Posted on 06/23/2007 11:07:39 AM PDT by Bokababe
Received this morning from Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Israel Director Efraim Zuroff (bold emphasis added): “Wiesenthal Center Expresses Outrage At Massive Outburst of Nostalgia for Croatian Fascism at Zagreb Rock Concert”:
Jerusalem – The Simon Wiesenthal Center today expressed its sense of outrage and disgust in the wake of a massive show of fascist salutes, symbols and uniforms at a rock concert by popular ultra-nationalist Croatian singer “Thompson” attended by 60,000 people in Zagreb last night. In a letter sent today to Croatian President Stjepan Mesic, the Center’s chief Nazi-hunter Israel director Dr. Efraim Zuroff noted the presence of Croatian dignities, including the Minister of Science, Education and Sports, at the event and called for the banning of concerts by singers like Thompson who glorify fascism and racism. According to Zuroff:
“According to the Croatian media, the concert turned into a massive fascist demonstration with tens of thousands of people shouting the infamous Ustasha salute of “Za dom spremni.” In addition,… numerous participants came wearing Ustasha uniforms and symbols. To make matters worse, in attendance last night were officials and members of Parliament, as well as the Minister of Science, Education [!!] and Sports.
“Under the current circumstances, I believe that the time has come to prohibit public concerts by those who write songs of nostalgia for Jasenovac and inspire the show of Ustasha symbols, which constitute open and blatant incitement against all the minorities in Croatia.”
(Excerpt) Read more at juliagorin.com ...
You wrote:
“Yeah, VLADIMIR, you’re an American... WTF?”
Exactly. I am an American. I am not a Croat. I am not a Serb. I see things as they really are and do not make rash, or irrational judgments. I actually take the time to look at the historical evidence. This is why I don’t put forward a known forgery as someone else here did. Instead, I posted the reputed author’s own strenuous denial as to ever having produced that document. The others here are reduced to merely insulting me. They can’t do much else.
Exactly because I am an American, I refuse to be fooled by Communist propaganda, Nazi propaganda, or weak minded people looking for scapegoats. Try it. You might like being independent minded.
Yet you seem bent on minimizing the Nazi resurgence in Croatia. Why might that be?
You wrote:
“Yet you seem bent on minimizing the Nazi resurgence in Croatia. Why might that be?”
I’m not bent on minimizing anything. We are talking about a Ustashe resurgence and not a Nazi resurgence. The Croatians are not Germans, nor were more than a few ever Nazis. The Ustashe had some similar views, and some horribly similar practices such as genocide, but also some very different views and practices. To call a Ustashe a Nazi is no more correct than to call a German Nazi a Croatian. I don’t assume the two groups were the same because they weren’t. Just because they were allies and shared some similar beliefs and practices makes them no more interchangeable 60 years later than saying the Soviets and Nazis were exactly interchangeable. Apparently this fact - irrefutable fact - has never occurred to you.
Thus, there is a Ustashe resurgence, in Croatia, and not a Nazi resurgence in Croatia. I do not confuse the two no matter how similar in some ways they appear. You make that mistake. I choose not to.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you are using a term for members of the National Socialist GERMAN Workers Party for a group of Croatians. Why aren’t you using the correct term?
Now, having said all of that, I should point out that your question is bogus to begin with. I have done exactly nothing to minimize any “Nazi resurgence” or Ustashe resurgence. One is happening. The other is not. I have correctly noted which one is NOT happening, and have correctly discussed the other - including its past sixty years ago as well as more recently.
I believe it is a crime to make Fascist Salutes in Germany;
Yet, that whole crowd was making them in that one photograph.
So many of the old Axis powers was also the old Austro-Hungarian empire with countries like Slovakia and Hungary. As much as I think the Soviet Union repressed democracy in Hungary in the 1950s and I don’t mean to cast stones at anyone, that country was still a part of that empire.
Germany is watched too closely to give an easy resurrection to the old Nazism, though surely, it is there to an extent with your Skinheads and such.
Croatia seems very far away from the main of Europe and somewhat remote as does a lot of the former Yugoslavia; so it is something to be weary of especially, when that prominent family showed up for the concert.
