Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Once Upon Atrocity
Options
-
27-11-2008 7:47pm#1Ok so the Muslim violence thread got closed but, as suggested, I think a discussion on the relationship between religion, authoritarianism, atheism etc and the atrocities committed by man could be worthwhile. I can't count the times that I've seen a critic of atheism trot out Stalin and Mao, so I think it's something we should address. For the purposes of the topic I would encourage people to consider the important difference between correlation and causation. My post from the previous thread was:
I don't think its a fair comment to excuse religion by saying that people just cause violence anyway. I think a naturalistic morality based upon respect for the rights of others, informed by empathy, leads to a very balanced person. Any sort of artificially constructed morality (such as the rigid dictates of a Holy Book), authority driven leadership (such as the dominance of the Nazi party) or abdication of personal thought and responsibility (such as a cult of personality re: Stalin) will encourage the sort of violence that goes down in history.
Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.
For the record I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything. If someone runs around stabbing homeless people in the name of Jainism I'm not going to criticise Jainism unless there is a real causal link.4
Comments
-
Also for the record, my argument says nothing about what any given religious believer is capable of. Any given Muslim or Christian could still be the nicest most pacifistic person in the world. My comments simply refer to religion and similar structures on average.0
-
I have to go now, dinner and TV call...but I'll say this:
I don't think anyone can claim the circumstances which arose in China and the USSR in the 20th century can be blamed on rational, critically-minded people.0 -
Why?I completely dismiss the notion of doing something "in the name of" anything.
If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.
If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.
It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?0 -
Why?
If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.
If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.
It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?
How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"? Very few have the means of getting their opinion out there i.e. access to the mass media. The media will print the story of the Westboro Church threatening to picket Heath ledgers funeral because it's controversial and it sells and it feeds the notion of "religious nutjobs". What the media won't print is religious people rebuffing the actions of the Westboro Church because they don't want to know; it doesn't sell.0 -
Reminds me of this quote:
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion. ~ Steven Weinberg, Nobel Laureate in physics
Also, I'm sure there will eventually be a group that claims to be secularist humanist that does bomb hotels. The extent of human extremism knows no bounds.0 -
Advertisement
-
How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"? Very few have the means of getting their opinion out there i.e. access to the mass media. The media will print the story of the Westboro Church threatening to picket Heath ledgers funeral because it's controversial and it sells and it feeds the notion of "religious nutjobs". What the media won't print is religious people rebuffing the actions of the Westboro Church because they don't want to know; it doesn't sell.
Not only that, but people with even a little education should realise when people are going against the grain in such manners. I've talked to many muslims for example, who hate whats gone on. They've described it as a hijacking of their religion. Unfortunately, people feel more secure, when they can have different sets of people in neat little boxes. People however, don't really work that way.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »I don't think anyone can claim the circumstances which arose in China and the USSR in the 20th century can be blamed on rational, critically-minded people.
True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point. People bring up these atheist dictators, to show that people will do evil things without religion. Religion can be manipulated in ways though, that people will fall for anything thats being peddled. Religion 'is' a dangerous tool in the wrong hands. Religion 'does' do damage in many ways. From Jehovahs Witnesses being brainwashed out of their family, to Fred Phelps' followers being led to all that stuff we know so well, to David Koresh, to Muslim extremeists, to KKK etc etc. No-one can deny it. However, people abusing such power does not mean that all of it is evil and wrong. Unfortunately, people tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, which is why IMO, for people like Robin, its easier to just put us all in one big horrible pot called Religion.
Its why I shy away from religion, the word. Its become such a dirty word, and with good reason. I have a living Faith. Me, Jimitime. I don't want violence etc etc. There are millions of Christians like me, who live and have lived for years, side by side with atheists, muslims, jews etc etc. Yet there are some, who just want to pick out some wacko and hold them up as an example of 'Religion'. Thats my 2 cent anyway.0 -
Personally,
I think the concept of religion is easy to abuse and can quickly descend into power structures, hierarchy, wars and an 'us against everyone else' mentality. I remember even when I was growing up, I wasn't a catholic but I grew up in that culture and would hear alot of the teachings, and you were definitely told 'everyone else is stupid, anyone who isn't a catholic is going to hell'. This wasn't just other religions, it was protestants, everything. It was complete brainwashing. You could see how that type of thinking could incite war.
