Reading the attempts by @Bjammin and @Fidelium to place a curse on THE Jews per se make it clear to me why so many Jews, including Rabbis, see in Christianity, specifically Catholicism, the PERSECUTOR of centuries. I encounterin the comment an anti-Jewism which formed the cultural background to countless progroms throughout Christendom for centuries creating a culturral ambient used by Nazi progaganda in order to have "the final solution" to the Jewish problem. I challenge anyone, including a Pope long dead, centuries dead (or living), to detail just who T-H-E Jews are. Can anyone writing below or reading by comment identify and just who these Jews are and just how many of them zhere are and, to be sure, in what century and in all centuries? I can find no evil in the fact that Jews, particularly in the 21st Century, find themselves not convinced by Christianity (and have the centuries' long memory of being persecuted unto untold death in the name of Jesus-- as the mideast expert Bernard lewis has shown, Jews had it better and safer under midieval Islam than in European Christendom). Why is Netanyahu, just one modern Jew in Israel or Goldman, just one modern Jew in the US, or the Rabbi friend (I forget his name) of the current Pope in Argentina open to the viity of the condemnation of THE Jews per se as quoted??? One quotes the Thalmud without probably knowing little about the origins of the Thalmud,i.e., that it is no collection of unchangeable dogmatic truths, rather an ongoing dialogue of Jews. Such attacks as given above found repentance in Pope JP II and certainly Pope Francis does not hold such a calumny of evil making as I have read below. I am frankly shocked--and I live in Germany where Jews were persecuted for centuries in the name of Jesus, only being partially integrated beginning in the late 18th Century into German culture if, and only if, they gave up being Jews, viz., believing in Judaism (that is Christian love, no?). The father of Karl Marx became a Protestant to flee persecution and Karl Marx himself, because of this, was never persecuted as a Jew (and he disliked Judaism). The fact that a religious Jew, in order to survive and prosper in a "so-called" Christian society, hat to surrender his religious and ethnic self-identity does not speak well of such a Christian (sic) society.

I am shocked! The more I read, the more I understand why Jews need a country for themsleves, nowadays Israel, in order to be able to protect themselves militarily from the lethal consequences of hateful condemnations that have led and, alas, could lead again to their persecution unto a new Holocaust (and the German Church of the 1930s, while protesting the kiling handicapped children, wwas all too silent about persecution of Jews --> so much for protection from those who love Jesus!!!!).

Fact on Margret Sanger for @RoccoAnthony, @Bjammin and anyone interested in "true" facts: Margret Sanger was born in 1879 to the practicing Roman CATHOLIC family of Michael Higgens and Anna Higgens, both Catholics of Irish origins, not of Jewish origins. In 1902 she married William Sanger, an emigrant from Germany, radical, socialist and atheist -- of secularized Jewish origins (that means Judaism had no meaning for him and played no role in his life as was typical of Germany at that time). Margret Sanger (Higgens) took over her husbands radicality, socialism and atheism. She divorced her "Jewish" (sic!) husband in 1902 because he got in the way of her radicalism, particularly towards birth control. Sanger's life vocation had abolutely nothing to do with Judaism or with Jews qua being Jews!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, @RoccoAnthony: The logic of your proof of the nefariousness of Jews by means of the one example of the founder of Planned Paarenthood, namely "the Jewish Margret Sanger" (and I just quoted your written words), is a calumny and logically false because you proceed illigitimately from a single nefarious member of a class to the class itself and then use the falsified class to generalize about all individual members. This is logically wrong and in the case of attacking Jews per se it is morally wrong. But that is not all!

It turns out factually that the "Jewish Margret Sanger" is, ethnically speaking, an Irish Roman Catholic. So you stupidly did not even know your own supposed facts. I will grant you the benefit of doubt that you are ignorant in your prejudices. If you knew, you are a liar. But you should be consistent with your logic and conclude that Irish Roman Catholics as a the class RIC are pro-abortion (which factually, alas, is true, i.e. most probably are such in America or Germany).

@Gloria.tv, once again I suggest that you keep from your pages any type of anti-Semitism. But, when the condemnation of Jews rests upon factual error, that is all the more rediculous and opens Gloria.tv to serious and damaging criticism. Please make the effort to monitor contributions.

