PDA

View Full Version : US pastor burns Qur'an / Nazis and Christianity



antichrist
03-04-2011, 06:36 PM
Pastor Terry Jones from USA burnt the Koran and Pakistan has erupted in violence, killing some foreigners - which prophet was really sent by God? Mohammad? That small sect in Indonesia that has split from Islam and are being killled? Enoch Powell?

Rincewind
03-04-2011, 06:59 PM
Pastor Terry Jones from USA burnt the Koran ...

Burning any book is wrong. Be it the Qur'an, the Bible or On the Origin of Species.

antichrist
03-04-2011, 07:12 PM
Burning any book is wrong. Be it the Qur'an, the Bible or On the Origin of Species.

What about Mein Kemph(?) or Superman or And the Bride stripped Bare?

Rincewind
03-04-2011, 07:33 PM
What about Mein Kemph(?) or Superman or And the Bride stripped Bare?

I don't support burning those books either.

Oepty
03-04-2011, 07:41 PM
Burning any book is wrong. Be it the Qur'an, the Bible or On the Origin of Species.

Yes, do not burn books, although burning people because they have a certain book is worse.
Scott

Zwischenzug
03-04-2011, 07:45 PM
The sensationalistic media gave this pastor too much attention. I just wonder if the anti-Koran burning protests/attacks would have been less of a problem if the media just simply ignored this pastor.

Rincewind
03-04-2011, 07:50 PM
Yes, do not burn books, although burning people because they have a certain book is worse.

The Christians were good at that. So many "witches" tried for heresy and burnt at the stake, Giordano Bruno, countless Jews in persecutions, particularly on the Iberian peninsula during the reconquista, etc.

Oepty
03-04-2011, 07:53 PM
The Christians were good at that. So many "witches" tried for heresy and burnt at the stake, Giordano Bruno, countless Jews in persecutions, particularly on the Iberian peninsula during the reconquista, etc.

I was thinking William Tyndale and the like around the translation of the English Bible.
Scott

Spiny Norman
03-04-2011, 07:54 PM
Burning any book is wrong.
Burning books is ... wrong? Why is it wrong? I can see that it is useful as a symbolic gesture (if you're into pragmatism). I can see that its probably going to leave the book-burner looking rather silly in a lot of cases (and it does in this one; that pastor is a nutter IMO).

What if you're caught out in a blizzard and you have a few copies of the Bible, the Koran, and Mein Kampf (just for balance). Would you refrain from burning them for warmth and risk death by exposure? :lol:

antichrist
03-04-2011, 07:57 PM
The Christians were good at that. So many "witches" tried for heresy and burnt at the stake, Giordano Bruno, countless Jews in persecutions, particularly on the Iberian peninsula during the reconquista, etc.


And what was Bruno recorded as saying whilst the flames were whipping up? Much braver and defiant than JC I may say, yet JC knew he was going to straight to Heaven, what a coward!

Redmond Barry
03-04-2011, 08:02 PM
dont burn the koran unbelievers !!

excerpt from " the cow", chapter 2 (in the traditional format) -

.... such are those that barter away guidance for error : they profit nothing nor are they on the right path. they are like one who kindled a fire but as soon as it lit up all around him Allah put it out and he was left darkling : they do not see. Deaf dumb and blind they shall never return to the right path.

salman rushdie would agree with me as well !!

instead burn virginia woolfs "to the lighthouse". it was terrible !!

Desmond
03-04-2011, 08:08 PM
Burning any book is wrong.Have you read Kasparov's How Life Imitates Chess? :lol:

Seriously though, I agree with Spiny.

Burning books is ... wrong? Why is it wrong? I can see that it is useful as a symbolic gesture (if you're into pragmatism). I can see that its probably going to leave the book-burner looking rather silly in a lot of cases (and it does in this one; that pastor is a nutter IMO).
Destroying knowledge is wrong IMO, but in the digital age it's unlikely you can do that by burning a copy of it.

Redmond Barry
03-04-2011, 08:14 PM
Have you read Kasparov's How Life Imitates Chess? :lol:

yeah that book was a totally hot mess. :D

i just keep to kaspys greatest games vol1/2 instead. thankyou igor stohl !! ;)

Rincewind
03-04-2011, 08:39 PM
What if you're caught out in a blizzard and you have a few copies of the Bible, the Koran, and Mein Kampf (just for balance). Would you refrain from burning them for warmth and risk death by exposure? :lol:

In that case I will make sure I have a copy of the King James close at hand. :)

antichrist
03-04-2011, 09:26 PM
And what was Bruno recorded as saying whilst the flames were whipping up? Much braver and defiant than JC I may say, yet JC knew he was going to straight to Heaven, what a coward!

I demand attention

antichrist
03-04-2011, 09:43 PM
Perhaps your fear in passing judgment on me is greater than mine in receiving it.
It may be you fear more to deliver judgment upon me than I fear judgment.
You pronounce sentence upon me with greater fear than I receive it.

there is a statue of him on spot where he was burnt

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2011, 12:42 AM
What the pastor did was provocative and multiply hypocritical but radical Islamists need to get over it. Needing to vent anger by having to kill people who had nothing to do with the act in question is not a good advertisement for the mental health benefits or appropriateness for any society of their religious views. I am sure they would not like it if anyone in the West responded to the discovery of a new tape by Osama bin Laden by killing the nearest random people from Islamic countries.

In my view burning religious texts, flags or any other symbol of that sort is an allowable use of free speech whatever we think of it unless it is done in a way that incites violence. And I don't agree with the idea that books have some sacred status of their own such that they can never be burned. That seems to be a hangover from specific instances where book-burning has been conducted with express intention to suppress particular messages or authors.

By the way, apart from the points to be made about the hypocrisy of a believer in any historically illiberal monotheism frying the texts of another, Jones appears to be a special kind of hypocrite - see http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,716409,00.html

Thus although I defend the right to free speech for this specific action he's performed, I suspect based on his form card he really belongs in a prison or institution where nobody will really care too much what he sets fire to so long as he doesn't burn the building down.

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2011, 03:46 AM
There is a huge blind spot in the Islam-appeasers like General Betray-us, claiming: 1. Islam really is a religion of peace 2. This pastor should not burn a Koran because it will incite violence among Islamists. Actually it doesn't take much to incite followers of the Religion of Peace to murderous violence (http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/10/the-eternal-flame-of-muslim-outrage/).

Note also that the US army had no problems burning Bibles in Afghanistan (http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/05/20/us.military.bibles.burned/index.html), quite in the manner of the typically illiberal atheopathic communist regimes. And where are the protests when executives of the BBC, “admitted (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411977/Yes-biased-religion-politics-admit-BBC-executives.html) they would happily broadcast the image of a Bible being thrown away—but would not do the same for the Koran.”

antichrist
04-04-2011, 09:29 AM
now you should understand my position of kicking my own cultural religion because it also belongs to myself. But I will mostly lay off other religions out of respect to those people, it is not really my business. As an atheist I do not feel the competiton between the religions that Christians do.

Someone has to be able to kick a religion and it is much better than it be from its own people.

Jono, I stabbed the Catholic communion host in front of audience and was assulted for my efforts, so how are Christians any better or civilised than the Muslms? I was also assulted for protesting against the Pope. so your mob are just as Facist!

Capablanca-Fan
04-04-2011, 10:48 AM
Jono, I stabbed the Catholic communion host in front of audience and was assulted for my efforts, so how are Christians any better or civilised than the Muslms? I was also assulted for protesting against the Pope. so your mob are just as Facist!
So you say. But even if true:

1. I am not Catholic
2. No Catholic mobs rioted in Italy or any other country, or attacked anyone but you
3. No one was killed

So quit this absurd moral equivalence.

Kevin Bonham
04-04-2011, 11:04 AM
There is a huge blind spot in the Islam-appeasers like General Betray-us, claiming: 1. Islam really is a religion of peace 2. This pastor should not burn a Koran because it will incite violence among Islamists.

They may be just arguing a distinction between the mainstream of the religion and the nutters. But trying to appease the nutters is pointless.


Note also that the US army had no problems burning Bibles in Afghanistan, quite in the manner of the typically illiberal atheopathic communist regimes.

Completely unacceptable. Burning contributes to global warming. They should have been pulped and recycled. :owned:

Rincewind
04-04-2011, 11:18 AM
1. I am not Catholic

Both you and Catholics belong to the same grouping of Christian denominations.


2. No Catholic mobs rioted in Italy or any other country, or attacked anyone but you

The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre), 1572, immediately springs to mind as an instance of christian mobs going on a rampage killing (in the case 1,000's of protestants).


3. No one was killed

Christians have killed countless people in the name of their religion. Sometimes as a result of organic mob violence, other times as the result of calculated persecution of the establishment.


So quit this absurd moral equivalence.

Short memory.

antichrist
04-04-2011, 11:22 AM
So you say. But even if true:

1. I am not Catholic
2. No Catholic mobs rioted in Italy or any other country, or attacked anyone but you
3. No one was killed

So quit this absurd moral equivalence.

