastika? What utter nonsense!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Patrik Larsson
Nov 12th 2010, 09:09
Andrew Farrugia:
Ok, you have repeated the same claim, in a few more words, with yet nothing to back it up.
Kind of says it all.
I can do the same. See:
The Nazis loved the cross and wouldn't wake up a morning without gasping in its grace.
Why do I say that? Because we are all free to make completely baseless claims.
This is really taking the discussion somewhere.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 18:58
I will be bold (and indiscreet) enough to take up your challenge and answer your question to Fr Borg (methinks he will throw the book at me).
YES, the Nazis hated the Cross, because symbolically (and i believe physiologically) it can pierce and devastate the perverted conscience and heart of evil beings, so much so that they designed their own warped version of it - the pernicious swastika - just like devil-worshippers come up with their particular contortions of the Cross. They just cannot bear its sight.
OK. Father Borg, now you can be angry at me; i promise to take it like a man.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 16:54
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Oh...and thanks for filling in Person A's brackets for me.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 16:52
@ Andrew Farrugia:
"Hahahahaha! Wasting time or what?"
Apparently not, since you got the joke. Its good when people can laugh at jokes about them. There's still some hope yet.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 16:08
Hahahahaha! Wasting time or what?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 14:57
@ Andrew Farrugia:
And the comedy continues:
Person A: "The crux of the matter is that I can find proof positive to substantiate (without any shred of equivocation) my claim that atheists have green blood, plastic veins and blue bones".
Person B: "Where's your proof?".
Person A: (Says something completely unrelated to the question).
To be continued (?)
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 14:40
Did anyone mention mere waffle? What did i say about mental and verbal contortions? Could have added spin and irrationality!
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 13:59
@ Fr Joe Borg:
Do you still stand by your claim that the Cross was hated by the Nazis?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 13:16
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Let me give you an example.
Person A: "Atheists have green blood".
Person B: "No they don't. Support your claim with evidence".
Person A: "Atheists have plastic veins".
Person B: "Now you have made two outrageous claims. Evidence please".
Person A: "Atheists have blue bones".
Person B: "You're being childish. I'm used to people of your ilk, who make outrageous claims and fail to provide any evidence when challenged".
Ad hominem by Person B? Hardly.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 11th 2010, 13:04
Andrew Farrugia:
"...i can find PROOF POSITIVE (without any shred of equivocation) to substantiate ALL that i have ever written and posted on this and other threads"
Complete nonsense. We have already asked you substantiate several things and you completely failed to do so. Until you do the above will be considered a complete fabrication.
Regarding your ad hominem claims I'm sure you can see that virtually all is comparatives and in response to posts made by you, hence not ad hominems at all. If they were I can assure you that several more of your own posts would be ad hominems.
You can choose to either take part in the discussion, or you can continue your completely failed tirade of trying to divert attention away from the issue at hand.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 13:02
@ Andrew Farrugia:
The crux of the matter is that although you claim to be able to find proof to substantiate all you have ever written, you fail to give the evidence even when challenged.
The verbal juggling is usually done by people who try to avoid addressing inconvenient challenges.
As for ad hominem jibes, you should look up the meaning of "ad hominem" (and please note that not even this sentence is one.
Describing an argument and an attitude as childish doesn't qualify as an ad hominem attack. Neither does saying that one is accustomed to people of another's ilk. As for telling someone to "seek assistance if required...", if this is "ad hominem", then anything is.
Ad hominem, in a debate, means "attacking an opponent's character RATHER THAN answering his argument". I have neither attacked your character, nor have I avoided your "arguments".
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 12:27
Quotes on ad hominem jibes:
"childish arguments from someone with a childish attitude"
"i have become accustomed to people of your ilk...."
"seek assistance if required..."
and it goes on and on and on .......
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 12:14
The crux (or heart) of the matter (apologies to Greene) is that i can find PROOF POSITIVE (without any shred of equivocation) to substantiate ALL that i have ever written and posted on this and other threads. No amount of mental and verbal juggling or contortions can change that. All else is mere waffle.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 11:43
@ Andrew Farrugia:
A point regarding Mussolini....while Italy in Mussolini's time was predominantly Catholic, Mussolini almost certainly wasn't. That's the beauty of being a free-thinker...one can be honest without worrying about conceding points to "adversaries".
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 10:37
@ Andrew Farrugia (part 2):
Regarding your quote starting with "Fascism, throughout the 20th century...", to be fair, you should have mentioned that the post was not made by me. In any case, I have become accustomed to people of your ilk quote mining (quoting out of context).
What was actually written was the following:
"While agreeing with much of what you said, you did a major error in connecting fascism and secularism. Fascism, throughout the 20th century, has been nearly exclusively Catholic. From Mussolini in Italy, to Franco in Spain and the Ustasi in Croatia".
So besides the fact that the correspondent was debunking an allegation linking Fascism to secularism, I hope you can at least attempt to demonstrate the above claim as untrue. Good luck with that.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 10:36
@ Andrew Farrugia (part 1):
On "threatening" court action, quoting out of context will not do. What I wrote is:
"And while you're at it, can you please indicate where any of the humanists/atheists here have character-assassinated anyone? Quotes and links please. You're threading a fine line here. You'd better be careful or you'll meet one of us in court pretty soon".
Now, if you make the extra effort, you will notice that the above does not even remotely suggest that you have written anything libellous just yet, but that you're threading a fine line. My remark can only be correctly described as a warning, not a threat. There is a difference.
Regarding your quote on "strident authority", I'm glad you at least reproduced my mention that the person I was correcting was trying to impress by using Latin. So what's your point?
Cont...
Patrik Larsson
Nov 11th 2010, 10:34
Andrew Farrugia:
Quite sad how you had to dig back to April to try to make a point. I'm quite flattered to be honest.
Still, I stand by that point. Fascism has been a mainly Catholic movement. Of course the term "fascist" have been used, incorrectly, to describe almost any kind of totalitarian movement, but nearly every state that can correctly be described as a Fascist State has been virutually inseparable from the Catholic extreme right.
I'm sure there are exceptions and in no ways am I saying that since Fascism has been nearly exclusively Catholic, then Catholics must be fascists. Perhaps it is another of my drastic grammatical errors that have led you astray to think I mean something different. I mean, a simple "have" exchanged with "has" was too difficult for you to follow.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 09:30
Yet another quote:
21/4/10
"Fascism, throughout the 20th century, has been nearly exclusively Catholic. From Mussolini in Italy, to Franco in Spain and the Ustasi in Croatia."
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 11th 2010, 08:56
Just a few choice quotes:
On threatening court action:
" You'd better be careful or you'll meet one of us in court pretty soon"
On correcting someone's English (and Latin):
" Please note that there is no such thing as "strident authority". You should work on your English before trying to impress anyone with "your" Latin." 26/4/10
Faithfully reproduced; i could go on and on.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 07:30
@ Jessica DeBattista:
In that context, "commenter" is the right word. However, I find it extremely silly and childish of someone to insist on using a lower case "i" when using the first-person pronoun, even when this is pointed out to him, and especially when he takes it on himself to point out the errors of others.
One thing's for sure...you can only expect childish arguments from someone with a childish attitude.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 11th 2010, 07:24
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Your grasp of the English language is not as good as some might make it to be. I never threatened you with court action. Read my posts again. Seek assistance if you require it.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 10th 2010, 22:40
@ Andrew Farrugia and David Seychell:
Thank you both so much! Now it’s all clear.
Glad I brought it up!
David Seychell
Nov 10th 2010, 20:26
@Jessica DeBattista
The difference between “commenters” and ‘commentators’ is explained here:
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20100605/andrew-borg-cardona/further-under-the-stone
Don't worry though, it's a minor and common mistake.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 19:23
Ms Debattista.
