Andrew Van Wagner warns that the neoliberal experiment in Arizona is intended to atomize, indoctrinate, and control the population.
As he writes, if you can dumb people down, you can control them. If you can declare some topics unacceptable in the classroom, like racism, you can indoctrinate them.
Van Wagner writes:
“It’s part of the way of controlling and dumbing down the population, and that’s important.”
“Everyone should fight back against the effort to dumb people down and control people—it’s scary to think that the GOP is turning America into a country where people don’t have enough education to be able to resist the GOP’s legislative and cultural agenda.”
“So the new Arizona law is a fantastic and quintessential and perfect example of neoliberalism. The vision is—as I’ve written about previously—atomization for the general population and lots of society and organization and community for elites.”
“Everyone needs to fight back against the GOP’s attack on education. We can’t afford—in a pivotal period like this—to let the GOP impose atomization and indoctrination and control on the American population.”
Education, Information, Science, and History designed to acquaint people with Reality. They are not about selling people a Consumerist Dreamworld where everyone can slumber in the bubble of their own favorite fantasies — that is, until Reality catches up them and and explodes the bubble of their pet beliefs. But the Corporate Bubble Blowers are more than happy to sell the suckers that brand of society for as long as they can get away with it.
(ed) are designed
I’ve mentioned this before in another column, but it’s not just the Republicans that we all need to worry about, but we need to be aware of The World Economic Forum, led by Klaus Schwab, among others, who wrote the book, “The Great Reset”, which basically says that the masses are inferior to the ultra rich & therefore should & will just have to be happy with whatever the superior rich folks feel is appropriate to give them in order for them to just subsist. This concept of dumbing down the populace feeds right into that plan, which will never be averted until the masses understand what is going on & unite against it. However, as long as “they” keep us all distracted with Social Media and arguing over social issues & other petty things, the masses will never have enough power & unity to resist the Fascist, New World Order that these Oligarchs want to implement.
Jon Awbrey “‘The Great Reset’, which basically says that the masses are inferior to the ultra rich & therefore should & will just have to be happy with whatever the superior rich folks feel is appropriate to give them in order for them to just subsist.”
Now, THAT’s rich. But seriously folks: I need to order this book so I an excuse myself from thinking, . . . like they have, . . . insofar as they ascribe to the value of their own intellectual, social, moral, political, and spiritual vacuity.
(See my letter to the editor of Commonweal on Diane’s prior post.) CBK
BOOKTV This Weekend JULY 10, 2022
What to watch on Sunday: Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and Jeb Bush
on After Words
Francis Fukuyama, “Liberalism and Its Discontents”
Betsy DeVos “Hostages No More-The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child” on After Words/Watch: 10 am and 10 pm ET Sunday Watch a preview.
Former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos talks about her time serving in the Trump administration, offers her thoughts on education reforms to fix schools and her new book, “Hostages No More: The Fight for Education Freedom and the Future of the American Child.” She’s interviewed by Jeb Bush, former Governor of Florida, 2016 presidential candidate and son of President George H. W. Bush.
To learn more about Betsy DeVos, visit her biography page to see all 83 of her C-SPAN video appearances. Know someone who would like this program? Click an icon below to share the video preview on Facebook, tweet it or forward it in an email.
Francis Fukuyama, “Liberalism and Its Discontents”
Watch: 8 pm and 11 pm ET Sunday
Political philosopher and bestselling author Francis Fukuyama discusses the current state of classical liberalism and critiques it from both the left and right. Some of his books include, “Liberalism and Its Discontents,” “Political Order and Political Decay” and “The Origins of Political Order.” “You ask me what’s wrong with liberalism … It’s not liberalism as a theory itself, but interpretations of liberalism that have been carried to extremes.”
To learn more about Francis Fukuyama, visit his biography page to see all 42 of his C-SPAN video appearances.
I think we are being too nice calling the MAGA mutts “right wing.”
They are fascists. Every one, and I mean everyone that still supports Traitor Trump and the traitor’s BIG LIE are dangerously dumber-than-dumb fascist!
Please refer to them as fascists, American Fascists far beyond the traditional conservative right wing of the Republican Party. And right now they are the tail that controls the GOP.
Now, to be clear, I’m not defending traditional conservatives. The last time I voted for one was when Reagan ran for governor of California the first time. After he lied his way into the governor’s mansion in California, and stabbed us public school teachers in the back, I haven’t voted for a Repulibican since, but, to be fair, most if not all traditional conservatives are Never Trumpers, shocked at what has happened to the GOP.
Lloyd Lofthouse Watching this circus is enough to make socialism very attractive. I was thinking on my walk this morning: If those who are the loudest right now were really Christian, even by the most general standards, they would be supporting Bernie Sanders or at least Elizabeth Warren. CBK
Then, the other or “real” christians, the ones who are occupying the same pews as the fascists, need to start sending a message. Otherwise, their complicity is a part of the problem.
LetThemLearn I think if you read the Christian texts, you’ll be able to take real out of quote marks, even as they are written in metaphors, analogies, and parables.
But your comment speaks to the crisis that we as Americans are already in and that is coming to fruition as we speak. (Note the voters in Arizona didn’t vote for it.)
It’s a McCarthy moment, but writ large. Americans, in and out of the pews, are in the question: “can you keep it?” . . . the democracy, that is. The more noise they make, and the more democracy disappears, the more political sleepers will wake up to it.
We do what we can, and certainly we’ll see. It IS a democracy. CBK
a HUGE part of the problem
Let them learn-
Thank you for your comment. Conservative religious leaders are often very strong voices against socialism which they misrepresent as communism. Jefferson’s warning, in every age, in every country, the priest aligns with the despot, tells us he knew that the American conservative churches would be attempting to destroy democracy as soon as they found a path.
Linda and All We live in different times . . . . I have always thought (because I read history) that there is a totalitarian thread of thought hiding in all groups and the people in them. Education towards human development and civil life tend to transform that thread.
However, having lived in a democracy all of someone’s life (as most in our country have) I think most take the freedoms provided by democracy for granted; that education has failed to enlighten even lawyers and people in the Supreme Court (John Roberts among them), who do not understand (or are careless about) the probable consequences of the loss of the differentiation between church, or any corporate group (like oligarchs/fascists), and the power of the state, that Jefferson saw so well (he read history).
