When over 50 people died and over 695 people were injured in response to a YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactions_to_Innocence_of_Muslims

It's not unreasonable to expect that a lot more people would die if "The Koran on Broadway" were staged, along the same lines of "The Book of Mormon on Broadway".

Why do we tolerate a world where one religion gets to dictate what the rest of us say, or the content of our art through threats of violence?

You and I will never see, "The Koran On Broadway" because of the predictably violent outcomes.

Islam is the one religion that would elicit that kind of a response to a perceived insult.

Mormons take out a 2 page, "You've seen the Play...Now Read the Book" ad in the center of every playbill.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865561906/LDS-Church-buys-ad-space-in-Book-of-Mormon-musical-playbill.html

Why the difference?

Because radical, violent mormons who kill in defense of their "faith" stopped being supported and encouraged by the church leaders in the early 1900's?

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because radical, violent mormons who kill in
> defense of their "faith" stopped being supported
> and encouraged by the church leaders in the early
> 1900's?

And radical, violent muslims who kill in defense of their faith still find useful idiots who will make their case against freedom, human rights and scientific progress.

But I do think what makes islam look so strong in the eyes of some is also its greatest weakness. A lot of people may be unwilling to attack it openly, but even fewer will defend it anonymously.

The Book of Mormon does not tell members to kill all unbelievers.

But the Quoran does.

Plenty of useful idiots here defend Islam.

So you think 1.6 billion Moslems are bad?

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you think 1.6 billion Moslems are bad?

No dammit, nobody said that except you.

We think islam is bad, the koran is bad, the hadith is bad. Just as we think about mormonism, the BOM and the D&C. It's the same bullshit that destroys people's lives, keeps entire countries back, oppresses women, kills gays, and in the very best case, it makes people waste a lot of time that would be better spent practicing sports and reading a good book.

And for the last time, there are no 1.6 billion muslims, just as there are no 16 million mormons. TSCC claims 16 million mormons and the OIC claims 1.6 billion muslims including the whole of my country. But 25% of the people disagree.

Visitors Welcome,

Sometimes you can be remarkably pedestrian. What I wrote was "So you think 1.6 billion Moslems are bad?" Do you not see that that is a question and not a statement?

Do you not see that what I wrote was a response not to you but to Stinky, who was criticizing people like Bona Dea, Tevai, and me as "useful idiots?" I can't discern why you would take that personally although you are of course free to do so.

So let's provisionally accept what you say as true; let's assume 25% of the 1.6 billion Moslems are not Moslems and that the actual number is 1.2 billion. Do you fail to comprehend that that does not change the logical problem one bit? Sweeping generalizations about hundreds of millions of people and their culture/s are inevitably wrong.

One of the defining characteristics of Mormonism is the determination to divide humanity into categories and act as if people in those categories are essentially identical. In Mormonism black people are morally distinct from white people; Native Americans are likewise distinct. Races and nations are defined by their bloodlines. In Mormonism women are fundamentally and eternally different, and inferior, to men. People are defined by their gender. In LDS theology gay people are morally and eternally different from straight people. People of separate cultures and religions are also ranked morally and judgmentally as is evident in D&C76 as well as the temple ceremony.

Those who leave Mormonism but remain inclined to treat people as members of classes rather than individuals are implicitly denying people their human dignity. That intellectual tendency makes the world easier to "process," but it is a logically sloppy and morally wrong.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> What I wrote was "So you think 1.6 billion Moslems are
> bad?" Do you not see that that is a question and
> not a statement?

No my dear, it was a rhetorical question and an insinuation.


> Do you not see that what I wrote was a response
> not to you but to Stinky, who was criticizing
> people like Bona Dea, Tevai, and me as "useful
> idiots?"

I knew very well you asked it to someone else, but I took the liberty to answer anyway. Moreover, it was me who first used the term "useful idiots" here, though I wasn't thinking of anyone who was posting here. I was thinking of the so-called regressive left. You know, the kind that sympathized with Mao and Ho Chi Minh yesterday and with the jihadists and taliban today. I think Stinky's bitchy snide was totally uncalled for. But so was yours ;)


> So let's provisionally accept what you say as
> true; let's assume 25% of the 1.6 billion Moslems
> are not Moslems and that the actual number is 1.2
> billion. Do you fail to comprehend that that does
> not change the logical problem one bit? Sweeping
> generalizations about hundreds of millions of
> people and their culture/s are inevitably wrong.