But as for those deriding the church, I categorically do not do that; so much has been written both for and against such involvement. That would take much research.
You wrote:
“I believe it is a crime to make Fascist Salutes in Germany;”
I think you’re right, and yet it happens all the time in Germany too.
“Yet, that whole crowd was making them in that one photograph.”
I don’t think there is any law against it in Croatia. At least not yet. And the law would probably be ignored.
“Germany is watched too closely to give an easy resurrection to the old Nazism, though surely, it is there to an extent with your Skinheads and such.”
Yes, indeed. It is a festering problem.
“Croatia seems very far away from the main of Europe and somewhat remote as does a lot of the former Yugoslavia; so it is something to be weary of especially, when that prominent family showed up for the concert.”
Croatia is actually much more plugged into Europe than, say, Serbia. This certainly seems to be the case historically. Croatia has always had a lot of historical contacts with Italy, Germany, Austria, and so on.
“But as for those deriding the church, I categorically do not do that; so much has been written both for and against such involvement. That would take much research.”
It is a fascinating topic.
So your entire argument is based upon not permitting Nazi to be used as a generic term for fascists who support a racial agenda?
Now that is much ado about nothing.
You wrote:
“So your entire argument is based upon not permitting Nazi to be used as a generic term for fascists who support a racial agenda?”
No. And if you want a description of an argument than you might want to define the issue first. We discussed several things here.
“Now that is much ado about nothing.”
No, but your posts are clearly less than nothing.
Standin' on your shoulders, chumley
You wrote:
“Standin’ on your shoulders, chumley”
No, you can’t even reach them.
Again, I posted the facts about Stepinac. No one has been able to contest them. You guys posted a forgery and didn’t even know it was a forgery.
vladimir998 (your tagline): "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome" (St Jerome -- a Roman Catholic Saint from Dalmatia, Croatia)
Add to that Vlad,virtually all your supposed "evidence" supporting Stepinac comes from Roman Catholic sources.
Personally, I don't care what your religion is. You could have argued honestly as a Roman Catholic, but instead you chose to lie about who and what you were -- unless you want to argue that the choice of your tagline from a Roman Catholic Saint from Dalmatia,was "pure coincidence" -- which is just too ridiculous for words.
You've lied about something as obvious as this, then the rest of what you say has zero credibility to anyone other than your fellow propagandists and the "truly stupid"!
Your “facts” were repudiated, get over it.
You wrote:
“vladimir998: “I am not Roman Catholic.””
True. I am a Catholic. I am not a Roman Catholic. I have never been a Roman Catholic. I never will be a Roman Catholic. I am a Catholic.
“vladimir998 (your tagline): “Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome” (St Jerome — a Roman Catholic Saint from Dalmatia, Croatia)”
Incorrect. Jerome was Catholic. He was not a Roman Catholic nor did he ever refer to himself as one.
“Add to that Vlad,virtually all your supposed “evidence” supporting Stepinac comes from Roman Catholic sources.”
Actually those sources I used refer to themselves as Catholic, or Orthodox or secular. I don’t think i used a single source that refered to itself as “Roman Catholic” if any religion was identified.
“Personally, I don’t care what your religion is. You could have argued honestly as a Roman Catholic, but instead you chose to lie about who and what you were — unless you want to argue that the choice of your tagline from a Roman Catholic Saint from Dalmatia,was “pure coincidence” — which is just too ridiculous for words.”
No, I am a Catholic and have never been a Roman Catholic. I see no reason to identify myself as something I am not.
“You’ve lied about something as obvious as this, then the rest of what you say has zero credibility to anyone other than your fellow propagandists and the “truly stupid”!”
I lied about nothing. I am a Catholic. My parish is called a Catholic parish. My diocese is called a Catholic diocese. My Church is called the ‘Catholic Church’. My catechism is called the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”
Note that CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
I have never lied about my faith. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a “Roman Catholic”. I am Catholic. I am just as Catholic when I attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome (yes, there is such a church!) and in the Byzantine Catholic Church, as when I go to my usual Latin Mass.
Maybe you should learn to pay more attention.
