![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyI don't know if you noticed, but the UK has recently had a visit from a figure who is, to say the least, quite controverial. Some people consider him to be an ethical and moral authority, but the vast majority look at pretty much everything he's said in the last half-decade with a sinking feeling of dismay at a smug, self-righteous poseur getting the oxygen of publicity.
That's right, I hear Michael Moore was in London for a few days.
But you know what I'm playing at here - the old bait and switch of expectation around the Pope visiting the UK and the somewhat predictable resultant online furure. I actually find it quite depresssing the number of people who I know and consider friends who've gone from being normally intelligent and reasonable folks to, well, not being that over the whole thing. We've even had the old 'pope was a member of the Hitler Youth' line dragged out ad infinitum again, and I swear that the next time someone spouts that old line of crap at me I'm going to go ape bonkers and punch their teeth out through their bottom.
The thing I hate about accusations of and comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis is that it is just incresidibly intellectually lazy shorthand; I'd've hoped that Rik Mayall in the Young ones thirty years ago had shown that up as the vacuous line of argument which it is. What it is basically saying is "I disagree with you but lack the will or ability to formulate an argument, so I'm just going to call you the worst thing I can think of." It's just tiresome. Stop it. I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.
What's even more tooth-grindingly embarrassing was the open letter from the usual suspects like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry in which they "reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a State", pretty much because they don't like orthodox catholicism's views on condoms and homosexuality. Now, I didn't know that one could get away with unilaterally ceasing to recognise states which have things like UN ambassadors and a standing army just because one doesn't like their policies, but if you can then I don't recognise Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe is a bit of a meanie and, um, hang on... Sweden - yes, Sweden - because, oh, I don't know. Because it's full of pinkoes.
There. That's just as good an argument as any.
There's plenty to disagree with Catholicism about and this sort of posturing does the opposing argument no good whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say that having Richard Dawkins in your corner in any argument about metaphysics makes you look a bit of a twat to the vast majority of 'plague on both your houses' people who just want to get on with their lives.
What's worse is that, reading LJ and FB, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the Pope. Now with my record, for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. I know what a lot of you have done, you see.
To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is this: if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and act, and I don't mean posting it to FB for a bunch of similarly minded people to agree with you like so many nodding dogs.
Who knows? If your philosophy is indeed superior, in two thousand years they may well be electing your spiritiual successor.
Anyway, rant over. It's back to jokes on Monday and I've got some good ones lined up for next week including - maybe - my first ever full musical.
That's right, I hear Michael Moore was in London for a few days.
But you know what I'm playing at here - the old bait and switch of expectation around the Pope visiting the UK and the somewhat predictable resultant online furure. I actually find it quite depresssing the number of people who I know and consider friends who've gone from being normally intelligent and reasonable folks to, well, not being that over the whole thing. We've even had the old 'pope was a member of the Hitler Youth' line dragged out ad infinitum again, and I swear that the next time someone spouts that old line of crap at me I'm going to go ape bonkers and punch their teeth out through their bottom.
The thing I hate about accusations of and comparisons with Hitler and the Nazis is that it is just incresidibly intellectually lazy shorthand; I'd've hoped that Rik Mayall in the Young ones thirty years ago had shown that up as the vacuous line of argument which it is. What it is basically saying is "I disagree with you but lack the will or ability to formulate an argument, so I'm just going to call you the worst thing I can think of." It's just tiresome. Stop it. I’m very disappointed in everyone who has done so. I thought you were more intelligent than that. All of you.
What's even more tooth-grindingly embarrassing was the open letter from the usual suspects like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Fry in which they "reject the masquerading of the Holy See as a State", pretty much because they don't like orthodox catholicism's views on condoms and homosexuality. Now, I didn't know that one could get away with unilaterally ceasing to recognise states which have things like UN ambassadors and a standing army just because one doesn't like their policies, but if you can then I don't recognise Zimbabwe because Robert Mugabe is a bit of a meanie and, um, hang on... Sweden - yes, Sweden - because, oh, I don't know. Because it's full of pinkoes.
There. That's just as good an argument as any.
There's plenty to disagree with Catholicism about and this sort of posturing does the opposing argument no good whatsoever. Indeed, I'd say that having Richard Dawkins in your corner in any argument about metaphysics makes you look a bit of a twat to the vast majority of 'plague on both your houses' people who just want to get on with their lives.
What's worse is that, reading LJ and FB, a great many people seem to feel that they are in some way morally superior to the Pope. Now with my record, for me to claim moral superiority over pretty much anyone is comedy and I think that’s true of most of the people I know as well. I know what a lot of you have done, you see.
To those who disagree with the Popes moral stance, my suggestion is this: if you feel your personal philosophy can bring greater spiritual peace, succour, and comfort to the poor and dispossessed of the world, then get out there and act, and I don't mean posting it to FB for a bunch of similarly minded people to agree with you like so many nodding dogs.
Who knows? If your philosophy is indeed superior, in two thousand years they may well be electing your spiritiual successor.
Anyway, rant over. It's back to jokes on Monday and I've got some good ones lined up for next week including - maybe - my first ever full musical.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-17 09:27 am (UTC)The Pope, in his speech, likened secularism to Nazism, and lots of people online went "well he'd know, what with being in the Hitler Youth and all". Now, I don't think either positions are particularly scintilating, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't think the latter one had a tiny bit of a point hiding somewhere in it.
When Nobby McAOLchops (East Kent) is encouraged to liken someone to the Nazis by the Have Your Say team, he's doing it because he's an uneducated moron who's been given a largely anonymous platform. The most influential decision he's ever going to have to make in life probably involves something like distribution of confectionary packaging in the East Anglia region. To a certain extent, Nobby can say what he likes about Nazis, and it will get as much interest and attention as his opinions on water polo, cunnilingus or ninjas. Namely none.
The Pope has neither that luxury or excuse. He's a well-educated man. He was alive and present in Germany over the course of the Second World War. There's also that annoying and confounding issue of over a billion people (allegedly) believing that everything he says is the word of God. When he likens something to Nazism, he means business.
In that light, it's actually pretty reasonable to criticise his invocation of Godwin's Law a bit more harshly than Nobby's. Several orders of magnitude, maybe.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-17 10:22 pm (UTC)No, they don't, or if they do it's because they have no idea about Catholic dogma. A pope is only infallible when moved to speak by the holy spirit. Even Catholics don't believe that happens when he decides to have coco puffs in the morning. It only happens when he makes a specific decree on a matter of faith or specific teaching and makes a universal deceleration on it.
Last time that happened was 1950.
Secondly, I'd argue (but not for more than the time it takes to type this paragraph) he isn't subject to Godwins law because, unlike most of the people it's mocking, he KNOWS how bad the Nazis were.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-17 11:43 pm (UTC)I'm hoping you were joking?
no subject
Date: 2010-09-18 12:16 am (UTC)