Well I am afraid that I most strenuously disagree. I think what I have said here is balanced and fair. And I am surprised that you believe the Catholic re-write of the facts. If you care to take a look at the authentic press coverage of the build up of fascism in Europe you will see that the CC is implicated and supportive in every incidence. In the rise of fascist dictatorships in Spain, Italy, Austria and Slovakia Rome heaped praise upon the regimes. Under Mussolini the Pope agreed every aid and assistance in return for making Catholicism the only legal religion in Italy. Preachers across the fascist states urged their congregations to support the fascist leaders.
Of course the CC has devoted much effort not so much to the re-write, though that is most definitely there, but to the conspiracy of silence that demands the pertinent questions are never publicly aired in the first place. Even more recently there is Rwanda, (see above post), and the wholehearted papal endorsement and collusion of Bishops with the fascist military Junta in Argentina and Chile. The CC has a totalitarian mindset and has much in common with fascism and it is thus no surprise that they make regular and willing bedmates.
We spent nearly six decades of the "Cold War", where the world was essentially split between two main secular ideologies of Capitalism and Communism. During this time both sides committed a range of atrocities year after year to assert their dominance over the years.
It's interesting to see you mention Chile, as General Pinochet was effectively a US puppet who was actively brought to power from the US in order to put a stop to "Communist influences" in the country. As a US ally Britain actively supported the position and Margaret Thatcher expressed her dismay that Pinochet, historically Britain's ally under the Cold War, should face the indignity of house arrest in Britain over human rights abuses.
I'm sure you know all that - so my point is that as a British citizen, you are actively allied with British foreign policy whether you like it our not - certainly as viewed from outside of the UK.
Therefore would it be fair for you to be held account for all the historical acts of the British government - of which I'm sure we could easily draw up a long list stretching from live human experiments at Portadown at the start of the 50's, to the recent issue of rendition flights supported by UK airports - due to the fact that you're a British citizen, and you may support some but not other political policies?
I wouldn't think that fair - and yet you seem to think it's fair to ascribe all the flaws of a specific religion on individuals who share a its basic religious belief?
Also, are you really unaware that a huge amount of social progress in the UK at least - free education for children, social support and services - was brought about by active implmentation and campaigning by Christian churches in the Victorian era, who then enforced their agenda through the labour movement?
We can point fingers at any ideology - secular or religious - and demonstrate great good and great wrong. But all we're pointing out is that ideologies can be a mix of exactly that, and the foundation as to how much good or wrong is ingrained in an ideology I do not think can be argued by the criteria of being religious or secular.
It's ironic that despite the bloody historical record of the world under governance of the world's religions, it's not until the 20th century when secular government takes control of the most powerful nations of the world, that the biggest atrocities humanity has ever seen are enacted out by secular governments.
Yet surely it would be better to call out the individual wrongs of any governance or ideology, because if generalised, secularism has been the bloodiest event in human history - yet to conclude such would surely be to underline the severe and myopic limitations of generalisation in itself?
