(LONG) "God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
 

Very interesting article. Articles like this really make you stop and think, which I guess is the point. No matter what you believe, blinding following something is usually never a good idea.



"God Is With Us": Hitler's Rhetoric and the Lure of "Moral Values"
by Maureen Farrell

Buzzflash.com

"God does not make cowardly nations free." -- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

A couple weeks ago, while asserting that the Founding Founders intended for the U.S. government to be infused with Christianity, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said that the Holocaust was able to flourish in Germany because of Europe's secular ways. "Did it turn out that, by reason of the separation of church and state, the Jews were safer in Europe than they were in the United States of America?" Scalia asked a congregation at Manhattan's Shearith Israel synagogue. "I don't think so."

One might expect regular citizens to be ignorant of history, but a Supreme Court Justice? Does he imagine that the phrase "Gott mit Uns" was a German clothier's interpretation of "Got Milk"?

If photographic evidence of the Third Reich's Christian leanings were not enough, Hitler's own speeches and writings prove, at the very least, that he presented many of the same faith-based arguments heard in America today. Religion in the schools? Hitler was for it. Intellectuals who practiced "anti-Christian, smug individualism"? According to Hitler, their days were numbered. Divine Providence's role in shaping Germany's ultimate victory? Who could argue? In other words, there is enough historical evidence to color Scalia deluded. Writing for Free Inquiry, John Patrick Michael Murphy explained:

"Hitler's Germany amalgamated state with church. Soldiers of the vermacht wore belt buckles inscribed with the following: "Gott mit uns" (God is with us). His troops were often sprinkled with holy water by the priests. It was a real Christian country whose citizens were indoctrinated by both state and church and blindly followed all authority figures, political and ecclesiastical.

Hitler, like some of the today's politicians and preachers, politicized "family values." He liked corporeal punishment in home and school. Jesus prayers became mandatory in all schools under his administration. While abortion was illegal in pre-Hitler Germany, he took it to new depths of enforcement, requiring all doctors to report to the government the circumstances of all miscarriages. He openly despised homosexuality and criminalized it."

For anyone wanting even more proof, Mein Kampf is chock full of the Fuhrer's musings on God. ("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," Hitler wrote). But anti-Semitic rants aside, some of Hitler's religious musings are interchangeable with Mr. Bush's.

Hitler was raised a Catholic and spoke of his faith in God, yet, singling out his rants against religion, politicians and pastors continue to characterize him as a pagan barbarian. Such distortions are convenient -- particularly in an age where propaganda concerning "moral values" is readily gobbled up and Christian nation legislation waits in the wings -- but, to paraphrase the Bible, overlooking the truth will not make us free.

Scalia, who also cited the Bible to claim that government "derives its moral authority from God," is hardly alone in his assertions. Leo Strauss, the philosopher who has influenced neoconservativism, and by proxy, George Bush's America, felt that religion, like deception, was crucial to maintaining social order. Meanwhile, neoconservative kingpin Irving Kristol has argued similar points -- bragging about how easy it is to fool the public into accepting the government's actions while arguing that America's Founding Fathers were wrong to insist on the separation of church and state. Why? According to Jim Lobe, it's because religion, as Strauss and his disciples see it, is "absolutely essential in order to impose moral law on the masses who otherwise would be out of control."

Saying that neoconservatives believe that secular society is undesirable "because it leads to individualism, liberalism, and relativism, precisely those traits that may promote dissent that in turn could dangerously weaken society's ability to cope with external threats," Lobe explained why Kristol and other neocons have "allied themselves with the Christian Right" and, in some cases, have also denounced Darwin's theory of evolution. "Neoconservatives are pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers," Reason magazine's Ronald Bailey explained, pointing to publications like Commentary which has espoused the virtues of religious fundamentalism and has questioned evolutionary science.

(Hitler did the same. The book The German Churches Under Hitler includes his assertion that secular schools should not be tolerated while Hitler's Table Talk quotes him questioning the wisdom in teaching children both creationism and the theory of evolution. "The present system of teaching in schools permits the following absurdity: at 10 a.m. the pupils attend a lesson in the catechism, at which the creation of the world is presented to them in accordance with the teachings of the Bible; and at 11 a.m. they attend a lesson in natural science, at which they are taught the theory of evolution,"he said. "Yet the two doctrines are in complete contradiction. As a child, I suffered from this contradiction, and ran my head against a wall.")

