What do the Vatican and White House have in common? Fear as policy. Why do we find church and state so entwined again? $$$ and survival. The Pope and Bush? Used religion dealers.

by Amanda Lang (23 articles, 14528 quicklinks, 442 diaries, 731 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 18, 2006 at 7:55:32 PM

  (0+)

Fall of 'the Roman Empire'

by Katrin R. (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 13 diaries, 657 comments [15 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 18, 2006 at 9:23:45 PM

  (0+)

Yes you have been insulted and provoked in a very clever way, as you have been again and again and again. But don't you see that these insults backbounce and tell nothing about Islam and everything about the people who make them? Please stand above these petty insults and simply reply with 'forgive them lord, they know not what they do.'

by Han (0 articles, 2 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 228 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 18, 2006 at 9:36:58 PM

  (0+)

... my blog, but I realized people might take me seriously. Seriously, I have a hard time with conspiracy theories. Bush's election was not any more influenced by the papacy than is anything else. Most people in America (or the world) are undeterred by papal invocations against things like fornication and sex with goats. If you need a conspiracy about what happened with the 2004 election, look no further than here. If you want a look at how life could be without Bush, go here Let's not focus on conspiracy theories. Let's focus on eliminating the problem (people in Kansas who consistently vote against their own interests).

by chuckwh (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Monday, Sep 18, 2006 at 9:41:05 PM

  (0+)

You don't remember Bishop after Bishop saying kerry was a bad catholic, that they wouldn't give him communion? This had an effect.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Monday, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:23:26 PM

  (0+)

I would beg to muse a little bit: 1. In the Y2004 Dems did not want to win. That's why they put a losing candidate, a Catholic against Bush. It was very well understood that in such turmoil times Catholic had no chances. And that is not because I think Catholic religion is bad: just politics. 2.Catholic Bishops were smearing Kerry of course, because the Catholic Church does support Bush ( here Rob is right). But there seem to be sour grapes sometimes. Catholic Church is a corporation and it has its own survival/expansion plans. Those plans, of course, assume a steady income from the US Catholics because the Europeans are not that... generous. To maintain that income Catholic hierarchy needs the US in a conservative stay. But they do not need wars in Europe also. So the concordat, so to speak is unstable. 3. The last Ratzinger's escapade is, sure a calculated move. I view it as a signal to Catholic politicians in the US precluding those from changing the course. The Catholic Church might be OK with some liberalization of the US policies but it will never agree to the US returning to normalcy. They, the hierarhy in Rome consider US as a very very lucrative money source and so far it seems the source is pretty steady. As for Moslems, I think, the proper way to answer would be to laugh. But the problem is also that most people devoted to the religions do not laugh that much. Does it make sense, what I mused?

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 6:37:20 AM

  (0+)

First of all, Rome doesn't care as much about America as you imagine. Only an American would imagine the US to be important enough to warrant enough attention to get the Vatican to take sides in an election. Nonsense. There might be American churchmen who take sides, but the Vatican could care less. Second, how many cardinals did you say were attacking Kerry? If you'll do your homework, you'll find that there was exactly one cardinal, and about 7 bishops who ever said anything public about wanting to deny communion to John Kerry, and the cardinal was from Africa. Every other bishop and cardinal in the United States was doing backflips to silence their consciences on the issue. Third, did you actually read the text of the speech given by Pope Benedict? It was about faith and reason. One line quoting the second-to-last emperor of the Byzantine Empire in which he was dialoging with a Muslim scholar about faith and reason and conversion at the point of a sword. How could that POSSIBLY be about supporting the Bush government and the war when the Vatican has again and again urged the US and Britain to use restraint. The Vatican opposed the US-led invasion, and it opposed Israel's recent adventure in Lebanon. Don't you read? What you're suggesting is that the pope knew ahead of time that one line in a very long, academic speech, would be taken out of context and mischaracterized by the Media in such a way as to anger the Arab Street and frighten American Christians into galvanizing support for Bush and the Republicans. And you base it on what? All you have your misremembering and mischaracterization of the facts of 2004. I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. But keep writing. It's good for a laugh.

