yahoo translation of Deschner interview.
<b>The crime film-alga-laminated of the Christianity: Interview with Karl Heinz Deschner</b>
<i>World week
Expenditure 14/07 | Interview
Karl Heinz Deschner
âIt must become differentlyâ
With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees âthe glad message with the war paintingâ. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.
see also: http://www.deschner.info/
David Signer</i>
With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees âthe glad message with the war paintingâ. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.
<i>Mr. Deschner, which is the core of the Christianity?</i>
The glad message with the war painting. In addition many beautiful legends belong, for example the fairy tale of resurrection. Hearing many beautiful requirements, for example the requirement of the next, of the enemy love, not to kill the requirement, not to steal and the intelligence to hold none of these requirements. <b>Christianity, that is the Liaison of a singing association with a conflagration.</b>
<i>But which is today at the Christianity still so badly? âCrime film-alga-laminate the Christianityâ is called your in the meantime achtbändiges Hauptwerk. Did the church - at least in Western Europe - lose not substantial at influence?</i>
First: I describe not the existing thing, the present Christianity, but its past, thus often, but often also not, somewhat more or less different one. Today anyhow still criminally in Christianity are effects its ideology, which many consequences of its dogma tables insanity, which never expenditure-matures itself been content with the bare faith, which missionieren rather, wants to conquer. Today still criminally in the Christianity its desaströse Sexual and social moral, its practice, are in mother-shot to protect, which one surrenders then in the war - as if one collected in woman bellies cannon fodder. From the large victims for arms for realms makes it small victims that realms for arms. Which the churches seem to lose however in Western Europe or lose, they recover elsewhere, in âGod's own countryâ about.
<i>Today doesn't a much larger danger proceed from the radical Islam?</i>
What the Islam concerns - its own aggressive Potenziale, strengthens by the socio-economic misery of the third world, once aside -, which concerns the Islam, which one, how once nearly the only large bad one sees Jews or communists, soon only in the role of the bad one, could have been still stirred up this role certain western circles not quite desired, could not by them the Islamic danger not secretly?
<i>
But it is nevertheless obvious that many terrorists legitimize today their murders Islamic.</i>
Yes, according to the here dominant public opinion. But at the end of November a published world-wide investigation of the Bertelsmann foundation comes to another result. As main motive of political force - it trebled itself in the last five years - the study does not call religious fanaticism, but poverty, mismanagement and suppression. The religious extremism, under it the Islamic, increases, cover however altogether only one quarter of the groups of terror. , As always, nationalistic movements place their largest portion, to 36 per cent.
<i>
How do you see the relationship Christianity Islam Judentum? Are the force and excluding the other-thinking everywhere in the Monotheismus put on, or do give it to gradations?</i>
All three monotheistischen religions have somewhat Chauvinisti. Something violent and raping. Credit strength of its Auserwähltheitsdünkels a Absolutheitsanspruch, which excludes genuine tolerance from the beginning.
<i>
What propels you over all the decades to this unbelievable work? Indignation?</i>
Yes, which drives me? Plain and simply: injustice. Sky-crying injustice, thousands of years packs into pseudopious sayings, into impudent lies; to reread in dozens of my Christianity-critical books.
<i>
They call themselves as Agnostiker - which you mean exactly with it?</i>
As Agnostiker I leave the question about God, about immortality fair-prove openly. I do not answer it in the negative, although for me a no is high probable. Because I assume many things between skies and earth, about which our school wisdom does not dream anything, also with Shakespeare consider I nevertheless this question with Goethe impenetrable, our brain for too limited. âJust as wellâ, Darwin says, âa dog could speculate upon the understanding of Newtonâ - with which I would not like to have said anything against the dog.
<i>Were you in former times gläubig? If, when and why it came to the break?</i>
Gläubig was I as a child. With ten I wanted to become priests. With eleven already no more. With fifteen I read Nietz, as a student Schopenhauer and edge are sufficient for the parting from the Christianity. A last, but emotional remainder which can be underestimated did not delete always the minute of âagain crowed the cockâ, mostly a earlyChristian dogma, a partienweise comparative religion history; 25,000 working hours in five years.
