...as a space ship?

Thanks, food for thought.

So far, my response:

Gay is a slang term, a widely used one and is now accepted as meaning homosexuality. Fine, no harm done. Bu the REAL meaning of the word is happy and the REAL meaning of homosexuality is Lindsay's orientation.

The fact that Gay has now come to mean different things because of slang is of little consequence but censorship is a very important issue so bastardizing it's meaning through misuse is far more important to me.

The word 'freedom' is being misused more and more these days and I find this very troubling as I'm sure you do too.

If the origin of Censor comes from an act of government then all uses in different context following it are misuses.

Matty, that doesn't follow.

You're going with the principle that so long as a word has been misused for long enough the real meaning of the word changes. No. It's just widely misunderstood.

The meaning of a word is determined by the conventions that govern its use. If the conventions governing the use of a word change, then its (real) meaning changes.

Next you'll be telling us that Linz isn't gay.

If the origin of Censor comes from an act of government then all uses in different context following it are misuses. You're going with the principle that so long as a word has been misused for long enough the real meaning of the word changes. No. It's just widely misunderstood. Rand herself (If I remember correctly) defined censorship as an act of government. I don't consider myself an Objectivist and I agree with her on that. You do consider yourself an Objectivist and you don't even seem to know the Objectivist position on this, probably because your understanding of Rand's philosophy is sophomoric.

Slowly losing hope in the prospect of an apology (and awaiting your theft of this incredibly clever variation of my original sign off),

Matty.

Cultists consider certain words to have "special" meanings. Gang members invent special handshakes, and secret societies arm themselves with passwords.

Rand said take words literally.

Still waiting...

--Mindy

Consider censorship to be an act of state Mindy. If you can't come up with your own hilarious sign offs then don't make any.

My Oxford Dictionary of the English Language shows that while "censor" was originally a government function --in Ancient Rome, in fact--it has long been used in non-governmental contexts. English universities often have an office of "Censor," and the word extends to anyone who acts to edit material for other than grammatical, etc. errors.

Yes, it is "sophomoric" to know only a little about things, and not to appreciate being in that state, and thus to embarrass oneself. 

Eagerly awaiting your apology,

Mindy

It's not so much that I didn't provide reason for calling you this. You just can't take a hint.

You used the word censorship in the other thread for what Scott was proposing. Censorship is an act of government and as someone who claims to be well read in objectivism, that wording was a very sophomoric mistake. I point this out because I know what a sucker you are for the importance of details. This must all be very embarrassing for you.

Eagerly awaiting your apology,

Matty.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I said you said "monitoring." I don't know what the standards were, and it doesn't matter. Here's a def: "Censor...one empowered to examine all manuscripts, pamphlets, newspapers, and books before they are published, and to see that they contain nothing obnoxious;" (Webster's Encyclopedic Dictionary) I was careful to state that censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing! Jeez, what does it take to be understood?

This reaction (not especially you, Joe) is like what people in general feel when they hear the word "selfish." They unthinkingly reject it.

If I had a blog site, I would censor it for quality-control purposes.

The real point is whether we argue against opinions we don't agree with, or whether we try to suppress their expression, intimidate the speaker, etc. That was what Scott's complaint about Elijah's "free rein" seemed to be asking for. If people aren't putting forth any substantial position, or criticism, they aren't participating in reasoned discussion. There's a lot of  insult, verbal abuse, and condemnation here without reasons given. It seems people permit themselves this because they think they are expressing their "passion." However, a passion for reason doesn't leave out the reasons! (And personal "opinions" like: "You talk a lot of sophomoric crap." isn't reason.)

I am acting as if this place matters. I think errors matter, because ideas matter. I think always being reasonable matters. I think praising the good, and criticizing the bad is obligatory because that is intellectual activism.

--Mindy

 Mindy, please don't put words in my mouth. I did not use the word censorship. I said that articles/essays were submitted for review for quality purposes. People would still be able to participate in the discussion (only  banned under extreme conditions.) It wasn't full-blown censorship; an article could have been rejected on poor writing skills alone. It was more along the lines of magazine editing. Certainly the free speech of the rejected writer wasn't abridged, they would have to either change the article or go elsewhere. 