I was assulted by Swiss guards in Australia as well as Australian Catholics. If there was not local police I may have been killed by the half dozen who set upon me, I made sure I protected my head (still pretty). Also I have been bashed a few other times by Chritians, also to be rescued by police but who never arrested the violent Christian thugs.

To me they are just as fanatical and violent as their Muslim counterparts. Come and join me and see if you can tell the difference between kicks and punches from Christians or Muslims.

Not long ago Christians were KKK members in USA and killing Negros - God was white of course

morebeer
04-04-2011, 12:05 PM
Pastor Terry Jones from USA burnt...

He should have saved his matches. Judgment Day is only weeks away.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/its-not-the-end-of-the-world-says-brisbane-radio-station-20110401-1crj0.html

antichrist
04-04-2011, 01:19 PM
The Filipinos and Americans rioted when John Lennon declared the Beatles more poopular than Jesus, in Manila they tried to stone the Beatles. Both places they had bonfires of Beatle records.

If my host stabbing had been covered by international media there may have been international action.

It was the Prodos, like Jono, who bashed me up when I exposed their lies and bulldust re Missiion of Coming Days endtime prediction about 20 years ago.

Keong Ang
04-04-2011, 02:06 PM
The Filipinos and Americans rioted when John Lennon declared the Beatles more poopular than Jesus, in Manila they tried to stone the Beatles. Both places they had bonfires of Beatle records.

If my host stabbing had been covered by international media there may have been international action.

It was the Prodos, like Jono, who bashed me up when I exposed their lies and bulldust re Missiion of Coming Days endtime prediction about 20 years ago.

What other reaction were you expecting? If you do something against something that they are willing to die for, logically they would have no hesitation to harm you or anything remotely associated with you.

Just goes to show that if you want to be a martyr, you just need to incite an angry mob against you.
This phenomenon seems to transcend all colours and creeds. :hmm:

Ian Murray
04-04-2011, 04:35 PM
...claiming: 1. Islam really is a religion of peace ...
If looking for a religion of peace, look no further than Buddhism. No war has ever been fought in the name of Buddha or Buddhism.

Igor_Goldenberg
05-04-2011, 03:41 PM
The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Bartholomew%27s_Day_massacre), 1572, immediately springs to mind as an instance of christian mobs going on a rampage killing (in the case 1,000's of protestants).

Christians have killed countless people in the name of their religion. Sometimes as a result of organic mob violence, other times as the result of calculated persecution of the establishment.

Welcome to 21st century.

Rincewind
05-04-2011, 04:13 PM
Welcome to 21st century.

So what do we do with the past 1,700 years of atrocities? Forget about them?

antichrist
05-04-2011, 04:33 PM
So what do we do with the past 1,700 years of atrocities? Forget about them?

Judaism has not forgotten perceived wrongs committed thousands of years against them - they are incalculated into each new generation.

ER
05-04-2011, 05:30 PM
If looking for a religion of peace, look no further than Buddhism. No war has ever been fought in the name of Buddha or Buddhism.

Have a look in the Sri Lanka situation. I don't know if the attacks against the Tamils there or Christians in other places are made in the name of Buddha but they are of equal intensity and hatred as that directed against Christians and Jews by Islamists.

antichrist
05-04-2011, 05:35 PM
Since when has this new hybrid called Isalmists been hatched? what is wrong with Muslim? They were Mohammedians in the old days, as a derogative term I guess

antichrist
05-04-2011, 05:37 PM
Burning any book is wrong. Be it the Qur'an, the Bible or On the Origin of Species.

what about the book of Antichrist's Quotes, Analogies and Classic Stirs due out soon?

Ian Murray
05-04-2011, 05:43 PM
Have a look in the Sri Lanka situation. I don't know if the attacks against the Tamils there or Christians in other places are made in the name of Buddha but they are of equal intensity and hatred as that directed against Christians and Jews by Islamists.
A secessionist war by ethnic Tamils - no religious connotations

antichrist
05-04-2011, 05:48 PM
A secessionist war by ethnic Tamils - no religious connotations

which can be blamed on the British shuffling the populations around in old colonial days - the Sri Lankans (Buddhists) burnt the forests where the Tamils were hiding - a bit worse than burning books

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2011, 07:49 PM
what about the book of Antichrist's Quotes, Analogies and Classic Stirs due out soon?

It won't burn. Too soggy.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-04-2011, 10:36 AM
So what do we do with the past 1,700 years of atrocities? Forget about them?
I wonder how you arrive to 1700 figure?
As for past atrocities of Christianity, I think they recognised and learnt from it. While Christianity was a serious threat and enemy to Jews half a millennium ago (and still a threat, although on a lower scale, in the 19th century), I do not consider it as an enemy or as significant threat any more - unlike Islam.

Rincewind
06-04-2011, 11:11 AM
I wonder how you arrive to 1700 figure?
As for past atrocities of Christianity, I think they recognised and learnt from it. While Christianity was a serious threat and enemy to Jews half a millennium ago (and still a threat, although on a lower scale, in the 19th century), I do not consider it as an enemy or as significant threat any more - unlike Islam.

Christians didn't have any political clout until the conversion of Constantine in 4th century we are now in the 21st century so roughly 1,700 years of at least some Christian oppression somewhere.

Given that Hitler was a Catholic and the Austro-Germany population at that time was >90% Christian, I would have though the oppression which occurred there in the 20th century was reasonably significant example. That was just 65 years ago. It was also dangerous to be Jewish in Eastern Europe immediately after WWII for various reasons but partially attributed to the "blood libel" propaganda spread by the Nazis, which is religious (not ethinic) in origin.

Christianity has a long history of religion-based conflict and in recent times this includes Northern Irish conflict has clear delineation on religious grounds (Protestant/Catholic) with Christians killing Christians. In the last decade or two there have been more than 100 attacks of Jehovah Witnesses in Tbilisi, Georgia. In former Yugoslavia during the Bosnian and Kosovo conflicts in particular, Christian and Muslim (mainly) groups attacked each other on religious grounds. To name just three.

Igor_Goldenberg
06-04-2011, 03:42 PM
Given that Hitler was a Catholic and the Austro-Germany population at that time was >90% Christian, I would have though the oppression which occurred there in the 20th century was reasonably significant example. That was just 65 years ago. It was also dangerous to be Jewish in Eastern Europe immediately after WWII for various reasons but partially attributed to the "blood libel" propaganda spread by the Nazis, which is religious (not ethinic) in origin.
It was shown to you many times that Nazism was not a religiously motivated ideology. You continue this beat-up ad nausea despite not having a leg to stand on.

Rincewind
06-04-2011, 04:53 PM
It was shown to you many times that Nazism was not a religiously motivated ideology. You continue this beat-up ad nausea despite not having a leg to stand on.

Well vociferous denials from conservatives notwithstanding, the fact remains the holocaust was perpetrated by Christians lead by a Christian and was motivated by appeals to Christian religious texts and Christian religious leaders in speeches and writings. Some people have tried to sweep the Christian issue under the carpet but the truth has a way of getting out.

Although this was an atrocity of truly biblical proportions, there are other example of recent Christian religious violence in my previous post.

Spiny Norman
06-04-2011, 05:12 PM
... the fact remains the holocaust was perpetrated by Christians lead by a Christian and was motivated by appeals to Christian religious texts and Christian religious leaders in speeches and writings. Some people have tried to sweep the Christian issue under the carpet but the truth has a way of getting out.
You are a truly disgusting individual.

Rincewind
06-04-2011, 06:24 PM
You are a truly disgusting individual.

If you want to discuss the truth value of my claim as always my door is open. However, if your find the truth offensive then that is a problem of yours not mine. :hand:

antichrist
06-04-2011, 07:34 PM
You are a truly disgusting individual.


Come off it Frosty, I went to Catholic schools in the fifties and was taught to hate the Jews coz they crucified Jesus, look how Mel Gibson turned out a real anti-Semitic, and that film the Passon of Christ only inflamed more hatred of Jews, and Jesus is not even a historical figure. So it could be all bullldust but the Jews have copped it for 2,000 years.

Desmond
06-04-2011, 08:48 PM
Well vociferous denials from conservatives notwithstanding, the fact remains the holocaust was perpetrated by Christians lead by a Christian and was motivated by appeals to Christian religious texts and Christian religious leaders in speeches and writings. Some people have tried to sweep the Christian issue under the carpet but the truth has a way of getting out.