<i>Did the reformation mean a progress, a humanization of the Christianity?</i>
<b>
No, not at all. It means a continuation of its crimes. </b>Luther exposed the holy legends as fairy tale. <b>To the Bible legends it held; at the devil faith also; at the witch faith; to the Ketzervertilgung; at the anti-Semitism, at the war service, at the body characteristic, the prince. One calls it: Reformation.</b>
<i>And in Switzerland? Was Zwingli better?</i>
Zwingli, the temporary papal Feldpfaffe, wanted to be confounded with Luther, did not ask themselves that him âthe Bäpstler luterisch nennindâ, was however so independently not, particularly in practice. How Luther was itself behind the prince conditions, so it itself behind the inhabitant of zurich advice, the autonomous city republic. Like Luther it fought farmer unrests, like Luther proceeded it against the Täufer, like Luther (and all genuine Christians) entered it for the war. Like Luther it split the country and fell, unequally however the Wittenberger, in helmet and Harnisch against inside Swiss catholics. <b>Finally it was long the opinion, âthe church can only by blood be renewed, not differentâ. Blood tastes to them always best, above all that the others.</b>
<i>
And Calvin?</i>
<b>Oh, this extremely unsinnliche, always ailing, bleichwangige, black-dressed Asket, neither the feeling for nature nor for the art still favour at women, which seemed to feel at all no life desire, nothing as unersättliche greed for power, inexorable interspersing of its âteachingsâ, its theokratischen dictatorship - nothing as icy fanaticism, systematic spying on, punishment, interference in the most personal, most private one. </b>However tremendous despicableness, with which it Michael Servet, which former Mitreformer, physician, whom nature philosophers maltreat, because of a so-called training difference only in the dungeon, let which roast then on the heap of failure inexpressibly terribly a half hour long literally alive, until terribly the crying hung only like a black charred mass on the stake - later Edward Gibbon, which has large stories writers and reconnaissance aircraft, this a sacrificing it âmore deeply shaken than the thousands on the heap of failure of the Inquisitionâ, admits still two hundred years, whose basic idea Calvin by the way took over.
<i>
Is a atheistische society automatic a better society?</i>
No. Not at all. But a society without âGodâ, without myths, without militant lie religions as basis, seems to me more worthwhile. I do not know whether it becomes better, if it becomes differently. But with Lichtenberg I know: It must become differently, if it is to become good.
<i>
Are the cases of Pädophilie a newer phenomenon, or belong to the church?</i>
<b>Naturally Pädophilie is nothing new there. That gives it in the church, since there is the church, already in former times, already in urchristlicher time. If one reads the letters of the Paulus, the genuine and the six falsified, then one finds, like also otherwise in the New Testament, jederlei kind of sexual âsinsâ there.</b>
<i>Is the âPerversionenâ connected from priests with the Zölibat?</i>
Easily possible. But the largest part of the Zölibatäre did not worry around the Zölibat at all, held themselves instead of it failed woman women often in large amounts, the cleric marriage replaces as it were a Klerikerharem. In the 8th century the holy Bonifatius of clergyman with four, five, still more Konkubinen surprises at night in bed. Later it, in Basel, gives man monasteries of women in Lüttich, bishops with twenty, sixty-in children, teems even. And nuns make the Huren competition. In 13. Even Popes groan to century because of the comingness of the Klerus, call it more customless than the laymen, the Verderbnis of the peoples, see it âputrid like the cattle in the muckâ. In 15. Century participate on the council of Konstanz, which burns Hus, except the holy spirit also seven hundred public Nutten, not counted those, which the council fathers themselves bring along.
