He's a good public speaker, I'll give him at least that, but....
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
He has an agenda you know.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
The man is preaching atheism. How is this not viewed as a religion?
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argument
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argument
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1333943 wrote: The man is preaching atheism. How is this not viewed as a religion?
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argumentKS, what on earth are you on about.
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argumentKS, what on earth are you on about.
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1333947 wrote: KS, what on earth are you on about.
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
Oh come on ! No hatred in the Christian vocabulary ? The world is full of it. Why do you think it only comes from Athiests ? Some people onle see what they want to see
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
Oh come on ! No hatred in the Christian vocabulary ? The world is full of it. Why do you think it only comes from Athiests ? Some people onle see what they want to see
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
Snowfire;1333949 wrote: Oh come on ! No hatred in the Christian vocabulary ? The world is full of it. Why do you think it only comes from Athiests ? Some people onle see what they want to see "Why do you think it only comes from Athiests?" Did I say that? Don't think soooooo. 
Anyway Snowfire, what is a Christian? and no funny comments. LOL
Anyway Snowfire, what is a Christian? and no funny comments. LOL
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1333947 wrote: KS, what on earth are you on about.
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
Two voters are comprised of a single system. Just because one candidate wins doesn't mean the losing voter hadn't voted.
Incidentally, I feel total sorrow for this chap. He and his followers are eaten up with hatred.
Hatred, among other things, warps the mind, causes irrational thoughts, and is steeped in utter blackness.
I thank God, hatred is not in the Christian vocabulary.
bb
Two voters are comprised of a single system. Just because one candidate wins doesn't mean the losing voter hadn't voted.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1333943 wrote: The man is preaching atheism. How is this not viewed as a religion?
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argument
He is not preaching atheism don't be ridiculous. Atheism is not another religion. Can you find one fact in what he says that is wrong? You can't can you?
To suggest that the nazis and the holocausrt happened because they were atheists is complete and utter nonsense. Even if they were the majority religion in germany was, and still is catholic. It is inconceivable that the holocaust would have happened without two thousand years of christian propoganda against the jews as the killers of christ. The very fisrt use of the yellow star was not hitler he was copying one of the popes, who were also the ones that introduced ghettoes for the jews to (protect) them. It took until 1964 for the catholic church to finally concede that perhaps the jews were entitled to the common humanity of not being blamed as race for killing christ.
The fact is the catholic church supported the nazis because they attacked the communists - who were atheists. The fact is the principal part ion defeating the nazis was played by the russians - most of whom weren't atheists either even if their leaders professed to be. How come the fascists in Italy with whom the poepe of the time was only too happy to do deals with weren't atheist? Could it be because they were actually catholic as well and the pope doesn't qwant to remind people it was irtalisn fascism that heloped inspire Hitler?
The fact is Hitler thought he was doing the work of the almighty, don't take dawkins word for it read mein kempf for yourself. The fact is the catholic church prayed for the safety of hitler from tghe pulpit.
Dress it up any way you like what the pope said was total nonsense. It should only take you half an hour or so to satisfy yourself of that - do your own research, you're an intelligent man think for yourself. If that is what they want to teach in catholic schools then for the sake of our nation we need to end faith schools sooner rather than later. Sectarianism was becoming a thing of the past the pope has just stirred things up good style.
Watching the pope and hearing him say this had my blood boiling. That he should do it and call for reconciliation in the hometown of John Knox and praise catholic monarchs while carefully not mention the protestant ones that is offensive. The first queen elizabeth woukld have been burtned at the stake as a heretic of the pope of her time had had her way. The irony of her stnading there listening to such claptrap was probably nopt lost on her. On the fith of november in the UK we burn effigies of a catholic terrorist that tried to blow up parliament and restore a catholic monarchy and the divine right of kings.
Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brings to life the kind of hatred that led to the religious wars in europe - he just will not live and let live you cannot reason. I begin to have better understanding of why so many of my forebears went to fight in religious wars.
We need to scotch this nionsense about ww2 now before it takes hold. It is an insult to the memory of all those wh0 fought against ratzinger and his countrymen. Good pijt actually. What was good catholic boy doing in the Hitler youth of hos church didn't support Hitler? Support the nazis and be excommunicated - how effective a deterrent do yiou think that would have been in a cathi=olioc country - if the pope had really wanted to stop them.
None the less "you" cannot use "your" oppositions' tactics and expect to beat them. Quite frankly this sounded to me like a tone of utter desperation, it only hurts his overall argument
He is not preaching atheism don't be ridiculous. Atheism is not another religion. Can you find one fact in what he says that is wrong? You can't can you?
To suggest that the nazis and the holocausrt happened because they were atheists is complete and utter nonsense. Even if they were the majority religion in germany was, and still is catholic. It is inconceivable that the holocaust would have happened without two thousand years of christian propoganda against the jews as the killers of christ. The very fisrt use of the yellow star was not hitler he was copying one of the popes, who were also the ones that introduced ghettoes for the jews to (protect) them. It took until 1964 for the catholic church to finally concede that perhaps the jews were entitled to the common humanity of not being blamed as race for killing christ.
The fact is the catholic church supported the nazis because they attacked the communists - who were atheists. The fact is the principal part ion defeating the nazis was played by the russians - most of whom weren't atheists either even if their leaders professed to be. How come the fascists in Italy with whom the poepe of the time was only too happy to do deals with weren't atheist? Could it be because they were actually catholic as well and the pope doesn't qwant to remind people it was irtalisn fascism that heloped inspire Hitler?
The fact is Hitler thought he was doing the work of the almighty, don't take dawkins word for it read mein kempf for yourself. The fact is the catholic church prayed for the safety of hitler from tghe pulpit.
Dress it up any way you like what the pope said was total nonsense. It should only take you half an hour or so to satisfy yourself of that - do your own research, you're an intelligent man think for yourself. If that is what they want to teach in catholic schools then for the sake of our nation we need to end faith schools sooner rather than later. Sectarianism was becoming a thing of the past the pope has just stirred things up good style.
Watching the pope and hearing him say this had my blood boiling. That he should do it and call for reconciliation in the hometown of John Knox and praise catholic monarchs while carefully not mention the protestant ones that is offensive. The first queen elizabeth woukld have been burtned at the stake as a heretic of the pope of her time had had her way. The irony of her stnading there listening to such claptrap was probably nopt lost on her. On the fith of november in the UK we burn effigies of a catholic terrorist that tried to blow up parliament and restore a catholic monarchy and the divine right of kings.
Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brings to life the kind of hatred that led to the religious wars in europe - he just will not live and let live you cannot reason. I begin to have better understanding of why so many of my forebears went to fight in religious wars.
We need to scotch this nionsense about ww2 now before it takes hold. It is an insult to the memory of all those wh0 fought against ratzinger and his countrymen. Good pijt actually. What was good catholic boy doing in the Hitler youth of hos church didn't support Hitler? Support the nazis and be excommunicated - how effective a deterrent do yiou think that would have been in a cathi=olioc country - if the pope had really wanted to stop them.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
gmc;1334024 wrote: He is not preaching atheism don't be ridiculous. Atheism is not another religion. Can you find one fact in what he says that is wrong? You can't can you?
To suggest that the nazis and the holocausrt happened because they were atheists is complete and utter nonsense. Even if they were the majority religion in germany was, and still is catholic. It is inconceivable that the holocaust would have happened without two thousand years of christian propoganda against the jews as the killers of christ. The very fisrt use of the yellow star was not hitler he was copying one of the popes, who were also the ones that introduced ghettoes for the jews to (protect) them. It took until 1964 for the catholic church to finally concede that perhaps the jews were entitled to the common humanity of not being blamed as race for killing christ.