What’s different about our time (from Jefferson’s) is the rise of corporate/capitalist power and the control of those who are more and uniquely suited to play to the people’s ignorance and lesser lusts on a huge scale, and to religious groups themselves, than any historical religious organization could ever be and appeal to, again, in our time.
In a word, fascism, which historically uses the church only to its own service. (Read the Origins of Totalitarianism). In the longer view, we needed to “separate church and state” and develop the laws and constitutions that comes with it, if we are to keep the peace. But the loss of tribal order in history that initiated the change, only let the fascist cat out of the historical bag.
Insofar as the Christian churches have lost their connection with Christianity itself, (any of them, or other faiths with their founders and founding texts) they sport more fascist than Christian personalities, as is obvious in many of their leadership . . . and gang, rather than group, mentalities.
A big “duh”: Jefferson can’t have read the history of the United States that occurred after he died. CBK
Lloyd, remember Ragnarsblut? He continues to write 4-5 long comments every day insisting that vaccines don’t work and that people who take them die of COVID. It is very time consuming deleting his daily comments.
We must SHOW people that we are smarter and have a better way to educate than what was done in the past. As long as we support the failed past, public education will perish.
caplee68 Do I “hear” a bunch of accepted propaganda against public schools resonating in your note? (Known to you or not?) Is it REALLY a “failed past”? And though I would NEVER say it’s been perfect, how much ofthat has to do with extraneous but powerful (and sometimes nefarious) powers? What kind of neo-liberal fingerprints are on that idea of “failure”? CBK
I gotta agree wholeheartedly with that. Having read Diane’s books on the subject, I’m surprised someone on this blog would make an argument about the “failed past” of public education without providing the documentation and explanation for why this person would write that. I know after reading Diane’s books and paying attention to the news how false that narrative is. Actually I knew it from personal experience and the fact that somehow the United States became the most powerful country in human history. Even though most of the people who made that possible were educated in public schools. Hmmm.
Sorry, SDP, but I’m going to take your job for a sec. With apologies to The Crystals,
Ayn Do Run Run
I met her on a Monday and my heart stood still
Da doo ron-ron-ron, da doo ron-ron
Somebody told me that her name was Bill (Gates)
Ayn Rand run-run, Ayn ran-runs
Yeah, my heart stood still
Yes, her name was Bill
And DeVos gave her dough
Ayn run-ran-Rand, Ayn Rand runs
I knew what she was doing when she caught my eye
Ayn run-ran-Rand, Ayn Rand runs
She looked like a mod’rate, but it was a lie
Ayn do run Rand, Ayn Rand runs
Yeah, she caught my eye
Yes, ‘’twas all a lie
And Waltons gave her dough
Ayn run-ran-Rand, Ayn do run
She picked my pockets clean and she told me lies
Da do ron-ron-ron, da do ron-ron
Someday soon I’m gonna lose my mind
Ayn run-ran-Rand, Ayn Rand runs
Yeah, she distracts with lies
She just wants to skip tax time
When all rich folks give her dough
They do run, run, run, they do run, run.
OMG, LeftCoast. This is just wonderful!!! Thanks for the laughs. Beautifully done.
LCT-
Praise from this corner, too.
It is becoming obvious that public education has become a more important target for republican rhetoric and future exploitation as compared to what we have already seen. Here’s a good example of how Fox reinforces the message in Arizona and takes it nationally in a way that weaves nicely into their narrative. Note how language is used here, to immediately use the same rhetoric that accurately describes them what they accuse the Left of doing. I don’t like the term projection because I feel it reinforces what I call a “rubber-glue” rhetoric. This is much more sinister. The goal is not to accuse the Left, because they know there is no empirical proof of their insinuations. The goal is to render the language meaningless, to make it mean whatever the hearer wants to hear. (Which, incidentally, is exactly the strategy Pius XII employed in WWII.)
https://crooksandliars.com/2022/07/greg-gutfeld-attacks-teachers-racist-kkk
Lots of geniuses in Arizona:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/news/see-woman-s-response-when-asked-if-teachers-can-say-slavery-is-bad/vi-AAZl31T?ocid=msedgntp
An ALEC training video for Arizona:
That’s very funny!
lol
Jenna Ellis, Trump’s lawyer who called Biles and Rapinoe, “losers”, was home schooled.
All to be briefer than my response above, to what Linda writes: “. . . Jefferson tells us he knew that the American conservative churches would be attempting to destroy democracy as soon as they found a path.”
In my view, that’s basically a gross mischaracterization of both Jefferson and history, not to mention American conservative churches, AKA: more twisted and biased BS.
If you want to keep anything truthful in such remarks, read or remember history, and get out your dialectical shears. CBK
Pope Pius XII, subject of Kertzer’s new book based on recently released Vatican archives,
issued a Decree agains Communism. It is described at Wikipedia. Pius XII’s brother made an agreement with Mussolini to end liberal Italy’s separation of church and state.
All (and Linda): From Linda’s account, we could think XII was in bed with Mussulini, instead of (perhaps?) being bullied by someone he knew was a murdering fascist. Here is the “rest of the story” about Pope Pius XII from Wikipedia. Talk about walking a thin line . . . Make up your own minds, of course, but also see how “cherry picking” works to help forward one’s bias. The below is from Wikipedia . . . there is allot more there about this:
” . . . others, saved hundreds of thousands of lives.[2] Pius maintained links to the German Resistance, and shared intelligence with the Allies. His strongest public condemnation of genocide was, however, considered inadequate by the Allied Powers, while the Nazis viewed him as an Allied sympathizer who had dishonoured his policy of Vatican neutrality.[3]
“Some post-war critics have accused Pius of either being overly cautious, or of ‘not doing enough’, or even of ‘silence’ in the face of the Holocaust. Yet, supporters have held that he saved thousands, if not tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews by ordering his Church to provide them with sanctuary and aid, and that he provided moral and intellectual leadership in opposition to the violent racism of Nazi ideology.[4][5][6][7]” End Quote/CBK
The definitive study about Pius XII and Mussolini and Hitler is Kertzer’s new book.
All Linda writes: “The definitive study about Pius XII and Mussolini and Hitler is Kertzer’s new book.”