Professor Shadia B. Drury also noted the similarities between the methods endorsed by Hitler and neoconservatives' favorite philosopher. She explained:

"Strauss loved America enough to try to save her from the errors and terrors of Europe. He was convinced that the liberal democracy of the Weimar Republic led to the rise of the Nazis. That is a debatable matter. But Strauss did not openly debate this issue or provide arguments for his position in his writings. I am inclined to think that it is Strauss's ideas, and not liberal ideas, that invite the kinds of abuses he wished to avoid. It behooves us to remember that Hitler had the utmost contempt for parliamentary democracy. He was impatient with debate and dispute, on the grounds that they were a waste of time for the great genius who knew instinctively the right choices and policies that the people need. Hitler had a profound contempt for the masses - the same contempt that is readily observed in Strauss and his cohorts. But when force of circumstances made it necessary to appeal to the masses, Hitler advocated lies, myths, and illusions as necessary pabulum to placate the people and make them comply with the will of the Fuhrer. Strauss's political philosophy advocates the same solution to the problem of the recalcitrant masses. Anyone who wants to avoid the horrors of the Nazi past is well advised not to accept Strauss's version of ancient wisdom uncritically. But this is exactly what Strauss encouraged his students to do."

Although several others, including the legendary Seymour Hersh, have noted the neoconservatives' belief that deception is essential, the religious aspect of their philosophy is especially unnerving. Religion may be the opium of the masses, but when zealots become so certain of their own righteousness that they ignore their own humanity, horror is the natural consequence. Islamic extremism offers the most glaring recent example, and now that Osama bin Laden has been granted permission to nuke America, the most extreme changes within the U.S. could very well come from the outside world.

In the meantime, however, for those who have not yet noticed, our own homegrown zealots -- those who advocate hatred in the name of the Lord -- have made considerable headway, with gays and lesbians currently at the center of legislation which, should it pass, will alter this country forever.

When the Marriage Protection Act passed the House in July, the New York Times called it "a radical assault on the Constitution. "If it passes in the Senate, the bill could obliterate the separation of powers and wipe out Constitutional protections for all minorities, stripping the courts and possibly paving the way for Christian nationhood. Other pieces of court stripping legislation bills designed to topple the wall between church and state are also in play.

This encroaching infusion of church and state, combined with recent decrees concerning moral values, doesn't resonate with inclusive tolerance. "When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side? If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're correct," Bob Fitrakis wrote. "Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin."

While many of us reserve a soft spot for true Christian generosity and the warm teachings of Jesus, it's important to remember that Christianity can be (and has been) distorted for darker purposes. Whether you're talking about Nazi Germany, the pre-Civil War American South, or the atmosphere in the U.S. these past few years, whenever questions of conscience are vigorously denounced, you can bet there is trouble ahead -- and the hijacking of faith and the manipulation of religion should always arouse suspicion. Moral values as a mandate? What better way to foster civil obedience and "One nation Under God" unity in a time of preventative war, suppressed liberty and sanctioned torture.

So, yes, despite tales of Hitler's atheism and Germany's Godlessness, the list of Hitler's religious assertions and Nazi Christian affiliations is long, and before Americans swallow more WMD-type baloney, it's best to comprehend this history and understand that no nation, including our own, is immune to faith-based fascism.

Substituting "America" for "Germany," many of Hitler's religious assertions could have been uttered by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson -- with Hitler even asserting that God punished Germany for turning away from Him -- before promising that renewed piety would protect the Fatherland and make it prosperous and successful once more. "Once the mercy of God shown upon us, but we were not worthy of His mercy. Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learned to pray," Hitler said in 1936, sixty-five years before Falwell and Robertson blamed abortionists and feminists for the tragedies of Sept. 11.

Hitler's religious phrases could have also come from the lips of George W. Bush. "Our prayer is: Lord God, let us never hesitate, let us never play the coward, let us never forget the duty which we have taken upon us,"Hitler said in March, 1933, sounding much like our president, who believes that God wants him to liberate the people in Middle East -- even if he has to torture, maim and kill tens of thousands in the process. "I believe we have a duty to free people," Bush told Bob Woodward. "I would hope we wouldn't have to do it militarily, but we have a duty.. . . Going into this period, I was praying for strength to do the Lord's will. . . ."

Speaking in Berlin in March, 1936, Hitler said something remarkably similar. "I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany," he said, before launching the preventive war heard round the world.

Both leaders also promised peace while planning for war. "We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended," Bush said, in his State of the Union address in Jan. 2003, two months before launching a preventative war in Iraq. "Never in these long years have we offered any other prayer but this: Lord, grant to our people peace at home, and grant and preserve to them peace from the foreign foe!"Hitler said in Nuremberg on Sept. 13, 1936.

Yes, many of Hitler's faith-based comments could have come from George Bush himself, and are undoubtedly the kinds of sentiments many Americans not only agree with -- but take comfort in. This is not to say that Bush is Hitler or that religion is evil, but to serve as a reminder that things are not always what they seem. Christianity was used to justify everything from the Salem witch trials to slavery in America, and facilitated group-think in Germany -- when individuality and questions of conscience were needed the most. These are but a few of the Fuhrer's assertions:

* "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith." (The German Churches Under Hitler, p.241)

* "We must turn all the sentiments of the Volk, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from the egotism and stupid Phariseeism of personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man; remember that each one of you is not alone a creature of God, but that you are all brothers! This youth will, with loathing and contempt, abandon those hypocrites who have Christ on their lips but the devil in their hearts." (Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant, page 140)

