4 of 8
4
911: Religion did this
Posted: 16 September 2011 09:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

The Wiki page on Hitler’s religious views gives a pretty good rundown, I think. (I read Ian Kershaw’s two volume bio of Hitler awhile back). The main upshot is that it’s a complex issue. He was not very fond of the Catholic church, and not very fond of institutionalized Christianity in any of its forms. I think, in part, this is because he was trying to create a totalitarian political state, and that was threatened by any other sizable institutional power, including religion. So longer term I expect he would have tried to subvert and co-opt institutionalized Christianity from within, and make it an arm of the party, with more of an emphasis placed on Germanic racial notions and of course Hitler as Führer.

In that, he was quite different from (for example) the fascists of Franco’s Spain, which were more like an arm of the Catholic church.

As for Hitler’s being an atheist, there’s no evidence for it. Hitler associated atheism with the communists, who amounted to some of his fiercest political opponents in Germany at the time. There’s no reason to take him as any kind of secularist, either, although I suspect his notion of ‘faith’ would have become something of an amalgam of beliefs in the Aryan Volk and their God or gods. And of course it would have required an unquestioning faith by the people in him as their leader.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 09:07 AM
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 09:04 AM

But the ACLU and others want to redact ole God from government use and purge it from civil society altogether.

Where do you get the idea that the ACLU wants to “redact God from civil society altogether”?

Which other organizations do you believe want to do that?

Why do you ask, why not just post a rebuttal? To me your questions have obvious answers.

ACLU and the Pledge of Allegiance, “One Nation under God”  to name one.

...to foster a secular society, CFI mission statement, two of the three goals: 1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy
2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies

I’m guessing you will give me a new definition for “redact” or point out that I used the word incorrectly.

These aren’t relevant to your point. The ACLU only has a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance when it’s used in public schools, which are an arm of the government.

CFI’s mission statement point (1) has to do with government as well. Point (2) is specifically about privilege, not about “purging altogether”.

Your claim was that the ACLU and others want to “redact/purge [God] from civil society altogether”. These don’t demonstrate that claim.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 10:14 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 09:46 AM
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 09:38 AM
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 09:07 AM
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 09:04 AM

But the ACLU and others want to redact ole God from government use and purge it from civil society altogether.

Where do you get the idea that the ACLU wants to “redact God from civil society altogether”?

Which other organizations do you believe want to do that?

Why do you ask, why not just post a rebuttal? To me your questions have obvious answers.

ACLU and the Pledge of Allegiance, “One Nation under God”  to name one.

...to foster a secular society, CFI mission statement, two of the three goals: 1. an end to the influence that religion and pseudoscience have on public policy
2. an end to the privileged position that religion and pseudoscience continue to enjoy in many societies

I’m guessing you will give me a new definition for “redact” or point out that I used the word incorrectly.

These aren’t relevant to your point. The ACLU only has a problem with the Pledge of Allegiance when it’s used in public schools, which are an arm of the government.

CFI’s mission statement point (1) has to do with government as well. Point (2) is specifically about privilege, not about “purging altogether”.

Your claim was that the ACLU and others want to “redact/purge [God] from civil society altogether”. These don’t demonstrate that claim.

It’s relevant to me, I made myself clear. You didn’t quote the whole post to begin with, and are now “adding in” to my response to first question which was misquoted. The word I used “ole God”. Miss doesn’t mean the same as ole miss, does it.
Yes sir, you’re good at dissecting my post from what I said to what you wanted to hear.
If this is a contest between you and me, you win! See, I have taken off my white t-shirt and am now vigorously waving it over my head.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14

I don’t see that the “ole” in “ole God” is a difference that makes a difference to your point. But perhaps you can elaborate.