I'm not using it in any special way. Joe wrote that submissions used to be monitored. And under certain conditions now, submissions will be monitored. That's censorship. I repeat (sigh) censorship isn't necessarily a bad thing!

--Mindy

p.s. "Uncle" means "I give."

Oh yes, I saw it when it first came out...at that cinema in Moorhouse Avenue in Christchurch, about 10 years ago ...and laughed and laughed all the way through...the various "in jokes" and piss takes...ha ha....I consider it to be the second best dvd in my (surprisingly large) collection.

In my experience chaps either love it or do not "get it"...no middle view of the film.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

So Elijah, you enjoyed The Big Lebowski? Well, I guess I have to give you points for that.

Mindy,

I have yet to hear your definition of censorship but as Linz says, maybe I should just ignore you. 

 mind explaining this to me?

"Uncle." 

"The ultimate result of shielding men from folly is to fill the world with fools."

-Herbert Spencer 

Nihilism ...ha ha ....I must admit to not being able to take that concept seriously ever since watching the hilarious and splendid film "The Big Lebowski" a few years back. ...so amusing, and a splendid piss take on nihilists..(and numerous other things) 

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

"Uncle."

Mutually dependent? Religion's indefatigable faith in God, and hope for paradise; and Nihilism's incorrigible pessimism are not even complementary! They are polar opposites! [...] Your statement went even farther and said that the categories of theories, Dogmatism and Nihilism, are variants of one another. It's preposterous.

Only superficially, to a concrete-bound mentality. See, Mindy, this is why I for one have not bothered engaging you. You claim an Objectivist background that includes working for TIA. You say you've been an Objectivist for years. If that were true you wouldn't need to have the matter you raise here explained to you. You would spot these phony dichotomies a mile off. You sound more like someone steeped in conventional pomowankery than an Objectivist.

You were caught red-handed on another thread egregiously misrepresenting three other posters shortly after your arrival. Your photo doesn't clearly show your face. You displayed impeccably humourless, Goode-like PC credentials with that death threat rubbish. I'm assuming bad faith on the evidence thus far and regard paying you any attention as a waste of my time. I just stepped in at this point because I could see poor Kasper getting confused. Now I shall go back to ignoring you.

Nihilists don't believe in anything! But, beyond that, their point of view is quite empirical, (though not thoroughly reasonable.) The world is a godless place ruled by irrational authorities, and personal experience is an endless affair of striving and suffering, etc. There's no point, it's no use, why hope, why bother: if something seems to go right, just wait and an awful something will soon come along and wipe it out of memory. That's nihilistic thinking. Its base is experience, not faith.

Mutually dependent? Religion's indefatigable faith in God, and hope for paradise; and Nihilism's incorrigible pessimism are not even complementary! They are polar opposites!

As I said in a previous post here, any two false systems of thought can be found to be similar in some ways, because they both fail to give accurate accounts of man's nature and life. If they gave fully accurate accounts, they wouldn't be false systems! So negative comparisons are always possible, e.g., "They both discredit man's self-sufficiency." These sorts of comparisons are fine.

To say that two such systems are variants of one another implies a great deal more. Your statement went even farther and said that the categories of theories,  Dogmatism and Nihilism, are variants of one another. It's preposterous. 

I get your point. It is ok to make a comparison of dog/nih but it is a categorial error to say one is a variant of the other....

And the point is wrong. You're being drawn into angels-on-pinheads stuff. Nihilism says, on faith, nothing goes; dogmatism says any old thing goes, on faith. The connection between and mutual dependence of the two is inexorable. Each is a form or variant of the rejection of reason, to be sure—the fundamental point already made in the press release in question by the time the sentence in question comes up. It's also perfectly legitimate to call each a variant of the other even though that's not the most fundamental thing one could say (and has already said) about them.