Mr. @RoccoAnthony: I would appreciate being addressed according to my professional professorial status. Your argument is of the following logical nature: You classify certain individual people as members of classs J, then you typify class J as possessing certain features (e.g., "vipers" drived from the specifics of the individuals mentioned) and finally, you reverse your tactic and ascribe the general features of J to each and every indiviudal member of the class, i.e., to all. You give Margret Sanger as an example of a murderess, viz., promoter of abortions. You assert that Sanger is a J (religious or not? and, if so, orthodox, conservative or reform?). Then you assert that she is for abortion. Because you have placed an obviously murderous Sanger into class J, identifying Sanger's fault with the class membership, you seem to believe that you proved her "viber"-status of J. I will create a parallel argument. Hitler and Himmler were baptised Catholic and, hence, belong to the class of C. Hitler and Himmler killed millions of Jews (and other innocents). Class of C is therefore a hoard of massive murderers. @RoccoAnthony is a Catholic, i.e., member of C. Therefore: Mr. @RoccoAnthony is, qua being a member of C, an exemplification of massive murderers. The logic is perfect, the conclusion is formally sound. Materially the conclusion is, however, false. Since this argumentation constitutes also calumny (I would venture to say a mortal sin). If the premise is correct, then the argumentation of @RoccoAnthony is calumny. I await your counter argument. Surely you have a syllogism up your sleeve. If not, I must conclude that you are, nolens/volens, a murderous C qua being a member of C(atholicism). Agreed? (I think not!)

You quote a Dr. Mitzner who evinces the same logical fallacy of misplaced concreteness. You and Dr. Mitnzer mention something about "some Jews" promoting abortion and yet calling out the "Holocaust" There is a difference. Even the worst abortionist is not seeking to kill every single unborn child simply for being "unborm". The Nazs wanted to kill every single Jew simply for being Jewish. As horrible as abortionists are, they are not in the same logical league as the Nazis. But, let us return to "SOME Jews". My standard American English dictionary defines "some" as "two or more", viz., "few". O.K. , two or more Jews or just a few are hypocritis. From this semantic vagueness you and Dr Mitzner (whose title I would have revoked as once being in the administration of a university) slide over to the generality of "Jews" again and state that "such Jews are contemptible". Agreed! But the type of argument you use was the same as the Nazis (which I know well here in Germany) and that type of argument is contemptible at best and potentially Holocaust-murderous at worst.

I address @Gloria.tv again: Let you critics come upon the type of argumentation of Mr. @RoccoAnthony, let them believe that such argumentation is acceptable by Gloria.tiv and they will have little difficulty in typifying Gloria.tv as anti-Semitic. I will not associate myself with anti-Jew-ism!

@Gloria.tv, this is addressed to the administration. The comments by RoccoAnthony are anti-semitic (remind me of the terms used by the Nazis). I know and communicate with many Jewish intellectuals. The cross-the-board comdemnation expressed below is not only false, it is a racial calumny. This type of moral trash should not be acceptable to Gloria.tv (I know that one cannot catch everything)! A "battle between Jews and Muslims" effectively creates an enemy to hate, while valuable aid from "Jews" (cf. PJ Media or First Things) are of great help. I find my thinking and the enrichment of my knowledge to be highly influenced by David Goldman and the, alas, now decease Barry Rubin (a master of knowledge about the Mideast). Caroline Glick, who writes for The Jerusalem Post and the anti-left FrontPage Magazine, is not only an intelligent writer, but a very sweet person who is proud to have children. <<>> Israel, that is the religious part, has a birth rate of about 3.28 children/woman whereas Cathoics (sic) here in Germany around 1.4 children/woman. I would suggest that the religious Jews show more respect for and love of life than many a Catholic, who are contributing to the death of Western culture. I humbly ask that Gloria.tv censor rabid anti-Jewish remarks. Not to do so, just pragmatically, will make Gloria into a target for left-wing forces. It will also alienate me, for whatever that is worth,

The reporting on complaints against Israel's current attempt to stop the reigning down of 1000s upon 1000sof rockets (almost 1000 in the last few days) upon their citizens is not just misleading, wrong, rather so false that I cannot accept such propaganda as any better than pro-Nazi propaganda during WW II. Such misrepresentation brings about ignorant, but damaging remarks by @Germen & Co. What is disproportionate?

