"Atheism, not religion, is the real force ..."

[T'ai Chi]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

An interesting article.

[CFLarsen]

Here we go again... :rolleyes:

[Darat]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

An interesting article.
No it isn't.

[T'ai Chi]

Thanks for the bump of an interesting thread showing an interesting article with interesting arguments.

[wollery]

Oops, you seem to have mistyped a couple of words there T'ai Chi.

Thanks for the bump of a pointless thread showing an incredibly biased article with stunningly flawed arguments.

There. No need to thank me.

[chriswl]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/1121/p09s01-coop.html

An interesting article.
Its interesting how lame it is.

In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.
This would only make sense if they had killed 100M religious people simply because they were religious. A Tyrant who happens not to be religious murdering his citizens for reasons that have nothing to do with religion doesn't count as "atheist" act. No more than my driving to work in the morning is an "atheist" act.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.
Many of the wars between England and France were fought while they were both Catholic countries. But later wars were indeed motivated by Catholic-Protestant enmity, e.g. the War of the Grand Alliance (1688–1697) and the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). And of course England's wars against the Spanish 100 years previously were quite explicitly Protestant versus Catholic conflicts. Hostility to Catholicism was often quite fanatical in England at this time as was hatred of Protestantism in Catholic Europe. European history of this period was completely dominated by this division.

Has the writer not heard of the Thirty Year's War (1618-48), a straight Catholic versus Protestant fight which left about a third of the population of what is now Germany dead? Or the hundreds of years of fighting between Christian Europe and the Muslim Ottoman Empire?

The same is true today. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not, at its core, a religious one. It arises out of a dispute over self-determination and land.
This makes it sound like Jews and Palestinians have lived side-by-side in the middle east for centuries. Whatever you think of Israel's current right to exist, the establishment of the modern Jewish state of Israel in Palestine which is the basis of this whole conflict, was clearly a religiously motivated act. Their belief in their God-given right to the land was their justification for taking it from its then current inhabitants.

Ethnic rivalry, not religion, is the source of the tension in Northern Ireland and the Balkans.
No it isn't. The original Irish Protestants were Scottish settlers who in many cases were descendents of earlier Irish emigrants to Scotland. In between those two waves of emigration Scotland went Protestant and Ireland didn't. There is no discernible ethnic difference here, religion is the dividing factor.

Likewise in the Balkans with the Catholic Croatians, Orthodox Serbs and Bosnian Muslims (who are not Turks but European converts to Islam). The differences are religious not ethnic. They all lived together in Yugoslavia, they shared a common culture and language, you often couldn't tell one from the other.

Harris can go on forever in this vein...." As for Nazism, "while the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominantly secular way, it was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity." Indeed, "The holocaust marked the culmination of ... two thousand years of Christian fulminating against the Jews."
This is undoubtedly true. The persecution and marginalisation of European Jews has its roots in Christianity. Eventually a non-religious maniac tried to wipe out this persecuted minority. But why were the Jews in the position of a persecuted and (in some places) despised minority? Because anti-semitism had been nurtured for centuries by the Christian church.

Whatever the motives for atheist bloodthirstiness, the indisputable fact is that all the religions of the world put together have in 2,000 years not managed to kill as many people as have been killed in the name of atheism in the past few decades.
Again, who exactly has been killed "in the name of atheism?" Some priests in the French Revolution, maybe? Some Tibetan monks? Falun Gong members in China? This article is just idiotic.

[T'ai Chi]

Is getting killed by people who preach against god(s) the same as getting killed in the name of atheism?

[CFLarsen]

Is getting killed by people who preach against god(s) the same as getting killed in the name of atheism?

Who are getting killed in the name of atheism?

[thaiboxerken]

Is getting killed by people who preach against god(s) the same as getting killed in the name of atheism?

No, it isn't. Atheism doesn't have a philosophy, dogma, guidebook, bible or any other instructional vice that tells people to kill other people for ANY reason. At the same time, though, atheism doesn't teach people to help each other either. Perhaps you should think on this point, which is that atheist doesn't teach anything good or bad. Atheism is simply a state of being, or non-belief.

[brodski]

Thanks for the bump of an interesting thread showing an interesting article with interesting arguments.

I see you use the term "interesting" in the same way Ian did.

[Beerina]

They do suggest an interesting concept, although I doubt it was their intent -- they're not that bright.

But some of the "athiest" mass-murderers from the past were basically attempting to tap into the same religious hatred, fundamental core property of the human mind, evidently, but in a secular manner.

Don't hate that evil rich Jewish businessman who is making your life miserable. Hate instead that evil rich generic businessman who is making your life miserable. I, the politician, can't control him the old-fashioned way, so authorize me the power to control him, to konk him over the head, and I will make your life better. I promise! ":)"

There's a reason people get emotionally invested in politics in exactly the same way as they do for religion. Loads and loads of promises with very little payoff or evidence for any of it. But ****-loads of power for those seeking it. Curious, that.

[T'ai Chi]

I see you use the term "interesting" in the same way Ian did.

I see I use my ignore function in the same way it is written of in the vBulletin software page.

[joobz]

I saw this article on Fark.com and had considered posting it here. But after reading it, which just highlights the standard attrocities of political sociopaths, I felt it was wrongly worded.

It wasn't atheism that was the driving force but political dogma. There is a difference. I think it's important to understand that atheists are capable of such attrocities, but that they used atheism as a primary reason for the murders isn't true.

Nope, I again think the article is just showing that bad people can do bad things.

[thomps1d]

Is getting killed by people who preach against god(s) the same as getting killed in the name of atheism?

No. In fact, it's quite different, just as there is a difference between getting killed by people who believe in god(s) or getting killed in the name of god(s).

There are religious people who kill for religious reasons. This is, in case you hadn't noticed, a bad thing.

There are also religious people who kill for other reasons...political, personal, etc. If a Christian kills a man who was sleeping with his wife, he didn't kill the man because of religion. If a Christian leader commands the destruction of a group of people in an attempt to grab land, resources, and/or power, that's not killing because of religion.

Likewise, if an atheist kills a man who was sleeping with his wife, he didn't kill because of atheism. If an atheist leader commands the destruction of a group of people in an attempt to grab land, resources, and/or power, that's not killing because of atheism.

It's really a remarkably simple concept.

[chriswl]

Is getting killed by people who preach against god(s) the same as getting killed in the name of atheism?
Only if they kill you specifically because you are a believer. I think this is pretty rare. The people who care about your supernatural beliefs tend to be those who subscribe to supernatural beliefs themselves. Non-believers understand that it doesn't matter because its all made up anyway.

Stalin and Hitler didn't care much one way or another what their victims believed or didn't believe.

[thaiboxerken]

I'd have to disagree about Hitler, at least. Hitler hated homosexuals, atheists, and people of any non-christian religion. This is due to the extreme form of catholicism that he was promoting with his new reich.

[Meadmaker]

I'd have to disagree about Hitler, at least. Hitler hated homosexuals, atheists, and people of any non-christian religion. This is due to the extreme form of catholicism that he was promoting with his new reich.

Hitler hated atheists? That's one I haven't heard before.

But the real whopper here was an "extreme form of catholicism". Could you provide some source material here? I'm not exactly familiar with that particular charge. It doesn't seem to fit with what I've read before.

[thaiboxerken]

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/unknown/hitler.html

A campaign against the "godless movement" was announced by Bernard Rust, nazi commissioner for education and culture in Prussia, in an address Tuesday night before students at the technical university here. He said the details would be revealed in the next few days. In his speech opening the campaign for the reichstag and Prussian diet elections, Hitler attacked communists for the spread of atheism.

An appeal to Catholic nazis was printed Wednesday in Hitler's Voelkischer Beobachter, assailing the Catholic centrist and populist parties. It recalled the papal encyclical of January 9, 1928, which admonished priests to serve the religious interests of the nation and not to affiliate with political parties. Hitler, himself, is a Catholic.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.." As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country. This text presents selected quotes from the infamous anti-Semite himself.

http://ffrf.org/fttoday/back/hitler.html

You will find it in Mein Kampf: "Therefore, I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord's Work."


The anti-jew sentiments came from catholicism and, particularly, apostle Paul's words in the NT.

[Meadmaker]

Among the defendants at Nuremburg, two, Rosenberg and Streicher, were atheists. It seems improbable that two such advisers were open atheists if he hated atheists.

Saying Hitler hated atheists is a bit like saying Karl Rove hated homosexuals and illegal immigrants. Hitler used anti-atheist sentiments in his politics when it was expedient to do so.

I have said admiring things about Catholics, and I was raised Catholic. Hitler was about as Catholic as I am. Of course, there are idiots on this board who are convinced I am some sort of Christian in disguise, but, well, they're idiots. Just because someone says there is something worth admiring about Christians doesn't make someone a Christian.

Certainly, the idea that Hitler was spreading some radical brand of Catholicism is ridiculous charge.

[CFLarsen]

Hitler used any kind of sentiments in his politics when it was expedient to do so.

[IllegalArgument]

A disbelief in a higher power is not automatic immuity from authoritarian political systems.

Unfortuately, for all those millions of people in the 20th century, the governments had the technology to inflict greated suffering than was previously possible.

[Last of the Fraggles]

I'd have to disagree about Hitler, at least. Hitler hated homosexuals, atheists, and people of any non-christian religion. This is due to the extreme form of catholicism that he was promoting with his new reich.

I'm not sure if I would characterise Nazism as Catholicism but there is certainly no reason to believe Hitler was an atheist or to assign any of his actions to the pool of 'Atheist Atrocities'. He was certainly raised Catholic and seemed to have 'some' belief in 'some' God throughout his life.

My personal jury is still out on Stalin as well. No idea about Pol Pot.

In any case, I can't see how these would be described in any way as being commited in the name of Atheism. None of these leaders had as their goal the spreading of disbelief in God.

[thaiboxerken]

Among the defendants at Nuremburg, two, Rosenberg and Streicher, were atheists. It seems improbable that two such advisers were open atheists if he hated atheists.

I doubt this is something that they shared with Hitler, who hated atheists. His actions against atheists, godless movements and the freethinkers societies in Germany speak louder than your mere speculations. Hitlers speeches and writings also support the conclusion that he hated atheists. Sorry, but evidence speaks louder than your opinions.

My point is more than quadrupled when it comes to Hitler's catholicism, as there is overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a practicing catholic and only a few rumors and hearsay observations that he wasn't.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Incidentally, are people in the US taught that Hitler was Atheist?

Or is it a teaching of the Church? Weird fundy religious types?

Or is it just an assumption based on the fact that he did bad things?

Just wondering where it came from because it doesn't fit with any of my history classes.

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, people in the USA are taught that Hitler was atheist, they are taught by the church and other christians.

In the history classes at public schools, his religious affiliation isn't touched upon, probably due to christian influence over government here. It should be taught, however, since it was a HUGE part of his motivations to do what he did.

[Ichneumonwasp]

:jaw-dropp How could anyone misunderstand and misrepresent the course of the 20th century and the legacy of the Enlightenment so thoroughly? This is definitely a form of systematically distorted communication, fueled by the distorter of most communication -- idealogy. The important lesson that Marcuse discussed and Habermas tried to overcome concerned the effects of instrumental rationality producing irrational outcomes. Intellects capable of seeing through the mystifications of earlier centuries unfortunately may also become totalitarian, a consequence of power relations involving all forms of knowledge. Dogmatism assumes many forms. The problem does not arise from absence of religious belief and the expected brakes provided by religiously-derived morality. Rationally-derived moralities exist and are an integral part of most people's lives. Most 20th century terror resulted from an over-reliance on instrumental reason and our mistaken belief that we could create utopias. We should, perhaps, listen more closely to Hayek's lesson concerning central planning. It doesn't work well for economies; it doesn't work well for grand political schemes. We ain't so smart as we thinks we is.

The original poster should be ashamed to perpetuate such drivel, unless the opening post was meant as a metacomment on the irrationality of some 21st century religious discourse. Religious discourse has reached a much higher plain. Why drag it back towards the muck?

[Last of the Fraggles]

Yes, people in the USA are taught that Hitler was atheist, they are taught by the church and other christians.

In the history classes at public schools, his religious affiliation isn't touched upon, probably due to christian influence over government here. It should be taught, however, since it was a HUGE part of his motivations to do what he did.

That scares me a little.

I wouldn't go so far as to argue that Hitler was religiously motivated for his actions but to try to change history by painting him as an atheist and THEN to go on to try to claim his atrocities were commited in the name of atheism.

I'm always amused and confused by the US in equal amounts... for the most advanced society to also be the most backward in so many respects... its disappointing to say the least.

[thaiboxerken]

I wouldn't go so far as to argue that Hitler was religiously motivated for his actions

Why not? The evidence is there to say that he was.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Why not? The evidence is there to say that he was.

Well maybe because I haven't done the research and read the evidence or maybe because I am more inclined to believe that Hitler was happy to use whatever means he saw fit to further his own aims.

I would not characterise Hitler's ambitions as being to promulgate Catholicism throughout Europe. Nor would I say his ambition was to wipe the Godless off the face of the Earth.

I suppose what I'm saying is that i wouldn't say WW2 is a religious war. Now if you are arguing that Hitler's Catholic upbringing fupped with his head to the point where he believed some weird things, that's maybe something I could be convinced about.

[thaiboxerken]

Well maybe because I haven't done the research and read the evidence

I've posted links. Feel free to look at the evidence yourself instead of going with your own "feelings" of the matter. WWII was a religious war, although the christians definitely want to keep that fact under wraps.

[Last of the Fraggles]

I've posted links. Feel free to look at the evidence yourself instead of going with your own "feelings" of the matter. WWII was a religious war, although the christians definitely want to keep that fact under wraps.

First you are going to have to define 'religious' war. Are you defining Nazism as religion?

I think its too complicated to define the War as having any single cause or any single aim but if pushed i would define it as socio-political in its objectives.

I just don't like the attempt to define it as an Atheist atrocity because it certainly was anything but.

[thaiboxerken]

First you are going to have to define 'religious' war.

Since you first used the term, perhaps you should define what you meant by religious war.

Are you defining Nazism as religion?

No. The Nazi's were a religious group based on the catholic religion. They are like the Taliban to the Muslim religion.

[IllegalArgument]

It really doesn't matter if it's religous based or not. If it's authorianitarin based, it's going be corrupt and likey viscous.

[RandFan]

One of my first threads in this forum was an argument that atheism was demonstrably more likely to result in mass murder than religion. To support my thesis I documented all of the people who were murdered by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc.

The argument was wrong. It assumed that atheism was the reason for these deaths. It wasn't. It was tyrannical dictators who relied on fanaticism and dogmatic beliefs. In short, what caused the deaths was very much like religion.

I failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Since you first used the term, perhaps you should define what you meant by religious war.



No. The Nazi's were a religious group based on the catholic religion. They are like the Taliban to the Muslim religion.

OK, I would define a religious war as one with the primary aim of spreading or promoting the aims of a particular religion in another region/country/whatever.

For example, I am a Protestant I will go to the next country and kill all the Catholics to establish the Protestant Church as the dominant religion.

Or, I am a Muslim, I will go the neighbouring Christian country and kill them all and set up an Islamic Republic.

Not, I am a Catholic and I think my country is best so I will go next door and kill all the XYZians so I can get control of their oil/land/resources.

The grey area for me would be, if someone decides that Jews are bad and want to kill all Jews is that a religious war? Its religious in so much as it targets a religion but if the motivations are not religious then I don't think you can really classify it as a religious war.

In the same way if a bunch of Atheist decide to wipe out Catholicism because they disagree with it... thats a religious war. If they decide to wipe out Catholicism because the catholics are stopping them promoting their ideology of 'free condoms for middle-schoolers' or whatever the hell you want to suggest, then its political and not religious.

[Last of the Fraggles]

One of my first threads in this forum was an argument that atheism was demonstrably more likely to result in mass murder than religion. To support my thesis I documented all of the people who were murdered by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc.

The argument was wrong. It assumed that atheism was the reason for these deaths. It wasn't. It was tyrannical dictators who relied on fanaticism and dogmatic beliefs. In short, what caused the deaths was very much like religion.

I failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.

Did you manage to prove that Stalin, Mao and PolPot were atheist? That would be a start, and I'd be interested to see the definitive evidence.

[Meadmaker]

My point is more than quadrupled when it comes to Hitler's catholicism, as there is overwhelming evidence that Hitler was a practicing catholic and only a few rumors and hearsay observations that he wasn't.

The few rumors include the fact that he never mentioned it and was never seen at mass or in company of priests. The "overwhelming evidence" that he was a practicing Catholic ended when he was a teenager.

Unless you have something else...oh, never mind. Been here before. Nothing to see here.

To address another question, yes, people are often taught he was atheist. It's probably not an accurate description. Logic and consistency weren't exactly Hitler's stock in trade, so asking for consistent theology out of him would be a bit much. One day he was a Christian, if it was convenient that day. One day he was a new-ager, although I doubt the term was invented at the time. It's more like he was non-aligned with religion.

One thing's for certain. You couldn't find any record in his adult life of actually participating in any religion or claiming membership at any place of worship.

[Last of the Fraggles]

The few rumors include the fact that he never mentioned it and was never seen at mass or in company of priests. The "overwhelming evidence" that he was a practicing Catholic ended when he was a teenager.

Unless you have something else...oh, never mind. Been here before. Nothing to see here.

To address another question, yes, people are often taught he was atheist. It's probably not an accurate description. Logic and consistency weren't exactly Hitler's stock in trade, so asking for consistent theology out of him would be a bit much. One day he was a Christian, if it was convenient that day. One day he was a new-ager, although I doubt the term was invented at the time. It's more like he was non-aligned with religion.

One thing's for certain. You couldn't find any record in his adult life of actually participating in any religion or claiming membership at any place of worship.

Of course it would be wrong to equate not a practising member of any organised religion with atheist though.

[RandFan]

Did you manage to prove that Stalin, Mao and PolPot were atheist? That would be a start, and I'd be interested to see the definitive evidence. :D Next I'll prove that Santa Claus isn't real.

I can't prove the proposition. I can tell you that they abolished religion. I can tell you that there is no quote that either you or I can attribute to them to determine either way.

I think your question misses the point. Were the regimes that committed these atrocities theistic or atheistic? The answer even assuming we determine that the regimes were atheistic which I think is a resounding yes is irrelevant and is the wrong question. Were the deaths the direct result of appeals to religion? No. Were they the result of an appeal to atheism? No. Were the a direct result of either religion or atheism? No.

[Meadmaker]

But let's try it this way- Name some culture that rejected religion and was also a nice place to live.

I'm not saying it can't happen. The US or Europe might get there some day, but for now, you get to choose communist countries, fascist countries, or postrevolutionary France. None of these are on the top ten list of fun places to spend a long life.

[Last of the Fraggles]

:D Next I'll prove that Santa Claus isn't real.

I can't prove the proposition. I can tell you that they abolished religion. I can tell you that there is no quote that either you or I can attribute to them to determine either way.

I think your question misses the point. Were the regimes that committed these atrocities theistic or atheistic? The answer even assuming we determine that the regimes were atheistic which I think is a resounding yes is irrelevant and is the wrong question. Were the deaths the direct result of appeals to religion? No. Were they the result of an appeal to atheism? No. Were the a direct result of either religion or atheism? No.

No I totally get that part. I thought that was a given by everyone who isn't hard of thinking (naming no names) ;)

I'm more interested in the way that people like Hitler and Stalin are automatically painted as Atheist because of what they did and the fact that they didn't do what they did openly in the name of God.

I suppose its not a surprise, the religious will only claim the 'good' and paint everything else as the work of the devil or atheist.

They also don't acknowledge that if their God was real he could have stepped in at any time (as he appears to have done regularly during the height of his fame in the Bible) to stop it all.

[IllegalArgument]

But let's try it this way- Name some culture that rejected religion and was also a nice place to live.

I'm not saying it can't happen. The US or Europe might get there some day, but for now, you get to choose communist countries, fascist countries, or postrevolutionary France. None of these are on the top ten list of fun places to spend a long life.

Hmm, depending on how you definte rejected. The scandinavia countries are great places to live.

[Last of the Fraggles]

But let's try it this way- Name some culture that rejected religion and was also a nice place to live.

I'm not saying it can't happen. The US or Europe might get there some day, but for now, you get to choose communist countries, fascist countries, or postrevolutionary France. None of these are on the top ten list of fun places to spend a long life.

I prefer living in Shanghai to living in Los Angeles.... that's my personal choice. Religion was not a factor in either.

I would say, my family represents a culture that rejected religion and was a nice place to live. Much nicer than most of the scarily religious families I see in places I would bet.

Culture != Country remember.

Equally, name any theocracy that was a nice place to live.....

[thaiboxerken]

OK, I would define a religious war as one with the primary aim of spreading or promoting the aims of a particular religion in another region/country/whatever.

So you don't think Hitler was doing this?

[thaiboxerken]

The few rumors include the fact that he never mentioned it and was never seen at mass or in company of priests. The "overwhelming evidence" that he was a practicing Catholic ended when he was a teenager.

History and evidence seems to betray your opinions.

http://nobeliefs.com/images/hitler%26bishop.gif

http://nobeliefs.com/images/Hitler-with-Muller.jpg

One day he was a Christian, if it was convenient that day. One day he was a new-ager, although I doubt the term was invented at the time. It's more like he was non-aligned with religion.

Sounds like pure speculation to me, especially since he never denounced his catholicism, was never ex-communicated and he supported the church in both his public speeches and his personal journals.



One thing's for certain. You couldn't find any record in his adult life of actually participating in any religion or claiming membership at any place of worship.


My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


Are you certain? Did you actually LOOK at the links I've posted?

[Meadmaker]

I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)


Are you certain? Did you actually LOOK at the links I've posted?


Yes, did you? He's admiring the church. He's admiring their ceremonies, their festivals. He would copy much of that. He created a quasi-religion, because that's what worked. I, myself, admire the Popes, at least the recent ones. That doesn't make me Catholic.

And yes, he once gave a speech in which he invoked God to stir up the masses. Probably more than once. And yes, he met with priests as head of State. George Bush has met with Rabbis. I don't think he's Jewish. Hitler didn't have a priest in house. He didn't have a confessor. He didn't go to mass. His name never appeared on a parish roster as an adult. If he was a "practicing Catholic" as you called him, he really needed more practice, because he wasn't very good at it.

