wyndhy,

Conjectures about the origin of benevolent religious tenets (particularly as they serve to inform legislation) introduce a chicken or egg situation. Were/are they good due to being handed down from on high, or were they assumed to have been handed down from on high because they were/are good. That might warrant a separate thread.

My overarching response to the Federal issue of marriage is that it, the institution of marriage, does not naturally fall under the purview of the Federal government. The human relationships described by marriage are sufficiently local to be better managed by governments sufficiently local to the people involved. Why should marriage in Massachusetts be bound and limited by the opinions of people in Arizona, Texas, Mississippi, and Florida? Insofar as institutions such as the SSA & VA must have policies to deal with spouses, some accommodation will be necessary, but it should be an accommodation of the Federal to the State, not the other way around.

Yes, there are many whose ideals of marriage are challenged when marriage is reconstructed without a presumption of opposite sex.

The Federal Marriage Amendment is anti-American. Read an analysis from an arch-conservative organization.

To the degree to which the examples in my previous post suggested I thought you were ignorant of the roll religion has played in the politics of presidents, let me apologize. Such was not my intent. What I do believe these examples illustrate is that the religious beliefs of the American electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect. I think it reasonable then to expect similar opinions in the federal Legislature and Executive. By inference, I expect the same from the federal Judiciary, as its members are nominated and confirmed by those branches. Frankly, in a political system based upon representative democracy, I would be surprised to discover otherwise.

Consider the alternative. "There exists a specific component of an individual's life which, although it is found in almost everyone, SOMEONE ELSE will decide is inadmissible to practice in the body politic." If we can agree that a liberal government is one which limits the use of its policing powers to compel and control the public behavior of its citizens, then policies as the quoted one are illiberal. I prefer a liberal to an illiberal government. What of the overseer of politically correct ideas? Elected or non-elected? I prefer a democratic process, even if once removed, to an undemocratic process.

Respectfully, I believe that a closer reading of the history of Adolf Hitler’s National Socialism fails to support the proposition that the Nazi Holocaust was a war of religion.

national socialism does not mean religious socialism. however, much of hitler’s philosophy came from the bible, his religious upbringing, and more specifically from the german christain social movement. he concentrated his effort in politics, not religion, but through his political reasoning he established the german reich christian church, uniting the protestant churches under national german christianity. hitler could not have come into power without the support of the protestant and catholic churches and, yes, the german populace, but just because he was elected bythe people does not mean his policies were right.

"hence today 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."

"christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars."

both of the above are quotes from mein kampf, published circa 1925, about ten years before hitler rose to power in germany.



it’s interesting to me that you think that religious beliefs of the american electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect when so much of it is left un-discussed. do we elect politicians because they say they will fill bills with pork? accept bribes form lobbyists? let taxpayers pay for a jet flight to some swanky vacation spot? get bj’s in the oval office? forge evidence? employ illegal aliens? and yet they do all those things and more.

when it comes to politics, dissemination is the name of the game. religion in politics is slightly different: politicians may say they are a follower of this or that denomination, but what does that truly say a bout a person? not much. i can say i am protestant, but does that mean that i agree and prefer to follow the five solas? reject roman catholic dogma? or could it be that i prefer to follow a religion that has a history of attracting anti-semitics and was indeed founded by an anti-semitic (“on the jews and their lies”, luther, 1543) or it could mean that i am calvinist or baptist or methodist or lutheran or quaker…all denominations that easily fall under the broader category of protestant. what is more obscure still is how a politician’s religious beliefs will affect his/her policy forming, and whether those policies will benefit or derail. it is impossible to know unless and until it does so. the election of an official with religious beliefs does not mean that the people have given absolute authority to that elected official to make policy based on those beliefs without censure. when the people feel that their elected leaders have strayed from initial expectations, they will speak up…as many people are doing today.

i do not argue which came first, the need or the god, or from whence it came. i only argue that certain truths are universally necessary to ensure a safe society. making murder and theft illegal keeps citizens safer - physically and in the knowledge that criminals will not only not be tolerated, but will be removed from law-abiding society, thus acting as deterrent. we have not turned exodus 13 and 15 into law, or we would have turned 1 through 12, 14, and 16 through 26 into law, too. we have made laws that help ensure a prosperous society, not ones that put restrictions on society. that they are simultaneously religious tenents is not coincidence, but only re-inforces my assertion that they are universal.


as do i, but it is not without its faults: "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been before." ;) ~ winston chuchill

When most think of Nazi killing, genocide immediately comes to mind, particularly that of "6,000,00 Jews".

