Catholic Propaganda... - The Last Witch Hunter (2015) Discussion

Whens Paedophile Hunter coming out? Tarantino should direct it.

reply

@ Jasonm-green - You do know that most, as in almost all, pedophiles are not Catholic Priests right? In fact, more are teachers, crossing guards, life guards, etc than Priests.

reply

[–] eddiewinehosen 9 years ago

True, but not many if any but the priests in the Catholic church had a filthy rich organisation backing them. Not only did the church cover it up, kept them from prosecution but it also moved them around in the world so they could continue raping children!

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

eddiewinehosen-

This is an unfair, but common, assertion.

True, but not many if any but the priests in the Catholic church had a filthy rich organisation backing them. Not only did the church cover it up, kept them from prosecution but it also moved them around in the world so they could continue raping children!

Actually, many political Orginisations, and veen Govenrment Officials, had this, as id dany institution really. The Paedophile Priets SCandal may seem recent, but the cases were reported from decades ago. Not only were the actual incidents scattered over several Years and places, and only seem liek a big scandal because its all brouht up at once, but the simple Reality is that int he past sexual abuse wasnt well understood, and the culture of the period had palced emphasis on a good Public Face. Schools, Businesses, and everythign else woudl also hide any action oen of its members was invovled in do that the Institution tiself woudlnt look bad.

It was't just the Catholic CHurhc, it was everyone. The idea of Transparency, as well as the udnerstandign that Orignisatiosn can't be balmed for the actiosn of peopel in them, is a mroe recent development in our Culture.

The Catholic CHurch also didn't actually just send preist off to rape more CHildren. Usually the Preits had internal counseling (WHich again was well before this sort of thing was understood) bu was oftne palced in a location or in a position where access to CHildren was limited. The CHurhc was, in fact, tryign to mitigate any damage done.

SO the judgemenal atitude is relaly innaproriate here. In he end the Paedophile Prits claim is more abotu using somehtign as a club to bash the Catholic CHurhc with, and when its poitnedout that few Piets are Paedophiles, the "THey moved them aroubd" rubbish is brought up just to grant some legitimacy for what i in the end just an excuse.

And no I am not Catholic.

reply

[–] tiligo-mes92 9 years ago

So, was the roller coaster fun?

reply

[–] addiejd-61897 8 years ago

Please learn to use your spell-checker. It is painful to read your comments.

reply

[–] LalocheziaAddict 8 years ago

When dictating these posts to your cocker spaniel you should speak slower and more clearly.

"In my defense the hotel room made the first move." - Johnny Depp

reply

[–] fillshertease 8 years ago

Complete and utter BU11$H1T with not ONE SINGLE OUNCE of evidence to support your ludicrous claims. And let's not forget that the whole paedophile thing is one of MANY, MANY disgusting things the Catholic Church has done over the course of the last two thousdand years. The only thing that's inappropriate here - OR ANYWHERE - is you or anyone supporting a truly evil organisation which should be eradicated to make the world a MUCH BETTER place...

We're from the planet Duplon. We are here to destroy you.

reply

[–] novimovieman 8 years ago

The Catholic Church has paid out to victims to date $1.2 Billion dollars without dragging a single victim through a trial.

The odds of someone being affected by a pedophile priest are significantly lower than with the general population.

If you are an atheist the odds of being a victim are virtually zero.
If you are a non Catholic who does not have children in Catholic Grammar school the odds are practically zero.
If you are a Catholic but do not attend mass and does not have children in Catholic Grammar school the odds are practically zero.
If you are a Catholic who attends mass but have no children who attend Mass or attend Catholic Grammar school the odds are practically zero.
If you are a Catholic who attends mass and has children who are alter servers or attend Catholic Grammar school the odds are still lower that your child will be a victim of pedophile priest than in the general population.

By police statistics in 2013 there were 35 cases of abuse by supposed pedophile priests in the US out of 43,000 priests. Of these twelve were dismissed quickly as bogus. Of the remaining 23 only 14 are being actively investigated since those complaining have either dismissed their complaints or are no longer providing adequate testimony. So that leaves 14 out of 43,000 some of which may be dismissed or found not guilty. All of the 14 have been suspended following internal investigations.

You don't have to know someone to know someone.

reply

[–] novimovieman 8 years ago

There is also a double standard that needs to be addressed. Let's assume that a Catholic priest sexually abuses a child. The church assumes responsibility and pays the victim. Many Catholic Priests have been convicted and set to jail.Even some administrators have been tried with two serving jail time.

Now let's assume that a psychiatrist who works inside a hospital setting is treating a pedophile who admits to tendencies but has not acted on them. The pedophile is on drug therapy as well as behavioral modification therapy and psychoanalysis. The patient then goes out and sexually abuses a child. Does either the hospital or psychiatrist pay for the abuse like the Catholic Church did? The church abused no one. The hospital and the psychiatrist abused no one. The Priest is not an employee of the Catholic Church but rather the local parish. The pedophile is not an employee of the hospital but is under their supervision. The church pays, the hospital does not. The hospital s partly protected by laws involving privacy and disassociation. Both the church and the hospital (and the psychiatrist) were in supervisory roles. The church was unaware initially of the pedophile nature of the priest. The hospital and the psychiatrist WERE aware of the pedophile nature of the patient. Who is more to blame. Obviously the hospital and the psychiatrist are since they allowed a dangerous person to walk in general public. The church used whatever it could to alleviate and mitigate the problem once known, prayer, professional counseling and reassignment. In this scenario both the hospital and the church failed but only one is held responsible. Surely anyone can see this as favoring a secular institution over a religious institution. This is a double standard and must end.