From Wikipedia: “The Vatican archives have provided many millions of pages and it is expected to take many years to process the findings. So far the study of the archive has been inconclusive.[358]
Linda is cherry-picking again and, in my view, is increasingly revealing herself as a fraud.
Hitler was doing a “come here, my pretty” with the Church as his target. Once you get Pope Pius XII’s method and ends, you can see that he was trying to mediate fascist murderers to keep the Church alive and so the people he was trying to save from being murdered. For anyone interested, the below is further from Wikipedia. Kertzer’s book is mentioned towards the end.
I have added another note re: Pope Pius XII with some further quotes from Wikipedia including references to Kertzer’s new book. CBK
The Vatican records that Kertzer ultimately gained access to had been sealed in 1958 and unsealed on 3/2020. Kertzer’s book was published in June 2022. The book describes some of the Jews that the Vatican attempted to save. They were Jews who had been baptized. Italy’s Sec. of State had a side business selling Catholic baptismal records to Jews. Kertzer identifies one story where the ruse failed. Despite the change in religion, everything a man owned was taken through the fascist racial laws. The man in his suicide note explained that his Catholic wife and kids would be able to live off of his insurance policy.
From p.48, Italy’s Minister of Education highlighted the fascist regime’s, “Christian teaching in the manner of Catholic tradition as the foundation and high point of public education.”
In another excerpt, the Pope said, “It would be a blessing for everyone if the moral conflicts now faced by Germans loyal to the Church were eliminated.”
Kertzer writes, “Italy’s Catholic clergy urged all good Catholics to fight on Hitler’s side…Pius XII did nothing to disavow, much less express regret for the Church’s long standing demonization of Jews.”
Kertzer repeats a Fascist boast from the time that they were being softer on Jews than the popes had been.
It’s been reported that a canonization process has begun for Pius XII.
How much of what was written before Kertzer’s book qualifies as propaganda is a decision each person can make.
I will be adding more quotes to the blog as I finish the book. Kertzer wrote that the book has relevance to what is happening today.
Linda I haven’t read K’s book. However, from what I read on Wikipedia, and from what you quote, like you and many others, the author fails to understand either the history of the situation, or the situation as such: as in crisis. If that’s true, then the author is right up the alley of someone who only hears what they want to hear and so lays waste to an otherwise intelligent mind.
But the question remains: why are you so intent on this Pope’s situation? and why are you overlooking all of the Jewish scholars who are quite aware of the situation and who give needed concrete nuance and say otherwise than this author, both then, later, and after the files were opened?
At any rate, by Wikipedia’s present judgment, there’s nothing “definitive” in the author’s or anyone’s work yet, except in the biased mind. CBK
Linda To put it in briefer form, if an author or reader takes history as an abstraction, without its fuller context of meaning, it will have a different meaning than if either one understands the concrete situation, e.g., Pope Pius XII trying to placate murdering thugs, for instance, by “requiring” Jews to convert to Catholicism, therefore saving their lives because they were not “Jews” any longer. (<–A Really Stupid Idea, but we are talking Hitler’s ideas about Jewishness here so apparently, it worked for some.)
But from what I take it, as your interpretation of the situation, the Pope “required” conversion in order to get converts for Catholicism. If that’s what you think, to that form of depraved ignorance, I say “poor you.” CBK
Linda This is incredible: (1) you take a fascist boast repeated by an historian for truth.
(2) You write: “From p.48, Italy’s Minister of Education highlighted the fascist regime’s, ‘Christian teaching in the manner of Catholic tradition as the foundation and high point of public education.’” . . . as if there were no context of placating a fascist regime to save lives. And BTW, there’s Christian teaching, and then there’s Christian teaching. Your biased assumptions about it are laughable and certainly don’t translate to truth here.
(3) Then you write: “In another excerpt, the Pope said, it would be a blessing for everyone if the moral conflicts now faced by Germans loyal to the Church were eliminated.” And you think that awful because . . . ?
(4) Then you write: “Kertzer writes, ‘Italy’s Catholic clergy urged all good Catholics to fight on Hitler’s side…Pius XII did nothing to disavow, much less express regret for the Church’s long standing demonization of Jews.’”
I’ll get the quotation that is in direct opposition to the above, but you can find it and others like it in the links to major authors/scholars on the subject on the Wikipedia site.
Incredible what bias does to a mind. CBK
CBK, if you are interested, I suggest you read the book before making definitive statements, especially using Wikipedia as a source on this subject. We can be sure the Catholic Church has a team dedicated to monitoring and editing the page based on what is public knowledge about their public relations machinery. Your characterization of Hitler’s supposed strategy is obliterated in the early pages of Kertzer’s book and demonstrates how you are beholden to Catholic Church revisionist propaganda. And before you get on a high horse about propaganda, etc., here are two comments from noted historians, the former one of THE authorities on Hitler, his ascension to power, and rule, the latter, Garry Wills, is a noted Catholic who has written extensively on church-state issues among many topics.
Kershaw: A thorough explanation of the Vatican archives for the pontificate of Pius XII has long been awaited. David I. Kertzer’s splendid book now provides it, presenting a plethora of highly unflattering evidence [emphasis added] of the pope’s role during the Second World War and his silence regarding the Holocaust. The book ends much of the debate about the pope and surely makes any lingering apologia for his stance implausible.”
Wills: Not many expected the memory of Pius XII’s dealings with Jews during World War II to be sweetened by the recent opening of Vatican archives from that period. But who could have guessed how sordid the revelations would be? David I. Kertzer has the learning and courage to read the new documents and show what deep slime the Vatican was wading in during Pius XII’s papacy. Brace yourself for a story full of horrors.
After reading this, having witnessed the hypocrisy of Catholics as a young person in high school (it was a positive experience at a Jesuit university, to be truthful), knowing of the proven pedophilia (if you really want to understand just an inkling of the horror, Google what has been done around the world, just what has been admitted to by the Church: millions of children raped and abuse by priests, nuns, and other representatives of the Church. And knowing what they have done to cover it up, which often causes more abuse, knowing what the leaders of this Church have done politically to undermine the constitutional separation of church and state, I really don’t understand how anyone could be proud to call themselves followers of the Catholic Church. I can think of few consistently destructive forces in history than the Vatican. At least the thousand year Reich only lasted 12 years. Would that it were so for the Catholic Church. The few redeeming aspects on balance do not make up for the proven evil and lives that have been destroyed.