Besides Jews, the Third Reich murdered near 2,400,000 Poles, 3,000,000 Ukrainians, 1,593,000 Russians, and 1,400,000 Byelorussians. These people were overwhelmingly Christian.

Hitler’s government first finessed the Catholic Church in the Concordat of 1933. The Holy See had tried and failed to secure a concordat with the Weimar Republic. The sticking point was the church’s desire for state support for Catholic schools and for Catholic religious instruction in the public schools. This was unacceptable to Weimar’s parliament, especially to the Socialists, who thought that it violated the separation between church and state.

(Sound familiar? No really!)

Besides assuring that civil authorities would not interfere in the naming of bishops and pastors, as had happened in the immediate past, Hitler’s Reich also promised financial support to the church’s schools and that it would make Catholic religious education available in the public schools—religious education taught only by instructors approved by the bishops.

Having bought off (or bought, depending upon one’s point of view) the RC church, the Reich then focused on the Protestant sects. This led to the persecution of those who kept Christian ideals, such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Inevitably, the Vatican’s pact with Hitler frayed, and Catholic religious found their way into the concentration camps.

Hitler had hundreds of top Nazi SA's (Sturmabteilung) assassinated in June and July 1934, who under Ernst Rohm were becoming a strong competitor to the SS (Schutzstaffel). He had perhaps 5,000 Germans executed after the 1944 plot on his life and attempted coup d'etat. Indeed, it is why critics, pacifists, homosexuals, conscientious objectors, campus rebels, dissidents, and others throughout the twelve-year history of the regime in Germany, were executed. What is the religion of a pacifist? What is the religious denomination of a homosexual? Of what sect are critics?

No. I believe that when the record is examined at leisure, when the data is reviewed, you’ll find that Nazis were absolute racists, especially among the top echelon; they believed completely in the superiority of the "Aryan" race.

I think it reasonable to describe the results of an election in which the candidate who secures the largest vote count as a “summarization” of the individual ballots cast. No two voters think exactly alike, but the aggregate, or the sum, of their votes is what is secured by the election winner. Yes, summarization does seem apt. What would you call it?

In re Exodus 13 and 15: As gently as I can – you can’t be serious, can you? These chapters from the Pentateuch are at the core of Jewish heritage.

Exodus 13, Redemption of the First Born is very real and very now. The presentation of Christ in the Temple (Luke 2:22) is a New Testament restatement of Ex 13, so Christians are down with that too.

Exodus 15 is Israel’s’ jubilation song of salvation from Pharaoh’s charioteers, so I will agree with you there, it would be surprising to see that legislated.

In re Churchill’s commentary on democracy: Yes’m. No arguments from me ‘bout that!

i did not intend to turn this into a discussion about nazi politics and hitler's influence upon it, however, i can't resist ;)

i believe that much of his intolerance and ethnocentricity was learned from the german christian social movement and his religious upbringing. hitler's ultimate goal was for his god's chosen people to create a master race here on earth wiht him as their leader. the nazi party was his means. it's amazing what one can justify when one believes god is on one's side. killing the christain or the disabled or the dissenter doesn't mean it wasn't a religious extermination...after all, those he had exterminated did not believe in, or were seen to somehow hinder, his own agenda (a typical calvinist justification of what would normally be considered a sin: if it furthers the plan, anything goes)
a quote pulled form one of your links (http://www.holocaustforgotten.com/fivmil.htm)
“Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped. Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology. Since Catholic priests and Christian pastors were often influential leaders in their community, they were sought out by the Nazis very early.”



forgive me, but i am unsure of what you mean here or how it relates. :o please explain





my apologies - should have proofed better - that would be exodus 20, verses 13 and 15 - the same verses you referred to a few posts back.

wyndhy,

When I think of an “ideology”, I think of the ideas describing social needs and goals of a group, a class, or culture, or possibly the doctrines or beliefs of a political or economic system. When I think of a “theology”, I think of inquiry about or the study of God and / or religious truth.

Generally then, ideology is about humans, and theology is about God.

Referencing again Non-Jewish Victims of the Holocaust, “Hitler expected his followers to worship the Nazi ideology.” Hitler’s National Socialism was an ideology, not a theology. It joins Capitalism and Communism and Socialism in that domain. None of them are theologies.

Ref:

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=ideology
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idealogy
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/def...38923&dict=CALD

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theology
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theology
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/def...82351&dict=CALD

If the body of evidence that the theory of racial types, with the “Aryan race” conveniently perched at the pinnacle was NOT at the heart of Nazi ideology, then I’m afraid the best we will be able to do is to agree to disagree. The evidence has persuaded most, if not all, people to that end.