You don't have to know someone to know someone.

reply

[–] eddiewinehosen 8 years ago

"The Catholic Church has paid out to victims to date $1.2 Billion dollars without dragging a single victim through a trial."
Says who? The Catholic Church? And dragging a single victim through trial, I'm sure those victims feel just splendid knowing that their abusers didn't have to go to trial either hence being free and able to subject more innocent children around the world to sexual abuse.
You also bring up statistics about US. How many thousands upon thousands of children in poor countries in Africa, Asia and South America don't you think have been subjected to these atrocities without it even reaching the news! Many priests were relocated to exactly those countries to avoid being prosecuted btw and just kept on going.
Stop defending a perverted and sick organization founded on lies and superstition so men can dress like women and *beep* children!

reply

[–] wartengu 8 years ago

With Society promoting sex 24/7, you can't expect there not to be pedophiles and rapists. It's too late for hypocrisy, big money and greed is the driving force for humanity, deal with it. These dysfunctional broken human beings are nothing by a product of Society, built to last and made in America.

reply

[–] Let_it_Be-1 8 years ago

Unfortunately, true!

"That Barney Rubble, what an actor!!" -Night Shift

reply

[–] rencikraljica 7 years ago

So,lets all look at those professions like they all are guilty,and hate them for no reasons.Someone has to do that job,imagine if everyone stayed out of it,just because people think they are pedos...

reply

[–] qwertyKeys 9 years ago

Chris Hansen is staring in that movie.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dragon_x 9 years ago

by Jasonm-green » Thu Aug 6 2015 16:57:03
Whens Paedophile Hunter coming out? Tarantino should direct it.

I though Bryan Singer was on that.

reply

[–] dickmarvel 8 years ago

Tarantino would be hunting himself. Worst kept secret in Hollywood. Total creep.

reply

[–] Ghost_Of_Me 9 years ago

Im pretty sure the church dosent want to remind people about all the innocent people they tortured and murdered in the name of with hunting. The def have alot bigger PR issues thats for sure.

reply

[–] timax_911 9 years ago

I'm pretty sure that your ancestors have participed at this witches hunt. Today we call these peoples "sheep". Don't blame the church blame yourself. Christianity has evolved like all ideology these days. This was dark time for everybody. Today you eat your food on a plate at your desk while watching your tv and wondering if you can take off tomorow work. Guns dont kill people, you kill people.

reply

[–] lorelaileelong 9 years ago

Yes, exactly

Very nice, how much?

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 8 years ago

Those were dark times for everybody, for sure.

But while bishops and priests were "having fun" and earning bilions from money paid by dumb people, the other side was being tortured and burned alive... because they wanted to free those dumb people.

Got now the difference?

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

Ghost_Of_Me »-

Im pretty sure the church dosent want to remind people about all the innocent people they tortured and murdered in the name of with hunting. The def have alot bigger PR issues thats for sure.

Actually a lot of the modern understandign of the withc Hunts is itself more Historical Myth than reality. The Truth is, few peoel were actually sntneced ot death for beign Witches, and the withc trials were themselves usually carrie dout by CIvil Cuets, not by the Church. In many instaces, the Churhc opposed WItch trials.

The diea that with Hunts were rampent and were done mainly or exclusivley by the CHurhc is just nonsense.

reply

[–] Sparrowhawk 9 years ago

If you call 100,000 few, then I'd like to know what world you live in. Either that, or you're incredibly cold-blooded.

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

The problem is, there is no evidence that 100'000 people were sentenced to death for Withccraft. In fact, modern Historians see it as a mich lower figure, mor eliek 20-30'000 over a 500 year period. This is more like 20-60 peopel per yer on average, with the uderstandign that most Years didn't see anyoen executed for Withccraft.

The staggerignly high number is a modern Myth, an Urban Legend that soehow got engraine din our cultural Imaginations and linger son to justify an idrrational fear of Withchunts, wich are ironiclaly themselves the productof Irrational Fear.

STill, more peoepl were executed for Theivery than Withccraft i the same Time Period, or Murer, so the whole Wihc Trials lead ot mass deaths htign is absurd.

reply

[–] Iberian_Wolf 9 years ago

You are correct.

there are numbers around 50k that go until the 18th century, and today in some countries there are still witch trials.
In the dark ages, if the Catholic Church was as bad as some depict it regarding witches, the numbers would have been a lot higher. But instead the majority of the condemns during the Inquisition were Jews.

Even with the Malleus Magnificarum as a guide (which was a death trap in itself) the witch hunt was not a common event in Europe or in America.

on a side note, Muslim Terrorists have killed more in the 21st century than the Inquisition during all its existence. They had 150k people judged and 3k killed (that's around 2% death toll)

Sean Bean has not died from Lightsaber related issues yet...just saying

reply

[–] Blue_Banshee 9 years ago

Do you really think it’s fair to compare the actions of a single religious organization, like the Catholic Church, to the actions of “Muslim Terrorists” (however you want to define them!)? If you want to be fair, then you should compare terrorist acts by Muslims to those of Christians and not just to those of the Catholic Church during the witch trials.