You wrote:
“Your “facts” were repudiated, get over it.”
They weren’t refuted. That’s all that counts.
By the way, Rocket Scientist, look at post #44 and you see this:
I am not “Roman Catholic.”
Notice how I put the phrase “Roman Catholic” in quotes?
I am not “Roman Catholic” or Roman Catholic, or a papist, or a member of popery, or a Romanist, or Romish. None of those terms is accurate, many of them are outright pejoratives.
I am Catholic.
The first thing that your statement brings to mind is Bill Clinton saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." -- true in the narrowest legal sense of the word, but a bald-face lie by any reasonable standard of common understanding. I am sure that you think that this makes you "smart", but in fact, it just shows your utter disregard for honesty.
The word "Catholic" katholikos from katholou in Greek-- translates to "throughout the whole". It occurs in the Greek classics, e.g., in Aristotle and Polybius, and was freely used by the earlier Christian writers in what we may call its primitive and non-ecclesiastical sense. It's most common translation into English is "universal".
As such, it is simply an adjective that anyone can apply to anything. The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as "The Catholic Church" -- "the universal church", hence it often simply calls itself "Catholic" as a way of pretending it is "the only church that matters". However, if you are under the authority of the Pope of Rome, you are a Roman Catholic" whether you wish to call yourself that or not. I have friends who are Marionite Catholic, but they have never denied that they are Roman Catholic, so I have no idea what your problem is. However, it was and is dishonest to pretend that you "have no horse in this race" when it comes to defending Stepinac.
(St Jerome — a Roman Catholic Saint from Dalmatia, Croatia)”Incorrect. Jerome was Catholic. He was not a Roman Catholic nor did he ever refer to himself as one."
You are not St. Jerome, Vlad. Of course St. Jerome never called himself "a Roman Catholic", there was only one Christian church when he was alive prior to any split with Constantinople. He was, was however the person who translated the Bible into Latin from Greek and Hebrew, and as a result, the whole Christian church no longer spoke a common theological language as it had when the language of Christian theology was Greek. ("Kyrie Eleison" is still a leftover in the Latin Mass from the original Greek.) St. Jerome is only revered in the Western Church and not in the Orthodox Christian Church.
"I am just as Catholic when I attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome (yes, there is such a church!)..."
The word Orthodox, from the Greek ortho ('right', 'correct') and doxa ('thought', 'teaching', 'glorification')". Common translation into English is "traditional".
Once again, "orthodox" is simply an adjective. However, if I say that I am "an Eastern Orthodox Christian", the common understanding that I belong to the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Church" whose Patriarch is Bartholomew. So when you say that you attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome (yes, there is such a church!), you and I both know that this church is no longer an authentic "Russian Orthodox Church" if it reports to Rome.
If you and your church ultimately report to Pope Benedict in Rome, Vlad, then you are Roman Catholic, period. Get over it and quit pretneding to be what you are not -- "an objective observer"!
You wrote:
“The first thing that your statement brings to mind is Bill Clinton…”
Your analogy falls flat because Bill Clinton was simply lying. He had had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. He penetrated her with a cigar and had oral sex with her. Go ahead and tell your kids that’s not sex if you REALLY believe that’s the case.
I, on the other hand, didn’t lie. I am not a “Roman Catholic”. I never have been. I never will be.
“The Roman Catholic Church sees itself as “The Catholic Church” — “the universal church”, hence it often simply calls itself “Catholic” as a way of pretending it is “the only church that matters”.”
No. The Catholic Church calls itself the Catholic Church because it is the Catholic Church. It has never said it is the only Church that mattered. Mattering, a minor thing, is not the same thing as being the Catholic Church, a major thing.
“However, if you are under the authority of the Pope of Rome, you are a Roman Catholic” whether you wish to call yourself that or not.”
Wrong. I am not Roman. I am Catholic.
“ I have friends who are Marionite Catholic, but they have never denied that they are Roman Catholic, so I have no idea what your problem is.”
You. Your friends allow you to use that term because they are charitable enough to overlook the fact that you don’t know any better. I don’t claim to be that charitable.
“However, it was and is dishonest to pretend that you “have no horse in this race” when it comes to defending Stepinac.”