Your post “it’s interesting to me that you think that religious beliefs of the american electorate are summarized in the politicians they elect..” above was the reason I explained the electoral summarization process, as I believe it to work. Starting with an electorate of N different points of view (while granting that many of these points of view differ only slightly), an election summarizes them to 1 elected lawmaker. Whether there is a small or a large amount left to be discussed is irrelevant; a summarization occurs when the ballots are counted.

Exodus 20, verses 13 and 15 are examples of religious teachings which have indeed been written into what many people think are good secular laws.

Can we go back to talking about sorority houses? :hot:

WildIrish,

In due course, yes sir. :)

I said nursing homes ya perv! :D

jseal, one cannot study theology without taking into account the ideology of the believers. ideology can be a group of religious beliefs - what sociologists of religion informally call cultus. furthermore, the term ideology can be, and usually is, supplied in favor of the term theology, because the general application of the word theology refers to the study of religion (as you pointed out) and the less to the secondary meaning of a group of religious beliefs. the definition of christian theology, for example, is practicing theology from a christian viewpoint. there is no definition for christian ideology although it is a common term, so it must be broken down into its separate parts –
christian: professing belief in jesus as christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of jesus.
ideology: the body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
so christian ideology must mean the body of ideas held by those who believe in jesus as christ

nazi ideology refers to their social ideas, i agree, but it does not necessarily exclude religious ideas. i’d also like to point out that ms. schwarts preceded the above quoted line with the one i referred to: “Hitler wanted not only to conquer all of Europe, but Hitler also wanted to create a new religion and to replace Jesus Christ as a person to be worshipped.” she, too, must have believed that hitler and the nazis had a religious agenda.

i do not disagree at all that the crux of the nazi philosophy was to place the aryan race above all others, i only say that they strove to do so on the fantastical belief that they were their god’s chosen people. they were using their god’s will as a justification.

besides quotes galore from mein kampf in which hitler himself cites christianity, jesus, and the christian god as inspiration and justification for his war, he said at wolfsschanze in 1941: “I am Fuhrer of a Reich that will last for a thousand years to come. No power can shake the German Reich now. Divine Providence has willed it that I carry the fulfillment of a Germanic task.”

and in a speech at reichstag in 1938: “the work that christ started but could not finish, i - adolf hitler – will conclude”

walter langer from the u.s. office of stratigic services was commissioned in 1943 to develop a psychological profile of hitler, he concluded:

“A survey of all the evidence forces us to conclude that Hitler believes himself destined to become an Immortal Hitler, chosen by God to be the New Deliverer of Germany and the Founder of a new social order for the world. He firmly believes this and is certain that in spite of all the trials and tribulations through which he must pass he will finally attain that goal. The one condition is that he follow the dictates of the inner voice that have guided and protected him in the past.”

a few authors who also make the connection:

the holy reich: nazi conceptions of christianity, by richard steigmann–gall,

hitler's millennial reich: apocalyptic belief and the search for salvation, by david redles.

explaining hitler: the search for the origins of his evil, by ron rosenbaum

even most hitler biographers who do not make a direct connection between nazi politics and religious justification and zealotry do not deny the religious influences evident in hitler’s speeches and books.

i’d also like to note one last thing - after hitler’s rise to power, mein kampf was second in copies sold only to the christian bible, the people had to have been very aware of his christian ethics.

i could go on, but suffice it to say that no, not all people are convinced that hitler and the nazi’s did not have religion at the heart of their hatred. searches on google using any number of phrases that link hitler’s philosophy with religion turn up tons of sites.

i’ll stop now, no need to beat a dead horse…we definitely disagree. ;)



i understand the electoral process as you explain it, but i still cannot make the connection from voter-for-candidate to transparency-of-candidate and how an electoral process precludes any misrepresentation of a candidate to his/her constituents.


mesopotamian law (the sumerians’ king ur-nammu, the babylonians' code of hammurabi), ancient greek law (draco and solon), and ancient chinese law (the ch’in and tang dynasties) - all b.c. civilizations - dealt with the punishment of murderers and thieves without the book of exodus to use as a guide.

wyndhy,

There are many things worse that disagreeing with you. :) I experienced one just this week. :(

Even if, for the sake of argument, we set aside the 20 million Hitler had killed, there remain the details of the 22 – 23 million communist Soviet and Chinese ideological mass murders to tend to.

No, on balance, I believe that it makes for a rather less strained explanation to assign blame where it belongs. Humans are quite comfortable with killing each other. They have done so since the dawn of time, are happily doing so today, and will, barring some unexpected (at least by me) change in the essential human psyche, continue to do so until the sun enters its Red Giant phase and brings to an end this aspect of the Universe Aware of Itself.