by hedlit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 7:33:43 AM

  (0+)

then I guess we live on two different planets. Catholic Church is a corporation as I said and corporations never do anything just 'academically'. There is no such thing as 'academic' speech when it comes to proper timing for the Pope and only an idiot may consider that Ratzinger kinda muses in some heights when he talks. Of course, you can stay your course if you like it. But I do not care about Bysantine emperors. What I do care is that Moslem religion can be interpretered in any way you like. So does Christianity. BTW, Catholicism is only a part of Christianity; Pope does not speak for all Christians and he knows that. So it was a double hypocricy on his side, not a dialogue. As for Rome not caring that much about USA, I am sorry for you. It does. USA is a primary player in the world politics and the Church as a corporation knows well where the money is. And one more thing: We here, on this site are all opinionated, of course, but we do not throw stones at each other unless it becomes absolutely necessary. I would advise you to put your foot in your mouth for a while, read other comments and kind off adopt a proper way of communication. Might do you good.

by Mark Sashine (72 articles, 19 quicklinks, 269 diaries, 4101 comments [131 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 8:01:15 AM

  (0+)

The Church is not a corporation. It is a church. It is like your weekly bowling league or whatever it is you do. Like a bowling league, it is made up of people and it exists for a purpose, and because it is a worldwide organzation, it has rules for its governance and persons responsible for administering it according to its mission. The mission of a bowling league is the enjoyment of sport and companionship. The mission of the Church is the salvation of souls, and that is always its mission, even if you happen to disagree about what salvation might mean. Do you even know anything about Pope Benedict? He is a scholar of the first class. He has always been a scholar. To use your phrasing, only an idiot would not look into Benedict's life history and not realize that, yes, he does muse on the heights quite frequently.

by hedlit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 9:43:58 AM

  (0+)

This pope puppy was the bad cop for the former Pope, who was, though beloved by many, a tyrannical anti-communist who helped dictators because of his rabid anti communist proclivities. He is a right wing extremist of the worst kind, fully capable of extreme strategies and actions. Don't throw the innocent academic stuff out like you're talking to idiots. Save it for your preaching to your choir, wherever that truly is.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 9:53:18 AM

  (0+)

Oh, I see, the attack on Kerry doesn't count because only 7 bishops attacked him? And the pope gave a long speech, so, putting an incredibly offensive citation in it doesn't count. Save it for your sunday sermon, and try selling it at Dailykos, where it looks like you followed me from with the same tripe. You're just what we need-- a papal apologist. Say what you will about me. The readers of this site are smart enough to see right through you. I made it clear, I have no problem with Catholics-- it's the leadership that's the problem, and I guess, I'll add to that, Vatican apologists.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 9:46:34 AM

  (0+)

Your article is confusing. You start out sounding like a progressive, but you wind up sounding like a conservative. This Pope very likely deplores what Bush and Company stand for. In my wildest dreams I cannot imagine him doing or saying anything to back Bush. Look, the Pope is a scholar, and he was speaking as any scholar/researcher would do by citing the writings of another. I think he has the right to say what he wants. I'm tired of Muslims impeding our free speech because of the West's fears of their backlash. When we silence ourselves, we lose one of our most important freedoms.

by Aodhan51 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 8:04:36 AM

  (0+)

First, welcome to OpEdNews. I see this is your first comment. Frankly, you say I start progressive, then end up sounding conservative, without explaining why on either. My article clearly states reasons the Pope backs republicans-- all the issues they share. And there is a clear history of the leaders of the church attacking Democrats, thus supporting Republicans. Sure Ratzinger has the right to free speech, but he chose to cite a particularly offensive ancient document. I don't think it was a mistake or bad judgment, as I said.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 9:37:25 AM

  (0+)