My liver? Oh dear. I have been told to get liver, thyroid and all sorts checked this week. Perhaps I should book an appointment with the Jew (my doc) down the road.

I get your point. It is ok to make a comparison of dog/nih but it is a categorial error to say one is a variant of the other....

You accuse ME of being uncivil????? Get your liver function checked!

----------------

I don't think Nihilism distrusts reason as religion does, it just fails to succeed with it. Nihilism is an extreme relativism, religious dogma is absolute. Not even different ways of worshipping the same god are acceptable in religion. Brand-allegiance is paid close attention to by the administrators of religious cults!

(An aside: Dogmatism isn't synonymous with religion; there are dogmatic positions that have nothing to do with religion.)

On a different scale: every erroneous system of thought fails to credit some or all of the truths about man and the principles he should live by. That's tautological. Because of this, there are always similarities in what they are against or "anti-." But these are negative symptons, and a list of what something is not is not a useful way to categorize it. Thus, while statements of comparison such as: "Both Dogmatism and Nihilism reject reason as an effective guide to moral choices," are valid, and may be quite useful in a given context, that fact is not useful in distinguishing them as different systems of thought. And THAT is why it is wrong to say categorically that Dogmatism and Nihilism are variants of one another.

--Mindy 

Can we have this conversation without sarcasm and insults. Quite frankly I am enjoying the mental exercise.

I have gone and checked whether my preconceived ideas of Nihilism stack up with the Wikipedia version and seem to be appropriate.

"Objective morality does not exist" which means that a human mind has no place in creating a value judgment on good or bad or right versus wrong. It gives up this responsibility. It sacrifices the minds ability to make a value judgment. If God exists, and he may, it means nothing to us. We have no responsibility to him. It regards humans as impotent, behind the smokescreen that morality is implicitly impotent.
The necessary extensions of this philosophy at play are exactly what dogmatism engages into as well. Both regard the moral qualities of mans mortal relationship to reality as inconsequential in the face of the abyss or eternity.

“Dogmatism is not the answer to nihilism; each is a variant of the other. Mindless self-mortification is not the answer to mindless self-indulgence.”

I may have been barking up the wrong tree with the altruist coinage Perhaps it is the rejection of the mind and its validity that dogmatism and nihilism both partake.

The call from both of them is similar:
The more you discover your impotence the more in line you are with the truth.
Dogmatically you are nothing without God and should surrender in order to save your soul. Faith not the mind is the standard.
Nihilistically you are nothing in front of reality because it is indifferent so stop pretending you are meaningful. There is no meaning and the fact that there is no meaning is meaningless. Meaninglessness is the standard not a valid mind.

So steering my argument into a new direction perhaps nihilism and dogmatism a variants of the same coin when it comes to their views regarding reason?

If I understand you correctly, you are claiming Dogmatism and Nihilism are variants of Altruism.

Catholic dogma is altruistic. In one sense, it is said to be Nihilistic--in its emphasis on the next life, thus disdaining values proper to this life. So Dogmatism can lead to Nihilism (if you accept that stance, which I don't) but that doesn't make them variants of one another!!

I don't know how you get Nihilism as altruistic at all. Is there something besides your own experience to flesh that out?

It's a minor point, but the whole "coin" metaphor isn't quite apt to Lindsay's statement that Dogmatism and Nihilism are variants of one another. Fascism and Communism can be two sides of the same coin, where that coin is Totalitarianism. Even that doesn't make Fascism and Communism variants of one another!

--Mindy

"Mindy: Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

What is that about?

I have just had Richard try to take this debate onto another post.
"Dogmatism and Nihilism are categories of philosophical systems. We need these concepts to be able to make comparisons among specific cultures'"

Agreed.

"Dogmatism is not a variant of Nihilism, and Nihilism is not a variant of Dogmatism: that is not the conceptual relation between these two terms."

Agreed but point of difference.
Dictionary Variant: Something that differs in form only slightly from something else, as a different spelling or pronunciation of the same word. OR from something of the same general kind.