When I say that 25% of Moroccans, Algerians and Tunesians identify as atheist (source: Pew Poll on religion), that doesn't mean the other 75% are all holy rollers. They also come in many shades of green. You seem to be the one making sweeping generalizations about 1.2 billion muslims ;)


> One of the defining characteristics of Mormonism
> is the determination to divide humanity into
> categories and act as if people in those
> categories are essentially identical. In
> Mormonism black people are morally distinct from
> white people; Native Americans are likewise
> distinct. Races and nations are defined by their
> bloodlines. In Mormonism women are fundamentally
> and eternally different, and inferior, to men.
> People are defined by their gender. In LDS
> theology gay people are morally and eternally
> different from straight people. People of
> separate cultures and religions are also ranked
> morally and judgmentally as is evident in D&C76 as
> well as the temple ceremony.

Happy to see you object to all that. So why would you defend a creed that divides the world in brethren, dhimi, infidels and apostates?


> Those who leave Mormonism but remain inclined to
> treat people as members of classes rather than
> individuals are implicitly denying people their
> human dignity. That intellectual tendency makes
> the world easier to "process," but it is a
> logically sloppy and morally wrong.

Is that what you call a false dichotomy in English? There's nothing wrong in categorizing individuals into men and women, straight and gay, locals and newcomers and so on and so forth. We all use such categorizations when we are looking for a partner ("Nice guy, but a pity he lives so far upstate").

It would be evil to attach moral judgment to that, but it is perfectly possible to do the former without the latter. And vice versa you can also judge people harshly individually, at random, without any categorization whatsoever. Of course in mormonism you DO always see them together, but it doesn't have to be that way.

That will be all for now. I wish you sweet dreams, as they are an Arab specialty ;)

Visitors Welcome,

We agree on the stupidity of people who impulsively support anti-Western or anti-liberal movements. And I did not think you had anyone in mind when using the term "useful idiots."

On the number of Moslems in the world, again, the number doesn't really matter. I quoted the oft-mentioned 1.6 billion. You replied that that may be 25% too high. I accepted your characterization as I do now your implication that the real number is probably lower still. My argument is that when you count people in millions or tens of millions or hundreds of millions, as is the case with Moslems, generalizations are dangerous.

As for the notion that it is I who am generalizing when I speak of 1.6, 1.2 or 0.8 billion, I submit that you are mistaken. My "generalization" was no more than the observation that generalizations purporting to describe large numbers of people are inevitably wrong. That is hardly stereotyping Moslems or any other group.

Yes, it is possible to categorize people without attaching moral judgment. To assert that I am doing that, however, requires that you ignore the previous several sentences in my post. As you acknowledge, Mormonism judges, and in varying degrees condemns, huge classes of people based on their inherent characteristics. That was my point.

Have a restful night.

I live in an area where there are many Muslims (most of them Persian by ethnicity, a minority of them not).

Muslims in the United States are no more likely to be violent than are (mostly Christian) born American citizens in different parts of the USA...it is probably near to the same percentage of people in each group.

(My step-grandfather was KKK when he was a young man in Kansas, so I do personally know something about proud, American-born-and-raised, WASP-centered violence. The maternal side of my family was PROUD of their racist/nativist violence and history, both violent actions as well as their political and social norms and beliefs.)

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I live in an area where there are many Muslims
> (most of them Persian by ethnicity, a minority of
> them not).

Congratulations, you are surrounded by decent, secular people. The ones that got away from the crazy true believers who run Iran.
If you were living in Bradford or Luton your idea of muslims would be hate-filled semi-literate mummified half-wits.
But the reason why the people around you are so nice is that they are not living according to their scripture. You'd hate them if they did.

Agreed,Tevai, and I am sick of the anti Muslim rants here.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2018 05:39PM by bona dea.

I couldn't agree more.

First, there are 1.6 billion Moslems in the world. No characterization about a billion people is accurate and it is worse than sloppy to assert that it is. If one wants to discuss violent or fundamentalist Moslems, then for heaven's sake say so. But don't throw out allegations that are false for the vast majority of believers in any religion.

Second, every book of scripture in this world is subject to various interpretations. Every such book has been used to justify violence and war and also to argue against bloodshed. Anyone who claims that his or her interpretation of the Koran is definitive really needs to see a therapist. Stating that the Moslems who don't kill people are violating their scriptures implies the same thing about every Christian and Jew since the Bible advocates violence more frequently and graphically than the Koran.

Third, even Moslems in countries controlled by fundamentalists are often--and in some cases mostly--secular and peaceful. If you need evidence of that obvious fact, google "Iran women fashion" and you'll see how women in the big cities there dress in tight clothes, show their hair, and wear their hijabs as fashion statements. People there drink, smoke, openly fornicate, and read whatever they want. As in many Islamic countries, most people in Iran are fed up with their rulers and would much prefer secular government and close relations with the United States.