Although this was an atrocity of truly biblical proportions, there are other example of recent Christian religious violence in my previous post.
Nah, don't know where you could have come up with that idea, see the following video (warning: may contain sarcasm):

YP_iNCGH9kY

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 02:23 PM
[QUOTE=Spiny Norman]You are a truly disgusting individual.[/QUOTE
Just an individual so blinded by the hate that he can't understand the stupidity of his hate.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 02:29 PM
Well vociferous denials from conservatives notwithstanding, the fact remains the holocaust was perpetrated by Christians lead by a Christian and was motivated by appeals to Christian religious texts and Christian religious leaders in speeches and writings. Some people have tried to sweep the Christian issue under the carpet but the truth has a way of getting out.
"Christians led by a Christian" is a red herring. You claim that Nazism is based on religion (in this case Christianity), but without the slightest evidence of it.

"Christians led by a Christian"can be said of Communist Russia.
"Buddhists led by a Buddhist"can be said of Khmer Rouge.
Is Communism Christianity or Buddhism based?

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 02:47 PM
"Christians led by a Christian" is a red herring.

I didn't just say "Christians lead by a Christian". Hitler also appealled to the Bible and the church leaders like Martin Luther whose anti-semitic treatise On the Jews and their Lies. An example of Hitlers use of religion to justify persecution you can refer to what he actually said like...


In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. 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.

- Adolf Hitler: Munich, 12 April, 1922

I'd be interested if Pol Pot made similar sorts of speeches invoking the Buddhist holy texts.

Furthermore, several of the claims giving excuses to the antisemitic atrocities were justified on religious grounds. For example the claim that the Jewish people are responsible for the death of Jesus. The claim that the Jewish religion requires the blood of infants for certain religious rites. These are religious based claims which were used to justify the persecution of people of a certain religion. That's not to say that the Nazis weren't racist. They certainly were brutally racist. However there was a Christian aspect to the holocaust which many Western commentators gloss over.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 04:06 PM
I didn't just say "Christians lead by a Christian". Hitler also appealled to the Bible and the church leaders like Martin Luther whose anti-semitic treatise On the Jews and their Lies. An example of Hitlers use of religion to justify persecution you can refer to what he actually said like...

It only shows that Hitler was an unscrupulous politician using whatever is available to fool a mob. It does not show that Nazism ideology was based on Christianity.
Lenin and Stalin also used passages from New Testament (even though rather unconsciously). Mao sometimes referred to Confucius. I wouldn't be surprised if Pol Pot or Kim Il Sen referred to (or at least quoted) some Buddhist religious texts.
Does it mean Communism is based on one of those religions?

Mass murder based on New/Old Testament subsided in 17th century and more or less finished in the 18th. It does not mean Christians didn't commit atrocities after that, but those atrocities were not (predominantly) in the name of Christ.

In contrast, many atrocities by Muslims are committed in the name of Islam. It's not necessary an indication of the nature of Islam, but definitely an indication of prevailing interpretation by a significant number of Muslims.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 04:08 PM
It might be a good idea to note a "Godwin number" (the first post that confirmed Godwin law) for each thread.
For this thread, the number is 38.

Capablanca-Fan
07-04-2011, 04:35 PM
It might be a good idea to note a "Godwin number" (the first post that confirmed Godwin law) for each thread.
For this thread, the number is 38.
Yes, typically mendacious RW revisionism. Reminds me of You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... (http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html)


You believe that Hitler claiming to be a Christian is undeniable proof that he was a Christian, while George Washington only claimed to be a Christian in order to win the people's favor.

Adolf Hitler Speech, 5 February 1928


The idea of struggle is as old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle.... In this struggle, the stronger, the more able win, while the less able, the weak lose. Struggle is the father of all things. Only through struggle has man raised himself above the animal world. Even today it is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself above the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle. As it is with the individual so it is in the destiny of nations. Only by struggle are the strong able to raise themselves above the weak. And every people that loses out in this eternally shifting struggle has, according to the laws of nature, received its just desert. A Weltanschauung that denies the idea of struggle is contrary to nature and will lead a people that is guided by it to destruction. The road that must be traveled by a people which wishes to develop itself still higher is not the road of comfort and ease, but the road of relentless struggle. For if you do not fight for life, then life will never be won.

No wonder that the book Hitler and Nazi Germany: A History by Jackson Spielvogel says:


It is also important to remember that Hitler was a believer in Darwinian struggle. Struggle is the father of all things he had said in Mein Kampf. ... Hitler perceived struggle not ony as the essence of a nature, thus postulating a crude Darwinism, but also as the central principle for both individuals and nations, thus exalting a crass Social Darwinism. (pp. 90, 132).

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 04:43 PM
Yes, typically mendacious RW revisionism. Reminds me of You may be a fundamentalist atheist if.... (http://www.tektoonics.com/etc/parody/fundyath.html)

Some of them are funny. I especially like :

9. You spend hours arguing that a-theism actually means "without a belief in God " and not just " belief that there is no god" as if this is a meaningful distinction in real life.
Does it remind you someone?:lol: :lol:

PS Ditto for this one:

11.You can make the existence of pink unicorns the center-piece of a philosophical critique.

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 05:03 PM
It only shows that Hitler was an unscrupulous politician using whatever is available to fool a mob. It does not show that Nazism ideology was based on Christianity.
Lenin and Stalin also used passages from New Testament (even though rather unconsciously). Mao sometimes referred to Confucius. I wouldn't be surprised if Pol Pot or Kim Il Sen referred to (or at least quoted) some Buddhist religious texts.
Does it mean Communism is based on one of those religions?


Well that would rather depend on the texts and contexts. Care to provide some evidence and we can compare and contrast with the style of Hitler's appeal to religious authority.

However I will note that Hitler (not only in the text above but in many other instances)

(a) affirms that he is of a particular faith (in this case a Christian)
(b) he appeals to stories from the Bible to vilify the target of his oppression
(c) he makes a explicit connection from the Biblical story to the present day

If you can find a Stalin or Mao Tse Dong or Pol Pot speech that does anything comparable to that, I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Also whether Hitler is "really" a christian is more than a littler beside the point. He professed to be a christian in a nation in which >90% of the population also professed to be christian and said nation perpetrated horrific crimes against Jews and justified those crimes with appeals to religious texts.

Now how is that any different to any other religious extremist do any other crime and justifying it by appealing to their religion?

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 05:07 PM
It might be a good idea to note a "Godwin number" (the first post that confirmed Godwin law) for each thread.
For this thread, the number is 38.

In a thread about religious violence I hardly think Godwin's law is relevant. Godwin is about Nazi analogies. We are not discussing analogies here but whether the Nazi atrocities had any religious motivation.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 05:26 PM
Well that would rather depend on the texts and contexts. Care to provide some evidence and we can compare and contrast with the style of Hitler's appeal to religious authority.

However I will note that Hitler (not only in the text above but in many other instances)

(a) affirms that he is of a particular faith (in this case a Christian)
(b) he appeals to stories from the Bible to vilify the target of his oppression
(c) he makes a explicit connection from the Biblical story to the present day
Addressed already in #48.



If you can find a Stalin or Mao Tse Dong or Pol Pot speech that does anything comparable to that, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
No, I can't (or rather don't want to spend endless hours looking for it).
It's in Russian (Stalin and Mao), in print and I read it decades ago.


Also whether Hitler is "really" a christian is more than a littler beside the point. He professed to be a christian in a nation in which >90% of the population also professed to be christian and said nation perpetrated horrific crimes against Jews and justified those crimes with appeals to religious texts.

Now how is that any different to any other religious extremist do any other crime and justifying it by appealing to their religion?
It is indeed beside the point. Nazism ideology wasn't based on Christianity. Whether Hitler occasionally referred to Bible or anything else is irrelevant, unless you can show that Bible was one of the cornerstones of his ideology.

Communists in Russia (especially before the war) actively prosecuted church.
Communists in Poland preferred to subjugate Church for their needs.
Nazis in Germany did essentially the same.

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 05:45 PM
Addressed already in #48.

No it wasn't. I was pointing out the style of Hitler's references to religion as a benchmark for the examples of the same you could submit from Stalin, Chairman Mao or Pol Pot. As yet you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim let alone for the purpose of comparison with Hitler's appeals to religious authority.


No, I can't (or rather don't want to spend endless hours looking for it).
It's in Russian (Stalin and Mao), in print and I read it decades ago.

The internet is a big and interesting place. Saying your evidence is hard to find is just another way of say either it doesn't exist, it does exist and you are too lazy to source it or it does exist you are not too lazy to source it but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.


It is indeed beside the point. Nazism ideology wasn't based on Christianity. Whether Hitler occasionally referred to Bible or anything else is irrelevant, unless you can show that Bible was one of the cornerstones of his ideology.

It wasn't occasionally. I cited one except here in previous threads I have cited a number of others from other speeches, from Mein Kampf and also the evidence of various people who were close to Hitler in the 1940s.

My claim is not that the Nazi persecution was solely religiously motivated (I already stated a few post ago there is no doubt their policies were racist). I only claim that there was some religious motivation. Your claim (since you are arguing about the point) is that there was NO religious motivation.