All: The below is all from Wikipedia with loads of references on the site. The so-called “definitive study about Pius XII and Mussolini and Hitler”, Kertzer’s new book, is mentioned below. The context of other criticisms, especially from Jewish scholars, makes any criticisms of the Pope on several counts at least questionable, and probably in failure mode about understanding what it means to live under someone like Hitler and the Nazis.
For Linda, “definitive study” is code for: it supports my bias; or: it’s the only one I read, if I read it at all.
All Quoted Material Below (my emphases)
“In specific riposte to Cornwell’s criticism, American Rabbi and historian David Dalin published The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: How Pope Pius XII Rescued Jews from the Nazis in 2005. He reaffirmed previous accounts of Pius having been a saviour of thousands of Europe’s Jews. In a review of the book, another Jewish scholar—Churchill biographer, Martin Gilbert—wrote that Dalin’s work was ‘an essential contribution to our understanding of the reality of Pope Pius XII’s support for Jews at their time of greatest danger.
Hopefully, his account will replace the divisively harmful version of papal neglect, and even collaboration, that has held the field for far too long’.[322] Dalin’s book also argued that Cornwell and others were liberal Catholics and ex-Catholics who ‘exploit the tragedy of the Jewish people during the Holocaust to foster their own political agenda of forcing changes on the Catholic Church today’ and that Pius XII was responsible for saving the lives of many thousands of Jews.[323]
“A number of other scholars replied with favourable accounts of Pius XII, including Margherita Marchione’s Yours Is a Precious Witness: Memoirs of Jews and Catholics in Wartime Italy (1997), Pope Pius XII: Architect for Peace (2000) and Consensus and Controversy: Defending Pope Pius XII (2002); Pierre Blet’s Pius XII and the Second World War, According to the Archives of the Vatican (1999); and Ronald J. Rychlak’s Hitler, the War and the Pope (2000).[320][324] Ecclesiastical historian William Doino (author of The Pius War: Responses to the Critics of Pius XII), concluded that Pius was ’emphatically not silent’.[325] Other important works challenging the negative characterization of Pius’s legacy were written by Eamon Duffy, Clifford Longley, Cardinal Winning, Michael Burleigh, Paul Johnson, and Denis Mack Smith.[321]
“In his 2003 book A Moral Reckoning, Daniel Goldhagen asserted that Pius XII ‘chose again and again not to mention the Jews publicly…. [In] public statements by Pius XII … any mention of the Jews is conspicuously absent.’ In a review of Goldhagen’s book, Mark Riebling counters that Pius used the word ‘Jew’ in his first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, published on 20 October 1939. ‘There Pius insisted that all human beings be treated charitably—for, as Paul had written to the Colossians, in God’s eyes ‘there is neither Gentile nor Jew’. In saying this, the Pope affirmed that Jews were full members of the human community—which is Goldhagen’s own criterion for establishing ‘dissent from the anti-Semitic creed’.'[326]
“In Pius XII, the Hound of Hitler, Catholic journalist Gerard Noel dismissed accusations that Pius was ‘anti-semitic’ or ‘pro-Nazi’, but accused him of ‘silence’ based on fear of retaliation and wrote that ‘Hitler played the Pope with consummate expertise’.[321]”
“Opening of the Vatican Secret Archives[edit]
“On the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the appointment of Pius XII as Bishop of Rome, Pope Francis announced during an audience for staff of the Vatican Secret Archives on 4 March 2019 that Vatican archival materials pertaining to Pius XII’s pontificate will be accessible to scholars beginning on 2 March 2020.[352][353] While this announcement was welcome by researchers, much of it has been clouded by the role of Pope Pius XII with regard to the Holocaust. However, archival research of this period should inform a much broader shift within global Christianity, from Europe to the global South.[354]
“More than 150 people applied to access the archives, although only 60 can be accommodated in the offices at one time. Among the first to view the documents were representatives of the Jewish community in Rome, and staff from Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust museum and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.
“In January 2022, historian Michael Feldkamp announced that he had discovered in the Vatican archives evidence that Pius XII had personally saved at least 15,000 Jews from extermination, and that he had sent a report on the Holocaust to the American government shortly after the Wannsee Conference, although they did not believe him.[355]
“In June 2022, David Kertzer, one of the first historians to have analyzed the archives, published his book The Pope at War.[356] Kertzer, with the support of thousands of unpublished documents, uncovered the existence of secret negotiations between Hitler and Pius XII already a few weeks after the end of the conclave, promoted by Hitler himself with the intention of improving his relations with the Vatican.
“Pius XII, for his part, concentrated his efforts on protecting and improving the situation of the Church in Germany in the face of the anti-Catholic policies of the Nazis, although both sides could not reach any agreement.[357] He also argues that, despite having irrefutable evidence of the ongoing extermination of the Jews, Pius XII never denounced the Nazi atrocities, as he preferred to leave the role of moral guide, rather than put at risk the situation of the Church.” CBK
I’ve had debates with various folks about the value and accuracy of Wikipedia here, and while I’ve tempered my views about it a great deal, I’m not ready to jump in with both feet to use it as a primary source for information. And I am generally suspicious of the views of anyone who does so. It’s one of many resources, but by no means authoritative or without obvious bias in many instances. But when a subject interests me, I read about it as widely as possible. Wikipedia is never my go to resource, nor should it be anyone’s if the goal is to get more than a superficial overview that may or may not be accurate or biased.
In reading some of this entry, it is obvious the Catholic Church has individuals assigned monitor and edit to this entry. One of the problems true believers have is to flock toward and accept anything tenuous thread that support their misconceptions and biases. Most of this entry is a collection of fictional, Catholic wishful-thinking and revisionism that Orwell would admire.
One thing you never, ever address, seemingly always ignore are the repeated–millions if not tens of millions–cases of physical, sexual, and mental abuse for which hundreds of thousands of priests and nuns were responsible. Why? If I asked you to join a club and you found out it had a rather lengthy record like that of the Catholic Church, would you even consider joining? I think not.