[wollery]

I'm not saying it can't happen. The US or Europe might get there some day, but for now, you get to choose communist countries, fascist countries, or postrevolutionary France. None of these are on the top ten list of fun places to spend a long life.I live in China, and it's a great place to live. I admit that the standard of living is lower than many western countries I've visited, but it's by no means backwards, and frankly you can keep your material standard of living, I'll take the peaceful, friendly, generous, fun-loving, non-judgemental Chinese over the belligerent, suspicious, miserly, sour, bigots that seem to be the norm in most Christian countries.

[IllegalArgument]

I live in China, and it's a great place to live. I admit that the standard of living is lower than many western countries I've visited, but it's by no means backwards, and frankly you can keep your material standard of living, I'll take the peaceful, friendly, generous, fun-loving, non-judgemental Chinese over the belligerent, suspicious, miserly, sour, bigots that seem to be the norm in most Christian countries.

Sounds nice, but what happens if you get a goverment official mad.

I mean what rights do you really have against an abusive authority.

[wollery]

Sounds nice, but what happens if you get a goverment official mad.

I mean what rights do you really have against an abusive authority.They deal extremely firmly with people who abuse positions of authority. Corruption and abuse of power are regarded as just about the worst things you can do, short of murder or rape.

[Last of the Fraggles]

They deal extremely firmly with people who abuse positions of authority. Corruption and abuse of power are regarded as just about the worst things you can do, short of murder or rape.

I'm not sure I would agree with that and the Party Officials I am aware of who can operate 3 houses, a family, a car/driver and a mistress on a 400USD a month salary probably paint a different picture;)

I certainly wouldn't characterise it as a bad place to live though. Its not a godless wildnerness of murder, rape, torture and bestiality anyway....

...well not on the weekdays anyway.

[RandFan]

I live in China, and it's a great place to live. I admit that the standard of living is lower than many western countries I've visited, but it's by no means backwards, and frankly you can keep your material standard of living, I'll take the peaceful, friendly, generous, fun-loving, non-judgemental Chinese over the belligerent, suspicious, miserly, sour, bigots that seem to be the norm in most Christian countries.Interesting, have the dynamics that led to the Tienanmen Square massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989) changed? Can people speak out against the government? Would you feel comfortable speaking out against the government if you had a complaint?

[Kopji]

When an atheist can speak or freely identify themselves without fear in every country, I will put more stock in the CS article.

[Foster Zygote]

One of my first threads in this forum was an argument that atheism was demonstrably more likely to result in mass murder than religion. To support my thesis I documented all of the people who were murdered by Mao, Stalin, Pol-Pot, etc.

The argument was wrong. It assumed that atheism was the reason for these deaths. It wasn't. It was tyrannical dictators who relied on fanaticism and dogmatic beliefs. In short, what caused the deaths was very much like religion.

I failed to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship.

Interesting (sorry) point. These "atheistic" authorities actually contain many of the same irrational features that most atheists find objectionable in religion. Most rational atheists are as appalled by the irrationality of dogmatic authorities as by the irrationality of dogmatic religions.

[IllegalArgument]

They deal extremely firmly with people who abuse positions of authority. Corruption and abuse of power are regarded as just about the worst things you can do, short of murder or rape.

And who watches the people who deal firmly with the abusers?

I just don't see the checks and balances, flawed as they are here, anywhere in the system.

What are the legal controls?

They have massive censorship, sell their executed prison organs, yes, they have admitted to doing this, pursecuting non-official religions, there's quite of list of things.

[Foster Zygote]

I see I use my ignore function in the same way it is written of in the vBulletin software page.

I suspect Justin uses his ignore function so he can pretend that he is winning his arguments.

[Foster Zygote]

I saw this article on Fark.com and had considered posting it here. But after reading it, which just highlights the standard attrocities of political sociopaths, I felt it was wrongly worded.

It wasn't atheism that was the driving force but political dogma. There is a difference. I think it's important to understand that atheists are capable of such attrocities, but that they used atheism as a primary reason for the murders isn't true.

Nope, I again think the article is just showing that bad people can do bad things.

Exactly. Unfortunately, Justin seems to be supporting the article's case that atheist = bad.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Interesting, have the dynamics that led to the Tienanmen Square massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989) changed? Can people speak out against the government? Would you feel comfortable speaking out against the government if you had a complaint?

I think what has changed is a huge amount of foreign investment which would be threatened if there was a repeat of that (or similar) incident.

There is still tight control of media etc though and there really isn't political freedom of speech in the way you would want.

The government has to pander to the people with all the money though so they have to appear to be playing nice regardless of whether they like it or not.

I don't think I feel repressed or limited in any way (as a foreigner I actually feel very free here and feel I could just about get away with murder) other than annoying things like not being able to access the bbc news website.

I actually felt much less free in the US if that makes sense - the pressure there came from a social pressure to conform and not rock the boat.

[Last of the Fraggles]

So you don't think Hitler was doing this?

No I don't think he was.

I think primarily he was trying to rebuild a 'German Empire'.

[wollery]

I'm not sure I would agree with that and the Party Officials I am aware of who can operate 3 houses, a family, a car/driver and a mistress on a 400USD a month salary probably paint a different picture;)Not sure how long you've lived in China, but one of the features of certain jobs is the perks. I get a free furnished apartment in a nice part of town, and I just work for an astronomical observatory. Also, many officials have second jobs in business, just like in the West. Of course corruption exists, I'd never suggest it doesn't, but it's the scale that's important. Someone taking a few thousand Yuan to smooth the passage of a building permission that would pass anyway doesn't hurt anyone and will be ignored. Someone siphoning off millions of Yuan that were headed for redevelopment off inner city schools will get the book thrown at them.

I certainly wouldn't characterise it as a bad place to live though. Its not a godless wildnerness of murder, rape, torture and bestiality anyway....

...well not on the weekdays anyway. :D

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, did you? He's admiring the church. He's admiring their ceremonies, their festivals.

He was a practicing catholic as is evidenced with photos, public speeches and his personal notes. If you want to believe otherwise, then that's just your problem. The evidence shows the truth. That's ok, christians like you simply don't like facts and evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

No I don't think he was.

I think primarily he was trying to rebuild a 'German Empire'.

Then you've simply ignored history and evidence. Oh well.

[wollery]

And who watches the people who deal firmly with the abusers?

I just don't see the checks and balances, flawed as they are here, anywhere in the system.

What are the legal controls?You make a good point, but the senior officials have to be whiter than white these days, particularly with all the foreign investment.

They have massive censorship, sell their executed prison organs, yes, they have admitted to doing this, pursecuting non-official religions, there's quite of list of things.There's censorship of some things, but mostly it's spin. Selling the organs of executed prisoners may sound to a westerner like an appalling thing to do, but you have to remember that it's a different culture - convicted felons become effectively chattels to the state, and their body, should they die or be executed, is the property of the state, to dispose of as the state sees fit. Why not let the state make some money out of someone who embarrassed and damaged the society, thereby making at least some recompense for their crimes.

There is no official religion, and religions aren't persecuted, unless you count Falun Gong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish! People are free to follow whatever religion they choose, they just aren't allowed to prozelytise.

[Last of the Fraggles]

Then you've simply ignored history and evidence. Oh well.

No, I've just interpreted history and evidence differently to you.

You seem to be saying that Nazism was Hitler's religion and his aim was to spread that religion throughout Europe.

I disagree that Nazism was a religion and see it more as a means to an end for Hitler.

Different people have different interpretations. Is Iraq a political, economic or religious far for instance?

[thaiboxerken]

No, Nazi's were Hitler's enforcers that were there to help spread his vision of Germany, was predominately to spread a catholic-state government. The evidence is just overwhelming to say otherwise.

No, I've just interpreted history and evidence differently to you.

Hmmm... there is another annoying poster that uses this line of argument.

[Last of the Fraggles]

No, Nazi's were Hitler's enforcers that were there to help spread his vision of Germany, was predominately to spread a catholic-state government. The evidence is just overwhelming to say otherwise.



Hmmm... there is another annoying poster that uses this line of argument.

If the history and evidence is so overwhelming then why do a majority of historians not agree with you and why did Hitler not state his aims openly and repeatedly?

Religious crusaders are hardly known to be secretive about it.

[IllegalArgument]

You make a good point, but the senior officials have to be whiter than white these days, particularly with all the foreign investment.

There's censorship of some things, but mostly it's spin. Selling the organs of executed prisoners may sound to a westerner like an appalling thing to do, but you have to remember that it's a different culture - convicted felons become effectively chattels to the state, and their body, should they die or be executed, is the property of the state, to dispose of as the state sees fit. Why not let the state make some money out of someone who embarrassed and damaged the society, thereby making at least some recompense for their crimes.

There is no official religion, and religions aren't persecuted, unless you count Falun Gong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish! People are free to follow whatever religion they choose, they just aren't allowed to prozelytise.

No prozelytising, so no true freedom of speech. A judgement of society isn't how it's treats the strong or the compliant. It's how it's treats the weak and dissident.

The body of the a prison, especially a politically one, should be returned to the family. The state has already gotten plenty of recompense from the unpaid labour of the prisoner. There's a lot of money to be made in the organ trade, the temptation for corruption is great.

Do Chinese nationals at least get first option on the organs? Or is it, highest buyer win? If nationals don't get first option, then the government officals are purely in it to make money for themselves.

There's a reason you cannot buy or sell organs in the USA, the temptations are too great.

Why is Falun Gong a different case?

You may be able to public mock or disagree with a public official, but remember you are a America-European, something happens to you and there could be an international stink, the government knows this. If your a poor rural farmer, I doubt you have as many options.

It's nice to hear things are improving. I'm very suspect that you have few if any legal defenses, should a powerful government figure take issue with you.

[thaiboxerken]

If the history and evidence is so overwhelming then why do a majority of historians not agree with you and why did Hitler not state his aims openly and repeatedly?

http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Feel free to read transcripts of Hitlers public, open speeches.

[Last of the Fraggles]

http://nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

Feel free to read transcripts of Hitlers public, open speeches.

Oh I'm not denying that Hitler was a Christian or that he had connections with the Church or that there was a religious element to what he was doing.

I'm just saying that if his MAIN aim was to spread a religion I think he would have been more clear about it. He'd have made it point 1 not point 24. Militant fundamentalists of any faith usually don't like to hide their light under a bushel.

If he really wanted to convert the world to his branch of catholicism I also doubt he'd be happy to do deals with with non-catholic states (such as Britain) to be left alone.

[thaiboxerken]

Germany, as Hitler envisioned, would've been a church-state. A theocracy under his rule. I don't see how anyone could deny that this was a religious war considering that fact AND the fact that he wanted to exterminate the jewish religion.

I also doubt he'd be happy to do deals with with non-catholic states (such as Britain) to be left alone.

BWahahahhaha!!!!

[Last of the Fraggles]

Germany, as Hitler envisioned, would've been a church-state. A theocracy under his rule. I don't see how anyone could deny that this was a religious war considering that fact AND the fact that he wanted to exterminate the jewish religion.



BWahahahhaha!!!!

Sorry i think you are falling into the same trap as the original article by giving primacy to someone's religious beliefs as the motivations for their actions.

If Stalin's state was atheist it doesn't make his atrocities atheist atrocities.

If Hitler's state was theist it doesn't make his war a theist/religious one.

I'll assume Bwahahahahahaha passes for intelligent debate in your house.

[thaiboxerken]

Sorry, but Hitler wanted a theocracy and to exterminate another religion. Those two facts alone make his war a religious one.

As to laughing about your England argument, sorry, but it was such a fallacious argument that I found it hilarious. It's non-sequitor. Just because Hitler wanted to reduce the amount of threats to his goals doesn't mean that his war wasn't religious.

[RandFan]

I'll assume Bwahahahahahaha passes for intelligent debate in your house. :D

[Meadmaker]

Ken,
"Hitler's Pope", a source quoted extensively by the web sites you link to, belongs next to "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." They are both full of slander and lies, mixed with just enough half truths to make them credible to biased minds who are inclined to believe their idiocy.

Thought for the day: If I could quote selectively, I could find a whole heck of a lot more quotes in support of Christianity from Thomas Jefferson than from Adolf Hitler.

[Meadmaker]

There is no official religion, and religions aren't persecuted, unless you count Falun Gong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish!

Why bother counting them? After all, we aren't them, so who cares?

You may like China, and it may be a nice place to live for people who are in the right fish kettles. As for me, I wouldn't want to live there. Some people did pretty well in revolutionary France as well. I just think that overall, it's not the sort of place I would hold up as a model society.

[thaiboxerken]

My source actually quotes extensively from public speeches of Hitler and Mein Kampf as well. I guess those are also uncredible sources to you. Oh well, since you like christianity so much, you don't care for facts.

[T'ai Chi]

When an atheist can speak or freely identify themselves without fear in every country, I will put more stock in the CS article.

What countries do you believe one cannot do this in?

[thaiboxerken]

"What countries do you believe one cannot do this in?"

Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Iraq.....

[Meadmaker]

Ken thinks Hitler was spreading a form of radical Catholicism. It's not quite holocaust denial, but it's just as kooky.


Some of the out of context quotes Ken's sources posted as "proof" of Hitler's Christianity referred to "positive Christianity". Here's the Wikipedia article describing that movement:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Christianity

[thaiboxerken]

So you don't think trying to destroy an entire religion isn't radical?

Do you think wikipedia erases the passages Hitler wrote or the speeches he made?

[wollery]

Why bother counting them? After all, we aren't them, so who cares?

You may like China, and it may be a nice place to live for people who are in the right fish kettles. As for me, I wouldn't want to live there. Some people did pretty well in revolutionary France as well. I just think that overall, it's not the sort of place I would hold up as a model society.Because, of course, you're such an expert on Chinese society.

[Meadmaker]

Do you think wikipedia erases the passages Hitler wrote or the speeches he made?
It explains them, to those with open minds.

[thaiboxerken]

It explains them, to those with open minds.

I find it entertaining that a christian apologist would say this to me.

[Meadmaker]

I find it entertaining that a christian apologist would say this to me.

And I find it entertaining that you wouldn't get it.

[CFLarsen]

What countries do you believe one cannot do this in?

Watch "Root of All Evil". Dawkins speaks to Americans who are atheists, and have suffered persecution and harrassment because of that.

[Roboramma]

But let's try it this way- Name some culture that rejected religion and was also a nice place to live.

I'm not saying it can't happen. The US or Europe might get there some day, but for now, you get to choose communist countries, fascist countries, or postrevolutionary France. None of these are on the top ten list of fun places to spend a long life.

This isn't because atheism is a bad thing. It's because enforced atheism, or any sort of enforced stance on religious issues, is a bad thing. It only happens in totalitarian regimes.

The only way we've ever had a culture that has completely rejected religion is when some part of that culture enforced that rejection. That requires ideology and power. Two things that aren't very pleasant.

This says nothing about whether or not people rejecting religion on their own, or because they've been convinced by others, is a good thing.

[Meadmaker]

This isn't because atheism is a bad thing. It's because enforced atheism, or any sort of enforced stance on religious issues, is a bad thing. It only happens in totalitarian regimes.


I think that's true. That's why I think the US or Europe might get there someday, because we don't see in Scandinavia and elsewhere laws against religion, what we see is general apathy toward it. It's sort of a "withering away of the church."

The question is whether it can truly happen. When non-religious become the clear majority, will they follow the perennial human tendency to persecute the minority?

[PenguinWarrior]

So you don't think trying to destroy an entire religion isn't radical?

Do you think wikipedia erases the passages Hitler wrote or the speeches he made?

Hitler's hatred was racial, not religious, a Jew who converted to Christianity or Islam or Voodoo for that matter, was still a Jew and as such subject to murderous oppression by The Reich. It's true that Hitler repeatedly appealed to Christianity in public (and that many nazis were Christians, especially amongst the rank and file) and that therefore the idea that Nazism was "avowedly atheistic" as the CSM claims is a fatuous and ignorant one, but privately (if we believe that the Table Talks are a valid source, which I do) he repeatedly expressed disdain for organised religion. Despite this he also expressed belief in a "creative force" (and put down the Communist movement for their rejection of such) and that "Providence" was an active force in his life that had assigned him to lead Germany to glorious victory and protected him from assassination. He was somewhat more nebulous, as far as I can tell from what I've read, on the subject of any possible afterlife. He was certainly not an atheist, but I think it's almost as silly to claim that the Nazis were primarily religiously motivated. (I should mention that I've got all this from the truly excellent thread on the subject that's floating around this forum somewhere.)

Having said this, I believe that Nazism could be said to be a kind of religion of its own, as could certain forms of Communism (Stalinism, Maoism etc). If not religious as such, then at least they and religion are subsets of "Unconditional belief leading to intense tribalism" which, I think, are the cause of a large chunk of the suffering known to humanity (individual selfishness, accidents and natural disasters/diseases making up the rest). Secular Humanists, rationalists and intellectuals are generally about as opposed to these forms of beliefs as anyone. Heck, I'd go as far as to say that Fundies would find a lot more in common with Hitler if they sat down for a chat with him than Dawkins, Randi or Sam Harris would. Start them off on the role of women and the evil of homosexuality and they'd be good for the night, I reckon.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes, people in the USA are taught that Hitler was atheist, they are taught by the church and other christians.

In the history classes at public schools, his religious affiliation isn't touched upon, probably due to christian influence over government here. It should be taught, however, since it was a HUGE part of his motivations to do what he did.
If not an atheist, which I don't think is a credible charge against him, he was perhaps a heretic, or more doctrinally, a false prophet. (Of course, "nastier than average a:mad:hole comes to mind as well . . . )

Mao and Stalin, as Communists, (and Mao as a non Christian Chinese) were more likelty to be atheist by doctrine (Communist) though Stalin could well have been at least mildly Eastern Orthodox from his upbringing.

Speaking of atheists killing Christians, the French Revolution is replete with anecdotes of that line.

DR

[Tanstaafl]

Hitler's hatred was racial, not religious, a Jew who converted to Christianity or Islam or Voodoo for that matter, was still a Jew and as such subject to murderous oppression by The Reich. It's true that Hitler repeatedly appealed to Christianity in public (and that many nazis were Christians, especially amongst the rank and file) and that therefore the idea that Nazism was "avowedly atheistic" as the CSM claims is a fatuous and ignorant one, but privately (if we believe that the Table Talks are a valid source, which I do) he repeatedly expressed disdain for organised religion. Despite this he also expressed belief in a "creative force" (and put down the Communist movement for their rejection of such) and that "Providence" was an active force in his life that had assigned him to lead Germany to glorious victory and protected him from assassination. He was somewhat more nebulous, as far as I can tell from what I've read, on the subject of any possible afterlife. He was certainly not an atheist, but I think it's almost as silly to claim that the Nazis were primarily religiously motivated. (I should mention that I've got all this from the truly excellent thread on the subject that's floating around this forum somewhere.)

As someone who has had the dubious pleasure of reading Mein Kampf all the way through, I can verify that this is a pretty accurate summary.

[thaiboxerken]

Darth, there is no atheist doctrine.

[CapelDodger]

Having said this, I believe that Nazism could be said to be a kind of religion of its own, as could certain forms of Communism (Stalinism, Maoism etc). If not religious as such, then at least they and religion are subsets of "Unconditional belief leading to intense tribalism" which, I think, are the cause of a large chunk of the suffering known to humanity ...
Good post, and this point in particular works for me. Religion is just one thing people will commit to, ideology is another, nationalism another, "woo" is the grout that fills the gaps - really, I'm sure there are people out there who'd take the bullet for Sylvia Browne. Or at least wish they'd known and could have been there to ... I digress.

I've tried introducing the term "transcendent" to describe this phaenomenon but it ran into the sand. I considered "non-quotidien" and, yeah, that's gonna work :rolleyes: . There seems to be a human appetite for it, and there's never any shortage of humans wanting to feed it for their own ends.

[CapelDodger]

Speaking of atheists killing Christians, the French Revolution is replete with anecdotes of that line.
Speaking of Christians killing atheists, the Vendee Revolt is replete with documented dead people. The were loud, they were proud, and the Curia needed all the good news to trumpet that they could get. Of course, being the Curia, they could well have been lying.

[CFLarsen]

Speaking of atheists killing Christians, the French Revolution is replete with anecdotes of that line.

"Anecdotes", yes. While we have sound historical records of Christians killing atheists.

Which do you weigh as more reliable?

[Art Vandelay]

There's censorship of some things, but mostly it's spin. Selling the organs of executed prisoners may sound to a westerner like an appalling thing to do, but you have to remember that it's a different culture - convicted felons become effectively chattels to the state, and their body, should they die or be executed, is the property of the state, to dispose of as the state sees fit. According to Communist doctrine, everyone, felon or not, is chattel to the state.

There is no official religion, and religions aren't persecuted, unless you count Falun Gong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish! People are free to follow whatever religion they choose, they just aren't allowed to prozelytise.Proselytizing is an integral part of religion.

If the history and evidence is so overwhelming then why do a majority of historians not agree with you and why did Hitler not state his aims openly and repeatedly?

Religious crusaders are hardly known to be secretive about it.What a complete load of BS. Are you completely ignorant of the people promoting the Ten Commandments and Creationism who claim with a straight face that this is not about promoting Christianity? Your statement is literally true, but fatuous. If they are known to be secretive about their religion, then they aren't being very secretive, are they? The vast majority of religious crusaders are two-faced, amoral jackasses who will pursue any strategy that they think will bring them victory, regardless of what they believe. Within religious circles, that often mean being very outspoken about one's religion. In other situations, it means making vague, ambiguous declarations that either side can interpret as supporting them. Guess what? That's exactly what Hitler did.

Thought for the day: If I could quote selectively, I could find a whole heck of a lot more quotes in support of Christianity from Thomas Jefferson than from Adolf Hitler.What in the world is your point? Religious apologists don't make a big deal about Jefferson not being a Christian. In fact, they often claim he was a Christian.

But let's try it this way- Name some culture that rejected religion and was also a nice place to live.You say something like that, and you wonder why people think that you're a Christian? That's such a biased thing to say that it's hard to imagine anyone who hasn't had their worldview warped by Christian propoganda saying it. What do you mean by "culture"? "Reject"? Can you name one culture that rejected atheism and was a nice place to live?

I live in China, and it's a great place to live. I admit that the standard of living is lower than many western countries I've visited, but it's by no means backwards,Are you including the countryside?

and frankly you can keep your material standard of living, I'll take the peaceful, friendly, generous, fun-loving, non-judgemental Chinese over the belligerent, suspicious, miserly, sour, bigots that seem to be the norm in most Christian countries.Bit hypocritical to criticize them, then call them bigots, isn't it? Especially considering Tiannemen Square, support of North Korea, the occupation of Tibet, the downing of an American plane and taking its crew hostage, and repeated belligerent acts against Taiwan. You call that peaceful? And you, who lives in a country that constantly monitors its citizens to make sure they don't do anything the nation's leaders disapprove of, call us suspicious?