Incidentally, i think i made it very clear that excellence is beyond me, far out of my reach. As far as language skills are concerned the only person i am aware of who, sort of, comes close to this level is a certain Hecate (others call her poison pen) from whom (indirectly, through prying into her blog) i discovered the difference between commenter and commentator. Personally, i am not at all a fan of hers (in fact i don't like her at all) but you have to admire her as a wordsmith. So you see, at times your adversaries may be of some use.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 19:02
Ms Debattista, apologies accepted and no dosage of medicine required ; the correct word is commenter/s because that refers to what people do over here - they express views or opinions or dish out offensive, blasphemous epithets a destra e a manca, or even threaten you with (wait for it, it is not eternal damnation) court action. On the other hand, COMMENTATOR refers to those who are paid to give a spoken rendition of some event, as in a football match. Still, nice try but you have to do better than that. Keep at it and you will probably catch me unawares some day.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 10th 2010, 18:20
@ Andrew Farrugia: "commenters"
On second thoughts, I suppose one could use it, though I don’t find ‘commenter’ in my Oxford Dictionary.
In that case I apologize.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 10th 2010, 17:53
@ Andrew Farrugia: “commenters”
Hate to be a nit picker Mr. Farrugia, but is it “commenters” or ‘commentators’?
Coming from you one would expect excellence! Or is it a case that even the very best can lapse?
Sorry to mete out a taste of your own medicine. I just couldn’t let it pass.
And also to prove that I am no goody-goody.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 17:14
I invite the few bona fide commenters here to check out the meaning of nihilism and what it represents as a philosophy.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 10th 2010, 11:21
@ Andrew Farrugia: “Please feel free to turn the other cheek whenever you wish and act all goody-goody, but it is not for you to cramp my style.”
Mr. Farrugia, I do not turn the other cheek for I am far from being a goody-goody but there are so many points about which we differ amongst ourselves that I find it irrelevant when one tries to nit pick about some grammatical error that we are all prone to. But of course if that is your style, who am I to cramp it?
As regards: “Maltese is supposed to be our first language, and an intrinsic part of our identity and heritage and we should be proud of it” I fully agree but infortunately my written Maltese leaves much to be desired and I am too much of a proud Maltese to advertise the fact. If I did not care I would just plunge in and write it whichever way it sounds.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 10th 2010, 11:21
Threatening me with court action is not going to work; please yourselves. I will take back nothing of whatever i have written and i will continue to post in similar fashion.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 10th 2010, 09:02
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Thanks for your reply. Yes, it is true that somebody in this blog has hinted that the German people (Christians) hated the Jews because they were the ones who crucified Jesus. And while I don't believe that its the primary cause of the holocaust, I suspect it played at least a small part. Hitler himself is known to have quoted Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their lies" to garner hatred of the Jews (See: http://nobeliefs.com/luther.htm ).
You will also understand that saying that many German people (who happened to be Christians) in Hitler's time hated Jews, is a far cry from saying that Christians hate/hated Jews, just as there is a difference between saying Stalin (who was an atheist) was a murderer and saying that atheists are murderers.
I also already mentioned that Hitler exploited the people’s faith, so you'll already know that we agree on this.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 10th 2010, 08:47
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Can you please substantiate your allegation that some of us here are nihilists? Of course not.
And while you're at it, can you please indicate where any of the humanists/atheists here have character-assassinated anyone? Quotes and links please. You're threading a fine line here. You'd better be careful or you'll meet one of us in court pretty soon.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 9th 2010, 23:59
@ Kenneth Cassar: “And out of curiosity, do you personally believe anyone here is equating Nazism with Catholicism?”
No I don’t, but somebody in this blog has hinted that the German people (Christians) hated the Jews because they were the ones who crucified Jesus.
Hitler’s anti-Semitism had little to do with the above-mentioned, and more to do with the fact that Jews were amassing wealth and land which he felt, by right, should belong to the Germans.
The masses – common people rooted in a religios culture - could only be reached by massive propaganda which mostly brainwashed them into believing that the Jews were an irreligious lot.
Hitler exploited the people’s faith and fanned their latent animosity against the Jews. Consequently, they resented them in their country, but I do not think that the common people were fully aware of what was being perpetrated on the Jewish people.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 9th 2010, 19:08
1933, when men of god were photographed 'cavorting' with Jew-killers-to-be, was considerably earlier than 1939. The signs of evil that was the Third Reich were evident even then, however. And the Great War of 1914-18 was not a million years behind either. In any case, Vatican antipathy towards the Jews during and after the war is well documented (saved Jewish children fostered with Catholic families being refused return to their legitimate families when the bogey man was sorted out and they were by then deemed naturalised Catholics).
Andrew, you could aspire to excellence, revise, etc. But strive to do it on your own terms. There's a wealth of best of British back-bacon rashers out there - guaranteed not to be seconds off Lady Gaga's lily-soft hide, Jezebelled 'hussy' that she is.
Knowledge macht frei.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 9th 2010, 18:59
@ Ms Debattista
Incidentally, i also post comments in Maltese (rather than avoid it like the plague); and because i realise that i am far more fluent in English i tend to monitor my usage (see Krashen for an explanation of the Monitor Hypothesis). After all, Maltese is supposed to be our first language, and an intrinsic part of our identity and heritage and we should be proud of it (unlike a certain Hecate who blogs on other media).
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 9th 2010, 18:48
@ Ms Debattista
Excuse me, madam, are you by any chance suggesting how i (see, small case) should deal with assorted humanists and nihilists? Please feel free to turn the other cheek whenever you wish and act all goody-goody, but it is not for you to cramp my style.
BTW, where were you when these same attempted to character assassinate a holy woman? Navel-gazing?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 15:46
@ Jessica DeBattista:
And out of curiosity, do you personally believe anyone here is equating Nazism with Catholicism?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 15:42
@ Jessica DeBattista:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming that by replying that you don't humbly "give the other cheek" (in response to the alleged claim that secularists/atheists here "use the worst epithets and analogies possible to attack (your) beliefs and then they childishly complain about others being offensive!"), you're giving your assent to that claim.
If I, or any other secularist/atheist here, uses the "worst epithets and analogies", all it takes is for believers to demonstrate them so through logical arguments. It too often happens that we are accused of such things, and then, when we challenge the claimant to substantiate his/her claim, we are faced with evasion of the issue, or complete silence. The least one expects in a rational debate is that challenged claims are substantiated with evidence.
Regarding complaining about being "offensive", there is a difference between offending the beliefs of another when the topic under discussion is directly or indirectly that same belief, and ad-hominem attacks. One cannot have honest debate on religion or morality without causing offence to anyone on earth. Of course, offending for the sake of causing offence defeats the purpose of any discussion.
I hope this much is clear.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 9th 2010, 15:03
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Yes Mr. Farrugia, I do get “slightly miffed about someone highlighting grammatical errors....” and that is because such errors do not in any way rob from what the commentator means to convey in his message. So why bother?
I take this blog as an exchange of ideas, though I do appreciate a well written comment, but at times, even the very best can lapse.
As regards: “They use the worst epithets and analogies possible to attack our beliefs and then they childishly complain about others being offensive!” I believe that we do not humbly give the other cheek. This, of course, does not mean that I would humbly allow them to rant on, but I try – not always successfully – to tone down the pitch of my voice (metaphorically speaking) because in that way I feel I am setting the timbre for my “opponent’s” response.
Why antagonize further by rubbing a sore wound!
Speaking for myself, my most glaring deficiency would show up if I were called upon to write in Maltese. I avoid it like the plague, and I resent anybody trying to make fun of it.
After all it is not very charitable.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 14:29
@ Andrew Farrugia:
...or should I say beam in one's "i"? ;P
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 9th 2010, 14:19
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Please note that the pronoun "I" in the English language, is written as a capital letter. Speaking of beams in one's eye.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 9th 2010, 13:24
Jessica Debattista:
You see the hypocrisy? He feels we should all be held responsible for our bad grammar, yet can't distinguish between you asking him to refrain himself and oppression of free speech.
He hides behind his hateful language, then, when cornered tries to wiggle himself out of it with side issues.