During WW II the US lost almost no civilians and 407,000 soldiers whereas Nazi Germany lost 4.3 to 5.5 million soldiers and 7 to 9 million civilians (500,000 of which died from direct and so intended US/British bombing). Was that disproporionate? A hell of a lot more bloody that Israel's restrained attempt to seek about Hamas fighters who hide behind civilians (at least the Wehrmacht did not do that). When the US army approached Pforzheim, Germany, during the war it was certain that the Wehrmacht was present in the town and conquest would cost many, many American lives. The US Airforce visited the town for 3 hours and left 19,000 dead, soldiers and civilians. Taking the town required no deaths. But, soon German citizens of towns asked the Wehrmacht not to defend them (= Americans completely destroying the town) so that the town could peacefully surrender. What is proportiate?

If @Gemen's reaction (planned effect of Hamas and complying Western press), multiplied exponentially and transferred to WW II,would have forced the Americans of WWII to conclude:" Oh, too much disprorionate damage to NAZI Germany, so we will stop fighting now." Nazism would have survived as its Hamas offshoot is trying to do now. Offshoot?

During WW II the Nazis cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood, particularly the Muffti of Jerusalem (who later appointed Arafat as head of the PLO), trained many jihadists, increased anti-Jewism and, aftrer WW II, many became Muslims. An offshoot of the MB is Hamas!!!! From the Muffti (good friend of Himmler) to Hamas there is a direct line of the nihilistic side of Islam, aimed since Mohammed against Jews. Nothing new, Mr. @Germen and followers, a mere 1400 years of practice.

Use the internet and look up FrontPage Magazine (July 18, 2014) and consult the following article: Anna Geifman, "Who Is Killing Palestinian Children?" and you will have a highly documented presentation proving that Hamas is doing the deed (just as Hitler sent out 400 14 down to 12 up to 16 year olds against the Russian in Berlin, most killed). If you cannot refute the scholarship, hush up!!! Geifman has published the book La Mort Sera Votre Dieu: Du Nihilisme Russe au Terrorisme Islamique. Learn the intimate connection between Russian nihilism and Islamic terrorism. She has recently publisched Death Orders. The Vanguard of Modern Terroism in Revolutionary Russia, wherein not only the Russian radicals, but nihilistic terrorism in general is discussed. Why do I mention Geifman? I hope against hope re the ignorance abounding that some reader of Gloria.tv is brave enough to overcome the prejudices of ignorance and find out what has gone on and is going on and the connection. In the case of Hamas the connection is genocidal Islamonazism!!!

There is in Israel a self-depricating left (lots of Obama there) that, well, acts as the left does. The Israelis have there weapons and the Hamas fighters do not. Wow! And this represents deproportion. In WW II the Americans had the atomic bomb and the Japanese did not. Should the Americans have given the bomb to the Japanese (who were working on one, in some collaboration with Nazi Germany)? How is that for evening up the battle? Hamas shooting rockets and only in response, and with restrictions, has Israel replied. But Israel must stop for ever if possible such terrorism. There should be no proportion between Gaza of Hamas and Israel. This is nonsense. Why report suicidal stupidity?

I quit here. I hope that Gloria does not get sucked into the latent anti-Semetism still floating about Europe.

I disagree with the first opposition between "life valued" and "life devalued". The last value given was "Humanism". All humanistic atheists, not to mention most people of little belief, evaluate very highly THIS life -- for it is the only one that counts. Such a high evaluation of THIS life is essential to humanism, including partucularly atheistic humanism. (An atheistm of Nieztsche or Albert Camus was existentialistic, i.e., recognized the horrible void of a world without God, of a world that is no more than THIS one. I have respect for Nieztsche and Camus.)

Reading Pope Francis' words, together with a series of other words and deeds, I find it hard, despite any God-language that my flow from the Pope's mouth, not to conclude that Mr. "Bergoglio", pope or not, is basically a humanist, if not a humanistic atheist. Please, someone save me from my logic.