[sphenisc]

The question is whether it can truly happen. When non-religious become the clear majority, will they follow the perennial human tendency to persecute the minority?

Perhaps you could use this forum as a case study? ;)

[CFLarsen]

According to Communist doctrine, everyone, felon or not, is chattel to the state.

According to Communist doctrine, everyone, felon or not, is the state.

[Art Vandelay]

Hitler and Stalin didn't kill "in the name of atheism". In fact, they were both heads of countries in which the vast majority were Christians. So whatever their personal beliefs were, the fact remains that the nations that actually carried out the killings were Christian. Furthermore, both of them promoted ideologies with strong dogma, so it's not quite accurate to say that they were not religious; they just didn't believe in D'Souza's particular religion. The idea that they weren't Christian, so their not being Christian is responsible for them killing all those people, makes as much sense as saying that they weren't members of the KKK, so failing to join the KKK is what led them to kill all those people.

[Darth Rotor]

Darth, there is no atheist doctrine.
Agreed, Ken. The "doctrinally" was tied to the following "false prophet" due to dear old Uncle Adolf's origins in Austria as a Catholic.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

"Anecdotes", yes. While we have sound historical records of Christians killing atheists.

Which do you weigh as more reliable?
Yes, and atheist Chinese killing Christians, before, during, and after Mao's revolution.

What's the deal here, Claus, you think that atheists don't kill Christians? Your woo is noted.

DR

[Tanstaafl]

That would be 'bias', not 'woo'. There's nothing supernatural about atheists killing christians. Or anyone else.

[CFLarsen]

Yes, and atheist Chinese killing Christians, before, during, and after Mao's revolution.

What's the deal here, Claus, you think that atheists don't kill Christians? Your woo is noted.

DR

Did they (A) kill them (B) because (A) were atheist and (B) were not, or because (A) had one set of political views, and (B) did not?

[Darth Rotor]

Did they (A) kill them (B) because (A) were atheist and (B) were not, or because (A) had one set of political views, and (B) did not?
The attacks on churches, and on church persons (Christians) by some revolutionaries in France were tied to the ideological rejection of the Church, others for more mundane matter of repossessing land (land redistrubution.) The French Revolution's leaders in the main rejected the CHurch, and God, and were in character atheist: God was rejected as a matter of belief.

As to the Chinese, in the case of the Communists, the leadershi was indeed atheist, and they targeted other Chinese who were Christian, (and IIRC treated some Bhuddists badly in the same fashion, been a few years) though the former held the stain of being culturally contaminated by the West, among other cultural crimes.

No, none of it is simple.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

That would be 'bias', not 'woo'. There's nothing supernatural about atheists killing christians. Or anyone else.
Woo for my suspicion of an irrational belief that atheists wouldn't do such a thing. That suspiscion may be wrong, and you are indeed correct in your closing clause.

DR

[Tanstaafl]

I suppose. Though I don't see how just any old irrational belief is woo.

There are some people who believe that the Arizona Cardinals will have a winning season soon. I don't see that as woo, but it's certainly irrational.

[T'ai Chi]

From this discussion it seems that someone calling themselves 'atheist' (whether they lack belief in god(s) or not) try to view themselves as completely different than many others in the human race, when actually it is quite obvious that they aren't.

[Darth Rotor]

I suppose. Though I don't see how just any old irrational belief is woo.

There are some people who believe that the Arizona Cardinals will have a winning season soon. I don't see that as woo, but it's certainly irrational.

Then my usage is bad, and I'll not do that again.

Thanks

DR

[Doubt]

So you don't think trying to destroy an entire religion isn't radical?

Trying to destroy jews does not make Hitler a practicing catholic.

Also, he was not only trying to destroy a religion. Many of those killed were not practicing jews.

I don't think I would call a war a religious war if it was against a religion. I would call it a religious war if it is being waged in the name of a religion.

If Hitler were interested so much in a radical version of the Catholic church, why ally himself with Japan? Why not also deal with those pesky Lutherans? What about the SS interest in Norse religions?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/asatru.htm


During the early part of the 20th Century, The National Socialist Party in Germany under Adolf Hitler attempted to pervert Asatru by grafting parts of the religion onto the Nazi racist beliefs. This blasphemy died by the end of World War II, although some neo-Nazi groups -- largely in the U.S. -- are now attempting to continue the practice.


Does not sound much like any form of christianity, let alone catholicism.

May I suggest that he was interested in doing whatever suited his ability to gain and keep power. Invoking god in a country where most believe in it is just as convenient as allying with Japan.

[Meadmaker]

Proselytizing is an integral part of religion.


Jews are forbidden from it, at least to non-Jews.

[thaiboxerken]

Trying to destroy jews does not make Hitler a practicing catholic.

I think it makes him one of the extremely religious catholics.

Also, he was not only trying to destroy a religion. Many of those killed were not practicing jews.

So you admit he was trying to destroy a religion?


I don't think I would call a war a religious war if it was against a religion.

I would.



I would call it a religious war if it is being waged in the name of a religion.

You mean like a church-state theocracy?


If Hitler were interested so much in a radical version of the Catholic church, why ally himself with Japan?

If Hitler didn't think caucasians were the superior race, why would he ally himself with japanese?


Why not also deal with those pesky Lutherans?

Maybe he wanted to deal with one religion at a time.


What about the SS interest in Norse religions?

What interest?


Does not sound much like any form of christianity, let alone catholicism.

I think it sounds EXACTLY like christianity, it certainly follows the pattern of the christian religion.

May I suggest that he was interested in doing whatever suited his ability to gain and keep power. Invoking god in a country where most believe in it is just as convenient as allying with Japan.

You can suggest it, but unless you actually have evidence, I will remain unconvinced.

[wollery]

According to Communist doctrine, everyone, felon or not, is chattel to the state.Which brand of Communism? In a pure Marxist state everyone is employed by the state, and chattel to it. But China isn't a Marxist state, not even close.

Proselytizing is an integral part of religion.Nope, it's a way in which many religions grow, and many people see it as their duty to "save" those who do not hold the same religious beliefs. However, Buddhism does not require proselytization, and as noted by Meadmaker Judaism forbids it (In Judaism anyone can get to heaven by being a good person, but Jews are guaranteed a place).

Are you including the countryside?Having driven through large parts of rural Yunnan and Sichuan, yes.

Bit hypocritical to criticize them, then call them bigots, isn't it? I am, of course, generalizing, but hypocritical, no. If I said all US citizens were ugly, warmongering bastards then I'd be bigoted. But I didn't. I said that belligerence, suspicion, miserliness, sourness and bigotry seemed to be the norm in the West. I stand by that.

Especially considering Tiannemen Square, I admit that the Tiannenmen square incident was bad, but the Chinese have come a long way since then. Of course, use of excessive force by officials is not unique to China, or do you need a history lesson on the US civil rights movement or the anti-Vietnam War protests. Older history than Tiannenmen square I'll grant you, but.....

support of North Korea, They don't 'support' North Korea, in fact China currently has a trade embargo in place, stopping all but essential goods from passing to North Korea.

the occupation of Tibet, Tibet's a thorny issue, granted, but China is putting money into the region, building modern facilities, new roads and railways, improving healthcare and education. The people that were displaced after the invasion have been allowed to return over the last 10 - 15 years, and the government is now actively promoting ethnic and cultural diversity.

the downing of an American plane and taking its crew hostage, I can't say that I remember the US air crew incident, but what was a US plane (I assume military) doing in or close enough to Chinese air space that they could shoot it down and capture the air crew? Held hostage? If they did violate Chinese air space, or came close to it then I would assume that the Chinese would want to question them. And while we're talking about 'hostages', let's discuss the people held at Guantanamo Bay, without charge, on non-sovereign soil (so they can't claim their rights under the US constitution) and in violation of the international convention on human rights.

and repeated belligerent acts against Taiwan. The Chinese government's official position is that Taiwan is part of China and should be reincorporated into the nation. They are, however, realists, and realize that that won't happen any time soon. In the meantime, relations between China and Taiwan are currently very good, trade is increasing, tourism in both directions is high, and they're currently in ongoing discussions about closer co-operation.

You call that peaceful? Which countries has China invaded in the last 40 years? The US and UK are currently dealing (poorly) with the mess that they made in Iraq by invading on false premises and quite possibly in contravention of international law.

China makes the largest non-military manpower contribution to UN peacekeeping missions.

Hmmm.

And you, who lives in a country that constantly monitors its citizens to make sure they don't do anything the nation's leaders disapprove of, call us suspicious?Constantly monitor? I'm going to have to look more carefully for all of those CCTV cameras that you seem to think the Chinese government use. The US has an order of magnitude more CCTV cameras in urban areas than China. The UK has more CCTV cameras per person than any other country in the world. The department of Homeland Security has been accused of abusing the powers it was given after 9/11 by checking on citizens that it has no reason to suspect of terrorism.

Large parts of your arguments are based on the social and political stances of the Chinese government, rather than the attitudes and opinions of the general populace, which is what I was referring to, and fairly clearly I thought. That might not be so bad, but you were outdated or just plain wrong on many of your points, and some of the things you accuse the Chinese government of the US government is equally, or more guilty of.

Have you ever been to China? Spent time here? Or are you just arguing from what you've read in the Western press?

[Meadmaker]

You can suggest it, but unless you actually have evidence, I will remain unconvinced.

Somehow, I don't think the presence or absence of evidence will be the determining factor in your belief.

[Art Vandelay]

Jews are forbidden from it, at least to non-Jews.Perhaps some forms, but where do you draw the line between discussing your religion and "proselytizing"?

May I suggest that he was interested in doing whatever suited his ability to gain and keep power. Invoking god in a country where most believe in it is just as convenient as allying with Japan.Which just shows how silly this argument is. WHY did Hitler put his rhetoric in terms of Christianity? If the Nazis and Germans in general were atheists, then clearly is would be absurd to pretend to be Christians. Doesn't the fact that Hitler claimed to be Christian, regardless of whether he was, evidence that Nazism was a Christian movement?

From this discussion it seems that someone calling themselves 'atheist' (whether they lack belief in god(s) or not) try to view themselves as completely different than many others in the human race, when actually it is quite obvious that they aren't.It's mostly the Christians who insist on considering them different.

Agreed, Ken. The "doctrinally" was tied to the following "false prophet" due to dear old Uncle Adolf's origins in Austria as a Catholic.

DRHuh? I can't make sense of this.

Which brand of Communism? In a pure Marxist state everyone is employed by the state, and chattel to it. But China isn't a Marxist state, not even close.No, it's a totalitarian oligarchy masquerading as Communist.

Nope, it's a way in which many religions grow, and many people see it as their duty to "save" those who do not hold the same religious beliefs. However, Buddhism does not require proselytization, and as noted by Meadmaker Judaism forbids it (In Judaism anyone can get to heaven by being a good person, but Jews are guaranteed a place).Proselytizing is more than just actively trying to convert people. According to Christianity, mnerely being a good person and showing people how Jesus has made you a better person will inspire other people to convert. That's what "witnessing" is supposed to be, although a lot of Christians have somehow gotten the idea that it means ringing people's doorbells early in the morning and bugging them about joining their particular brand of Christianity. There simply is no clear line between "proselytizing" and talking about one's religion, and the idea that you can ban it yet still claim to respect human rights is absurd.

They don't 'support' North Korea, in fact China currently has a trade embargo in place, stopping all but essential goods from passing to North Korea. It's because of China that thousands of Americans were killed defending South Korea against North Korean agression, and that Korea remains divided.

And I guess these articles are just Western propoganda?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/18/asia/AS_GEN_China_NKorea_Ship_Searches.php

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/world/asia/27border.html?ex=1319601600&en=ccbef9f259cfc4b5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

http://freekorea.us/?cat=27

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/890/

I can't say that I remember the US air crew incident, but what was a US plane (I assume military) doing in or close enough to Chinese air space that they could shoot it down and capture the air crew? It was rammed it, not shot. And your question is silly. I might as well ask what the Chinese were doing so far away from Chinese air space as to knock down an American plane.

And while we're talking about 'hostages', let's discuss the people held at Guantanamo Bay, without charge, on non-sovereign soil (so they can't claim their rights under the US constitution) and in violation of the international convention on human rights. They aren't being held as "hostages" insofar as the purpose isn't to exert leverage. And I have yet to have anyone defend the accusation that it violates any treaty that the US has signed.

The Chinese government's official position is that Taiwan is part of China and should be reincorporated into the nation.Which is itself a belligerent act. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC.

In the meantime, relations between China and Taiwan are currently very good, trade is increasing, tourism in both directions is high, and they're currently in ongoing discussions about closer co-operation.So is firing rockets at Taiwan part of these good relations?

The US and UK are currently dealing (poorly) with the mess that they made in Iraq by invading on false premises and quite possibly in contravention of international law.The motivation was to deal with Iraqi aggression, rather than promote specifically American interests.

Constantly monitor? I'm going to have to look more carefully for all of those CCTV cameras that you seem to think the Chinese government use. The US has an order of magnitude more CCTV cameras in urban areas than China. Monitoring public areas, to record violations of citizens' rights, rather than monitoring private affaris to violate citizens' rights.

The department of Homeland Security has been accused of abusing the powers it was given after 9/11 by checking on citizens that it has no reason to suspect of terrorism.Cite? Is there more criticism of alleged abuses in the US because the government abuses powers more, or because people are freer to criticize, and have higher expectations.

That might not be so bad, but you were outdated or just plain wrong on many of your points, and some of the things you accuse the Chinese government of the US government is equally, or more guilty of.You disagreed with my opinion. You didn't present any evidence that my facts are wrong.

[CFLarsen]

The attacks on churches, and on church persons (Christians) by some revolutionaries in France were tied to the ideological rejection of the Church, others for more mundane matter of repossessing land (land redistrubution.) The French Revolution's leaders in the main rejected the CHurch, and God, and were in character atheist: God was rejected as a matter of belief.

As to the Chinese, in the case of the Communists, the leadershi was indeed atheist, and they targeted other Chinese who were Christian, (and IIRC treated some Bhuddists badly in the same fashion, been a few years) though the former held the stain of being culturally contaminated by the West, among other cultural crimes.

No, none of it is simple.

DR

And I think you will find, when you finally get around to open a history book, that the Church was attacked for the power it held, and not for its beliefs.

As for Communist China, it was primarily a political goal. Everything was turned into politics. Religion was seen as a force that the Communist Party couldn't control - so it had to go. Precisely the same as with free enterprise and freedom of speech.

[wollery]

No, it's a totalitarian oligarchy masquerading as Communist.You're the one who said it was communist in the first place. :rolleyes:

Proselytizing is more than just actively trying to convert people. According to Christianity, mnerely being a good person and showing people how Jesus has made you a better person will inspire other people to convert. That's what "witnessing" is supposed to be, although a lot of Christians have somehow gotten the idea that it means ringing people's doorbells early in the morning and bugging them about joining their particular brand of Christianity. There simply is no clear line between "proselytizing" and talking about one's religion, and the idea that you can ban it yet still claim to respect human rights is absurd.If you want to play semantics then we'll never get anywhere. You know damned well what the vast majority of people mean when they use the word "proselytizing".

It's because of China that thousands of Americans were killed defending South Korea against North Korean agression, and that Korea remains divided.Talk about a simplistic interpretation. The Korean peninsula was an important stage for the cold war, played out between the US (&NATO) and the USSR & China. To blame China for the Korean war is to utterly ignore the roles that the US and USSR played in setting the North and South at each others throats in the first place.

And I guess these articles are just Western propoganda?

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/18/asia/AS_GEN_China_NKorea_Ship_Searches.php
The US wants another country, not even a miltary ally, to board North Korean ships at random, or to be allowed to do so themselves in Chinese waters, which could very easily provoke North Korea to military action. Do you think another Korean war would be a good thing?

China would board ships which intelligence suggested were carrying banned items, they just aren't willing to unnecesarrily antagonise a belligerent, oversensitive neighbour.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/world/asia/27border.html?ex=1319601600&en=ccbef9f259cfc4b5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
Fair enough, the implementation of the sanctions leaves a lot to be desired. How is that "supporting" the North Korean regime?

http://www.refugeesinternational.org/content/article/detail/890/
Umm, criminals smuggling kidnapped women over the China/NK border and NK mail order brides. I must be missing something deep and meaningful. :confused:

It was rammed it, not shot. And your question is silly. I might as well ask what the Chinese were doing so far away from Chinese air space as to knock down an American plane.Oh please! If it wasn't anywhere near Chinese territory then how on Earth could the Chinese authorities have captured the crew? Which was precisely my point. If a Chinese aircraft were to fly into or very near to US airspace what the heck do you think the US military would do? And do you for one second suppose that if the crew were captured by the US that they would be returned immediately without the US making loud noises about Chinese aggression and making demands?

They aren't being held as "hostages" insofar as the purpose isn't to exert leverage. And I have yet to have anyone defend the accusation that it violates any treaty that the US has signed.If they're combatants then it contravenes the Geneva convention, if they're non-combatants then it contravenes the international human rights convention, because under that document they have a right to a fair trial. The US is signed up to both of those conventions.

Which is itself a belligerent act. Taiwan has never been part of the PRC.You like semantics don't you! It was part of China before the Communist revolution, and had been so for several hundred years. The people are Chinese and many (if not most) have relatives on the mainland.

So is firing rockets at Taiwan part of these good relations?Reference?

The motivation was to deal with Iraqi aggression, rather than promote specifically American interests.Really? I thought it was to make them comply with the UN weapons inspectors (which Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector maintains they were doing) and find WMDs, which the intelligence said there was no evidence for, although we were lead to believe that the intelligence said otherwise.

Monitoring public areas, to record violations of citizens' rights, rather than monitoring private affaris to violate citizens' rights.:D

I guess you missed the point of my sarcasm, which was to point out the stunning lack of CCTV cameras, or monitoring of any kind. You can only use CCTV cameras to violate citizens rights if you have CCTV cameras.

Cite? Is there more criticism of alleged abuses in the US because the government abuses powers more, or because people are freer to criticize, and have higher expectations.You're the one who started by accusing China of civil rights abuse (i.e. it "constantly monitors its citizens to make sure they don't do anything the nation's leaders disapprove of"), without citations I might add. Now you're getting defensive?

You disagreed with my opinion. You didn't present any evidence that my facts are wrong.You're right, I apologise, you didn't actually present any facts, just poorly informed opinion.


I moved the response for this website to the end because, well, just read my response.
http://freekorea.us/?cat=27Do you actually read the links you post? Most of the stories on that page were not about China supporting North Korea. They were about; China not interfering with the US helping North Korean refugees, China helping to get NK back into the six party talks (Bush was very grateful to the Chinese), a Chinese soldier being shot dead after shooting NK soldiers who were trying to kidnap a Chinese intelligence agent, the NK regime starving it's own people, NK/SK relations, Condoleeza Rice's visit to SK, China is implementing financial sanctions in line with UN resolutions (Supporting NK??), and China deporting NK refugees back to NK (okay, that's rough on the refugees, but does the US act any differently with Mexican refugees who try to escape crushing poverty?).

And that website, whilst not propoganda, is a biased source. Biased against NK at least. Not that I'm saying that it's not factual, but the tone of the writing gives away its bias.


I also note that you didn't answer my question about whether or not you've ever visited China. I take that to mean that you haven't, because if you had you would almost certainly have said so.

[thaiboxerken]

Somehow, I don't think the presence or absence of evidence will be the determining factor in your belief.

Considering that I've presented evidence, actual words written and spoken by Hitler vs yours and other's pure speculation, your thoughts just don't seem to ring true.

[Darth Rotor]

And I think you will find, when you finally get around to open a history book, that the Church was attacked for the power it held, and not for its beliefs.
Read plenty of history, thanks so much Claus. I find your comment reductionist, though partly true. The attitudes against the Church included a rejection of its beliefs, a desire to replace the Church's norms with "this new and better idea" as well as wresting wealth (land) from the Church, and the power of influence the Church held.
As for Communist China, it was primarily a political goal. Everything was turned into politics. Religion was seen as a force that the Communist Party couldn't control - so it had to go. Precisely the same as with free enterprise and freedom of speech.
"We can't work with these people because of their beliefs/worldview. Since they don't agree with us, they must go/die."

That the interaction was political is a given. Politics describes a variety of interactions between groups of people, to include the politics within the various power centers within the Catholic Church. (Papacy in Avignon for fifty, Alex.) That the belief system was antithetical to the "new and better idea, this new and improved belief system" was the root cause of conflict. The Communist leadership were of a certain ideology, who condemned those of incompatible ideology.

Convert or die: that's right out of Charlamagne's handbook, or the Jihad of the 8th Century.

Irony.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

The attitudes against the Church included a rejection of its beliefs

How else does one destroy a church? It's not the building that holds the power over people, it's the beliefs.

[PenguinWarrior]

From this discussion it seems that someone calling themselves 'atheist' (whether they lack belief in god(s) or not) try to view themselves as completely different than many others in the human race, when actually it is quite obvious that they aren't.

Replace Atheist in that statement with Christian, Neo Conservative, Communist, Muslim or whatever and it would be at least as true.

To be fair, the difference is atheists are right.:) But people are people, and subject to the various pitfalls of the human condition. Rationalists at least can try to be aware of the pitfalls of their thinking, and hope that they therefore aren't subject to the complete malfunction of the moral compass that can be introduced by proximity to the magnet of unquestioning belief. I may have taken this metaphor too far.

This does bring up a good point, though. I feel it is a rational worldview that is the one that is worthy of defence, not particularly an atheistic one (although I believe the second is by far the likeliest outcome of the first). I identify no more with someone who is an atheist because The Communist Party Manifesto told him to be so than I do with someone who is a Christian because the Bible said so. Actually, I'd take it further and say that promoting a Humanist (preferably Utilitarian, but other moral systems are close enough for me to be happy with them. Just my personal bias I guess) outlook is the way to go, but that isn't the topic of the thread.


Considering that I've presented evidence, actual words written and spoken by Hitler vs yours and other's pure speculation, your thoughts just don't seem to ring true.

Again see that big thread. It's excellent. Sadly, I'm not sure how far exactly it has fallen down the board, but I know you know of it, as I'm fairly certain you posted in it. Repeatedly. Or read Table Talks, for a fuller picture, I suppose.

