Irish Church leaders humiliated in Israel

Carlow52

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0501/mideast.html

An outrage by any measure
on the same day they are this stuff
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7377382.stm

Millions of people across Israel have been marking the country's annual memorial day for six million Jewish victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

Sangre

boo hoo

rockbeer

Yes, it's a tragedy that these ambassadors for arcane superstition were prevented from parading their cultural insensitivity around Jerusalem. It really puts what happened to the 6 million in the shade.

diddley

lol, good one Rockbeer :P

lostexpectation

they had too much bling on!

wes

From the article:

The action is understood to have been prompted by an intervention from a Jewish settler.

An extremist colonist being responsible for this is hardly surprising. Stealing land from Palestinians and scaring away visitors to there country, class act as usual.

djpbarry

The Irish churchmen wore their crosses at last night's national holy memorial service in the Holy City, which was attended by survivors of the 6m mostly Jewish people murdered by the Nazis, as well as by the full Israeli cabinet.

Anybody else see anything wrong with that phrase?

LordSutch

djpbarry wrote: »

Anybody else see anything wrong with that phrase?

Looks OK to me ~ with some survivors from the holocaust present (why not) admittedly any survivous are pretty ancient now, but its possible, isnt it? What do you refer to? are you talking about the wearing of Holy crosses? not to be confused with Nazi crosses ..........

Or maybe: murdered by the Nazi's, as well as by the full israeli cabinet? :rolleyes:

Tut tut, go on tell us what you see ......

djpbarry

ArthurF wrote: »

Tut tut, go on tell us what you see ......

" ...which was attended by survivors of the 6m mostly Jewish people murdered by the Nazis... "

How does one survive a murder?

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

Yes, it's a tragedy that these ambassadors for arcane superstition were prevented from parading their cultural insensitivity around Jerusalem. It really puts what happened to the 6 million in the shade.

Ah good old fashioned religion bashing... nothing like it:rolleyes:

Fremen

rockbeer wrote: »

Yes, it's a tragedy that these ambassadors for arcane superstition were prevented from parading their cultural insensitivity around Jerusalem. It really puts what happened to the 6 million in the shade.

Ok, so his granddad was killed in that holocaust. That doesn't give him free license to threaten to attack an Irish clergyman.

What cultural insensitivity? If he was wearing a swastika, fair enough. I hardly think a crucifix qualifies as insensitive.

dsmythy

djpbarry wrote: »

" ...which was attended by survivors of the 6m mostly Jewish people murdered by the Nazis... "

How does one survive a murder?

Not to mention that the Nazis killed more than the 6 million Jews.

murphaph

djpbarry wrote: »

" ...which was attended by survivors of the 6m mostly Jewish people murdered by the Nazis... "

How does one survive a murder?

One doesn't. But one can survive a murdered person. Example..."my father is dead. My mother, my brother and I survive him. We are his survivors".

rockbeer

Fremen wrote: »

I hardly think a crucifix qualifies as insensitive.

Christians rarely do, that's exactly the point.

bartholomewbinn

dsmythy wrote: »

Not to mention that the Nazis killed more than the 6 million Jews.

If it were not for Christian America, United Kingdom (and not allowed to practise but still Christian Russia) there would have been no Israel, because there would have been no Jews left to populate it.

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

Christians rarely do, that's exactly the point.

Huh - there are reasons to dislike religion, but you didn't even think that one through

Victor

Is "settler" a euphamism for "orthodox Jewish"?

djpbarry wrote: »

Anybody else see anything wrong with that phrase?

I think its known as a mangled sentence.

bartholomewbinn wrote: »

If it were not for Christian America, United Kingdom (and not allowed to practise but still Christian Russia) there would have been no Israel, because there would have been no Jews left to populate it.

The involvement of those countries in WWII had little to do with religion. In fact all three had there only little bit of persecution going on.

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Huh - there are reasons to dislike religion, but you didn't even think that one through

Was that supposed to be a convincing argument? Of course I've thought it through - maybe you could try saying what you mean rather than just making cryptic and incomprehensible remarks.

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

Was that supposed to be a convincing argument? Of course I've thought it through - maybe you could try saying what you mean rather than just making cryptic and incomprehensible remarks.

To be honest I didn't think that you had made an argument- a few unfare statements that I am voicing my disagreement with

rockbeer wrote: »

Christians rarely do, that's exactly the point.

Explain to me then how it is offensive.

Given that It represents the zenith of Christians faith, Jesus's suffering. No blame games, just tell me how it is offensive.