You’d have include things like the crusades (and please don’t give me that white wash about them being “defensive wars”), the colonization of the new world in the name of Christianity (many natives being forced to either convert or die), etc. By the way, the inquisition targeted Muslims also, not just Jews. From the modern era, well, the Holocaust was done by Christians (and if you say they were not real Christians then the same could be said about many groups like ISIS and Al Qeada who have killed more Muslims than non-Muslims), the Lord Resistance Army in Africa, etc.

One last note, if you’re going to state something like, “Muslim Terrorists have killed more in the 21st century than the Inquisition during all its existence. They had 150k people judged and 3k killed” then you really ought to provide the source of your information. I must say that this is the first I’ve heard of such numbers.

reply

[–] Iberian_Wolf 9 years ago

So You think it's fair to compare an act of christian fanatics to the muslim fanatics, other than the Inquisition? are you sure?
ok, let's compare the acts of the k k k with the acts of Al Queda? muslims fanatics will still get higher (or even higher) numbers.
The inquisition by percentage, hardly killed "witches".

So I have to include the Crusades and Exclude the arab occupation of Iberia and southern Europe? really? how come? no, it wasn't a defensive war, that was held by what is now Spain and Portugal (well the north of these countries). and that was about endurance in the mountains. the actual crusades helped kicking the moors out of europe during what was called "Reconquista", as in "reconquering". Important Crusaders during this actually got to marry princesses (daughters of King Alfonso VI).

So you think during this occupation, the cities and villages who didn't provide profit to the muslims weren't forced to convert? oh wait, before converting they payed taxes and had less rights than muslims...then they were forced to convert. Forced conversion was not a christian invention.

Cool of you to speak about the holocaust, you realize Hitler was backed up all the way by Muslims don't you? You also realize Hitler didn't kill jews because he was a Christian... he killed them because he blamed them for all the troubles in German society, cultural and financial, and of course he could use their money to conquer Europe. It had hardly anything to do with religion.
There is a line between a person who kills because whatever reason despite being from religion XPTO and someone who kills because he thinks all who are not religious XPTO deserve to die, or someone who thinks one religion is to blame for something and targets only them.

One last note, if you’re going to state something like, “Muslim Terrorists have killed more in the 21st century than the Inquisition during all its existence. They had 150k people judged and 3k killed” then you really ought to provide the source of your information. I must say that this is the first I’ve heard of such numbers.

some confusion, maybe I wasn't explicit:

They had 150k people judged and 3k killed”

That is the Inquisition, not the muslims. numbers - http://livrosantigos.lojasonline.net/sn/store/default.cfm?go=show&cat=545&id=204544
if I recall correctly this book has them. it's written in portuguese and spanish, depending on which author wrote the chapter.

numbers regarding muslim terrorist attacks: well, remember my 3k people tried and killed by the inquisition during a large time span? good! 9/11, one day 2996 deaths by a muslim terrorist attack. (picked this one because I'm sure everyone knows it and doesn't have to google it)

anyway we are getting way OT, the isssue was if this was catholic propaganda, and my point is the Catholic church didn't kill as many people for witchcraft as we are led to believe.

<pre>Sean Bean has not died from Lightsaber related issues yet...just saying</Pre>

reply

[–] ibringrain 9 years ago

So You think it's fair to compare an act of christian fanatics to the muslim fanatics, other than the Inquisition? are you sure?

You're making several serious mistakes. Muslim's also have more than one denomination, just like Christians do, and they murder each other just like Christians in non-secular countries tend to over differing interpretations, but you want to lump all Muslims together and keep Catholics separate from other Christian denominations to paint Muslims as worse than Christians. He also didn't limit this to "an" act, and he didn't exclude the Inquisition. So that would be on you, not on him.

You also realize Hitler didn't kill jews because he was a Christian... he killed them because he blamed them for all the troubles in German society, cultural and financial, and of course he could use their money to conquer Europe. It had hardly anything to do with religion.

I don't realize that at all. It's historical fact that Jews were reviled throughout Europe for rejecting Christ and blamed for his death, on top of their cultural and financial practices. It's historic fact that the Church endorsed and condoned atrocious acts against Jews, until the horrors were exposed and social pressure forced them to change. And it was thanks in large part to scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 that the church justified such atrocities, so it had quite a lot to do with religion, actually.

and my point is the Catholic church didn't kill as many people for witchcraft as we are led to believe.

The Catholics and other Christian groups brought their cursed book to Africa, you can watch YouTube videos of Africans maiming and killing "witches" to this day. It isn't over, and the blood is on the hands of the Church, which doesn't exist without it's practitioners.

reply

[–] Iberian_Wolf 8 years ago

Muslim's also have more than one denomination, just like Christians do

whitewashing! a christian is a christian a muslim is a muslim, take the bad with the even worse.
k k k members are christians and daesh is muslim. live with it. both of them are a waste of oxygen in this planet. both are the responsibility of their respective core religions.

and they murder each other just like Christians in non-secular countries t

seriously? let's put it like this, when was the last time a foreign Christian fanatic assassinated (at least) dozens of other people with a different religion only because theirs wasn't the same, while also killing Christians in the process?

and keep Catholics separate from other Christian denominations to paint Muslims as worse than Christians.

nop, sorry, all Christians are accounted for each of their groups' actions.
seriously? I have no religion. If I were to chose one for the heck of it, I'd probably chose the Bahai Faith as they seem the most peaceful... having said that, the last religion I would pick would be islam. it's probably the worst religion to follow in the 21st century. No matter how you try to paint it, any religion who kills someone for a drawing is an evil religion. it's the only religion oficially inciting hate and murder on industrialized countries. And they DO NOT integrate any society.
sure many passages for most religious books have atrocious commands, back up slavery and all kinds of Human Rights abuse, etc etc, BUT from the bunch islam is the only taking such passages literally in civilized countries. It's a religion of hate, pure and simple.