Bottom line: a lot of Moslem countries are serious problems for the United States and the West and a significant minority of Moslems is violent and needs to be contained or eliminated. No one disputes those facts. But for the love of God, show a little political and social sophistication and acknowledge that Islam is not monolithic and the vast majority of Moslems are, or would be, excellent neighbors.

It should be pointed out that there is a genocide going on right now in Myanmar (formerly known as Burma), where the Buddhist majority population is systematically murdering their Muslim citizens (known as the "Rohingya" there)...

...and in the Central African Republic, Christian militias are systematically murdering the Muslim citizens of that country.

A) Maybe your progenitors had your best interest at heart.
B) Maybe your progenitors loved you.
C) Maybe your progenitors knew something you didn't know.
C) Maybe you have lost your connection to your progenitors.
D) Maybe it's you that is F'd up.

ConcernedCitizen2.0 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A) Maybe your progenitors had your best interest
> at heart.
> B) Maybe your progenitors loved you.
> C) Maybe your progenitors knew something you
> didn't know.
> C) Maybe you have lost your connection to your
> progenitors.
> D) Maybe it's you that is F'd up.
~~~~~~~~~~~````````~~~~~~~~~~````````~~~~~~~~~~```````

I am the last guy who you should call anti-Muslim.
You need people like me on your side.
You want people like me on your side.
When I became Muslim at 18 they told me Loud and Clear that if I ever denied Allah exists, it would be my Brothers responsibility to kill me.
So when I started taking my Mormon roots seriously, it was my biggest blunder.
You want people like me, who are not "Anti" anything except oppression of human rights.
If you want people of good character, honest truth seekers on your side, you want me on your side.
If you want people who are more interested in truth and beauty, than identity, you want me on your side.
You need people like me and Ayan Hiursi Ali and Salmon Rushdie.
Let's not pretend "all religions are just as bad."
That's bulkshit.
I'm with Sam Harris on this one.

https://samharris.org/podcasts/russell-brand-interview/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/14/2018 01:32PM by koriwhore.

I would have thought that a defense of the KKK and of racist violence is a violation of board rules. It's the mods' decision, of course, but I'm not sure that this renders RfM a "safe" place for some people who may stumble on the site and want to participate.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would have thought that a defense of the KKK and
> of racist violence is a violation of board rules.
> It's the mods' decision, of course, but I'm not
> sure that this renders RfM a "safe" place for some
> people who may stumble on the site and want to
> participate.

I don't know what you are talking about here, Lot's Wife.

Where is there a defense of the KKK on this thread???

Hi Tevai,

You described your ancestors' involvement in the KKK and in racist violence. Concerned Citizen 2.0 then defended your progenitors' activities. I don't know how to interpret that if not as support for the KKK and racist violence.

LW

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Tevai,
>
> You described your ancestors' involvement in the
> KKK and in racist violence. Concerned Citizen 2.0
> then defended your progenitors' activities. I
> don't know how to interpret that if not as support
> for the KKK and racist violence.
>
> LW

Okay...I did not understand Concerned Citizen2.0's reply, and I did not understand that it was in answer to my post because what was said in his post didn't make any sense to me.

I was certainly NOT supporting ANY racial or political activities or "philosophical" positions of my maternal family (they reflected the racist culture of their forebears, and of the very-highly-racist parts of the country they and their ancestors grew up in---and on these subjects and these levels I was (and AM!!!) as opposite to them as it is possible to get)...

...and when I was growing up I got PUNISHED, MANY different times, for "thinking for [myself]," which was an almost incomprehensible kind of "sin" in my maternal family when it came to racial matters and to politics. They thought I was weird because I wasn't like them, but mostly they thought I was being bullheadedly obstinate, and that I was intentionally trying to create screaming arguments in the family (mostly at holiday dinners, when the adults had had too much Christmas cheer to drink), and that when it came to racial matters, I was just a born-hateful person who was TRYING to cause trouble among them. (My father did tell me, when I was in my early forties and he was in the process of dying from cancer, that I [at last!!!] had HIS permission to vote for the presidential candidate I chose to vote for in that election cycle---and he told me this with the "understood" context that he had just bestowed upon me an almost unbelievably incredible gift purely out of the goodness of his expiring heart.)

Tevai,

I was not in the least accusing you of racism or of sweeping generalizations about people. I consider you one of the most egalitarian and accepting people on RfM.

My concern was about Concerned Citizen 2.0 and his defense of the KKK and the associated racism. On the one hand there is some value in letting bigots rant, since they generally reveal their own stupidity. But on the other hand the hatred may (and in at least one case does) drive non-white people away from RfM.

Again, this isn't my site and what is allowed in threads isn't my call. I just want to register my view that the KKK and those who defend it are not good people.