The variant is the altruism between the two. It varies slightly. No-body is saying that Nihilism is the variant of Dogmatism philosophically. I am saying that the altruism in Dogmatism and Nihilsm is a variant of the other.

Kasper, wrote
"If you disagree that Nihilism and Dogmatism are variants on the same coin. Please make an arguement as to why you think they are different in respect to their values, views on existence and of reason."

This question was sloppy so apologies for making it look like I am merging two different philosophic concepts into one blend.

Where does one go for the society of reasonable people?

--Mindy

""Passion" is being offered as an excuse for errors and mistakes. Every thug agrees with that principle. Passion for the right things does not spawn false or misleading statements, nor slander or intimidation."

You being the inquiring mind? The above and your paragraphs previous to that was no enquiry;

"Catholicism is not nihilistic. It is in fact very far from Nihilism! One could find premises in it or specific beliefs that, taken in isolation, could be described as nihilistic, but that's context-dropping.

Lindsay shouldn't have said they were variants of one another. He might have meant all sorts of valid comparisons as to their foolishness, their corruption, their destructiveness, etc. That does not make them variants of one another." All garbage, you are a poor thinker.

Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.

Tom Hanks is the reluctant manager of a female baseball team. "Crying?" he says, "There's no crying in baseball!"

Same applies to you, Greg-stir, there's no cheating in reason.

--Mindy

...will just have to go elsewhere for enlightenment? What hypocrisy!

--Mindy

"Mistakes need correction"

Your motto on this thread exactly. If Solo needs an editor then wait till it contacts you.

Mysticism equals dogmatism. Look I cheated again MindY, but your reasoning I'm not willing to dwell on. Straight from the Rand Online Lexicon;

"Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence."

Replace "skepticism" for "nihilism" and they are two more variants to confuse you.

I posit you have a phobia for all variations of the word "variant."

Dogmatism and Nihilism are categories of philosophical systems. We need these concepts to be able to make comparisons among specific cultures' mores, etc. Dogmatism is not a variant of Nihilism, and Nihilism is not a variant of Dogmatism: that is not the conceptual relation between these two terms.

Catholicism is a type of Dogmatism. Its belief system explicitly eschews proof. That's as dogmatic as you can get. Catholicism is not nihilistic. It is in fact very far from Nihilism! One could find premises in it or specific beliefs that, taken in isolation, could be described as nihilistic, but that's context-dropping.

Lindsay shouldn't have said they were variants of one another. He might have meant all sorts of valid comparisons as to their foolishness, their corruption, their destructiveness, etc. That does not make them variants of one another.

"Passion" is being offered as an excuse for errors and mistakes. Every thug agrees with that principle. Passion for the right things does not spawn false or misleading statements, nor slander or intimidation.  

Mistakes need correction.

--Mindy

If you disagree that Nihilism and Dogmatism are variants on the same coin. Please make an arguement as to why you think they are different in respect to their values, views on existence and of reason.

I do take ideas seriously Mindy. You are trying to point me towards a supposed error that I have made which I cannot see.

The nihilists that I have had contact with tend to be very compassionate and caring to those who they can relate too. They value in the positive sense those that have problems, are weak or are in the same boat as them over a romantic hero or successor any day. In the negative sense, in which this value orientation lies, is that they value anti-values. ( I suspect you disagree here?)

'Yes' was for nihilism and dogmatism to be variants of each other. Ok, Christianity shows a lot more altruism in its concern for people. Nihilism shows a lot more rejection of values and more interest in non-values.
To me this similarity is synonymous as being on the same coin in regard to their fundamental view on existence and reason right through to their end result. As I have said it is existence and reason which is the measuring stick.

You then applied my logic to comparing Objectivism and Nihilism based on some superficial similarities. I have attempted to say that because nihilism/dogmatism have the same attitude to existence fundamentally, that yes it is appropriate to put them on the same coin.