The fact is the catholic church supported the nazis because they attacked the communists - who were atheists. The fact is the principal part ion defeating the nazis was played by the russians - most of whom weren't atheists either even if their leaders professed to be. How come the fascists in Italy with whom the poepe of the time was only too happy to do deals with weren't atheist? Could it be because they were actually catholic as well and the pope doesn't qwant to remind people it was irtalisn fascism that heloped inspire Hitler?
The fact is Hitler thought he was doing the work of the almighty, don't take dawkins word for it read mein kempf for yourself. The fact is the catholic church prayed for the safety of hitler from tghe pulpit.
Dress it up any way you like what the pope said was total nonsense. It should only take you half an hour or so to satisfy yourself of that - do your own research, you're an intelligent man think for yourself. If that is what they want to teach in catholic schools then for the sake of our nation we need to end faith schools sooner rather than later. Sectarianism was becoming a thing of the past the pope has just stirred things up good style.
Watching the pope and hearing him say this had my blood boiling. That he should do it and call for reconciliation in the hometown of John Knox and praise catholic monarchs while carefully not mention the protestant ones that is offensive. The first queen elizabeth woukld have been burtned at the stake as a heretic of the pope of her time had had her way. The irony of her stnading there listening to such claptrap was probably nopt lost on her. On the fith of november in the UK we burn effigies of a catholic terrorist that tried to blow up parliament and restore a catholic monarchy and the divine right of kings.
Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brings to life the kind of hatred that led to the religious wars in europe - he just will not live and let live you cannot reason. I begin to have better understanding of why so many of my forebears went to fight in religious wars.
We need to scotch this nionsense about ww2 now before it takes hold. It is an insult to the memory of all those wh0 fought against ratzinger and his countrymen. Good pijt actually. What was good catholic boy doing in the Hitler youth of hos church didn't support Hitler? Support the nazis and be excommunicated - how effective a deterrent do yiou think that would have been in a cathi=olioc country - if the pope had really wanted to stop them.
I agree that religion is unnecessary I truly do. My argument is that one cannot defeat religion by spouting "there is no god", it not only does not help but makes the situation worse. By spouting "no god" one equivocally places no question upon moral integrity in which your suggesting is the reason hitler continued by the pope's lack of incursion. What we have after this hypothetical escapade is people entering into others' domains at the expense of monetary value(oil, diamonds, trees, snow, etc etc). What people don't realize is that religion has been within human societies for so long it's easy to overlook the fact that war is now dictated by it and not the result. People don't invade countries for wealth anymore because of religion so now all we have is a trade off between motives.
Religion has been here for thousands of years. It's an observation of evolution. It's here to stay and to collect in mass in opposition to it is the very definition of the very same group "religion" is defined by. You shouldn't take it personal when I say "atheism is a religion" because I say it in a way in which the context of both is skewed out of proportion depending on the "alignment" of those that read it. Atheists want what is "right" and coreligionists want what is "right", therefore it must be concluded that both are of the same system just with different interpretations. When the "right" is not defined by a contextual version of the representation of "God" then what we have is a ludicrous interpretation, one rightfully defined as insane. The rest should be treated as a police action, a unified one at that
To suggest that the nazis and the holocausrt happened because they were atheists is complete and utter nonsense. Even if they were the majority religion in germany was, and still is catholic. It is inconceivable that the holocaust would have happened without two thousand years of christian propoganda against the jews as the killers of christ. The very fisrt use of the yellow star was not hitler he was copying one of the popes, who were also the ones that introduced ghettoes for the jews to (protect) them. It took until 1964 for the catholic church to finally concede that perhaps the jews were entitled to the common humanity of not being blamed as race for killing christ.
The fact is the catholic church supported the nazis because they attacked the communists - who were atheists. The fact is the principal part ion defeating the nazis was played by the russians - most of whom weren't atheists either even if their leaders professed to be. How come the fascists in Italy with whom the poepe of the time was only too happy to do deals with weren't atheist? Could it be because they were actually catholic as well and the pope doesn't qwant to remind people it was irtalisn fascism that heloped inspire Hitler?
The fact is Hitler thought he was doing the work of the almighty, don't take dawkins word for it read mein kempf for yourself. The fact is the catholic church prayed for the safety of hitler from tghe pulpit.
Dress it up any way you like what the pope said was total nonsense. It should only take you half an hour or so to satisfy yourself of that - do your own research, you're an intelligent man think for yourself. If that is what they want to teach in catholic schools then for the sake of our nation we need to end faith schools sooner rather than later. Sectarianism was becoming a thing of the past the pope has just stirred things up good style.
Watching the pope and hearing him say this had my blood boiling. That he should do it and call for reconciliation in the hometown of John Knox and praise catholic monarchs while carefully not mention the protestant ones that is offensive. The first queen elizabeth woukld have been burtned at the stake as a heretic of the pope of her time had had her way. The irony of her stnading there listening to such claptrap was probably nopt lost on her. On the fith of november in the UK we burn effigies of a catholic terrorist that tried to blow up parliament and restore a catholic monarchy and the divine right of kings.
Guy Fawkes Night - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It brings to life the kind of hatred that led to the religious wars in europe - he just will not live and let live you cannot reason. I begin to have better understanding of why so many of my forebears went to fight in religious wars.
We need to scotch this nionsense about ww2 now before it takes hold. It is an insult to the memory of all those wh0 fought against ratzinger and his countrymen. Good pijt actually. What was good catholic boy doing in the Hitler youth of hos church didn't support Hitler? Support the nazis and be excommunicated - how effective a deterrent do yiou think that would have been in a cathi=olioc country - if the pope had really wanted to stop them.
I agree that religion is unnecessary I truly do. My argument is that one cannot defeat religion by spouting "there is no god", it not only does not help but makes the situation worse. By spouting "no god" one equivocally places no question upon moral integrity in which your suggesting is the reason hitler continued by the pope's lack of incursion. What we have after this hypothetical escapade is people entering into others' domains at the expense of monetary value(oil, diamonds, trees, snow, etc etc). What people don't realize is that religion has been within human societies for so long it's easy to overlook the fact that war is now dictated by it and not the result. People don't invade countries for wealth anymore because of religion so now all we have is a trade off between motives.
Religion has been here for thousands of years. It's an observation of evolution. It's here to stay and to collect in mass in opposition to it is the very definition of the very same group "religion" is defined by. You shouldn't take it personal when I say "atheism is a religion" because I say it in a way in which the context of both is skewed out of proportion depending on the "alignment" of those that read it. Atheists want what is "right" and coreligionists want what is "right", therefore it must be concluded that both are of the same system just with different interpretations. When the "right" is not defined by a contextual version of the representation of "God" then what we have is a ludicrous interpretation, one rightfully defined as insane. The rest should be treated as a police action, a unified one at that
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
The difference between invading for monetary value or religious motivations is the time frame within evolution. We can call one more primitive than the other but we cannot call them different in proportion.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1334030 wrote: I agree that religion is unnecessary I truly do. My argument is that one cannot defeat religion by spouting "there is no god", it not only does not help but makes the situation worse. By spouting "no god" one equivocally places no question upon moral integrity in which your suggesting is the reason hitler continued by the pope's lack of incursion. What we have after this hypothetical escapade is people entering into others' domains at the expense of monetary value(oil, diamonds, trees, snow, etc etc). What people don't realize is that religion has been within human societies for so long it's easy to overlook the fact that war is now dictated by it and not the result. People don't invade countries for wealth anymore because of religion so now all we have is a trade off between motives.