I think from my name he should have figured out that I did not grow up in a country where English is an official language, yet he expects, nearly demands, that my grammar is flawless.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 9th 2010, 12:37
@ Ms Debattista
So, you feel slightly miffed about someone highlighting grammatical errors which very often appear in these comments? And you would also like me to put a stop to this! Who said that there is freedom of expression? If people are not careful enough about the way they use language, which represents thought and ideas, then that shows that there is some weakness in the way they articulate themselves. And why worry about being examined on language capabilities when others vehemently, irrationally and offensively lambast our core beliefs. They use the worst epithets and analogies possible to attack our beliefs and then they childishly complain about others being offensive! They are not even aware of the huge beam in their eyes which has long made them incapable of seeing any kind of light! As you can see, i have tried to provide you with an explanation of my modus operandi, though i could have been a bit less subtle in my dismissal of your comment. Ultimately, you are free to chose your own methods in interacting with others, but i hope you will grant me the liberty to post comments as i deem fit.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 8th 2010, 18:06
2) @ Jessica, we've talked about hatred and envy as rebounding emotions, something terrible. Another, and this, interestingly enough, is not included among the seven deadly ones for the simple reason that, whoever set up the 7Up decided that this one is too useful to be relegated to the sin category. So it doesn't figure in any of Dante's circles. I am, of course, talking about fear. Outside sanctified circles where it's very useful for keeping people in check, fear eats the soul. I am not immune to fear of course. I am 'afraid' of what Freud could tell me that I did not know before (it's LONG SINCE - Andrew please note - I left the self-serving denial tactic behind me). I DO NOT fear 'uber religious' people whom I find intriguing if anything at all, but some religious people resent me, at least. And that's a pity and a crying shame as I cannot imagine anyone as harmless, as minisC-U-Le as I am. But I am reconciled to that so it's fine by me.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 8th 2010, 17:26
1) Doc, you keep insisting that I am a believer (capital B?, minisCULe b? what does it matter?). Why, you even see a Freudian where there isn't any. But you have Freudians a-plenty I imagine (comes with the territory, as they say). And one of them, quite glaring. Your insistence that an avowed atheist is a believer, really (when everything points to the contrary) is a slip showing (pun intended| for the sake of levity) that you cannot stomach (ulcers? by free association) atheists. Dare I say it, atheists upset you, they threaten your shakey identity.
It's your turn on the couch doc. Do us all a favour doc, keep your Y-Fronts on. I see the elastic's elasticity has gone - comes with age I'm afraid. Here's a safety-pin. Now don't go prick yourself. A deflated balloon, a deflated anything is so not a pretty sight.
For someone who wouldn't heed anything I'd say to save his skin, you certainly do keep coming back to me hoping to upset my mare on its way to my Damas. Yet another slip maybe?
continued
Patrik Larsson
Nov 8th 2010, 12:00
Andrew Farrugia:
I'm not very concerned about attacks on my grammar skills, but my sense of humour, now that's a whole other story...
What you completely fail to see is how inappropriate it is to stick your head into a discussion, make completely baseless accusations (humanists equate nazism with christianity / humanists are eaten from the inside by hatred and despair). Then, when challenged, your resort with more baseless accusations (irrationality reign supreme / chop logic etc). Then, when further challenged, you attack grammar and eventually you try to shrug it off as humour.
If you want to enter into the argument with humour, then by all means do so. Just be clear with your intentions from the start.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 8th 2010, 11:26
@ Andrew Farrugia:
Mr. Farrugia, can you please refrain from highlighting grammatical errors which very often appear in these comments? We are all susceptible to them especially if it is the point one wants to stress that is of paramount importance and, consequently, we neglect to review the comment in our eagerness to deliver the point.
It is quite daunting to feel that we are being examined on our language prowess.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 8th 2010, 09:39
@ Andrew Farrugia:
I cannot see how knowing there's something greater and know their limitations too, and struggling to achieve the ideal, makes one a hypocrite.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 8th 2010, 07:45
@ Alex Ellul:
I ask you what holocaust deniers have to do with "illuminati turning against Christians" (whatever that means). You "reply" by asking what Nazism has to do with Christianity.
Although you are unable to answer my question honestly (you evaded it), I'll answer your own question once again. Nazism has nothing to do with Christianity. Just because most German Nazis considered themselves Christians (so did inquisitors, for that matter), does not mean that Christianity has anything to do with Nazism. That's the best thing about free-thinkers...they don't have to create straw men.
As for my second question, you gave me some examples. Regarding the first, I find it hard to believe that a couple was denied fostering just because they attend Sunday Mass. Perhaps you can provide me with more information (a link). Regarding the nurse, I won't waste time going into the policies concerning uniforms and what should be worn (or not) at the place of work. On the othehand, if nurses at the same hospital were permitted to wear other religious symbols, then that would be discrimination, and I would oppose it.
Now, can you please tell me what holocaust deniers have to do with "illuminati"?
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 7th 2010, 20:33
"When people resort to grammar errors to defend themselves (from what?) you can be sure they have since long lost the argument (which one?)".
WRONG again; it should be LONG SINCE not since long.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 7th 2010, 18:19
@ Patrik Larsson:
Mr Larsson thank you for the last comment you addressed to me. It is heartwarming to know that we share friendly feelings towards each other as I hope I share the same with all the other commentators on this blog.
There is nothing I hate more than when some argument flares up which brings to the fore our belligerant side.
I’m sure we all mean well but we do get carried away sometimes! :-) Cheers!
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 7th 2010, 18:03
Mr Larsson, your arrogance and obtuseness makes it impossible for you to even begin to understand humour, as in taking the mickey of you.
David Seychell
Nov 7th 2010, 17:55
It's a fact that the nuclear bombing was, according to the laws at that time, a war crime. The Nuremberg Trials (1945-46) prosecuted prominent nazis guilty of war crimes, some of these were executed. However, as far as I know (and I stand to be corrected), no one was ever prosecuted for the the war crimes committed against the Japanese(1). There is a saying: "those who win the war,write the history". Maybe we should add, 'and the evil done by the victors is soon forgotten'
(1)http://www.chinasmack.com/2009/pictures/japanese-atomic-bomb-victim-photos-chinese-netizen-reactions.html
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 7th 2010, 14:21
"The Church is a group of hypocrites, in a sense; a group of people who know there's something greater and know their limitations too, and they're struggling to achieve the ideal, but it's a journey and we're in this together - from the biggest sinner to the one who thinks he's the most holy". Singing seminarian Robert Galea in TSTM interview.
What wise wonderful words and thoughts from this young man! I do not know the person but i know that his heart is in the right place. At my age i feel so humbled by the insights provided by Robert Galea. A rare ray of hope amidst much that seems gloomy! Well done young man, If, according to my friend Xuereb, i deserve an 8.7 (overrated, really) for my English, you deserve a 9 for your substance.
David Seychell
Nov 7th 2010, 14:12
@Alex Ellul "The bombs dropped on Nagasagi and Hiroshima killed 100 of thousands and saved millins of lives from a protracted war. Read histroy and you will learn. Your comment proves one thing: You are ignorant in history"
You're wrong Mr Ellul. I know history. Your comment "proves" you failed to understand my question and my point. I asked "Was it a necessary evil, or a crime against humanity?" The phrase "necessary evil" refers to the fact you yourself mentioned, i.e, the fact that the mass killing of innocent civilians, babies, children, women, elderly etc ended the war quickly, saving the lives of many American and japanese soldiers. The effort was to kill civilians in such large numbers that the Japanese government is forced to surrender. The definition of terrorism is:"The use of illegal violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature." The end was noble (although some say the nuclear bombings were aslo meant as a warning to the russians), so the question is, did this "end" justify this:http://www.gensuikin.org/english/photo.html?
David Seychell
Nov 7th 2010, 14:10
@Andrew Farrugia "Why ask the Church, or even the writer of this blog?" Because the Church is supposed to be the ultimate (objective) moral guide. My question, was about a moral dilemma: does the end justify the means(no matter how horrible the means are)?
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 13:08
Alex Ellul:
Apart from the case of the nurse, which Kenneth already replied to, what evidence do you have connecting them being denied as foster parents had anything to do with them attending mass? Are you saying that noone attending mass have been deemed fit for foster care?
Or is this perhaps another case of connecting irrelevant dots to support a non issue.