Does this mean that identical fundamentals (altruistic behavior) can go on the same coin but not superficial similarities? I would say yes, at this point. (Based paragraph 2)

OK, Kasper, we'll let you play dumb this time.

I asked you if you thought Nihilism and Dogmatism were variants of one another. You replied, "Dogmatism of the catholic [sic] church or the Christian faith is just the opposite side of the same coin. Yes." What do you mean? Does your "yes" mean you do hold that Nihilism and Dogmatism are variants of one another? Did you mean to say Dogmatism and Nihilism were opposite sides of the same coin? 

You go on to say that both (is this Dogmatism and Nihilism, or Catholic Church "and" Christian Faith? I'm assuming the former.) are rooted in Altruism. So you are saying all Dogmatic philosophies and all Nihilistic ones are also Altruistic ones.  This is, I suppose, what you are expressing in your third, "Both..." There you say, "Both see the humble, incapable and weakness [sic] as deserving of praise and love."

For Catholicism and Christianity in general, that fits. It's bonkers as far as Nihilism goes. An altruistic nihilist??

Then there's your final "argument" as to why Dogmatism and Nihilism are variants of one another: "Both mortify the intellect./ Both engage in self-immmolation./ Both see the humble, incapable and weakness [sic] as deserving of praise and love."

The logic of this is false. Here's an absurdum of it:

Objectivism and Nihilism are variants of one another, because: Both are guides to human action; Both focus on the individual; Both take this life as all man has.

Is this plain enough? Why do you defend philosophic mistakes? Don't you take ideas seriously?

--Mindy 

It is the attitude to values that nihilists, Christian dogmatists and possible existentialists have in common.
"Do nihilists have bleeding hearts for the humble?" No, nihilists are the bleeding hearts.

"Do I understand you to be saying nihilists are altruists? Can you explain that?"

I already have. They are value 'ab negators'. Nihilists give up their values to a void. Altruism is Christianities central tenant. Altruism is Nihilism central methodology.
Both end up in the same place.

Nihilism declares that existence has no objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. So does an existentialist. And incidentally the same view is held by Christianity. Existence and reason are impotent to God or to nothingness.
It doesn't matter which side of the coin you are on. Either you are a mere steward of God's plan here and shouldn't concern yourself with reason. Or you believe that existence is meaningless.
You are on the same side of the coin in these two groups because the measuring stick is: existence, the mind and its reason. In order to take the proposition that man needs a code of ethics and values which pertain to reality for his survival he becomes an end in himself in matters of being a 'valuer'.
Man as an end in himself from a nihilist point of view: "its all meaningless why give a shit" is not the same use of the term, you see.

Mindy, if you want to oppose my arguement then please make one.

Kasper

at the end of your 7-21 post, ...when you say, "Both mortify the intellect. "Both engage in..." and "Both see..." (your logic) seems to be that since they have similarities, they are "variants" of one another. Illogical, of course.

Also, regarding your third "Both see..." which says "Both see the humble, incapable and weakness[sic] as deserving of praise and love." Do you really think nihilists are bleeding hearts for the humble, etc.??????

"Dogmatism of the Catholic church or the Christian faith is [sic] the [sic] just the opposite of the same coin." What did you mean to say here?

You don't think nihilists don't believe man is an end in himself? Existentialists do.

(Ever notice that button marked "preview comment"??) 

Do I understand you to be saying nihilists are altruists? Can you explain that?

--Mindy

"The Catechism is not the answer to Death Metal."

And THE DARK KNIGHT is no answer to the chaos of the Joker.

Saying "Death metal is a musical genre" is like saying rap is, or recordings of steam locomotives, or that rape is a form of sexual intercourse, genocide is a population control policy and

However Richard knew that was tempting a reaction I am sure!

Dogmatism is a dangerous attitude to one's beliefs - stubborn refusal to take seriously the possibility that one is mistaken.

Nihilism is the pernicious belief that nothing has any value.

Death metal is a musical genre.

Both are a form of nihilism since both give up on this life.

Is that you won't have a response from 'Mind y' that in any way could be described as part of a discussion of philosophy.