Religion has been here for thousands of years. It's an observation of evolution. It's here to stay and to collect in mass in opposition to it is the very definition of the very same group "religion" is defined by. You shouldn't take it personal when I say "atheism is a religion" because I say it in a way in which the context of both is skewed out of proportion depending on the "alignment" of those that read it. Atheists want what is "right" and coreligionists want what is "right", therefore it must be concluded that both are of the same system just with different interpretations. When the "right" is not defined by a contextual version of the representation of "God" then what we have is a ludicrous interpretation, one rightfully defined as insane. The rest should be treated as a police action, a unified one at that
It is unnecessary IMO as well but it causes me no problem that some find it to be so. I also find fundamentalist atheists irritating and for much the same reason. I don't take your comments about atheism being another religion personally- I don't take anyone elses comments personally, even the ones that are meant to be. It annoys me and i took umbrage because religionists - for want of a better word- like to portray atheism as merely an alternative religion to theirs, by doing so they diminish it in their minds to the status of people who have not found the "way". It gives them an excuse not to think about it and not to question their beliefs or pay creedence to those who disbelief as merely mistaken in their beliefs.
I agree with you though, ranting does little to persuade. It's not aggressive atheists that worry me it's aggressive religion, christian and muslim. In another generation i think we will have sectarian warfare on our streets between competing religions whuile the vast majority look on in disbelief.
Religion has been here for thousands of years. It's an observation of evolution. It's here to stay and to collect in mass in opposition to it is the very definition of the very same group "religion" is defined by. You shouldn't take it personal when I say "atheism is a religion" because I say it in a way in which the context of both is skewed out of proportion depending on the "alignment" of those that read it. Atheists want what is "right" and coreligionists want what is "right", therefore it must be concluded that both are of the same system just with different interpretations. When the "right" is not defined by a contextual version of the representation of "God" then what we have is a ludicrous interpretation, one rightfully defined as insane. The rest should be treated as a police action, a unified one at that
It is unnecessary IMO as well but it causes me no problem that some find it to be so. I also find fundamentalist atheists irritating and for much the same reason. I don't take your comments about atheism being another religion personally- I don't take anyone elses comments personally, even the ones that are meant to be. It annoys me and i took umbrage because religionists - for want of a better word- like to portray atheism as merely an alternative religion to theirs, by doing so they diminish it in their minds to the status of people who have not found the "way". It gives them an excuse not to think about it and not to question their beliefs or pay creedence to those who disbelief as merely mistaken in their beliefs.
I agree with you though, ranting does little to persuade. It's not aggressive atheists that worry me it's aggressive religion, christian and muslim. In another generation i think we will have sectarian warfare on our streets between competing religions whuile the vast majority look on in disbelief.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
gmc;1334050 wrote: It is unnecessary IMO as well but it causes me no problem that some find it to be so. I also find fundamentalist atheists irritating and for much the same reason. I don't take your comments about atheism being another religion personally- I don't take anyone elses comments personally, even the ones that are meant to be. It annoys me and i took umbrage because religionists - for want of a better word- like to portray atheism as merely an alternative religion to theirs, by doing so they diminish it in their minds to the status of people who have not found the "way". It gives them an excuse not to think about it and not to question their beliefs or pay creedence to those who disbelief as merely mistaken in their beliefs.
I agree with you though, ranting does little to persuade. It's not aggressive atheists that worry me it's aggressive religion, christian and muslim. In another generation i think we will have sectarian warfare on our streets between competing religions whuile the vast majority look on in disbelief.And I agree with you for the most part in this. I can't say I believe we're at all close to another blown out religious war but that will perhaps forever be speculative considering the nukes we have at our disposal now.
My emphasis is to portray both is a fundamental ideology expressing one's intent to be correct. What's inescapable is no matter how I word my viewpoint it will always appear more in favor of the "religious" because more of them exist. I don't believe in religion. I know most of it to be a complete disgrace to intellectual supremacy. What I also know is that by attempting to control an untouchable observation is equally as hegemonic. Both parties "care" for the betterment of society, one claims to be correct while insinuating the other's wrong. No matter the premise both are wrong because both exclaim what's to be worshiped, which is either a "god" or "no god". Both share common ground.
We treat individual instances as such and do not accept that one's motives are the same as another because all that does is misguide us when we're faced with a war using a front in order to make one appear sane to themselves. We can use the exact same argument put forth by Dawkins. Then I myself being baptized then I too would be considered a Catholic along with the countless others that fought and died trying to eliminate the threat hitler imposed. Why not suggest hitler merely used his religious background as a front to gain what he sought after most, which was a synthetic version of being able to Love and be Loved, he failed miserably.
The beatings by his father is enough for anyone to, at the very least, attempt to sympathize with the poor soul. Why act like it was all religion?
I agree with you though, ranting does little to persuade. It's not aggressive atheists that worry me it's aggressive religion, christian and muslim. In another generation i think we will have sectarian warfare on our streets between competing religions whuile the vast majority look on in disbelief.And I agree with you for the most part in this. I can't say I believe we're at all close to another blown out religious war but that will perhaps forever be speculative considering the nukes we have at our disposal now.
My emphasis is to portray both is a fundamental ideology expressing one's intent to be correct. What's inescapable is no matter how I word my viewpoint it will always appear more in favor of the "religious" because more of them exist. I don't believe in religion. I know most of it to be a complete disgrace to intellectual supremacy. What I also know is that by attempting to control an untouchable observation is equally as hegemonic. Both parties "care" for the betterment of society, one claims to be correct while insinuating the other's wrong. No matter the premise both are wrong because both exclaim what's to be worshiped, which is either a "god" or "no god". Both share common ground.
We treat individual instances as such and do not accept that one's motives are the same as another because all that does is misguide us when we're faced with a war using a front in order to make one appear sane to themselves. We can use the exact same argument put forth by Dawkins. Then I myself being baptized then I too would be considered a Catholic along with the countless others that fought and died trying to eliminate the threat hitler imposed. Why not suggest hitler merely used his religious background as a front to gain what he sought after most, which was a synthetic version of being able to Love and be Loved, he failed miserably.
The beatings by his father is enough for anyone to, at the very least, attempt to sympathize with the poor soul. Why act like it was all religion?
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1334232 wrote: Why act like it was all religion?
Even hypothetically assuming that WW2 was entirely the result of religious motivation we still have the countless war from imperialism.
I still say hitler was a complete nutcase and instilled fear into people making them choose between "certain death" or to kill within his machine through authoritarianism. Both are derived from greed, whether monetary or personal satisfaction, they both are derived from the same principle, self gratification. It cannot be achieved through religion because religion is a group, but as long as it appears religion is the culprit then the individuals pulling the muppet strings get off, and I dare not say "Scot free" seeing as I've Scottish ancestry(English as well but I do particularly well in accepting that!:yh_rotfl) but none the less free
Even hypothetically assuming that WW2 was entirely the result of religious motivation we still have the countless war from imperialism.
I still say hitler was a complete nutcase and instilled fear into people making them choose between "certain death" or to kill within his machine through authoritarianism. Both are derived from greed, whether monetary or personal satisfaction, they both are derived from the same principle, self gratification. It cannot be achieved through religion because religion is a group, but as long as it appears religion is the culprit then the individuals pulling the muppet strings get off, and I dare not say "Scot free" seeing as I've Scottish ancestry(English as well but I do particularly well in accepting that!:yh_rotfl) but none the less free
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1334235 wrote: Even hypothetically assuming that WW2 was entirely the result of religious motivation we still have the countless war from imperialism.