Igor_Goldenberg
07-04-2011, 09:48 PM
No it wasn't. I was pointing out the style of Hitler's references to religion as a benchmark for the examples of the same you could submit from Stalin, Chairman Mao or Pol Pot. As yet you have failed to provide any evidence to back up your claim let alone for the purpose of comparison with Hitler's appeals to religious authority.

The internet is a big and interesting place. Saying your evidence is hard to find is just another way of say either it doesn't exist, it does exist and you are too lazy to source it or it does exist you are not too lazy to source it but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
I can't be bothered researching what is not that important for the discussion. If you insist, here is a link for you (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3_%D1%87%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BD% D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D 0%B0) (in Russian as you've been warned before).


It wasn't occasionally. I cited one except here in previous threads I have cited a number of others from other speeches, from Mein Kampf and also the evidence of various people who were close to Hitler in the 1940s.
and Jono cited examples to the contrary as well. Both confirmed that Hitler was unscrupulous demagogue.


My claim is not that the Nazi persecution was solely religiously motivated (I already stated a few post ago there is no doubt their policies were racist). I only claim that there was some religious motivation. Your claim (since you are arguing about the point) is that there was NO religious motivation.

There is a simple litmus test. Member of religious minority can avoid persecution by conversion, at least in case of Christianity and Islam. Through out the history of Islam and Christianity conversion(either genuine or convincing pretence) was sufficient to save life and, often, freedom.

During worst persecutions by Christians and Muslims Jews always had an easy way out - conversion.

However, in Nazi Germany Jews were killed irrespectively of religion. It didn't matter whether we converted to Christianity or not - if you were ethnic Jew you were as good as dead.

Rincewind
07-04-2011, 11:28 PM
I can't be bothered researching what is not that important for the discussion.

Ok lazy it is. I agree that (like most of your claims) it is not important to the discussion. If you can demonstrate that Stalin

(a) professed to be a christian
(b) then linked to a story from the bible, and then
(c) stated that that story was directly linked to the present day

Then do so. If not then happy for your claim to be stuck.


and Jono cited examples to the contrary as well. Both confirmed that Hitler was unscrupulous demagogue.

No. Jono's example was Hitler talking about a struggle (not mentioning Darwin). And then quoted from a book (not Hitler's words) that comments that Hitler's ideas included a crude form of Darwinism. That is not contrary to the the religious aspects just additional to it.


There is a simple litmus test. Member of religious minority can avoid persecution by conversion, at least in case of Christianity and Islam. Through out the history of Islam and Christianity conversion(either genuine or convincing pretence) was sufficient to save life and, often, freedom.

During worst persecutions by Christians and Muslims Jews always had an easy way out - conversion.

If you think giving up ones faith is "an easy way out" then I am glad you are so malleable. However, your statement is false as there are counter examples. For example in 1506 in Portugal 1,000s of conversios (Jews who had converted to Christianity) we massacred by Christian mobs.


However, in Nazi Germany Jews were killed irrespectively of religion. It didn't matter whether we converted to Christianity or not - if you were ethnic Jew you were as good as dead.

I didn't say that they were not racist - in fact I have said twice now that they definitely were racist. The point is Hitler professed to being a Christian, appealed to the Bible and to the writings of Luther as reasons to persecute Jews based no religion and the almost entirely Christian population did so.

Yet to see Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot to have done comparable. Yet to have seen one piece of historical evidence that calls into question that either

(a) Hitler did not say the things I've quoted (translated frmo the German of course),
(b) The German populous were not professing Christians, or
(c) The persecution did not take place.

Igor_Goldenberg
08-04-2011, 09:11 AM
If you think giving up ones faith is "an easy way out" then I am glad you are so malleable.
Another one of you stupid remarks. They are so abound that they are not even worth responding to. In this particular case I was trying to give an example close to you mindset, one that you (but not necessary the rest of the board) can relate to.


However, your statement is false as there are counter examples. For example in 1506 in Portugal 1,000s of conversios (Jews who had converted to Christianity) we massacred by Christian mobs.
You can always find exception and can find mobs killing converts (or those they did not believe to be genuine converts), but it does not disprove the trend.
In Spain and Portugal the policy of church and the state was that Jews converting to Christianity kept their lives, possession and, to a large extend, their freedom.



I didn't say that they were not racist - in fact I have said twice now that they definitely were racist. The point is Hitler professed to being a Christian, appealed to the Bible and to the writings of Luther as reasons to persecute Jews based no religion and the almost entirely Christian population did so.

Yet to see Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot to have done comparable. Yet to have seen one piece of historical evidence that calls into question that either

(a) Hitler did not say the things I've quoted (translated frmo the German of course),
(b) The German populous were not professing Christians, or
(c) The persecution did not take place.
None of the above are disputed, however the conclusion you made does not follow. Jews were killed irrespectively of their religious status - be they atheists, Christian or still practising Judaism. You have to show that atrocity were religiously motivated.

I'll give an example that, hopefully, will help you understand the fallacy of your assertions:
(a) Communists routinely attacked "religious obscurantism"
(b) USSR population from 1930s onwards and PRC from 1960s was atheist
(c) USSR and China committed atrocities on major scale, killing tens of millions.

From that you will undoubtedly make a conclusion that atrocities were motivated by atheism.

Rincewind
08-04-2011, 09:59 AM
Another one of you stupid remarks. They are so abound that they are not even worth responding to. In this particular case I was trying to give an example close to you mindset, one that you (but not necessary the rest of the board) can relate to.

Sorry you said it was the "easy way out" and even as an atheist I found this offensively simple-minded. If you don't like the inferences of the simple-minded things you say I suggest thinking a bit more about what you say.


You can always find exception and can find mobs killing converts (or those they did not believe to be genuine converts), but it does not disprove the trend.
In Spain and Portugal the policy of church and the state was that Jews converting to Christianity kept their lives, possession and, to a large extend, their freedom.

The point of a "litmus test" is there are no exceptions. If there are and we are talking about trends and distributions then you need to frame your argument with le3ss superlatives. For example you said...


There is a simple litmus test. Member of religious minority can avoid persecution by conversion, at least in case of Christianity and Islam. Through out the history of Islam and Christianity conversion(either genuine or convincing pretence) was sufficient to save life and, often, freedom.

During worst persecutions by Christians and Muslims Jews always had an easy way out - conversion.

Now you're back-pedaling with oh but (of course) there are exceptions. Perhaps you should just say what you mean the first time.


None of the above are disputed, however the conclusion you made does not follow. Jews were killed irrespectively of their religious status - be they atheists, Christian or still practising Judaism. You have to show that atrocity were religiously motivated.

Ok so you have a populous which is overwhelmingly christian you have a leader who professes to be a christian and you have him saying things like


"I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Your position was what, there is no religious motivation there?


I'll give an example that, hopefully, will help you understand the fallacy of your assertions:
(a) Communists routinely attacked "religious obscurantism"
(b) USSR population from 1930s onwards and PRC from 1960s was atheist
(c) USSR and China committed atrocities on major scale, killing tens of millions.

From that you will undoubtedly make a conclusion that atrocities were motivated by atheism.

I'll concede (a) for now.
As for (b) I would dispute that. There was a large number of professing to be atheist but whether they were genuine or not is very disputable given the suddenness of the "conversion" and the number of conversions back to theisms after atheism was no longer required by the state.

The CIA World fact book says about the religious demographic for Russia


Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule

I'll certainly grant (c) (without putting a figure on it) for the USSR during the Stalin era.

However you have totally failed to show any motivation by "atheism". You will have a bit of a problem in this regard as there is no atheist religious texts or atheist leaders, per se. As atheism is not a religion or a world view it is simply an assertion that god does not exist. Some atheists are communists. Many are not. I believe when you look at how the communist regime came into power in the Russia (and became the USSR) that communism was the motivation not atheism.

Capablanca-Fan
09-04-2011, 04:35 AM
No. Jono's example was Hitler talking about a struggle (not mentioning Darwin).
Didn't have to, because thanks to Haeckel and others, Darwinian ideas permeated the culture.


And then quoted from a book (not Hitler's words) that comments that Hitler's ideas included a crude form of Darwinism. That is not contrary to the the religious aspects just additional to it.
The Darwinian beliefs were primary, and over-arched everything else. For example, the 1937 Nazi film, Victims of the Past, showed a retarded person accompanied by the narration:


‘In the last few decades, mankind has sinned terribly against the law of natural selection. We haven’t just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply. The descendants of these sick people look like this!’

See how a biblical concept, sin, is hijacked by the Darwinian worldview, and applied to natural selection.

The book amply quotes from Mein Kampf, and this is hardly the only Hitler expert to accuse him of trying to impose evolutionary ideas on Germany. For example:

The German-Jewish political theorist Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) wrote:


‘Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.’

British evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith (1866–1955) wrote:


‘To see evolutionary measures and tribal morality being applied rigorously to the affairs of a great modern nation, we must turn again to Germany of 1942. We see Hitler devoutly convinced that evolution provides the only real basis for a national policy. … The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution.’