Seems to me you made a rather serious and factually incorrect slur on several secular organizations, and then when that was pointed out, you replied by speaking out of both sides of your mouth: both agreeing with the criticism and insinuating that you were misread. (”... what you wanted to hear.”)

hmmm

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 11:05 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9301
Joined  2006-08-29
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 09:38 AM

As for Hitler’s being an atheist, there’s no evidence for it.

No, there isn’t. But the way he presented his religious views in his writings sounds to me more like a convenient way of using an available tool to justify his sick mind. Probably not that different from most of today’s American politicians. There is surely enough evidence to show that Obama believes in God but it just doesn’t feel like he is a theist, does it? But I guess there really is no point to argue about this.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 12:55 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 10:22 AM

I don’t see that the “ole” in “ole God” is a difference that makes a difference to your point. But perhaps you can elaborate.

Seems to me you made a rather serious and factually incorrect slur on several secular organizations, and then when that was pointed out, you replied by speaking out of both sides of your mouth: both agreeing with the criticism and insinuating that you were misread. (”... what you wanted to hear.”)

hmmm

Seems to me that you are looking for something that the intent was not there, but you made it your issue, so I will make another attempt of explanation.
Speaking out of both sides of mouth, yes, intentionally so, for you wish to bend and distort what was meant.

The ACLU has and will continue to fight to keep the word “God” out of government, this includes public schools which are run by government. How did I slur the ACLU?
The CFI, for one of many organizations, wishes to construct a secular society. This to me means no “God” in government, and also, no “God” in society. This maybe that CFI merely means separation of Church and State in both government and in society. Let’s take a look at CFI’s mission statement and see what it means as I understand it.

CFI speaks of usurping, displace or substitute creationism,(mythological narratives) and church or religion as a whole,(dogmas of the present). So, how did I slur the CFI?  Did I misinterpret something? “Mythological narratives” to me, means creationism. And “dogmas of the present”, again to me, means church or religion-as-a-whole.

REF: “About CFI”; first paragraph.
To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.

Falling forward;  to your point of “speaking out of both sides of mouth” , how can CFI want to supplant mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, and then later in mission statement say ” The secular society we are building is a community of reason and compassion in which the dignity and fundamental rights of all individuals are respected”.
First it wants to supplant then it wants all individual rights to be respected….. as you mentioned to me, it’s speaking out of both sides of the mouth, isn’t it? Or is this another slur, in your mind?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 07:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 12:55 PM

The CFI, for one of many organizations, wishes to construct a secular society. This to me means no “God” in government, and also, no “God” in society. This maybe that CFI merely means separation of Church and State in both government and in society.

The separation of church and state is by definition only relevant for government. You can’t “separate church and state ... in society”. That makes no sense. State = government, and church is part of society that should have no privileged (there’s that word again!) influence. IOW there should be no “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, as it says in the First Amendment.

CFI has never said their aim is to eliminate God from society. This is a classic right-wing Christian slur, often said of the ACLU as well, which makes me believe you must be either this sort of person yourself or receiving your information from sources which foster such nonsense.

You claim to have read CFI’s mission statement. I wonder, then, why you fail to mention these sentences, which makes the very points to which I refer:

In aiming to foster a secular society, we do not seek to abridge the rights of believers. We vigorously object to government support of religion and the use of religious dogma to justify public policy; we do not oppose the free exercise of religion.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 07:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
dougsmith - 16 September 2011 07:27 PM
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 12:55 PM

The CFI, for one of many organizations, wishes to construct a secular society. This to me means no “God” in government, and also, no “God” in society. This maybe that CFI merely means separation of Church and State in both government and in society.

The separation of church and state is by definition only relevant for government. You can’t “separate church and state ... in society”. That makes no sense. State = government, and church is part of society that should have no privileged (there’s that word again!) influence. IOW there should be no “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, as it says in the First Amendment.

CFI has never said their aim is to eliminate God from society. This is a classic right-wing Christian slur, often said of the ACLU as well, which makes me believe you must be either this sort of person yourself or receiving your information from sources which foster such nonsense.