Myself, I keep my religion as a very personal thing, and try to respect everyone else.0 -
Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums. And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.How do you know that so few religious people object when they believe their God has been "hijacked"?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums. And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.
And what would we hope to achieve? So that ignorant people would see that not all professing Christians feel that way? To incite the Phelps to feel persecuted? A worthless act. I'd rather go on in my normal Christian life, trying to live according top Christ and try being an example of him to others. Getting involved in tooing and frowing with nut jobs is certainly nothing I'd indulge in, just so you can tick a box.0 -
midlandsmissus wrote: »Personally,
I think the concept of religion is easy to abuse and can quickly descend into power structures, hierarchy, wars and an 'us against everyone else' mentality. I remember even when I was growing up, I wasn't a catholic but I grew up in that culture and would hear alot of the teachings, and you were definitely told 'everyone else is stupid, anyone who isn't a catholic is going to hell'. This wasn't just other religions, it was protestants, everything. It was complete brainwashing. You could see how that type of thinking could incite war.
Myself, I keep my religion as a very personal thing, and try to respect everyone else.
Hope you don't mind me asking, but when you say the above in bold, do you mean you have your own interpretation of christianity separate from any other institutionalised dogma? Or do you identify with a particular church?
As I've said before its evident to me that religion is a manipulation of the anthropomorphising of that which the human race has little understanding of.0 -
Unfortunately, people tend to be fearful of what they don't understand, which is why IMO, for people like Robin, its easier to just put us all in one big horrible pot called Religion.
I'm gonna side with Robin here, I understand religion very well. I don't fear the average Christian or Muslim or Jew walking down the street. In fact, I go through life on the working assumption that everyone I meet is religious to some degree. If I lumped all people into one pot, it would mean I have to fear every person I see.
The only religious people I fear are those who are not only very very devout, but also in positions of great power (Bush), and people who are willing to take god's literal word into their own hands and flout societies laws.
And fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, and hate leads to very long posts on the internet about why I do not like them.0 -
ChocolateSauce wrote: »I'm gonna side with Robin here, I understand religion very well.
I think thats the fallacy though. 'I understand religion very well'. You understand certain aspects of certain religions, that is all. But on this basis, you build a mindset which may be right for some but not for others.The only religious people I fear are those who are not only very very devout, but also in positions of great power (Bush), and people who are willing to take god's literal word into their own hands and flout societies laws.
Thats it though. You fear George Bush in power. There are many 'very very devout' Christians I know, that would be the most pleasent people you could meet. 'Devout' does not mean Ian Paisley. Every Christian should be devout, but again, its the more extreme cases that steal the headlines. There are many devout Christians doing aid work etc etc.0 -
I'm not asking this question so that I can "tick a box" somewhere.Getting involved in tooing and frowing with nut jobs is certainly nothing I'd indulge in, just so you can tick a box.
I'm just perplexed that somebody like Phelps can carry on his nonsense and no christians seem to get very worried by it. It seems to imply a degree of moral passivity on the part of christians that one wouldn't expect from their claims that christianity can make one lead a better ilfe. One would have expected that somebody corrupting the message, or bringing it into contempt, would be treated seriously.
Instead, nobody seems to care very much and it's interesting to wonder why.0 -
Every Christian should be devout, but again, its the more extreme cases that steal the headlines. There are many devout Christians doing aid work etc etc.
Define "Devout Christian". Be as detailed as possible in your response.