Alan Bullock (Baron Bullock) (1914–2004) wrote in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny:


‘The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.’


I didn't say that they were not racist - in fact I have said twice now that they definitely were racist. The point is Hitler professed to being a Christian,
Of course, what people claim and what they are are often diametrically opposed. Hitler's words and actions make it clear that loyalty to Christ would be replaced by blind obedience to him, the Führerprinzip. The book cites stated:

Nazi leaders encouraged this messianic view of Hitler in the German schools. Children were required after 1934 to write out compositions comparing Hitler to Jesus. The Hitler Jungvolk,, one of the youth organizations for boys, used the following song:


Hitler is our Saviour, our hero
He is the noblest being in the whole wide world
For Hitler we live
For Hitler we die
Our Hitler is our Lord
Who rules a brave new world.

This makes Hitler an anti-Christ, since the Greek word αντί notonly means "opposing" but also "in place of".


appealed to the Bible and to the writings of Luther as reasons to persecute Jews based no religion and the almost entirely Christian population did so.
Yet as continually pointed out, most of the German churches were theologically liberal, aka indistinguishable from atheists. Also, Hitler made it clear that he didn't care what they Jews believed; they all had to be killed. Luther would not have harmed the Christ-believing Jews in the slightest. And Lutheran German culture had historically been the most tolerant of Jews in all of Europe, indicating that another source was responsible for the particular type of antisemitism, the ethnic form, was at work. One such was evolutionist Teodor Fritsch (1852–1933), a notorious promoter of Aryan racial supremacy and author of The Handbook of the Jewish Question aka the Anti-Semitic Catechism.

Desmond
09-04-2011, 07:30 AM
Claiming that Christianity is not compatible with accepting evolution is not the majority view. Claiming that Hitler was not a Catholic because he accepted evolution and that the two are mutually exclusive is just laughable.

Most Catholics accept evolution.

http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Religious-Differences-on-the-Question-of-Evolution.aspx

Rincewind
09-04-2011, 09:54 AM
Most Catholics accept evolution.

As do most educated Christians (i.e. those outside of the USA) :lol:

antichrist
10-04-2011, 12:11 AM
I know some pretty smart apes that accept evolution as well

Ian Murray
10-04-2011, 08:25 AM
I know some pretty smart apes that accept evolution as well
I would have thought they'd be loath to acknowledge any human ancestry

antichrist
10-04-2011, 09:17 AM
I would have thought they'd be loath to acknowledge any human ancestry

I have read that apes evolved from creationists and the apes are complaining about the slur

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2011, 10:41 AM
Claiming that Christianity is not compatible with accepting evolution is not the majority view. Claiming that Hitler was not a Catholic because he accepted evolution and that the two are mutually exclusive is just laughable.
It was far more than that. He was a mass murderer, eugenicist, and persecutor of the church. It's strange that only with Hitler do atheopaths accept that he was who he (sometimes) claimed to be.


Most Catholics accept evolution.
What do you care? They are wrong in any case, and too intimidated by the atheopathic philosophy calling itself evolutionary science.

Desmond
10-04-2011, 01:26 PM
What do you care? It illustrates the false dichotomy that you try to paint; that showing he was a Darwinist (whatever that is) means he wasn't a Christian. It does no such thing.

Capablanca-Fan
10-04-2011, 02:48 PM
It illustrates the false dichotomy that you try to paint; that showing he was a Darwinist (whatever that is) means he wasn't a Christian. It does no such thing.
Rather, you set up a straw man. It is not just his Darwinism, but his other anti-Christian words and actions that give the game away. Also, I don't say that no Darwinist can be a Christian, but such would be mightily confused.

Desmond
10-04-2011, 03:33 PM
Rather, you set up a straw man. It is not just his Darwinism, but his other anti-Christian words and actions that give the game away. Also, I don't say that no Darwinist can be a Christian, but such would be mightily confused.Let's drop the double negative word games, shall we? Do you think one can be a Christian and accept evolution?

antichrist
10-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Let's drop the double negative word games, shall we? Do you think one can be a Christian and accept evolution?

Christians believe in macro evolution - that is the Holy ghost in the form of a dove can copulate with a virgin and father a child though the incompatible "plumbing" and blood and genetic incompatiblility would seem make it impossible. Much greater leap of faith than conventional evolution.

Igor_Goldenberg
11-04-2011, 01:29 PM
The point of a "litmus test" is there are no exceptions. If there are and we are talking about trends and distributions then you need to frame your argument with le3ss superlatives. For example you said...


There is a simple litmus test. Member of religious minority can avoid persecution by conversion, at least in case of Christianity and Islam. Through out the history of Islam and Christianity conversion(either genuine or convincing pretence) was sufficient to save life and, often, freedom.

During worst persecutions by Christians and Muslims Jews always had an easy way out - conversion.

Now you're back-pedaling with oh but (of course) there are exceptions. Perhaps you should just say what you mean the first time.
No back-pedalling. The example of Portugal was a case of mob attack, not state or church policy. In fact ringleaders were executed (http://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/WM9TM1_1506_Massacre_of_Jews_Lisbon_Portugal):
"King Manuel severely punished those who took part in the killings. The ringleaders were executed. The Dominicans who encouraged the riot were also executed. Local people convicted of murder or pillage suffered corporal punishment, and their property was confiscated. The king granted religious freedom for 20 years to all conversos in an attempt at compensation. Lisbon lost Foral privileges. The foreigners who had taken part generally escaped punishment, leaving with their ships."


Ok so you have a populous which is overwhelmingly christian you have a leader who professes to be a christian and you have him saying things like


"I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison."

Your position was what, there is no religious motivation there?
In that case it is clear that Hitler used whatever pretext he could found to justify his antisemitism. It is also quite evident he used rather as a smokescreen and his hate was race based.



I'll concede (a) for now.
As for (b) I would dispute that. There was a large number of professing to be atheist but whether they were genuine or not is very disputable given the suddenness of the "conversion" and the number of conversions back to theisms after atheism was no longer required by the state.
Who cares whether they were genuine or not? You don't care whether Germans were genuine Christians or only self-professed.


The CIA World fact book says about the religious demographic for Russia


Russian Orthodox 15-20%, Muslim 10-15%, other Christian 2% (2006 est.)
note: estimates are of practicing worshipers; Russia has large populations of non-practicing believers and non-believers, a legacy of over seven decades of Soviet rule

I think CIA overestimated number of Muslims (2010 survey found only 6% which is seems to be a closer estimation). It's not relevant to the discussion, though.


However you have totally failed to show any motivation by "atheism". You will have a bit of a problem in this regard as there is no atheist religious texts or atheist leaders, per se. As atheism is not a religion or a world view it is simply an assertion that god does not exist. Some atheists are communists. Many are not. I believe when you look at how the communist regime came into power in the Russia (and became the USSR) that communism was the motivation not atheism.

Motivation by atheism for the persecution is quite evident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Communist_rule:
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[19][20]"

However, if you claim that communism is the motivation and atheism is just the means in case of USSR, yet claim that religion, not nazism/racism, was a motivation in case of Hitler, then you indeed qualify as fundy atheist.

Rincewind
11-04-2011, 05:05 PM
No back-pedalling. The example of Portugal was a case of mob attack, not state or church policy.

This is not relevant as we are not restricted to state sanctioned violence. These mobs had their ring-leaders and their followers and the ringleaders motivated the followers through the use of the Christian religion.

The fact that a higher-authority later punished those ring-leader is no different to the situation of the Nazis being punished in the Nuremberg trials after the war.


In that case it is clear that Hitler used whatever pretext he could found to justify his antisemitism. It is also quite evident he used rather as a smokescreen and his hate was race based.

I agree and the fact that the population could be moved to commit atrocities in the name of the Christian religion is indeed the salient issue here. No one really cares how devout or otherwise Hitler the man was, nor any partiocular individual. It is the German population as a whole which were overwhelmingly Christian and the Bible itself used to breed hatred on the Jewish people based on religious argument.


Who cares whether they were genuine or not? You don't care whether Germans were genuine Christians or only self-professed.

In the case of the Germans, they were professing Christians before and after the Hitler regime to approximately the same degree. So there were not a significant proportion professing to conform to a state sanctioned ideal.

However the USSR in an entirely different kettle of fish. It is likely that a good percentage of the population were professing to be atheist who weren't and if they were also involved in repressing theists it is unlikely to be religiously motivated, as many were theist themselves.


Motivation by atheism for the persecution is quite evident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church#Under_Communist_rule:
"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. Orthodox priests and believers were variously tortured, sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals, and executed.[19][20]"

However, if you claim that communism is the motivation and atheism is just the means in case of USSR, yet claim that religion, not nazism/racism, was a motivation in case of Hitler, then you indeed qualify as fundy atheist.