Thanks for the welcome--that was very kind, and I enjoyed your article. The point I was trying to make, perhaps poorly, is that this Pope, like the one before him, is no friend of Republicans. I would suggest not lumping him in with the right-wing whack jobs that make up the Christian Right (that's an oxymoron if ever there was one). There are some right-wing Catholics to be sure, but Benedict is not one of them. This Pope, like all genuine Catholics deplores the war in Iraq, torture, secret prisons, the death penalty, starvation, and the actions of George W. Bush. Because the Catholic Church takes stands against abortion or takes other unpopular stands does not mean that its members are like the so-called Christians of the Christian Right (blind Republicans). The members of the authoritarian Christian Right have formed Jesus in their own image--that's wrong at best, and idolatry at worst. Genuine Catholics believe that we should form ourselves in Christ's image. So does the Pope.

by Aodhan51 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 8 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:15:21 AM

  (0+)

''Ratzinger is not stupid'' Tariq Ali calls him a 'razor sharp reactionary'..he does not make mistakes.. Rob..is the Independent well known across there? click here Paul

by Hamish (45 articles, 0 quicklinks, 68 diaries, 210 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 10:26:31 AM

  (0+)

Didn't realize this was a progressives/liberals-only site. The title made it sound like it was very general interest: "OpEd News." I thought it was general interest and open-minded, with a wide variety of people writing commentaries and posting articles. I should say, though, that your very language is anti-Catholic and bigoted. "I have nothing against Catholics, just their leaders" is akin to saying "I have nothing against blacks, just the ones I see in the news," or "I have nothing against Jews, just the rich ones who run everything." Of course, it's very popular to talk that way about the Catholic Church in our culture, separating the good-hearted but ignorant Catholic faithful from the evil, power-crazed heirarchs. Even disaffected and angry liberal Catholics talk that way, so everyone else thinks it's ok. It's the popular narrative of our culture. You don't even have to have studied your history carefully. You can just judge everything out of the convenient social myth. Feel free to delete my comments and my username. I was mistaken about this website, and I probably won't be back, not out of malice, but because it's not what I thought it was. Good luck to you.

by hedlit (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 11:36:36 AM

  (0+)

I recommend Matthew Fox's: A NEW REFORMATION On Pentecost Sunday 2005, Fox nailed a New Reformation to the same door in Wittenburg that Martin Luther did 500 years before. Fox understands that NO religion has all the answers or owns God, that God is as much Mommy as Daddy, and that War is the greatest abomination. The Pope and former Grand Inquisitor ran Father Fox and over 30 deep thinkers out of The Institution for challenging the fundamentalist thinkers and the beat goes on... The good news is that eco-feminists have already risen up: click here

by Eileen Fleming (172 articles, 101 quicklinks, 274 diaries, 650 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 11:38:24 AM

  (0+)

Rob, The quote the Pope used was as an example of erroneous thinking. The Bible, likewise, is full of examples of erroneous thinking. Unfortunately people takes these EXAMPLES of error as INSTRUCTION, and then everything goes haywire as a result. This is true for all religions, and atheists alike. Your ability to read this misunderstanding as intentional to promote Bush is as delusional as the Muslims who claim that the Pope insulted Islam. Neither claim is true, and that is clear if you read his own words rather than some newsreports, and especially many oped pieces. While I don't agree with everything the Pope says, or the way he says it, ALL POLITICAL PROGRESS REQUIRES LISTENING TO WHAT THE PERSON ACTUALLY SAID, and not making up your own paranoid interpretation!!!! Of late you seem very stressed, and there is more than the ususal amount of Doublethink running through your posts. What is going on in your life? Has your hatred of Bush reached a fever? Financial stress? I don't know what it is, but you are seriously losing a perspective of events. You even suggested that a military take over in Thailand is somehow beneficial rather than a billionaire running things. As such, you also imply that might makes right, which of course is the same philosophy of Bush and roman America. If you had your way we would live in a totalitarian state, which is not so very different than the totalitarian state that the paranoid Bush is creating. (Remember there were three paranoid societies in 1984, not one.) How about a little less fear? The chains of fear and anger do not hold you, you hold them. You need to let them go. You are not Bush's opposite, you are his mirror. (I know because I made the same mistake with Nixon.) Love your enemy. You reap what you sow. Peace, Steve

by Steve Consilvio (18 articles, 0 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 184 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 2:59:22 PM