[thaiboxerken]

Table Talks is based on hearsay evidence and speculation.

[Darth Rotor]

Again see that big thread. It's excellent. Sadly, I'm not sure how far exactly it has fallen down the board, but I know you know of it, as I'm fairly certain you posted in it. Repeatedly. Or read Table Talks, for a fuller picture, I suppose.
The problem with using a political speeches to divine genuine intent or belief is in understanding context, audience, and aim, as well as the immediate political setting in which it takes place. Sincerity in political utterances is an inconsistent variable. Words are frequently chosen for specific effects, or to pander to specific symbolic and emotional triggers assessed to be present in the audience.

That understanding seems to be beyond TBK, based on this discussion.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

The problem with using hearsay evidence is that it's unreliable. Speeches and written notes by the person espousing the belief is much more reliable than hearsay evidence. This seems to be beyond the understanding of Darth Rotor.

Also, even if Hitler was just saying what he needed to, it was a nation of christians that tried to exterminate the jews. After all, one doesn't invoke jesus to inspire just anyone. Either way, catholicism/christianity was the primary motivation for trying to exterminate the jewish people and religion.

[Art Vandelay]

That the belief system was antithetical to the "new and better idea, this new and improved belief system" was the root cause of conflict. The Communist leadership were of a certain ideology, who condemned those of incompatible ideology.The Church was so closely interwoven with the state that it was impossible to attack the latter without attacking the former. The church did not function as a primarily religious institution, but an organ of the state.

You're the one who said it was communist in the first place. :rolleyes: Where?

If you want to play semantics then we'll never get anywhere. You know damned well what the vast majority of people mean when they use the word "proselytizing".But what "the vast majority" of people mean, and what would be a valid legal definition, are two completely different issues. How does one make a legal distinction between what-the-majority-of-people-mean-by-proselytizing and what-technically-is-proselytizing-but-is-not-thought-of-as-proselytizing? You simply can't write laws without playing "semantic games" as you call them. If, in the US, there were a law against proselytizing, and someone were defending himself against such a charge, an argument that it's unconstitutional would be upheld. An argument that although what he was doing was technically proselytizing, he wasn't doing what "the vast majority" of people mean by proselytizing would be laughed out of court.

And you still haven't addressed how you can claim to have legal freedom when a huge part of religion is outlawed.

To blame China for the Korean war is to utterly ignore the roles that the US and USSR played in setting the North and South at each others throats in the first place.I'm not blaming China for the Korean war. I'm blaming China for intervening to help NK kill American soldiers and leave the country divided.

Umm, criminals smuggling kidnapped women over the China/NK border and NK mail order brides. I must be missing something deep and meaningful. :confused: China, in effect, helps NK track down and return those that try to escape Il's regime.

Oh please! If it wasn't anywhere near Chinese territory then how on Earth could the Chinese authorities have captured the crew?Depends on what you mean by "near". A moderately damaged ariplane could easily go a hundred miles before having to land. Does China own the all the airspace within a hundred miles?

If they're combatants then it contravenes the Geneva convention,Cite?

if they're non-combatants then it contravenes the international human rights convention, because under that document they have a right to a fair trial.Cite?

So what were the crew members? Combatants or non-combatants?

You like semantics don't you! It was part of China before the Communist revolution, and had been so for several hundred years. It is not mere "semantics" to note that the China it was part of was not the PRC. Why should Taiwan owe any allegiance to the PRC, simply because the PRC rules a land that was previously ruled by a completely different government that also ruled Taiwan? That makes absolutely no sense.

And it seems to me that it is you that is playing semantics games. It was not, as you imply, part of China immediately before the Communist revolution. According to Wikipedia, China explicitly denied sovereignty in 1871, and Japan held it from then until the end of WWII.

The people are Chinese and many (if not most) have relatives on the mainland.So? Is China next going to claim sovereignty over Chinatowns across the US? If China is basing its authority on ethnicity, then it has no claim over Tibet or Western China.

Really? I thought it was to make them comply with the UN weapons inspectors (which Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector maintains they were doing) and find WMDs, Which was to deal with Iraqi aggression.

which the intelligence said there was no evidence for, although we were lead to believe that the intelligence said otherwise.No, it didn't.

I guess you missed the point of my sarcasm, which was to point out the stunning lack of CCTV cameras, or monitoring of any kind. You are claiming that China does not monitor its citizens?

You can only use CCTV cameras to violate citizens rights if you have CCTV cameras.And violation though CCTV are the only violations that matter?

You're the one who started by accusing China of civil rights abuse (i.e. it "constantly monitors its citizens to make sure they don't do anything the nation's leaders disapprove of"), without citations I might add. Now you're getting defensive?If rebutting your arguments is "defensive", then I guess I am "defensive". What of it?

I also note that you didn't answer my question about whether or not you've ever visited China. I take that to mean that you haven't, because if you had you would almost certainly have said so.Have you ever visited Guatanamo Bay?

[Dark Jaguar]

How can atheism be a force at all? It's not a force of any kind, it's not really anything. It's the lack of something, and an odd lack in that it needs to be pointed out in today's society and given a word. Further, it won't ever actually accomplish anything either, it has no goals, it is merely a descriptor. It's not some mystical ideal, it's just a default position in the lack of any evidence for deities.

[CFLarsen]

Have you ever visited Guatanamo Bay?

According to the present US government, we all will.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't think we all will, but if anyone does visit Gitmo, his neighbors and family certainly won't know about it. I don't like that the GOP supports a government that can just make US citizens disappear.

[wollery]

Where?
Here;
According to Communist doctrine, everyone, felon or not, is chattel to the state.This was in response to me saying that in China prisoners were chattel to the state.

But what "the vast majority" of people mean, and what would be a valid legal definition, are two completely different issues. How does one make a legal distinction between what-the-majority-of-people-mean-by-proselytizing and what-technically-is-proselytizing-but-is-not-thought-of-as-proselytizing? You simply can't write laws without playing "semantic games" as you call them. If, in the US, there were a law against proselytizing, and someone were defending himself against such a charge, an argument that it's unconstitutional would be upheld. An argument that although what he was doing was technically proselytizing, he wasn't doing what "the vast majority" of people mean by proselytizing would be laughed out of court.It is illegal to pass out religious literature on the street, to go to someone's home uninvited in order to speak to them about religion, or advertise your religion in any medium (although the wearing of personal religious symbols or clothing is permitted) and it is illegal to conduct a religious service anywhere other than a designated place of worship.

If two people are willing participants in a private conversation about religion, even if that conversation takes place in a public place, then they are not in contravention of that law. If you ask someone religious about their religion and request literature then they can supply it to you lawfully. Religious texts can be lawfully bought in almost any bookstore.

Happy now?

And you still haven't addressed how you can claim to have legal freedom when a huge part of religion is outlawed.A huge part? Please. A moderately important part of some sects of some religions. And what about my right not to be harrassed by a constant stream of prozelytisers? Or my right to hold my beliefs without it being a big issue, or being fired from my job for it (even if it isn't the cited reason for my being fired)?

I'm not blaming China for the Korean war. I'm blaming China for intervening to help NK kill American soldiers and leave the country divided.A country that America helped to divide in the first place. And at the time China and NK were close allies, should China have stood by and let NK be taken over by America? War is never simple, and trying to explain it in simplistic terms is pointless.

China, in effect, helps NK track down and return those that try to escape Il's regime.I see that you ignore the question about America returning Mexicans to Mexico. And from all those articles, could you really only find one that made China look bad? And that just one story from the one source that has an obvious bias.

Depends on what you mean by "near". A moderately damaged ariplane could easily go a hundred miles before having to land. Does China own the all the airspace within a hundred miles?So now you're admitting that it was relatively near to Chinese airspace? Or in Chinese airspace? You still haven't explained what a US military plane was doing there.

Cite?
From the Geneva Convention;
Article 118

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.The prisoners at Guantanamo bay were captured during the war in Afghanistan, and that war is now over, the government of Afghanistan was defeated and there is a new democratically elected government in place. If the Gitmo prisoners are combatants then they should have been repatriated to Afghanistan.

Cite?From the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Article 9

1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.

2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.

3. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release. It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody, but release may be subject to guarantees to appear for trial, at any other stage of the judicial proceedings, and, should occasion arise, for execution of the judgement.

4. Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful.

5. Anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation. If they are non-combatants then this covenant applies, which requires them to be charged with a crime and tried, within a reasonable time, or released. It was signed by the US on 5 Oct 1977 and ratified on 8 Jun 1992.

So what were the crew members? Combatants or non-combatants?I never said the situations were identical, I was drawing a parrallel. And I note that again you ignore my question, this one about what the US would do if the situation were reversed.

It is not mere "semantics" to note that the China it was part of was not the PRC. Why should Taiwan owe any allegiance to the PRC, simply because the PRC rules a land that was previously ruled by a completely different government that also ruled Taiwan? That makes absolutely no sense.

And it seems to me that it is you that is playing semantics games. It was not, as you imply, part of China immediately before the Communist revolution. According to Wikipedia, China explicitly denied sovereignty in 1871, and Japan held it from then until the end of WWII.Fair enough, but I note no citation for the rocket incident.

So? Is China next going to claim sovereignty over Chinatowns across the US? If China is basing its authority on ethnicity, then it has no claim over Tibet or Western China.I never said it's claim was based on ethnicity, I said that many people had family on the mainland. Family. Not ethnically identical people. Family. And I never said that the claim was based on that, I was just pointing out that this situation was keeping families apart. And most of the Chinese people living in the US are doing so by choice, and are free to return to China if they wish to.

Which was to deal with Iraqi aggression.:confused: What aggression? Who were Iraq invading? Who was in any danger of being invaded by Iraq? Who was in any danger of a rocket attack from Iraq? The US? The UK? And since the UN chief weapons inspector said, at the time, that they were complying that can't be the reason.

No, it didn't.Didn't what? Show that there were no WMD? If that's what you are saying then we must have read totally different reports about the intelligence. It was presented to the US houses, the UK parliament, and the UN that there was hard evidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and the capability to launch them across hundreds of miles at short notice. None of these were true, and the real intelligence didn't even suggest them to be true.

You are claiming that China does not monitor its citizens?No, but it certainly isn't "constant" as you stated, and far less intrusive than you seem to be implying.

And violation though CCTV are the only violations that matter?Of course not. Where did I say that they were? But tell me, how is this monitoring done?

If rebutting your arguments is "defensive", then I guess I am "defensive". What of it?I have no problem with you trying to rebutt my arguments, I was just noting the style with which it was being done.

Have you ever visited Guatanamo Bay?No, have you? But I don't need to visit Gitmo to know that the prisoners held there are being held in contravention of their rights, either under the Geneva Convention or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as cited and explained above.

Why is the US not either trying or releasing them? Why are they not held on US soil?

[Merko]

Hitler was clearly a catholic. With his own ideas, sure. Representing an extreme and perverted form of catholicism, sure. But he was definitely catholic.

Stalin was an atheist. He attended priest seminars in his youth, but defected to join the illegal bolshevik party. He was certainly a 'practising atheist', if that term can apply to anybody.

I'm sure we can find examples of atheists killing theists simply for the sake of them being theists. For all the people killed during Lenin and Stalin though, I am pretty confident in stating that the fraction being killed for this reason would not even approach one percent. Lenin and Stalin persecuted the church in many ways, but their goal was to control it, not to physically exterminate christians. They *were* however intent on physically exterminating the 'kulaks', a somewhat mythological class of rich peasants. This would in theory be done through expropriation, forced relocation etc, but in reality, because of incompetence, the complete unrealism of the idea and the complete bolshevik disregard for any such things as 'individual human rights', the result was often mass death.

Though Stalin was no doubt atheist, since theism by definition is the belief in gods, I think it is fair to say that he was a zealously religious leninist, at least for most of his reign and until after the end of the war. At that point he may have become more like a normal self-centered dictator, but prior to that I think it is clear that he would put his ideology before any other things held dear by him, including family members and even his personal power (he effectively abdicated his de-facto dictatorship when Hitler invaded contrary to Stalin's predictions, but was reinstated by the Politburo).


So while I do not thing atheism is an antidote to mass murder or persecution, I do think that scepticism is a very good one. It is simply not enough to be sceptical merely towards preachings centered around gods.

[Meadmaker]

Hitler was clearly a catholic. With his own ideas, sure. Representing an extreme and perverted form of catholicism, sure. But he was definitely catholic.


He grew up a Catholic, but is there any reason to believe he did anything Catholic after age 18? We have a few speeches where he said something about God. Is anyone who was once an altar boy "definitely a catholic".

How can you be a Catholic without doing any of the following:

Going to confession
Taking communion.
Claiming to be a Catholic.
Being a member of a Catholic parish.

Name anyone, besides Hitler, who never did any of those things after his 18th birthday, but whom you would call "definitely a Catholic".

If you had receipts for large quantities of fish being delivered to Berchtesgarden in time for Friday supper, that would be evidence.







So while I do not thing atheism is an antidote to mass murder or persecution, I do think that scepticism is a very good one. It is simply not enough to be sceptical merely towards preachings centered around gods.

Well said.

[Merko]

Meadmaker: One of the few things where I agree with the Apostle Paul, is that the defining criterion for your religious affiliation is not whether you eat the right kind of fish at the right time, but what your personal beliefs are like. Others already posted plenty of references from Mein Kampf and other sources where Hitler explains some things about his beliefs. He may not have been the most refined of theologicians, but this really only serves to reinforce that his removal from catholicism, in a theologic sense, was not that advanced.

Note that eg the catholic church themselves will gladly include almost the entire south american population as 'catholics', though even in these religious areas church attendance etc is far from universal. While I think they are cheating here, I think that they can fairly count in most of the population, because being pressed on the matter, even without fear of persecution for non-religiousness, most south americans would call themselves catholics.

[Kopji]

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth.

I can just feel the love.

[Tricky]

How can you be a Catholic without doing any of the following:

Going to confession
Taking communion.
Claiming to be a Catholic.
Being a member of a Catholic parish.

Name anyone, besides Hitler, who never did any of those things after his 18th birthday, but whom you would call "definitely a Catholic".
Maybe he was a recovering Catholic.

[thaiboxerken]

Name anyone, besides Hitler, who never did any of those things after his 18th birthday, but whom you would call "definitely a Catholic".

Any catholic that hasn't been excommunicated. Even after all of the things Hitler did, the catholic church did not excommunicate him. I wonder why.

[Meadmaker]

, even without fear of persecution for non-religiousness, most south americans would call themselves catholics.

Which makes them different from Hitler, who never called himself Catholic.

ETA: As an adult.

[Meadmaker]

Any catholic that hasn't been excommunicated. Even after all of the things Hitler did, the catholic church did not excommunicate him. I wonder why.

Name anyone in the last 150 years who met the following criteria:

1. They didn't claim to be a Catholic.
2. They were excommunicated.

[thaiboxerken]

What?! Hitler was a catholic, he was born into a catholic family, raised catholic and went to catholic mass.

http://skeptically.org/againstreligion/id13.html

His hatred for the jews came from that catholicism. I've established that it's a fact that Hitler was a catholic, it's actually up to you to prove he's not. So far, the only "evidence" you've come up with isn't evidence at all, but speculation of how a "true" catholic dictator would act.

[Art Vandelay]

Here;
This was in response to me saying that in China prisoners were chattel to the state.So, in other words, you made it up. Mind not putting words in my mouth?

It is illegal to pass out religious literature on the street, to go to someone's home uninvited in order to speak to them about religion, or advertise your religion in any medium (although the wearing of personal religious symbols or clothing is permitted) and it is illegal to conduct a religious service anywhere other than a designated place of worship.IOW< there is not religious freedom in China.

A huge part? Please. A moderately important part of some sects of some religions. No, the main focus in many religions, and a large part of most others.

And what about my right not to be harrassed by a constant stream of prozelytisers?Again, you are confusing the connotation with the denotation. I'm beginning to think that you simply don't understand what the word "proseslytizing" means.

Or my right to hold my beliefs without it being a big issue, or being fired from my job for it (even if it isn't the cited reason for my being fired)? Now you're not even talking about proselytizing at all.

A country that America helped to divide in the first place. In what sense?

And at the time China and NK were close allies, should China have stood by and let NK be taken over by America? :rolleyes:
No, they were supposed to let South Korea take over NK. Aren't you capable of participating in a debate without injecting Communist propoganda?

I see that you ignore the question about America returning Mexicans to Mexico. No, I didn't see it in your huge post. Mexicans aren't refugees. They come here, they work, then they take their money and go back to Mexico. And Mexico doesn't kill them for doing it.

And from all those articles, could you really only find one that made China look bad?I don't recprd the address of every article that I read.

From the Geneva Convention;I've had this conversation over and over again, and each time, people show themselves completely unable to form a coherent argument. You claimed that combatants are protected, and when I challenged you on that claim, you presented a quote which apparently says that prisoners of war are protected.

The prisoners at Guantanamo bay were captured during the war in Afghanistan, and that war is now over, the government of Afghanistan was defeated and there is a new democratically elected government in place.Really? So the Taliban has signed an official surrender and ceased military operations against the US?

If they are non-combatants then this covenant applies, which requires them to be charged with a crime and tried, within a reasonable time, or released. No, it doesn't.

I never said the situations were identical, I was drawing a parrallel. You said that everyone is either a combatant or a noncombatant, and that each category comes with certain protections. So which one were they?

I never said it's claim was based on ethnicity, I said that many people had family on the mainland. Family. Not ethnically identical people. Family. Don't try to pull this condescending BS. You said "Chinese". And many people on the mainland have relatives in Taiwan. Perhaps Taiwan should take over the mainland. After all, Chinese can actually vote on the government of Taiwan, so Taiwan has more of a claim of representing the Chinese people.

And most of the Chinese people living in the US are doing so by choice, and are free to return to China if they wish to.I don't get where you're going with this. Are the people in Taiwan not allowed to go to China? Is that an argument for allowing China to take over Taiwan?

What aggression? Invading Kuwait.

And since the UN chief weapons inspector said, at the time, that they were complying that can't be the reason.The US claimed that they went to war with Japan because Japan attacked Peral Harbor, but when the US began the first stages of invading Japan, Japanese forces wewre nowhere near Pearl Harbor, so that can't be the reason.

Didn't what? Show that there were no WMD? If that's what you are saying then we must have read totally different reports about the intelligence. It was presented to the US houses, the UK parliament, and the UN that there was hard evidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, and the capability to launch them across hundreds of miles at short notice. None of these were true, and the real intelligence didn't even suggest them to be true.Your original claim was that there was hard evidence that Iraq was in compliance, not that there wasn't hard evidence that they weren't.

No, but it certainly isn't "constant" as you stated, In what sense?

and far less intrusive than you seem to be implying.So how intrusive is it?

Of course not. Where did I say that they were?I didn't say you did. You implied it.

No, have you? But I don't need to visit Gitmo to know that the prisoners held there are being held in contravention of their rights, either under the Geneva Convention or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as cited and explained above.But I need to visit China to know that the government violates people's rights?

[wollery]

So, in other words, you made it up. Mind not putting words in my mouth?Let me get this straight. I say that in China prisoners are chattel to the state, you respond by saying that in communist doctrine all citizens are chattel to the state, and you want me to believe that you weren't talking about China being communist.

If you weren't then why make that statement at all? It makes no sense, it's just a random statement about communist doctrine, almost entirely unrelated to the comment it was a response to.

On the other hand, if you were implying it then you're now being dishonest.

IOW< there is not religious freedom in China.Back to the semantics. In China people are free to believe anything they want.

No, the main focus in many religions, and a large part of most others.Wow, you just keep moving those goalposts don't you. First it was the main thrust of all religions, until you were given examples of two religions which don't do it at all. Then it was the main thrust of almost all religions, now it's many religions.

It's a main thrust of some christian and muslim sects, and a few other minor religions. Not all religions as you first claimed.

Again, you are confusing the connotation with the denotation. I'm beginning to think that you simply don't understand what the word "proseslytizing" means.Well according to my dictionary, it means to convert or attempt to convert. What does your's say?

Now you're not even talking about proselytizing at all.No, I'm talking about my right to believe what I want free from any fear of reprisals. Reprisals which many in the current US government wouldn't consider unfair, given that I'm an agnostic.

In what sense?Go read a history book.

:rolleyes:
No, they were supposed to let South Korea take over NK. Aren't you capable of participating in a debate without injecting Communist propoganda?:) So South Korea could have taken over North Korea without the aid of the US military could they? Then why were the US forces there at all? And it isn't communist propaganda, any more than your assertions are US right wing propaganda.

No, I didn't see it in your huge post. Mexicans aren't refugees. They come here, they work, then they take their money and go back to Mexico. And Mexico doesn't kill them for doing it.They go back? Really? So why all the talk about amnesties, and citizenship for those that can prove they've been in the US for more than a certain number of years?

I don't recprd the address of every article that I read.You linked to 4 websites, one of which contained multiple stories, all of which were supposed to show that China supports the NK regime. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm talking to just one person, or if you have a short term memory problem, because you don't seem to be able to keep track of what you've posted in the last 24 hours!

I've had this conversation over and over again, and each time, people show themselves completely unable to form a coherent argument. You claimed that combatants are protected, and when I challenged you on that claim, you presented a quote which apparently says that prisoners of war are protected.If they were combatants in a war then when they were captured they become prisoners of war. What part of that very simple definition do you not understand?

Really? So the Taliban has signed an official surrender and ceased military operations against the US?Does it have to sign an official surrender for the war to be over? The war is over, what's left are small groups commiting terrorist attacks.

But all that's beside the point, since the US government has constantly maintained that the Gitmo detainees were not combatants, and are therefore not prisoners of war.

No, it doesn't.Bald assertion. Why doesn't it apply? Were these people detained by the US government? Are they currently held by the US government? Why are they not given due process as US law demands?

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/usa-00.html

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0921-03.htm

You said that everyone is either a combatant or a noncombatant, and that each category comes with certain protections. So which one were they?There was no state of war between the US and China, so they are not combatants. They were held for questioning, presumably on the pretext that they were suspected of spying, whilst China made some angry noises and conducted some posturing in an attempt to embarass and chasten the US. Then they were released. Would the US have acted any differently? This is the third time I've asked you this question, why are you ignoring it?

And if this was a similar situation to the Gitmo detainees then why hasn't the US done what you advocated for the US aircrew and released them?