<i>And the Popes themselves?</i>
<b>Still in the same century Pope Sixtus IV., designer after him designated of the Sixtini chapel and a high-profitable brothel koitiert, with its sister and his children. </b>And 1476 introduce the celebration of the Unbefleckten Empfängnis! Naturally the klerikale Sextreiben continues after the tridentinischen reforms. Still the catholic âaction circle Munichâ the secret before-similar relationship and the forced âUnwahrhaftigkeitâ of the catholic priest deplores 1970.
<i>Are they thus for the abolishment of the Zölibats?</i>
But no! I am, like the Popes, quite for the Zölibat: Who catholic, who catholic cleric wants to be, which is to also out-eat its catholicism.
<i>One can say: The Urchristentum was good, but which made the church from it, is bad?</i>
<b>Yes, many believe. But apart from the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing in the Christianity originally actual from Christmas to the Ascension Day: loud plagiarisms! </b>-, already volume 1 âcrime film-alga-laminatesâ occupied on almost hundred sides the fight of the early Christianity against the Jews.
They are the best proof for the liberality of the Christianity. In the Islam you would have long a Fatwa at the neck.
And in former times in the Christianity a spell curse, a cord or fire under back - for many centuries! Today, nobody is mistaken, prevented only the relative powerlessness of the Klerus to burn its opponents.
<i>Do we live in a secular society, or do regard you the religion still/again increased as important factor?</i>
One needs to nevertheless only watch television, in order to experience, how one churches and church leaders, particularly since Popes, hofiert, who area one grants - and which comments to them! As it goes there only behind the scenes tooâ¦
<i>To what extent does the current Pope join your history?</i>
By being possible to continue substantial one the policy of its predecessors in everything, not least its terrible Sexualrepression, whose victim it, I am afraid, nor will give, as long as humans will live and to die. The legacy of its predecessors is descriptive in mine nearly 1400-seitigen âpolitics of the Popes in 20. Centuryâ.
<i>Benedikt XVI could. this unselige tradition break through, if it wanted?</i>
It is not so important, who stands at the point of the Kurie, as one often believes. Because with all authority, which is papale scope of action limited. Is dependent already on the whole tradierten bureaucratic-bureaucratic apparatus, on political, from theological currents, from direction fights within the Kurie and outside in the bishop church. <b>Actually the apparent Autokrat is bound at all corners and ends, is often already decided decisions, before they become by it ripe for decision. And the Pope is rarely capable of integrating the extremes it becomes often only execution organ of these or that side. Briefly, the Vatikan proves for its highest gentleman as a straitjacket.</b>
<i>Do the victims of the Christianity let themselves be numbered?</i>
<b>
If one ranks the indirect to it, about those of the large wars of the last century among its direct victims - heaths, Jew, Muslims, âKetzerâ, witches, Indians -, to which all Christian churches urgently and again and again called, there is with security several hundred million humans; to be silent from the animals to.</b>
Moment times! They push the victims of the two world wars of the church into the shoes? The communist regime of the Soviet Union was atheistisch, and also the Nazis were against the church. Christians were majority on the victim side or placed themselves against the totalitarian regimes.
That tunes nearly everything. Nevertheless, that is nevertheless the dishonor, has the churches, which catholic, the Protestant, the orthodox, has the Klerus with the war-prominent regimes collaborated, engstens and on all sides.
<i>What for example was the role of the Pope in the First World War?</i>
<b>Pius X., rabiat antislawisch, almost drove Austria into the First World War. </b>And also cardinal Secretary of State Merry del Val hoped before outbreak of the inferno, the monarchy becomes direct, literally, âup to the extreme one goesâ. But there are clear documents. And thousands and thousands and thousands of nausea exciting âfield lecturesâ rush now soon, roar formally before Kriegsbrunst, before murder intoxication. <b>They celebrate the millionful Krepieren as a âpeople springâ, âPfingststurmâ, call the ball rushing âmeasuring singingâ, the cannons of âmegaphones of the calling graceâ, the contactor ditch âGrotte of Gethsemaneâ, the battleground âGolgathaâ, the instant of the slaughtering âla minute divineâ. And the Christians participated, but they were victims and authors. Both!</b>
<i>And in the Second World War?</i>
<b>Now, before the papacy had supported only all fascist gangs, in Italy, Germany, Spain, all all this in Croatia, from the outset and to power had also brought. And at the beginning of the Second World War Pius XII threatened. the âmillions catholics in the German armiesâ: âYou have sworn, them must be obedient.â It hammered them in that the âleaderâ was the legal head of the Germans and each sündige, that refuses the obedience to it. This Pope expressed, still in the middle in the war, not only warmest sympathy for Germany, </b>but also, literally, to âadmiration of large characteristics of the leaderâ. Yes, he lets convey this directly by two Nuntien, he wishes, again in the wording, âthe leader nothing more ardently than a victoryâ!