  (0+)

You get nasty. well, I'm used to it. fire away. But no ad hominem personal attacks, or you'll find your membership access blocked. That's a rule that applies to anyone on the site-- a rule commonly used by bulletin boards, that I first encountered as a sysop on the old compuserve, when it was bigger than AOL. You come close with your psychoanalysis of me.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:42:19 AM

  (0+)

What everyone seems to be missing in these exchanges is that the Muslim fanatics are both evil and carry their message by the sword. If, as Mr. Kall suggests, this was all a cleverly planned scheme to help republicans, isn't is amazing that the reaction was exactly what was intended? Of course, that reaction could only be expected if, in fact, the fanatical Muslims are evil and cruel (as evidenced by the way they treat prisoners and others). So, criticize the Pope all you want but at least be honest and acknowledge that it is the Muslims who are shooting nuns in the back and burning things.

by vsdaddy (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 4:01:15 PM

  (0+)

The Pope cannot apologize for what someone said 700 years ago; he's cunning and brilliant, but I doubt it's part of his agenda to help George Bush at this time, and since he's not "God," but just a Pope, he cannot have foreseen the consequences of quoting an ancient Pope to a scholarly audience of German cardinals; I have always been wary of this man, but I can't believe he knew he was playing with fire. Which is what he got. Cheney too is evil (cf. Joan Didion in the current NY Review) and cunning, but not omniscient. It so happened that the riots in the "Arab streets" made for excellent tv news snips, especially nudged in there with footage of the Pope in command of Vatican Square, etc. To be generous to the Pope, although I know not why, it's probable that the onrush of communications technology, though certainly not unknown to him, has passed him by, and he is not instinctively attuned to the power of short, alarming tv news stories. Especially when Muslims, who are so hypersensitive about their religion that they kill and burn over cartoons(!), hear that their prophet might said something that was unkind, or misinterpreted, or badly translated, or impolite, or ornery. And to make it all simpler, one newscaster last night intro'd the Pope vs. Islam story by saying, "It seems as if Arabs worldwide are acting in protest to the Pope's recent comments in just the same way those comments described. They are indeed burning churches, and today a Catholic nun was murdered by Arabs angry at the Pope." Yes, I got paranoid as you seem to have gotten, as if the Pope were thinking about the Republican base (pretty blasé lately), the independent voters, the deep distrust worldwide of Arab anger..the poor Arabs don't realize that they're the Beverly Hillbillies of today's world, but not funny. Neither is the Pope adorable when he's down on women's rights, homosexuality, all those medieval things he keeps bringing up. A pox on both their houses. Still, I don't think the Pope is in league with Karl Rove--and he needs this whole mess wie ein Loch in Kopf. Now, besides unrelentingly demanding a Papal apology, some prominent pasha in North Africa has demanded that the Pope deny that such a quote, indeed such a thought, even exists. Hey Pope, make that slander not exist, and while you're at it, make it never have existed at all! A suggestion: since the Vatican is in the market for a new Popemobile, perhaps they should get the model with the time-travel option and have the Pope send one of his Swiss guards in full regalia back to 1322 to murder the person who, IF he lived to become the Byzantine Pope Paleologus would have made this observation to a visiting Persian, but since he's now been killed 700 years ago by a Swiss guard, he'll never say it. End of tzuris. Kind of like the original "Terminator," maybe with sets by MC Escher.

by Dan'l (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 7 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 4:47:40 PM

  (0+)

For a very different *progressive* take on this incident, please have a look at Justin Raimondo's piece at Anti-War.com

by Harrison (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 4:49:55 PM

  (0+)