I recall when Ervil Labaron was sending out emissaries to kill
people based on his revelations. Law enforcement estimated had
about 25 people killed. Then there were the Lafferty brothers
who, to this day, say that they did the right thing in slitting
the throats of Brenda Lafferty and her infant daughter.

If we scale up the size of Mormonism to the size of Islam, then
the murderous nut-fringe of Mormonism begins to rival Isis/Daesh.

Of course if we take Mountain Meadows into the equation . . .

Mormonism, Islam or any other religion that professes belief in a god that condones violence will sometimes commit violence.

The whole concept of jihad (a holy war)is a little concerning. Especially if they they as a people feel oppressed and become radicalized in their religious belief.

"Those who believe absurdities will commit atrocities."

Felix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mormonism, Islam or any other religion that
> professes belief in a god that condones violence
> will sometimes commit violence.

> "Those who believe absurdities will commit
> atrocities."

Indeed! Remember the murder of Matthew Shepard? His murderer, Russell Henderson, was BIC TBM. It would be politically incorrect to say he killed a gay boy because of his faith. But do you think he would have done this if he had grown up in a hippie commune on Ibiza? Me neither.

By the same token, some muslims become criminals because they put their faith into practice. As a general rule, members of a religion always become more difficult to live with when they become more observant. When they become secular INOs (*insert faith* in name only), then they're people we can get along with, and do business with.

Race has nothing to do with it. I've met lots of intolerable white mormons. None of them was intolerable just because they were white.

Islam is another "gift" from the myth of Abraham--a man so nasty, he'd kill his son if he heard a disembodied voice suggesting he do so. The Bible, The Book of Mormon, and the Koran are horrible things to revere, nasty, dreadful things.

Here's how I see it (you're all free to disagree, of course)...

From christianity's first installment as a "state religion" in the 4th century until the time christian-majority nations dumped theocratic rule, "official state" christianity acted much like Islam does today. Inquisitions, burning of heretics (and their writings), witch hunts, religious sectarian wars, etc. Those phased out as non-theocratic rule became the norm.

From mormonism's Kirtland "community" through Utah's theocratic beginnings, mormonism acted much like Islam does today. Danites, blood atonements, Mountain Meadows massacres, etc. When Utah's governance was no longer theocratic, those things phased out.

Islam is still in a theocratic "phase." There are nations/states that rule by their particular sect of Islam, and support the violent "radicals" who set out to enforce that theocratic rule. If Islam follows a similar timeline to christianity, Islamic theocratic rule would end somewhere around the 22nd-23rd century. That's a horrible thought. Perhaps with the internet, more world-wide interchange, etc. it might not take that long. But the pattern, to me, seems pretty clear: dump the theocracies, and the religion loses its ability to sustain violence.

Which is one reason I get so worried when christians in the US go on about the US being a "christian nation," and wanting to make it more theocratic. That way there be dragons. :(

A few observations about your post.

Again, there are many "Islams" around the world just as there are Christian sects spanning the range from violent extremists to little old ladies sitting in Anglican pews. Religions can be, and are, good and bad at the same time.

It's also worth noting that religions and cultures--I think it is important to add cultures here--can go from fanatical to moderate and then back to fanatical again. Aggressive Islam is like that. Middle Eastern Islam went from a violent expansionist phase to a much more tolerant period that lasted for centuries. Various factors, including Western imperialism and the reaction against it, the destruction of the stable Ottoman Empire, and the rise of Wahabi Islam combined to move the religion back into a violent stage in the 20th century.

Meanwhile Persian and Afghan and Pakistani Islam was very moderate and progressive by the 1960s and 1970s but then turned virulent again due to Wahabi and Deobandi influence, US support for extreme Islam during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and Gulf money. This is important because it indicates that religious evolution is not linear; religions can go retrograde again. Also, politics and geopolitics often play major roles in driving religions and cultures in both liberal and reactionary directions.

Again, this is true of secular societies as well as religious ones. Recall that Syria has since its foundation been a secular state, as was Iraq through the deposition of Saddam Hussein. The atrocities of those regimes were conducted against Moslems, moderate and extreme, in the name of secularism. Revolutionary France is another example: the secular rulers of that period were far more sanguinary than the ancien regime had been. Some of the greatest horrors of recent centuries were likewise committed by countries that went through periods of revolutionary secular ideologies.

What I am saying, once again, is that generalizations about classes of people and cultures and religions are often misleading. The religious trajectory you describe is not linear; it frequently does reverse, and you often get a single religion or culture moving in both directions at the same time. Nor are ideological movements or secular states immune to such course changes. We can (and do) all hope that society in general moves in a more tolerant direction but that process is more fragile and chaotic than would ideally be the case.