In terms of God-centered theology death/eternity and sin (the acts of individuals, not the social structure said individual finds himself and that forces itself motivationally upon him/her) play a central role. In man-centered theology death is marginalized (Nietzsche and Camus did not do so) and sin is transformed into non-man-centered or unjust socio-economic structures. The current Pope appears to me to be "fundamentally changing" the language of Catholicism into the vocabulary of the social justice of the Church of Nice, evincing a (atheistic or not) humanism. Am I wrong with my logic?

If my logic is correct, it seems plausible to say that the Pope is not a heretic, rather an apostate. Any objections?

This confession of vocation should be taken seriously. It is in the best and worst of us all. Various studies I have seen on Himmler and his quest to annihilate Jews show that he did not have an easy time. Such killing, if he saw it, was hard to handle. He eventually treated the matter as an idealistic, indeed, heroic calling. It was no easy task to fundamentally change normal men in the police into Gestapo murders. Once a priest said to me (we have all heard it): "If I can get a man to fall on his knees, I will soon have him praying". The principle seems to be: As one does, so will one think. A good pedagogical principle, i.e., effective. The first task facing Himmler was to get his police officiers just to murder one person. Once that "deed" took place, the reflective "vocation" followed and must follow or insantity awaits a normal policeman who ought to enforce, not abbrogate the law. Dr. Bobus is correct in asking just who is calling? This, however, should not let us ovesee the correlative question, namely: Just "who" in us is listenting? It is, alas, human-all.too-human, as Nietzsche once said. I guess it is just plain demonic, but it resides potential in us human beings. So does the mirror image reside there, namely saintliness.

How serious is this meant? I know well "fundamentalist" evangelicals and they do not like Catholicism and are not overly "social justice" types. Salvation offered by Jesus and accepted by the believer IS the main thing. Pope Francis does not really talk about salvation for the next world, rather emancipation in this world. I can guarantee that Billy Graham would never have accepted unity with a social Gospel. So, just what type of "Evangelical" is meant? The social justice crowd? There I see continuity between Pp Francis and the so-called Evangellicals because there is the same focus of "evangelicalizing" the world in worldly terms.

As to Voris: His excellent critique of the Church of Nice is applied to any and everyone, particularly bishops, except to the Pope from whom he selects quotations seemingly substantiating "traditional" Catholicism. In the link given there is a two part quotation from the Pope, one part of which Voris has quoted as orthodox. Small examples of Voris' self-imposed blinders sre his insistence that only boys or males should assist at the Mass, yet Pope Francis has had female servers. At Rio the Pope had the Host distributed in paper cups and by hand (the Host in the hand has been attacked by Voris). In other words he views the Pope with selective vision.

Now, I repeat the question: What is to be done? If the gist of the posting is correct, the Pope is seeking a "world church" (not just cooperation with other Christian faiths). That has a fiundamental re-interpretation of the Church as an extension of the Body of Christ. The Pope is heading towards a non-metaphysical view of grace to a voluntary (Protestant) view, i.e., whoever accepts Christ by an act of the will is on a par with those baptized into the Body of Christ. For Catholics the Mass is not primarily a meal celebrating the good Word (= Protestant view), rather the real sacrifice of Christ in the Host. (Pardon my not particularly word-correct formulations. I am too tired at the moment.) I am slowly being forced to hold as prima facie evident that Pope Francis is, as Louie Verrecchio has maintained, a material heretic (which is a tenous position as it easily changes into a formal heresy -- which would disprove the infallible magisterium. Horrible!) But I ask, just how many words and deeds must accumulate before I find it necessary to conclude that the Pope and I inhabit quite literally different Churches? If so, what shouldI make of this "fact"? Can someone clarify the matter for me? Am I just a loner here? Or should I just sticik my head (intellect) in the sand and continue on?

I have printed out and read the article with my limited Italian. A full translation into English and German should be made for Gloria.tv followers. A detailed commentary would be valuable. I deeply than Fr. Blake for revealing the article.

I will only take up only one point (given above in the translation), and only very briefly, although the point evinces the same logic in the Pope's reductionism of the autonomy of human reason to a function of conditions beyond (called historical and sociological) as is found in in the young Marx' reductionistic criticism of the automomy of reason as part of his matrialism.