I suspect the Pope's address was directed more at Turkey and the EU than for the benefit of U.S. politicians. He is opposed to Turkey's admission to the EU *because* it is Muslim and his view is that Europe must acknowledge its Christian roots (see Christian Science Monitor, http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0422/dailyUpdate.html). And Turkey is where he is scheduled to visit next. Did he want get himself disinvited? Is he looking forward to martyrdom? Whatever his objectives, he had to be aware that he was being provocative, just as he has to have been aware of the riots that followed the cartoons of Mohammad published in the Danish newspaper. His address reflects his belief in the superiority of Christian over Islamic thinking about God and reason (http://zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=94748). His final lick at Islam is his last paragraph, returning to his earlier condescension: " 'Not to act reasonably (with logos) is contrary to the nature of God,' said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to *this* great logos, to *this* breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university." (emphasis added.) His common ground with our own right-wing Christians is "intelligent design." He said in his address: "[T]heology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith." How's that for sophistry?! All of this fits neatly into his larger goal, the Church's goal, the defeat of secularism (see, e.g., click here So, even though the Muslim's view of God and reason is inferior to the Christian's (according to the pope's understanding), Muslims at least believe in God and are "invited" to continue the Byzantine's dialogue with the Persian, despite Islam's belief in a God who is capable of irrationality. I hope we see more from Muslims commenting on the pope's understanding of Islam, but for starters, see the transcript of a PBS NewsHour analysis, in which Nihad Awad, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, challenges the pope's thinking: "[T]he unfortunate fact is the pope is a top-notch theologian on Catholicism, but he's no expert on Islam." (click here

by jf (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 13 comments) on Tuesday, Sep 19, 2006 at 4:55:16 PM

  (0+)

Rob Kall, Looks like you are taking on a lot of static in return for your most insightful article... re: Pope Ratzinger and his ( But, of course, it was an 'unintentional' blunder !' ) unfortunate error in speaking up and out of turn..quoting A statement that was made hundreds of years back in regards to Muslim 'religion.' After all, it most surely would have not only insulted Muslims...but sullied their Prophet Mohammed, by bringing up these words of Truth. Times have not changed that much with The Muslims, [ no more than it has with the over-zealous Christian Right-wingers in this country. They All Think They are the Last Word on ""That Subject" Religious Beliefs, & Who is the Most Correct !'' IT still remains That It was A remark Pope Ratzinger should have left Off his Agenda of Things TO Spout about >>During this very volatile and unsettling time. If he really Is such a bright and brilliant man, he would have put a Sock in it ! Or, better yet, his Foot. He knew Very well What he was doing, and exactly Why he was ...sticking a pitchfork into the Muslimic Peoples' Religious fervor. ( much like his own >>just aimed a bit differently. ) And YES, The 'Catholic Church'. moreso than any other "Church' in the world..is All for whatever 'leader is in charge who will net them the most return for their Investment in him. ( bush will pay handsomely...With Our Dollars, that is ) To any 'Concern' that Will Back Him and help Keep Him in 'power.' Stands to reason,, they are eating out of the same trough. Whether a comment sets well, or not..does not really matter to me. What is the truth is still the Truth. The Man knew what kind of Hornets' nest he was stirring up.. Bush Loves it. The more he can get the Far East roiled, the better he likes it. For, just Maybe Iran will do something , anything, in a retaliatory manner ( No matter how infinitesimal ) that can be used as a pretext to turn all those big guns on Iran ! After all, it only took a couple of Israeli soldiers? to get kidnapped because they ventured over the border of Lebanon....to get War guns, invasion, thousands of innocent people killed.. many thousands displaced from their homes, destroyed their country ( And For what purpose ?) How do we know those men were really kidnapped ? Or did they get paid well to venture over close enough to draw the Hezbullahs' ire..just so they would be taken hostage ? ) After all, Wasn't this exactly what Bush Wanted Israel to do ? To provoke the Lebanese ? I'm sure Israel was positive they had That War 'All Sewed Up' ... And would have it all under control in just a matter of Days ! And it's a fact that Bush was helping all the way. He Made sure the bombing went on for days longer than Israel really wanted ( especially after they realized there was no way they were going to win the war! {Fierce fighting force...those Lebanese!} And this not being the first time the Israelis tried to take Lebanon over ! Maybe I don't know as much as Some 'scholars ' do... but I do know enough to state an informed opinion. And an opinion is only Just That. No one will do more nor less than read, or not. So, ROB ..take all the Kicks in the teeth that come by the way.. for they will be the ones eating their words sooner than they think. Good luck in all you are doing. You are doing a fine job with this Site. Please keep on doing what you are doing. The Truth is so sorely eschewed in main stream daily news. The newspapers tend to write the same news they Hear on all TV channels...word for word..now how do they do that ?? Thank you.. VGF

by VGFlick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 76 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 12:41:55 AM