Next time I'll go to the UK I'll be sure to mention the word "Christmas" a lot. If I come back unpunished we will all know how stupid your point was.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 13:05
When people resort to grammar errors to defend themselves you can be sure they have since long lost the argument. If the greatest flaw you can find in my argument, Mr. Farrugia, is a simple "have" instead of "has" then I will take it as a great compliment.
Kevin Cassar
Nov 7th 2010, 11:26
@ Alex Ellul
Either you are misinformed or trying to deceive. The case you mentioned where a nurse was sacked because she refused to remove a cross hanging around her neck was due to the fact that the hospital policy prohibited wearing necklaces period. The necklace could have been anything from a heart to a zodiac sign and the same outcome would have resulted. You cannot simply spin this around to claim discrimination against the cross. I
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 7th 2010, 11:24
@ Mr P Larsson
Quote: "Andrew Farrugia have chosen ...bla bla and additional bla bla"; hey, there is only one of me or have you decided to clone me? For your sake, one should be far more than enough, imagine if there were legions of me! hahaha.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 09:10
Jessica DeBattista:
My apologies, let me correct that last sentence. I'm sure there were numerous other grammatical errors, but the last one really stands out.
It should be:
I just want you to understand that our grand differences is no reason for animosity.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 09:09
Part 3 of 3
I get irritated in these discussions when people put forth positions which they only back up by either dead silence or simply repeating ad nauseum and think that's a valid mode of discourse.
Andrew Farrugia have chosen to post snippets of challenges to things that not have been said, then not even tried to either retract or strengthen the argument. I can without doubt say that things I've posted or said have had faults and shortcomings and when pointed out I will retract.
Fr. Joe included a sentence which was so wrong that I just can't let it go. It might feel petty to get hung up on a single sentence, but the sentence is wrong on so many levels and the fact that even the Pope used the same method of fabrication just recently makes me think that this is a deliberate attempt to rewrite history to gain favour for a certain ideology.
My apologies for the long post. I hope I at least cleared up well where I stand in the matter. I just don't want you to understand that our grand differences is no reason for animosity.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 09:05
Part 2 of 3
The people I enjoy most to have disagreements with is my close friends. I can spend hours discussing various topics where we disagree, while topics of agreement rarely get more than a notice. This is a part of the human condition and a healthy way to better understanding.
I do see myself as simply human and I have the well being of fellow men at heart, just like yourself. I do not fear looking at myself in fear of what might be uncovered. I have spent a great deal of time dissecting my own beliefs and I want them to be challenged. Engaging in discussion with someone such as yourself really lifts me up. I'm not sure where you stand in this regard and if you feel any enmity from me please let me know. I can assure you that is not my intention.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 7th 2010, 09:05
Jessica DeBattista:
Part 1 of 3
We are certainly entitled to believe what we want, but I still wonder whether we really "choose" what to believe. Over a lifetime we have accumulated an understanding of the world and accepted what fits with our worldview and rejected what doesn't. I'm not certain whether this is really a choice. I'm not saying it's not, I'm just contemplating the possibilities here.
That said, I think it's important that we engage in open discussion about these possibilities. I find it unfortunate you should use the word "quarrel". I have absolutely no quarrel with you and I can honestly say that to me you are much more a friend than enemy. We have a vast difference in our worldview and I enjoy greatly in sharing and engaging in yours and it was my impression that you felt the same. Only by discussing these matters can we reach a better understanding of our fellow human beings.
Richard Curmi
Nov 7th 2010, 07:34
@ Kenneth Cassar and Joe Xuereb:(what have you got to say about the photos of German priests doing the Nazi salute?).
1. If they were saluting because they embraced Nazism and its policies - they deserve unconditional condemnation.
2. If they were thinking that by so doing they would appease Hitler and save their skin - their naivete and /or selfishness - likewise.
3. If they, cowardly enough, did not to stand up for their flock and other human beings as the one they claim was the founder of their church ordered them, they are condemned by themselves.
Of course it's easy for me to say this but I'm not so sure that I would have done otherwise.
4. They might have been tricked into believing that Hitler could be open to reasonable negotiations and trusted to keep his word. Remember Chamberlain and his waving of the paper claimeing no war and peace forever because Hitler signed that paper? It was Hitler that unashamedly declared that promises were made to be broken and they were not worth the paper written on it.
Some believed that Mussolini was sent by providence!!!!!!
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 7th 2010, 00:03
@ Joe Xuereb: “By this you mean, I think, ….'Anger/envy does more damage to their practitioner than to the intended victim/recipient'.
It is true that “'Anger/envy does more damage to their practitioner than to the intended victim/recipient'.” It ages him/her prematurely for one…. But that is not what I meant when I said: “You are what you hate”.
Sometimes people cannot stand certain traits in others only because they have the same traits themselves.
For instance: Take a headstrong person who clashes constantly with another headstrong person – two strong characters who constanly fight each other for neither is ready to give an inch.
And that is a big problem in the power game. And that is maybe why there is so much unrest in the world we live in.
I read somewhere that sometimes we are so caught up in who's right and who's wrong that we forget what's right and wrong.
So true!
Alex Ellul
Nov 6th 2010, 20:48
David Seychell: The bombs dropped on Nagasagi and Hiroshima killed 100 of thousands and saved millins of lives from a protracted war. Read histroy and you will learn. Your comment proves one thing: You are ignorant in history
Alex Ellul
Nov 6th 2010, 20:44
1. I thought you were more intelligent, don't you get it? What has Christianity to do with Nazism?
2.last week, in the UK, A couple who 'admitted' that they attend Sunday mass, were declared 'unfit' to foster children. This is just one case of hundreds of cases were Christians are discriminated against in a most arrogant way. A nurse was sacked becuase she refused to remove the cross hanging on a chain round her neck, but Sikhs can wear their turban even if they are policeman on duty. The word Christamas cannot nbe mentioned...The list is endless.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 6th 2010, 20:32
" ... By this you mean, I think, and I've said this god (note small g minisCULe doctor, so enough of your silly Freudian slips) only knows how many times, but bears repetition 'Anger/envy does more damage to their practitioner than to the intended victim/recipient'.' (Joe Xuereb)
That settles everything, then. Mr Xuereb is an atheist (note the lower case "a") who believes in god but the god he believes in is written in lower case "g"). Never mind his unorthodox use of upper and lower case as in his "minisCULe".
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 6th 2010, 20:08
@ Mr David Seychell
Why ask the Church, or even the writer of this blog? Ask the Chinese, the Koreans, the Indonesians about the barbarities they suffered under the evil domination of the Japanese militarists.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 6th 2010, 18:52
@ Mr A Ellul
"Illuminati" you say; i think you are being far too generous to the many blinkered arrogant individuals that infest many European universities. Are you aware of how jealous they are of their so-called academic territory? Ask some students about the internicine wars that take place in some universities! They are so mired in their own little fables that they become bitchy vicious and aggressive if someone dares to question the little authority they have in some infinitesimal part of nothingness. Illuminati my foot; glitterati more likely as they have an overblown sense of their self-importance that they have become habitues on the media.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 6th 2010, 17:05
@ Alex Ellul:
"Now some illuminati, not happy enough with their own athism, are turning against Christians. I'm not referring to the bombings of Christian churches in Moslem countries, but inside our Europe itself".
Can you please explain:
1. What this has to do with the holocaust deniers.
2. What "atheist illuminati" do you have in mind, and in what way are they "turning against Christians"?
David Seychell
Nov 6th 2010, 14:49
I would be curious to know what is the official position of the Church, and why not, that of Fr Borg, regarding the atomic bombs dropped on Japan during WWII that killed a quarter of a million civilians indiscriminately; innocent children, women, elderly etc. 15-20% of these died from the horrible radiation sickness. Was it a necessary evil, or a crime against humanity? Answers please.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 6th 2010, 14:32
@ Jessica. Wouldn't it be nice if we treated each other like brothers and sisters? What's that saying re: flying bacon (thanks Larsson, Patrizio - you pass with flyng colours).
Quoting yourself: 'one is what one hates'. By this you mean, I think, and I've said this god (note small g minisCULe doctor, so enough of your silly Freudian slips) only knows how many times, but bears repetition 'Anger/envy does more damage to their practitioner than to the intended victim/recipient'.