Don't try to pull this condescending BS. You said "Chinese". And many people on the mainland have relatives in Taiwan. Perhaps Taiwan should take over the mainland. After all, Chinese can actually vote on the government of Taiwan, so Taiwan has more of a claim of representing the Chinese people.Yes I did, it was not the precise term I wanted, and I shouldn't have used it in that way. I was not referring simply to ethnicity.

Oh, by the way, as an interesting aside, I did some reading of my own on the subject of China and Taiwan, and it seems that you were mistaken earlier. After World War II, which ended in 1945, Taiwan once again came under the rule of China, until the Maoist revolution in 1949, when the Chinese ruler Chiang KaiShek retreated to Taiwan and held it as a separate "Republic of China".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/asia/china/china-taiwan.html
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taiwantime1.html
There are plenty more articles, from many different sources, all saying the same thing.

And as for your earlier claim that China "fired rockets at Taiwan", that simply isn't true. The Chinese conducted missile tests in the Taiwan straight, but I couldn't find any source claiming that they were fired at Taiwan. It was a show of military strength in the run up to Taiwans elections.

So either you don't read your sources carefully, or you're misremembering what you have read at an earlier date, or you're lying. I make no judgement as to which is the true case.

I don't get where you're going with this. Are the people in Taiwan not allowed to go to China? Is that an argument for allowing China to take over Taiwan?I'm sorry, I went a little over the top with that one.

Invading Kuwait.I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the current conflict in Iraq. I didn't realise we were talking about the first Gulf War. :nope:

In case you hadn't noticed the US enforced UN no-fly zones which were put in place after the first Gulf War, and the large US military presence in the region was doing a perfectly good job of stopping Iraqi aggression without the need for further action.

The US claimed that they went to war with Japan because Japan attacked Peral Harbor, but when the US began the first stages of invading Japan, Japanese forces wewre nowhere near Pearl Harbor, so that can't be the reason.Wow. Just WOW! What an amazing parrallel to draw. I am totally stunned by such a dishonest debating tactic.

The US and Japan were already in a state of war (which was started by the unprovoked bombing of Pearl Harbor) when the US began their invasion of Japan.

The US and Iraq were not in a state of war when the US invaded Iraq. The UN resolution which they used as the pretext to invade was a demand that Iraq comply with the UN weapons inspectors. The chief UN weapons inspector told the UN that Iraq was complying. The US invaded anyway.

I cannot believe that you were unaware of these differences in circumstances.

Your original claim was that there was hard evidence that Iraq was in compliance, not that there wasn't hard evidence that they weren't.They were in compliance with the UN weapons inspectors, the chief weapons inspector said that they were (I'm not sure how much more evidence you want than that). There was no evidence that they had any WMDs, and as it turned out they didn't have WMDs. Do try to concentrate.

In what sense?I'm sorry, but for someone so hung up on dictionary definitions and semantics I would have thought that 'constant' was a fairly simple word to understand.

So how intrusive is it?Well, I've not noticed any monitoring at all, so I'd have to say that if it is being done it's incredibly non-intrusive.

I didn't say you did. You implied it.I used the CCTV cameras as an example.

But I need to visit China to know that the government violates people's rights?Well it seems fairly clear to me that just reading about it has given you a very warped view.


As a final point I'd like to note that I've noticed a trend in your responses, which is to remove some of my questions to you, and simply act as if they were never asked. Just from my last post you ignored the following questions.

So now you're admitting that it was relatively near to Chinese airspace? Or in Chinese airspace? You still haven't explained what a US military plane was doing there.
And I note that again you ignore my question, this one about what the US would do if the situation were reversed.
But tell me, how is this monitoring done?
Why is the US not either trying or releasing them? Why are they not held on US soil?

If you don't know the answer it's perfectly acceptable to admit that you don't know.

[Merko]

Wollery: I have no trouble imagining that you may feel perfectly 'free' in China. But have you done anything to anger the government? Tried to organise an oppositional party? Done independent journalistic inquiries about sensitive government matters?

The litmus test of freedom is what happens with people who disagree with the official or popular doctrine. Just because a government does not go out and torture people at random, does not mean there is much freedom.

[wollery]

Wollery: I have no trouble imagining that you may feel perfectly 'free' in China. But have you done anything to anger the government? Tried to organise an oppositional party? Done independent journalistic inquiries about sensitive government matters?

The litmus test of freedom is what happens with people who disagree with the official or popular doctrine. Just because a government does not go out and torture people at random, does not mean there is much freedom.I must have missed the part where I said that I felt perfectly free living here. I had to register at the local police station when I first arrived, and have to report there every time I re-enter the country. I also accept that the government is totalitarian and intollerant of internal criticism. There have been numerous instances of human rights abuses over the years and the government censors and spins the news that it allows it's citizens to hear. I have no illusions in this regard.

I also take exception to someone who criticizes another government or country, whilst refusing to accept criticism of their's.

However, for all it's faults the Chinese government is making great strides in modernisation, and is far less oppressive than it was just a few years ago. There are also advantages in a government which does not have to seek re-election every few years, but none of this is actually about politics.

Art Vandelay has made several statements which are either exaggerations, misrepresentations or just plain untrue. I'm not defending the Chinese government, I'm challenging Art Vandelay's appallingly biased and poorly researched arguments. I've also taken exception to his debating style, which seems to consist of constantly moving goalposts, ignoring awkward questions, citing sources which don't support his arguments, and occassionally outright lying. Intollerance grows from unchallenged misunderstandings and lies, and I have no patience or respect for people who propogate such, and refuse to let them go unchallenged.

[Darth Rotor]

The problem with using hearsay evidence is that it's unreliable. Speeches and written notes by the person espousing the belief is much more reliable than hearsay evidence. This seems to be beyond the understanding of Darth Rotor.
Actions overtake political rhetoric. Or hadn't you noticed?

However, I liked your point further down in the thread: why didn't the Catholic Church excommunicate him?

One of the excuses s eems to have been that by the time that became a possible course of action, German troops were in Italy and it was dangerous to do so.

However, once Allies liberated Rome, the question why Hitler was not excommuncated is well raised, and the subsequent silence from the Vatican far more damning.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

Actions overtake political rhetoric.

Hitler didn't take any actions that were at odds with the catholic church.

[Merko]

Wollery: Ok, my apologies for completely misunderstanding your position.

I agree with you. But then I would also say that for all the grievous harm that was done during the reign of Stalin, they *did* at the same time modernise most of the Soviet Union from a state of feudalism to a modern industrial society, with education and efficient health care etc. This does not excuse Stalin of course, but I balk when some people will even blame the former Communist totalitarianism for the decreasing life expectancy of modern Russia!

[Darth Rotor]

Hitler didn't take any actions that were at odds with the catholic church.
Are you sure you want to go with that?

DR

[Wheezebucket]

I gotta say in wollery's defense, you really can't tell it's a communist state in your every day life more often than not. At least, not as a foreigner. I lived and taught in China for some time (illegally, but that's another story) and the only incident I had was with internet usage. Apparently in the area I was living (Pingnan) was still pretty low on the foreigner front, and somebody somewhere saw me looking at american websites and sent the cops to come make me install this software on the school's computer. That was fun waking up at 6am, surrounded by police officers.

Other than that, no problemo! I still wish I lived there today.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you sure you want to go with that?

Just stating the facts as I know them. According to history, the catholic church actually praised Hitler for his stand against Russia and praised his surviving an assassination attempt. They certainly seemed to be very quiet about the extermination of jewish people.

[CapelDodger]

Hitler didn't take any actions that were at odds with the catholic church.
A carefully crafted statement. Nazism is certainly at odds with Catholic doctrine. Catholic opposition to the eugenics program was very important in stopping it. That's Catholic opposition, not so much Vatican opposition. The Vatican looks at the big picture, and in that picture Socialism was the Beast and Nazism a short-lived offence. Which, to be fair, it was.

Catholic doctrine is that Jews are inviolate for their faith, and that the Church has a duty to protect them. As I understand it.

[chriswl]

[in China] It is illegal to pass out religious literature on the street, to go to someone's home uninvited in order to speak to them about religion, or advertise your religion in any medium (although the wearing of personal religious symbols or clothing is permitted) and it is illegal to conduct a religious service anywhere other than a designated place of worship.

If two people are willing participants in a private conversation about religion, even if that conversation takes place in a public place, then they are not in contravention of that law. If you ask someone religious about their religion and request literature then they can supply it to you lawfully. Religious texts can be lawfully bought in almost any bookstore.
This seems like excellent compromise between individual liberty and the need to control the potentially dangerous phenomenon that is organised religion.

Why should religion be less regulated than gambling or alcohol?

[Art Vandelay]

I also take exception to someone who criticizes another government or country, whilst refusing to accept criticism of their's.I don't refuse to accept criticism of my government. I just don't accept dishonest criticism of my government.

Art Vandelay has made several statements which are either exaggerations, misrepresentations or just plain untrue. Name one.

I've also taken exception to his debating style, which seems to consist of constantly moving goalposts, When have I ever done so?

ignoring awkward questions,I have no obligation to answer every single question you come up, especially since you're clearly not interested in an honest discussion.

citing sources which don't support his arguments,That's merely your opinion.

and occassionally outright lying.I have never lied. You have crossed the line from being rude to being a lying POS.

Let me get this straight. I say that in China prisoners are chattel to the state, you respond by saying that in communist doctrine all citizens are chattel to the state, and you want me to believe that you weren't talking about China being communist. I have already explained that I was talking about China masquerading as Communist. Did you not bother reading my post, or are you deliberately ignoring it?

If you weren't then why make that statement at all? You really are incapable of understanding why the doctrines of Communism would be relevant to a country masquerading as Communist?

On the other hand, if you were implying it then you're now being dishonest.You said that I SAID that China is Communist. If you merely believe that I was implying it, then YOU are being dishonest.

Back to the semantics. In China people are free to believe anything they want.You're the one going back to semantics. Religious freedom isn't just about believing what you want, but being allowed to practice it.

First it was the main thrust of all religions,I never said that.

Go read a history book. And you complain about me not answering your questions? I'm not looking for what a history book says, I'm asking you what YOU think constitutes the US helping to divide Korea.

So South Korea could have taken over North Korea without the aid of the US military could they? The US helping SK take over NK is completely different from the US taking over NK. By your logic, the US took over France in WWII.

You linked to 4 websites, one of which contained multiple stories, all of which were supposed to show that China supports the NK regime.Which they do.

If they were combatants in a war then when they were captured they become prisoners of war. Cite?

It's been how long now since you first made your claim? Every single time I ask you to defend it, you just post yet another undefended claim. That claim is then defended on the basis of another claim, and so on. When are you going to admit that you're full of s---?

Does it have to sign an official surrender for the war to be over? Pretty much.

The war is over, what's left are small groups commiting terrorist attacks.Which are acts of war.

But all that's beside the point, since the US government has constantly maintained that the Gitmo detainees were not combatants, Cite?

Why doesn't it apply?I didn't claim that it doesn't apply, I denied that it "requires them to be charged with a crime and tried". Having trouble following the debate, I see?

They were held for questioning, presumably on the pretext that they were suspected of spying, whilst China made some angry noises and conducted some posturing in an attempt to embarass and chasten the US. Then they were released. And was that release immediate?

After World War II, which ended in 1945, Taiwan once again came under the rule of China, until the Maoist revolution in 1949, when the Chinese ruler Chiang KaiShek retreated to Taiwan and held it as a separate "Republic of China".But, of course, you have no quote to support that claim.

And as for your earlier claim that China "fired rockets at Taiwan", that simply isn't true. The Chinese conducted missile tests in the Taiwan straight, but I couldn't find any source claiming that they were fired at Taiwan. It was a show of military strength in the run up to Taiwans elections. So, what? They were fired "towards" Taiwan, not "at"? Who's playing semantic games now? The point is they engaged in military operations to intimidate the Taiwanese people. And it's a strait, not a straight. As for the proper use of apostrophes, I think you're beyond help.

Is this the act of a peaceful country?
In 1996, China dropped dummy DF-15 warheads just off Taiwan's coastline.http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml

In case you hadn't noticed the US enforced UN no-fly zones which were put in place after the first Gulf War, and the large US military presence in the region was doing a perfectly good job of stopping Iraqi aggression without the need for further action.I said "deal with", not "stop". Not big on paying attention, are you? What, was the US supposed to just keep the troops there indefinitely? That policy cost billions and dollars and was cited by ObL as a reason for 9/11.

Wow. Just WOW! What an amazing parrallel to draw. I am totally stunned by such a dishonest debating tactic.I see that in your mind, “dishonest” means “anything that I don’t like”.

The US and Iraq were not in a state of war when the US invaded Iraq. The US went to war with Iraq. The US then signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, in the hope that the issues that prompted them to go to war would be later resolved. The issues were never resolved, and the state of war was never cancelled with a peace treaty.

I cannot believe that you were unaware of these differences in circumstances.Seeing as how these are not the differences that you cited, you are the one who is being dishonest.

There was no evidence that they had any WMDs, and as it turned out they didn't have WMDs. Do try to concentrate.You claimed that “the intelligence said there was no evidence for [WMD]”. That was the claim. Don’t try to change the subject.

I'm sorry, but for someone so hung up on dictionary definitions and semantics I would have thought that 'constant' was a fairly simple word to understand.Oh, it is. And according to the literal definition, it is obvious that you were wrong. And yet I am being nice enough to give you an opportunity to provide some non-literal meaning that is satisfies, but you just respond with your usual BS.

[Art Vandelay]

This seems like excellent compromise between individual liberty and the need to control the potentially dangerous phenomenon that is organised religion.That seems like a rather extreme characterization. Why pass laws specifically against religion? Is being bothered by someone trying to sell a product any less annoying than someone trying to covert you?

[Merko]

Art, Wollery: I really think you should both relax a bit. Calling each others liars seems unfounded. You both seem to be making some valid points, but it seems to me that you're engaging in different discussions. Considering that the other part of the discussion is really debating different points, it is no wonder that you are having trouble communicating.

[Glen.Nogami]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml

Maybe this is poisoning the well or something, but that site doesn't appear terribly reputable, particularly considering the rest of the articles hanging around.

On sale in their store are books by Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly and Pat Buchanan. They're also selling a hat that says "US Border Patrol". There's an entire page entitled "Clinton Scandals" that links to all sorts of "news" not unlike the story that you linked.

If it happened, it shouldn't be too difficult to find a more reputable source.

EDIT: I'll also concur with Merko's post. This is slightly off topic. :D

[Meadmaker]

What?! Hitler was a catholic, he was born into a catholic family, raised catholic and went to catholic mass.

The I must be Catholic, because I did all those things, and the Pope never excommunicated me. Unlike Hitler, I actually still go to mass once a year, on Christmas eve.

(Although I do note that Ken's latest "it must be so because it's on the web" source does actually have Hitler telling one person, once, that he was a Catholic in 1941.)

[thaiboxerken]

The I must be Catholic

I never doubted this. Also, feel free to prove that Hitler never went to mass or confession.

[Meadmaker]

However, once Allies liberated Rome, the question why Hitler was not excommuncated is well raised, and the subsequent silence from the Vatican far more damning.


There's no reason to excommunicate someone that isn't part of the community.

This idea that the Pope was somehow either idle or actually complicit in the holocaust is historical revisionism of the worst sort. The government of Israel sent the Israeli orchestra to play a concert for Pope Pius XII, as a means of thanking him for his work against Hitler in saving Jews. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.

[Meadmaker]

I never doubted this. Also, feel free to prove that Hitler never went to mass or confession.

Feel free to prove there are no unicorns.

(And please don't tell the Rabbi.)

[thaiboxerken]

Feel free to prove there are no unicorns.

This line of argument might work, if the burden of evidence was not upon you. So far, there is plenty of cemented evidence that hitler was catholic and only speculation and hearsay evidence on your part. Sorry, catholic, but you simply have lost this debate.

[wollery]

I don't refuse to accept criticism of my government. I just don't accept dishonest criticism of my government.Is Amnesty international dishonest?
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2038.shtml

How about a US Federal Court Judge?
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_1814.shtml

Name one.In post number 94 you said, "Proselytizing is an integral part of religion." That is inaccurate and an exaggeration, if you didn't mean all religions then you should have said so. Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, most forms of Hinduism (the Hare Krishna movement being the only real exception), Native American Religions, Neopagans (such as Wicca) and Pagan religions do not actively seek converts, whilst the Oceanic and polynesian Aboriginal religions don't even have the concept of prozelytisation. Relevant information on just about all world religions can be found at http://www.religioustolerance.org/.

As an interesting aside, you also said, "According to Christianity, mnerely being a good person and showing people how Jesus has made you a better person will inspire other people to convert." In which case prozelytising is not banned in China, just active prozelytising.

You listed 4 webpages which you claim show that China supports the NK regime. Having read them I fail to see how they could possibly be used to make a case for China supporting NK. It might possibly support a case for saying that China isn't as critical or forceful in its criticism of NK as other states or as dilligent in it's application of sanctions as it could be. But a state which imposes unilateral sanctions and freezes the bank accounts of another country can hardly said to be supporting that country. That's misrepresentation.

You said that Taiwan was never a part of the PRC, which is another misrepresentation, since I never said that it was, and it was, in fact, part of China immediately before the revolution.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/taiwantime1.html
http://www.taiwandc.org/hst-1624.htm
http://www.fazeteen.com/summer2000/taiwan.htm
http://workmall.com/wfb2001/china/china_history_return_to_civil_war.html
http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/q&a/page_02.htm

Okay, so that's three, and you only asked for one, but I'm in a generous mood.

When have I ever done so?As noted above, you started out by saying that, "Proselytizing is an integral part of religion." Judaism and Buddhism were pointed out to you as examples of non-prozelytising religions, which you ignored at first, then, without reference to what had gone before you changed to saying, "the main focus in many religions, and a large part of most others." (post 136). That's moving the goalposts, and is still innacurate, as the above list of non-prozelytising religions demonstrates. And the above list is by no means complete, I just couldn't be bothered to keep going.

(Furthermore, I always thought that the main part of almost all religions was to be a good person and not harm others, but I could be wrong about that.)

I have no obligation to answer every single question you come up, especially since you're clearly not interested in an honest discussion.You have no obligation to answer any question I ask, but if you don't even respond to them I have every right to pontificate on why you choose not to. I would dearly love to have an honest discussion with you, I have never intentionally presented an untruth, and if I have misinterpreted what you have said I apologise.

That's merely your opinion.Then please explain how the four webpages you cited show that China Supports the NK regime. Because I really don't see it.

I have never lied. You have crossed the line from being rude to being a lying POS.You claimed that the intelligence on Iraq didn't say that there was no evidence for them having WMDs. The evidence presented to the Senate, Congress, the UN and UK government said that there was evidence of WMDs, but that intelligence was based largely on evidence given by a man whom the Defence Intelligence Agency had already characterised as "a liar, a fabricator". In essence, the intelligence was completely unreliable, and in some case totally fabricated, such as Tony Blair's 45 minute deployment statement, or the sale of Uranium to Iraq by Nigeria. There was no actual evidence that Iraq had WMD, although they certainly had had them in the past, but then that was the entire point of the UN weapons inspectors being in Iraq, and, as I've already pointed out, Hans Blix, the Chief UN Weapons Inspector, said at the time, and has maintained throughout, that Iraq were complying with them.

If you were unaware of all this then I apologise for saying that you lied, but I find it hard to believe that you didn't know about it.

I have no problem with you calling me rude or saying that you believe me to have lied, but the POS was utterly unnecesarry. Insults are often the last resort of those backed into a corner.

I have already explained that I was talking about China masquerading as Communist. Did you not bother reading my post, or are you deliberately ignoring it?After I pointed out that China isn't really Communist.

You really are incapable of understanding why the doctrines of Communism would be relevant to a country masquerading as Communist?If a country is merely masquerading as Communist then the doctrines of Communism don't actually apply to it. As I pointed out. They're relevant only insofar as they show that the country isn't actually Communist.

You said that I SAID that China is Communist. If you merely believe that I was implying it, then YOU are being dishonest.No, I misunderstood an unqualified statement which, without qualification, implied that you were referring to China as Communist.

You're the one going back to semantics. Religious freedom isn't just about believing what you want, but being allowed to practice it.In which case the US doesn't have religious freedom, because Christians aren't allowed to stone rapists or insolent children and Muslims aren't allowed to summarily kill apostates.

I never said that.You said, "Proselytizing is an integral part of religion." Not, "Proselytizing is an integral part of most religions." or, "Proselytizing is an integral part of many religions." If you didn't use the word "all", but if you didn't mean all religions then you should have qualified your statement.

And you complain about me not answering your questions? I'm not looking for what a history book says, I'm asking you what YOU think constitutes the US helping to divide Korea.Installing a government in South Korea that they approved of and maintaining a large military force there.

The US helping SK take over NK is completely different from the US taking over NK. By your logic, the US took over France in WWII.Technically they did, removing the Vichy government, and then giving the country back when it was all over.

Which they do.How? Please explain how you get the idea that China supports NK from a set of documents which state that China is imposing sanctions on NK, and having small border skirmishes with it, and looking the other way when the US seeks to take in three orphaned NK children who are living in China.

Oh yes, one of the articles was about the Chinese border guards not conducting proper searches of vehicles entering NK. Clear evidence of support for the NK regime.

Cite?

It's been how long now since you first made your claim? Every single time I ask you to defend it, you just post yet another undefended

claim. That claim is then defended on the basis of another claim, and so on. When are you going to admit that you're full of s---?The Geneva convention defines a prisoner of war as a combatant who has been captured by an opposing force. Pretty simple definition really.

The Geneva convention can be found here http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Pretty much.Even if there's nobody to sign such a surrender? Wow, there are a lot of wars that technically have never ended.

Which are acts of war.No, they're acts of terrorism. You seem to be confusing the "war on terror" with an actual war.

Cite?Apparently the US has classified them as "Illegal Combatants" ("http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/05/guantanamo-exported-illegal-combatants.php). This is a previously unused term which allows the US to deny that the Geneva convention applies, and also deny that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies. In other words, the US found a way to deny them any rights, just by creating a new classification for them.

This classification is not recognized by international law, under which someone is either a combatant, or a non-combatant, as defined by the Geneva convention (see link above).

I didn't claim that it doesn't apply, I denied that it "requires them to be charged with a crime and tried". Having trouble following the debate, I see?So it does apply? If so then the document is very clear. If it applies then it requires that they be charged with a crime or released. What part of that are you having difficulty with?

And was that release immediate?It doesn't have to be immediate, they are allowed to detain and question them. And again I ask the question (which you have now ignored 3 times), would the US have acted any differently if the position had been reversed?