This is hilarious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_reliable_source
Hilarious but honest. I have come across outrageous lies in Wikipedia, planted by enemies. Many years ago, I was invited to give a speech at the U of North Carolina, named for a much honored Democratic Governor. I wanted to make a passing reference to him. I read the Wikipedia entry, which recited the highways and schools named in his honor. Then it said he was a “well known communist.”
False.
Diane About Wikipedia. When I was teaching, I only allowed citations from Wikipedia IF my students went into the citation links and secured and cited the original quote or reference in at least one other source. I use the same method for myself, when I’m not doing “deep research,” or am in a hurry.
In the case of Pope Pius XII, (1) it’s true that the relatively new information has yet to be fully vetted . . . much more will be said, so there’s nothing “definitive,” yet, and may never be (except perhaps in Linda’s mind who is happy to quote obviously biased sources without providing any balance); and
(2) some of the quotes and judgments about XII helping the Jews (in the links) are from well-known Jewish scholars. I won’t put K’s book on my pile of to-be-read, I have other concerns; but it may show up in the Times Book Review, or perhaps on C-SPAN/BookTV.
At any rate, Linda doesn’t answer the question WHY Pope Pius XII is so important to her or to this discussion. And her “contributions” still reek of anti-religious/anti-Catholic bias. From her notes, you would think the Catholics are the only ones who do not support a women’s right to choose. I think the polls say otherwise, even about Catholics themselves. And I think the hierarchy will pay for their overreach of political influence. CBK
I’m sorry, I know I wrote I wouldn’t, but one point is too funny. The deeper point is more tragic and displays great ignorance that I too had.
It is citied above that a scholar claimed that Pius’s actions saved 15,000 Jews. That’s 0.25% and even that’s generous and grasping at straws that just aren’t there. The fact is that Pius, as prelate of Italy and Rome, did nothing to help Jews other than show concern for those who had converted to Catholicism. Nothing.
And as much as it tries to downplay Kertzer, it can’t. The final paragraph is comedy gold.
GregB So I guess all of those Jewish scholars in the links were just spewing junk about Jews being saved by a Catholic priest during WWII. I suppose further reading is necessary; or perhaps I could just realize that, in the face of legitimate conflict (well-known Jewish scholars), your own principle of further self-informing needs to be followed by everyone but you. Score one for the bias. CBK
Let me try to rewrite it:
Pius, for his part, concentrated all of his efforts on protecting the Church and ensuring its unchanged administration and status in Italian society. The abolition of separation of church and state was made public policy in the Lateran Accords, which also granted the Vatican independent statehood, with Mussolini’s approval. Before being elevated to pope, Pius served for more than a decade as nuncio to the German government, in the immediate aftermath of WWI and through the most tumultuous time of the Weimar Republic. During that time, he learned to love all that was German and loathe anything that upset order. It was an attitude we would keep and intensify when he became pope. He never expressed any interest in helping Jews except for those who had converted to Catholicism, and his inattention led to many of them being exterminated in death camps. The only time he spoke publicly about a wartime event in Rome was when its railyards were bombed by the Allies. Although he claimed his actions were to protect the Church, as one historian pointed out, “He did not take a stand in defense of the suffering of the Polish Catholic nation, or of the Christian victims of the Nazi euthanasia program, or of the Jews of his own bishopric in Rome…[with respect to threats to Church] it is still not clear just how, when, and by whom that survival was threatened…” Pius believed “there were bad Fascists and good Fascists…Those who respected the church’s prerogatives, showed deference to the Catholic clergy, and offered the resources of the state to strengthen the church were good. Those who threatened the church’s influence, undercut its institutional activities, and threatened its property and reputation were bad.” Or as Kertzer sums it up succinctly, “as a moral leader, Pius XII must be judged a failure.”
Feel free to replace that final paragraph in Wikipedia and then watch how quickly it gets removed or edited falsely by the church’s minions.
I’m willing to accept that the Pope was a terrible moral failure during the Holocaust. As were many others.
But this is not the place to debate his moral culpability. I think this discussion has played out. Linda and Greg, stop chastising CBK for being Catholic. CBK, stop taking the bait.
To all three of you, drop this conversation. Stop monopolizing the blog with this topic. It has played out.
Please comment on mark Leibovich’s article about Lindsay Graham and Kevin McCarthy.
Change the subject.
This is a blog devoted to discussing education and democracy. Please.
Diane On Pope Pius XII et al, done deal on my board. (Thank you.) CBK
GregB” ” . . .with Mussolini’s approval.” translated: under the principles of extortion and/or the threat of death.
Also, from having read your notes, you already know what the Weimar Republic was about. We both probably would have supported it. My respect for your thinking on religious issues, however, is swirling the bowl as we speak. CBK
Well, I am forced to respond to “stop chastising CBK for being Catholic” since it was posted by our host. If you truly believe that characterization, then you either haven’t read a thing I’ve written or choose to read into it what you want. Speaking for myself, I have never chastised anyone for having a faith in which they believe. I am not a believer, but if I have faith in anything it is an accurate reading of the Constitution and its subsequent history. I take the freedom of religion so seriously that I don’t think government should have any role whatsoever in religion, nor should formal religions have any role in determining governing other than counting the votes of its adherents who are citizens. Ethics and morals should always be a part of lawmaking, but even those can be negotiable in a real democratic-republic. They are not with ideologies.
The idea that we ridicule anyone (scientology excepted) for their religious beliefs is disingenuous to the point that I feel comfortable in calling it an outright lie. A big lie at that. So let’s make it simple.
When formal religions seek special favors or inject their subjective views into the governing of all citizens in a democratic-republic, it is out of bounds and repugnant to all constitutional principles. That is exactly what is happening in this country, unabated and accelerating. And once a patchwork form of governing quits trying to meet the needs of broad populations based on egalitarian fairness and replaces it with isolated policies that respond almost exclusively to fundamental, ideological orthodoxies, governing breaks down. When one wing of those religions that is not orthodox claims, “we’re not like that and were doing something to make our voices heard to make change” and then sees many of the things they claim to oppose from their church becomes law, I think I have a right to point that out. Especially when the end result of that actual action is fascism. Paddling in on place may make you feel good, but it get’s us nowhere, especially when everyone else is swimming by you. But to claim that pointing out this fact that is poisoning our nation is “chastising” someone for their religious belief is a lie and a charge that is beneath the host of this blog. If I chastise anything, it is misuse of facts and actions that result from it, not for anyone’s most deeply held beliefs.