Getting on together like cherubs reminds me of people who sleep together (with 'benefits' euphemistically speaking) but don't breakfast together. You see, round the breakfast table surface their differences be they skin colour, ideologies, social status, intellect, etc. When dawnling delights go all-floppy and lukewarm like cornflakes with tepid dish-water, or flare up, like a faulty toaster. We need a levelled playing field called secularism. Can't see it happening, not soon. Can I have another crispy rusher, sorry, rasher, of Denmark' s best. Danke!
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 6th 2010, 13:50
Dear Xuereb
You flatter me, thanks, 8.7 is extremely good even for the likes of me. Attaining excellence can never be my target as it is impossible for flawed humanity, though i do hope i can be overwhelmed by ITS RADIANCE one day, though not yet, as i think (might be wrong) i still have some responsibilities and duties to carry out in the here and now. Sorry if i am a bit morbid (?) Xuereb, but that's me. BTW thanks for the reading tip, even though i was already familiar with it.
victor rodenas
Nov 6th 2010, 11:51
For many centuries the Christians blamed the Jews for killing Jesus ,many years ago I`ve read that St. Augustine once wrote that killing a Jew is not a sin.So hating Jews was in the nature of Christians.
Alex Ellul
Nov 6th 2010, 11:03
A US general under whose command one of the Nazi's concentration camp was liberated, as soon as he saw what was inside the camp, immediately ordered his photographer to film, photograph and record in any possible manner all the men and woman, dead or still alive and everything inside the camp. Then he ordered the German citizens who lived in the nearby towns to visit the camp and to see for themselves what their Nazi machine had done. The US general ordered all this because, as he said, and these were his own words: "Because one day, some son-of-a-bitch, (I hope the moderator will not delete these words) will say that it never happened and that it was all a fabrication."
That time came. there are persons today who deny the holocaust, and some of these are presidents of countries and they wish that Jews are erased from the map of the world and from the face of the planet.
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.
Now some illuminati, not happy enough with their own athism, are turning against Christians. I'm not referring to the bombings of Christian churches in Moslem countries, but inside our Europe itself.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 6th 2010, 09:38
@ Jessica DeBattista:
"Wouldn’t it be great if we could just ignore the different ideologies that we embrace and see each other only as brother and sister?"
Easy to say when your ideology is represented in government. Unless we truly have a secular state, that will never happen.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 6th 2010, 08:23
@ Dr Francis Saliba:
At last...something we agree on :)
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 6th 2010, 01:36
@ Patrik Larsson:
Part 2.
What is it that drives man to hate another human being to the extent that he wants his annihilation?
‘Hate is akin to love’ they say, and ‘You are what you hate’ is another saying.
If one thinks about the sayings above one can understand why people can hate so much.
Sometimes we avoid to look at ourselves as we truly are, for we fear the truth we might uncover. We might come out strongly against an opponent only because we might secretly harbour our opponent’s view which we refuse to confront, and in fighting the opponent we are really fighting ourselves.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 6th 2010, 01:36
@ Patrik Larsson:
Part 2.
What is it that drives man to hate another human being to the extent that he wants his annihilation?
‘Hate is akin to love’ they say, and ‘You are what you hate’ is another saying.
If one thinks about the sayings above one can understand why people can hate so much.
Sometimes we avoid to look at ourselves as we truly are, for we fear the truth we might uncover. We might come out strongly against an opponent only because we might secretly harbour our opponent’s view which we refuse to confront, and in fighting the opponent we are really fighting ourselves.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 6th 2010, 01:33
@ Patrik Larsson: “No matter how much we wished morals to come from above and be evaluated from above we have no say in whether it exists or not.”
Part 1.
Mr. Larsson, you choose to believe that God does not exist and I choose to believe that He does.
We are both entitled to believe whatever we want. The pity of it is that we choose to quarrel over it.
We both agree that the holocaust was a heinous crime against mankind; a crime that could only be conceived from a warped mind fed on hatred.
Now wouldn’t it be great if we could all for a moment think of ourselves simply as humans who have the well being of other fellow men to heart?
Wouldn’t it be great if we could just ignore the different ideologies that we embrace and see each other only as brother and sister?
Continued….
Joe Xuereb
Nov 5th 2010, 23:39
Andrew dearest, my remark about your skills was pleasant-ish so don't let it go to your head. Marked 8.7 but must strive harder to attain excellenc. Read some Adler Andy. Wiki. will do just fine (but don't tell the doc.). You'll get the gist, then work on it.
@ Jess, long time, no see. You said somewhere down below that in dire situations, religion helps. Of course dear! But,- quando non posso piu` ritorno dal buon Gesu`- somehow wouldn't work for me. Meaning I'll have to face the music on my own. What's new?!sAndrew dearest, my remark about your skills was pleasant-ish so don't let it go to your head. Marked 8.7 but must strive harder to attain eccellenza. Read some Adler Andy. Wiki. will do just fine (but don't tell the doc.). You'll get the gist, then work on it.
@ Jess, long time, no see. You said somewhere down below that in dire situations, religion helps. Of course dear! But,- quando non posso piu` ritorno dal buon Gesu`- somehow wouldn't work for me. Meaning I'll have to face the music on my own. What's new?!s
Patrik Larsson
Nov 5th 2010, 22:07
"thank you Jews for saving our bacon."
Love it!
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 5th 2010, 21:36
Dear Xuereb
Do not wish to have the last word, but i would be an ungrateful wretch not to thank you for the pleasant things you said about my English.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 5th 2010, 21:11
2) The Jews' excellence? I think the compensation theory applies. (visible in the often in the Gozitans vis-a-vis the Maltese, the Sicilians and the mainlanders, provincialism anywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superiority_complex (and I make no apologies to the doc who thinks Wiki. is wickedly rubbish).
In one of the links there's a picture of a woman telling her children how wicked Jews were in killing Jesus. And then I remembered. I was NEVER told that Jesus was a Jew. But the Jews were reviled as his murderers. Which is odd because, but for the Jews, Jesus wouldn't have died and therefore, no salvation for me and thee. Altogether now! thank you Jews for saving our bacon.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 5th 2010, 21:04
1) Kenneth Cassar (4 days, 9 hours ago)
Why is it that some Christians think that because some people frequently criticize religion, they must be "suffering"?
Kenneth, Believers forget that often, non-believers were once believers. I know where they're coming from but they know not whence I (now) come. Believers make all sorts of assumptions, the most common being that an atheist has no morals, no purpose*. Only today, on another tread, a 'sage' took me to task for using the word god which he reckoned was a Freudian slip.
Richard Curmi. The Fuhrer may well have been paying lip-service to Catholicism. But the Church dignitaries doing the Hitler salute? Was this show too?
Andrew Farrugia (2 days, 3 hours ago)
And the twisting of facts, and the perversion, and the equivocation, and the irrationality, and the dissembling continues unabated by the motley clique of ... forget it.
Now I get it! Andrew is the type who goes out with a whimper BUT no matter, as long as he has the last word(of course I knew this before but....proof at last! And then he came back, with yet more inanities. His English is good(ish), if comedic.
cont.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 5th 2010, 20:24
Dear Xuereb
I know i am breaking a solemn promise but i would like to take you up on your first statement, re. the fact that a Catholic bishop (sic) Williamson (if i am not mistaken is a holocaust denier; i agree with you that anyone who denies this historical monstrosity and aberration of humanity should be hauled in front of the courts and that also includes the deranged Iranian pres. However, i hope you will agree with me that there are rotten apples and perverts in any kind of organisation, let alone a world-wide one like the Catholic Church. The fact that evil men like Williamson are able to fool others (the Pope was not aware of his statements and immediately proceeded to condemn them) only shows that we have to remain vigilant against certain freaks of human nature, while conserving our core beliefs.
Anyway, keep well Xuereb, and continue to post.
Joe Xuereb
Nov 5th 2010, 19:56
Anyone denying the atrocity that was the Holocaust deserves to be dragged through the courts. A bishop or something not so long ago did just that.
