Constance
The freedom of speech we enjoy today was not due to the Catholic Church but came about on ideological grounds and in spite of Catholic Church dogma which continued to be burdened by the stigma of the various inquisitions. It got over that and it can get over the recent exposure of failure to act on pedophile priests.

The French Revolution and the fierce push for democracy came about despite the Catholic Church supporting the imperial structures of the time which meant great poverty for thousands of ordinary French people.

The best thing the Catholic Church could do is modernise - the Pope can bring messages of love, peace, cooperation and tolerance rather than the diatribe he came out with recently in the UK.

It is not easy to take on board criticism particularly in a powerful and wealthy organisation like the CC. But it has to if it wants to participate meaningfully in the modern world.

If we go on with the Pope attacking atheists with ridiculous statements about Hitler - can you see this won't bring about any sort of community harmony. Let the atheists alone, clean out your own house which is what I think the Church is attempting to do.

They should continue down that path and make amends to the many forgotten victims and to those priests who were threatened with excommunication for raising child abuse issues. These are the men that should be in the hierarchy, the CC does not need more of the same.

Bugsy,

Just to be clear I have never advocated banning Muslim migrants. Given Australia’s location that would in any case be suicidal. We are just south of a Muslim nation with 10 times our population that seems destined to be the regional hegemon. It is Indonesia, not Australia, that will most likely call the shots in this area.

The Muslim proportion of Australia’s population is bound to grow and with it the influence of Islam in whatever form it may take. Anyone who cannot live with this prospect would be well advised to at least tell their children to make plans to make tracks.

I shall attempt a (vastly) (over)simplified answer to your question in <350 words.

What confounds the issue in Australia is racism on BOTH sides of the debate. One side, “side 1”, would be suspicious of dusky-skinned immigrants no matter what their religion. To “side 2” it appears SELF-EVIDENT that in any conflict between white-skinned “rednecks” and dusky-skinned immigrants the former MUST be in the wrong.

You understand that this is racism on both sides?

In their attempt to show how “enlightened” and “progressive” they are side 2 has rushed to accommodate the demands of that portion of the dusky immigrants who happen to be Muslims without understanding what they are doing. And what they are doing is appeasing a Fascist ideology whose first goal is to rein in free speech.

Just ONE example of this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE52P60220090326

You understand that this is tantamount to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Many on side 2 will declaim that Christianity was once also, may in some respects still be, a Fascist ideology that seeks to suppress free speech.

And this is supposed to reconcile me to the Muslim brand of Fascism because?

Once blasphemy laws are reintroduced the fight against theocracy is lost for another generation.

Because of their racism, because of the baggage BOTH sides carry, neither is able to take a dispassionate look at Islam and the dangers of appeasing it.

And, I repeat, the danger is NOT Islam, the danger is APPEASING Islam.

That's fine steven, I know you never advocated banning Muslim migrants, but that doesn't mean that plenty of other people have. Those same people aren't asking for restricting the movement of Catholics.

I agree that we should fight against the supression of free speech, and that we should not 'appease' this sort of restriction. However, I think it is a mistake to label everything associated with this sort of thing due to 'Islam'. It is due to factions and idealogues within Islam.

We can see this clearly going on with the Catholic Church as well can't we? Regular Catholics do not recognise the child abuse that was committed by their clergy as a result of being Catholic, why should moderate Muslims recognise the political pressure being applied by their clergy as being a direct result of Islam?

The only way for the Catholic Church and the Islamic whatevers to move forward is for moderates within to recognise what is being done in their name and to reject it and reform themselves.

That being said, religions tend not to be about internally driven change, change ususally comes from external forces. Organisations that cannot change tend to become obsolete.

I agree, though the danger is appeasing theocrats anywhere. Including Rome.

Isn't it ironic that the Fasces is a Roman symbol and that many were Catholic?

Bugsy,

Yes, theocrats of ALL stripes should never be appeased. But in practice, in 2010, in Australia, it is mainly Islam that is being appeased.

I can call the Pope names. I can call the Catholic Church the Whore of Babylon. I can set up a website devoted to explaining how wrong-headed are the teachings of the Catholic Church. I can preach fiery sermons on how all Catholics are headed for hell unless they repent.

I can do all this and no one will threaten my life. No one will drag me before the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal because I have contravened Victoria’s misnamed Racial and Religious Tolerance Act.

And, despite the best efforts of Paul Collins, no one will call me a “Catholicophobe” or a “racist”.

I can burn copies of the bible and immerse a crucifix in urine and nothing bad will happen.

Yet subject Islam to the same treatment and all sorts of consequences follow.

Have you noticed how deeply embedded this is Bugsy? It is a rule in so-called “progressive” circles that you can only say something bad about Islam if you immediately follow it up with something worse about Christianity / America / Israel / Whatever. If you fail to do this on OLO for example a dozen posters will write all sorts of nasty things about eg the Catholic Church for you.

But it doesn’t happen in reverse. This aging atheist Jew is the only person on this thread who is saying “Hey, if the convention is that you can only slam Islam if you also slam something else then fairness demands that we offer the same courtesy to the Catholics. Only slam the Catholic Church if you also denigrate some other religion”.

It is about time we all dropped our baggage and took a good hard look at contemporary Islam, what it is, and what it teaches.

And then we need to stop appeasing.

This BS needs to stop.

I thought I'd muddy the waters a little more in regard to Hitler's atheism. A media release from the Atheist Foundation of Australia contains the following quote-

"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator, by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord"

Adolf Hitler-'Mein Kampf' Vol 1 Chapter 3

stevenlmeyer,

On the theme of the lack even-handedness in religion-bashing. This aging atheist noticed on one PC Pope-bashing site, the comment from admin.,"at least those people have the courage to stand up to the Pope". I pointed out that it really doesn't take any backbone to 'stand up to the Pope' these days and suggested that the Pope-bashers ridiculed and abused some Moslem clerics instead. This advice was not received at all favorably.

The woes of the Catholic Church are largely self inflicted.

If you hold yourself up as the moral standard, and then get caught not only committing, but covering up some of the most heinous crimes you are setting yourself up for disbelief and ridicule.