  (0+)

I haven't had time to read the longer commments all the way through, so pardon me if this obvious point has already been made. You can get away with calling the Pope a creep only - only - because you can be confident that no Catholic will react as many Muslims would to an analagous slur. And you know it. And "the the Muslims"? Do you proofread? Conspiracy theories are easier to believe when they are free of typos.

by Jim O'Sullivan (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Wednesday, Sep 20, 2006 at 1:29:48 PM

  (0+)

About the freedom to speak, but then, of course, you are reinforcing the statement by that 14th century guy.

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:44:41 AM

  (0+)

On 9/21/06, The Zerkowski Family wrote: I need to say thanks. It is only on very special occasions that I would stop to write such a note, but your article "Pope Provoked Muslim Rage To Help Bush and Republicans" was one such time. I can't recall a time where I was so very proud to be both a Catholic and a Republican as I am now. Your amazingly ill-conceived notion that the Pope had any thoughts as to the American elections when the Vatican has so roundly criticized actions in Iraq has to rank as one of the most preposterous propositions that I have ever heard. However, it is overreaches, conspiracy theories and overall ludicrous statements such as these that will help the Republican cause greatly in the election to come. I would love for greater connectivity between forces of good around the world. The work of Pope John Paul II and President Reagan to bring down the Iron Curtain was one such synergy. This is simply not one of those situations. The Pope was making a scholarly argument. He had no idea that anyone in the Muslim world would even hear his speech, let alone twist the meaning to make it fit their vile needs. I have taken the time to forward your article to everyone I know. Some Democrats, some Republicans. All will feel the same way. You therefore have already contributed to a greater sense of unanimity among the parties. For that I am very grateful. Keep up the good work. Thanks again, Rich My reply

my pleasure. keep forwarding it. Support that wonderful, former NAZI pope of yours. And of course, all the US Bishops who attacked Kerry didn't have any connection with the Vatican either. And YOU and your republican dittoheads, your pope opposes Iraq, yet you support Bush and the Republicans. Very clear, consistent of you. So please, keep sending out the article. Some people will see the truth, some will stay in the koolaid trance, like you. Jim Jones gave his flock arsenic. Christian Nationalists who support bush are killing democracy and the nation. Rob Kall Publisher, OpEdNews

by Rob Kall (953 articles, 4178 quicklinks, 374 diaries, 2087 comments [45 recommended, 3 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 11:49:20 AM

  (0+)

Mr Kall, I'm afraid that you have failed to meet your own standards. You tell us that ad hominem attacks are not usable here, yet you decide to refer to the Pope as a NAZI (your caps) because, as a male child, he was required to join the Hitlerjugend.

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 3:31:50 PM

  (0+)

Mr Kall: First you say:

But no ad hominem personal attacks, or you'll find your membership access blocked. That's a rule that applies to anyone on the site

And of course, all the US Bishops who attacked Kerry didn't have any connection with the Vatican either. And YOU and your republican dittoheads, your pope opposes Iraq, yet you support Bush and the Republicans. Very clear, consistent of you. So please, keep sending out the article. Some people will see the truth, some will stay in the koolaid trance, like you. Jim Jones gave his flock arsenic. Christian Nationalists who support bush are killing democracy and the nation.

by Dana Pico (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 194 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Thursday, Sep 21, 2006 at 3:40:38 PM

  (0+)

I'm reading this piece from outside the USA, and I can't see anyone actually believing this conspiracy story. The USA is a great nation, but not everything worldwide revolves around local (USA) politics - certainly not the Muslims or the Pope.

by Andrew Soane (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 2 comments) on Friday, Sep 22, 2006 at 5:43:54 AM

  (0+)