I don't remeber his name but then, he doesn't deserve to be remembered other than for his evil, concealed under brocade and broderie anglaise (but the truth always surfaces).
Joe Borg disappoints me yet again. No, it isn't right to compare the Jewish question with today's immigrants (although to his credit, the hatred of homosexuals is as bad now as it was then (if not worse).. Protecting anyone from the 'lynching' mentality's one thing. Inviting immigrants, illegal or not, to build as many mosques as they deem fit is another. And there I was, naively believing that a man of the cloth was duty bound to shore up what he represents. Duty bound to reassure his flock in troubled times. No, the Constitution comes first. But then again, his seniors are no better so.....
http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20090509/fr-joe-borg/should-there-be-more-mosques-in-malta
Quite!
The Constitution needs an amendment or two methinks. As does the National Anthem.
Using god-given brain-cells macht frei, never mind Arbeit. (and there I was thinking this blog would be about the evil of unemployment).
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 5th 2010, 16:27
@KennethCassar
" ...what have you got to say about the photos of German priests doing the Nazi salute? (KennethCassar)
At a guess I would say that the photographs were taken in the very early days of National Socialism when they projected themselves as a response to atheistic Communism and much before they exhibited their true colours. By hindsight we now know that their dictatorship was no improvement on Stalilinist Communism and it definitely was not an acceptable alternative. That mistake was not made by Catholic priests only - it was also made by members of the British royal family and by prominent British politicians, among many others.
Dr Francis Saliba
Nov 5th 2010, 11:13
"Most German Nazis were Christians" (KennethCassar) - The Nazi creators of Buchenwald, Dachau etc were Christians in name only. Actually they were anti-Christians murdering saints such as Fr Kolbe.
"Most Russian Communists were atheists" (KennethCassar) - They had no other choice apart from a prolonged confinement in a Gulag
Patrik Larsson
Nov 4th 2010, 11:19
Andrew Farrugia:
When you have nothing to say it's better to say nothing.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 4th 2010, 06:55
@ Richard Curmi:
Just to clear any misconceptions there may still be:
Most German Nazis were Christians - True, but so what?
Most Russian Communists were atheists - True, but so what?
I hope this is clear enough.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 4th 2010, 06:47
@ Andrew Farrugia:
I would certainly be embarrassed if I made a claim, and when challenged, failed to substantiate it.
Metaphorical lash? More like a metaphorical bee sting. Annoying, uncomfortable, but actually does more harm to the bee (kills it).
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 4th 2010, 06:38
@ Richard Curmi:
I never said Hitler loved the cross. My comments were about Nazis and Christianity. All things considered, the claim that Nazis hated the Cross is false.
Of course, it is a fact that dictators hated anyone who opposed their rule, be it from Christians, atheists, communists, etc.
You might also note that dismissing the claim that Nazis were mostly Christian by claiming that photographs of Hitler near a grave proves noting, would be unfairly disregarding all the other photographic evidence (what have you got to say about the photos of German priests doing the Nazi salute?).
True, the cross has been abused for several reasons during the centuries. So has Christianity in general. I'm not disputing this obvious fact. All I'm saying is that it is not true to say that the Cross was hated by the Nazis, and I have given photographic evidence to prove it.
I'm only interested in the truth. I'm not interested in using the truth to make connections where there are none. So, once again, just because most Nazis were (or considered themselves) Christians does not mean that Christianity leads to Nazism or anything of the sort.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 3rd 2010, 16:12
Un-blooming-believable! But do people really believe that i can be embarrassed by inanities punched online by humanists who jump to attention as soon as i hit the metaphorical lash on my laptop? Utterly hilarious, delectable, and they think they are calling the shots! Balooooooney!
Patrik Larsson
Nov 3rd 2010, 16:02
Andrew Farrugia:
Yet, every claim by you have been answered and refuted and all you can do is repeat the same unfounded nonsense.
You find what is irrational, feel free to spell it out, then we can discuss the merit behind such a claim. Until then I think everyone here can see your comments for what they are. Self gratuitous noise.
You tell me what facts were twisted.
You tell me what was perverted.
You tell me the equivocations used.
You show me the irrationality.
Then we can have a discussion. Until then, stop embarrasing yourself.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 3rd 2010, 15:27
And the twisting of facts, and the perversion, and the equivocation, and the irrationality, and the dissembling continues unabated by the motley clique of ... forget it.
Patrik Larsson
Nov 3rd 2010, 13:19
Richard Curmi:
Kenneth already answered this. Noone has claimed that Hitler loved the cross.
Why do you people keep attacking straw men? Answer to the comments that have been made, instead of fabricating things.
Yes, Hitler was born and raised a Catholic and even though I strongloy doubt that this led him to Nazism, there is no doubt in my mind that he used this knowledge in his own strive for power. The fact that the Catholic Church held the Jewish people responsible for deicide (up until the early 60s) is probably not a decisive factor in the persecution of Jews in the 30s and 40s, but it surely didn't help.
And don't claim that Christians in general was targetted under the nazi rule. Germany was, in any sense of the term, a Christian country at the time. Hitler himself was proud to have virtually erradicated atheism in the 30s.
Richard Curmi
Nov 3rd 2010, 02:37
@ Kenneth Cassar: Try to read Bruce Walker's 'The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity' (Paperback: 2008). Just because Hitler is photographed in front of his mother's grave on which there happens to be a cross, it doesn't mean that he 'loved' the cross. The cross has been used and abused for several reasons during the centuries and there is no need to rewrite history.
Nazi Germans used religion, race, work, and any imaginable strategy to perpetrate unbelievable atrocities on innocent people especially Jews, Christians, homosexuals, elderly people, people with disabilities and children.
On another note I would say that the Allies should also be burdened with a measure of responsibility in failing to act when friendly countries where being invaded and trusting Hitler when signing papers guaranteeing peace.
Lastly there are those who try to emphasise the fact that Hitler was Catholic by birth. They try to imply that his wild behaviour had something to do with Cristianity. Such an absurdity needs no replies. Christians (including Catholics) can be criticised on several things but there can be no connection between these religions, the cross and the concentration camps.
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 2nd 2010, 18:36
@ Victor Rodenas: “It is very cruel indeed,but these things have been hapenning since time immemorial during wars.All countries did very bad things to their enemies during wars or when Africa was colonized by the Europeans....etc"
Mr. Rodenas, I might be wrong, but I get the feeling that your comment is too dismissive of the gravity of the holocaust….
victor rodenas
Nov 2nd 2010, 14:35
It is very cruel indeed,but these things have been hapenning since time immemorial during wars.All countries did very bad things to their enemies during wars or when Africa was colonized by the Europeans....etc
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:37
@ Andrew Farrugia:
One other thing. How about addressing the challenge of showing who and where anyone equated Catholicism with Nazism? Or is it yet another case of "lying for Jesus"?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:32
@ Andrew Farrugia:
And by the way, yes, I'm not too keen on wasting my time on anything, but I don't consider replying to your insults and turning back the tide as particularly a waste of time. It only takes a few seconds to shoot down baseless insults.
David Seychell
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:29
Even, in the Papal States, which existed until 1870, Jews were required to live only in specified neighborhoods called ghettos. In the 19th and (before the end of World War II) 20th centuries, the Roman Catholic Church adhered to a distinction between "good antisemitism" and "bad antisemitism". The "bad" kind promoted hatred of Jews because of their descent. This was considered un-Christian because the Christian message was intended for all of humanity regardless of ethnicity; anyone could become a Christian. The "good" kind criticized alleged Jewish conspiracies to control newspapers, banks, and other institutions, to care only about accumulation of wealth, etc.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
As a conclusion, in my posts here in this blog, I think I have underlined the reasons why the Jews are intellectually gifted and the real reasons that motivated Hitler in persecuting the Jews.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:24
@ Andrew Farrugia:
If you make the extra effort, you will notice that I stopped trying to explain to you how no one was equating Catholicism with Nazism, which was what my comment regarding wasting my time obviously (not to everyone, apparently) referred to.
Hence, no inconsistency at all. But I suspect you won't get this either.