I don't realize that at all

read Mein kampft and listen to his speeches. christian and jewish religion had as much to do with it as the concept of Valhala (hitler's retoric question was "are there any jews in the halls of valhala?" or something similar)...surprisingly (NOT), the Muslim leader backed him up. He needed an escape goat for everything bad they came from WWI to the german people, plain and simple.

It's historical fact that Jews were reviled throughout Europe for rejecting Christ and blamed for his death, on top of their cultural and financial practices.

that doesn't mean it was the reason for Hitler to do what he did (you cant bet it wasn't) and their financial practices (the monopoly there is) were handed to them by the Chruch when it deemed the loaning practice a low level activity and when it started to impose limits to what the jews could own.

it was thanks in large part to scriptures like 1 Thessalonians 2:13-16 that the church justified such atrocities, so it had quite a lot to do with religion, actually.

again, someone backing another for religious reasons doesn't make the first person's acts religious as well... Example, if I were Neopagan/Helenic I'd back up Olympic athletes for religious reasons but they don't compete because of religion views. they have a personal goal - to be top dog.

he Catholics and other Christian groups brought their cursed book to Africa, you can watch YouTube videos of Africans maiming and killing "witches" to this day. It isn't over, and the blood is on the hands of the Church, which doesn't exist without it's practitioners.

I think I was clear when I said "The Catholic Church didn't kill as many people for witchcraft as we are led to believe" as in trials officially held by or with the participation of the Church - the Inquisition.

what happens in Africa are christian *beep* up people who should be put in prison in order to make the World a better place, not "official" trials. but yes, they are christian and all Christianity should, and actually do, condone their actions and take their share of the blame.... something most Muslim factions don't do when it's they who messed up.

Sean Bean has not died from Lightsaber related issues yet...just saying

reply

[–] Nethlem 8 years ago

whitewashing! a christian is a christian a muslim is a muslim, take the bad with the even worse.
k k k members are christians and daesh is muslim. live with it. both of them are a waste of oxygen in this planet. both are the responsibility of their respective core religions.

How is he whitewashing anything? When it has been you who tried to compare the Catholic Church to "Islamic Terrorism". The comparison you tried to make was build to make one side look worse from the very beginning. "Here look at what little bad the Catholic church did in all of history, it's the only bad Christianity did, now compare it to what Muslims did just in the 21th century!".

If any comparison like that could be made, then the bare minimum would be to compare "All Christian denominations" vs "All Muslim denominations", over all of known human history, no picking and choosing.

But the picking and choosing will still be an issue, because next comes defining as to what should be considered "Christian atrocities" and what "Muslim atrocities", and then trying the impossible task of "balancing them against" each other. It's an fools errand from the very beginning.

seriously? let's put it like this, when was the last time a foreign Christian fanatic assassinated (at least) dozens of other people with a different religion only because theirs wasn't the same, while also killing Christians in the process?

Look at you doing more "picking and choosing" by defining more arbitrary things.
How many Muslims got killed in Paris? And why should that actually matter?
But just to entertain you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-centralafrica-violence-idUKKCN0QQ2C820150821

Things like that happen all the time, but there is always a certain perception bias with how "well known" they actually are, thanks to media direction the majority of the public attention.

nop, sorry, all Christians are accounted for each of their groups' actions.

No, not really, especially not when you are in the habit of "not accounting" by applying lax standards of definition.

seriously? I have no religion. If I were to chose one for the heck of it, I'd probably chose the Bahai Faith as they seem the most peaceful... having said that, the last religion I would pick would be islam.

Nobody asked you to "pick a religion", because that's like asking the question of "rate religion on a scale", which is an impossible and idiotic task, at best. Because there can't be an objective answer to such an task.

Just because your Bahai Faith hasn't killed anyone yet, doesn't mean that it can't be perverted, misinterpreted or simply evolve to something very atrocious. Buddhists have killed people over *beep* that's why imho (as an agnostic atheist) i wouldn't trust any religious institution or dogma in that regard.

it's probably the worst religion to follow in the 21st century. No matter how you try to paint it, any religion who kills someone for a drawing is an evil religion. it's the only religion oficially inciting hate and murder on industrialized countries. And they DO NOT integrate any society.

Crap, now you are actually trying the impossible and idiotic task, with the expected outcome. Your "opinion", which you are somehow trying to sell as "objective fact" (hence the need to state your non-religiousness earlier) is just that, an opinion.

There are at least 1,6 billion people who'd probably disagree with you, but screw them, right?

sure many passages for most religious books have atrocious commands, back up slavery and all kinds of Human Rights abuse, etc etc, BUT from the bunch islam is the only taking such passages literally in civilized countries. It's a religion of hate, pure and simple.

"Nobody ever took that stuff in the Bible literally", "Every Muslim takes everything in the Quran literally, all the time!".

read Mein kampft and listen to his speeches. christian and jewish religion had as much to do with it as the concept of Valhala (hitler's retoric question was "are there any jews in the halls of valhala?" or something similar)...surprisingly (NOT), the Muslim leader backed him up. He needed an escape goat for everything bad they came from WWI to the german people, plain and simple.