Good observations :)
I didn't think I had implicitly excluded any of what you wrote in my little diatribe, I just didn't make the post all-inclusive.

I'd just add a couple of things:

While non-violence-supporting-religions (or sects) may be "better" than the other kind, I don't personally see it as "good" or "bad" religions. I'd put all religions in the "bad" category, and then we can argue about which ones are the least or most bad...but I digress.

I'd also put the "secular" states that have committed such atrocities in the same category as most theocracies. They just replaced "god" with some other irrational thing to worship, whether it's "the state" or "dear leader" or whatever else. In substance they differ from theocracies by worship of different things; in form they're largely identical, holding back free thought and speech, persecuting "heretics," holding to obedience to ideology and "revered leaders" over all else.

Thanks, oh pillar of salt!

As usual, we don't disagree on much. You did not exclude my points in your original post.

I think the key agreement between us is over the notion that ideologies converge at some point with religions. I thought we argued about this several months ago; I contended that any definition of religion broad enough to include the non-theistic religions of Taoism and Buddhism would inevitably include political ideologies and that framework also helps because it explains why people under such religions or ideologies act very similarly in certain situations. But whether the history, the vulnerability of large numbers of people to simplifying systems of thought that also motivate acts of violence and oppression should be underscored. It explains much of human history and contemporary affairs.

Stay high, Hie.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the key agreement between us is over the
> notion that ideologies converge at some point with
> religions.

I've been saying this for years: religions are political ideologies. They want to govern.

Conversely, most political ideologies are religions. They want control over their adherents' hearts as well as their minds--and in many instances they too demand the metaphorical or literal sacrifice of individuality and family members.

A few observations about your observations ;)

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Religions can be, and are, good and bad at the same time.

Stop right there! In my opinion, religions can never be good. Because they present lies, myths and pure fiction as the gospel truth. And thus keep people from searching, researching and studying the ACTUAL truth. It can even motivate them to fight against anyone who does know the real truth or tries to find out. Of course religions can also, occasionally, inspire people to do good things, but nothing that they couldn't also do without the religious baggage. So I believe religions are bad per se.


> It's also worth noting that religions and
> cultures--I think it is important to add cultures
> here--can go from fanatical to moderate and then
> back to fanatical again. Aggressive Islam is like
> that. Middle Eastern Islam went from a violent
> expansionist phase to a much more tolerant period
> that lasted for centuries. Various factors,
> including Western imperialism and the reaction
> against it, the destruction of the stable Ottoman
> Empire, and the rise of Wahabi Islam combined to
> move the religion back into a violent stage in the
> 20th century.

I believe the influence of Western imperialism is greatly exaggerated but other than that, yeah.

And why do I think so? Because British, French, Italian and Dutch imperialism were very different in nature, yet Iraq, Algeria, Somalia and Indonesia have all experienced the same kind of islamic radicalism within decades of independence. While other British and French colonies like Senegal and Jordan have remained much more tolerant.


> Meanwhile Persian and Afghan and Pakistani Islam
> was very moderate and progressive by the 1960s and
> 1970s but then turned virulent again due to Wahabi
> and Deobandi influence, US support for extreme
> Islam during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, and
> Gulf money. This is important because it
> indicates that religious evolution is not linear;
> religions can go retrograde again. Also, politics
> and geopolitics often play major roles in driving
> religions and cultures in both liberal and
> reactionary directions.

Yes. Progress can be reversed. Gains can be undone. And a butterfly in DC can cause a tsunami in Afghanistan even though it's landlocked ;)


> Again, this is true of secular societies as well
> as religious ones. Recall that Syria has since
> its foundation been a secular state, as was Iraq
> through the deposition of Saddam Hussein.

Again, very true.


> The atrocities of those regimes were conducted against
> Moslems, moderate and extreme, in the name of
> secularism.

Not so much in the name as following the principles of secularism. And not only against muslims but also against secularists...


> Revolutionary France is another
> example: the secular rulers of that period were
> far more sanguinary than the ancien regime had
> been.

I'm not so sure of that. It was just better documented.

> Some of the greatest horrors of recent
> centuries were likewise committed by countries
> that went through periods of revolutionary secular
> ideologies.

I hope you mean Stalin and not Hitler. I've had it with American christians believing the nazis were atheists. They weren't. They were all catholic and lutheran.