* "It will be the Government's care to maintain honest cooperation between Church and State; the struggle against materialistic views and for a real national community is just as much in the interest of the German nation as in that of the welfare of our Christian faith." (At the Reichstag, March 23, 1933)

* "Without pledging ourselves to any particular Confession [Protestantism or Catholicism], we have restored to faith its prerequisites because we were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (Berlin, Oct. 24, 1933)

* "But there is something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." (Munich, Feb. 24, 1940)

* "You [blue-collar workers] represent the most noble of slogans known to us: "God helps those who help themselves!' (Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, Vol. 2, page 1147)

* "Fifteen years ago I had nothing save my faith and my will. Today the Movement is Germany, today this Movement has won the German nation and formed the Reich. Would that have been possible without the blessing of the Almighty? Or do they who ruined Germany wish to maintain that they have had God's blessing? What we are we are, not against but with the will of Providence. And so long as we are loyal, honest, and ready to fight, so long as we believe in our great work and do not capitulate, we shall also in the future have the blessing of Providence." (Rosenheim, Aug. 11, 1935)

* "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. . . As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." (Munich, April 12, 1922)

* "If positive Christianity means love of one's neighbor, i.e. the tending of the sick, the clothing of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the giving of drink to those who are thirsty, then it is we who are the more positive Christians. For in these spheres the community of the people of National Socialist Germany has accomplished a prodigious work." (Feb. 24, 1939)

* "We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out." (Berlin, Oct. 24, 1933)

* "An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An educated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal)." (Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944, page 59)

In his book, They Thought They Were Free, Milton Mayer interviewed Germans who discussed how their society changed right before their eyes, and how, despite Hitler's rhetoric, God was nowhere to be found. As one interviewee put it:

"The world you live in -- "your nation, your people" -- is not the world you were in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God. The system itself could not have intended this in the beginning, but in order to sustain itself it was compelled to go all the way."

Of course, America has hardly "gone all the way" and is unlikely to become as psychotic as Nazi Germany any time soon. But what do you suppose God thinks of preventative war based upon deception? Or about the use of depleted uranium? Or about dropping napalm on civilians? Are Iraqi insurgents are any less certain that God is on their side than our own Evangelical Marines?

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a brutal thug, but why do so many insist on forgetting that the U.S. helped him to power in the first place? Does God see our role in all of this as lightly as we do? And how many U.S. citizens do you know, who, mired in fear, readily dismiss America's use of torture and rationalize our disregard for international law? What else might they overlook?

In 1937, Hitler said that because of Germany's belief in God and God's favoritism towards Germany, the country would prevail and prosper. "We, therefore, go our way into the future with the deepest belief in God. Would all we have achieved been possible had Providence not helped us? I know that the fruits of human labor are hard-won and transitory if they are not blessed by the Omnipotent. Work such as ours which has received the blessings of the Omnipotent can never again be undone by mere mortals,"he said.

While attempting to solidify his power, Hitler also denounced those who denounced religion -- as if he were talking about Hollywood or blue states or Noam Chomsky. "For eight months we have been conducting a fearless campaign against that Communism which is threatening our entire nation, our culture, our art, and our public morals, "Hitler said in a speech in Oct. 1933. "We have made an end of denials of the Deity and the crying down of religion."

There will be no more crying down of religion in George Bush's America, either. Though oft-repeated assertions made by the media in the immediate aftermath of the election have proven to be nothing more than myth, propagandists would have you believe that the American people have spoken: "Moral values" reign supreme.

But how can any one of us know God's desires -- especially when our enemies claim to have God on their side as well? And doesn't it seem that religious hubris -- believing that God sanctions one's own inhumane treatment of others -- always invites a fall?

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever," Thomas Jefferson said, of the price America would eventually pay for slavery. "Nations, like individuals, are punished for their transgressions," Ulysses S. Grant advised, describing karmic retribution without pointing hateful fingers at lesbians.

And long before that, the poet John Milton tried to "justify the ways of God to Man." But yet, the world, with its conflicting visions of morality, ethics and truth, still struggles to comprehend.

Perhaps Truth, for want of a better definition, is what God sees when he looks at any given situation. And perhaps it is ultimately impossible for us to know God's mind. After all, it's obvious that Hitler wasn't telling the truth when he spoke of God and country -- and by the same token, it's difficult to look at Najaf or Fallujah or Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay and see God's hand in any of it.

After one of Bush's operatives promised to "export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation" Bob Woodward wrote: "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's Master Plan." And sure enough, when Woodward asked Bush if he had discussed the impending invasion of Iraq with his father, President George H.W. Bush (who could have offered sage advice), the President responded: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength; there is a higher father that I appeal to."

But, without knowing God's mind, most of us have only History to help us judge. And the fact is, without the benefit of History, some of the "moral values" Hitler embraced sound eerily like those being peddled today.