GregB And then I’ll go home. You write: “I take the freedom of religion so seriously that I don’t think government should have any role whatsoever in religion, nor should formal religions have any role in determining governing other than counting the votes of its adherents who are citizens.”
I guess that’s why you asked me why I still belong to a religious organization that steps on others’ freedoms, ETC. If you take religious freedom so seriously, why do you question my belonging to a specific religious organization, regardless? CBK
This sounds a little like the old, “You can’t be tolerant unless you are tolerant of intolerance, too” Catch-22 …
Jon Awbrey “Catch 22** . . . That’s why we need a secular democratic state, a breathing constitution, and the laws. And that’s why we need to distinguish religious from state institutions. . . .to wash away . . . not necessarily intolerance, . . . but the political power that might accrue to it. It’s not a given panacea but, without it, turn off the grill, we’re done.
In my naivete, I have always thought that at least our lawyers understood this distinction. Wrong again. CBK
Well, I know for certain it was dinned into our tender bairn brains in every course of Social Studies and Government and History we had every year in junior high and all through high school — and this was in the Great State of Texas in the 50s and 60s. So I can’t for the life of me figure out what sort of medieval cloisters the moron majority of the Extreme Cult of the Unctuous States got their brains washed in.
Jon Awbrey I took my BA from Georgetown U but did not attend the law school. Below, fyi, are some blurbs from their academic/law department I thought you might find interesting, based on your last note. It is considered by those who judge such things as a top law school in the US. Just fyi. CBK
GENERAL DESCRIPTION: “Georgetown Law delivers an unrivaled experience for students and scholars in the area of U.S. constitutional law. Located just blocks from the U.S. Supreme Court, we are literally at the center of the country’s most engaging and often contentious constitutional debates. Our constitutional law faculty exemplifies the school’s commitment to both theory and practice. Many faculty members have litigated constitutional cases, and a number have argued before the Supreme Court. Because of our location and international reputation, Georgetown Law also regularly hosts talks by Supreme Court justices.”
CURRICULUM
“Our curriculum addresses fundamental questions of constitutional theory, such as debates over originalism, the place of positive rights in the constitutional order, comparative constitutionalism and whether we owe allegiance to the Constitution at all. It also tackles more concrete questions, such as the scope of the First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty, constitutional questions raised by post 9/11 surveillance and the scope of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
“Georgetown Law has a long tradition of scholarship and teaching in jurisprudence and legal theory, and many faculty work in the area. Many Georgetown Law faculty write in the areas of critical legal theory, critical race studies, feminism, and gender studies. Though there are differences among them, these approaches generally examine the way that law works to reinforce existing distribution of power and wealth in society. First-year students interested in such approaches can apply to participate for Curriculum B, the alternative first-year curriculum. Students interested in these approaches may consider working on the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law or on the Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives.
Georgetown Law also has a large number of faculty who write on the theory of legal interpretation. The Georgetown Center for the Constitution focuses on methods of constitutional interpretation, with a special emphasis on originalism. But faculty expertise in this area is not limited to questions of constitutional interpretation. Georgetown Law faculty have written leading articles on statutory interpretation, the interpretation of administrative regulations, contract interpretation, and the role of interpretation in the law of fraud and false advertising.
“A third area of special faculty expertise is moral and political theory. Georgetown Law faculty have written leading works on moral cognition, on legal ethics, on libertarianism, on the application of virtue ethics to jurisprudence, on just war theory, and on the moral foundations of contract and tort law. Students interested in ethical issues can work on the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics.
“Every year faculty members organize, in cooperation with the Georgetown Philosophy Department, a semester-long Law and Philosophy Seminar, which is open to both law and graduate philosophy students. Each year organizers invite outside speakers to present works in progress on a general topic. Recent topics have included “Responsibility, Liability, Holding to Account,” “Bodies, Gender, Identity,” “The Analytic Turn in Jurisprudence” and “Promises and other Relationship-Based Obligations.””
https://www.law.georgetown.edu/academics/courses-areas-study/
Here’s an “authoritative” source. And just to fill in what’s missing here (the censors did a good job of sanitizing this as much as possible), Mussolini had been the head of government for seven years when this became law. Nothing passed in Italy without his approval. One of his greatest tasks when he took office was to use the Vatican for his political purposes, just as the Vatican did with him. It was a fruitful relationship, one that lived on as the Church delivered war criminals to South America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty
My later note went to moderation. See Wikipedia for quotations if it doesn’t show up here. CBK
GregB I wouldn’t take Linda’s word for anything after what has transpired on this blogsite. However, to respond to your note, do read some of the actual writings of many Jewish scholars referenced on Wikipedia. Also, I transition my note to Linda below for your consideration about reading and writing about history in general and this history in particular:
I think the “wait and see” view that I posted here earlier, considering it’s still an open and debated issue, is better than calling anything “definitive,” which is suspicious on its face when it obviously supports Linda’s similarly obvious bias.
Transposing my earlier note to Linda: If an author or reader takes history as an abstraction, without its fuller and human context of meaning, it will have a different meaning for them than if either one understands the concrete situation, in this case, we are talking about Pope Pius XII trying to placate murdering thugs, for instance, by “requiring” Jews to convert to Catholicism, therefore saving their lives because they were not “Jews” any longer. (<–A Really Stupid Idea from our present point of view, but we are talking Hitler’s flat-brain ideas about Jewishness here so apparently, it worked for some.)
But from a different reading/writing, and necessarily as an interpretation of the situation from an historian’s viewpoint, the Pope can be interpreted as “requiring” conversion in order to get converts for Catholicism. If that’s the horizon from which authors interpret quotations from their subject/Pope Pius XII, and fail to understand what was going on at that time, it’s a doubtful interpretation when compared to an historian’s view where they harbor a different horizon on the potentials embedded in human thought and actions. In making such judgements, however, you probably can see why a reader would benefit from giving credence to the viewpoint of Jewish scholars on such a situation. Drawing from some of the quotes of Pope Pius himself, he was lucky to get out alive.