I still say hitler was a complete nutcase and instilled fear into people making them choose between "certain death" or to kill within his machine through authoritarianism. Both are derived from greed, whether monetary or personal satisfaction, they both are derived from the same principle, self gratification. It cannot be achieved through religion because religion is a group, but as long as it appears religion is the culprit then the individuals pulling the muppet strings get off, and I dare not say "Scot free" seeing as I've Scottish ancestry(English as well but I do particularly well in accepting that!:yh_rotfl) but none the less free
The thing about the nazis - the real warning from history - is that it was all so ordinary. Hitler wasn't nutcase to begin with, by all accounts he was charming man with real prescence. Germany was a democracy and you do get get yourself to be a totalitarian state overnight, it's an insidious process. Anti-semitism in germany was amongst the lowest in europe it's one reason there were so many jews in prominent positions, many were successful bankers and industrialists. If you have a look at americas history on the subject around the same time it mught be an eye opener if you aren't already aware of it. Or ours or the french and poles.
Have look at the macarthy era in the states if you want a better uderstanding of how he did it, macarthy managed to conflate anti-semitism, fear of communism and liberal social policies and generate a climate of fear such that anyome accused must be guilty. you still suffer from the legacy of that period. Many of his targets were jewish intellectuals especially in hollywood, although it was non PC to be antisemitic after ww2 it didn't actually go away. It got to the point anyone speaking out in opposition was a suspect. Your nazis didn't go away they morphed, the KKK would have been the ss brownshirts in other circumstances.
The nazis were initially a political movement but he managed to conflate fear of communism with anti-semitism, easy to do when marx and engels were jews but the anti-semitism as were many of the leaders of the left in germany. The anti-semitism was religious in origin and had absolutely nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with hitler's relihguious upbringing and that of his fellow party members. Atheists can at least have some claim to be rational, it is not rational to waste resources in time of war setting up prison camps and the infrastructure necessary to exterminate people especially when they number amongst them your best scientists and engineers, have a look at the origins of the scientists on the manhattan project. It took the combined forces of europe and the united states to stop them.
How does the poepe explain the japanese/chinese/allies war in the pacific. That had nothing to do with religion either. The japanese weren't godless atheists were they?
posted by K snyder
And I agree with you for the most part in this. I can't say I believe we're at all close to another blown out religious war but that will perhaps forever be speculative considering the nukes we have at our disposal now.
I grew up in a country where sectarianism is not an academic treatise. The biggest cause of it is seperate schooling. In Northern Ireland the biggest cause of it is seperate schooling - you learn it at your mummy's knee and from those around you. If you mix with children of other faiths and get a good edication you are better equipped to make up your own mind. Now we have more faith schools thanks to tony Blair - yet most people in this country are actually opposed to them. They are a baleful influemce on society and we are helping create a generation of kids being taight that their religion is the one true faith - tht is not the same as live and let live and leave people to worhip as they please. Look atb this pope - if he could turn back time and end secularism to you think he would pass up the opportunity?
In the states you seem to have a large group that want to make you all thank god you are americans whether you believe in him or not. The nuttier islamists don't have nuclear weapons aren't you glad
GW Bush
I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003.
Bet you're glad god didn't tell him to nuke iran. Would those around him have stopped him do you think?
It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values. Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2002
You couldn't make it up could you? If it was the plot of a TV programme you would turn it off as being unrealistic. Reality is more inbelievable than any story will ever be.
I still say hitler was a complete nutcase and instilled fear into people making them choose between "certain death" or to kill within his machine through authoritarianism. Both are derived from greed, whether monetary or personal satisfaction, they both are derived from the same principle, self gratification. It cannot be achieved through religion because religion is a group, but as long as it appears religion is the culprit then the individuals pulling the muppet strings get off, and I dare not say "Scot free" seeing as I've Scottish ancestry(English as well but I do particularly well in accepting that!:yh_rotfl) but none the less free
The thing about the nazis - the real warning from history - is that it was all so ordinary. Hitler wasn't nutcase to begin with, by all accounts he was charming man with real prescence. Germany was a democracy and you do get get yourself to be a totalitarian state overnight, it's an insidious process. Anti-semitism in germany was amongst the lowest in europe it's one reason there were so many jews in prominent positions, many were successful bankers and industrialists. If you have a look at americas history on the subject around the same time it mught be an eye opener if you aren't already aware of it. Or ours or the french and poles.
Have look at the macarthy era in the states if you want a better uderstanding of how he did it, macarthy managed to conflate anti-semitism, fear of communism and liberal social policies and generate a climate of fear such that anyome accused must be guilty. you still suffer from the legacy of that period. Many of his targets were jewish intellectuals especially in hollywood, although it was non PC to be antisemitic after ww2 it didn't actually go away. It got to the point anyone speaking out in opposition was a suspect. Your nazis didn't go away they morphed, the KKK would have been the ss brownshirts in other circumstances.
The nazis were initially a political movement but he managed to conflate fear of communism with anti-semitism, easy to do when marx and engels were jews but the anti-semitism as were many of the leaders of the left in germany. The anti-semitism was religious in origin and had absolutely nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with hitler's relihguious upbringing and that of his fellow party members. Atheists can at least have some claim to be rational, it is not rational to waste resources in time of war setting up prison camps and the infrastructure necessary to exterminate people especially when they number amongst them your best scientists and engineers, have a look at the origins of the scientists on the manhattan project. It took the combined forces of europe and the united states to stop them.
How does the poepe explain the japanese/chinese/allies war in the pacific. That had nothing to do with religion either. The japanese weren't godless atheists were they?
posted by K snyder
And I agree with you for the most part in this. I can't say I believe we're at all close to another blown out religious war but that will perhaps forever be speculative considering the nukes we have at our disposal now.
I grew up in a country where sectarianism is not an academic treatise. The biggest cause of it is seperate schooling. In Northern Ireland the biggest cause of it is seperate schooling - you learn it at your mummy's knee and from those around you. If you mix with children of other faiths and get a good edication you are better equipped to make up your own mind. Now we have more faith schools thanks to tony Blair - yet most people in this country are actually opposed to them. They are a baleful influemce on society and we are helping create a generation of kids being taight that their religion is the one true faith - tht is not the same as live and let live and leave people to worhip as they please. Look atb this pope - if he could turn back time and end secularism to you think he would pass up the opportunity?
In the states you seem to have a large group that want to make you all thank god you are americans whether you believe in him or not. The nuttier islamists don't have nuclear weapons aren't you glad
GW Bush
I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it." Sharm el-Sheikh August 2003.
Bet you're glad god didn't tell him to nuke iran. Would those around him have stopped him do you think?
It's also important for people to know we never seek to impose our culture or our form of government. We just want to live under those universal values, God-given values. Washington, D.C., Oct. 11, 2002
You couldn't make it up could you? If it was the plot of a TV programme you would turn it off as being unrealistic. Reality is more inbelievable than any story will ever be.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
gmc;1334243 wrote: The thing about the nazis - the real warning from history - is that it was all so ordinary. Hitler wasn't nutcase to begin with, by all accounts he was charming man with real prescence. Germany was a democracy and you do get get yourself to be a totalitarian state overnight, it's an insidious process. Anti-semitism in germany was amongst the lowest in europe it's one reason there were so many jews in prominent positions, many were successful bankers and industrialists. If you have a look at americas history on the subject around the same time it mught be an eye opener if you aren't already aware of it. Or ours or the french and poles.
Have look at the macarthy era in the states if you want a better uderstanding of how he did it, macarthy managed to conflate anti-semitism, fear of communism and liberal social policies and generate a climate of fear such that anyome accused must be guilty. you still suffer from the legacy of that period. Many of his targets were jewish intellectuals especially in hollywood, although it was non PC to be antisemitic after ww2 it didn't actually go away. It got to the point anyone speaking out in opposition was a suspect. Your nazis didn't go away they morphed, the KKK would have been the ss brownshirts in other circumstances.