You claim to have read CFI’s mission statement. I wonder, then, why you fail to mention these sentences, which makes the very points to which I refer:

In aiming to foster a secular society, we do not seek to abridge the rights of believers. We vigorously object to government support of religion and the use of religious dogma to justify public policy; we do not oppose the free exercise of religion.

Doug, again, you have side stepped what I wrote and inquired about.
The word “supplant” is the heart of where I see intent of CFI. That is reason of me stating the universal separation of church and state in US
REF: “About CFI”; first paragraph.
To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.

Comparing me to the Right-wing Christians was unprovoked. My words have been bent, bended and broken where the intended meaning has become whatever you desire. Just answer the question of “supplant”. That would more than likely settle it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 09:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

Ohio, aren’t you taking one word or sentence in a mission statement and separating it from its entire context? When you do that, you can interpret it nearly any way you want. CFI is not trying to establish a non-religious society. They are trying to push toward a more humanistic and critically thinking society. This doesn’t mean infringing upon the personal rights and freedoms of each individual to practice their own religion. What it does mean is challenging the leaders of our society when they 1) Give preference to any particular group simply on the basis of religious preference 2) Make governing decisions and laws (that affect EVERYONE) that derive from mythological thinking rather than well-reasoned arguments 3) Hinder, or even cripple, the progression of scientific advancement just to appease the religious masses.

It appears that your idea of “respecting” the rights of the religious is by not questioning or challenging anything or anyone, and by merely letting them do or say as they please, regardless of how it affects the rest of society. If that is true, then you will always see any criticism of the religious right as disrespectful, regardless of the intentions. If that is your view, then your disagreement is more fundamental and needs to be addressed from that level.

CFI, as well as most of forum posters, could care less if people wanted to practice their chosen religion without bothering anyone else. What they DO care about is when public or foreign policy is influenced by a lack of critical thinking. They care when the results of scientific research is hampered by mythological preconceptions. They care when particular groups of people are singled out and discriminated against because their peaceful lifestyles don’t “jive” with the religious convictions of majority.

[ Edited: 16 September 2011 09:31 PM by Cloak ]
 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 09:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 55 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
Cloak - 16 September 2011 09:29 PM

Ohio, aren’t you taking one word or sentence in a mission statement and separating it from its entire context? When you do that, you can interpret it nearly any way you want. CFI is not trying to establish a non-religious society. They are trying to push toward a more humanistic and critically thinking society. This doesn’t mean infringing upon the personal rights and freedoms of each individual to practice their own religion. What it does mean is challenging the leaders of our society when they 1) Give preference to any particular group simply on the basis of religious preference 2) Make governing decisions and laws (that affect EVERYONE) that derive from mythological thinking rather than well-reasoned arguments 3) Hinder, or even cripple, the progression of scientific advancement just to appease the religious masses.

It appears that your idea of “respecting” the rights of the religious is by not questioning or challenging anything or anyone, and by merely letting them do or say as they please, regardless of how it affects the rest of society. If that is true, then you will always see any criticism of the religious right as disrespectful, regardless of the intentions. If that is your view, then your disagreement is more fundamental and needs to be addressed from that level.

CFI, as well as most of forum posters, could care less if people wanted to practice their chosen religion without bothering anyone else. What they DO care about is when public or foreign policy is influenced by a lack of critical thinking. They care when the results of scientific research is hampered by mythological preconceptions. They care when particular groups of people are singled out and discriminated against because their peaceful lifestyles don’t “jive” with the religious convictions of majority.

Thanks Cloak, you have a valid point of which it is agreed. My hanging chad was the word “supplant”. No reason for me to dither on about it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 16 September 2011 11:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 56 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2715
Joined  2011-04-24

I think Georgie is correct, like most Austrians, Hitler was a Catholic nominally.  From what I’ve read, Hitler was not really an atheist, he was at least a believer in an afterlife , a spirit world, alternative medicine, ect. He was probably not much of a critical thinker, but he was cunning enough to use religion as a bait, so to speak.  It’s looks unlikely that he was a devout Catholic however.