The problem with all religions is that when they boil down to it they teach people "you're right, they're wrong... FACT"
If you look at everything that's wrong with society, genocide, ethnic cleansing, rascism, sexism, bigotry, religion... etc, it all boils down to this assumption of authority on a matter of opinion. You replace "FACT" with "maybe?" and you'd live in a much better world.0 -
Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.
I think fervent religious belief is for the most part just a symptom of people who are pretty flaky to begin with. It's rather like the violent movies/video games argument. Of course the guys who shot your school up played Doom. They like shooting.
People who feel like they have some grand purpose and need to die for it will tend to bury themselves in their faiths or be attracted to ones which feed that delusion. Maybe there is a reciprocal thing in there, but I think simple causality is a non-runner.0 -
No, you should blame them on Communism.True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point.
When making the point Look what the atheist did! people ignore that in these countries there was a process very similar to a religion going on, in that there was an unquestioned authority dictating to the people what was supposed to be best for them. And people were supposed to follow the doctrine of this authority for the greater good.
Sound familiar?Religion can be manipulated in ways though, that people will fall for anything thats being peddled.
But you see that is the point. That isn't religion being manipulated. That is just religion.
That is what religion is. It is a group of people following what they believe to be an absolute authority, which dictates to them how they are supposed to be and act. That applies to you as much as those people blowing up the hotels in India. The only difference is what they believe they are supposed to be doing.
It applies to Communists in USSR butchering Christians because they believed in the authority of the Party to tell them what was best.
It applies to the Germans under the Nazi party, particularly the Hitler Youth brought up to believe Hitlers authority without question or doubt.
It applies to Christians who believe the Bible is the written world of God, the ultimate authority on everything.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about the mind set. The idea that there is an unquestioning ultimate authority that dictates good and bad, right and wrong. The idea that this authority not only cannot be wrong, but shouldn't be questioned.
Religion is a dangerous tool. Period.Religion 'is' a dangerous tool in the wrong hands.
The wrong hands is just a question of time and opportunity. It is the mind set of the followers that allows the danger, rather than the simply the evil of the manipulator. By the very nature of the concept of the unquestionable authority you will end up with a situation that is prone to producing very bad things. One cannot separate say Islam and Islamic fundamentalist violence and say that the later is an example of the former in the wrong hands, because both are examples of the mind set of unquestionable authority.However, people abusing such power does not mean that all of it is evil and wrong.
But the problem is that such power will always be abused. The issue isn't the abuse of power. The issue is that people allow others to have that power in the first place
An analogy often used is that of gun control. People who are against gun control argue that just because a small fraction of people end up shooting up schools and offices, doesn't mean they shouldn't own guns. But issue with that argument is that for them to own guns you will get people who shoot up schools and offices.
Well, you, Jimitime, and the entire collection of men who wrote the Bible and decided the rules about how you should and shouldn't live. It isn't even that you are being manipulated by one single person (as if you were a member of a cult following one leader), rather a whole collection of them, all of them claiming to represent the wishes of a supreme authority.Its why I shy away from religion, the word. Its become such a dirty word, and with good reason. I have a living Faith. Me, Jimitime.
You do what they tell you to do, because you believe that they speak with the authority of a god, ie a supreme unquestionable entity. So does everyone else who follows a system like this, be they Islamists in India or Communists in Stalinist Russia.0 -
Because I've been around these forums for quite a while and it's difficult to recall many instances where anybody has objected. Neither have I seen much of it outside these forums.
How many religious people would you say you've come across? I hope it would be enough for a decent cross-sectional study on religious beliefs.And to continue your example, I don't ever remember seeing a gang of christians going and placarding Westboro Baptist -- heaven knows, there are enough christians out there that they could outnumber Fred Phelps a thousand to one without even trying very hard.
Are you aware of what Phelps actually does? He blows a lot of hot air about picketing funerals such as the Amish school girls or for a family that burned in a fire in Kentucky because the state supports "sodomy". He then gets offered media air time in exchange for calling off his planned pickets. He's a publicity whore who doesn't even end up picketing when he publicises it; so how are Christians, or any group for that matter, meant to get organized to protest the Westboro Church's presence when they don't even turn up for half of the events that they claim they will?