David Seychell
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:17
In 1850 the Jews were emancipated with the understanding that they would assimilate and become true Germans, not a nation within a nation. The decades that followed saw the Jews using their new freedoms not to assimilate, but to continue to maintain their racial purity while dominating the German economy and culture. A small but highly cohesive, cooperative, and highly intelligent Jewish community, living within a Christian culture, was able to amass a great deal of wealth and prosper, to the envy of German peasants and intellectuals alike. Therefore, in Hitler's eyes, the Jews were seen, analogically speaking as parasites:, a small alien organism that infiltrated into the Germany society, sucked on its resources but most importantly, even though they held important positions, did not work in the interest of the general german population but in their own interest. Whether these ideas, as perceived by Hitler were true or not is conspiracy theory. However, one thing is certain, Hitler was not being origianl at all by being anti-semitic.
Throughout Jewish history, Jews have repeatedly (at least in 100 different occasions) been directly or indirectly expelled from different countries around the world.
http://www.google.com.mt/#q=jews+expelled&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1020&bih=539&tbs=tl:1,tl_num:10&prmd=iv&ei=Q1nPTJ6JGobNswbe6q2IAg&ved=0CPEBEMsBKAE&fp=30d643f43a8f6d80
Continued..
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 2nd 2010, 12:10
Ah! What price coherence and consistency! You either wish to waste time or you don't! Another prime example of chop logic.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 11:27
Yes, some hackles have indeed been raised. No need to ask why when semi-literacy reigns supreme.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 11:04
@ Andrew Farrugia:
"Some hackles have certainly been raised. No need to guess why when irrationality reigns supreme".
I won't waste any more of my time. If you don't get it, you don't get it.
David Seychell
Nov 2nd 2010, 10:41
@Jessica DeBattista (2 of 2)
Jews, have been engaging for centuries in what basically amounts to self-breedings, selecting for traits of intelligence. In short, eugenics. The Talmud says that “A man should sell all he possesses in order to marry the daughter of a scholar, as well as marry his daughter to a scholar.”
Judaism discourages intermarriage: "You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For you will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods..." (Deuteronomy 7:1-3) Jews tend to marry among themselves. In the past they did so almost exclusively. A study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that "the paternal gene pools of Jewish communities from Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East descended from a common Middle Eastern ancestral population", and suggested that "most Jewish communities have remained relatively isolated from neighboring non-Jewish communities during and after the Diaspora". Researchers expressed surprise at the remarkable genetic uniformity they found among modern Jews, no matter where the diaspora has become dispersed around the world.-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew
Further reading:
http://www.whatwemaybe.org/txt/txt0001/Reichler.Max.1916.Jewish%20Eugenics.htm
http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=0503
David Seychell
Nov 2nd 2010, 10:38
@Jessica DeBattista (1 of 2)
"I was once told by an elderly Englishman who had close business ties with Jews that the latter generally do well in life because Jews constantly shower praise over their children and they drum into their heads that they are the best race in the world."
Apparently that's an open secret. For example, Michael Chabon, a celebrated writer, winner of the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, Hugo Award for Best Novel and other awards writes in The International Herald Tribune: "As a Jewish child I was regularly instructed, both subtly and openly, that Jews, the people of Maimonides, Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and Meyer Lansky, were on the whole smarter, cleverer, more brilliant, more astute than other people." -http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/opinion/06chabon.html
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 2nd 2010, 10:15
Some hackles have certainly been raised. No need to guess why when irrationality reigns supreme.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 08:25
I wouldn't think this needs explaining, but you never know, so here goes:
Let's say all Nazis were Christians (which is definitely not the case). If that were so, then it would be true to say Nazis were Christians. However, it would not be true to say that Christians are/were Nazis.
It is the same with totalitarian Communists and atheists. Stalinists were atheists, but one cannot say that atheists are Stalinists.
Is that clear enough?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 08:08
@ Fr Joe Borg:
Do you still believe that the Nazis hated the Cross, despite the evidence to the contrary?
"To err is human, to persist in error is diabolical." - Georges Canguilhem
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 07:53
@ Andrew Farrugia:
By the way...I have re-read the posts by others just in case, but failed to find anything that even remotely equates Nazism with Catholicism.
If you still believe someone did equate the two, can you please mention who it was, and show how and where he/she did so? That is, of course, if you wish to be seen as "rational" and "logical", and are not full of "despair" and "hatred".
One kindly suggestion. Not rushing to post may save you embarrassment later.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 07:44
@ Andrew Farrugia:
And just to be clear...I never equated Nazism with Catholicism.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 2nd 2010, 07:43
@ Andrew Farrugia:
The way I see it, someone (no prize for guessing) actually subtly tried to equate some humanists with Nazism ("A large Cross, a symbol hated so much by the Nazis").
I only indicated that that claim is untrue. If you wish to read more into my posts, its up to you, just as its up to me to read more into the false claim that the Nazis hated the Cross.
Perverted reasoning is when someone attempts to re-write history by claiming that the Nazis hated the Cross. I wouldn't have given evidence to the contrary had this false claim not been made.
Since when are facts "utter tosh"?
Patrik Larsson
Nov 2nd 2010, 07:33
Andrew Farrugia:
The only pernicious attempt is yours. Noone has equated Nazism with Catholicism. The objection raised was to Fr. Joe saying that the Nazis hated the cross, which is a complete fabrication.
Read again and feel free to comment to things that were actually said.
Andrew Farrugia
Nov 1st 2010, 20:10
The pernicious attempts by some wayward humanists to equate Nazism with Catholicism is yet another example of perverted reasoning; but they claim that they are rational and logical. Go figure! I am shocked by the kind of despair and hatred which eats them from inside. Imagine if i had to say that Archbishop Tutu adores the Cross, but so did Terreblanche, ergo the Archbishop and the supremacist are two of a kind, what utter tosh!
Jessica DeBattista
Nov 1st 2010, 14:10
@ David Seychell: “In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ’s of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews."
I was once told by an elderly Englishman who had close business ties with Jews that the latter generally do well in life because Jews constantly shower praise over their children and they drum into their heads that they are the best race in the world. This instills a superiority complex and a great deal of self esteem which cannot fail to pay dividends in their studies and also later on in life.
Incidentally this came up after the Englishment had noticed how I would not have anybody looking over my shoulder at the work I was doing at the school of art. He said that this denoted an inferiority complex on my part and he attributed it to the fact that the Maltese children are (at least in my time) not praised enough over their achievements and they are also not allowed to voice an opinion for the grown ups knew best.
David Seychell
Nov 1st 2010, 13:04
For example during Hitler's time, in Germany, Jews received 10 of 32 Nobel prizes awarded to German citizens between 1905 and 1931 despite constituting less than 1 percent of the population during this period. So, was Hitler right, or the Jews are really intellectually gifted? Charles Alan Murray, a political scientist and author of the famous book 'The Bell Curve' gives the following answer. "Jews have been found to have an unusually high mean intelligence as measured by IQ tests since the first Jewish samples were tested." He says that this difference in IQ become more noticeable at the extremes: "If the mean Jewish IQ is 110 and the standard deviation is 15, then the proportion of Jews with IQ’s of 140 or higher is somewhere around six times the proportion of everyone else. The imbalance continues to increase for still higher IQ’s. New York City’s public-school system used to administer a pencil-and-paper IQ test to its entire school population. In 1954, a psychologist used those test results to identify all 28 children in the New York public-school system with measured IQ’s of 170 or higher. Of those 28, 24 were Jews." -http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/jewish-genius-10855
David Seychell
Nov 1st 2010, 13:01
Hitler’s rhetoric about the Jews was based on the same assumption that Leftists to this day use in talking about racial matters. The affirmative action warriors of today are fanatical about proportional representation. They constantly claim that the proportion of say blacks in the general population should be reflected everywhere—in every occupation and in every institution. If there is a smaller proportion of say blacks in banking than there is in the general population, this is taken as proof that there is discrimination against blacks in banking. Hitler used exactly the same argument about Jews. As they are in America today, Jews in prewar Germany were very much overrepresented in the top echelons of German society. So, in good Leftist fashion, Hitler took that as proof that good, ordinary Germans were being systematically excluded from such positions in society by malign Jewish machinations. If Hitler was illogical in such thinking, so are most Leftists today. http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/why_hitler_hated_jews/
Continued
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 12:32
For anyone still unconvinced that the Cross was far from a symbol hated by the Nazis:
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
Let's leave the re-writing of history to the holocaust-deniers, shall we?