But, of course, you have no quote to support that claim.Several, I listed three websites detailing the history of Taiwan in that post and four earlier in this post.

So, what? They were fired "towards" Taiwan, not "at"? Who's playing semantic games now? The point is they engaged in military operations to intimidate the Taiwanese people. And it's a strait, not a straight. As for the proper use of apostrophes, I think you're beyond help.A very important point, not a semantic game. The rockets weren't fired at Taiwan, or even towards Taiwan. They were fired at a target area almost 40km off the coast of Taiwan.

And if you're going to criticise me for a spelling mistake and the odd misplaced apostrophe then please try to ensure that your own spelling and grammar are 100% correct. Of course, even if they were it would still be a petty ad hom.

Oh, and if you're going to criticise me for one spelling mistake and a few misplaced apostrophes it would be advisable to ensure that your own spelling and grammar are 100% correct. Although, even if they were it would still be a rather petty ad hominem.

Is this the act of a peaceful country?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/8/14/174213.shtml Same incident as above. And as a point of order I never said that China was a peaceful country. I said the people were peaceful. I made no reference to the government, which you have admitted is totalitarian, a statement which I did not refute, since to do so would be ridiculous.

However, if that's the sort of website that you use to get your information then I'm not surprised that you have a warped view of China. I might also add that the missile incident occured 10 years ago, since when the vast majority of the leadership of the PRC has changed, and relations between China and Taiwan have thawed considerably, as I noted in one of my earlier posts.

I said "deal with", not "stop". Not big on paying attention, are you? What, was the US supposed to just keep the troops there indefinitely? That policy cost billions and dollars and was cited by ObL as a reason for 9/11.Oh I see, so the reason for war was partly financial, and partly because a CIA trained terrorist, who had no actual links to Iraq, used it as an excuse for committing horiffic acts of terrorism. The US could have petitioned the UN to replace their troops with those of other nations. I'm sure that other NATO forces would have been happy to take over.

I see that in your mind, “dishonest” means “anything that I don’t like”.

The US went to war with Iraq. The US then signed a cease-fire agreement with Iraq, in the hope that the issues that prompted them to

go to war would be later resolved. The issues were never resolved, and the state of war was never cancelled with a peace treaty.

Seeing as how these are not the differences that you cited, you are the one who is being dishonest.Your parrallel was drawn between an ongoing conflict with no ceasefire and no cessation of violence, and a stable situation with no ongoing conflict, an unviolated ceasefire and a clear cessation of violence. The weapons inspectors were in Iraq and being complied with. They were forced to leave by the US led invasion.

You claimed that “the intelligence said there was no evidence for [WMD]”. That was the claim. Don’t try to change the subject.The actual evidence didn't, I've detailed why above.

Oh, it is. And according to the literal definition, it is obvious that you were wrong. And yet I am being nice enough to give you an opportunity to provide some non-literal meaning that is satisfies, but you just respond with your usual BS.Really? China monitors its citizens 24 hours a day? Because that's the literal meaning of constant ("http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/constant). That must be very labour intensive and rather tricky in rural areas.

[Darth Rotor]

There's no reason to excommunicate someone that isn't part of the community.
I am pretty sure Adolf Hitler was born, baptized, confirmed, and raised a Catholic in Austria. He could certainly have been excommunicated, though it would have been a gesture with little leverage behind it.
This idea that the Pope was somehow either idle or actually complicit in the holocaust is historical revisionism of the worst sort.
Not my theme. More a matter of political cowardice along the lines of "evil prospers when good men do nothing." Plenty of nuns and priests in Italy alone who helped get Jews out, away from the arrests, etc.
The government of Israel sent the Israeli orchestra to play a concert for Pope Pius XII, as a means of thanking him for his work against Hitler in saving Jews. If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
Aye.

DR

[The Atheist]

Plenty of nuns and priests in Italy alone who helped get Jews out, away from the arrests, etc.Hmm. I believe there's a good amount of anecdotal evidence that the Vatican also assisted Nazis in their escapes at the end of the war.

Not my specialist subject, maybe someone can expand or refute...

[Meadmaker]

Why does all this stuff matter? Does it really matter if Hitler was an atheist? Or a Catholic?

Well, yes. Hitler is as close to an embodiment of pure evil in the modern mind as there is. When you think of an example of a truly evil person, he's it. Therefore, if people don't like someone or some group, they might tie the hated group to Hitler. If you can say that this group or that group was on Hitler's team, or he on theirs, then that tarnishes the reputation of the group.

The article linked in the OP tries to do that with atheism. Hitler was an atheist, so it says, so atheists are bad. The problem with that is that Hitler wasn't really an atheist. He opposed any religion that stood in the way of his "master race" theories, but his actual beliefs are rather incoherent.

Meanwhile, there has been a school of historical revisionism that tries to link the Catholic Church to Hitler. The book "Hitler's Pope" was the book I've seen with the highest sales that does this, but the idea didn't originate with the book. It tells lies and half truths to make them look like good buddies, but it's quite slanderous, and just plain false.

Then, on the extreme end of the conspiracy theory side, you have Ken's beliefs. According to Ken, not only was Hitler a Catholic, Hitler was actually spreading radical Catholicism. To people with no anti-religion axe to grind, the statements are ridiculous, but sadly, for those people with an anti-religion axe to grind that reality takes a back seat.

I just worry where that slippery slope leads. You have Elton John saying "ban religion", and people discuss whether or not he has a good point. Richard Dawkins says that sexual abuse is not as bad as raising your kids Catholic, and peope buy his books. (FWIW: I have two of them myself, but they are about biology, not philosoph. They are "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker". He's good at explaining biology. He should stick to it.) No good can come of that sort of nonsense. I don't see Catholics being rounded up into camps any time soon, but where would it go? If the revisionists can successfully tie Catholicism with Nazism, it wouldn't be a big step for the authorities to impose restrictions to "protect us" from those evil institutions.

[Glen.Nogami]

I'll agree with the majority of your post: That neither side can really claim Hitler for their enemies. I'll go one further and say that thaiboxerken's arguments are a bit superfluous, as it's better to provide legitimate arguments against religion than to insist that Hitler liked organized religion, and link to a bunch of rather disreputable sites saying so.

However, as far as the views of Dawkins and such go:

The idea of banning religion is ridiculous, but only insofar as the idea of banning conspiracy theories is. They are similarly nonsensical ideas with typically harmful results. As for Dawkins' views on sexual abuse, it seemed that he was basing them on personal experience, that I suspect is different from the experience of many. It does not detract from the central argument of the book, which I thought was quite well done.

As far as restrictions on religion goes, I suppose I don't hold religion to have such a sacred place that restriction at all is anathema. Certainly, people are free to believe what they will, but I don't see much of a problem with viewing such beliefs with a great deal of skepticism and worry for the problems they typically incite.

[Tanstaafl]

Then, on the extreme end of the conspiracy theory side, you have Ken's beliefs. According to Ken, not only was Hitler a Catholic, Hitler was actually spreading radical Catholicism. To people with no anti-religion axe to grind, the statements are ridiculous, but sadly, for those people with an anti-religion axe to grind that reality takes a back seat.

Would it make you feel better to know that, though I do have an anti-religion axe to gind, I don't buy into the Hitler as radical Catholic idea?

Though he was definitely not an atheist either.

[thaiboxerken]

If the revisionists can successfully tie Catholicism with Nazism, it wouldn't be a big step for the authorities to impose restrictions to "protect us" from those evil institutions.

There is no revisionism involved in tying catholocism to nazism. The evidence has been shown with NO reliable evidence otherwise. The Nazi were catholics, yet I don't see people going crazy to ban catholicism. It's just important to note that catholicism can and has been taken to extremes and has caused violence and war. Was Hitler a catholic, I think the evidence says so. If he wasn't, does it matter? Not really, because the Nazis themselves were catholic.

Either way, catholicism sparked the anti-jewish sentiment that led to the holocaust.

[Darth Rotor]

Not really, because the Nazis themselves were catholic.
Ken, I suggest you do a little homework on the matter of Germany, Germans, and their religion 1900-1945. What you will find is that you tended to have more Catholics in Bavaria and Austria, and more Protestants elsewhere in Germany. (Lutherans, etc.) That Adolf was born a Catholic isn't much disputed, nor is recorded that I am aware of that he ever disavowed that affiliation.

There were a lot more Nazis than Hitler.
Either way, catholicism sparked the anti-jewish sentiment that led to the holocaust.
Sparked is the wrong word for the role of the Catholic Church in this matter.

Hitler and his party operatives were the spark that put into grisly action a thousand years of latent, and blatant, anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe. That underlying sentiment was certainly related to the teachings of Mother Church.

DR

[thaiboxerken]

What you will find is that you tended to have more Catholics in Bavaria and Austria, and more Protestants elsewhere in Germany

And more catholics among the nazi.

[Meadmaker]

Would it make you feel better to know that, though I do have an anti-religion axe to gind, I don't buy into the Hitler as radical Catholic idea?

Though he was definitely not an atheist either.

Right. Sorry for splashing paint with my broad brush.

[Meadmaker]

It does not detract from the central argument of the book, which I thought was quite well done.

It's probably a good book. He's a good writer. The "central point" of Hitler's philosophy, at least according to many, was a strong proud, unified Deutschland. That anti-Jew stuff was just a sideshow. Dawkins is no Hitler, to be sure, but what I'm getting at is that his anti-religious writings ought to detract from the central argument from the book, because if you ignore his comparison of religion with childhood abuse, you are ignoring what he is really saying. If you cherry pick the parts you like, you're missing the reality of his writings.

It's no exaggeration to say that Dawkins is calling for oppression of religion, and he's not alone. For the moment, he's a minority, but it's important to keep him that way.

The governments cited in the OP article were not necessarily atheist, and they didn't carry out their oppression "in the name of atheism" as the article claimed. However, they did call for the oppression of religion, and every government that took power with that as either a means to an end or an end in itself has been a very, very, bad government.

[Meadmaker]

And more catholics among the nazi.

"It’s true that Protestants, as a whole, tended to vote for and support the Nazis more than Catholics, "

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238249.htm

(The overall thrust of the article is that religious affiliation was not a truly strong indicator of Nazi support. Although Catholics were less likely to support Hitler than were Protestants, there were Catholic areas that voted for Hitler, and Protestant areas the voted against him.)

[Glen.Nogami]

It's probably a good book. He's a good writer. The "central point" of Hitler's philosophy, at least according to many, was a strong proud, unified Deutschland. That anti-Jew stuff was just a sideshow. Dawkins is no Hitler, to be sure, but what I'm getting at is that his anti-religious writings ought to detract from the central argument from the book, because if you ignore his comparison of religion with childhood abuse, you are ignoring what he is really saying. If you cherry pick the parts you like, you're missing the reality of his writings.

Alright. I'll agree that his writings do come perilously close to advocating oppression of religion, and that that is unconscionable. I will, however, reiterate his argument that it ought to be marginalized only so far as (for instance) your average kooky conspiracy theory. The right to speech protects both of them, but it is not a mandate to flinching acceptance of everything dictated by such quackery.

(Off-topic) This boggles me. A more or less civil discussion in a board about religion, even if it is rather localized.

[thaiboxerken]

"It’s true that Protestants, as a whole, tended to vote for and support the Nazis more than Catholics, "



So then you admit that the Nazi were christian.

[Meadmaker]

So then you admit that the Nazi were christian.

Most Germans, including most Nazis, were Christians. However, the Nazi party wasn't advocating Christian philosophy. The fact that Christians could remain Christian while supporting Nazis demonstrates tolerance of cognitive dissonance.

[Meadmaker]

I will, however, reiterate his argument that it ought to be marginalized only so far as (for instance) your average kooky conspiracy theory. The right to speech protects both of them, but it is not a mandate to flinching acceptance of everything dictated by such quackery.


That makes sense to me.

I have a real love/hate relationship with religion, myself. I have a great deal of respect for religious traditions, and yet I think that the "facts" of the religion are a bunch of hooey. I go to temple services, and light Shabbat candles, and yet I don't think there is any God listening to the blessing I pour forth on him.

A lot of people don't understand that, or think that it's weird, or possibly nuts. It isn't really, but an explanation will wait for another time.

[thaiboxerken]

However, the Nazi party wasn't advocating Christian philosophy.

I disagree, superiority over other cultures and races is part of christian philosophy. Killing those who don't believe is also part of christian philosophy. I'm thankful that christians are more secular these days.

[hammegk]

I disagree, superiority over other cultures and races is part of christian philosophy. Killing those who don't believe is also part of christian philosophy. ...
Cheer up. With people of your ilk on one end of the spectrum, the Dawkins and Newdows on the other, and with Brights ala P&T etc scattered around, maybe judeo-xianity will decide that is the proper mindset.

If not, Islam has a long way to run.

Wow, look at those heads on the pikes! (Or on the pile.)

[Art Vandelay]

It's no exaggeration to say that Dawkins is calling for oppression of religion, and he's not alone. For the moment, he's a minority, but it's important to keep him that way.How so?

Is Amnesty international dishonest?
http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/article_2038.shtmlAre you trying to imply that I was calling AI dishonest? Certainly calling it a "gulag" is dishonest.

In post number 94 you said, "Proselytizing is an integral part of religion." That is inaccurate and an exaggeration, if you didn't mean all religions then you should have said so. Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, most forms of Hinduism (the Hare Krishna movement being the only real exception), Native American Religions, Neopagans (such as Wicca) and Pagan religions do not actively seek converts, whilst the Oceanic and polynesian Aboriginal religions don't even have the concept of prozelytisation.But people do convert to Judaism. So while Jews don't actively seek converts, they have converts just by being Jews. That's what "integral" means: it's a natural part, not something extra that you have to separately add.

Having read them I fail to see how they could possibly be used to make a case for China supporting NK."I don't see how they support your case" is not much of an argument.

But a state which imposes unilateral sanctionsWhat unilateral sanctions?

and freezes the bank accounts of another country can hardly said to be supporting that country. Sure, it can.

You said that Taiwan was never a part of the PRC, which is another misrepresentation, since I never said that it was, and it was, in fact, part of China immediately before the revolution.You are the one misrepresenting, as I never said that you said it was.

As noted above, you started out by saying that, "Proselytizing is an integral part of religion." Judaism and Buddhism were pointed out to you as examples of non-prozelytising religions, which you ignored at first, then, without reference to what had gone before you changed to saying, "the main focus in many religions, and a large part of most others." (post 136). That was a correction of something that you said, not changing what I said. If you were really interested in an honest discussion, you wouldn't claim that I am "changing" my position simply because I make two different, but consistent, statements. You're not interested in understanding my point of view, you're only interested in attacking me.

And all of this is to defend the idea that China doesn't violate religious rights.

(Furthermore, I always thought that the main part of almost all religions was to be a good person and not harm others, but I could be wrong about that.)And according to some religions, being a good person means converting others, and leaving someone unconverted hurts them.

In essence, the intelligence was completely unreliable, and in some case totally fabricated, such as Tony Blair's 45 minute deployment statement, or the sale of Uranium to Iraq by Nigeria.That is was unreliable and that there was none at all are two different statements.

There was no actual evidence that Iraq had WMD, That is incorrect.

although they certainly had had them in the past, That is itself evidence.

I have no problem with you calling me rude or saying that you believe me to have lied, but the POS was utterly unnecesarry. Insults are often the last resort of those backed into a corner.You are the one who chose to engage in insults. I am simply telling you that now that you've stooped to personal attacks, I have no respect for you.

If a country is merely masquerading as Communist then the doctrines of Communism don't actually apply to it. As I pointed out. No, you said that they aren't RELEVANT. You seriously don't think that the doctrines of Communism aren't relevant to a country masquerading as Communist? Your Halloweed costumes must be really bizarre.
"Hey, spiders have eight legs."
"I'm not a spider."
"I know. But it appears that you attempted to have a spider costume."
"So why did you say that I'm a spider?"
"I didn't."
"Yes, you did."
"When?"
"When you said spiders have eight legs."
"So how did you get that I was calling you a spider?"
"You implied that I was a spider."
"If that was your claim, why didn't you say so? I wasn't implying that you were a spider. Simply that you were masquereding as a spider."
"The number of legs on a spider don't apply to someone merely masquerading as a spider."
"???"

You really don't see how your behavior is incredibly annoying?

In which case the US doesn't have religious freedom, because Christians aren't allowed to stone rapists or insolent children and Muslims aren't allowed to summarily kill apostates.You're being completely disingenuous. There's a difference between passing secular laws that happen to prohibit certain religious practices, and banning religious practices. I don't believe that you don't understand what I mean; I think you are deliberately being pedantic just to be annoying. I said that rleigious freedom refers to being able to practice one's religion. I never said that it refers to being able to practice any part of one's religion that one wants. You're basically saying that if all A are B, then all B are A, which is a ridiculous fallacy.

If you didn't use the word "all", but if you didn't mean all religions then you should have qualified your statement.I didn't say "religions", I said "religion".

The Geneva convention defines a prisoner of war as a combatant who has been captured by an opposing force. Pretty simple definition really.What part of "cite?" do you not understand? Do you think that just posting a bunch of links and claiming that they say things that they do not, in fact, say, constitutes an argument? Have you actually LOOKED at the GC, or are you basing your claims on what other empty-headed leftists have told you it says?

Even if there's nobody to sign such a surrender? Wow, there are a lot of wars that technically have never ended.Do we still have POW from them? Part of the definition of a POW (which you apparently didn't bother actually reading) is that they are part of a well-defined command structure. If there's no one to sign a surrender, then there aren't any POWs. You might want to actually learn about a subject before trying to discuss it.

No, they're acts of terrorism. You seem to be confusing the "war on terror" with an actual war.Fallacy of false dichotony. To say that the Taliban is not at war with the US is a statement of breathtaking ignorance.

This is a previously unused term which allows the US to deny that the Geneva convention applies, and also deny that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights applies. In other words, the US found a way to deny them any rights, just by creating a new classification for them.Perhaps the term is new, but the classification is not. The concept of an illegal combatant has been around for centuries. In fact, during the Civil War, the CSA declared all black soldiers to be illegal combatants.

This classification is not recognized by international law, under which someone is either a combatant, or a non-combatant, as defined by the Geneva convention (see link above).Several days ago, you were just ignorant. Now that I've corrected you, and you continue to insist on making statements which you have had ample opportunity to understand are false, you're beyond ignorant. The GC quite clearly puts restrictions on what combatants qualify as POWs, which you would know if you had actually read it. Furthermore, you insist on equivocating between "combatant" and "POW", even though I have pointed out that they are not the same.

If it applies then it requires that they be charged with a crime or released. Cite?

What part of "cite?" are YOU having difficulty with? Is there something about "You need to provide a quote that actually says that" that is beyond your comprehension?

[quote]It doesn't have to be immediate, they are allowed to detain and question them. You claimed that the treaty "requires them to be charged with a crime and tried, within a reasonable time". Were they released "within a reasonable time".

Several, I listed three websites detailing the history of Taiwan in that post and four earlier in this post.What part of "But, of course, you have no QUOTE to support that claim" do you not understand? I'm civil with people who are civil with me, but calling me a liar and completely ignoring my posts does not qualify as "civil". You're really acting like an idiot.

A very important point, not a semantic game. The rockets weren't fired at Taiwan, or even towards Taiwan. They were fired at a target area almost 40km off the coast of Taiwan.I see. So China is allowed to fire rockets 40km away from Taiwan, but US planes aren't allowed to come even close to Chinese airspace? China has thousands of miles of coastline. What reason would they have to pick this spot to "test" the rockets, but to intimidate Taiwan? If the launch site, the target site, and Taiwan were on the same line, in that order, then the rockets were fired towards Taiwan.

And if you're going to criticise me for a spelling mistake and the odd misplaced apostropheOdd misplaced apostrophe? The mistakes are quite common.

then please try to ensure that your own spelling and grammar are 100% correct. What a silly excuse.

Of course, even if they were it would still be a petty ad hom.An ad hominem is when someone tries to substitute personal attacks for a counterargument, not when someone corrects soemone else's mistakes. Did you not know that, or do you just not like people pointing out your faults?

The US could have petitioned the UN to replace their troops with those of other nations. I'm sure that other NATO forces would have been happy to take over.You mean like France, which was making side deals with Iraq, was interfering with the sanction regime, and tried to block the invasion to protect its own interests?

Your parrallel was drawn between an ongoing conflict with no ceasefire and no cessation of violence, and a stable situation with no ongoing conflict, an unviolated ceasefire and a clear cessation of violence. It wasn't a stable situation, the ceasefire was violated, and none of this was part of your initial objection, so who's really moving the goalposts? You seemed to be saying that the only reason for an attack can be something that is happening AT THAT VERY MOMENT, and I provided a counterexample. Now you're trying to introduce a bunch of side issues.

The actual evidence didn't, I've detailed why above.You don't seem to understand the difference between absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

That must be very labour intensive and rather tricky in rural areas.I never said that everyone in China is constantly monitored. I just said that China constantly monitors people in China. I'm sure that at this very moment, someone in China is being monitored. That's what it literally means. If you want to discuss what my statement implies, rather than what it literally says, then you should say so.

[Meadmaker]

How so?

He has questioned whether parents ought to have the right to indoctrinate their children with religion.

Personally, I don't feel like a criminal. I really don't want guys like him telling me that I ought to be treated like one.

[Art Vandelay]

Certainly, to some extent, indoctrinating one's children is violating their rights. That is, there surely is a point at which it goes beyond the prerogatives of parenting. Questioning whether something should be legal is not the same thing as saying that one wishes it were illegal, saying that one wishes something were illegal is not quite the same thing as calling for it to be illegal, and making indoctrination of children illegal is not clearly oppressing religion.

[Meadmaker]

...and making indoctrination of children illegal is not clearly oppressing religion.

Seems pretty darned clear to me.

[RandFan]

Certainly, to some extent, indoctrinating one's children is violating their rights. That is, there surely is a point at which it goes beyond the prerogatives of parenting. Questioning whether something should be legal is not the same thing as saying that one wishes it were illegal, saying that one wishes something were illegal is not quite the same thing as calling for it to be illegal, and making indoctrination of children illegal is not clearly oppressing religion. I agree with you in principle and I wish there was a way to get parents not to indoctrinate children. I also agree that wishing something were illegal is not the same thing as wishing something were illegal.

[joobz]

Certainly, to some extent, indoctrinating one's children is violating their rights.
to what extent? what is the allowable indoctrine program?