His speeches and Mein Kampf where written and designed to appeal to the German proletariat of that time, they are propaganda. They say very little to nothing about his actual motivations. It's like trying to find out the ingredients of Cheetos by watching an Cheetos ad.

If you actually want to get a feel about the relation between him and, especially, the Catholic Church, there is a lot of more reading you need to do. And you really should brush up on your European history, you can do all of that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism

Here's a nice little tidbit:

On April 26, 1933 Hitler declared during a meeting with Roman Catholic Bishop Wilhelm Berning (de) of Osnabrück:

“I have been attacked because of my handling of the Jewish question. The Catholic Church considered the Jews pestilent for fifteen hundred years, put them in ghettos, etc., because it recognized the Jews for what they were. In the epoch of liberalism the danger was no longer recognized. I am moving back toward the time in which a fifteen-hundred-year-long tradition was implemented. I do not set race over religion, but I recognize the representatives of this race as pestilent for the state and for the Church, and perhaps I am thereby doing Christianity a great service by pushing them out of schools and public functions.”

Did you know that Hitler introduced a compulsory church tax for Catholics in Austria, after its Anschluss? That money goes straight to the Vatican, to this day.

that doesn't mean it was the reason for Hitler to do what he did (you cant bet it wasn't) and their financial practices (the monopoly there is) were handed to them by the Chruch when it deemed the loaning practice a low level activity and when it started to impose limits to what the jews could own.

Only Hitler knows the reasons for doing what he did, that whole question is moot. But denying Christianities responsibility, in how he had been able to do it, that's a pretty useless thing to do:

The document Dabru Emet was issued by over 220 rabbis and intellectuals from all branches of Judaism in 2000 as a statement about Jewish-Christian relations. This document states,

"Nazism was not a Christian phenomenon. Without the long history of Christian anti-Judaism and Christian violence against Jews, Nazi ideology could not have taken hold nor could it have been carried out. Too many Christians participated in, or were sympathetic to, Nazi atrocities against Jews. Other Christians did not protest sufficiently against these atrocities. But Nazism itself was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity."

Once again from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_antisemitism#Nazi_antisemitism

again, someone backing another for religious reasons doesn't make the first person's acts religious as well... Example, if I were Neopagan/Helenic I'd back up Olympic athletes for religious reasons but they don't compete because of religion views. they have a personal goal - to be top dog.

Funny how that works for Christianity and the Holocaust, but doesn't for Islam and Islamic Terrorism, huh?

I think I was clear when I said "The Catholic Church didn't kill as many people for witchcraft as we are led to believe" as in trials officially held by or with the participation of the Church - the Inquisition.

what happens in Africa are christian *beep* up people who should be put in prison in order to make the World a better place, not "official" trials. but yes, they are christian and all Christianity should, and actually do, condone their actions and take their share of the blame.... something most Muslim factions don't do when it's they who messed up.

All of Christianity condones what happens in Africa, except for the Christians who are actually committing these acts in Africa 😫

Oh let me guess, those are not "real Christians", right?
Don't you think the majority of Muslims don't condone what ISIS is doing?
It's funny, every time something *beep* up some Muslim did makes headlines, people in the comments always go "Herpa derp, why don't Muslims condone these kinds of actions?!".

When all the major Muslim organizations condone that crap every single time.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/muslims-respond-charlie-hebdo_n_6429710.html
There's more than what's listed in that huffingtonpost article, and the same happened after the Paris attacks.

How many Christians saw themselves forced to openly condone the actions of an Anders Behring Breivik? Distance themselves, and their beliefs, from him and his acts? Did the Vatican ever react to what happened back then? Not to my knowledge.

Other interesting tidbit: Adolf Hitler died as a Catholic, the Catholic church never bothered to excommunicate him. Does that mean the Catholic Church endorsed Adolf Hitlers actions? That's the impression a lot of Germans had back then.

reply

[–] FryHigh 8 years ago

you realize Hitler was backed up all the way by Muslims don't you?

A single Muslim, doesn't make for Muslims.

When you're pulling *beep* out of your ass, give a good long whiff to make sure it doesn't stink too badly....

or provide links.

like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

Gilbert Achcar, a professor of Development Studies at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, argues that historical narratives often over-emphasize collaboration and under-appreciate progressive Arab political history, overshadowing the many dimensions of conflict between Nazism and the Arab World. He accuses Zionists of promulgating a 'collaborationist' narrative for partisan purposes. He proposes that the dominant Arab political attitudes were 'anti-colonialism' and 'anti-Zionism,' though only a comparatively small faction adopted anti-Semitism, and most Arabs were actually pro-Ally and anti-Axis (as evidenced by the high number of Arabs who fought for Allied forces).

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 8 years ago

Yes. Inquisition was handled by bishops and priests, legal representatives of ICAR. Islam terrorists don't represent the religion.