It's very simple to understand Igor, you need somewhere where the atheism is used to motivate the attack on religion. In the quote you include above there is not even a hint of that. The states ideological objective was to remove religion because their were Marxist to the extent that they saw religion as a the ruling-class's way to give false hope to the working class and thereby subjugate them more easily. There is nothing atheist in the motivation. If religion was considered wrong but benign there would not be any repression of religion. It was that religion was seen as an enemy of the working-class (politically) and that is motivated by their political world view and not atheism.

So to recap USSR is not the same deal on two main grounds...

Firstly there is a big question mark on the atheism statistics in the USSR countries given the large number practicing religion immediately before the revolution and the significant number who again commence practicing religion as soon as it was again safe to do so.

Secondly, you have not shown anywhere where Stalin or any communist leader has motivated attacks on theists based on atheistic arguments (as opposed to the political objection that Marxism/Leninism has with religion)

I know you *want* your comparison to be true. But as yet the "evidence" you have supplied has been singularly underwhelming.

Igor_Goldenberg
12-04-2011, 10:04 AM
This is not relevant as we are not restricted to state sanctioned violence. These mobs had their ring-leaders and their followers and the ringleaders motivated the followers through the use of the Christian religion.
It is relevant. State control of the mob is not 100% (and in the case of Portugal the state and the church did it's job to fix the problem). Holocaust was not a mob initiative, it was state sanctioned, based on the purely racist ideology.


The fact that a higher-authority later punished those ring-leader is no different to the situation of the Nazis being punished in the Nuremberg trials after the war.
Huge difference. In case of Portugal state punished the criminals and conversos rights were affirmed. Nothing like that in the case of Germany.
Nurenberg process is irrelevant, it's when one state leadership was prosecuted by other countries leadership. And there is a huge difference between 6,000,000 killed by state machine over long period and few hundreds once killed by mobs in few days.


However the USSR in an entirely different kettle of fish. It is likely that a good percentage of the population were professing to be atheist who weren't and if they were also involved in repressing theists it is unlikely to be religiously motivated, as many were theist themselves.
It just shows that atheism (at least in the active form) is not sustainable without force.



It's very simple to understand Igor, you need somewhere where the atheism is used to motivate the attack on religion.
In the quote you include above there is not even a hint of that. The states ideological objective was to remove religion because their were Marxist to the extent that they saw religion as a the ruling-class's way to give false hope to the working class and thereby subjugate them more easily. There is nothing atheist in the motivation. If religion was considered wrong but benign there would not be any repression of religion. It was that religion was seen as an enemy of the working-class (politically) and that is motivated by their political world view and not atheism.

It's quite a novel interpretation of Marxism. Atheism was always considered as part of the foundation for Marxist philosophy. Communists could easily include religion in their ideology, but decided not to. One of the reason is that ideologists of Marxism were staunch atheist and made it part of their teaching.



So to recap USSR is not the same deal on two main grounds...

Firstly there is a big question mark on the atheism statistics in the USSR countries given the large number practicing religion immediately before the revolution and the significant number who again commence practicing religion as soon as it was again safe to do so.
Doesn't matter. Communists themselves were atheists, and in 1930s absolute majority were atheists.


Secondly, you have not shown anywhere where Stalin or any communist leader has motivated attacks on theists based on atheistic arguments (as opposed to the political objection that Marxism/Leninism has with religion)

Read "Socialism and Religion" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm) by V. I. Lenin.

Rincewind
12-04-2011, 02:19 PM
It is relevant. State control of the mob is not 100% (and in the case of Portugal the state and the church did it's job to fix the problem). Holocaust was not a mob initiative, it was state sanctioned, based on the purely racist ideology.

The only difference is one of scale and whether effective leadership of a mob is fundamentally different to national sovereignty. For the purposes of this discussion the distinction is irrelevant as we are not talking exclusively about state sanctioned religious persecution but just whether religiously motivated persecution of any kind has occurred by Christians in roughly the last 200 years.

You are quite wrong about the Nazis being purely racist ideology. Although racial purity was a big part of it they motivated violence on many grounds including religion (as I have already provided evidence). As you have not been able to claim that evidence was purely racial your claim of "purely racial ideology" is disingenuous.


Huge difference. In case of Portugal state punished the criminals and conversos rights were affirmed. Nothing like that in the case of Germany.
Nurenberg process is irrelevant, it's when one state leadership was prosecuted by other countries leadership. And there is a huge difference between 6,000,000 killed by state machine over long period and few hundreds once killed by mobs in few days.

As already stated above, these difference are unimportant in the context of the discussion we are having. You just said the litmus test was an easy way out through conversion. However that is false and there are many counterexamples. The Portuguese massacre was just one. The religious wars between the protestants and catholics of France provide others.


It just shows that atheism (at least in the active form) is not sustainable without force.

I agree that a certain level of education does seem to correlate with an acceptance of atheism. The Russian working class were not well educated.

However the point of the sudden "conversion" and "deconversion" is masking the real issue of many "communists" were not atheists but claiming to be atheists to avoid persecution. Belief if a deity was not really the target of Communist ideology but rather breaking the power of organised religion which they saw as complicit in the slavery of the working class.


It's quite a novel interpretation of Marxism. Atheism was always considered as part of the foundation for Marxist philosophy. Communists could easily include religion in their ideology, but decided not to. One of the reason is that ideologists of Marxism were staunch atheist and made it part of their teaching.

I agree that socialism is not anti-religious by nature but Marxism was and the reason was the church was seen as tool used by capitalists to keep the working class effectively enslaved. It is not at all novel it is what Marx and Lenin taught (as you demonstrate below with the link to Socialism & Religion, by Lenin.


Doesn't matter. Communists themselves were atheists, and in 1930s absolute majority were atheists.

No many weren't they were obviously only pretending to be atheists as is evidenced by the sudden deconversion at the time of the revolution and the sudden conversion back to various theist religions when it was once again safe to do so.

This is completely different to Germany which was 90% Christian before, during and after the Nazi regime.


Read "Socialism and Religion" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/dec/03.htm) by V. I. Lenin.

Which part do you think supports the premise that the Marxist/Leninist ideology used atheist basis to motivate the oppression of theists? Certainly the quote...


Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable.

- V. I. Lenin, Socialism and Religion

Seems to support the view that benign theism is not a problem however...


It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

- V. I. Lenin, Socialism and Religion

Clearly demonstrates that that Lenin is saying religious burden is product of an economics, that is a class struggle and not a metaphysical one.

So thanks for the link it is the clearest demonstration of my point you have yet been able to produce.

Capablanca-Fan
17-04-2011, 06:34 PM
If I drew cartoons of Mohammed and regularly ate pork and bacon, would even RW think I was really a Muslim just because I said so? Yet it's amazing how RW and many atheopaths think Hitler was a Christian because of a few things he said--as though he were a virtuous person whose word could be trusted.

Kevin Bonham
17-04-2011, 07:50 PM
Yet it's amazing how RW and many atheopaths think Hitler was a Christian because of a few things he said--as though he were a virtuous person whose word could be trusted.

It's amazing how many religious zealots think Hitler was an atheist because of even fewer.

Rincewind
17-04-2011, 10:25 PM
If I drew cartoons of Mohammed and regularly ate pork and bacon, would even RW think I was really a Muslim just because I said so? Yet it's amazing how RW and many atheopaths think Hitler was a Christian because of a few things he said--as though he were a virtuous person whose word could be trusted.

The "no true Christian" fallacy, as weak as it is, it worthless here as the beliefs of Hitler, or any individual are not at issue. It is what he said to motivate the overwhelmingly Christian population to commit atrocious acts of violence against humanity and the Jewish people in particular. (Note: this was already covered in post #72 above).

Igor_Goldenberg
17-04-2011, 10:53 PM
The only difference is one of scale and whether effective leadership of a mob is fundamentally different to national sovereignty. For the purposes of this discussion the distinction is irrelevant as we are not talking exclusively about state sanctioned religious persecution but just whether religiously motivated persecution of any kind has occurred by Christians in roughly the last 200 years.

As already stated above, these difference are unimportant in the context of the discussion we are having. You just said the litmus test was an easy way out through conversion. However that is false and there are many counterexamples. The Portuguese massacre was just one. The religious wars between the protestants and catholics of France provide others.

Now you are goal-shifting from state sanctioned persecution to an isolated mob attack.
Spain and Portugal shown that conversion to Christianity allowed Jews to avoid murder or expulsion.
If you take any mob attack (which is punished by the state) as a proof, then every church burned and every priest killed during French revolution would be a proof of atheism based atrocity.


You are quite wrong about the Nazis being purely racist ideology. Although racial purity was a big part of it they motivated violence on many grounds including religion (as I have already provided evidence). As you have not been able to claim that evidence was purely racial your claim of "purely racial ideology" is disingenuous.
No, you haven't provided an evidence that Nazi's violence was motivated by religion. Very few passing reference to religious text (which are likely to be ingenious) is not an evidence. You have to show that fascist ideology was based on religion (either Christianity or anything else).
What other "many grounds" can you list?