That is, there surely is a point at which it goes beyond the prerogatives of parenting.
You want to limit what I can teach my kids? How can you tell me what is allowable and what isn't? seems that this is the same plan that the taliban and other theocratic societies have tried to do.

Questioning whether something should be legal is not the same thing as saying that one wishes it were illegal, saying that one wishes something were illegal is not quite the same thing as calling for it to be illegal,
no, but one leads to the other.
and making indoctrination of children illegal is not clearly oppressing religion.[/quote]
really? I don't see how. "indoctrination of children" could be seen as clearly opressing religion, science, political freedom, philosophy, vegetarianism...
it all depends on who gets to define what "indoctrination of children" means.

[Darat]

He has questioned whether parents ought to have the right to indoctrinate their children with religion.

...snip....

How is that "oppression of religion"?

[Darat]

...snip...

You want to limit what I can teach my kids? How can you tell me what is allowable and what isn't? seems that this is the same plan that the taliban and other theocratic societies have tried to do.

...snip...

They are not "your" children in the sense of being your belongings - they are potential members of society. To educate children with facts, the tools of being able to think for themselves and so on cannot be compared to the religious indoctrination that most religions (I am aware of) attempt to instill in children. "Religious indoctrination" is not "education" even though both may employ somewhat similar methods to achieve their end results.

[Monkey Napoleon]

Let's assume that the point the article is trying to get across is true (I'm highly skeptical, but for the sake of argument).

I think it's been said before, but the extremely high death tolls in the wars of the 20th century are almost certainly a direct result of mankind becoming more proficient at slaughtering each other. During the Crusades, all they had were swords and arrows. Given modern firearms, ICBMs, airborne chemical weapons, long range bombers, and the same greatly inflated worldwide populations of the 20th (read: access to the same numbers), it's not hard to imagine pre-20th deathtolls climbing to staggering numbers given the ideology behind those conflicts.

EDIT: Almost forgot. I find it amusing how the author claims that you can't blame a religion when it's followers decide to kill en masse (by saying that they weren't actually religously motived) yet he is making the exact claim about atheism.

[sphenisc]

I also agree that wishing something were illegal is not the same thing as wishing something were illegal.

The subtly of the distinction escapes me..

[RandFan]

RandFan:

I also agree that wishing something were illegal is not the same thing as wishing something were illegal.

The subtly of the distinction escapes me..:D Kids, don't try this at home.

[joobz]

They are not "your" children in the sense of being your belongings - they are potential members of society. To educate children with facts, the tools of being able to think for themselves and so on cannot be compared to the religious indoctrination that most religions (I am aware of) attempt to instill in children. "Religious indoctrination" is not "education" even though both may employ somewhat similar methods to achieve their end results.

Well, of course you say that, you value logic, reason and knowledge. A family of artists might not so much. They may fight the notion that their children must learn the "establishment's rules."

And you are right, children are not the parent's property. But neither are they the property of the state. Society steps in when there is clear physical abuse. Society steps in when there is clear neglect. But to regulate thought in the homes seems to extend beyond what I would consider a free society.

[Darat]

Well, of course you say that, you value logic, reason and knowledge. A family of artists might not so much. They may fight the notion that their children must learn the "establishment's rules."


Why should any of us give one hoot for what parents of a child want if it stops the child being educated about the world?



And you are right, children are not the parent's property. But neither are they the property of the state. Society steps in when there is clear physical abuse. Society steps in when there is clear neglect. But to regulate thought in the homes seems to extend beyond what I would consider a free society.

Who wants to regulate thought "in the home"? I just don't want children mentally and physically abused because their parents happen to believe in a particular faith.

[joobz]

Why should any of us give one hoot for what parents of a child want if it stops the child being educated about the world?
I agree. Then why do you care if they chose to enforce ideas on them you don't agree with?




Who wants to regulate thought "in the home"? I just don't want children mentally and physically abused because their parents happen to believe in a particular faith.
Where's the line?
Physical abuse I already mentioned and is being dealt with. Even sever "mental abuse" I agree with. But why is that only faith based?

[Zygar]

:D Kids, don't try this at home.

Ouch! I think I twisted my amygdala.

[Meadmaker]

How is that "oppression of religion"?

Let's see. It would be legal for me to practice religion, but not legal for me to teach it to my children, and you are asking how that is oppression of relgion. Right? I just want to make sure I've got the question right.

[thaiboxerken]

Telling people that they shouldn't indoctrinate their children into religion is a far different thing than changing laws to ensure that they don't.

[Meadmaker]

Telling people that they shouldn't indoctrinate their children into religion is a far different thing than changing laws to ensure that they don't.


Calling indoctrination "child abuse" is pretty much the same thing as asking for a change in the laws to ensure they don't.

[Dark Jaguar]

Not really. I can say someone is rude but at the same time be against laws establishing the abolishment of rudeness.

[Meadmaker]

Child abuse is illegal. Rudeness isn't.

(And Dawkins has made the point explicitly, for example in the Wired article on the new atheism, asking whether or not we ought to consider societal intervention to prevent religious indoctrination.)

[joobz]

Telling people that they shouldn't indoctrinate their children into religion is a far different thing than changing laws to ensure that they don't.

There is a big difference, but that's not what's been advocated.
I've read "should be made illegal"

[thaiboxerken]

So Dawkins asked if we should have societal intervention and you think he's actually advocating changing laws? Societal intervention can come in many forms and also, asking a question isn't advocation.

[Meadmaker]

Of course he isn't advocating changing laws. That would brand him as a member of the lunatic fringe right away.

On the other hand, he is calling religious indoctrination "child abuse". He is saying that it violates the rights of children. He is saying that it is not a right enjoyed by parents. He is saying that it is worse than things that are already illegal. He is saying that society ought to consider doing something about it.

If you take him seriously, what else could he possibly be saying? He isn't prepared to actually advocate an explicit change in the law, but it's obvious that the only reason he wouldn't do that is because there's no political support for it. Meanwhile, he's working to build that support.

[Darat]

I agree. Then why do you care if they chose to enforce ideas on them you don't agree with?


Whether I agree with an idea or not is irrelevant - it is whether their indoctrination stops the child being educated. Which is what religious indoctrination does.



Where's the line?
Physical abuse I already mentioned and is being dealt with. Even sever "mental abuse" I agree with. But why is that only faith based?

No idea what you mean.

[Darat]

Of course he isn't advocating changing laws. That would brand him as a member of the lunatic fringe right away.

On the other hand, he is calling religious indoctrination "child abuse". He is saying that it violates the rights of children. He is saying that it is not a right enjoyed by parents. He is saying that it is worse than things that are already illegal. He is saying that society ought to consider doing something about it.

If you take him seriously, what else could he possibly be saying? He isn't prepared to actually advocate an explicit change in the law, but it's obvious that the only reason he wouldn't do that is because there's no political support for it. Meanwhile, he's working to build that support.

His arguments have nothing to do with politics so why you would ascribe political motivations to his actions is beyond me.

It is a fact that in societies like the USA and the UK claiming something has a religious purpose or "religious reason" (that's an oxymoron I know) often gains it exemption from established laws and what we consider acceptable behaviour.

[Darat]

Calling indoctrination "child abuse" is pretty much the same thing as asking for a change in the laws to ensure they don't.

No it isn't, nor is recognising that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse the same.

[joobz]

Whether I agree with an idea or not is irrelevant - it is whether their indoctrination stops the child being educated. Which is what religious indoctrination does.
So as long as you agree with the education being given, it isn't indoctrination?


Originally Posted by Darat http://forums.randi.org/helloworld/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2167066#post2167066)
Who wants to regulate thought "in the home"? I just don't want children mentally and physically abused because their parents happen to believe in a particular faith.
Where's the line?
Physical abuse I already mentioned and is being dealt with. Even sever "mental abuse" I agree with. But why is that only faith based?
No idea what you mean.

Sorry for the unclear comment.
Why does mental/physical abuse come only from a faith? Child abuse occurs for multiple reasons. I'd rather use laws to block all of them.

your policy to fight the indoctrination is akin to preventing all people from listening to the white album because manson got his ideas from it.

[joobz]

So Dawkins asked if we should have societal intervention and you think he's actually advocating changing laws? Societal intervention can come in many forms and also, asking a question isn't advocation.
Oh that's a cop out and you know it.

"I'm not saying we need to kill black people. I'm just ASKING if we should kill black people."

Laws are the primary form of societal intervention. And I'm against anyone coming by and telling me or you how to raise my kids. If there is true evidence of abuse, that's one thing. But to teach a religion and call that abuse, well... That's just a stretch of the imagination.

[joobz]

His arguments have nothing to do with politics so why you would ascribe political motivations to his actions is beyond me.

It is a fact that in societies like the USA and the UK claiming something has a religious purpose or "religious reason" (that's an oxymoron I know) often gains it exemption from established laws and what we consider acceptable behaviour.
Can you give examples? If you state the faith based initiatives and the like, I agree. I want to remove those. But I don't see what that has to do with societal intervention in child indoctrination.

[thaiboxerken]

This was posted in another thread pertaining to the same subject.

None of this accurately captures Dawkins' argument. Even some of the basic points of facts are wrong--for example, Dawkins was raised an Anglican, not a Catholic. And I believe he speaks of being molested when he was nine, not nineteen.

If you read what Dawkins has actually written on this topic (for example, at his web site (http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins)), it becomes clear that he's making a few points, none of which strike me as incorrect: we inadequately discriminate between sexual abuses, the harm caused by at least some sexual abuse is of the same kind as harm caused by religion, and in all cases we severely punish sexual abuse (where we find it) and fail to address the harm caused by religion at all. None of this is to say that we should consider Dawkins' testimony expert, or that we should ban religion, etc. We might even defend our current policy in practical terms, but the criticism is still interesting.

The conclusions vaulted to in this thread are astonishing, and we now have at least some reason to believe that they're incorrect. All of this supports Dawkins argument: there's a taboo in our society against any kind of criticism of religion, and even self-described skeptics will just invent things to be angry about if they can't find some sound reason to object.

[thaiboxerken]

Oh that's a cop out and you know it.

"I'm not saying we need to kill black people. I'm just ASKING if we should kill black people."

"I'm asking if we should kill black people." could also be a question to try and invoke thought that it isn't right to kill black people. A question is a question, if you want to invent reasons to not like criticisms of religion, try harder.


Laws are the primary form of societal intervention.

And? Just because laws are the primary method doesn't mean that changing laws is being suggested. It's interesting how you people criticize Dawkins on things he didn't say, but things you think he's implying but isn't.

But to teach a religion and call that abuse, well... That's just a stretch of the imagination.

Why? Indoctrinating kids into religion is crippling their ability to think critically and intelligently in that subject. It introduces magical thinking and suspension of thought in preference of garbage. It's this faith-based thought process (or lack of thought process) that leads people to do idiotic things, like give all their money to a church or blow up buildings.

[joobz]

"I'm asking if we should kill black people." could also be a question to try and invoke thought that it isn't right to kill black people. A question is a question, if you want to invent reasons to not like criticisms of religion, try harder.
you are making a copout argument. A question was asked. I gave you my answer. You then retort, "Hey, I'm just asking. That's a big difference than actually doing it." Which doesn't really address the issue at all. It seems like you'd rather not have my views, which goes against the whole claim that asking this question is meant to simply stimulate a discussion.

And, don't strawman the argument. I'm not "inventing reaons" to avoid religous criticism. You'll notice that I've been rather critical of religion myself in other threads.

The issue here (as I see it) isn't a defense for religion. It's a defense for personal freedom. Don't tell me what to do in my home and I won't tell you what to do in yours.

I respect your desire to protect children. I too want to make sure they are raised healthy and happy and free of harm. But I am not at all convinced that religion IS the sole source of child trauma, like you say it is.



And? Just because laws are the primary method doesn't mean that changing laws is being suggested. It's interesting how you people criticize Dawkins on things he didn't say, but things you think he's implying but isn't.
You people? I'm not discussing Dawkins. I'm discussing the concept of "stopping the indoctrination of children". I simply think that's a overzealous concept. It's like performing surgery with a chainsaw. I don't care who came up with it.



Why? Indoctrinating kids into religion is crippling their ability to think critically and intelligently in that subject. Possibly. But what is the approved home based curriculum that I'm allowed to teach my children. I don't want to be invoilation of any societal doctrines.:)

It introduces magical thinking and suspension of thought in preference of garbage. depending on what and how it is taught, yes.

It's this faith-based thought process (or lack of thought process) that leads people to do idiotic things, like give all their money to a church or blow up buildings.
It can also lead to charitible works, inspirations to do amazing works of art, to ensire someone to be a loving dad/wife/lover, to become a productive member to better serve whatever faith they have.

attack the abusers of faith. Not all people of faith.

[Darat]

So as long as you agree with the education being given, it isn't indoctrination?


No idea where you got that idea from.



Sorry for the unclear comment.
Why does mental/physical abuse come only from a faith?

...snip...


Who said it only comes from a faith?


Child abuse occurs for multiple reasons. I'd rather use laws to block all of them.

your policy to fight the indoctrination is akin to preventing all people from listening to the white album because manson got his ideas from it.

Since you don't seem to be responding to what I've actually posted I suspect your analogy has nothing to do with any argument I've posted.

[joobz]

No idea where you got that idea from.

Who said it only comes from a faith?

Since you don't seem to be responding to what I've actually posted I suspect your analogy has nothing to do with any argument I've posted.
You claim that education and indoctrination are not the same thing. How is that? You claim that only "facts" are taught, but is philosphy a fact based education? What about areas of science that were wrong and the "fact" wasn't a fact. (only 8 planets in our solar system now, last I checked).

I state that your definition of education is artifically narrow and suits your needs. Education is a broader concept that what you list and includes the philisophical and moral upbringing of a child. I am stating that in order for a prevention of child indoctrination to work, we must have an approved list of materials to teach children in the homes.

My analogy is dead on and deals directly with the issue.
A ban on child indoctrination is the exact same idea as a ban on a book you don't agree with. It would limit freedom of the family of the individual. I am against any action toward that goal.

And so people don't confuse my intent, this isn't for religion alone. I also will argue adamantly against anyone who feels that we should FORCE home education of religion of a child. That we should stop the atheist upbringing of children.

[Meadmaker]

Why? Indoctrinating kids into religion is crippling their ability to think critically and intelligently in that subject.


If you mean that "indoctrination" by definition reduces the ability to think critically, you're right. It doesn't matter if you are indoctrinating into religion, or out of it. The Soviet Union was full of schools that indoctrinated people with both atheism and communism, and I'm sure that their schools didn't put out a great crop of critical thinkers.

I'm sending my kid to a Jewish school. I'm doing so in large part because I think they will do a better job of teaching critical thinking skills than the secular public schools.

Some people on JREF like to say that "critical thinking" is only possible for atheists. They're wrong, and they prove they are wrong by making the claim.

[thaiboxerken]

you are making a copout argument. A question was asked. I gave you my answer. You then retort, "Hey, I'm just asking"

It's not a cop-out argument. A question is just a question. What you believe is implied is subjectively your of your own judgment.


The issue here (as I see it) isn't a defense for religion. It's a defense for personal freedom. Don't tell me what to do in my home and I won't tell you what to do in yours.

I kind of agree, as long as destroying the lives of others isn't involved.


I respect your desire to protect children. I too want to make sure they are raised healthy and happy and free of harm. But I am not at all convinced that religion IS the sole source of child trauma, like you say it is.

I didn't say that is is the sole source of child trauma, neither has anyone else. However, indoctrination into religion is ONE way to retard a child from growing to their fullest potential as a citizen and productive person.



You people? I'm not discussing Dawkins.

Then why mention Dawkins?


Possibly. But what is the approved home based curriculum that I'm allowed to teach my children. I don't want to be invoilation of any societal doctrines.:)

Probably. There are some approved curriculums for home-schooling children. What's in discussion is religion and how it cripples children, nothing else.


It can also lead to charitible works, inspirations to do amazing works of art, to ensire someone to be a loving dad/wife/lover, to become a productive member to better serve whatever faith they have.

It only leads to these "good" things if people believe they are going to have some magical reward. If faith is the crutch that people use to do good, when that crutch is broken, bad things can really happen.


attack the abusers of faith. Not all people of faith.

I'm not attacking people of faith. I'm attacking faith itself.

[thaiboxerken]

Some people on JREF like to say that "critical thinking" is only possible for atheists. They're wrong, and they prove they are wrong by making the claim.

They are partially correct. There is no logical line of thinking that leads to believing in any gods.

[Meadmaker]

I'm not attacking people of faith. I'm attacking faith itself.

Ken hates the sin, but loves the sinner.

[thaiboxerken]

Wrong. I think of religion/faith as the predator and the faithful as the prey. The faithful are victims.

[joobz]

It's not a cop-out argument. A question is just a question. What you believe is implied is subjectively your of your own judgment. Then why mention, "hey it's just a question?" Like I said. I'm addressing the question. I'm not trying to halt discussion, I'm giving you the reasons why I think it's a bad idea.



I kind of agree, as long as destroying the lives of others isn't involved.
Fully agree. I can see the disconnect we have is you view all faith teaching as harmful. I do not. The question is, which side do we error on, personal freedom or safety? Kinda like the issue, do we allow warrentless wiretaps to improve our safety?



I didn't say that is is the sole source of child trauma, neither has anyone else. However, indoctrination into religion is ONE way to retard a child from growing to their fullest potential as a citizen and productive person.
It is a way to retard a child. (I like your choice of words). :)
But there are other ways in which to do the same. Parents who instist their children become doctors and only doctors. They won't consider anything else. It's a form of oppressive indoctrination that can have the exact same retardation effects faith has. I've seen it destroy a kids will.

But because that can happen, does that mean we stop any parent from telling their kids they should be doctors? Again, I think the approach is a little extremist.


Then why mention Dawkins?
You must be confusing me with someone else. I never mentioned Dawkins in this discussion.



Probably. There are some approved curriculums for home-schooling children. What's in discussion is religion and how it cripples children, nothing else. education and religious upbringing are not seperable. One teaches something you approve of, the other doesn't.

It only leads to these "good" things if people believe they are going to have some magical reward. If faith is the crutch that people use to do good, when that crutch is broken, bad things can really happen. Bad things can happen under a lot of circumstances. You're not going to prevent problems in the family by eliminating faith. You may eliminate a process used to create problems, but there are other ways to inflict damage on children and you can't remove them all.




I'm not attacking people of faith. I'm attacking faith itself.Duly noted.

[thaiboxerken]

Then why mention, "hey it's just a question?" Like I said. I'm addressing the question. I'm not trying to halt discussion, I'm giving you the reasons why I think it's a bad idea.

Seems like you denigrated the person asking the question to me. You've responded that they are trying to oppress religion.


Fully agree. I can see the disconnect we have is you view all faith teaching as harmful. I do not. The question is, which side do we error on, personal freedom or safety? Kinda like the issue, do we allow warrentless wiretaps to improve our safety?

I think all faith teaching is harmful, and to help prevent it, I suggest we tell people that it is. We educate them on why it's harmful and show the evidence that it is. I don't advocate passing of any laws.


It is a way to retard a child. (I like your choice of words). :)
But there are other ways in which to do the same. Parents who instist their children become doctors and only doctors. They won't consider anything else. It's a form of oppressive indoctrination that can have the exact same retardation effects faith has. I've seen it destroy a kids will.

And again, it's this kind of indoctrination that I think society should speak out against, not necessarily pass laws on.


But because that can happen, does that mean we stop any parent from telling their kids they should be doctors? Again, I think the approach is a little extremist.

I think we should tell their parents that it's wrong and nothing more.

education and religious upbringing are not seperable. One teaches something you approve of, the other doesn't.

One can be educated without any religious upbringing. You are wrong.


Bad things can happen under a lot of circumstances. You're not going to prevent problems in the family by eliminating faith. You may eliminate a process used to create problems, but there are other ways to inflict damage on children and you can't remove them all.

Yes, it will eliminate one process, a powerful one that has caused much havok on the world throughout history. Acknowledging that religion isn't the only source of "evil" motivation doesn't excuse religion at all. Religion has no useful function in society anymore and it only serves to harm.

[joobz]

Seems like you denigrated the person asking the question to me. You've responded that they are trying to oppress religion.
if you feel being called on opressing religion is denigrating, then i guess i was. I was just stating that to start any ban on "indoctrination" is religious oppression. If I remember correctly. the original post I commented to had actually used the words "Illegal", which goes to my whole point.



I think all faith teaching is harmful, and to help prevent it, I suggest we tell people that it is. We educate them on why it's harmful and show the evidence that it is. I don't advocate passing of any laws.

And again, it's this kind of indoctrination that I think society should speak out against, not necessarily pass laws on.

Then we agree. I see nothing wrong with you stating your views. Just as I see nothing wrong with others stating theirs.
ANd I agree that dogmatic views of anything can become hazardous. But I do not know if "can become" is enough of a reason to make public actions against it.




I think we should tell their parents that it's wrong and nothing more.
ok. But that's the view I'm not against. I'm against public actions. law passing. those things. If you wish to only speak out. then state as such. but when language like "should be illegal", I will speak up.

Just like i'd speak up about making atheism illegal.


One can be educated without any religious upbringing. You are wrong.
You missunderstand my point. You can educate without religion, but to teach religion IS education. You might not agree with what is taught, but it is a lesson. As such, to prevent religion being taught IS controling in house education. Not everything taught are facts. There are opinions taught as well. Just look at literature courses.



Yes, it will eliminate one process, a powerful one that has caused much havok on the world throughout history. Acknowledging that religion isn't the only source of "evil" motivation doesn't excuse religion at all. Religion has no useful function in society anymore and it only serves to harm.
government is another powerful force for harm, do we eliminate all governments?

You are an atheist. It makes you happy. Not everybody is you.

[Meadmaker]

I saw a bumper sticker that reminded me of Dawkins. (I did mention Dawkins.) You've probably seen it yourself. It said:

"Meat is murder"

I'm sure if you stopped the owner of the car to which that bumper sticker was attached, he would say that he was trying to make people think. He would probably say that he didn't want to pass laws against eating meat; he just wanted to educate people and raise consciousness.

Horsehockey! If there was any political will at all to ban meat sales or animal slaughter, he would sign right up.

I feel the same way when Dawkins calls religious education child abuse. He knows he can't outlaw it, because no one will support such a ban. However, I am confident that if atheism ever becomes the majority, he would gladly support any steps he could to prevent child abuse.