 Signature 

Raise your glass if you’re wrong…. in all the right ways.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 06:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 57 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15435
Joined  2006-02-14
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 07:51 PM

Doug, again, you have side stepped what I wrote and inquired about.
The word “supplant” is the heart of where I see intent of CFI. That is reason of me stating the universal separation of church and state in US
REF: “About CFI”; first paragraph.
To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.

Comparing me to the Right-wing Christians was unprovoked. My words have been bent, bended and broken where the intended meaning has become whatever you desire. Just answer the question of “supplant”. That would more than likely settle it.

CFI is an advocacy organization. Any advocacy organization exists to advocate for a particular point of view. But that doesn’t mean that every advocacy organization, or indeed every religious organization, is pushing for totalitarianism.

It’s clear what CFI is arguing for by reading the mission statement in its entirety.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 07:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 58 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
dougsmith - 17 September 2011 06:20 AM
ohio204 - 16 September 2011 07:51 PM

Doug, again, you have side stepped what I wrote and inquired about.
The word “supplant” is the heart of where I see intent of CFI. That is reason of me stating the universal separation of church and state in US
REF: “About CFI”; first paragraph.
To oppose and supplant the mythological narratives of the past, and the dogmas of the present, the world needs an institution devoted to promoting science, reason, freedom of inquiry, and humanist values. The Center for Inquiry is that institution.

Comparing me to the Right-wing Christians was unprovoked. My words have been bent, bended and broken where the intended meaning has become whatever you desire. Just answer the question of “supplant”. That would more than likely settle it.

CFI is an advocacy organization. Any advocacy organization exists to advocate for a particular point of view. But that doesn’t mean that every advocacy organization, or indeed every religious organization, is pushing for totalitarianism.

It’s clear what CFI is arguing for by reading the mission statement in its entirety.

Doug; yes, I too see that the word “supplant” is difficult in explaining, for this is the reason you have not yet addressed it, I guess.
And you keep saying that I have not read the whole page of mission statement, when in fact I have. Many times, forward and back. I even went to the appropriate thread to have further discussion. But it seems useless, a vain attempt on my part, to understand why the word “supplant” was chosen instead of another.

This morning I went to the local Farmers Feed & Seed store to buy that padded saddle just for your comfort, of which I now have strapped onto my back. My gift to you, enjoy.
It’s a bit embarrassing though, my neighbor said he noticed something different about me, but just couldn’t put a harness on it. You know how farmers are…....weird.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 07:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 59 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  582
Joined  2010-04-19

I’m a little lost as to why this is so difficult to understand, Ohio. There is no apparent “difficulty” in “explaining” it unless you separate it from the mission statement as a whole. They are not talking about obliterating religion. They are talking about moving it out of a place where it doesn’t belong. Why are you so fixated on individual words when the context clearly clarifies their intended meanings?

 Signature 

Don’t get set into one form, adapt it and build your own, and let it grow, be like water. Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.

- Bruce Lee -

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 September 2011 08:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 60 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  202
Joined  2011-09-02
Cloak - 17 September 2011 07:49 AM

I’m a little lost as to why this is so difficult to understand, Ohio. There is no apparent “difficulty” in “explaining” it unless you separate it from the mission statement as a whole. They are not talking about obliterating religion. They are talking about moving it out of a place where it doesn’t belong. Why are you so fixated on individual words when the context clearly clarifies their intended meanings?

This issue of “supplant” has turned into folly.
defined
1. to take the place of (another), as through force, scheming, strategy, or the like.
2. to replace (one thing) by something else.
ref; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supplant

*note, recently I have only posted on this issue as to answer a question or remark made to me.
If we do not wish to tackle the issue as to why “supplant” is used in the mission statement, then let it go.

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 8
4