The nazis were initially a political movement but he managed to conflate fear of communism with anti-semitism, easy to do when marx and engels were jews but the anti-semitism as were many of the leaders of the left in germany. The anti-semitism was religious in origin and had absolutely nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with hitler's relihguious upbringing and that of his fellow party members. Atheists can at least have some claim to be rational, it is not rational to waste resources in time of war setting up prison camps and the infrastructure necessary to exterminate people especially when they number amongst them your best scientists and engineers, have a look at the origins of the scientists on the manhattan project. It took the combined forces of europe and the united states to stop them.
How does the poepe explain the japanese/chinese/allies war in the pacific. That had nothing to do with religion either. The japanese weren't godless atheists were they?
posted by K snyder
I grew up in a country where sectarianism is not an academic treatise. The biggest cause of it is seperate schooling. In Northern Ireland the biggest cause of it is seperate schooling - you learn it at your mummy's knee and from those around you. If you mix with children of other faiths and get a good edication you are better equipped to make up your own mind. Now we have more faith schools thanks to tony Blair - yet most people in this country are actually opposed to them. They are a baleful influemce on society and we are helping create a generation of kids being taight that their religion is the one true faith - tht is not the same as live and let live and leave people to worhip as they please. Look atb this pope - if he could turn back time and end secularism to you think he would pass up the opportunity?
In the states you seem to have a large group that want to make you all thank god you are americans whether you believe in him or not. The nuttier islamists don't have nuclear weapons aren't you glad
GW Bush
Bet you're glad god didn't tell him to nuke iran. Would those around him have stopped him do you think?
You couldn't make it up could you? If it was the plot of a TV programme you would turn it off as being unrealistic. Reality is more inbelievable than any story will ever be. It's safe to say I agree with you on many levels gmc. My point about the Singo-Japanese wars(In retrospect I didn't actually suggest it outright but I do suppose you knew that's what I was speaking of because it's quite clear that mass murder is not at the lone hand of religion) but my point is that if one were to place blame on religion, unarguably, for wars then they too must disregard religion as the culprit of many others. The Japanese were not godless, no. The Romans weren't godless and the Egyptians weren't godless. No one's godless except a very select few, and is evident throughout all of history. I agree it's incredibly hard to distinguish whats true as a religiously driven rampage. I personally find the fact that if we were to speak hypothetically and suggest there is no religion only to view another war all one need do is listen to the reasons of those unjustly invading another group in the suggestion they didn't feel the way their dances around a campfire was appropriate in the least.
All I've ever seen throughout history was a nation invading another purely for money, whether from land mass or resources, only to spit at the others' "God" enough for the people to grow xenophobic by the very infectious virtue of ignorance. We've quite alot more sheep amongst us than anyone could attempt to guess at as far as I'm concerned and political structures throughout the World is the very portrait of that.
Have look at the macarthy era in the states if you want a better uderstanding of how he did it, macarthy managed to conflate anti-semitism, fear of communism and liberal social policies and generate a climate of fear such that anyome accused must be guilty. you still suffer from the legacy of that period. Many of his targets were jewish intellectuals especially in hollywood, although it was non PC to be antisemitic after ww2 it didn't actually go away. It got to the point anyone speaking out in opposition was a suspect. Your nazis didn't go away they morphed, the KKK would have been the ss brownshirts in other circumstances.
The nazis were initially a political movement but he managed to conflate fear of communism with anti-semitism, easy to do when marx and engels were jews but the anti-semitism as were many of the leaders of the left in germany. The anti-semitism was religious in origin and had absolutely nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with hitler's relihguious upbringing and that of his fellow party members. Atheists can at least have some claim to be rational, it is not rational to waste resources in time of war setting up prison camps and the infrastructure necessary to exterminate people especially when they number amongst them your best scientists and engineers, have a look at the origins of the scientists on the manhattan project. It took the combined forces of europe and the united states to stop them.
How does the poepe explain the japanese/chinese/allies war in the pacific. That had nothing to do with religion either. The japanese weren't godless atheists were they?
posted by K snyder
I grew up in a country where sectarianism is not an academic treatise. The biggest cause of it is seperate schooling. In Northern Ireland the biggest cause of it is seperate schooling - you learn it at your mummy's knee and from those around you. If you mix with children of other faiths and get a good edication you are better equipped to make up your own mind. Now we have more faith schools thanks to tony Blair - yet most people in this country are actually opposed to them. They are a baleful influemce on society and we are helping create a generation of kids being taight that their religion is the one true faith - tht is not the same as live and let live and leave people to worhip as they please. Look atb this pope - if he could turn back time and end secularism to you think he would pass up the opportunity?
In the states you seem to have a large group that want to make you all thank god you are americans whether you believe in him or not. The nuttier islamists don't have nuclear weapons aren't you glad
GW Bush
Bet you're glad god didn't tell him to nuke iran. Would those around him have stopped him do you think?
You couldn't make it up could you? If it was the plot of a TV programme you would turn it off as being unrealistic. Reality is more inbelievable than any story will ever be. It's safe to say I agree with you on many levels gmc. My point about the Singo-Japanese wars(In retrospect I didn't actually suggest it outright but I do suppose you knew that's what I was speaking of because it's quite clear that mass murder is not at the lone hand of religion) but my point is that if one were to place blame on religion, unarguably, for wars then they too must disregard religion as the culprit of many others. The Japanese were not godless, no. The Romans weren't godless and the Egyptians weren't godless. No one's godless except a very select few, and is evident throughout all of history. I agree it's incredibly hard to distinguish whats true as a religiously driven rampage. I personally find the fact that if we were to speak hypothetically and suggest there is no religion only to view another war all one need do is listen to the reasons of those unjustly invading another group in the suggestion they didn't feel the way their dances around a campfire was appropriate in the least.
All I've ever seen throughout history was a nation invading another purely for money, whether from land mass or resources, only to spit at the others' "God" enough for the people to grow xenophobic by the very infectious virtue of ignorance. We've quite alot more sheep amongst us than anyone could attempt to guess at as far as I'm concerned and political structures throughout the World is the very portrait of that.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1333918 wrote: He's a good public speaker, I'll give him at least that, but....
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
The arguments are identical to those used by Christians for years now. He didn't mention that the Vatican has no respectable validity of any sort, which Christians would have stated.
He has an agenda you know.
An agenda against child abuse and fascism seems like one that people should be deeply embarrassed not to have.
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
The arguments are identical to those used by Christians for years now. He didn't mention that the Vatican has no respectable validity of any sort, which Christians would have stated.
He has an agenda you know.
An agenda against child abuse and fascism seems like one that people should be deeply embarrassed not to have.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
posted by xyz
The arguments are identical to those used by Christians for years now. He didn't mention that the Vatican has no respectable validity of any sort, which Christians would have stated.
The suggestion that hitler was an atheist as were all the nazis and that was the reason for all the atrocities atheist extremism is one I've only heard in the last few months. It's ludicrous Probably because it was one the wartime generation here would have fallen off their seats laughing at it.
Pope's speech: 'Faith remains a mighty force for good in UK' | World news | The Guardian
from the pope's speech in edinburgh
Your Majesty's government and the government of Ireland, together with the political, religious and civil leaders of Northern Ireland, have helped give birth to a peaceful resolution of the conflict there. I encourage everyone involved to continue to walk courageously together on the path marked out for them towards a just and lasting peace.
What did the catholic church do? have any terrorists been excommunicated? Maybe if they'd been gay
Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the 2 billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.
What underpins it's freedoms is the rejection of the catholic church and the protestant reformation - the wholesale rejection of that very patrimony he represents.
The arguments are identical to those used by Christians for years now. He didn't mention that the Vatican has no respectable validity of any sort, which Christians would have stated.