First autonomous reason: Cardinal Newman wrote a study on the (historical) development of theological ideas (1845) wherein he shows how cognitive understanding (= act of autonomous reason) works upon the data of revelation and establishes cognitive criteria for a valid development. For instance, the doctrinal development of Mary as the Mother of God could not take place until it was cognitively determined that Jesus, the human, was not like one capitan of a ship and God the other capitan, i.e., Jesus was not God. Once this cognitive problem was decided; namely, Jesus is the incarnation of God in a human person (Jesus = Second Person), Catholics had a "dogma", i.e., cognitive formulation. At this point it is clear that Mary is the Mother of God, not before the dogma. A new theological area opens up for dogmatic development. Newman's study has value if and only if human reason has autonomy no matter what the historical and sociological (and economic) context might be. The development of dogma (= decided cognitive truth) has a REAL history!!!! This is the foundation of "orthodoxy".

Now historical reason: However, if thinking is not really autonous, rather instead fundamentally subject to extra-rational forces, e.g., economic or dynastic or nationalistic, etc., then the appparent autonomous thinking is nothing but or no other than a functional result of said "real" factors. By suggesting that "dogmas", i.e., cognitive knowledge formulated in propositional form, should be seen as functions of historical and sociological (and economic) interests, conditions, influences, then the history of dogma loses autonomy, i.e., there is in effect NO history of dogma, NO development of objective truth, rather only the fluctuation of sociological influences in a historical (not cognitive) context. This is why being limted or directed by orthodoxy (= settled truths of a cognitive nature) becomes "a metaphysical violence" (indeed, metaphysics itself, because transhistorical, is also per se "violent" -- the violence of settled truth. And truth always limits freedom.

What is then primary? "Pastoral practice" is the answer. What does this entail? Helping people with their "material" needs or, as Marx put it in his similar way of thinking, "Eating and drinking, lodging, clothes and some other things [later called "sex" by the cultural Marxists]". Pope Francis and Karl Marx seem to agree relative to that towards which energy should be directed. Marx called it revolutionary activity and the Pope calls its "pastoral practice.". In both cases, not salvation (in a religious sense), rather emancipation is the telos guidig practice.

If the primacy of pastoral practice replaces orthodox truth, there will be in the papal revolution many non-violent victims as there were violent ones in Marxism. Relativity demands is sacrifices for practice Practice as primary necessarily terminates also transhistorical moral truths. What is "good" will become what is "efficacious in practice".

@HedwigvonSchlesien, Sie sind mit Ihrer Frage, deren Inhalt mich auch stört, an dem generativen Gegensatz vorbeigegangen. Machen wir einen Kontrast aus den Worten des philippinischcen Erzbishofs:

Definitionselemente: dogmatisch + autoritär --><-- freundlich + mitfühlend
=
Werturteil: krank --><-- überzeugend

Die traditionelle Kirche, die Sie (ich auch) befürwortet, wird adjektivmässig als "dogmatisch" und "autoritär" gekennzeichnet. Das ist genau, was "diese Priester" in der traditionellen merken. Kein Wunder, daß solche Priester diese Art Kirche als "krank" bezeichnen. Religiöse "Krankeit" ist das Gesehene! Das bedeutet, die Kirche muß geheilt werden.

Gleichzeitig wird die "moderne" Kirche durch die Adjektive "freundlich" und "mitfühlend" gekennzeichnet. "Freundlich" gegen "dogmatisch" + "autoritär" gegen "mitfühlend" sind genau das, was "diese Priester" bezeichnend wahrnehmen. Rein logisch hätten "diese Priester" zunächst den Schluß ziehen sollen, daß die moderne Kirche "gesund" ist, und dann deswegen den Schluß, daß diese neue Kirche "überzeugend" ist. Aus dieser Denkweise resultiert logisch das Werturteil.