<i>Why? Fear, adjustment? Or did the church pursue own goals?</i>
<b>Pius XII. - Owners of a private possession of eighty million in gold and validities - hoped, what had not reached the papacy in the First World War with having castle and the German emperor, now in the Second World War - 25,000 dead ones daily, daily turnover two billion Marks - to reach with Hitler, the old majority goal of Rome: the Katholisierung of the Balkans and subjecting the Russian-orthodox church.
</b>
<i>How did the Russian-orthodox church react?</i>
Now, it stepped immediately to the side of the atheistischen Soviet Union, to the page Stalins. Because it there always goes whether catholic, protestant or Russian-orthodox, in truth only over one, around power, power, power. And in such a way one called the population for active support Stalins, regarded asking services as the victory of the Red Army. A council of 46 bishops wished âunserm still numerous years of lifeâ to much-loved boss Josef Stalin.
<i>Does religion make automatically dumb? Or can it âimproveâ humans also?</i>
Even sometimes I white, perhaps âdoes not improveâ her; above all such, which would have become ânoblerâ also from alone.<b> But the good Christians are most dangerous, one confound them with the Christianity. And partially âdumbâ always make absurd faith conceptions.</b>
<i>They are a fighter against kitschige literature, the American Way OF Life and cruelty against animals. Do these different offensive ones from a common source feed themselves?</i>
Yes, I mean already: from a feeling seed sensorium, a violent abhorrence both before the false one and the wrong one.
<i>Apropos America: Do you estimate religion as important factor in Bush's politics?</i>
But! With the mentality of many Americans particularly susceptible to pious, Frömmleri understands themselves that nearly automatically. Which concerns the president personally, regard I him as quite limits enough that he believes what he gives at âreligious oneâ from itself also. On the one hand. On the other hand hold I it for characterless enough that he does not believe it. Without wanting to underestimate its limitedness, the latter even many more probably appears to me.
<i>What would you answer a child, who asks in view of a church, what that are?</i>
With Nietz: the Gruft and the tomb of âGodâ. The petrified memory of something, which in all probability never gave it.
<i>
They dedicated your life to an immensely extensive work. Would you make it again in such a way?</i>
Differently I would want to make it, at least there and there, already, better, formally better! And most of all I would somewhat have fought not against - so necessarily the fight of the Christianity actual, but for something: for the freeing of the animals. Because which we did to them since uncounted thousands of years, natures, which feel in such a way like we, thus to be pleased, then suffer themselves like we to let in order them then slaughter come only into the world and to eat be able, are inexpressibly horrible the largest crime of mankind history. I remember each day, often, but I often may not remember too, I would be moved.
<i>Do the Vergänglichkeit and the finalness of death employ you - as someone, which does not believe probably in the eternal life -?</i>
Yes. These questions employ me. I am old. It becomes dark - and light is my favourite color. But rather I would like to die in thousand doubts than at the price of the lie in the euphoria.
<i>Do they have a dream?</i>
Once my mother âstubborn dreamerâ called me. Growing up I had then various dreams, under it the dream of progress, of a fairer world. In the meantime however there is nearly only one progress still, about which I dream: that politicians and Pfaffen do not shake no more the world, but the Zwerchfell.