> What I am saying, once again, is that
> generalizations about classes of people and
> cultures and religions are often misleading. The
> religious trajectory you describe is not linear;
> it frequently does reverse, and you often get a
> single religion or culture moving in both
> directions at the same time. Nor are ideological
> movements or secular states immune to such course
> changes. We can (and do) all hope that society in
> general moves in a more tolerant direction but
> that process is more fragile and chaotic than
> would ideally be the case.

Some amount of "generalizing" is inevitable when one wants to talk about "Islam" or "the West" or "the 20th century". Hell, even talking about "Utah" will imply sweeping generalizations across the board! See the big picture, don't fuss about the details.

Actually a number of them were Christians in name only..Many were into paganism. They werent atheists bust they were not all Catholic or.Lutheran in practice.

I don't agree that religions are all bad. Again, yours is a generalization that is true most of the time. But if the standard is the perpetration of "lies, myths, and pure fiction," as you aver, that would not condemn Taoism, which taught that there are no facts that humans can articulate, or early Buddhism, which has virtually no doctrinal claims. Those simply aren't doctrinal faiths and they rarely (never for Taoism) motivated communal violence. But you and I differ only on the margin.

On imperialism, the key is to recognize the interaction of that phenomenon with geopolitics and local factors. A useful generalization, suitably tentative, is that that interaction proved explosive for much or most of the Arab world. Elsewhere the effect was generally more muted--at least until the last couple of decades.



We agree on secular states and their oppression of both Moslems and others. Our views diverge over revolutionary France. The data were not better during that period than in the decades before 1989: the revolution brought a paroxysm of domestic bloodshed that had not occurred in the preceding reigns as well as international violence unlike anything in Europe since the 30 Years War.

On Germany, Nazism was in fact atheistic--or at least not Christian. Hitler's interest in, and financing of, Iran is well documented as was his investment in broader Aryan mythology. Rather than celebrate Christian events and encourage Christian worship, he and his colleagues shifted the focus of Christian veneration to state veneration. Most Nazis may have been Catholic or Lutheran, but in the 1920s and even 1930s most Russians were Orthodox. The political ideologies in both superimposed their own cults on the underlying religious strata. The process was more brutal and went further in the USSR, but the Hitler regime was not Christian.

This is a point where Hie's observation is important: extreme political movements are a species of religious phenomena. Cults beget cults.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> On Germany, Nazism was in fact atheistic--or at
> least not Christian. Hitler's interest in, and
> financing of, Iran is well documented as was his
> investment in broader Aryan mythology. Rather
> than celebrate Christian events and encourage
> Christian worship, he and his colleagues shifted
> the focus of Christian veneration to state
> veneration. Most Nazis may have been Catholic or
> Lutheran, but in the 1920s and even 1930s most
> Russians were Orthodox. The political ideologies
> in both superimposed their own cults on the
> underlying religious strata. The process was more
> brutal and went further in the USSR, but the
> Hitler regime was not Christian.


Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Hitler was a lifelong catholic. He had all the catholic rites from baptism onwards, he praised God from Mein Kampf in 1924 right up until his very last radio address a few days before his death. Manuy other nazis were catholic and all of the others were lutheran.

Of course there was a personality cult about him. That is typical for absolutist regimes. It was no different in Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy or Hirohito's Japan. And of course you can say that they used religion as a means to an end. That is what religion was invented for in the first place: to justify the powers that be as appointed by a supreme being in the sky rather than show them as a bunch of aggressive sociopaths who had risen by the sword.

BTW, even Stalin, that icon of atheist totalitarians, was on relatively good terms with the Russian Orthodox church and allowed a religious component to his own funeral. It's not all as black and white as you always want to make it.

Hitler used religion for political
purposes and he had been baptized as an infant but he was not a practicing Catholic. He seldom attended mass, did not live by church teachings and imposed Nazi ceremonies which took the.place of Christian sacraments. In private he ridiculed Christianity ad a religion for weaklings

That's pretty funny: you of the sweeping generalizations accusing me of black-and-white thinking.

The superficiality of your understanding of Hitler's and Stalin's attitudes towards religion is striking. Given Stalin's purges of the church, the notion that he was on "relatively good terms" with orthodoxy is patently absurd. Can you name one reputable biographer who concurs with you? With regard to Hitler, do you contend that German/ Austrian Catholicism or Lutheranism were as strong in 1939 or 1945 as it had been in 1931? Were Goering and Goebells religious in any meaningful sense? Can you cite any decent biographer who describes Hitler and his cronies as devoted worshippers?