BTW, I’m certainly not defending what remains the evils of Catholicism or in any religious tradition. For instance, even if pedophiles in the Church numbered as single-digit, the coverup and look-the-other-way ignorance was by most or even all concerned.
I am sickened, however, by Linda’s and others’ bias about all things religious, and even what you say about the Church and its history, insofar as it doesn’t square with the founder or the texts that have flowed from that time. As human, Greg, if not the evils of Catholicism or Christian Nationalism, or Jim Jones, then another human derelict or institution by another name.
BTW, not all, but many of the philosophers I draw from in my work were/are Jesuits. Their and my philosophical work is also met with a “religious bias” even though it’s clearly philosophical. The bias manifests in the thinking that, if a person has a religious background, then their work must be uncritical. CBK
“BTW, I’m certainly not defending what remains the evils of Catholicism or in any religious tradition. For instance, even if pedophiles in the Church numbered as single-digit, the coverup and look-the-other-way ignorance was by most or even all concerned.”
If you were to encounter an adult who was sexually abused by a priest, how would you defend your church’s actions?
Did not see this before I wrote my response above. Had I done so, my response would have been much harsher. This is all you can say about this? Minimize it to death? Sounds like Catholic policy to me. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, and for god’s sake, never admit the evil you have done.
How would you defend your church’s actions once those abuses came to light and were proven to be true, possibly much worse than first reported?
GregB I think maybe you are confusing explaining with defending. Big difference. But I maybe you are saying that: that kind of evil (pedophilia) doesn’t even deserve explanation. On the other hand, if we cannot understand it, we will have less and less capacity to correct it.
“How would you defend your church’s actions once those abuses came to light and were proven to be true, possibly much worse than first reported?”
I’ve never defended such actions by the Church. GregB, is there a block in there somewhere that keeps you from hearing what I am saying? CBK
Greg, I think that’s harsh. CBK is Catholic. She accepts the body of belief. She has said she does not approve the actions of pedophile priests. We have a tradition of freedom of religion in this country. Respect it. I know many Catholics like her who love their faith, not the actions of errant priests. As a Jew married to a Catholic, I say stop back off.
Greg B “If you were to encounter an adult who was sexually abused by a priest, how would you defend your church’s actions?”
I would not defend it. Why do you think I would? I “minimize pedophilia”? Whhhaaaaaaa … ? CBK
That’ fair. More to the point, I guess the real question to be asked is, “Why would you belong to that religion and defend it knowing what they have done to millions of people like me for hundreds of years?”
GregB “Why belong?” Well, it’s a long story, I have spoken of some of it before on this site (re the Jesuit scholars), it’s probably boring to others and, frankly, it’s none of your business. I do feel I should wear a bag on my head sometimes. CBK
The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum site under the heading, “Christians and the Holocaust,” posted a bibliography including abstracts for each referenced source. Susan Zucotti’s 2000 book, “Under His Very High Windows….,” is listed. The abstract summarizes, “Finds no evidence that the Pope was in solved in plans to rescue or shelter Jews.”
involved
Susan Zuccotti earned her doctorate at Columbia. She has taught about the Holocaust at Barnard and Trinity Universities. She is author of many books including one about Jewish-Christian relations. She has received awards for her books including the National Jewish Book Award and the Primo Acqui Storia for “Italians and the Holocaust.”
Linda About Zuccotti’s credentials. Glad to hear it. The statement you quoted about her work, however, . . . circa . . . that there is no evidence of Pope Pius XII helping many, many Jews, has been refuted again and again by scholars with similar related, or better credentials. So, what do you do with that, Linda?
I know what YOU do: You quote and believe the one that fits your prescribed bias.
I don’t put such scholars above error or being misquoted, however; so, I’m sure (unlike your view), one error or falsity or misquote, does not make for an entire lifetime of making scholarly errors or, worse, lying to readers. The book is not closed on this issue anyway. I think that’s pretty clear, except, of course, in your mind. CBK
The Catholic I married would have given her life to save mine. Are there Catholic bigots today? Yes. Are there Protestant and Jewsish bigots today? Yes. Are all Catholics bigots? No.
Please point me to one reference where Linda or I have ever called all members of any group bigots. Just one. The only ones putting all members in one religion in one basket are you and CBK. I’ll back off now. But if CBK continues to post this kind of tripe, accusing with blanket statements, obfuscation, just plain wrong on facts, and continuing to ignore uncomfortable truths, expect me to get back in.
GregB You just described Linda. “continues to post this kind of tripe, accusing with blanket statements, obfuscation, just plain wrong on facts, and continuing to ignore uncomfortable truths, . . . ”
And BTW, show me a “wrong fact” that I posted and good reasons why you think it’s wrong, and I’ll refute it myself. I think you have it backwards, however. CBK
Greg, I don’t think CBK should be put in a position where she is supposed to represent all the Poprs and the Catholic Church. I don’t know her personal beliefs. I don’t have a right to know. I don’t care. I don’t like that she is turned into a target.
Scientology, of course, being the hypocritical exception to the rule. But they’re not bigots, just nuts.
Greg, agreed. Scientologists are nuts. Easily ignored. People are free to join strange religions as long as they don’t force their views on those who don’t share them.
For example, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Let them be.
As for wrong facts, I point you to the Wikipedia article you cited as a reputable sources above.
GregB From Wikipedia: was what I quoted false? or just not acceptable to you generally because it was from Wikipedia? (See my note to Diane about using Wikipedia.)
Also, again, the linked citations and references are authentic. Read them yourself if you have time, and anyone can double-check with original sources, but do so especially from the Jewish scholars about Pope Pius XII particular topic.
Also, where are you on others’ (ahem) oversights/absences/distortions that I have point out and provided evidence for several times in the last month? Silent on those, are you? CBK
Greg-
Thank you for all of your comments, in particular, the 10:15 comment. Your repeated attempts to make clear that you nor I have said or intended to imply that “all Catholics” are politicking like Lenoard Leo, William Barr, Gen. Flynn, Steve Bannon, etc. are confirmed by the record. The record doesn’t convince those who are responding to this thread because the allegation serves its purpose. It deflects from the unnamed enemy who takes our rights.