Begeistert von den Worten des Papst haben "diese Priester" die Kirche fundamental umgestaltet. Wir haben mit zwei Seelen in derselben kirchlichen Brust zu tun:
Die zwei Seelen im Konflikt sind: Wahrheit gegen Wohfühlheit. "Gefühl ist alles" sagte Goethes Faust. Die moderne Kirche definiert sich ontologisch als "mitfühlend" and "freundlich". Was auch immer gegen die ontologisschen Merkmale "Gefühl" verstößt, wird als "dogamtisch" und "autoritär" abgewertet. Dennoch ist Dogma ein Ausdruck von Wahrheit, der der Gläubige entsprechen soll. Wahrheit ist die Leitlinie, die das religiöse Leben steuert. Die "modernen" Priester stehen auf "Wohgefühl" (eigentlich Populärität and Akkeptanz), wofür Wahrheit von keinem ernstzunehmenden Belang ist.

Der amerikanische President, Abraham Linclon, sagte einmal: "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Linclon meinte die Existenz von Sklaverei in der selben Seele seiner Nation. Lincoln folgend sage ich: "A Church divided against itself cannot stand". Die Katholische Kirche von heute hat zwei Seelen in ihrer Organizationsbrust, und so ein Haus kann nicht auf die Dauer bestehen. Gewinnt die Kirche des Gefühls und die Kirche der Wahrheit ist tot, d.h., wenn sich nicht schon irgendwie abgetrennt. Hat nicht das Gefühlsleben von Faust Gretschen ums Leben gebracht? Es geht um die Seele der Kirche.

How should I interpret the Pope. Is he promoting love? What type of love? The English is not fully correct. The German reads: Pope Francis hand in hand with the priest Luigi Ciotti, a friend of P. Andrea Gallo. Both notorious supporters/sponsors of homosexuality? There is no context to the photo. For this reason I cannot simply grasp what the Pope is trying to say to the world (I presume that he knows as usual that he is being photographed)? The impression of the photo, in the context of Gloria.tv, leads me to a nefarious interpetation. Hopefully wrong!

@ famboluk: Antwort auf Gegenfrage: Ist Gott allwissend, d.h., ist alles, was ist, Seinem BewußtSein präsent? Wenn so, haben Sie Ihre Antwort. Es geht hier um unendliches Bewußtsein, nicht um endliches Sein, nicht um den menschlichen Geist. Zieht man 100% alles Bewußtsein aus allem Sein (auch von einer einfachenTomate), gibt es nichts, auch Gott nicht. Aber wir haben sofort das Paradox, daß "nicht-sein" ist (?). Resultat: solche Aussagen sind semantisch nichts, einfach sinnlos. Wenn Sie glauben, daß es möglich ist, von einer Tomante (oder was-auch-immer) jenseits aller Bewußtheit zu sprechen, versuchen Sie bitte, das Sein der von Ihnen erwähnten Tomate, wenn Bewußtheit egal welcher Art 100% ausgeschlossen ist, genau klar zu beschreiben. Unmöglich, weil Ihr Beschreiben schon Bewußtsein enthält. Das ist eine Herausforderung von mir. Hoffentlich gelingt es Ihnen, das zu beschreiben, was das Jenseits von Bewußtsein ausmacht, ohne daß Sie Ihr Bewußtsein für die Besschreibung einbeziehen. Meine Herausforderung ist eine große Vereinfachung von derselben Herausforderung vom österreichischen Idealisten Robert Reiniger in seiner Metaphysik der Wirklichkeit, I, 24.

Sie haben, ach, den wirklichen Sinn meiner Frage verpasst. Wenn das Bewußtsein seinen Lokus im Gehirn hat, kann der Bewußthaber auf keine apodiktische Weise über das, was das Gehirn nicht unmittelbar bewußthat, erkenntnismäßig Aussagen machen. Eigentlich ist diese These grundlegend für Kants Kritik der r. Vernunft. Laut Reininger: "Bewußtheit ist ... das nicht wegzudenke Merkmal, der character indelibilis alles dessen, was Gegenstand unseres Nachdenkens werden kann". Bitte, machen Sie mich davon bewußt, wie Reiniger mit seiner These fehlgeschlangen hat.