George Bush is not Hitler. America is not Nazi Germany. But buying into religious assertions or thinking that God is on your side is not wise when it comes to matters of war -- particularly when that war is an aggressive preventative war based on false premises and assumptions.

So, aside from Jerry Falwell, who speaks with hate-filled authority, most of us do not know how God will judge us. We will have to settle for History's imperfect record.

All of this begs the question, however. Given his assertions regarding God's role in helping him decide policy ("I pray that I be as good a messenger of His will as possible" Bush told Woodward. . . "I felt so strongly that [invading Iraq] was the right thing to do") how does Bush view the more mundane, secular implications of his actions? When asked by Woodward how History would judge the war in Iraq, Bush replied: "History. We don't know. We'll all be dead."

I challenge anyone to find the moral value in that.

Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.

I guess she has to write something to eat

Your faith is measured in how you live your life. Not your words.

Too long -- the Bushies will never even read it. Even if they did, they would just ignore the similarities and poo-poo it as usual.

http://inthefray.com/bios/bio-farrell_maureen.html

Maureen Farrell currently works as a public affairs assistant at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank in New York City. She graduated from Duke University in 2001 with a degree in English. At Duke, Farrell co-founded the university's chapter of National Student Partnership, a student-driven volunteer service organization that linked Durham, North Carolina, residents in need with critical personal, social, and business resources to help them obtain and maintain regular employment. She also held internships at WNBC in New York, where she worked for senior political reporter Gabe Pressman, and at WNCN, NBC's affiliate in Raleigh, North Carolina. Farrell currently resides in Manhattan but counts Venice, Italy, where she studied abroad, and Durham, North Carolina, as her homes away from home.

Point being, much like Fritz already alluded to, I guess she needs something to do.
Alas, I'll have a lot more interest in what she writes/thinks once she's be an adult for a while.

The problem with this article (aside from the BusHitler linkage which even I, as an anti-Bushie, think is going too far) is that she starts off from the beginning assuming that Antonin Scalia isn't just full of shit on certain subjects.

Yes, of course I don't like Scalia because he's so conservative, but I'll give him his due on a number of states-rights decisions. However, he's not well-versed in everything, and on certain subjects (this one in particular), he's well known for not having a clue.

Seriously, though, the article could have just been: "Scalia says something stupid again on something about which he has no idea."

Jon - if you can't attack the message, save yourself some dignity by resisting the urge to attack the messenger.

I will never understand how some people can dismiss something not based on the content, but based on what? Character? I just do not get it. Stimulating intellectual thought and discourse is needed.

Sometimes a kid 'knows' more about reality than an 'adult.'

She makes a great case that what you see isn't always what you get. Which is funny that we seem to always need reminding of it.

A well thought out response would be nice, but alas, people seem not up to the challenge.

I thought that bringing up Hitler's works was just a strong way to show that we must always be aware of what our leaders are doing and saying and not take things at face value. What easier way to showcase religion speak gone amok then bringing up a known that is Hitler. Might go a long way to getting the point across, even if it is with a mallet instead of a tap on the shoulder.

Yes, but the problem with the Hitler analogy is that:

1. It's overused and has lost any meaning, really. It just stirs people up now.
2. Hitler has been so demonized (rightly so, of course), that by using him in a comparison, you're comparing something with an archetype. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but it does tend to blow things out of proportion.

I could see that. Possibly it fit in nicely with someone saying that Hitler was not a Christian and a viewed fear of our current administration's speak that may or may not follow a similiar line of Hitlers. The speak may be similar, the sediment is up for debate. How closely President Bush follows his religion election promises in his 2nd term will be interesting to see.

I agree with your statement that we must always be aware of what our leaders are doing and saying and not take things as face value. But...unless there's a particular argument that the writer is alluding to, which is obvious - that Bush's administration speaks of God and so did Hitler's, then this article and concept deserves a collective yawn and "duh".

Either you're trying to stir up the fires or you're not. Which is it?

Good article. She avoids the idiotic Bush = Hitler arguement (and points that out repeatedly) but still addresses her point.

I didn't get from the article that is was a simple of message that God speak = Hitler. Seemed to me to be a tad bit deeper than that. Not that I know for certain, but it seems to me that the author believes in religion.

What dignity is lost by pointing out that the messenger in this case has about as much credibility as a wino on a street corner?

I've got t-shirts older than the wannabe writer, who appears to have about as much experience in the real world as my 6 y/o. Her bio provides clues that she's pretty much what she writes like -- another worthless liberal without a fucking clue.

If people want to waste their time giving deep thought to the musings of someone who doesn't appear capable of having a clue even if she spent $1,250 buying vowels from Vanna so be it ... but damned if I see a problem with someone calling b.s. on the same material.

The Canadian vote is duly noted, and will be given all the consideration it deserves.

gi, do you have some philisophical opposition to typing the name "Hitler"?

If her intellect and experience is as weak as you suggest, Jon, it should be very easy to discredit her argument.