That and the problem of willingly contributing to the circus that Phelps would create at a funeral. No-one wants to see two groups going at each other on a day like that.0 -
I'm not asking this question so that I can "tick a box" somewhere.
I'm just perplexed that somebody like Phelps can carry on his nonsense and no christians seem to get very worried by it. It seems to imply a degree of moral passivity on the part of christians that one wouldn't expect from their claims that christianity can make one lead a better ilfe. One would have expected that somebody corrupting the message, or bringing it into contempt, would be treated seriously.
Instead, nobody seems to care very much and it's interesting to wonder why.
I'll leave you wondering why so.0 -
Advertisement
-
Goduznt Xzst wrote: »Define "Devout Christian". Be as detailed as possible in your response.
Is actually quite a simple detail. Have faith in the risen Christ. Live according to his example. It really is that simple.0 -
-
No, you should blame them on Communism.
Why communism? Is communism, in ideological terms, quite a fair system? I'm not greatly educated on communism, but I was under the impression that its ideology was quite noble to a point, while its leaders wee not? Does communist ideology back Mao's and Stalins attrocities? Or was that just Mao and Stalin being egomaniacal Psycho's?
When making the point Look what the atheist did! people ignore that in these countries there was a process very similar to a religion going on, in that there was an unquestioned authority dictating to the people what was supposed to be best for them. And people were supposed to follow the doctrine of this authority for the greater good.
Sound familiar?
But em, so what. It wasn't religion. It was people who were atheists abusing the power they had. The abuse of power is certainly a familiar sight alright. Be it secular religious etc.But you see that is the point. That isn't religion being manipulated. That is just religion.
That is what religion is. It is a group of people following what they believe to be an absolute authority, which dictates to them how they are supposed to be and act. That applies to you as much as those people blowing up the hotels in India. The only difference is what they believe they are supposed to be doing.
Using it so loosely, whatever your views are, you are religious. You follow what you think is how you should behave. You just so happen to view yourself as an authority on yourself. If you were to take up arms against your neighbour because you wanted to punish him for his dog soiling your garden etc etc. So its much the same. Yes I believe in Gods authority, and stating that the 'only difference is what we think we should be doing', is a pretty big difference. TBH, its a silly point.
Except they were not religious. Abuses of power most certainly, but not religious. Certainly not Christian.It applies to Communists in USSR butchering Christians because they believed in the authority of the Party to tell them what was best.
It applies to the Germans under the Nazi party, particularly the Hitler Youth brought up to believe Hitlers authority without question or doubt.Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking about their actions, I'm talking about the mind set. The idea that there is an unquestioning ultimate authority that dictates good and bad, right and wrong. The idea that this authority not only cannot be wrong, but shouldn't be questioned.
Again, lack of understanding based on your belief that you know 'Religion'. I am telling you as a Christian that questions should be asked. Now the fact that I am classed as part of religion, insisted on by you in the past, means your premise falls. I've already said, which you disagreed with, that religion can be manipulated and abused. You simply believe that that is religion. I go back to my accusation against Robin. I think you like to compartmentalise. Keep it in a neat box, thats 'them'. People do not work like that, and if you insist that religion is people rather than organisations, then there is no box that can fit 'Religion'. What applies to me wont apply to PDN or Wolfsbane etc etc. Much like when I had the thread on Atheism here. I found that 'Atheists' don't sit neatly in a box, much like most people don't.Religion is a dangerous tool. Period.
Again, it can be.The wrong hands is just a question of time and opportunity. It is the mind set of the followers that allows the danger, rather than the simply the evil of the manipulator. By the very nature of the concept of the unquestionable authority you will end up with a situation that is prone to producing very bad things. One cannot separate say Islam and Islamic fundamentalist violence and say that the later is an example of the former in the wrong hands, because both are examples of the mind set of unquestionable authority.