Von meinem Standpunkt hat sich der Prof. Dr. Eibach unnötige Sorgen über ein Scheinproblem gemacht. Ich schätze, daß er Realist ist, während ich ein anglo-amerikanischer Idealist bin. Realisten haben immer Probleme, über das zu sprechen, was jenseits ihres Bewußtseins per se ist, d.h., bis einige auf Gott und göttliches Bewußtsein stoplern. Aber das ist ein anderer Fragenbereich. Danke für die Gegenfrage.

Gegen Fragen: lst die externe Welt nichts anders als ein Produkt des Gehirns? Noch schlimmer: Ist das Gehirn nichts anders als ein Produkt des Gehirns? Wann hat ein Gehirn je die direkte bzw. unmittelbare Erfahrung der Aussenwelt oder des Gehirns selber. Ich mache keine Spielerei. Die Logik ist verkehrt. Prof. Roth, ein Naturalist, versteht wohl die Art Argument, die in meinen Fragen steckt. Er ist auf die Idee gekommen, daß das Gehirn der Wissensschaft nichts anders als, kantisch gesehen, ein Phänomen ist, und kein Ding-an-sich. Laut Prof. Roth ist das wahre Gehirn jenseits menschlicher Kenntnisse als ein wahrhaftes Ding-an-sich, worüber wir nichts unmilltelbar kennen oder wissen können, aber es ist doch da!

Only "invincible ignorance" can excuse Pope Francis from severe moral condemnation. In his communist phase, the French philosopher Maurice Merleau-Ponty published in 1947 his book Humanisme et Terreur. Merleau-Ponty took acception to the accusation that Stalin (certainly a Communist, Mr. Pope Francis) is to be condemned with Hitler because both used for their goal smassive repression, death, murder and, yes, terror. I will quote Merleau-Ponty in the original French. Objecting to the comparison of Communism with Nazism, the future "Christian" (despite his atheism if one follows Pope Francis) wrote:

"... La comparison est de mouvaise foi. Car le fascisme est justement comme un mimique du bolchevisme [communisme]. ... Car si le prolétariat [= classe des pauvres] est cette 'classe universelle' [= Francis' 'the poor as centre of the Gospel'] que nous avons décrite d'après Marx, alors les intérêts de cette classe portent dans l'histoire les valeurs humaines ... . La violence fasciste, au contraire, n'est pas celle d'une classe universelle, c'est celle d'une 'race' ou d'une nation tard venue [or of RICH capitalists], elle ne suit pas le cours des choses, elle le remonte" (p. 139).

Whereas Merleau-Ponti condemns the massive terror of Hitler and his fascism, he, nevertheless, defends and commends the COMMUNIST Stalin and his massive terror because terror in the name of the "classe universelle" is terror in the name of humanity in toto. It is the death used for emancipation. If Communists can be called "Christians" as Francis proclaims, then by logical deduction Christians may act like Communists and murder and terrorize to the depths of Stalin's gulags, eliminating those who oppress the poor and downtrodden (which constitute a Christian parellel to the "classe universelle"). I am aghast. The logic of Pope Francis' equation of Communists with Christians entails, willy/nilly, a justification of terror in the name of emancipation (Marxist term) or salvation (Christian term). David Goldman, a Jewish intellectual, was right. The Pope is not interest so much in saving souls for eternity than in saving the world here and now, a part of the human world that is a "classe universelle", viz., the "poor as the centre of the Gospels". In the end, we all die. It was the custom in medieval Europe to remove a dead king from his throne and put him on the ground, symbolizing that death makes us all equal -- death and sin, not economic poverty of being downtrodden. This Pope is singularly without genuine religiosity. I hate to make that conclusion, but he, not I, equated Communists with Christians.

Pape Francis, je t'accuse!

News fact: The religious group most persecuted in world today is that of Christians. The persecutors by far are Muslims. Indeed, a German researcher, Rita Beuer, has shown that Christians are universally persecuted in lands with a Muslim majority. The inclusion of an Islamic holiday of such importance is an (inadvertent) act of dhimitude, i.e., acknowledging the supremacy of Islam. In other words, Christians should acknowledge the "supremacy" or "domniance" of Islam. A persecuting Muslim would interpret such an inclusion as an act of submission to Allah. The pastor who made the bulletin unintentional has material contributed to the persecution of Christians.