You could also usefully crack open a book on religious history. Typically risible is your proposition that "religion was invented . . . to justify the powers that be as appointed by a supreme being in the sky rather than show them as a bunch of aggressive sociopaths who had risen by the sword." How exactly was Taoism organized to legitimize state power? Can you point to any single state that ever used Taoism as a legitimizing principle? How about Quakerism? Sufism? Eremitic Christianity?

Again, we find you offering blanket statements about complex phenomena. Reality isn't that simple. It doesn't consist of a series of binary propositions.

Stalin executed most priests, closed churches and persecuted believers. How is that relatively good terms? Frankly you dont know what you are talking about.In a post below I gave a link to Stalin and atheism. You need to read it.

Jesus was executed as an enemy of the state. How does that fit in with the origin of religion as taught by VW?

I thought about raising that objection but it's possible to parse VW's contention in a way that makes sense.

If we assume that Christianity was not created by Jesus but rather by the worldly Paul, who was followed by Church Fathers who had political aspirations, one could say that the religion was established to bolster mundane power. Constantine could even be squeezed in there. That analysis may be too subtle for our interlocutor, but there it is.

That's why I opted for anti-state faiths like Taoism and Quakerism as the counterexamples. No one will ever succeed in identifying either a Taoist doctrinal endorsement of state power or a state that used Taoism for legitimization.

I agree about Constantine and to some extent about Paul, but without Jesus there would have been no Christians.Of course without Paul Christianity might not have made it, but Jesus was till executed by the government so I think the point stands.

The differences between Lot's Wife and me are more style than content. I always picture things from a satellite perspective on this forum. Nuance doesn't work on the internet. It works in one-on-one conversations. I'm quite different over tea.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I thought about raising that objection but it's
> possible to parse VW's contention in a way that
> makes sense.
>
> If we assume that Christianity was not created by
> Jesus but rather by the worldly Paul, who was
> followed by Church Fathers who had political
> aspirations, one could say that the religion was
> established to bolster mundane power. Constantine
> could even be squeezed in there. That analysis
> may be too subtle for our interlocutor, but there
> it is.


Indeed. The founders of religions may be genuine in their wacky beliefs, but it is not until the religions become relevant that politicians/rulers/warlords appropriate them.

The Romans recruited judaism to justify their occupation of Palestine just as they used their own Gods at home. And yes, Constantine fits in here because christianity had become too big to defeat. If you can't beat them, join them.

Religions that start as a rebellion can seize power and start oppressing other rebellions. Or they can start cozying up to those in power and become part of the establishment. Whatever suits their survival best. They need to adapt to changes in their environment. Ironically, even creationists evolve.

Thank you for noting that "the founders of religions may be genuine in their wacky beliefs." That is true, and it contradicts your contention that religions were invented to support "the powers that be."

The proposition that "the Romans recruited judaism to justify their occupation of Palestine just as they used their own Gods at home" is historically false. The Maccabean Revolt showed the depth of the divergence, and even in Jesus's day the relationship was deeply troubled. Pointedly, the Romans ordered or endorsed the execution of Jesus precisely because he represented a rallying point for disenchanted Jews who might organize challenge the empire's dominance.

"Religions that start as a rebellion can seize power and start oppressing other rebellions. Or they can start cozying up to those in power and become part of the establishment." Yes. I guess we have finally buried your assertion that religions are founded as a way of bolstering state power.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jesus was executed as an enemy of the state. How
> does that fit in with the origin of religion as
> taught by VW?

Oh, simply.

Christianity is a religion, but not all religion is christianity.

Christ was executed as an enemy of the state because he rebelled against the powers that be, and the religion that was used to justify the powers that be: judaism. He was not executed by orders of the state, but by acclaim of the faithful.

Autocrats having their opponents killed, jailed, exiled or otherwise eliminated on religious grounds has been a very common political tactic throughout history.

Actually the Jewish role in the death of Jesus is debatable as they likely didn't have e the power to execute people

That is ridiculous.

Above you said that "religion was invented . . . to justify the powers that be." Yet here you note that "Christ was executed as an enemy of the state because he rebelled against the powers that be." Do you think that anyone will fail to see the contradiction?

To conceal that logical failure, you retreat to "Christianity is a religion, but not all religion is christianity." Which means that your facile generalization about the creation of religion applies not to specific cases but to the entire category of faiths, which of course antedates history by millennia at the very least. In other words, you hide in the mists of pre-history.