<b>The crime film-alga-laminated of the Christianity: Interview with Karl Heinz Deschner</b>
<i>World week
Expenditure 14/07 | Interview
Karl Heinz Deschner
âIt must become differentlyâ
With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees âthe glad message with the war paintingâ. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.
see also: http://www.deschner.info/
David Signer</i>
With an enormously extensive work the church critic Karl Heinz Deschner fights against the Christianity, in which he sees âthe glad message with the war paintingâ. A discussion about God, Zwingli and sky-crying injustice.
<i>Mr. Deschner, which is the core of the Christianity?</i>
The glad message with the war painting. In addition many beautiful legends belong, for example the fairy tale of resurrection. Hearing many beautiful requirements, for example the requirement of the next, of the enemy love, not to kill the requirement, not to steal and the intelligence to hold none of these requirements. <b>Christianity, that is the Liaison of a singing association with a conflagration.</b>
<i>But which is today at the Christianity still so badly? âCrime film-alga-laminate the Christianityâ is called your in the meantime achtbändiges Hauptwerk. Did the church - at least in Western Europe - lose not substantial at influence?</i>
First: I describe not the existing thing, the present Christianity, but its past, thus often, but often also not, somewhat more or less different one. Today anyhow still criminally in Christianity are effects its ideology, which many consequences of its dogma tables insanity, which never expenditure-matures itself been content with the bare faith, which missionieren rather, wants to conquer. Today still criminally in the Christianity its desaströse Sexual and social moral, its practice, are in mother-shot to protect, which one surrenders then in the war - as if one collected in woman bellies cannon fodder. From the large victims for arms for realms makes it small victims that realms for arms. Which the churches seem to lose however in Western Europe or lose, they recover elsewhere, in âGod's own countryâ about.
<i>Today doesn't a much larger danger proceed from the radical Islam?</i>
What the Islam concerns - its own aggressive Potenziale, strengthens by the socio-economic misery of the third world, once aside -, which concerns the Islam, which one, how once nearly the only large bad one sees Jews or communists, soon only in the role of the bad one, could have been still stirred up this role certain western circles not quite desired, could not by them the Islamic danger not secretly?
<i>
But it is nevertheless obvious that many terrorists legitimize today their murders Islamic.</i>
Yes, according to the here dominant public opinion. But at the end of November a published world-wide investigation of the Bertelsmann foundation comes to another result. As main motive of political force - it trebled itself in the last five years - the study does not call religious fanaticism, but poverty, mismanagement and suppression. The religious extremism, under it the Islamic, increases, cover however altogether only one quarter of the groups of terror. , As always, nationalistic movements place their largest portion, to 36 per cent.
<i>
How do you see the relationship Christianity Islam Judentum? Are the force and excluding the other-thinking everywhere in the Monotheismus put on, or do give it to gradations?</i>
All three monotheistischen religions have somewhat Chauvinisti. Something violent and raping. Credit strength of its Auserwähltheitsdünkels a Absolutheitsanspruch, which excludes genuine tolerance from the beginning.
<i>
What propels you over all the decades to this unbelievable work? Indignation?</i>
Yes, which drives me? Plain and simply: injustice. Sky-crying injustice, thousands of years packs into pseudopious sayings, into impudent lies; to reread in dozens of my Christianity-critical books.
<i>
They call themselves as Agnostiker - which you mean exactly with it?</i>
As Agnostiker I leave the question about God, about immortality fair-prove openly. I do not answer it in the negative, although for me a no is high probable. Because I assume many things between skies and earth, about which our school wisdom does not dream anything, also with Shakespeare consider I nevertheless this question with Goethe impenetrable, our brain for too limited. âJust as wellâ, Darwin says, âa dog could speculate upon the understanding of Newtonâ - with which I would not like to have said anything against the dog.
<i>Were you in former times gläubig? If, when and why it came to the break?</i>
Gläubig was I as a child. With ten I wanted to become priests. With eleven already no more. With fifteen I read Nietz, as a student Schopenhauer and edge are sufficient for the parting from the Christianity. A last, but emotional remainder which can be underestimated did not delete always the minute of âagain crowed the cockâ, mostly a earlyChristian dogma, a partienweise comparative religion history; 25,000 working hours in five years.