Since you haven't done this, I'll assume one or more of the following:

1. You don't understand her argument.
2. You don't care.
3. You don't listen to/read anyone whose political inclinations lie to the left of you.

Glad to see you have an open mind.

You so crazy!

I'd probably quibble over whether she's penned an "argument" or "a left-wing propoganda piece" but other than that, I wouldn't give you much grief about the general sentiment.

Well, I'd also make some minor alteration to the 3rd point there, something to the effect of "don't care to listen/read, etc" except from the standpoint of "know thy enemy".

It's called ad hominem -- a fallacy of logic.

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

Trying to work and type sometimes my fingers move to fast or too slow.....then you start typing in a habit. Spell Check is my best friend.

My personal favorite is Straw Man. :)

Nooooo Dac, it's called "considering the source". I've dismissed the author because they've shown themselves to be unwilling and/or incapable of using logic, reason, or common sense in the grand scheme.

Although I conceed that you'll miss the occasional savant moment on an isolated topic, time constraints that reality places on us all makes it unrealistic to consider every inane rambling from every idiot in hopes of mining out the occasional nugget.

I don't have time to rip this entire article into the shreds it deserves. There are plenty of fantastic leaps in it. I'll take up two points:

The author seems to equate Bush asking the Lord for strength to being the same as Bush claiming God is on our side. For example:


"God's Master Plan" simply does not equal "I appeal to God for strength". Two different things.

She also conveniently tries to bring in far-right Falwell and Robertson under the Bush umbrella to broaden the Administration's Christian support. Sorry, they're on the far right, and not indicative of this Administration's approach to government and religion. She's throwing all Republicans under the extremist bus which is just a ridiculous claim.

This whole article is scare tactics.

Funny, because that's what her argument basically boils down to.

While there are some disturbing elements in Bush's policies, and there's no question that Scalia made comments that border on unforgivable buffoonery, we're hardly on the threshhold of the plotlines in "It Can't Happen Here," which is a brilliant novel from Sinclair Lewis based on Hitler's rise to power.

The moral value argument didn't need the extensive Hitler comparisons. I did find it interesting enough to desire some discourse on it though.

I heard Hitler liked the color blue. So do I. I must be a Nazi too

On my to do list to read.

Can you please elaborate what is so bad about this...


That you need to compare this person of whom you have no personal knowledge about to a "drunken whino on the corner" or whatever? She seems to be fairly well educated and involved in several different activities. Or is the fact that she is just another "liberal propaganda writer" enough for you. I don't neccessarily agree with what she says, other than Scalia seeminlgy says very weird things at times, but I wouldn't discount her opinion based upon what you have revealed.

Thank you!!! This is exactly what I was hoping for.

I'm thinking the comment was in relation to her work experience...she's volunteered, studied abroad, and interned for TV stations, but not much else. But she does have an English degree, which I suppose qualifies her for writing. *shurg*

(the "counts Venice, Italy" as a "home away from home" strikes me as a wacky thing to say ;) )

Do we really fucking need a Hitler Thread on Hannakuh?

My posting of this topic did not take into account the day. My sorrow if it offended.

I am not a President Bush fan, but even I see this as bunk.

I suggest the author reads books such as "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer and see the actual reasons Hitler came into and held power.

When you have millions on the streets on an empty stomach and your money isnt worth the paper it was printed on, people will listen to anything that ends up feeding them. Hitler took a dying nation and made a war machine out of it. The people got fed. At the time, they didn't care if Yosemite Sam was in charge.

stevew, not a jew.

Hmm...so I guess doing volunteer work to help people's employment, studying abroad, going to a good school and interning for TV stations and think tanks puts one in the same category as a drunken "wino" according to some people.

I don't post here regularly because it seems a little like an 'old boy's club'. Of course, most of you are too young to be considered 'old boy's' but what the hell. That being said, I enjoy popping over and reading some of the posts. I find a lot of interesting information through this site, and it is also informative as to how some people think.

It's kind of funny that I see this article posted here today because I was having thoughts similar to the author (who I've never heard of) this morning. My thoughts were prompted by the lead story on the daily paper where I live. "Christ Being Put Back in Christmas". (The part about boycotting stores that didn't sport a Merry Christmas sign was quite touching. How about 'No Jews or Dogs allowed"?) That was the headline on the front page. And if I go to the bottom of the page I can see the daily bible thought. It's not my bible, but they call it the 'daily bible thought' nevertheless.

If you are not a Christian, America is beccoming a scary place. And I hope it's becoming a scary place for some Christians too. Those would be the people that believe in Jesus and believe that others have the right, without interference, to believe in whatever they want to.

This isn't Hitlerland but I would never say, "It Can't Happen Here". It can happen anywhere and people need to be vigilant to ensure that it doesn't. The religious right does not hold a monopoloy on moral values. In fact, I believe they are totally immoral due to the fact that they wish to impose their way of thinking on others.