And a whole continent's population was wiped by ICAR. Many milenar culture artfacts were destroyed. ICAR basicly came to America and did whatever they wanted to.

reply

[–] registers-944-48791 8 years ago

ohhhh so the majority were jews! Great, now I'm relief!

reply

[–] gpnelson-90449 7 years ago

I remember when they taught us how to identify and destroy witches back in Sunday school, and then we went on mock hunts in Bible camp and tortured the girl when we caught her.
Ahhh....good times!

reply

[–] FryHigh 8 years ago

What's a "CIvil Cuets"? Are those Civets? Cuz, Civets aren't that civil.

reply

[–] timax_911 9 years ago

People these days see propaganda everywhere. You clearly see that the viliains (witches) uses magics or whatever you want call that against the will of others. So this is basically good vs bad. The routine of holywood.

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

Let us see:

The Reality: The church hunts and kills hundreds of innocent people because they believed, they practiced "witchcraft".

The Movie: The "witches are real and evil. The catholic church and it's witchhunters are saving mankind.

... No, no Propaganda there.

reply

[–] z74neo 9 years ago

Really? You can only call it propaganda if the movie purports itself to be true.

And if anyone views this Vin Diesel movie as reality then they deserve to be brainwashed.

reply

[–] eyeball2055-250-531978 8 years ago

z74neo said "Really? You can only call it propaganda if the movie purports itself to be true."

According to it's definition... Propaganda means: "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, movement, institution, nation, etc."

Given this definition, any religious or non religious text every Faith-based sect in the world could be properly labeled as 'propaganda'... so might any and all advertisements, political ads, anti-religion doctrine... etc...etc. Whether truth/lies really doesn't enter into the matter... It is ALL propaganda... for good intent or ill.

You cannot say that I cant say what I said...because I just said it. So There!

reply

[–] moviewarriorpex 9 years ago

Inquisition was more about people reading the bible and having their own view of it, hence outside the Church's Dogma; than it EVER was about people with witchcraft. The witch hunts in America were more about that, but even it was localized and has been WAY over romanticized in modern times.

reply

[–] Adriamonica 9 years ago

And that second wave had nothing to do with Catholicism, as the people were of mostly protestant denominations. The "what if the witches were actually really evil" trope is something that I've seen explored in fantasy literature and it's hardly a new idea and usually has nothing to do with Catholicism (though I've seen it used in a way the OP suggested, but by people who had nothing to do with institutional church).

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

schauol1 »-

Let us see:

The Reality: The church hunts and kills hundreds of innocent people because they believed, they practiced "witchcraft".

The Movie: The "witches are real and evil. The catholic church and it's witchhunters are saving mankind.

... No, no Propaganda there.

Ironiclaly this post is propaganda.

Most witch trials were actually conducte by the State, not he CHurch,and the CHurhc actulaly opposed most of the Trials.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

In fact, in the Middle Ages the Chruhc denied witches even exxisted.

So, lets not go down the route of bashign Catholcis, or Christaisn in genral, for a made up History shall we?

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

Most witch trials were actually conducte by the State, not he CHurch

You do know, that in those times, this was pretty much the same, do you?

BTW: Your spelling looks like you've been cursed by a witch. BUUUUURN!!!

-- Reason feels reasonable

reply

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

The reality is that the Catholic Church didn't do much "witch hunting". In fact, for a long time the official stance of the Church was that witches was just a silly superstition. The Inquisition was created to hunt apostates and heretics, not witches. In Spain it had the additional job of ferreting out moriscos and conversos who were still practicing their old faith in hiding. Spain and Italy, where the Inquisition was most active, had very few witch trials. Those that occurred the charge was usually one of heresy. France is the one Catholic country that did have a relatively large number of witch trials compared to other Catholic countries.

Generally, it was Protestants who were obsessed with witches. They're the ones who perpetrated the large majority of witch killings, both in Europe and North America. The Salem Witch killings were done by Protestants, not Catholics.

Germany and Switzerland was a bit more complicated do to their religious demographics, with Catholics and Protestants living in close proximity to each other, sometimes in the same communities. So it doesn't come as a surprise that in protestant dominated areas the majority of witches were coincidentally Catholic, while in Catholic dominated areas, the witches were Protestant.

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

The reality is that the Catholic Church didn't do much "witch hunting". In fact, for a long time the official stance of the Church was that witches was just a silly superstition.

True... up to about the mid 1400s where Witchcraft was "proven" a fact by theologist of that area. From this point on, up until the early 1800s, "witches" where burned on behalf of the church. That's still a looong time of witchhunting by the Catholic Church if you ask me.

-- Reason feels reasonable

reply

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

Of which area? And there were no witches "burned on behalf of the church" in the 1800's.

It just seems that you have a chip on your shoulder where it comes to the the Catholic Church. You're going after them and ignoring the Protestants who were the worst offenders. Look at the British Isles, for example. Protestant England had quite a few witch trials. Protestant Scotland was the worst offender, one of the worst overall. While Catholic Ireland hardly had any.

BTW, I'm not trying to defend the RCC, their hands are pretty filthy. I just believe that the condemnation should be spread fairly to all and where it belongs.

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

I took this from memory... You are right, I should have checked the facts first. This Page says, the last "known" event was at 1811:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_for_witchcraft

-- Reason feels reasonable

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

That oerson killed in 1811 was an Arsonist.

Read Wikipedias page on her.

Barbara Zdunk, (1769 – August 21, 1811), was an ethnically Polish alleged arsonist and witch who lived in the city of Rößel, now Reszel in Poland but between 1772 and 1945 part of Prussia. She is considered by many to have been the last woman executed for witchcraft in Europe. This is doubtful because witchcraft was not a criminal offense in Prussia at the time.[1] It is thus likely that she was convicted, formally at least and most probably wrongly, of arson.