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 11:44
@ Richard Curmi:
"(The Cross) was hated by those who were in power".
Any evidence for this claim?
"Just because Hitler posed in prayer or because he bowed his head at the memorial where there happened to be a cross does not mean that he liked it".
Of course not. Neither is it true to say that the Cross was "a symbol hated so much by the Nazis".
"Like all political leaders and dictators he availed himsel of every opportunity to try to please everyone".
Not exactly. Hitler did not attempt to "please everyone". However he did use religion for his own evil ends, since he understood only too well that most German citizens (including Nazis) at the time were Christians.
Hitler understood only too well that most Nazis, far from hating the symbol of the Cross, actually revered it.
Richard Curmi
Nov 1st 2010, 11:30
There is no doubt that Fr. Kolbe's act was a shining example of selflessness and altruism. Christians rightly look up to him as a heroic member of their religion. All others should admire him for sacrificing his life for that of a father of a family. Among so much atrocity an example of fortitude, courage and humanity. It was a challenge to the inhuman behaviour of the Nazi regime.
"A large Cross, a symbol hated so much by the Nazis, springs hope in the middle of this cell where love triumphed over hate." It was hated by those who were in power. Just because Hitler posed in prayer or because he bowed his head at the memorial where there happened to be a cross does not mean that he liked it. Like all political leaders and dictators he availed himsel of every opportunity to try to please everyone.
That is the danger of the stance taken by catholics when they say that the crucifix should be left even in public places 'because it is part of our culture'. That argument makes the cross loose its religious significance and changes it into an evil intentioned person's tool.
Jessica Debattista
Nov 1st 2010, 11:08
I have never visited the concentration camps, however, I have had the occasion of meeting actual people who had survived the terrible experience.
I was in my teens when on a trip to London with my father and older brother we were invited to dinner by my brother’s friend who came from a well-to-do- Jewish family.
I still remember the impact I received upon meeting the sister, not much older than I was, who sat huddled in a wheelchair barely able to speak. Later I discovered that her mother (pregnant at the time) had been one of the unfortunate inmates who had gone through the forced medical experiments on the foetus inside her womb. The result was a severely handicapped child.
We tend to hear a lot about such stories, and we duly commiserate, but in a strange way they seem to be detached from our own world and they take on a presence of characters in a story, but when you actually meet the victims, it somehow brings home to you that these people are real flesh and blood and the suffering that they had gone through is no longer something sensational but something that touches you deeply.
M Psaila
Nov 1st 2010, 09:42
Anyone who visits one of these camps is changed forever. Similarly to Fr Borg's experience, I was impressed with the idyllic surroundings of Dachau (not knowing what was in store for me) - outside Munich, the country houses, the trees and the countryside are truly beautiful, until you do a right turn and then you see the camp entrance. It is impossible to escape the feeling that a great hurt and pain were experienced in those rooms. One feels like an intruder. Anyone who speaks of social engineering should be made to spend a few hours there.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 09:41
Why is it that some Christians think that because some people frequently criticize religion, they must be "suffering"?
Patrik Larsson
Nov 1st 2010, 09:40
Jessica Debattista:
"...I would think that people who perpetrate atrocities such as the Nazi did during World War II deserve to be judged by a Higher authority. "
I agree completely. They do deserve that. But us wanting them to be judged, doesn't mean there really is a judge. This touches on what I had said in last weeks post in regards to morals coming from above. No matter how much we wished morals to come from above and be evaluated from above we have no say in whether it exists or not. Either there is a higher authority or there isn't.
This weeks post is a massive improvement to last week's. I just wish that second to last paragraph had been taken out.
Fr Joe Borg
Nov 1st 2010, 07:45
@ Kevin Cassar. I do not know which religion teaches what you wrote about going to hell. It is certainly not Christianity. However, the whole point of this week's blog is totally different. I will not discuss anything else but this week's subject. It seems that you have a fixation about religion. I emphatise with you and your suffering because of your problem but we can discuss some other time not today.
Fr Joe Borg
Nov 1st 2010, 07:41
@ David Seychell. I hope you noticed that the phase scum of the earth was in inverted commas - a clear sign that it is not something I am saying or believe in.
Kenneth Cassar
Nov 1st 2010, 07:36
"A large Cross, a symbol hated so much by the Nazis..."
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm
David Seychell
Oct 31st 2010, 23:04
"The “scum of the earth” were then the Jews, and the homosexuals, and the enemies of the regime."
What utter nonsense. The Jews were never worthless people. Ashkenazi Jews have a noted history of achievement. Though only 0.25% (1 out of every 400) of the world population, Jewish scientists won 28% of all Nobel prizes, 25% of ACM Turing awards and 26% of the Fields Medals and also have accounted for more than half of world chess champions. This means that a randomly picked up Jew is roughly 150 times more likely to win a Nobel Prize than a randonly picked up non-Jew person. This ethnic group of people, barely a
quarter of 1% of the world population gave us people like Jesus Christ, Albert Einstein, and Ed Witten.
Jessica DeBattista
Oct 31st 2010, 21:47
@ Kevin Cassar: “….this comes from a man who believes that human beings shall be sent to hell for the simple fault of not believing.”
What a blow below the belt Kevin!
Maximilian Kolbe, the brave religious priest who gave his life in exchange for that of another prisoner “had provided shelter to refugees from Greater Poland including 2,000 Jews whom he hid from Nazi persecution in his friary in Niepokalanow. …
In the starvation cell, he celebrated Mass each day for as long as he was able and gave Holy Communion to the prisoners covertly during the course of the day; ….He led the other condemned men in song and prayer…... He encouraged others by telling them that they would soon be with Mary in Heaven.” (Wikipedia)
Believe it or not Kevin, in times like these, religion helps!
Personally I do not think “that human beings shall be sent to hell for the simple fault of not believing” but I would think that people who perpetrate atrocities such as the Nazi did during World War II deserve to be judged by a Higher authority.
And to think that Nazi ideology still thrives all over the world! Shouldn’t we beware?
Kevin Cassar
Oct 31st 2010, 16:43
What an atrocity! What pure evil! The massacre of human beings for the simple fault of being jews!
Funny thing though, is that this comes from a man who believes that human beings shall be sent to hell for the simple fault of not believing.
Patrik Larsson
Oct 31st 2010, 10:21
I have said before how I so enjoy your articles, as long as they are not including religion and here is a glaring example why.
You write a moving, passionate and, in a weird sense, inspiring article, only to end it in complete rubbish.
For starters, no matter how wrong I think the expulsion of the Roma people from France was and how appalled I am to see the treatment of immigrants by so many people it is a complete intellectual atrocity to draw lines between that and the nazi regime. Sarkozy sent the Roma off with a wad of pocket money, back to their own country. No matter how wrong that was, the nazi regime would have rounded them up, leaving them to a fate to be decided between a bullet or a poisonous gas.
Then the next massive faux pas.
"A large Cross, a symbol hated so much by the Nazis..."
What a complete travesty. Do you really, sincerely believe that? I know your sacred pope tried to say the same just a short while ago on his visit to the UK, but are you actually going to continue that dishonesty?
Lina Caruana
Oct 31st 2010, 09:39
The description of this diabolical concept is an inner malformation still living today. The immigrants ,Roma etc are only the tip of the iceberg. Today work produces money for many abusers who do all sorts of things to bare their hated objects out of belongings ,property ,even their personalities. what about all sorts of more than diabolical means of organized crime ? this is where the corrective role of religion should come in . Not only in priest abuse cases ,but in giving birth to unwanted children, crime, elderly abuse who for some stand to be stripped of all they own even a grave.There are whole lists of abuses together with the diabolical ways for achieving the produce of the abuse. The perpetrators are depraved individuals who think that the world was created for them alone.