The suggestion that hitler was an atheist as were all the nazis and that was the reason for all the atrocities atheist extremism is one I've only heard in the last few months. It's ludicrous Probably because it was one the wartime generation here would have fallen off their seats laughing at it.
Pope's speech: 'Faith remains a mighty force for good in UK' | World news | The Guardian
from the pope's speech in edinburgh
Your Majesty's government and the government of Ireland, together with the political, religious and civil leaders of Northern Ireland, have helped give birth to a peaceful resolution of the conflict there. I encourage everyone involved to continue to walk courageously together on the path marked out for them towards a just and lasting peace.
What did the catholic church do? have any terrorists been excommunicated? Maybe if they'd been gay
Let it not obscure the Christian foundation that underpins its freedoms; and may that patrimony, which has always served the nation well, constantly inform the example your Government and people set before the 2 billion members of the Commonwealth and the great family of English-speaking nations throughout the world.
What underpins it's freedoms is the rejection of the catholic church and the protestant reformation - the wholesale rejection of that very patrimony he represents.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
I really dislike Richard Dawkins but I think it was a really good speech.
He was responding to insult so it's different than going out and just making a nasty commentary on the Pope unprovoked.
Two nasty bits that I thought stood out as memorable and clever were calling the Pope "Ratzinger" instead of using his title or "Pope Benedict" and the layered comment about rejecting women as if having a penis was required to do priestly duties... tying back to the rape issues which have seemingly become common occurrences with the Catholic Church.
He was responding to insult so it's different than going out and just making a nasty commentary on the Pope unprovoked.
Two nasty bits that I thought stood out as memorable and clever were calling the Pope "Ratzinger" instead of using his title or "Pope Benedict" and the layered comment about rejecting women as if having a penis was required to do priestly duties... tying back to the rape issues which have seemingly become common occurrences with the Catholic Church.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
I had neither emotion after watching this.
I have to agree with much of what he said, until he began the attack on the person of the Pope.
As for the Religious part, I was in a similar discussion on another forum, where I posted the following:
Hitler and Stalin were both raised as Catholics, but that does not make either of their regimes a result of Catholic doctrine.
It is pretty simple-minded (IMHO) to try and blame religious views, or lack of for the the destruction caused by WWII.
BTW
here is an excerpt from an article that I found to be very interesting:
John Keegan once remarked that Adolf Hitler was an 'anticlerical in the church of war'. Of course, Keegan did not mean by this that Hitler was a pacifist, since that would have made Hitler an atheist in that church. Rather, Keegan's point was that Hitler believed he understood the message and meaning from the religion of war better than the 'high priests' - the generals. Precisely because he felt his loyalty to the faith so keenly, he decried the institution and its representatives who, in his mind, could no longer speak with authority. As I have argued elsewhere, in many ways we can see that, in the church of Christ as well, Hitler was this kind of anti-clerical - not a complete anti-Christian, not an apostate (and certainly not an atheist) in the church of Christ, but instead believing he knew and understood, and ultimately fulfilled the religion of Christ better than its hated clergy and institutions. Other Nazis who subscribed to 'positive Christianity' similarly combined a strong anti-clericalism with a vision of Christianity which, while radical, was not simply 'heretical' or beyond the pale of past Christian thinking.
When considering the question of whether the model of 'clerical fascism' applies to German National Socialism, therefore, it is worth remembering that we are talking about easily the most anti-clerical of Europe's fascist movements, and certainly of Europe's fascist regimes. What separates Nazi Germany from Tiso's Slovakia or the Croatian Ustasha is not just the absence of churchmen from the upper echelons of the state, but the state's antagonism to the church. This fact must immediately be qualified, however. First, we must take note of the very strong distinction the Nazis made between the two official religions of Germany, Protestantism - meaning Lutheranism, really - and Catholicism. In most other countries to experience clerical fascism we see a uniting of the movement with a faith to which the vast majority of that nation's population adhered - what the sociologist David Martin referred to as the 'Latin model'.1 In a society with two main religious milieux, what Martin refers to as the '60-40' model, we see the minority religious group, in this case Catholics, being treated as an out-group in the Third Reich, much as they had been under the Kaiserreich. This is all the more significant given the fact that the leadership cadre of the Nazi movement contained a disproportionate number of Catholics. The Nazis' infamous anti-clericalism needs to be understood squarely within this context. For majority Protestants, things were rather different. The Nazis, in ways which again reveal a certain continuity with the older patterns established during the Kaiserreich - or at least its first years - displayed a clear confessional preference for Protestantism. Most surprisingly, even nominally Catholic Nazis like Hitler himself indicated time and again, from the earliest days of the 'Time of Struggle' (Kampfzeit) well into the Third Reich, that Protestantism was the 'natural' religion of Germany.
At the same time, the Nazis put forth their own supraconfessional variety of Christianity which they labelled 'positive Christianity'. When Nazis articulated their understanding of what 'positive Christianity' meant - and its meanings varied from one member of the Nazi elite to the next - one of the underlying, shared denominators was that it would not favour one confession over the other. It was never a faith with a liturgy or a canon, with a theology or doctrine which made it practicable; what is revealing about it, rather, is that it shows that Nazis believed that the sectarian divide between Protestant and Catholic needed to be overcome. However, at another level, we can see among the very same Nazis who professed their subscription to this diffuse notion of 'positive Christianity' a clear preference for the content of Protestantism over Catholicism. Whether this is revealed in their attitudes about Martin Luther, their interpretation of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion or the contemporary threats perceived to endanger German nationhood, time and again they upheld the trappings of Protestantism more highly than Catholicism - often much more highly. It could be said that for the nominal Protestants of the Nazi Party this would have been, to some degree, a matter of habitus, but what is truly revealing is that the Party's Catholics and so-called 'pagans' also displayed a clear preference for the culture and ideology of Protestantism - not as habitus, but as world view.
...
- Steigmann-Gall, Richard 'The Nazis’ ‘Positive Christianity’: a Variety of ‘Clerical Fascism’?', Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8:2, 315 - 327
I have to agree with much of what he said, until he began the attack on the person of the Pope.
As for the Religious part, I was in a similar discussion on another forum, where I posted the following:
Hitler and Stalin were both raised as Catholics, but that does not make either of their regimes a result of Catholic doctrine.
It is pretty simple-minded (IMHO) to try and blame religious views, or lack of for the the destruction caused by WWII.
BTW
here is an excerpt from an article that I found to be very interesting:
John Keegan once remarked that Adolf Hitler was an 'anticlerical in the church of war'. Of course, Keegan did not mean by this that Hitler was a pacifist, since that would have made Hitler an atheist in that church. Rather, Keegan's point was that Hitler believed he understood the message and meaning from the religion of war better than the 'high priests' - the generals. Precisely because he felt his loyalty to the faith so keenly, he decried the institution and its representatives who, in his mind, could no longer speak with authority. As I have argued elsewhere, in many ways we can see that, in the church of Christ as well, Hitler was this kind of anti-clerical - not a complete anti-Christian, not an apostate (and certainly not an atheist) in the church of Christ, but instead believing he knew and understood, and ultimately fulfilled the religion of Christ better than its hated clergy and institutions. Other Nazis who subscribed to 'positive Christianity' similarly combined a strong anti-clericalism with a vision of Christianity which, while radical, was not simply 'heretical' or beyond the pale of past Christian thinking.