She liekly was not burend as a Witch, but as an Arsonist.

reply

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

Yeah, she wasn't executed as a witch, it was for arson. Though she was thought to have practice witchcraft. But even though witchcraft was no longer a crime at this time, I'm sure that this sentiment played a part in her getting a death sentence. In any case, this happened in Prussia, a Protestant stronghold, so The Church wasn't involved.

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

schauol1 »-

Most witch trials were actually conducte by the State, not he CHurch

You do know, that in those times, this was pretty much the same, do you?

IT'S don't you, not do you.

Also, the idea that the Church and the Government were pretty much the same is bunk. The Avignon Papacy, the Kings constantly stacking their powers agaisnt hte Pope, the Churhc constantly in its own Political Intrigues, all undermine that claim.

And sicne Withc Hunts ee carrie dout post Protestant Reformaion, it mkes even less sense.

BTW: Your spelling looks like you've been cursed by a witch. BUUUUURN!!!

I am dyslexic.

reply

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

Also, the idea that the Church and the Government were pretty much the same is bunk

Except that it isn't. Not in some principalities of the Holy Roman Empire. Places like Cologne, Mainz, Würzburg etc. where some of the most notorious witch hunts and executions happened were ruled by prince-bishops. IOW, the religious and civil authorities were the same.

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

THE Prince Bishops were not only Protestant as younoted, but were also rare. Most of the Time, the Church wa snot oen withthe State in Europe.

reply

[–] archer1812 9 years ago

I never 'noted' that they were or were not Protestant. In fact, all the ones that I mentioned were Catholic. And yes, the Religious and Civil authority is one in the same.

Anyhow, it's naive to say that the Church (Protestant or Catholic) had no influence whatsoever on the Government or vice-versa. Another example: The Church of England where the head is the ruling monarch. The fact is that these witch hunts were carried out in tandem by both authorities.

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

MY POINT i that the idea that thr wa no Governemnt but the Churhc is not Tue, and often the infleunce ws the other way around, with the Church dictated to by the State. At leats post Reformation. The CofE, the exampel you lsited, for example, was clearly subordinate to the King and Parlaiment, nto Vice Versa.

The poster is tyrign to say the Govenment only persecuted Witchs because the Church said so, and thats not just simplistic, but wrong.

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

I am dyslexic.

I appologize...

IT'S don't you, not do you

I'm swiss... :)

-- Reason feels reasonable

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] incognito-01194 9 years ago

Not all bad the church is. School girl outfits they make. Without these no career britney spears would have.

reply

[–] dragon_x 9 years ago

by timax_911 » Fri Aug 7 2015 01:32:48
I'm pretty sure that your ancestors have participed at this witches hunt.

Sure, that would be sins of the "father" - or in this case, the great, great, great, great ... great grand father.

Today we call these peoples "sheep".

Ummm, no you have that backwards. The sheep were led to the slaughter by the Church. The wolves in sheep's clothing - may have done this, but that does not make them sheep.

Don't blame the church blame yourself.

So it is OK to blame an old ancestor, yet not blame the old church (or even the new one)? How much iron have you had today, since that seems ironic at best.

Christianity has evolved like all ideology these days.

Yes, Christianity or "Judaism 2.0" did evolve, yet the perfect religion never evolved in 1400 years. Strange, that.

This was dark time for everybody.

Yes the 1400s and middle ages (after the fall of Rome) were a dark time for just about everyone.

Today you eat your food on a plate at your desk while watching your tv and wondering if you can take off tomorow work.

Yes - so you say thinks like its not OK to think these things ... maybe you long for the middle ages?

Guns dont kill people, you kill people.

I think you should only speak for you self, buddy. Yes, gun control is hitting YOUR target, not mine.

reply

[–] dragon_x 9 years ago

Also, QFT

by incognito-01194 » Fri Aug 7 2015 11:04:27
IMDb member since May 2015
Not all bad the church is. School girl outfits they make. Without these no career britney spears would have.

This! Funny, that Yoda has an IMDB account.

reply

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

dragon_x » -

There ae many prolems with your post.

Don't blame the church blame yourself.

So it is OK to blame an old ancestor, yet not blame the old church (or even the new one)? How much iron have you had today, since that seems ironic at best.

I'd say not to balme anoen toll you get the facts, and not to blame anyoen alive todya for the actiosn of the past, including modern CHurch clergy or the CHurhc itself.

Christianity has evolved like all ideology these days.

Yes, Christianity or "Judaism 2.0" did evolve, yet the perfect religion never evolved in 1400 years. Strange, that.

This is not really a very sensible thign to say. For one thing, the withc Hunts didnt begin until the late 1500's. The Irony of yoru claim is that you seem tothink that th Chruch conducted ithc Hunts throgout the entire Middle ges, which is hat you basiclaly say later in this post, when in Reality the withc Hunts were a Modern Era innovation.

In fact, the Churhc in The Middle ges actually denied witches existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period

And here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

The ida that CHristianity had withc Hunts for 1400 Years, that ended only int he renesauce Peruod is just Historiclaly wrong.

ALso, the bulk of the WIthc Huts were conducted by ecular Courts, not by the CHurch, which often opposed them, or else were protestant.

This was dark time for everybody.

Yes the 1400s and middle ages (after the fall of Rome) were a dark time for just about everyone.