That goes for everyone here who has chimed in in support of that position. Sure, you aren't advocating laws that label me a child abuser and treat me as such. Why should you? What would be the point? It wouldn't pass. Nevertheless, if I take your words at face value, you think I'm a child abuser, and I am confident that if you could put a stop to the abuse, you would.

[thaiboxerken]

So you admit that you are a christian, once and for all?

[Meadmaker]

So you admit that you are a christian, once and for all?

I hope you were laughing when you typed that.

Just in case you are really, really, thick headed, and really, really don't get it.
I send my kid to a Jewish school. That's Jewish. Jewish. Judischen. It's the opposity of goyish. Baruch atah adonnai and all that. Not Christian. Jewish. No priests. No ministers. Just rabbis.

And since I am exposing my kid to religious education, (That's "religious". Not "Christian") Dawkins says I am abusing him.

I myself am not really Jewish. I was raised Catholic, but gave God up for Lent about half a lifetime ago. I think God is pretty much an invention, but I think religion has value, despite being fictitious. I do participate in Jewish rituals, and I am a member of a Temple.

And Happy Chanukah. Don't burn the latkes.

[thaiboxerken]

So you're teaching your child to be jewish?

[Meadmaker]

So you're teaching your child to be jewish?

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is more difficult. You might say I'm teaching him to be Jewish, but I'm not teaching him to believe in God. On the other hand, his mother and his school are teaching him both, and I'm not interfering.

When he's older, he'll make up his own mind about both God and religion, and I don't really have a dog in that fight. Whatever he decides is fine with me. I'm providing him with enough information to make an informed decision when he's old enough to do so.

[Art Vandelay]

The question is, which side do we error on, personal freedom or safety?Err. And are you acknowledging that there is safety at risk?

education and religious upbringing are not seperable. One teaches something you approve of, the other doesn't. Separable. And they are. Religion isn't just that which one doesn't approve of.

You're not going to prevent problems in the family by eliminating faith.Or by eliminating sex abuse. So should we not try?

I was just stating that to start any ban on "indoctrination" is religious oppression. Really? Any ban? Prohibiting people from teaching their kids that Jews are evil and should be killed is religious oppression?

You can educate without religion, but to teach religion IS education. Not necessarily.

There are opinions taught as well. Just look at literature courses.Such as what?

That goes for everyone here who has chimed in in support of that position. Well, you haven't really told us what that position is, just what your impression of what it was, so I've been operating on the belief that the benefit of the doubt should be given to him.

Some people on JREF like to say that "critical thinking" is only possible for atheists. They're wrong, and they prove they are wrong by making the claim.Certainly, most forms of religion are contrary to critical thinking.

You claim that only "facts" are taught, but is philosphy a fact based education?It should be.

What about areas of science that were wrong and the "fact" wasn't a fact. (only 8 planets in our solar system now, last I checked). The definition of "planet" has changed. Doesn't mean the previous definition wasn't a fact.

Education is a broader concept that what you list and includes the philisophical and moral upbringing of a child.If that's what you mean by "education", then of course some forms of "educating" should be illegal. "Educating" a six year old on how to give a blow job, for instance.

I am stating that in order for a prevention of child indoctrination to work, we must have an approved list of materials to teach children in the homes. To prevent sex abuse, must we have a list of all contact that is legal?

My analogy is dead on and deals directly with the issue.There are just so many things wrong with your analogy. For one thing, Manson didn't get his ideas from the White Album. He got his ideas from his psychosis, and projected them onto the White Album. A better analogy would be if a kid read a book on bombs, and made one himself.

A ban on child indoctrination is the exact same idea as a ban on a book you don't agree with. No, it's not. Besides the fact that "a book you don't agree with" is too wide a category, banning a book prohibits adults from reading the book. Adults can indoctrinate other willing adults all they want.

It would limit freedom of the family of the individual. I am against any action toward that goal.What about the freedom to engage in sex abuse?

That we should stop the atheist upbringing of children.There is no such thing. Everyone is born atheist. There is no need to "teach" it. Speaking of having an "atheist upbringing" is like talking about having an "aMexican upbringing".

[Meadmaker]

Really? Any ban? Prohibiting people from teaching their kids that Jews are evil and should be killed is religious oppression?


If Dawkins were speaking out against killing Jews, you would have a point. Unfortunately, Dawkins isn't speaking out against killing Jews. He is speaking out against being Jews.

[Darat]

You claim that education and indoctrination are not the same thing. How is that? ...snip...

Just by what the words mean in everyday use i.e. education is about teaching people to think for themselves, teaching them how to understand the world about them and so on, indoctrination is about instilling a certain set of beliefs/doctrines etc. in someone.

For example here is the definition of indoctrination from the Encarta dictionary:


cause to believe something: to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the aim of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions
Microsoft® Encarta® 2006. © 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.


As I said sometimes they can use the similar or even the same techniques but the end points are very different.

[Darat]

...snip...

My analogy is dead on and deals directly with the issue.

...snip...



No it doesn't - it does not address any of the points I have made in this thread regarding the right of a child to not be abused by its guardians.

[Jekyll]

If Dawkins were speaking out against killing Jews, you would have a point. Unfortunately, Dawkins isn't speaking out against killing Jews. He is speaking out against being Jews.

No he's not. He's speaking out against forcing people (of what ever age) to be Jewish, or Muslim, or Christian, or of having to put out milk in the night so that fairies don't come and steel their soul.

He's not, and this is quite a fine line, arguing that you teaching your children what you believe (or what you don't believe your case) is abuse but indoctrinating them in it, forcing them to accept it uncritically and refusing to allow them to seek alternatives is.

[joobz]

Just by what the words mean in everyday use i.e. education is about teaching people to think for themselves, teaching them how to understand the world about them and so on, indoctrination is about instilling a certain set of beliefs/doctrines etc. in someone.

I don't want to get into the whole argument by definition game, but education does not inherently imply teaching to think for themselves. Education is the imparting of knowledge. that's it. a subset of education can be indoctrination, but it is not seperate. you wish to impart free thinking, that's an indoctrination as well.
It fits with the definition you provided.
to teach somebody a belief, doctrine, or ideology thoroughly and systematically, especially with the aim of discouraging independent thought or the acceptance of other opinions (emphasis mine). Teaching independant thought doesn't preclude indoctrination. You can be indoctrinated into thinking this is important.




...snip...

My analogy is dead on and deals directly with the issue.

...snip...


No it doesn't - it does not address any of the points I have made in this thread regarding the right of a child to not be abused by its guardians.
I know quite clearly what your points are
1.) Indoctrination isn't education
I disagree. They are interrelated. The difference is bias the observer has.

2.) Children are not property of the parents, they are individuals..
True, but neither are they full members of society. We set laws and limits to what children are allowed to do. We have laws that recognize a child's actions are different than adults and are not treated as such. They are not property but they are family. I view the freedom of action within family as superceding the desires of society. As long as no form of physical or sexual abuse occurs they parents have say.

3.) Indoctrination is child abuse
Severe forms of it, yes-it can bleed into abuse. But to teach a religion and instill a faith in a child isn't. You wish to paint a broad brush stroke and claim it is for the benefit of the child. It is like saying, we have car accidents, so to prevent them I wish to ban cars. It is an extremist position. In order for a halt on indoctrination to work, someone has to decide when something is not education and is indoctrination. why is that someone you?

BTW, You snipped out the rather important points of my comments.
A ban on child indoctrination is the exact same idea as a ban on a book you don't agree with. It would limit freedom of the family of the individual. I am against any action toward that goal.

And so people don't confuse my intent, this isn't for religion alone. I also will argue adamantly against anyone who feels that we should FORCE home education of religion of a child. That we should stop the atheist upbringing of children.

[Jekyll]

It is like saying, we have car accidents, so to prevent them I wish to ban cars. It is an extremist position. In order for a halt on indoctrination to work, someone has to decide when something is not education and is indoctrination. why is that someone you?

I'm confused by your analogy. If indoctrination is car crashes, what are the cars we're trying to ban meant to be?

[Darat]

I don't want to get into the whole argument by definition game,...snip...


Then why do so?

[Darat]

...snip...

I know quite clearly what your points are
1.) Indoctrination isn't education
I disagree. They are interrelated. The difference is bias the observer has.


No the difference is not bias by the observer. One (as I showed) is about "discouraging independent thought" the other is about "encouraging independent thought". They could not be more different, even if they do employ some of the same methods.

You seem to be confusing methods with the end point.


2.) Children are not property of the parents, ...snip...
True, but neither are they full members of society.


And I have never claimed they are.


...snip... They are not property but they are family.

...snip...


Which means what?


3.) Indoctrination is child abuse
Severe forms of it, yes-it can bleed into abuse.


We disagree - all indoctrination (remember how I use the word) is a form of child abuse.

But to teach a religion


If the "teaching" is in fact indoctrination it is abuse. Religion can be taught without it being indoctrination.


and instill a faith in a child isn't.


"Faith" in general use when used in conjunction with "religion" usually means something like "belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof " is this how you are using it?


You wish to paint a broad brush stroke and claim it is for the benefit of the child.


Are you therefore making the counter-claim that adults do not benefit from being able to think for themselves?


It is like saying, we have car accidents, so to prevent them I wish to ban cars. It is an extremist position. In order for a halt on indoctrination to work, someone has to decide when something is not education and is indoctrination. why is that someone you?


It can be determined quite objectively.


BTW, You snipped out the rather important points of my comments.

Can't see anything important I snipped out.

[joobz]

I'm confused by your analogy. If indoctrination is car crashes, what are the cars we're trying to ban meant to be?
The car is the indoctrination/the teaching of religion.
The car crash is a catastrophe that can occur.


not a perfect analogy, but none are. the point is to ban all indoctrinations is as oppressive of a action as the thing trying to be prevented.

[joobz]

Then why do so?
You did, I didn't. I just used your own definition against you.
No the difference is not bias by the observer. One (as I showed) is about "discouraging independent thought" the other is about "encouraging independent thought". They could not be more different, even if they do employ some of the same methods.

You seem to be confusing methods with the end point. I apologize, but you are wrong. Education doesn't just encourge independant thought. It's an ideal, but that isn't the only way to teach. Show me where education IS the encouraging of independant thought. I've never seen it.


2.) Children are not property of the parents, ...snip...
True, but neither are they full members of society.
And I have never claimed they are.

This is off point again. You seem to miss the issue. Most likely because I didn't explain myself well. Children aren't the property, but rather the responsibility of the parents. This is inherent in family. This responsiblity places the charge at the parents feet of raising and educating the child. But part of that education to raise the child with a sense of certain moral and faith based standards and it is the parents perogative to choose what to raise them with.

We disagree - all indoctrination (remember how I use the word) is a form of child abuse.
...
It can be determined quite objectively.

Show me the lines you draw, where one ends and the other begins.

If it is the "teaching of free thought" vs. "preventing free thought", you're going to have to change most of the world's educational system.

[Jekyll]

The car is the indoctrination/the teaching of religion.
The car crash is a catastrophe that can occur.


not a perfect analogy, but none are. the point is to ban all indoctrinations is as oppressive of a action as the thing trying to be prevented.

Personally, I see a difference between indoctrination and the teaching of religion.

The noun indoctrination has one meaning:

Meaning #1: teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically

So when someone speaks out against the indoctrination of children I feel that they are calling for something very different from "Mummy can't tell little Charlie what she thinks." thought police type scenarios.

Yes, teach your children what you think, but make them think for themselves and give them awareness of other options.

I see this whole things more in terms of banning dangerous driving to reduce crashes than as an outlawing of cars.

[joobz]

Personally, I see a difference between indoctrination and the teaching of religion.

So when someone speaks out against the indoctrination of children I feel that they are calling for something very different from "Mummy can't tell little Charlie what she thinks." thought police type scenarios.

Yes, teach your children what you think, but make them think for themselves and give them awareness of other options.

I see this whole things more in terms of banning dangerous driving to reduce crashes than as an outlawing of cars.
And that is what I'd like to see as well.
I just feel that to use the word "indoctrination" creates a slippery slope. It's ill defined and amendable to interpretations. That's the reason why I keep asking for an explanation as to why education isn't indoctrination.
How do you tell if something is being taught "uncritically?" Do we learn grammar rules with a critical eye?

[Darat]

You did, I didn't. I just used your own definition against you.


So far you haven't used anything against any of the points I have made.


I apologize, but you are wrong. Education doesn't just encourge independant thought. It's an ideal, but that isn't the only way to teach.


You are still getting confused between the end point and the methods used to reach that.




...

Show me where education IS the encouraging of independant thought. I've never seen it.

...


The schools I attended in the 70s and 80s all endeavored to teach their pupils to think for themselves.


...

But part of that education to raise the child with a sense of certain moral and faith based standards and it is the parents perogative to choose what to raise them with. ...

No it isn't and I don't know any society that allows parents such freedom.



Show me the lines you draw, where one ends and the other begins.


I already have i.e "discouraging independent thought" the other is about "encouraging independent thought"."



If it is the "teaching of free thought" vs. "preventing free thought", you're going to have to change most of the world's educational system.

And?

That is exactly what Dawkins' was arguing for. One way of putting it is that we should recognize that quite often religious indoctrination is passed off as education when it is nothing of the type.

[joobz]

You are still getting confused between the end point and the methods used to reach that.
You are confused by the notion that education doesn't mean free thinking. You are changing what education means.



No it isn't and I don't know any society that allows parents such freedom.
yes there is.

That is exactly what Dawkins' was arguing for. One way of putting it is that we should recognize that quite often religious indoctrination is passed off as education when it is nothing of the type.
And again you state religious indoctrination.
that hits at the matter of the cause. You are acting like a creationist hiding behind the guise of ID.
It is clear the intent you wish is oppression of religion and not simply preventing indoctrination.

Oppressive teachings can occur in many forms and I am against it all. refer back to my "you must be a dr. example" But many wouldn't classify it as indoctrination becuase of the rather loose meaning that exists in that word.

Indoctrination is a loaded word which can be applied to settings at will. It all depends on the bias of the observer.

[Jekyll]

And that is what I'd like to see as well.
I just feel that to use the word "indoctrination" creates a slippery slope. It's ill defined and amendable to interpretations. That's the reason why I keep asking for an explanation as to why education isn't indoctrination.
How do you tell if something is being taught "uncritically?" Do we learn grammar rules with a critical eye?

I see indoctrination as a failure to introduce reasonable alternatives when it is reasonable to do so. You can't really accuse people of indoctrinating children in it's rules unless you think the Ebonics is an acceptable alternative to writ'in' propa.

On the other hand, you can talk about children being indoctrinated into the quadratic formula, if they are not taught to factorise or complete the square. Now if you have teacher actively preventing the use of these alternative methods as well; you have a real problem, where the standards of students are actually being set back rather than *just* being prevented from progressing.

And of course religion seeps in to every facet of life, is hugely more influential than solving quadratics, and needs to be held to at least a comparable standard.

[Meadmaker]

He's not, and this is quite a fine line, arguing that you teaching your children what you believe (or what you don't believe your case) is abuse but indoctrinating them in it, forcing them to accept it uncritically and refusing to allow them to seek alternatives is.

And exactly how would we tell the difference?

This is totally preposterous. Use some of those highly valued critical thinking skills and try to translate this into any guidelines for action. It can't be done.

ETA: I was raised Catholic. The whole nine yards. I'm quite certain that what happened to me as a child qualifies as "indoctrination". And yet, I don't feel any animosity toward my mother. Is this just another case of an abused person thinking that abuse is normal? Am I just misadjusted because I can't recognize the abuse heaped on me? Even having rejected the faith that was forced upon me in my tender years, I just can't bring myself to say my mother was a bad person.

[Jekyll]

And exactly how would we tell the difference?

This is totally preposterous. Use some of those highly valued critical thinking skills and try to translate this into any guidelines for action. It can't be done.

Last time I had this discussion with you, I suggested the outlawing of faith schools, forcing students to come into contact with people of other beliefs exposing them to alternatives.

[Meadmaker]

Last time I had this discussion with you, I suggested the outlawing of faith schools, forcing students to come into contact with people of other beliefs exposing them to alternatives.

Exactly. So, let's go back to your previous comment.

He's not, and this is quite a fine line, arguing that you teaching your children what you believe (or what you don't believe your case) is abuse but indoctrinating them in it, forcing them to accept it uncritically and refusing to allow them to seek alternatives is.

So, it's ok to teach your children what you believe, as long as you don't do it in a classroom. If you do that, you are "forcing them to accept it uncritically and refusing to allow them to seek alternatives".

[Jekyll]

So, it's ok to teach your children what you believe, as long as you don't do it in a classroom. If you do that, you are "forcing them to accept it uncritically and refusing to allow them to seek alternatives".

No. It's OK to teach children what you believe. It is not OK to make them believe it. Sending a child to a faith school, as part of a process of systematic isolation from alternative ideas, is brainwashing and forcing them to take your beliefs.

I don't have a problem with Christians sending their kids to an Islamic school, secularists send their kids to Jewish school or whatever. I might think it's a bit weird, but fine. It's forcing children to grow-up in a belief system with no view of what might be outside it that I think is wrong.

[joobz]

No. It's OK to teach children what you believe. It is not OK to make them believe it. Sending a child to a faith school, as part of a process of systematic isolation from alternative ideas, is brainwashing and forcing them to take your beliefs.

How do you seperate the two? I could say that a child is likely to believe what ever you tell them, especially if that child is a bit slow. So to teach your child what I believe is not readily seperable from making them believe it.

[Jekyll]

How do you seperate the two? I could say that a child is likely to believe what ever you tell them, especially if that child is a bit slow. So to teach your child what I believe is not readily seperable from making them believe it.

Well, quite. Which is why I think the emphasis should be on making sure the child has access to other ideas and social integration with people of different beliefs.

Ideally of course, every statement about personal religious beliefs should be prefaced by "I think" but I can't really see that happening.

[joobz]

Well, quite. Which is why I think the emphasis should be on making sure the child has access to other ideas and social integration with people of different beliefs.

Ideally of course, every statement about personal religious beliefs should be prefaced by "I think" but I can't really see that happening.
That is exactly how I plan to raise my children becuase I believe it is the best for them. And I would love it to see everyone else do the same.

But I just don't see a way to implement it without making the solution worse than the condition being treated.

[Meadmaker]

No. It's OK to teach children what you believe. It is not OK to make them believe it.

If only I could find a way to make my kid believe anything at all. That would be a handy skill.

I don't have a problem with Christians sending their kids to an Islamic school, secularists send their kids to Jewish school or whatever.

So, faith based schools are acceptable, as long as you don't send your child to a school based on a faith you actually believe?



You're trying to come up with some sort of rationalization why what you are saying is anything other than the persecution of religion. Let's give up the pretense. You don't like religion. You want to get rid of it. You want the government's help. Right?

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't deny that's what you want, and don't be surprised that not a lot of people are keen on giving the government the power you seek to grant them. Like joobz, I think your cure is worse than the disease.

[Jekyll]

That is exactly how I plan to raise my children becuase I believe it is the best for them. And I would love it to see everyone else do the same.

But I just don't see a way to implement it without making the solution worse than the condition being treated.

That's good to hear and I agree with you. It is often far better for someone to grow up as a fully indoctrinated fundamentalist well supported by their family than to grow up un-indoctrinated but unsupported. Any 'solutions' to this problem would have to take this into account.

That being said, I happen to think that faith based schools are something the world could do without and lose nothing in the process. I also think that their removal would make the indoctrination of children harder.

[Jekyll]

So, faith based schools are acceptable, as long as you don't send your child to a school based on a faith you actually believe?
I'm not the agnostic/atheist who's talking about sending my child to a Jewish school.

You're trying to come up with some sort of rationalization why what you are saying is anything other than the persecution of religion. Let's give up the pretense. You don't like religion. You want to get rid of it. You want the government's help. Right?
I think this is the third miss-characterisation of my position you've made in three posts.
The elimination of religion is right at the bottom of my things to destroy when I take over the world, somewhere behind the elimination of fat people who walk really slowly down the pavement and radio stations that play the same three songs over and over.

That being said I am a liberal in the European sense of the word. I think if the government can intervene and make a genuine positive difference it should do so.

To phrase it in an more US friendly way, I'm talking about breaking a local religious monopoly, so that the free market of existing ideas can right itself.

You are entitled to your opinion, but don't deny that's what you want, and don't be surprised that not a lot of people are keen on giving the government the power you seek to grant them. Like joobz, I think your cure is worse than the disease.
That's nice. What exactly would the world lose out on if every faith school was replaced by a non-denominational one tomorrow?

[Meadmaker]

That being said I am a liberal in the European sense of the word. I think if the government can intervene and make a genuine positive difference it should do so.

And eliminating religion would be making a positive difference. I'm not seeing how I'm mischaracterizing anything. Because it's not your top priority?


That's nice. What exactly would the world lose out on if every faith school was replaced by a non-denominational one tomorrow?

Freedom.


ETA:Of course, I understand that in the UK "faith schools" are publicly funded. If you are talking about removing the funding, that's a different story. However, you've been talking about eliminating the schools, by which I assume you mean compulsory non-sectarian education for everyone, regardless of the parents' wishes. If that's not what you meant, feel free to correct the misimpression.

[thaiboxerken]

The long answer is more difficult. You might say I'm teaching him to be Jewish, but I'm not teaching him to believe in God. On the other hand, his mother and his school are teaching him both, and I'm not interfering.


So, you're not teaching the kid be be Jewish, you're just letting his mom, peers and the school do it while you sit back and watch it happen. You're not really defending the act of indoctrination, you're just making excuses as to why you don't have the gonads to stop the action happening to your own child.

[Meadmaker]

So, you're not teaching the kid be be Jewish, you're just letting his mom, peers and the school do it while you sit back and watch it happen. You're not really defending the act of indoctrination, you're just making excuses as to why you don't have the gonads to stop the action happening to your own child.

I'm not stopping it, because I approve of it. I am defending the act of indoctrination. He is being taught, as a child, to be Jewish.

I have confidence in my kid's ability to grow into a thinking adult. He will be exposed to religion as a child, and he will be aware that not everyone agrees with it. Within his own family, he knows there are Jews, Christians, and atheists. When the time comes that he can actually think for himself, he will have the education he needs to accept or reject God and religion as he sees fit. If I were to raise him as an atheist, it is highly unlikely that he would have an accurate view of what religion really is, and it would be much more difficult for him to make an informed decision on the subject.

If he concludes that there is a God, that's just fine with me. A lot of people believe in God. I can't prove them wrong, and I don't see how it does them any harm.