Dogmatism of the catholic church or the Christian faith is the just the opposite side of the same coin. Yes.

Both have the same philosophical roots in altruism. You can't get a romanticist to engage in the necessary activities of Catholicism and Nihilism, if they were to embrace those.
A romanticist or individualist is an esteemist. Values are to be held, not negated. Man is to achieve self esteem, respect, confidence in him self. Man is the end in himself.
Nihilism and Catholicism see man as an end to the goals of a God/nothingness. The more you are a nothing and can admit it, the more true an image you have of yourself in front of God or a nihilist. The saint is the one that achieves values which are contrary to the values of his objectively necessary existence.

Both mortify the intellect.
Both engage in self-immolation.
Both see the humble, incapable and weakness as deserving of praise and love.

Do you agree with him that dogmatism and nihilism are each a variant of the other?

Do we still discuss philosophy here?

-Mindy

Statement:Dogmatism is not the answer to nihilism; each is a variant of the other.
Explanation:Mindless self-mortification is not the answer to mindless self-indulgence.
Example: The Catechism is not the answer to Death Metal

Read the whole context and post.

Why do you say dogmatism is a variant of nihilism?

--Mindy

"while the uniform did make the whole event seem somewhat cultish"

Now there really is only one internationally recognised Catholic uniform - for young woman over a certain age.

However, without being cheeky I wonder what they could all talk about? Architecture? Music? The great successes of the church in science, education, promoting freedom and individual rights? The proud history of collaboration with fascism?

"I've got a sneaking suspicion that many (and by many I mean about 70 odd percent) were really moderates as far as religious belief is concerned and were just using the event as an excuse to have an overseas adventure at the expense of their parents, schools and churches."

My (non-Catholic but Christian) girlfriend went over with some Catholic friends.   I would say that the people I know from Wellington who went over are definitely moderates.  Actually, most Catholics I know are too smart to believe a quarter of the rubbish that fundamentalist Evangelicals do, for instance.

My girlfriends group went to a lot of effort to fund-raise their expenses, so it was definitely voluntary on their end, which is good.

Good PR, Linz.  I think I'm getting the hang of this hyperbole thing. 

It's been nuts the past week. They're everywhere! All with the same red bags, swarming the streets!

I'll tell you this much though, while the uniform did make the whole event seem somewhat cultish, it was nice to see so many young people in such high spirits, enjoying the city and generally just having a bloody good time. I've got a sneaking suspicion that many (and by many I mean about 70 odd percent) were really moderates as far as religious beleif is concerned and were just using the event as an excuse to have an overseas adventure at the expense of their parents, schools and churches. Well, good on em! about time they got some payback for all those dreary sermons they've had to sit through!

I even got a bit of fun out of it, managed to get a Catholic from Boston to say,'I parked my car in the Harvard yard.' He was a good sport, exaggerated the pronunciation as much as he could.

However I must say I'll be very glad to have the trains back!

P.S. Great PR Linz.

Good one Linz

300 000 youths? Here are Ingersoll's thoughts on why this loathsome blight still persists. 

from the Orthodoxy 

So these schools, and these theories, and these religions die
hard. What else can they do?

Like the paintings of the old masters,
they are kept alive because so much money has been invested in
them.

Think of the amount of money that has been invested in
superstition! Think of the schools that have been founded for the
more general diffusion of useless knowledge!

Think of the colleges
wherein men are taught that it is dangerous to think, and that they
must never use their brains except in the act of faith!

Think of
the millions and billions of dollars that have been expended in
churches, in temples, and in cathedrals! Think of the thousands and
thousands of men who depend for their living upon the ignorance of
mankind!

Think of those who grow rich on credulity and who fatten
on faith! Do you suppose they are going to die without a struggle?

What are they to do? From the bottom of my heart I sympathize with
the poor clergyman that has had all his common sense educated out
of him, and is now to be thrown upon the cold and unbelieving
world.