<i>Did the reformation mean a progress, a humanization of the Christianity?</i>
<b>
No, not at all. It means a continuation of its crimes. </b>Luther exposed the holy legends as fairy tale. <b>To the Bible legends it held; at the devil faith also; at the witch faith; to the Ketzervertilgung; at the anti-Semitism, at the war service, at the body characteristic, the prince. One calls it: Reformation.</b>
<i>And in Switzerland? Was Zwingli better?</i>
Zwingli, the temporary papal Feldpfaffe, wanted to be confounded with Luther, did not ask themselves that him âthe Bäpstler luterisch nennindâ, was however so independently not, particularly in practice. How Luther was itself behind the prince conditions, so it itself behind the inhabitant of zurich advice, the autonomous city republic. Like Luther it fought farmer unrests, like Luther proceeded it against the Täufer, like Luther (and all genuine Christians) entered it for the war. Like Luther it split the country and fell, unequally however the Wittenberger, in helmet and Harnisch against inside Swiss catholics. <b>Finally it was long the opinion, âthe church can only by blood be renewed, not differentâ. Blood tastes to them always best, above all that the others.</b>
<i>
And Calvin?</i>
<b>Oh, this extremely unsinnliche, always ailing, bleichwangige, black-dressed Asket, neither the feeling for nature nor for the art still favour at women, which seemed to feel at all no life desire, nothing as unersättliche greed for power, inexorable interspersing of its âteachingsâ, its theokratischen dictatorship - nothing as icy fanaticism, systematic spying on, punishment, interference in the most personal, most private one. </b>However tremendous despicableness, with which it Michael Servet, which former Mitreformer, physician, whom nature philosophers maltreat, because of a so-called training difference only in the dungeon, let which roast then on the heap of failure inexpressibly terribly a half hour long literally alive, until terribly the crying hung only like a black charred mass on the stake - later Edward Gibbon, which has large stories writers and reconnaissance aircraft, this a sacrificing it âmore deeply shaken than the thousands on the heap of failure of the Inquisitionâ, admits still two hundred years, whose basic idea Calvin by the way took over.
<i>
Is a atheistische society automatic a better society?</i>
No. Not at all. But a society without âGodâ, without myths, without militant lie religions as basis, seems to me more worthwhile. I do not know whether it becomes better, if it becomes differently. But with Lichtenberg I know: It must become differently, if it is to become good.
<i>
Are the cases of Pädophilie a newer phenomenon, or belong to the church?</i>
<b>Naturally Pädophilie is nothing new there. That gives it in the church, since there is the church, already in former times, already in urchristlicher time. If one reads the letters of the Paulus, the genuine and the six falsified, then one finds, like also otherwise in the New Testament, jederlei kind of sexual âsinsâ there.</b>
<i>Is the âPerversionenâ connected from priests with the Zölibat?</i>
Easily possible. But the largest part of the Zölibatäre did not worry around the Zölibat at all, held themselves instead of it failed woman women often in large amounts, the cleric marriage replaces as it were a Klerikerharem. In the 8th century the holy Bonifatius of clergyman with four, five, still more Konkubinen surprises at night in bed. Later it, in Basel, gives man monasteries of women in Lüttich, bishops with twenty, sixty-in children, teems even. And nuns make the Huren competition. In 13. Even Popes groan to century because of the comingness of the Klerus, call it more customless than the laymen, the Verderbnis of the peoples, see it âputrid like the cattle in the muckâ. In 15. Century participate on the council of Konstanz, which burns Hus, except the holy spirit also seven hundred public Nutten, not counted those, which the council fathers themselves bring along.