I don’t recall making such a connection, or any preclusion.

Permit me to refer to the opening paragraph of the The Code of Hammurabi

“When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind.”

Seems to me that the code was handed down by the guy that the gods put in charge. I wonder if they influenced his laws…

Come to think of it, that has a vaguely Biblical ring to it. :)

yes! yes we are quite happy to go around offing those who disagree, get in our way, or just look different. i only say that much of it is done in the name of religion, the same religions that advocate peace and love and tolerance.

"I don’t recall making such a connection, or any preclusion."

nope, i did as a couterpoint when you said that the people's beliefs are reflected in the candidates they put in office.

i only pointed out those ancient laws to illustrate that way before christianity, there were laws that dealt with crime...mdern civilization does not apply the laws we spoke of because they are set forth in the bible (specifically exodus, as you mentioned) or any other religious text, we do so because they have been, and always will be, a means of contolling a human's baser nature that we both have agreed exists.


on a personal note, let me add that i am sorry your week was tainted by something unpleasant.

I have to admit i profound admitration to both of you for keeping this conversation civil, wyndhy for your stunning dipiction of veiws i partly myself share.

jseal for your passionat and heartfelt comitment to your own views displayed whit respect to peopel who dont share it.

Most of the time from both sides this is not the case, mostly probobly becase we dont understand each other, you both show a level of tolerance that i wish was the norm for the world.

Alas it is not.

My problem whit religon in politics and while it dont say it i'm fairly sure that this law is based on a religus moral depictment from the past brought back to justefy an arcaic morality not befiting todays sosaity... my problem is that there is no evidents that a lack of 'god' is the reason for a 'Moral' decay In sweden for exampel we have a very very low religus movment and we do not see the kind of violence that we see over there... so from our point of veiw the reason for your violence and decay (i'm not sure i agree that it's as bad as that) is the cause of state being to closly knitted together whit the religus movments.

It's all about prespectiv, I belive strongly that peopel should have the right to belive what they want, they should be alowd to practis that to the full exstent of there belifes... but it need to stop at my door, and my life... if i dont want it i should not have to deal whit it.

Belife should be a private desition of faith, it should not be in school... however i do belive peopel should be tought ABOUT religon they should learn about all the faiths... about all cultures about the wounderfull stories depicted in their words...

I'm an Athiest, today regretfully that have turned in to a bad word, shamefully when asked when peopel would trust the least they answered "an Athiest" An Athiest is a person who belive that there is no God. atleast by my definition and most peopel i know, i respect religon and while i dont belive i love to read about it... i'm even considering becoming a teacher of religon on highscool level... and i would teach about all the wounderfull things of those religons i would teach the history and what they belive, even if i dont.

I kind of got side tracked alittle but i think i'm point would be that, Religon is not what should be the bases of Morality, becase Religon can be interpreted so very much by difrent peopel... Morality most be based on sound judgment of right and wrong... peopel should not be evicted becase they dont fall under a morality system that say that it's not right for two peopel to live together becase they want to... and dont want to be married.

To me Morality is not something writen in a book and interpreted by a belife system... it must be written in our hearts and minds and conected by truths and justice.

Admiral

Admiral,

Thank you. I too wish that more people were tolerant towards people who are different. I must, however, agree with you that many are not.

While atheism may not currently be as attractive as you feel it should be, be patient. In the minds of many, it was, for many years, closely associated with Communism, and may have picked up some negative connotations from that discredited ideology.

maybe
 

Comunisem is probobly part of the problem, but mostly i think it have to do that peopel have been presented whit the wrong view of what an Athiest is we are often said to be argoant and selfrightus becase we belive that "there is noting greater then ourself." that we are moraly inept becase we dont supply to an idea that make us acountabul to something ells and... this is something that i feel insulted about. "If we dont belive in hell what stopping us from just comiting murder and theft if we dont belive that there is any ramefications to our actions."

This is not the belife of any bealivers of any faith that i call freinds, but it's still the most frecuent question i get when i visit USA.

Our belive's are what we make thenm, our life's are what we make then... and most importantly it's our actions not our words that should define us and that apply to both side of the line of faith.

I think my point to all this is very simpel, the peopel who are enacting this law show a level of personal action that we by any sencabul defenition of morality wheter based on faith or personal convition are WRONG!

And i think that is something that men and women of all faith whit a sence of morality and ethics that belong ín our time can agree on.

Admiral,

I agree that atheism has a bit of an image problem. You’ll need to market the ideals differently if you want to “sell the product” as we say in business.

At the risk of being obtuse, what law are you referring to?