I am in favor of abortion. I don't like the idea of it, and I would hate to be in a position where someone I knew felt they had no choice but to have one. However, it's their choice. You might not agree with them and that's fine. But to try and make laws or picket and disrupt their right to an abortion is immoral. (Abortion is just my example here. Feel free to use gay marraige or something else).

I reside somewhere between Judaism and Atheism. I remember living in a place when I was younger where people went to church or synagogue or whatever and that was their own business. It didn't appear that anyone was offended or bothered by what others did.

Now I live in a world where I am told I am going to hell (wherever that is) if I don't accept Jesus. I live in a world where adolescents are told they are going to hell (but their friends love them) if they don't accept Jesus. This world has public schools where the children proudly display these feelings on their lockers.

It's fucking scary.

The author makes some excellent points. She is not saying that Bush equals Hitler. Anyone who reads that is missing her point. She is saying , "Be Careful". That's all.

This country needs to be very careful that it holds on to tolerance and acceptance of others, both within it's borders and outside it's borders. You don't have to do what the rest of the world wants, but you have to be respectful and mindful of what goes on in the outside world.

I happen to think that Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism, etc.) are pretty weird and dumb. I won't go into my reasons here. But I respect others rights to worship and celebrate them. I don't understand why others can't respect my rights to not be bombarded with "god is on my side" reasoning and moral (not my morals) values. And spare me the proseltiyzing that goes on in the public schools. And shut up with your prayers at my local Starbucks when I'm ordering my coffee or at the airport when I'm trying to grab a snack between flights. You wouldn't masturbate in public so why ejaculate out of your mouths. Do it in the privacy of your own homes.

What's wrong with a melting pot? Why not learn something from different people and cultures instead of assuming yours was the god-chosen one? I don't happen to think there is a god (my right to think that), but if there was he certainly wouldn't have been in favor of the 'religious right' christian lunatics.

Thank you for your time.

That's pretty much enough. I don't believe there's a lot of room for doubt of what I think of "liberal propoganda writers", but if I had to spell it out, the Cliff notes version would be something along the lines of "Fools at best, pure evil at worst".

I don't think you got the point she was making. It was never that 2004 America = 1930s Germany.

I agree with her. I must be young, a liberal, or a wino.

As to other criticisms made of her article:

-Bringing Falwell/Robertson in had nothing to do with "widening the umbrella" of the Bush administration. Her article is concerned with the direction of America and the last time I checked those two were Americans.

-Bringing up Hitler is used here exactly the same way as I've seen bringing up Stalin about what happens when you have a lack of religion in government (I wonder if Jon would actually take the time out of his busy schedule to read a deomcrats = communists article--he posts shit like that all the time, so probably so)

I think the two strongest points she makes that I thought were useful were:
-Christians shouldn't use the government to hate non-christians (implied early on)

-Majoritarian politics, where the masses believe fervently that they are "right" about something, is dangerous

Thanks for your ringing endorsement of a Christian's right to free speach. Please go back to lurking now.

JIMG was speaking in a bit of hyperbole I think.

I would at least want to see said wino's curriculum vitae.

I'm a Christian but I believe in the separation of church and state. I'm against abortion, but I would never threaten a person who chooses to have one. I'm also tolerant of other races, religions, etc., and believe people have the right to pray in a Starbucks line or while Mr. Tolerance is getting a snack between flights.

When you equate prayer with masturbation and ejaculate you are exposing yourself for what you are. Feel free to post again when you truly understand the meaning of tolerance.

:rolleyes:
That should have been the democrat's slogan in the last two elections.

The funny thing about just calling the opposition names is that it easily works both ways.

Kinda brings me back to something I've repeated often for several years now -- the two sides really just don't like each other very much. I just don't see the point in trying to disguise that fact.

And so are the wackos burning down houses and SUV dealers out West as an environmental protest, but you don't see me writing articles comparing them to the Taliban and how America is turning into a country where it will be illegal to own a TV and a satellite dish...

Education:
LLB, University of Virgina Law School, 1959
Attended, International Law School, The Hague, Netherlands, 1958
BA, Harvard University, 1956.

:D

{two brownie points for the first person to identify the wino in question}

Eh, not a lot of point in reading many of those, I've actually got more respect for the Communists, who were at least pretty upfront about what they were.

Two gold stars for using the phrase "curriculum vitae" :D

SI

So to you free speech is telling a 12 year old they are going to hell if they don't accept Jesus.

Thank you for reinforcing what I said.

Ted Kennedy.

Edit: Er, in response to Jon's question. I'm not quite sure what his point is, though.

Good job -- I'd say flere beat you to it, but with our whacked out post sequence lately, who can be sure?

You both receive one brownie point :D

{edit to add} - LMAO, it put this post in front of the one I was responding to, right on cue.

Now I need to work on getting more green checks...

I like brownies. Is that the most cloyingly liberal Massachusetts senator in the history of the world?

It was in response to cuervo's comment somewhere about "I would at least want to see said wino's curriculum vitae."