What can’t be covered up is the money spent by the Church to get Roe overturned, to fight gay rights, to privatize schools, to protect pedophile priests, to mobilize voter drives for Republican candidates and issues, etc. And, no amount of deflection will change the self-admitted efforts of the Church that result in a negative impact on Black people, women, children and Democratic candidates.
A person might give her or his life for me. How much loyalty that obligates me to may be independent of what my potential savior expects, demands or coerces from me. Or, it may not be.
Greg,
I responded at 11:39. The comment went to moderation.
Unfortunately, you are a zealot on this issue, CBK. You have a narrow view and you will cling to it until death. Diane, I didn’t put CBK in a position to represent all Catholics, never have, never will. I can differentiate between the view she claims to espouse and the one she actually does. She does seem to infer that she speaks for all Catholics who somehow don’t follow their church, yet somehow still do on what they think are their terms. But I’ll respect your wishes from here on.
GregB I certainly don’t “speak for all Catholics,” but if you mean I read the polls and don’t follow dead doctrine like the zealot you think I am, guilty. If I were a zealot, BTW, I would agree with church Doctrine on abortion et al, and with their egregious power plays. I don’t.
Ironically, you want it both ways, and you accuse me of what YOU THINK I am and seem not to be able to hear anything else. I like allot of what you say on this site; but on this issue, I think you are somewhat confused. CBK
Greg-
Thanks for sheltering me from the bullets for as long as you have. And, thanks to Poet for, in a different thread, naming the enemy that can’t be named.
Linda writes that: “Susan Zucotti’s 2000 book, ‘Under His Very High Windows….,’ is listed. The abstract summarizes, ‘Finds no evidence that the Pope was in solved in plans to rescue or shelter Jews.'”
Now THAT’s funny. You have to give it to the Holocaust Museum’s openness for listing even THESE kinds of books. CBK
The U.S. moved from concept to reality when the right wing Catholic Church achieved its long term goal to level a death sentence on women of child bearing ages, when the Church began a legal process scoring its first win to exempt the religious from civil rights employment law and, when the Church succeeded in getting tax money for its schools (and other Catholic organizations making them the 3rd largest employer in the country).
Each Ravitch blog commenter has the right to criticize me if I support the power apparatus that achieved the outcomes listed above. Each commenter as an American has both a right and a duty to try to thwart theocracy.
I have afforded Mary Catherine the courtesy of not exercising my right to criticize her personally for her support of an organization that is taking away my rights and those of my family and my fellow Americans.
The empirical facts you cite in your first paragraph refute every, “yes, but…” excuse.
Linda There is in Linda’s notes an obvious kind of either/or, black/white, extreme thinking. I don’t subscribe to it.
Also, on abortion, while I do think life begins at conception, for me, it’s not a religious view; and though I abhor abortion, I am on the side of a woman’s right to it. (So GUESS WHAT. We’re not robots.)
It doesn’t matter, however, because Linda says she doesn’t read my posts anyway; and no one here owes ANYONE an explanation about why they belong to ANY organization, much less a religious one, and even lesser to Linda, whose contributions to this site have often and rightly been well-regarded, even though surrounded and saturated with anti-Catholic/religious views, selected omissions, misinformation, and an abundance of extremities, not to mention redundancies . . . it’s like being hammered over and over again. . . . Good grief. CBK
Linda “Mary Catherine”? Ha Ha! Are you just mad because I exposed your lies and cherry-picking? CBK
The only thing shocking about the Dobbs decision was that anyone was actually shocked by it. As has been pointed out in the comments in this blog since I have been here since summer 2016, there has been a concerted alliance between the GOP, self-proclaimed religious fundamentalists, economic conservatives (i.e., individuals who do not want to pay taxes or be subject to public health and safety regulations), and other hucksters whose goal to undermine a variety of public policy initiatives and ideas in order to have more power over what they value and no responsibility for what they oppose
Susan Collins is Exhibit A for the perfect kind of person to act as a symbolic foil while at the same time supporting the coalition’s goals. On the one hand, she points to bona fides of having long supported the pro-choice movement while, at the same time, the issue she claims to support so passionately is actually being consistently undermined by the party to which she belongs and the laws it helps pass and judges it gets appointed. Yes, there will be an occasional scolding from Sen. Collins, but the ship moves on, undeterred. She even has the gall to claim she voted for the Idiot’s Supreme Court nominees because of assurances given in private and through logical inferences of interpreting testimony.
So when she claims to be shocked by the decision, that in particular Justices BK and NG somehow backed out of a commitment that they made to her, should we believe her? Is she the only person with a cursory knowledge of the American political landscape that didn’t know Leonard Leo vetted every Republican nominee on their views about overturning Roe? Those of us who watched the evening news on a semi-regular basis knew that the deal for getting on the Court if you were a Republican was to overturn Roe. There was NO excuse not to know. But Collins calculated that she’d get a twofer: credit for being consistently pro-choice and being seen as one who stands up for people like her and, on the other hand, not being an obstructionist to her party’s agenda as dictated by Mitch McConnell.
If she claims, like so many in her party, to support abortion rights and links that issue to the broader issues of women’s health and a right to privacy, then why is she so naive when the rest of the world is not? She is however a practicing Roman Catholic. Is it fair to question her devotion to her religion and its leadership when her rhetoric opposes them yet her actions let their plans move forward unhindered? It it fair to ask the same questions of the people who claim to be like her? If it is not fair, then how else can we explain the results of the process? Is it fair to expect an honest response? Yes, but… doesn’t cut it when you are actually losing substantively on all fronts of an agenda supported unconditionally by a hodge-podge of self-interested constituencies.
Jon Awbrey Me too, only I was in California in the 50’s and early 60’s. We couldn’t graduate high school without knowing that “material.” Though I didn’t really understand its import at the time. (tsk, tsk). And when I went to NVCC, GT, and UVA, it was the same, especially in any course related to history. CBK
“Well, I know for certain it was dinned into our tender brains in every course of Social Studies and Government and History we had every year in junior high and all through high school — and this was in the Great State of Texas in the 50s and 60s. So I can’t for the life of me figure out what sort of medieval cloisters the moron majority of the Extreme Cult of the Unctuous States got their brains washed in.”