His prayers are not answered; he gets no help from on high,
and the pews are beginning to criticize the pulpit.

What is the man
to do? If he suddenly changes he is gone. If he preaches what he
really believes he will get notice to quit.

And yet, if he and the
congregation would come together and be perfectly honest, they
would all admit that they believe little and know nothing.

...........

You know that when Christianity came into power it destroyed
every statue it could lay its ignorant hands upon.

It defaced and
obliterated every painting; it destroyed every beautiful building;
it burned the manuscripts, both Greek and Latin; it destroyed all
the history, all the poetry, all the philosophy it could find, and
reduced to ashes every library that it could reach with its torch.

And the result was, that the night of the Middle Ages fell upon the
human race. But by accident, by chance, by oversight, a few of the
manuscripts escaped the fury of religious zeal; and these
manuscripts became the seed, the fruit of which is our civilization
of to-day.

A few statues had been buried; a few forms of beauty
were dug from the earth that had protected them, and now the
civilized world is filled with art, the walls are covered with
paintings, and the niches filled with statuary.

A few manuscripts
were found and deciphered. The old languages were learned, and
literature was again born.

A new day dawned upon mankind. Every
effort at mental improvement had been opposed by the church, and
yet, the few things saved from the general wreck -- a few poems, a
few works of the ancient thinkers, a few forms wrought in stone.
produced a new civilization destined to overthrow and destroy the
fabric of superstition. 

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Jawbone 

that turned a blind eye whilst Catholic fascists in Croatia went about with their own, lightly reported, "ethnic cleansing" against Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims.

Whilst it happily took a small fortune from those donating to Mother Teresa thinking they were relieving poverty, when she siphoned almost all of it to the church.

...there was a significant Catholic population in Australia.
Or are they just recruiting?

I agree with Mark, this is a superb press release.

That they peacefully bend their necks to a crumpled old man in robes allegedly representing some vengeful Ghost's proclamations from thousands of years ago makes them no less horrific than thousands of stoned hippies screeching and jerking for global mediocrity and universal dumbfoundedness.  Makes them opposite sides of the same coin.  His apologies come too late, and only are forced from his rotten teeth by the pressure of technology: there's no way for the Church to keep it all quiet now.

I have to say I have met people in my course of life, that no-matter what Christians do, they will always find something to criticize them about. I think it was a noble and good thing that the pope made apologies on behalf of the catholic church. The police, the masses and the youth are apparently extremely well behaved! People report a sense of peace throughout the ceremony.
Hardly something comparable to wood stock from Ayn's recordings.

Yes, Dr Goode has come up with the goods this time.

Now, that is hilarious! I practically fell out of my chair.

[Hmmmm...for some reason the rest of the previous post did not work, so here it is]....

...The Roman Catholic church has caused all manner of problems in Australia over the years, more than any other organisation in the history of the lucky Country.

They were responsible for sexual abuse of children, brutality in Church run schools, helped bring down at least two Governments (Whitlam and Lang), caused enormous divisions within Australia along religious lines, supported and effectively financed (by way of food parcels and charity) a crippling waterfront strike in 1928 which gave an endorsement for communist trade unions, forged strong links with and "turning a blind eye"-ism towards organised crime (whilst preaching against 'vice'), protected various corrupt priests from prosecution, protected various corrupt Police....and the list goes on.

For such a huge crowd of Australians to turn up and support this nonsense, to forget some dark chapters in history, and to give a rousing mexican wave to another 150 years of these activities....is just bizarre.

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

I have been following his Sydney visit in the newspapers and watching clips online and it is just bizarre

That 300,000 people would turn up to engage in a mass (no pun intended) witchcraft ceremony shows there is something oddball about Australians!

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Superb release Linz.

Submitted to Real Clear Politics go there now to vote for the article. Unfortunately you can't link directly to the SOLO submission, only the "reader's articles" page, so you may need to search for it.

10 votes gets the SOLO submission bumped to the front page and drives traffic back to here.

You need to register to vote, if you haven't already done so you can register here.