Basically, it was an easy opportunity for a quick TK joke.

Now I'm going to post & see where the "post sequence wheel of fortune" lands this time :D

Actually I believe I am a lot more tolerant than most. I just happen to believe that prayer (in any form) is not something to be spouted in public places except when designated for that purpose.

To hear public prayer is very offensive to me (and others). There is a time and place for everything. But as part of the 'majority' I don't believe you (the generic you) can understand that. It's more of my time is anytime, and my place is anyplace, and who the hell cares what some non-christian thinks because they should be in hell anyhow.

I was with you on most of your original post but the public prayer thing I gotta disagree with.

For instance, I'd really like to punch every single person around me who talks on their cell. I mean, really, just belt them a good one so I don't have to hear them saying "Oh, I'm on my way home, see you in 2 minutes" or when some dumb blonde gets on her phone, saying "Where am I? I'm on campus, walking to class. Where are you? Oh, cool!" because she'd rather talk to another vapid friend than spend some time in quiet reflection, thought, or just minding her own damn business and not polluting my air space with her noise garbage. But last I checked, I couldn't do it because no matter how rude it was, they're allowed to do it.

SI

I support you on the cell issue and understand your point. The difference is the cell thing is just rude and annoying and ignorant. The prayer thing has the added feature of making non-christians feel like they don't belong.

A few thoughts to this painful thread:

- The blind hostility of JoninMiddleGA's earlier posts and the desire to squash any meaningful debate is precisely what the author of the article is most afraid of.

- By the way, it's not a Christian's right to free speech - it's an American's.

- Jesus never advocated violence against anyone in the name of God, even though his people (the Jews) were savagely oppressed by the Romans and it would have been easy for him to do so. He took the harder path. So to say that God is on America's side, God supports Bush's decision to go to war to "free" people, etc. is a gross miscarriage of Jesus' most important message.

- As listed in her biography, the author's efforts to help others less fortunate seems to fit into Jesus' teachings pretty well.

- I would like to know what qualifications I must have in order to articulately express my opinion with legitimacy? A cross? A Young Republican badge? Or can an article stand on its own merits without pre-judgement or stereotypes?

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that's not grounds to dismiss their right to free speech on.

And I'd say that if they were praying to (pardon any misspellings) Yaweh, Allah, Buddah, Satan, or Arnold Schwarzegger.

SI

Actually, I think to get JiMGA to listen you have to have a "Crotchety Old Republican" badge and even then he'll listen with one ear to the ground, making sure you're legit ;)

SI

Exactly how many Philosphers do we have at this forum? Straw man? Ad hominem? I'm still waiting for the red herring.

Hitler was heavily involved into the occult: Devout Christians were persecuted along with Jews and others that did not follow the Nazi Party line. Any real research would reveal this, not the usual lazy-man leftist propaganda equating morality with evil.

Now there is soda on my keyboard... (Still laughing)

But guess who is? Hall of Famer Rod Carew!

(He converted.)

I'll take my previous quote a step further: It appears to me more and more that the secular crowd is attempting to equate traditional morality with evil and traditional immorality with virtue. Seems to be the common thread amongst most anti-religious articles and 'research.'

Good Point. Hmm...might be worth the court time to actually do this....

I saw Hellboy too! That was some crazy shit those Nazis tried pulling. Good thing we got to the big, red fella first. :)

It's just a red herring.... (from the movie Clue)

The Pope also support Germany during this time...and Italy for that matter...

Don't know about 'Hellboy', but History Channel had some good stuff on this: Origins of Hitler's 'Master Race' theory and such.

I was going to respond, but it's not worth it. Your continued ignorance is staggering.

Generally the secular crowd trys to stay away from using terms such as 'evil'...

Traditional Morality is a term that has many meanings to a great many people.

Incidentally, on the subject of ad hominem attacks: Whatever you think of the posted article, it's far more of an opinion piece than an actual statement of facts. Yes, there are facts stated, but they're relatively basic ones (quotes from books, etc) and not in dispute. Like most good writing, the point of the article is to argue a position -- it's not an purely objective effort by any means.

Given that, questioning the author's background and biases is perfectly legitimate (at least in terms of real world discussion, as opposed to purely logical constructs).

True in some aspects, but you first of all make the common mistake of equating the Catholic Church with Christians in general (not anti-Catholic, but the Pope, Crusades, ect.. is what the Catholic Church did, not Christians in general).

And there is one very famous case at least of a Catholic Priest sent to the concentration camps and eventually killed for speaking out against Hitler. So even that shows your blanket statement has many holes. ;)

First of all, there's no public, government institution telling any 12 year old this. If my 12 year old tells your 12 year old about Jesus in school, that's free speach.

Don't get me started on the kind of crap the schools are pumping into our kid's heads with the government's full endorsement - most of it is amoral, liberal, humanistic crap that is offensive to me.

Second of all, I can't fathom why you think public prayer shouldn't be allowed. Where's you're justification in this? Is censorship of all public speech OK with you, or just the Christian variety?