I agree that a certain level of education does seem to correlate with an acceptance of atheism. The Russian working class were not well educated.
Germans at the time were better educated, yet they were (according to you) all Christians. Maybe acceptance of atheism is correlated with lack of education?


However the point of the sudden "conversion" and "deconversion" is masking the real issue of many "communists" were not atheists but claiming to be atheists to avoid persecution. Belief if a deity was not really the target of Communist ideology but rather breaking the power of organised religion which they saw as complicit in the slavery of the working class.
"Slavery of working class"? That level was much higher during atheism era then either before or after.



I agree that socialism is not anti-religious by nature but Marxism was and the reason was the church was seen as tool used by capitalists to keep the working class effectively enslaved. It is not at all novel it is what Marx and Lenin taught (as you demonstrate below with the link to Socialism & Religion, by Lenin.
You agree that Marxism is anti-religious by nature. Marxists governments killed more people then all other governments combined throughout the recorded history of humankind. Why don't you claim that atheism is to blame?
By contrast fascism wasn't religious by nature, yet you claim that religion is to blame.






Which part do you think supports the premise that the Marxist/Leninist ideology used atheist basis to motivate the oppression of theists? Certainly the quote...


Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable.

- V. I. Lenin, Socialism and Religion

Seems to support the view that benign theism is not a problem however...


It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism. Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

- V. I. Lenin, Socialism and Religion

Clearly demonstrates that that Lenin is saying religious burden is product of an economics, that is a class struggle and not a metaphysical one.

So thanks for the link it is the clearest demonstration of my point you have yet been able to produce.
The premise is supported by the fact that thousands of priests were murdered (by the state, very occasionally by the mob with full support of the state).
It is also supported by the severe restriction on any religion in USSR.
It is also supported by the fact that a single visit to a church or synagogue could end any prospect of career even in 1970's or 1980's
.
"Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable" is hypocritical, as evidenced by the history of USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union)

Rincewind
18-04-2011, 11:20 AM
Now you are goal-shifting from state sanctioned persecution to an isolated mob attack.

Hardly isolated there are hundreds of cases of anti-semitism is Europe with varying degrees of state support. However, the "goal-shifting" claim is ludicrous. We are talking about religiously motivated violence state-sanctioned or otherwise. To try and discount some incidents atrocities as non-state sanctioned is disingenuous on two counts. Firstly they are inside the scope of this discussion and secondly the state often support such actions at an unofficial level even though they may later recant and punish ring-leaders for political show of good faith.


Spain and Portugal shown that conversion to Christianity allowed Jews to avoid murder or expulsion.
If you take any mob attack (which is punished by the state) as a proof, then every church burned and every priest killed during French revolution would be a proof of atheism based atrocity.

Only if it was atheism (and not political) in motivation. If you can find Robespierre or someone advocating violence against the religious for their religious views (and not, for example, the fact that the church enjoyed a privileged position in terms of power and wealth in pre-revolution France) then cite the evidence.


No, you haven't provided an evidence that Nazi's violence was motivated by religion. Very few passing reference to religious text (which are likely to be ingenious) is not an evidence. You have to show that fascist ideology was based on religion (either Christianity or anything else).
What other "many grounds" can you list?

I have provided one text in previous threads I have provided many others. These all go back to Luther whose anti-semetic views are well known and given two-thirds of german christians where Lutheran, he was also inplicitely respected.


Germans at the time were better educated, yet they were (according to you) all Christians. Maybe acceptance of atheism is correlated with lack of education?

I don't know if you can provide any sort of evidence to back up that claim. I have never heard of a primitive tribe recently discovered in a remote jungle who were all atheist. :lol:

However there was a survey of the leading scientists in the US which found that they were overwhelmingly atheist, see: Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435–436 (1997) and Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 394, 313 (1998), which indicates a much greater level of disbelief among "greater" scientists as compared with the general science community. And even the first study which was general scientists showed a lower level of belief (around 40%) as compared with US mainstream which is estimated at running around 70%+ depending on definition.


"Slavery of working class"? That level was much higher during atheism era then either before or after.

Level of what and how do you measure it? In any regard it is clear that Leninism was not anti-religious on metaphysical grounds.


You agree that Marxism is anti-religious by nature. Marxists governments killed more people then all other governments combined throughout the recorded history of humankind. Why don't you claim that atheism is to blame?

You are again confounding the establishment of the church with religious belief. Hitler motivate the Germans to hate and persecute the Jews by reminding them that they were complicit in the death of Jesus. There is no equivalence to that sort of motivation from Marxism. Marxism was against the church establishment as in their view the church was a used by the ruling class to keep the workers satisfied with their low station.

As you showed with your passage by Lenin. Personal belief was not an issue and no grounds for discrimination. This was repeated by other soviet leaders, even Krushchev who said personal belief was a matter for each person's conscious.


By contrast fascism wasn't religious by nature, yet you claim that religion is to blame.

We are talking about Hitler motivating the German people to commit atrocities. There is no doubt that as a part of that motivation Hitler relies on appeals to Biblical texts to justify the persecution.


The premise is supported by the fact that thousands of priests were murdered (by the state, very occasionally by the mob with full support of the state).

I'm not saying priests were not killed but were they killed for their beliefs and were the population overwhelmingly atheist by free-will or were they just professing to be atheist to avoid sanctions? Secondly was the state motivating their population to anti-religious acts of violence for reasons of their belief or because the church was a part of the establishment which helped enslave the pre-revolution workforce and hence subjecting them to political rather than religious motivated violence?


It is also supported by the severe restriction on any religion in USSR.
It is also supported by the fact that a single visit to a church or synagogue could end any prospect of career even in 1970's or 1980's.

I'm not saying that religion was not discouraged by the soviet states, it clearly was and atheism was promoted (even in that essay by Lenin). However you have singularly failed to find any evidence of atheism being the basis for the persecution of the religious is Soviet Russia. As epitomised by the quote you amusing provided...


"Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable" is hypocritical, as evidenced by the history of USSR. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_Soviet_Union)

I agree the behaviour of the Stalinist state did not live up to Lenin's vision. However did Stalin use religion to motivate these atrocities? For example, from the same page we read...


The close tie of the Church and the state led to the perception of the Church as corrupt and greedy by many members of intelligentsia. Many peasants, while highly religious, also did not view the institution of the church favorably. The respect for religion did not extend to the local priests. The Church owned a significant portion of Russia's land which was a point of contention (land ownership was a big factor in the Russian Revolution of 1917).

The persecution that occurred in the 60s and 70s was more religiously motived but largely that was aimed at elimination of theists from the state's education system and certainly nowhere near as violent or brutal as persecutions under Stalin (who was on balance an ally of the Orthodox Church).

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2011, 12:10 PM
Hardly isolated there are hundreds of cases of anti-semitism is Europe with varying degrees of state support. However, the "goal-shifting" claim is ludicrous. We are talking about religiously motivated violence state-sanctioned or otherwise. To try and discount some incidents atrocities as non-state sanctioned is disingenuous on two counts. Firstly they are inside the scope of this discussion and secondly the state often support such actions at an unofficial level even though they may later recant and punish ring-leaders for political show of good faith.
The Portugal example was cited as supposed refutation of "litmus test", that conversion (either to Christianity or Islam) stopped persecution against Jews.
Now you are trying to pose it as a general example of mob attack motivated by religion.




Only if it was atheism (and not political) in motivation. If you can find Robespierre or someone advocating violence against the religious for their religious views (and not, for example, the fact that the church enjoyed a privileged position in terms of power and wealth in pre-revolution France) then cite the evidence.

Again we can see a double standard. You are happy to accept that attack by Christians is religiously motivated, yet never accept that attack against Christians is motivated by atheism.



I have provided one text in previous threads I have provided many others. These all go back to Luther whose anti-semetic views are well known and given two-thirds of german christians where Lutheran, he was also inplicitely respected.
We are not discussing Luther. I'll accept your word that he was anti-Semitic and I am aware of middle age anti-Semitism. The point I made is that all example you cite are dated about half a millennium ago.
Holocaust is the greater tragedy then all middle age massacres, yet it cannot be attributed to Christianity.
If you say that anti-Semitism of the past helped to numb the conscience of perpetrators and made Nazi's and Hitler's murderous task easier, you might have a case. But claiming that Christianity is the motivation is ludicrous.




I don't know if you can provide any sort of evidence to back up that claim. I have never heard of a primitive tribe recently discovered in a remote jungle who were all atheist. :lol:

However there was a survey of the leading scientists in the US which found that they were overwhelmingly atheist, see: Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 386, 435–436 (1997) and Larson, E. J. & Witham, L. Nature 394, 313 (1998), which indicates a much greater level of disbelief among "greater" scientists as compared with the general science community. And even the first study which was general scientists showed a lower level of belief (around 40%) as compared with US mainstream which is estimated at running around 70%+ depending on definition.