Manic Moran

Explain to me then how it is offensive.

Given that It represents the zenith of Christians faith, Jesus's suffering. No blame games, just tell me how it is offensive.

I can think of a number of countries where walking around displaying a crucifix is quite liable to shorten your life. Jesus was a 'second-tier' prophet compared to Mohammed, and it could be considered a bad move to display his cross instead of the Crescent.

You and I may think it's a bit daft, but the thing about religious beliefs is that they are incredibly subjective.

An alternative not considered is that the settler could have been a vampire. If memory serves, they don't get on well with crucifixes.

NTM

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Explain to me then how it is offensive.

Given that It represents the zenith of Christians faith, Jesus's suffering. No blame games, just tell me how it is offensive.

First let me say that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. If muslims are offended by cartoons of Mohammed, that doesn't mean the cartoons are offensive, just that muslims find them so. Obviously the same is true of the crucifix. Offensive is your word not mine, I said it was culturally insensitive so please don't put words in my mouth.

Why do I think wearing a crucifix can be culturally insensitive? You mean, other than because it's essentially like wearing a sign round your neck saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to 4 billion people?

Believe it or not, to many non-christians, chrisitanity isn't the benign bastion of goodness its followers believe it to be. To many, it's directly responsible for countless acts of aggression and cultural imperialism.

fly_agaric

rockbeer wrote: »

First let me say that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

rockbeer wrote: »

Why do I think wearing a crucifix can be culturally insensitive? You mean, other than because it's essentially like wearing a sign round your neck saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to 4 billion people?

Any "offended" beholders who think that wearing a crucifix is "essentially like wearing a sign round your neck saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to 4 billion people" should seek some help IMO...they may find it hard to avoid a mental breakdown if they are upset by public displays of allegiance to faiths other than their own.

rockbeer

fly_agaric wrote: »

Any "offended" beholders who think that wearing a crucifix is "essentially like wearing a sign round your neck saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to 4 billion people" should seek some help IMO...they may find it hard to avoid a mental breakdown if they are upset by public displays of allegiance to faiths other than their own.

So are you saying that christians don't necessarily think their beliefs are the truth then?

fly_agaric

rockbeer wrote: »

So are you saying that christians don't necessarily think their beliefs are the truth then?

No...
Just that I'm sure most Christians do not wear crucifixes in an effort to be "culturally insensitive" (my God is the bestest one and you are all going to burn in hell!) and people without a stick up their backsides will realise that...

rockbeer

fly_agaric wrote: »

No...
Just that I'm sure most Christians do not wear crucifixes in an effort to be "culturally insensitive" and people without a stick up their backsides will realise that...

Indeed, it all depends on context. Those 'humiliated' church leaders clearly didn't understand the context.

wes

rockbeer wrote: »

Indeed, it all depends on context. Those 'humiliated' church leaders clearly didn't understand the context.

There are Palestinian Christians native to Israel, I am sure the Palestinians Christians (who are still left, after the founders of Israel tried ethnically cleanse the lot of them) wear crosses all the time. So what the church leaders did is hardly culturally insensitive.

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can think of a number of countries where walking around displaying a crucifix is quite liable to shorten your life. Jesus was a 'second-tier' prophet compared to Mohammed, and it could be considered a bad move to display his cross instead of the Crescent.

You and I may think it's a bit daft, but the thing about religious beliefs is that they are incredibly subjective.

An alternative not considered is that the settler could have been a vampire. If memory serves, they don't get on well with crucifixes.

NTM

I think the whole thing is to relax and let people believe what they want to, as long as it doesn't impinge on other people (sucking blood is impinging)

rockbeer wrote: »

First let me say that offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. If muslims are offended by cartoons of Mohammed, that doesn't mean the cartoons are offensive, just that muslims find them so. Obviously the same is true of the crucifix. Offensive is your word not mine, I said it was culturally insensitive so please don't put words in my mouth.

Why do I think wearing a crucifix can be culturally insensitive? You mean, other than because it's essentially like wearing a sign round your neck saying "I'm right, you're wrong" to 4 billion people?

Believe it or not, to many non-christians, chrisitanity isn't the benign bastion of goodness its followers believe it to be. To many, it's directly responsible for countless acts of aggression and cultural imperialism.

I do apologise for 'putting words in your mouth'. as for the I'm right, you're wrong argument I think you're a bit off - clearly beliefs can be mutually exclusive, but nowhere does it force these beliefs on other people.