Honestly... you and Hitler might have gotten along famously. Hey, Jews pray in public, too. Maybe we should tattoo them and make them wear little yellow stars on their clothes, just so we can stay away from them, lest our tender ears be exposed to an errant prayer.

Thanks! :D

BTW, 'lazy-man' comment was referring to author of the article. My opinion!

Yup, next you'll be saying that Hitler had the right idea. You are an ass.

True enough, and makes it all the more fascinating how the secularists attempt to convey the same idea of 'evil', but have to avoid the actual word for fear of giving some credence to anything 'religious' in nature!

Semantics is everything.

Depends. At one time, all there was, was the Catholic Church. Blanket statement? I don't see it. Catholic's are Christians though in a very general sense.

Point. A wacko is a wacko is a wacko. Left or Right. Extremism, while I think is needed, does sometimes cast a bad light on the more moderate of a side.

:rolleyes:

edit: I actually wrote a response to this. I'm going jon's route and just resorting to name calling: Idiot!

You confound me, sir.

I can't quite figure out what sort of logic you're working with. I guess you think persecution is bad, unless it's persecution of Christians, whom you seem to hate.

Which is OK with me. Really.

What is considered traditional morality could very well be evil. Are you referring to how the deep south considers blacks? More interesting is the decay of traditional morality in some respects, such as how gambling suddenly surged back into social acceptability. Did it suddenly become less destructive to society? This occurred under Republican watch, the ones who claim to be the self-appointed guardians of tradition, if not traditional morality. What is virtuous about this?

Sheesh, all I get for that is "blind hostility"? Damn, I have got to try harder. There has got to be a more consistent way to get contempt & revulsion across. Ah well, I'll work on it, I promise.


Other -- none of the above. Just have a point of view that I haven't already found woefully wanting & dismissed. As a matter of fact, none of the things you mentioned gets you a free pass if you fail that particular test.

I was with you on the first part Franklin- I think your kid has every right to pray in public if he feels the need to. Can I thus get you to agree that another 12 year old has the right to tell your kid why he worships Satan or the occult, and pray for it in public ? However, when you start the secular humanism rant- you sound like Bubba. I'm fairly certain you don't need that approach. And equating Christians to Jews in Nazi Germany is a little ridiculous - majority per se ?

Traditional morality in the country is Bible-based. Period. Bible was used as a text-book for both reading and writing up into the 1920s in public schools.

In the new testement, Paul tells the slave (which was a common practice of the Romans, among others of the time) to conduct themself so as to bring honor to Christ. Paul was not condoning slavery, just making the point that regardless of circumstance to rejoice in Christ and bring honor to Him.

But the misinformed often use this particular passage to somehow justify slavery in the South or condemn the Bible for condoning it. As above, the Bible does not justify it. (ALL men are EQUAL in the site of God.)

I love your sig, JIMG. It's says a lot about you.

I can just see Jesus uttering those words as they nail him to the cross...

Oh wait, he said something more like "Forgive them, they know not what they do." Intolerant indeed.

Crapshoot, there are kids in public schools that tell my kids how to shoplift. They share Eminem music with my kids. They do drugs. They drink. They have unprotected premarital sex. They have abortions. They can't get any more satanic.

Fiar enough then- I'd disagree with the characterization as "Satanic", but I do support your kids right to pray and talk about Jesus. AS long as you're consistent about not restricting it - its fair game.

Where in the article does she quote Bush as saying this? One of my key points was that she keeps quoting Bush as saying "I pray to the Lord for strength" or some equivalent, and keeps twisting it into "God supports my actions." The two aren't the same.

Ah, good, I've already been called a name. Thanks, I was feeling left out until that.

gi got it right, my point was that there are extremists on both sides, and to name some Christian extremists and use them as evidence of which direction America is heading is EXACTLY like the statement I threw out there. You can't take examples from Fallwell and Robertson and claim the entire country is following them. You'd have a hard time convincing me that even a majority of Christians are following them.

But I would VERY much restrict this! No Satanic influence is coming near my kids...therefore if and when that day arrives in public school my kids are out of there.

Interestingly, the Iron Boot of the Federal Govt concerning public schools as dictated by the ACLU hasn't infiltrated every corner of the country yet: My kids school actually has the sign out front displaying the dates for "CHRISTMAS Break!" :D

Well, we have a different idea of what is and isn't Satanic. I suppose I should wait until the kids are sacrificing kittens to beelzebub before I apply that label...

Well there is more than a little ad hominem in her arguemnt too.

I'd say you need to lighten up. You call yourself tolerant, yet you claim offense when someone simply speaks a prayer within your earshot. Recognize that not everyone feels like you, and respect and tolerate the fact that prayer isn't offensive to the masses. Instead you feel it is your right to bind their tongue.

Oh man, a real yawner here. We've got politics AND religion in the same thread.

I just wanted to boost my post count.