Strangely enough though, Christ lived an exemplary life by which we should all strive. If we actually lived according to his example, we would be in a state of peace and security. Thus, only by abusing Christianity can one justify certain evils.But the problem is that such power will always be abused. The issue isn't the abuse of power. The issue is that people allow others to have that power in the first place
Indeed, power will always be abused. Its why God said that 'Man will govern himself to his injury'. Be it religious, secular whatever. I however have seen guidelines and examples laid out by Christ which enhance both my life and those around me. I give no authority to men. In fact its one of the arguements myself and catholics have regularly. Papal power etc.An analogy often used is that of gun control. People who are against gun control argue that just because a small fraction of people end up shooting up schools and offices, doesn't mean they shouldn't own guns. But issue with that argument is that for them to own guns you will get people who shoot up schools and offices.
Is that an arguement for the erradication of religion?Well, you, Jimitime, and the entire collection of men who wrote the Bible and decided the rules about how you should and shouldn't live. It isn't even that you are being manipulated by one single person (as if you were a member of a cult following one leader), rather a whole collection of them, all of them claiming to represent the wishes of a supreme authority.
You are working from the assumption that all the bible writers have skillfully and dishonestly influenced me into my way of life. That is all it is. An assumption. Christianity works. It has made me happy. It has given me comfort. It has given me hope. It has given me good advice. It has made me a better person. It has relieved me of guilt (rather than the common notion of it making one feel guilty). Living according to Christs example works at giving me a fulfilling existance. So even if we leave aside the differring opinions on the truth, Christianity has enhanced my life. I don't want to kill my enemies. I don't agree with violence. I wholly believe in charity to both christian and non christian alike. To say that I am being skillfully led up the garden path though, is merely your faith position.You do what they tell you to do, because you believe that they speak with the authority of a god, ie a supreme unquestionable entity. So does everyone else who follows a system like this, be they Islamists in India or Communists in Stalinist Russia.
Again, its like. 'You do as your told, so your as bad as hitler youth'. Its a nonsense position. There is a big difference between doing what your sadistic parents tell you to do when they say, 'Kill the Jew next door', and your loving parents tel you to do when they say 'love your neighbour. In your arguement though, we are alike because we both do as we're told.
In all honesty, and in the nicest way, I don't really wish to debate this. I suppose I've made my position known on it, and I've seen where these conversations can go. Hope you enjoy the weekend.0 -
Why?
If somebody's running around blowing up hotels or whatever "in the name of X", then I think it's quite reasonable to wonder as to why this nutter might think that X is justifying his actions.
If, for example, there's an exhortatory literature in X or gang of itinerant preachers who preach a militant version of X and thereby, justify to themselves the blowing up of hotels, or one which calls upon people to make dramatic actions or sacrifices "in the name of X", then I think it's not so much reasonable as to question X, but necessary to demand that other X's get up off their tots and actively repudiate the actions carried out in their common name.
It's another side of that question that stirred so little interest recently on the other forum -- why do so few religious people object to having other people assume control of a perceived common identity to propagate their unsavory views?
I did specify that I would require a real causal link, such as exhortatory literature. I simply don't consider something done in the name of alone to be sufficient.0 -
JimiTime wrote:True, but you can say they were atheists. I wouldn't blame their attrocities on atheism though, but thats the whole point
The reason you can't blame atheism for Stalin's atrocities is because there is no causal link between them. If a Muslim blows up a train I can blame Islam because the Koran calls for violent conflict with the enemies of Islam. If a Christian beats a gay man to a pulp I can blame Christianity because the Bible calls for homosexuals to be put to death. If a Jehovah's Witness let's his daughter die because he thinks blood transfusion is evil then I will blame that wacky religion because that's exactly what they advocate.