<i>And the Popes themselves?</i>
<b>Still in the same century Pope Sixtus IV., designer after him designated of the Sixtini chapel and a high-profitable brothel koitiert, with its sister and his children. </b>And 1476 introduce the celebration of the Unbefleckten Empfängnis! Naturally the klerikale Sextreiben continues after the tridentinischen reforms. Still the catholic âaction circle Munichâ the secret before-similar relationship and the forced âUnwahrhaftigkeitâ of the catholic priest deplores 1970.
<i>Are they thus for the abolishment of the Zölibats?</i>
But no! I am, like the Popes, quite for the Zölibat: Who catholic, who catholic cleric wants to be, which is to also out-eat its catholicism.
<i>One can say: The Urchristentum was good, but which made the church from it, is bad?</i>
<b>Yes, many believe. But apart from the fact that nothing, absolutely nothing in the Christianity originally actual from Christmas to the Ascension Day: loud plagiarisms! </b>-, already volume 1 âcrime film-alga-laminatesâ occupied on almost hundred sides the fight of the early Christianity against the Jews.
They are the best proof for the liberality of the Christianity. In the Islam you would have long a Fatwa at the neck.
And in former times in the Christianity a spell curse, a cord or fire under back - for many centuries! Today, nobody is mistaken, prevented only the relative powerlessness of the Klerus to burn its opponents.
<i>Do we live in a secular society, or do regard you the religion still/again increased as important factor?</i>
One needs to nevertheless only watch television, in order to experience, how one churches and church leaders, particularly since Popes, hofiert, who area one grants - and which comments to them! As it goes there only behind the scenes tooâ¦
<i>To what extent does the current Pope join your history?</i>
By being possible to continue substantial one the policy of its predecessors in everything, not least its terrible Sexualrepression, whose victim it, I am afraid, nor will give, as long as humans will live and to die. The legacy of its predecessors is descriptive in mine nearly 1400-seitigen âpolitics of the Popes in 20. Centuryâ.
<i>Benedikt XVI could. this unselige tradition break through, if it wanted?</i>
It is not so important, who stands at the point of the Kurie, as one often believes. Because with all authority, which is papale scope of action limited. Is dependent already on the whole tradierten bureaucratic-bureaucratic apparatus, on political, from theological currents, from direction fights within the Kurie and outside in the bishop church. <b>Actually the apparent Autokrat is bound at all corners and ends, is often already decided decisions, before they become by it ripe for decision. And the Pope is rarely capable of integrating the extremes it becomes often only execution organ of these or that side. Briefly, the Vatikan proves for its highest gentleman as a straitjacket.</b>
<i>Do the victims of the Christianity let themselves be numbered?</i>
<b>
If one ranks the indirect to it, about those of the large wars of the last century among its direct victims - heaths, Jew, Muslims, âKetzerâ, witches, Indians -, to which all Christian churches urgently and again and again called, there is with security several hundred million humans; to be silent from the animals to.</b>
Moment times! They push the victims of the two world wars of the church into the shoes? The communist regime of the Soviet Union was atheistisch, and also the Nazis were against the church. Christians were majority on the victim side or placed themselves against the totalitarian regimes.
That tunes nearly everything. Nevertheless, that is nevertheless the dishonor, has the churches, which catholic, the Protestant, the orthodox, has the Klerus with the war-prominent regimes collaborated, engstens and on all sides.
<i>What for example was the role of the Pope in the First World War?</i>
<b>Pius X., rabiat antislawisch, almost drove Austria into the First World War. </b>And also cardinal Secretary of State Merry del Val hoped before outbreak of the inferno, the monarchy becomes direct, literally, âup to the extreme one goesâ. But there are clear documents. And thousands and thousands and thousands of nausea exciting âfield lecturesâ rush now soon, roar formally before Kriegsbrunst, before murder intoxication. <b>They celebrate the millionful Krepieren as a âpeople springâ, âPfingststurmâ, call the ball rushing âmeasuring singingâ, the cannons of âmegaphones of the calling graceâ, the contactor ditch âGrotte of Gethsemaneâ, the battleground âGolgathaâ, the instant of the slaughtering âla minute divineâ. And the Christians participated, but they were victims and authors. Both!</b>
<i>And in the Second World War?</i>
<b>Now, before the papacy had supported only all fascist gangs, in Italy, Germany, Spain, all all this in Croatia, from the outset and to power had also brought. And at the beginning of the Second World War Pius XII threatened. the âmillions catholics in the German armiesâ: âYou have sworn, them must be obedient.â It hammered them in that the âleaderâ was the legal head of the Germans and each sündige, that refuses the obedience to it. This Pope expressed, still in the middle in the war, not only warmest sympathy for Germany, </b>but also, literally, to âadmiration of large characteristics of the leaderâ. Yes, he lets convey this directly by two Nuntien, he wishes, again in the wording, âthe leader nothing more ardently than a victoryâ!