What about you original claim that "I agree that a certain level of education does seem to correlate with an acceptance of atheism. The Russian working class were not well educated."? How is it supported by the fact that higher educated German working class was much more religious?




You are again confounding the establishment of the church with religious belief. Hitler motivate the Germans to hate and persecute the Jews by reminding them that they were complicit in the death of Jesus. There is no equivalence to that sort of motivation from Marxism. Marxism was against the church establishment as in their view the church was a used by the ruling class to keep the workers satisfied with their low station.

As you showed with your passage by Lenin. Personal belief was not an issue and no grounds for discrimination. This was repeated by other soviet leaders, even Krushchev who said personal belief was a matter for each person's conscious.

Yet the continuous attack on any belief in God contradict this claim.



We are talking about Hitler motivating the German people to commit atrocities. There is no doubt that as a part of that motivation Hitler relies on appeals to Biblical texts to justify the persecution.
As I said many times before, it shows that Hitler was an unscrupulous demagogue (and not only Hitler) who would use any means to achieve his goals. According to you 95% of Germans were Christians. It was quite fitting for Hitler to quote Bible to achieve his goals. Are you saying that his and Nazi's hatred of Jews was motivated by their religious believes?




I'm not saying priests were not killed but were they killed for their beliefs and were the population overwhelmingly atheist by free-will or were they just professing to be atheist to avoid sanctions? Secondly was the state motivating their population to anti-religious acts of violence for reasons of their belief or because the church was a part of the establishment which helped enslave the pre-revolution workforce and hence subjecting them to political rather than religious motivated violence?
If priests were not killed for their beliefs, what else were they killed for?
After the revolution church was immediately separated from the state and it's property confiscated. By second half of 1920s majority of population was atheists. "Enslaving pre-revolution workforce" wasn't even a fibble excuse since then.




I'm not saying that religion was not discouraged by the soviet states, it clearly was and atheism was promoted (even in that essay by Lenin). However you have singularly failed to find any evidence of atheism being the basis for the persecution of the religious is Soviet Russia. As epitomised by the quote you amusing provided...



I agree the behaviour of the Stalinist state did not live up to Lenin's vision. However did Stalin use religion to motivate these atrocities? For example, from the same page we read...


The close tie of the Church and the state led to the perception of the Church as corrupt and greedy by many members of intelligentsia. Many peasants, while highly religious, also did not view the institution of the church favorably. The respect for religion did not extend to the local priests. The Church owned a significant portion of Russia's land which was a point of contention (land ownership was a big factor in the Russian Revolution of 1917).

The persecution that occurred in the 60s and 70s was more religiously motived but largely that was aimed at elimination of theists from the state's education system and certainly nowhere near as violent or brutal as persecutions under Stalin (who was on balance an ally of the Orthodox Church).
Are that naive to believe it Stalin's vision was contrary to Lenin? If it was in any way different, it was in Stalin's favour. Lenin was much more intolerant then Stalin towards church and religion.

Igor_Goldenberg
18-04-2011, 12:15 PM
Back to the start of discussion:

1. Are you aware of any Jews who avoided Holocaust by converting to Christianity? If yes, how many?

2. Can you cite any cases where conversion to Christianity didn't stop state sanctioned persecution against Jews.
You can include mob attack that state either unofficially supported or connived. Even the cases where the state turned a blind eye can be considered.

Rincewind
18-04-2011, 01:55 PM
The Portugal example was cited as supposed refutation of "litmus test", that conversion (either to Christianity or Islam) stopped persecution against Jews.
Now you are trying to pose it as a general example of mob attack motivated by religion.

Yes in in your earlier claim you naively said...


There is a simple litmus test. Member of religious minority can avoid persecution by conversion, at least in case of Christianity and Islam. Through out the history of Islam and Christianity conversion(either genuine or convincing pretence) was sufficient to save life and, often, freedom.

During worst persecutions by Christians and Muslims Jews always had an easy way out - conversion.

You make no mention of state sanction persecution or except to mob violence. As I pointed out mob violence if often a result of state agitation which is sometimes recanted by prosecution of ring-leaders.


Again we can see a double standard. You are happy to accept that attack by Christians is religiously motivated, yet never accept that attack against Christians is motivated by atheism.

No double standard at all. The difference is I can cite passages where Hitler used religious arguments to incite hatred of Jews. You can't do the same for atheism in the USSR or anywhere else. I'm not saying it doesn't exist but in terms of using atheism to motivate violence against theism you have drawn a blank so far.


We are not discussing Luther. I'll accept your word that he was anti-Semitic and I am aware of middle age anti-Semitism. The point I made is that all example you cite are dated about half a millennium ago.
Holocaust is the greater tragedy then all middle age massacres, yet it cannot be attributed to Christianity.
If you say that anti-Semitism of the past helped to numb the conscience of perpetrators and made Nazi's and Hitler's murderous task easier, you might have a case. But claiming that Christianity is the motivation is ludicrous.

How can it be ludicrous where Hitler himself said things like...


"In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. 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."

He is making a clear link between a biblical story and a present day religious group.

To claim no religious motivation you would have to claim that nobody listened to Hitler or that Hitler said things which had no effect on how people behave.

If there was zero religious motivation, why would Hitler say these things?


What about you original claim that "I agree that a certain level of education does seem to correlate with an acceptance of atheism. The Russian working class were not well educated."? How is it supported by the fact that higher educated German working class was much more religious?

I don't know that the German working class were much more religious. I think pre-revolution the number of atheists in work-class Russia was practically nil. The religious intelligensia were on the whole well-educated on to representative of the education level more widely.


Yet the continuous attack on any belief in God contradict this claim.

Hardly continuous. During the 40s and 50s religion was widely tolerated in the Soviet Union. According to the page you quoted...


The Nazi attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 forced Stalin to enlist the Russian Orthodox Church as an ally to arouse Russian patriotism against foreign aggression. Religious life revived within the Russian Orthodox Church. Thousands of churches were reopened and multiplied to 22,000 before Khrushchev came to power. The regime permitted religious publications, and church membership grew.


As I said many times before, it shows that Hitler was an unscrupulous demagogue (and not only Hitler) who would use any means to achieve his goals. According to you 95% of Germans were Christians. It was quite fitting for Hitler to quote Bible to achieve his goals. Are you saying that his and Nazi's hatred of Jews was motivated by their religious believes?

Yes and as I have said many times before the actual personal belief of Hitler (or any individual) is not at issue here. The point is that Hitler used religious text to motivate religious based attacks on Jews.

As you agree the Germans were overwhelmingly Christian and arguments based on biblical stories are an appropriate way to to motivate them to commit atrocities.


If priests were not killed for their beliefs, what else were they killed for?
After the revolution church was immediately separated from the state and it's property confiscated. By second half of 1920s majority of population was atheists. "Enslaving pre-revolution workforce" wasn't even a fibble excuse since then.

The murder of the 1,200 priests you mentioned earlier occurred in the 20s and that persecution was very much about the ownership of land (as per the passage I quoted earlier). Comparing this with Jew persecution by Nazis (and more generally) it was not just the Rabbis that were persecuted it was all the people professing to be Jewish.

Later the Soviets did have a wider (but less violence) persecution of religious people particularly those thought to be proselytising in the education system. However there were no death camps for all people professing to be Christian, or Jewish, or Islamic.


Are that naive to believe it Stalin's vision was contrary to Lenin? If it was in any way different, it was in Stalin's favour. Lenin was much more intolerant then Stalin towards church and religion.

I agree in practice Stalin was tolerant towards religion when it suited his purposes. But that was more to do with Stalin being a pragmatist and Lenin being an idealist. However, I didn't say Stalin ran contrary to Lenin, I just said Stalin did not live up to Lenin's "vision" as documented in his writing, some of which you cited.

Rincewind
18-04-2011, 01:59 PM
Back to the start of discussion:

Actually this is not back to the start of the discussion but only as far as your supposed litmus test.


1. Are you aware of any Jews who avoided Holocaust by converting to Christianity? If yes, how many?

I don't challenge this claim.


2. Can you cite any cases where conversion to Christianity didn't stop state sanctioned persecution against Jews.
You can include mob attack that state either unofficially supported or connived. Even the cases where the state turned a blind eye can be considered.

OK so now you are changing your argument to include the weasel word "sanctioned".

I have no problems with discussing this point as long as you acknowledge that this is a change of scope as you now find your position indefensible without it.

antichrist
19-04-2011, 02:44 PM
Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg
1. Are you aware of any Jews who avoided Holocaust by converting to Christianity? If yes, how many?

I have a friend of 30 years standing who always thought he was Jewish and blamed the Nazis for killing his grandmother, but upon checking Polish records he finds out that everyone with that surname was Catholic. He sort of come to the conclusion that they Germans wanted to kill all Polish regardless of who they were.

In that intervening 30 years he would front up and challenge to a fight to anyone having a go at the Jews, or what Hitler did to Jews etc etc and is now facing a big psychological let down. He also gave his children Jewish first name???