By scampering away from your original assertion, you reveal its fatuity. Anything you say about the original religious impulse is untestable, so you cannot gainsay alternative psychological, sociological or biological theories of its origin. We are thus left with another of your sweeping generalizations and no argument but your insistence that we take your word for it.

Name another religion whose adherents kill 60 people in response to a YouTube video. I can't.

You are right. Mountain Meadows was not inspired by Youtube, so I guess it doesn't count as an act of impulsive xenophobic violence.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right. Mountain Meadows was not inspired
> by Youtube, so I guess it doesn't count as an act
> of impulsive xenophobic violence.

Yes it does, big time. But koriwhore was speaking in the present tense, and Mountain Meadows happened in 1857, long before YouTube existed.

And that is the point so many of us are trying to make: all religions have committed atrocities in their time, but only one is still going at it today.

Other religions still kill at times and so do non religious groups. Muslims do not have a monopoly on violence.Besides, terrorists are more motuvated by politics than relligion.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Other religions still kill at times and so do non
> religious groups. Muslims do not have a monopoly
> on violence.Besides, terrorists are more motuvated
> by politics than relligion.

I just wrote a post above which said that, right now in 2018, Buddhists in Myanmar (formerly Burma) are systematically killing the Muslim citizens of their country...and in the Central African Republic, Christian militias are systematically killing the Muslim citizens of that country too.

bona dea Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Besides, terrorists are more motuvated
> by politics than relligion.

Again, religion IS politics*




* One-on-one afternoon tea version (see a few posts earlier): Most religions tend to be a political ideology in their essence. They want to govern the world, or the whole universe, or so they say. In reality, they are usually quite content with governing the part of the world where they are established. They want to hold on to the power they have, even if they have given up on expanding their territory, though they may still organize "missions" to keep up the appearance of spreading around the world. Mormonism is a bit different in this respect in that it has been clinging to its ambition of becoming a global faith until very recently. It believed its own propaganda longer than most of us.

Less entertaining than the brutal interwebz version above, innit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USSR_anti-religious_campaign_(1928%E2%80%9341)
Here is a link on Stalin and religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/15/2018 02:50AM by bona dea.

This isn't going to go anywhere, Bona Dea. To the extent that they are discordant with his views, VW isn't interested in details like what Hitler and Stalin actually did.

I agree, but I am a glutton for punishment I guess. Maybe someone else will learn something.

VW isn't going to come up with reputable biographers that support his points.

I dont expect him to.This will probably get deleted but IMO he is an Islamophobic, religion hating black and white thinker who doesnt really know what he is talking about. I find his views distasteful and bigoted and feel a need to give the other side,if not for him, but for other readers.

However, I will keep playing the devil's advocate. I just can't help myself.

Stalin ruled for three decades. He continued the anti-religious policies he inherited until about 1941, the year your link ended. But then things got a lot more tolerant. The USSR went at it again from about 1958 onwards, under Krushchev. After his downfall in 1964, things got a lot more tolerant again, until Andropov changed Brezhnev's mind in the 1970s. I was more referring to the period between 1940 and 1958, including his funeral in 1953.

What had happened? The church had learned "its place" and stopped opposing the regime, so the regime loosened its stranglehold.

Again, very broad strokes. Surely not every priest collaborated in that period, and perhaps other priests did support the communist cause in the 1920s and 1930s. Like I said, satellite perspective. My point is that 1917-1991 was not an interrupted pogrom against religion. Devil's advocate, as always.

Devil's advocacy is always useful.

You were talking about Stalin, though, and saying that he maintained good relations with Orthodoxy. I take issue with that. Even under Lenin he was the chief organizer of oppression of the church; after he consolidated his personal power in 1927-1929, he launched new policies of oppression. This coincided with dekulakization, which required the evisceration of the kulaks' religious allies.

Stalin did indeed loosen up in 1940-1945 but that was because he needed to rally the Soviet Union against the Axis and, secondarily, the Japanese menace in East Asia. But that was just realpolitik; it did not signal any sincere or lasting reconciliation. Indeed, after the war he again ordered the execution or imprisonment of almost every threat to his power--the returning war vets, his generals, diplomats with experience in the West, and yes a lot of church leaders.

So there was no accommodation with the church in Stalin's last years. Yes, the USSR grew less murderously oppressive in the decades after the tyrant's death. But that was not because the church learned its place in Soviet society and stopped posing a threat, for Orthodoxy had not volitionally challenged the state at any point since the early 1920s.