When considering the question of whether the model of 'clerical fascism' applies to German National Socialism, therefore, it is worth remembering that we are talking about easily the most anti-clerical of Europe's fascist movements, and certainly of Europe's fascist regimes. What separates Nazi Germany from Tiso's Slovakia or the Croatian Ustasha is not just the absence of churchmen from the upper echelons of the state, but the state's antagonism to the church. This fact must immediately be qualified, however. First, we must take note of the very strong distinction the Nazis made between the two official religions of Germany, Protestantism - meaning Lutheranism, really - and Catholicism. In most other countries to experience clerical fascism we see a uniting of the movement with a faith to which the vast majority of that nation's population adhered - what the sociologist David Martin referred to as the 'Latin model'.1 In a society with two main religious milieux, what Martin refers to as the '60-40' model, we see the minority religious group, in this case Catholics, being treated as an out-group in the Third Reich, much as they had been under the Kaiserreich. This is all the more significant given the fact that the leadership cadre of the Nazi movement contained a disproportionate number of Catholics. The Nazis' infamous anti-clericalism needs to be understood squarely within this context. For majority Protestants, things were rather different. The Nazis, in ways which again reveal a certain continuity with the older patterns established during the Kaiserreich - or at least its first years - displayed a clear confessional preference for Protestantism. Most surprisingly, even nominally Catholic Nazis like Hitler himself indicated time and again, from the earliest days of the 'Time of Struggle' (Kampfzeit) well into the Third Reich, that Protestantism was the 'natural' religion of Germany.
At the same time, the Nazis put forth their own supraconfessional variety of Christianity which they labelled 'positive Christianity'. When Nazis articulated their understanding of what 'positive Christianity' meant - and its meanings varied from one member of the Nazi elite to the next - one of the underlying, shared denominators was that it would not favour one confession over the other. It was never a faith with a liturgy or a canon, with a theology or doctrine which made it practicable; what is revealing about it, rather, is that it shows that Nazis believed that the sectarian divide between Protestant and Catholic needed to be overcome. However, at another level, we can see among the very same Nazis who professed their subscription to this diffuse notion of 'positive Christianity' a clear preference for the content of Protestantism over Catholicism. Whether this is revealed in their attitudes about Martin Luther, their interpretation of the Reformation and the Wars of Religion or the contemporary threats perceived to endanger German nationhood, time and again they upheld the trappings of Protestantism more highly than Catholicism - often much more highly. It could be said that for the nominal Protestants of the Nazi Party this would have been, to some degree, a matter of habitus, but what is truly revealing is that the Party's Catholics and so-called 'pagans' also displayed a clear preference for the culture and ideology of Protestantism - not as habitus, but as world view.
...
- Steigmann-Gall, Richard 'The Nazis’ ‘Positive Christianity’: a Variety of ‘Clerical Fascism’?', Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 8:2, 315 - 327
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1333918 wrote: He's a good public speaker, I'll give him at least that, but....
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
He has an agenda you know.
OK BB... Have listened In full.
What Is his agenda that you see?
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
He has an agenda you know.
OK BB... Have listened In full.
What Is his agenda that you see?
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1333943 wrote: The man is preaching atheism. How is this not viewed as a religion?KS, atheism is not a religion.
bb
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
oscar;1334297 wrote: OK BB... Have listened In full.
What Is his agenda that you see?
I slipped that in as a piece of humour oscar, it's very clear to all that Richard Dawkins is attempting to assassinate the character of the Pope. (and the Catholic church)
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself.
What Is his agenda that you see?
I slipped that in as a piece of humour oscar, it's very clear to all that Richard Dawkins is attempting to assassinate the character of the Pope. (and the Catholic church)
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself.
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
-
Oscar Namechange
- Posts: 31842
- Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2008 9:26 am
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1334500 wrote: I slipped that in as a piece of humour oscar, it's very clear to all that Richard Dawkins is attempting to assassinate the character of the Pope. (and the Catholic church)
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself. I tend to not go on one snippet as a whole BB. I learnt my lesson with a guy called Arthur Kemp ( please google). If I had believed every-thing that I had read about him and his apparent 'hidden agenda', I would never have attended a meeting where he gave a lengthy speech. It was In fact the most enthralling speech and lesson in history that I have ever attended.
I am not a Catholic either BB although my brother Is and send his young son to a Catholic School.... His choice..
I just think that unlike previous Pope's, this Is one Is open to some critism due to his enrolement In the Hitler Youth outfit. That will always come back to haunt him.
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself. I tend to not go on one snippet as a whole BB. I learnt my lesson with a guy called Arthur Kemp ( please google). If I had believed every-thing that I had read about him and his apparent 'hidden agenda', I would never have attended a meeting where he gave a lengthy speech. It was In fact the most enthralling speech and lesson in history that I have ever attended.
I am not a Catholic either BB although my brother Is and send his young son to a Catholic School.... His choice..
I just think that unlike previous Pope's, this Is one Is open to some critism due to his enrolement In the Hitler Youth outfit. That will always come back to haunt him.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them. R.L. Binyon
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1334500 wrote: I slipped that in as a piece of humour oscar, it's very clear to all that Richard Dawkins is attempting to assassinate the character of the Pope. (and the Catholic church)
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself.
If what he says is true then it is not character assassination. Is there anything factual in Dawkins speech that is untrue?
Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism? They both claim to have the moral right, given to them by god, to tell us how to live. If you accept that authority then that is your choice but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never acceopted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)
Dawkins makes no bones about it, he is against religion as a whole and on this day the catholic church in particular. What did you expect?
Incidentally I don't practice Catholicism myself.
If what he says is true then it is not character assassination. Is there anything factual in Dawkins speech that is untrue?
Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism? They both claim to have the moral right, given to them by god, to tell us how to live. If you accept that authority then that is your choice but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never acceopted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)
Dawkins makes no bones about it, he is against religion as a whole and on this day the catholic church in particular. What did you expect?
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1334499 wrote: KS, atheism is not a religion.
bb
Not in the context of religion persay but is fundamentally the same. Both preach of a concept both wishes others to conform to. How is that different then? True atheism defined by it's more appropriate definition not used by most, is one that does not contemplate any "religious motive" and reacts to crimes as they should, by adequate policing and not an excuse to invade another country purely to mislead it's sheepish people so that they may get what they really want which is money and power.
I couldn't think of anything more true actually, I think I may print this and frame it
bb
Not in the context of religion persay but is fundamentally the same. Both preach of a concept both wishes others to conform to. How is that different then? True atheism defined by it's more appropriate definition not used by most, is one that does not contemplate any "religious motive" and reacts to crimes as they should, by adequate policing and not an excuse to invade another country purely to mislead it's sheepish people so that they may get what they really want which is money and power.
I couldn't think of anything more true actually, I think I may print this and frame it
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
Let's look at this from a different perspective.
What are you, "Angry" or "Joyous" after viewing this?
He's a good public speaker, I'll give him at least that, but....
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
He has an agenda you know.
BBC News - Row after Pope's remarks on atheism and Nazis
Personally it made me very angry, not only the ridiculous conflation of atheism with the nazis and the sheer hypocrisy but to stand in one of the heartlands of the protestant reformation and come out with the other bullshit about how the catholic church has been a force for good almost had me going out and buying a flute and an orange sash.
His agenda sucks and the oppression and terror his organisation was responsible for makes Hitler look civilised and reasonable, sane even.
YouTube - 'For and against' the Pope's visit
What are you, "Angry" or "Joyous" after viewing this?
He's a good public speaker, I'll give him at least that, but....
Is your blood boiling or are you shouting with joy after viewing this video?
He has an agenda you know.
BBC News - Row after Pope's remarks on atheism and Nazis
Personally it made me very angry, not only the ridiculous conflation of atheism with the nazis and the sheer hypocrisy but to stand in one of the heartlands of the protestant reformation and come out with the other bullshit about how the catholic church has been a force for good almost had me going out and buying a flute and an orange sash.