As for the whole Christianity evil thing- many things are done in the name of religion, Every religion has had bad people, leaders including past Popes, Dali Lama's, Priests, Preachers etc etc etc etc have been evil, but the message which Christianity has, as does most religions is to do Good, just because I am Catholic doesn't mean I believe all Priests are good.

rockbeer wrote: »

Indeed, it all depends on context. Those 'humiliated' church leaders clearly didn't understand the context.

Listen- the context was millions of Jews being killed by Hitler- the Catholic Church didn't do a whole lot to help, but cannot be blamed for it (in fact a lot of people didn't help)

Basically they went to Israel, invited I assume, wearing their personal beliefs as many Jews, Muslims and Budists can and will do, and were picked out for doing so. Just because it is Easter I don't expect Jews to take off their caps as a sign of apology...

rockbeer

wes wrote: »

There are Palestinian Christians native to Israel, I am sure the Palestinians Christians (who are still left, after the founders of Israel tried ethnically cleanse the lot of them) wear crosses all the time. So what the church leaders did is hardly culturally insensitive.

Maybe I haven't made myself clear. In my view, all overt displays of gang/clan/superstition membership are culturally insensitive and basically divisive. The motives of the wearer are irrelevant. I could wear a swastika in tribute to its pagan origins but nobody would extend me any sympathy when it upset people. Why are christianity's bizarre trinkets any different?

Anyway, the priests obviously did in fact upset somebody so the evidence suggests your argument is flawed.

Cliste wrote:

I do apologise for 'putting words in your mouth'. as for the I'm right, you're wrong argument I think you're a bit off - clearly beliefs can be mutually exclusive, but nowhere does it force these beliefs on other people

Apology accepted, thank you. But maybe you should read up your bible to see exactly where christianity stands in relation to other belief systems. While you're at it maybe you could read some history to remind yourself what these values have meant in practice to the cultures christianity has destroyed and dispossessed.

Basically they went to Israel, invited I assume, wearing their personal beliefs as many Jews, Muslims and Budists can and will do, and were picked out for doing so. Just because it is Easter I don't expect Jews to take off their caps as a sign of apology...

The Jewish cap is a false analogy - remind me where in the bible it says christians must wear crucifixes as an outward symbol of their beliefs. In fact I think you'll find even many christians feel uneasy about the wearing of crucifixes.

Grudaire

rockbeer wrote: »

Apology accepted, thank you. But maybe you should read up your bible to see exactly where christianity stands in relation to other belief systems. While you're at it maybe you could read some history to remind yourself what these values have meant in practice to the cultures christianity has destroyed and dispossessed.

Basically you are tarring all Christians with the same brush- I'm guessing all Muslims are evil too:rolleyes:

rockbeer wrote: »

The Jewish cap is a false analogy - remind me where in the bible it says christians must wear crucifixes as an outward symbol of their beliefs. In fact I think you'll find even many christians feel uneasy about the wearing of crucifixes.

Christians feel uneasy because of society where it is frowned upon for having religious beliefs

Doctor DooM

Cliste wrote: »

Basically you are tarring all Christians with the same brush- I'm guessing all Muslims are evil too:rolleyes:

Wow, talk about misdirection- he was pointing out that Christianity isn't exactly pure as the driven snow, not that every Christian is evil. ad if he did, that would be kind of like saying, for example, all of a certain segment of society are wrong and going to hell, like gay people for example, no?

Cliste wrote: »

Christians feel uneasy because of society where it is frowned upon for having religious beliefs

Having them is not frowned on by many, I think. Maybe whats happening is people have lost respect for the religion itself?

rockbeer

Cliste wrote: »

Basically you are tarring all Christians with the same brush- I'm guessing all Muslims are evil too:rolleyes:

No... I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about christian values, as specifically outlined in the christian holy book. It's the religion itself I have a problem with, not the adherents, most of whom are simply delusional. (You probably won't like me saying that, but I'm sure if you were honest you'd feel the same about worshippers of Zeus or Apollo or the flying spaghetti monster). I accept that many christians are well motivated, but the values of their religion are reprehensible. The real problem is that so few of them know what bigoted, misogynistic foulness is actually written in their holy book. And when you point it out, they usually just say those bits don't really count - despite the awkward fact that 'those bits' provide the justification for the very evils you dismiss so lightly.

Cliste wrote: »

Christians feel uneasy because of society where it is frowned upon for having religious beliefs

That wasn't what I meant... I think (although I'm no expert) that certain protestants are offended by the crucifix as a symbol. Maybe somebody here can shed more light on this.