Defend the indefensible: "A Dictatorship of Relativism"

ratzinger is, I would guess, referring to religious relativism (which is his sphere) and those people who dogmatically declare and reinforce
the notion that all religions are essentially the same, which is an ignorant idea (and very offensive to most members of Islam, Judaism and Christianity). Buddhism and Hinduism are less epistemic. But many who see the obvious contradictions, I would imagine.

For example: Muslims believe Jesus was a very important prophet, Christians believe he was/is the Son of God etc.; Jews think either he was a great teacher, a nutbag, a fiction, or a combination of the above. But I don't see how he could be all of the aforementioned things concurrently.

For example, a culture that does not defend religious rights, but is willingly to defend any cause, as long as it does not portend to make its basis in truth is dishonest. In other words, anything can be a good-in-itself, but nothing can be good for reason outside of itself (or the immediate conditions it creates). There can never be a higher or universal condition of context, no structure, no inter-connection: this in a true dicatatorship of relativism. This place, I am afraid, is the modern university.

What? This culture -- say, England -- is "willing to defend any cause"? Really? Any cause? But it does not defend religious rights? Really? Do you mean it attacks the institution of marriage by letting homosexuals marry, for example? What are you getting at?

On the other hand, he has - according to some people - lied about membership of the Hitler Youth being compulsary.

No, I had in mind France's policy of forcing young women to remove their hijabs in order to comply with the dictates of their secularist governance. Gays, unfortunately, cannot marry in France as far as I know.

For example: Muslims believe Jesus was a very important prophet, Christians believe he was/is the Son of God etc.; Jews think either he was a great teacher, a nutbag, a fiction, or a combination of the above. But I don't see how he could be all of the aforementioned things concurrently.

-- Star Cauliflower

You need to be Jewish to understand how this is possible.

I would like to add that, although Ratzinger's inclusion in the Hitler Youth may not have been compulsory in a legalistic sense, when you live in a culture of imminent liquidation and genocide, being an oddball (ie. the only family on the block whose child does not belong to the Hitler Youth) is willfully welcoming your death. Some Christians, like Dietrich Bonhoffer, whose assasination plot on Hitler failed, did welcome their deaths as matyrs, because they were so morally repulsed by the horrors of Nazism. However, we can hardly expect Ratzinger, a child, to have mounted a crusade against a dictatorial regime. Ratzinger's views on Nazism as an adult are very clear: he vigourously condemns it, and all forms of racism (as he should!)

But this is not much fun for conspiracy buffs.

oh, your sympathy is so appreciated.

a culture that does not defend religious rights, but is willingly to defend any cause, as long as it does not portend to make its basis in truth is dishonest. In other words, anything can be a good-in-itself, but nothing can be good for reason outside of itself (or the immediate conditions it creates). There can never be a higher or universal condition of context, no structure, no inter-connection: this in a true dicatatorship of relativism. This place, I am afraid, is the modern university.

is this where the big crescendo comes in?

Once again, why are my Canadian Jewish groups welcoming this guy? Is this another case of people telling minorities, 'well, we educated elites know what's good for you, so shut up and tow the line.' If it is, then its fairly ignorant...it almost seems like a dictatorship of relativism: if nothing is true, then it doesn't matter who Ratzinger is or was, we can just make him into who we want to be -- a racist.

I can honestly say that if Catholics elected a Nazi pope I would be more than willing to act out in violence to a cathedral.

The quote I heard from B'nai Brith was: 'This is a very good choice.'

with regard to gabbneb's mock appreciation and humour, thank you.

I found it much more telling when he claims to have hated the student radicals of 1968 because 'they bore such a resemblance to the Nazis he despised as a youth' or somesuch nonsense. He's either dumber than a rock or chooses to use his Nazi past as cheap cover for attacking progressive people and movements.

xpost - haha, yay! you found the 'anti-Catholic bigot' strawman!

Who gives a fuck? (Other than a billion or so Catholics)

Set that strawman on fire!

ok, let's forget about the nazi strawman, and go after go after what matters: ordaining women, marrying priests, and further improving inter-faith dialogue. and let's have full on fucking war on Aids!
but if you are a relativist, none of these things really should matter
THAT much. I mean, Ratzinger's just a dumb, backwards-ass fool. No hope there.

Better start attacking the progressives for not progressing enough (or
for progressing at all). [Cue: Massive Epic Trance Crescendo!]

But anyone who wants to believe in a higher or universal condition of context can continuet to believe in it, so it's not a true dictatorship.

"The little ship bearing the thoughts of many Christians has often been shaken," he explained, mentioning the ideological forces "from Marxism to liberalism, even to libertarianism; from collectivism to radical individualism; from atheism to a vague mysticism; from agnosticism to syncretism." In our era, he said, "a dictatorship of relativism is being formed," which the faith must oppose.

The fact that he didn't mention fascism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, etc. here is what really gets me -- but yet identifying liberalism and libertarianism? It just reeks of taking a position against individual rights.

But still, he's a jerk. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.