I am more objective than you and your buddies here. How many forged documents did I use? NONE.
“You are not St. Jerome, Vlad. Of course St. Jerome never called himself “a Roman Catholic”, there was only one Christian church when he was alive prior to any split with Constantinople.”
Incorrect. Again, we see that you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Ever hear of the Donatist Church? No, apparently not. There were other churches – with valid sacraments no less – long before 1054 when the Eastern Orthodox went to schism. A contemporary of St. Jerome, St. Augustine, made this brilliant point:
“And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]
“He was, was however the person who translated the Bible into Latin from Greek and Hebrew, and as a result, the whole Christian church no longer spoke a common theological language as it had when the language of Christian theology was Greek. (”Kyrie Eleison” is still a leftover in the Latin Mass from the original Greek.) St. Jerome is only revered in the Western Church and not in the Orthodox Christian Church.”
Again, you have no idea of what you’re talking about. 1) Jerome was not the first man to translate the Biblical into Latin. Clearly you have never heard of the Old Vulgate. 2) There is no reason to assume all Christians EVER spoke a common language. The earliest Christians knew Aramaic, perhaps Hebrew. Some may have know Greek, but not necessarily all. Also, so what if a different language other than Greek was used? I guess Old Church Slavonic should never have been developed? 3) Also, don’t be so quick to discount St. Jerome. He may be revered only in the West (although clearly some Eastern Orthodox – including modern bishops – are sure to call him a Saint: http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7103.asp) but that doesn’t lessen his importance. Some saints have no cult in the West, but are giants in the East.
“Once again, “orthodox” is simply an adjective. However, if I say that I am “an Eastern Orthodox Christian”, the common understanding that I belong to the “Holy Orthodox Catholic Church” whose Patriarch is Bartholomew. So when you say that you attend a Divine Liturgy in the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome (yes, there is such a church!), you and I both know that this church is no longer an authentic “Russian Orthodox Church” if it reports to Rome.”
No, not at all. At one time ALL Russian churches considered themselves in union with Rome and did not feel threatened in their orthodoxy. Yes, that was before 1054, but it will happen again.
“If you and your church ultimately report to Pope Benedict in Rome, Vlad, then you are Roman Catholic, period.”
No, that just makes me Catholic. Period.
“Get over it and quit pretneding to be what you are not — “an objective observer”!”
I said I am more objective than you are. And I still am. I also clearly know history better than you. Deal with it.
Spot on!
I’m not sure what all the facts are here, or who is more or less correct. BUT, anyone who thinks that a person in communion with Rome is a Roman Catholic and argues with you about is just plain wrong. To personally attack you on that, and to lead an attack against the Church on highly questionable grounds, makes me put less credibility in what they say.
That said, it’s a subject I intend to research a bit more.
“I think you’re right, and yet it happens all the time in Germany too.”
With the world cup in Germany last year, it was sent out ahead of time to tourists; like the English in this case, don’t pull stuff like Goose Stepping, Fascist Salutes nor anything like that, because it can get you thrown in jail.
“Croatia is actually much more plugged into Europe than, say, Serbia. This certainly seems to be the case historically. Croatia has always had a lot of historical contacts with Italy, Germany, Austria, and so on.”
I’m not absolutely sure if this is solidly so, obviously Germany and Austria were there old allies; and of course, Italy is down in the Mediterannean too and there are other ties. I guess, Croatia is a relatively long nation; the eastern part suffered a heavy invasion in those past Balkans wars.
The concert was alarming, much of this other is off topic.
The fact is I could care less about you or what you choose call your religious affiliation, Vlad — except that you refused to admit that Stepinac is considered “a Saint” in YOUR Church which answers to the Pope in Rome, commonly referred to as the Roman Catholic Church by non Roman Catholics. That’s it, period. Instead, you chose to take this off-topic into a game a narcissistic game of “Where’s Waldo?” about your religion, rather than answer a simple question directly and show that you have a vested interest in the outcome of the argument. This behavior is blatantly dishonest, and hardly a ringing endorsement for your own personal Faith — regardless of what you choose to call it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.