His agenda sucks and the oppression and terror his organisation was responsible for makes Hitler look civilised and reasonable, sane even.
YouTube - 'For and against' the Pope's visit
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
gmc;1334582 wrote: If what he says is true then it is not character assassination. Is there anything factual in Dawkins speech that is untrue?
Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism? They both claim to have the moral right, given to them by god, to tell us how to live. If you accept that authority then that is your choice but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never acceopted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)
Dawkins makes no bones about it, he is against religion as a whole and on this day the catholic church in particular. What did you expect?It’s not whether the act of character assassination, in this instance, is true or not gmc, it’s the fact that Richard Dawkins publicly wished to adopt such a vicious and personal verbal attack on the Pope.
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Richard Dawkins is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Richard Dawkins and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
“Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism?”
Did I say that gmc????
“but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never accepted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)”
Without wishing to offend any Roman Catholic, I don’t accept their teachings.
I don’t place myself under the heading of any religious organization.
I’m simply a follower of, and a believer in, the teachings of a man with the initials JC.
I was not forced to adopt His teachings, I readily adopted them as a good way of living.
Even if His teachings were (and they won’t be) proved to be a load of balderdash, I would have absolutely no regrets for adopting such a way of life as prescribed in His teachings. Nobody forced me, it was my choice, I freely and happily adopted them, and never regretted it.
bb
Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism? They both claim to have the moral right, given to them by god, to tell us how to live. If you accept that authority then that is your choice but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never acceopted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)
Dawkins makes no bones about it, he is against religion as a whole and on this day the catholic church in particular. What did you expect?It’s not whether the act of character assassination, in this instance, is true or not gmc, it’s the fact that Richard Dawkins publicly wished to adopt such a vicious and personal verbal attack on the Pope.
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Richard Dawkins is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Richard Dawkins and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
“Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism?”
Did I say that gmc????
“but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never accepted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)”
Without wishing to offend any Roman Catholic, I don’t accept their teachings.
I don’t place myself under the heading of any religious organization.
I’m simply a follower of, and a believer in, the teachings of a man with the initials JC.
I was not forced to adopt His teachings, I readily adopted them as a good way of living.
Even if His teachings were (and they won’t be) proved to be a load of balderdash, I would have absolutely no regrets for adopting such a way of life as prescribed in His teachings. Nobody forced me, it was my choice, I freely and happily adopted them, and never regretted it.
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1335218 wrote: It’s not whether the act of character assassination, in this instance, is true or not gmc, it’s the fact that Steven Hawkings publicly wished to adopt such a vicious and personal verbal attack on the Pope.
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Steven Hawkings is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Steven Hawkings and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
“Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism?”
Did I say that gmc????
“but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never accepted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)”
Without wishing to offend any Roman Catholic, I don’t accept their teachings.
I don’t place myself under the heading of any religious organization.
I’m simply a follower of, and a believer in, the teachings of a man with the initials JC.
I was not forced to adopt His teachings, I readily adopted them as a good way of living.
Even if His teachings were (and they won’t be) proved to be a load of balderdash, I would have absolutely no regrets for adopting such a way of life as prescribed in His teachings. Nobody forced me, it was my choice, I freely and happily adopted them, and never regretted it.
bb
It's Richard Dawkins Dude
Please edit this if you can, or at the very least can an admin do it?
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Steven Hawkings is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Steven Hawkings and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
“Why do you think the pope and the catholic church should not be open to criticism?”
Did I say that gmc????
“but since you are not a practising catholic that is one you have either rejected or never accepted in the first place. ( not sure if you meant you are a lapsed catholic or were brought up a protestant)”
Without wishing to offend any Roman Catholic, I don’t accept their teachings.
I don’t place myself under the heading of any religious organization.
I’m simply a follower of, and a believer in, the teachings of a man with the initials JC.
I was not forced to adopt His teachings, I readily adopted them as a good way of living.
Even if His teachings were (and they won’t be) proved to be a load of balderdash, I would have absolutely no regrets for adopting such a way of life as prescribed in His teachings. Nobody forced me, it was my choice, I freely and happily adopted them, and never regretted it.
bb
It's Richard Dawkins Dude
Please edit this if you can, or at the very least can an admin do it?
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
K.Snyder;1335248 wrote: It's Richard Dawkins Dude
Please edit this if you can, or at the very least can an admin do it?Thank you for pointing out my error KS. I have now corrected my post.
Stephen Hawking, whose name I mixed up with Richard Dawkins, is of course the eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has the reputation of having one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time.
bb
Please edit this if you can, or at the very least can an admin do it?Thank you for pointing out my error KS. I have now corrected my post.
Stephen Hawking, whose name I mixed up with Richard Dawkins, is of course the eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has the reputation of having one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time.
bb
[FONT=Arial]Just above the clouds
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
the sun is always shining.
[/FONT]
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
Posted by binbag
It’s not whether the act of character assassination, in this instance, is true or not gmc, it’s the fact that Richard Dawkins publicly wished to adopt such a vicious and personal verbal attack on the Pope.
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Richard Dawkins is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Richard Dawkins and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
Can't say i see it the same way as you do. I'd imagine not using the title is a matter of principle. This is a man who claims to be god's representative on earth and claims the moral right to tell us all how to live their lives it's difficult to see how any criticism is not going to be personal. He is a mysoginistic, homophobic bigot it's hard not to say that without it being personal.
What the pope said is deply offensive to the memories of those who fought against hitler and who knew full well that the pope said nothing to criticise hitler and even after it became very clear what was going on did nothing to prevent catholics participating.
Who do you prefer to dawkins then? if anyone.
It’s not whether the act of character assassination, in this instance, is true or not gmc, it’s the fact that Richard Dawkins publicly wished to adopt such a vicious and personal verbal attack on the Pope.
A man’s faults can be exposed with great effect without the need to lower and degrade one’s own personal character.
It’s the fact that Richard Dawkins is so ungracious when referring to the Pope, he refers to him as “Ratzinger”. To do so, is appalling and the height of bad manners.
Those two things alone sum up the character of Richard Dawkins and exposes the true personality and mind set of the man. He’s not the calibre of man I would wish to be spokesman for any group I would associate with, even if I agreed with his policies.
Can't say i see it the same way as you do. I'd imagine not using the title is a matter of principle. This is a man who claims to be god's representative on earth and claims the moral right to tell us all how to live their lives it's difficult to see how any criticism is not going to be personal. He is a mysoginistic, homophobic bigot it's hard not to say that without it being personal.
What the pope said is deply offensive to the memories of those who fought against hitler and who knew full well that the pope said nothing to criticise hitler and even after it became very clear what was going on did nothing to prevent catholics participating.
Who do you prefer to dawkins then? if anyone.
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
binbag;1335318 wrote: Thank you for pointing out my error KS. I have now corrected my post.
Stephen Hawking, whose name I mixed up with Richard Dawkins, is of course the eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has the reputation of having one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time.
bbThank you...
Stephen Hawking, whose name I mixed up with Richard Dawkins, is of course the eminent theoretical physicist and cosmologist who has the reputation of having one of the most brilliant scientific minds of our time.
bbThank you...
What are you, Angry or Joyous after viewing this?
gmc;1335517 wrote:
What the pope said is deply offensive to the memories of those who fought against hitler and who knew full well that the pope said nothing to criticise hitler and even after it became very clear what was going on did nothing to prevent catholics participating.
Not to mention that it's a bit ironic since he was a Hitler Youth, himself.
What the pope said is deply offensive to the memories of those who fought against hitler and who knew full well that the pope said nothing to criticise hitler and even after it became very clear what was going on did nothing to prevent catholics participating.
Not to mention that it's a bit ironic since he was a Hitler Youth, himself.