<i>Why? Fear, adjustment? Or did the church pursue own goals?</i>
<b>Pius XII. - Owners of a private possession of eighty million in gold and validities - hoped, what had not reached the papacy in the First World War with having castle and the German emperor, now in the Second World War - 25,000 dead ones daily, daily turnover two billion Marks - to reach with Hitler, the old majority goal of Rome: the Katholisierung of the Balkans and subjecting the Russian-orthodox church.
</b>
<i>How did the Russian-orthodox church react?</i>
Now, it stepped immediately to the side of the atheistischen Soviet Union, to the page Stalins. Because it there always goes whether catholic, protestant or Russian-orthodox, in truth only over one, around power, power, power. And in such a way one called the population for active support Stalins, regarded asking services as the victory of the Red Army. A council of 46 bishops wished âunserm still numerous years of lifeâ to much-loved boss Josef Stalin.
<i>Does religion make automatically dumb? Or can it âimproveâ humans also?</i>
Even sometimes I white, perhaps âdoes not improveâ her; above all such, which would have become ânoblerâ also from alone.<b> But the good Christians are most dangerous, one confound them with the Christianity. And partially âdumbâ always make absurd faith conceptions.</b>
<i>They are a fighter against kitschige literature, the American Way OF Life and cruelty against animals. Do these different offensive ones from a common source feed themselves?</i>
Yes, I mean already: from a feeling seed sensorium, a violent abhorrence both before the false one and the wrong one.
<i>Apropos America: Do you estimate religion as important factor in Bush's politics?</i>
But! With the mentality of many Americans particularly susceptible to pious, Frömmleri understands themselves that nearly automatically. Which concerns the president personally, regard I him as quite limits enough that he believes what he gives at âreligious oneâ from itself also. On the one hand. On the other hand hold I it for characterless enough that he does not believe it. Without wanting to underestimate its limitedness, the latter even many more probably appears to me.
<i>What would you answer a child, who asks in view of a church, what that are?</i>
With Nietz: the Gruft and the tomb of âGodâ. The petrified memory of something, which in all probability never gave it.
<i>
They dedicated your life to an immensely extensive work. Would you make it again in such a way?</i>
Differently I would want to make it, at least there and there, already, better, formally better! And most of all I would somewhat have fought not against - so necessarily the fight of the Christianity actual, but for something: for the freeing of the animals. Because which we did to them since uncounted thousands of years, natures, which feel in such a way like we, thus to be pleased, then suffer themselves like we to let in order them then slaughter come only into the world and to eat be able, are inexpressibly horrible the largest crime of mankind history. I remember each day, often, but I often may not remember too, I would be moved.
<i>Do the Vergänglichkeit and the finalness of death employ you - as someone, which does not believe probably in the eternal life -?</i>
Yes. These questions employ me. I am old. It becomes dark - and light is my favourite color. But rather I would like to die in thousand doubts than at the price of the lie in the euphoria.
<i>Do they have a dream?</i>
Once my mother âstubborn dreamerâ called me. Growing up I had then various dreams, under it the dream of progress, of a fairer world. In the meantime however there is nearly only one progress still, about which I dream: that politicians and Pfaffen do not shake no more the world, but the Zwerchfell.