Yes, the situation is always more complicated than I've outlined above, but the religious influences are still there. I really think I hit the nail on the head in my first post when I listed the three things that can lead to atrocity:
- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility
You'll find all three of these in virtually any given religion. I'm sure its adherents will argue differently, of course. Yes the Church expects every individual to use their freewill and form a personal relationship with God. You're still expected to obey the rules dictated by an ancient book though, you still have to submit to the leadership of a conservative fraternal elite, and you're still expected to think of mankind as lesser creatures than God.
Virtually all atrocity causing groups will have these elements too. Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Crusading Christianity...they all look the same to me. Yes we can say "Ah but Stalin was an atheist, it had nothing to do with religion!" That would be just a word game. It's the exact same mentality, merely with a supernatural God replaced with an Dictator and The State.0 -
The reason you can't blame atheism for Stalin's atrocities is because there is no causal link between them. If a Muslim blows up a train I can blame Islam because the Koran calls for violent conflict with the enemies of Islam. If a Christian beats a gay man to a pulp I can blame Christianity because the Bible calls for homosexuals to be put to death. If a Jehovah's Witness let's his daughter die because he thinks blood transfusion is evil then I will blame that wacky religion because that's exactly what they advocate.
Yes, the situation is always more complicated than I've outlined above, but the religious influences are still there. I really think I hit the nail on the head in my first post when I listed the three things that can lead to atrocity:
- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility
You'll find all three of these in virtually any given religion. I'm sure its adherents will argue differently, of course. Yes the Church expects every individual to use their freewill and form a personal relationship with God. You're still expected to obey the rules dictated by an ancient book though, you still have to submit to the leadership of a conservative fraternal elite, and you're still expected to think of mankind as lesser creatures than God.
Virtually all atrocity causing groups will have these elements too. Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany, Crusading Christianity...they all look the same to me. Yes we can say "Ah but Stalin was an atheist, it had nothing to do with religion!" That would be just a word game. It's the exact same mentality, merely with a supernatural God replaced with an Dictator and The State.
Do you think that the Nazi regime was influenced by religion Zillah?0 -
Do you think that the Nazi regime was influenced by religion Zillah?
Uhhrr...not sure exactly in what fashion you mean. There was certainly collaboration between Hitler and the Catholic Church, but more specifically National Socialism itself was an extremely cultish organisation built upon the three factors I've listed above. One could easily be described as "blaspheming" against Der Fuhrer or "sinning" against National Socialism. It was in all ways a non-supernatural religion, with Hitler replacing God, and the glory of National Socialism replacing the glory of heaven.0 -
Uhhrr...not sure exactly in what fashion you mean. There was certainly collaboration between Hitler and the Catholic Church, but more specifically National Socialism itself was an extremely cultish organisation built upon the three factors I've listed above. One could easily be described as "blaspheming" against Der Fuhrer or "sinning" against National Socialism. It was in all ways a non-supernatural religion, with Hitler replacing God, and the glory of National Socialism replacing the glory of heaven.
I mean can you attribute any of the atrocities he committed to being influenced by say, Catholicism? Or his idea of an Aryan Master-Race, was that inspired by Catholicism?0 -
I never argued that the crimes committed by regimes such as Nazi Germany can be laid at the feet of religions such as Catholicism. I'm saying that such regimes are religions judging by how they operate.0
-
Advertisement
-
I never argued that the crimes committed by regimes such as Nazi Germany can be laid at the feet of religions such as Catholicism. I'm saying that such regimes are religions judging by how they operate.Secular humanists don't bomb hotels, they don't picket funerals and they don't run pogroms or genocidal campaigns. You need some of the above to allow such behaviour, and religion usually has most of it in spades.
So, even if a dictator is not religious, his crimes against humanity are inspired by;
- Artificially constructed morality with rigid dictates
- Authority driven leadership
- Abdication of personal thought and responsibility
Attributes that religion has in spades you say. So indirectly, religion has influenced these men (Hitler, Stalin and Mao etc etc) in the structuring of their tyrannical regimes. Is that the jist of what you are saying or am I off the mark?0
Advertisement