No, they ween't. While he middle Ages may still oftne be called "THe Dark Ages" popualrly, with ideas of backwardness and oprpesion governign hwo they are seen, the Reality is that the Middle Ages saw both CUltural and Technological Advancement. The Invention and development of the University, Hospital, and modern Justice SYstem came formt he Middle Ages, as did Technological advancements liek the Heavy Plough, the Stirrup, and Carbon Steel.

These "Dark Times" were, in reality, not very Dark at all.

And im not sure what Dark Times were presen tin the 1400's either.

Today you eat your food on a plate at your desk while watching your tv and wondering if you can take off tomorow work.

Yes - so you say thinks like its not OK to think these things ... maybe you long for the middle ages?

what was so wrong with the Middle Ages, exactly?

Have you bothered to read about them?

reply

[–] metallicdragon 9 years ago

Even if it is. EVEN IF IT IS (which I don't think it is), this where this shït belongs. Their mythology, and let's be clear, all of it, from Longinus to the Resurrection, from St. George and the Dragon, to the charge of the saints at the Siege of Antioch, ALL OF IT is simply mythology, belongs in television and movies and death metal songs. Not parading around, shaming women from abortions, and hindering the efforts of climate scientists and evolutionary biologists everywhere.

All of this nonsense has a place. It's just not in the real world. Their mythology, their fiction, is to be enjoyed the same way we enjoy the Iliad, and Beowulf and Grendel, and the Norse Sagas.

I think I would be totally into this film if it weren't for Vin Diesel. As an atheist, I absolutely LOVE Catholic mythology and lore. And it is so underutilized (which I suspect will prove to be the case with this movie as well) in modern fiction. I think that's why I enjoyed that Constantine movie from 2005 more than most.

reply

[–] tigheman 9 years ago

Agree.

With a slight nick pick. My Catholic high school taught evolution and Pope Francis has recently warned about climate change. And, yes, the Church still has a long way to go with women, birth control, gay rights and celibate priests among other issues.

. . . The Bones tell me nothing.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ZAROVE 9 years ago

metallicdragon -

I rrally have to wonder if yu see the logical flaws and Hypocricy of your posts.

Even if it is. EVEN IF IT IS (which I don't think it is), this where this shït belongs. Their mythology, and let's be clear, all of it, from Longinus to the Resurrection, from St. George and the Dragon, to the charge of the saints at the Siege of Antioch, ALL OF IT is simply mythology,

We know becaus eyou said so. That oprives its not True and just Myth.

Because you said so, and you have the Right to make demands that we all agree with you.

belongs in television and movies and death metal songs. Not parading around, shaming women from abortions, and hindering the efforts of climate scientists and evolutionary biologists everywhere.

There are three proems with this. One of which has already been mentioned. Yiu seem to think all CHristains beleive exactly the same thing. Well, they don't. You actually have Cristaisn who support ABprtion, for example, or that accept CLimate CHange and evolution.

With tat said, those who oppose ABoriton arent tyrgn to shame women from ABortions, they beleive Life begins at conception and wish the owman not to kill herunborn CHild. Misrepresentign what peopel beleiv ein isnt a very good arugment.

I also have t wonder why Creationism is bashed so often. It snot liek beign a Creationist is immoral.

And no, Im not a Creationist, I just don htink its a big deal if someone else is.

All of this nonsense has a place. It's just not in the real world. Their mythology, their fiction, is to be enjoyed the same way we enjoy the Iliad, and Beowulf and Grendel, and the Norse Sagas.

Calling Christian beeifs Mythology and sayign it doenst belong in the Real World is a gimick. Peopel can just as readily call what you belive in a Myhology that doesnt belogn in the Real World and declare it Fiction.

In the end, you sayign it sMythlogy thta doens't belogn int h Real World doenst prove its not Real Though, and it just coems off a syou bullyg others and ry9gn to shame them into acptign yoru own beeifs. Didnt you condemn Christasn for shamign women from Aboritons? Well, why ar eyou trygn to shame them from their own beleifs?

Why accept hwat your sayign as anywhere near True and not roote din Mythology an Fiction?

I think I would be totally into this film if it weren't for Vin Diesel. As an atheist, I absolutely LOVE Catholic mythology and lore. And it is so underutilized (which I suspect will prove to be the case with this movie as well) in modern fiction. I think that's why I enjoyed that Constantine movie from 2005 more than most.

Do you know what outs me off? When an Athuets has to rub in peopels faces that their beleifs are Mytholy and Ficiton just so they can feel superior.

Espeially sicne Atheists have their own Mythologies that don't align with Reality, like peopel who oppose Abortiosn just want to shame women, or that all Chritians are Creationists.

reply

[–] franco_0111 9 years ago

No.

reply

[–] Charlie76 9 years ago

Oh absolutely. This is 100% how they would go about it. Make people afraid of witches and stuff. Tell me, what is your phd in, advanced physics or molecular biology? Genius.

Wait.. why am I on an IMDB board?? Ignore what I said, I'm a loser. Sigh.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] crowhorse1 9 years ago

This is the kind of crap that hurts atheism. It is just a movie. Has similar plots to hundreds different movies before it. Why try to make some statement that clearly is not there. It seems you are the one with some agenda.

reply

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

So I mix-up a movie with Propaganda and you mix-up critisism of the catholic church with Atheism.

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] schauol1 9 years ago

Logic is not your strength, right?

-- Reason feels reasonable

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]