Christianity Offially on the UP in England and Wales

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hitler was against atheism and is a Christian. (Linked his faith to Catholicism too)
Stalin didn't actively promote atheism in anyway and infact, reintroduced the Orthodox Church to Russia.

First off, I don't know why you are telling me about Hitler's personal religious beliefs, when I was talking about wider developments in people's understanding of atheism/religion, and how these influenced the ideology that Hitler adopted (which was a form of social Darwinism)

Anyway, Hitler said he was Christian when speaking to Christians, but in private he seems to not be so keen on the faith. Indeed he said:

"The heavist blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew..."

Also... "The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity."

He seems to have allowed Christianity to exist only because of its social use and relevance to his idea of society. "When all is said, we have no reason to wish the Italians or Spaniards to free themselves from the drug of Christianity."

Of course, I am aware he was not an atheist, and the whole "Hitler was an atheist and this somehow proves something" argument really annoys me. I like to point out to those people that Hitler adored the Catholic Church, and his hero was the leader of the Reformation, Martin Luther (because of his anti-Semetism), so really you could say Hitler was an all round Christian guy!

As for Stalin, even Dawkins accepts he was an atheist, and the stuff you showed on wiki was unsubstantitated and it even noted that no historian had ever backed up any of those claims. His decision to re-allow worship (having banned it, strange thing for a Christian to do in the first place!) appears to have been motivated by pratical reasons, in that it would boost the peoples morale.

Even then, Atheism is still not predominate, so your claims as such are false.

Atheism was far more predominant than Christianity in its influence on the ideologies of the time, without a doubt. You seem to be confusing personal faith with atheism as a social/ideological movement. As with Christianity, it inevitably picked up a lot of baggage along the way. Like with the above examples, Hilter associated atheism with Marxism, and for that reason alone was distrustful of it's social/political impact. And the political/religious beliefs of the posters in this thread suggests there is some truth in making such a correlation!

History just came back and bit your ignorance in the behind. Know your history before you make such wild assumptions.[/spoil]

Hurts doesn't it?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

[Beskar]

One of the Pope's senior advisers has pulled out of the papal visit to Britain, after saying the UK is a "Third World country" marked by "a new and aggressive atheism".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11317441

[Rhyfelwyr]

Though if I may continue you observations there's a point to be had in seeing how “Hippie Jesus” and his merry band of commune followers called Apostles have a distinctly communist touch both to their care free interpretation of economics (will be provided for by us, somehow, promise) and their idea of sharing everything as a community.

So perhaps Hitler is to be awarded another point where he observes that “Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child.”: communism the bastard Son of Christianity who renounces his Father?

Primitive communalism is a whole different matter from Marxism. Anyway, "hippie Jesus" is simply an invention of the Jesuited Papists in order to promote the EUSSR superstate with the Pope as it's spiritual and temporal head.

Well I made that up, I'm getting inventive these days. Still, Jesus was no hippie.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

....It's good to see the Vatican work for a living, makes for a nice change from its other sources of income such as its mafia branches in Italy and running Belgium's largest ring of paedophile brothels.

I was unable to find any information corroborating your last assertions. I am, needless to say, skeptical.

[HoreTore]

I was unable to find any information corroborating your last assertions. I am, needless to say, skeptical.

While I don't know what the brothels are aimed at, it is common knowledge that the vatican and the catholic church in Italy has deep ties with the various Italian mafia organizations. Not just among the footmen either, but high up in the vatican.

A church like the catholic church has plenty of stuff to offer any aspiring mobster..

[a completely inoffensive name]

Matrimony has always been between one man and one woman, there is no logical reason why that should change now because of the current fashion in sexuality.

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.

It does, "well it depends", is an intrinsically weak argument, "the life of the unborn must always be preserved and protected just as the life of the newborn" is more logically consistant - it makes more internal sense because it proceeds from a simgle principle, the sanctity of all life.

Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".

I should be allowed to establish "The Christian School of Saint Sidwell of Devon" and run it along lines which are compatable with Christian Faith, including prayer. If parents send their children to my school I should not have to worry about being accused of "prejudice" because of this. my school does what it says on the Tin, and provided I cannot be shown to be negligent (i.e. I start teaching creationsim alongside evolution) then I should be allowed to carry on unmollested.

As I said, banning prayer in school is as Draconian as enforcing it.

Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.

And yet that isn't the argument I made. HoreTore made an absolute argument (Christians are for tyranny, atheists are for freedom, generally speaking), so I pointed out that this hasn't always been the case. I didn't argue all atheists are like Hobbes, I just pointed out that there were/are atheists like him that weren't all progressive and freedom-loving.

As HoreTore stated already, I did not see any absolute statement from him. I interpreted your statement differently because of that.

The fact is the pro-life movement (outwith the fringe that want abortion at any point before birth) puts pragmatism before being "morally or logically consistent". For example, they don't provide a cut of point where you can say that the baby suddenly becomes 'alive' or 'human', and so in effect everything is a grey area, which is not good when it comes to dealing with the right to life.

For example, a moderate pro-lifer might allow abortion up until the first trimester, but then be against it, on the grounds that the foetus is now sufficiently human/whatever. But then in some cases eg rape/birth defects, they might want abortions to be allowed later, which is not very logically consistent, since a minute ago they deemed such foetus's to have the right to life. They are putting practicality before any sort of consistency in their argument.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently. And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

[Brenus]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes there is. Because society thinks of marriage as a union between people who love each other, we must include loving homosexuals in marriages otherwise it would be social discrimination. Your statement of "matrimony has always been man and women" is an example of a call to tradition, which is illogical in the first place. Talk about no logical reason.

Call to tradition is not inherrently a fallacy, it can just be used to conceal one. If you move the goal posts by saying "marriage is about two people who love each other" then what you have done is redefine "marriage" to suit your own ends. By the by, "No true Scotsman" is also not a fallacy (ever) because once you have excluded rapists from "true Scotsman" the fact that a brtual rapist lives in Aberdean does not make him a "true Scot".

So, marriage has always been defined as the union of one man and one woman for the raising of their own children in a stable environment, and for giving those children legitimacy. That completely excludes homosexual unions (which are not the same as hetersexual ones in any case, because they don't produce children).

Love has nothing to do with it.

Again, your train of thought is not "more logically consistent" just because it comes from one overarching principle. Simpler does not mean "more consistent" or "more logically sound" it means "simpler". Your argument of "well it depends" being inherently weak automatically makes strong divisions in any subject. That kind of thinking kills off moderates. Should we have the death penalty? becomes, "Yes for everything!" or "No, not at all!" because to say "well it depends on the crime" somehow paints those that think death should be reserved only for murders as "inconsistent".

My objection to abortion stems from my Christian Humanist belief in the sanctity of all human life it is, like my opposition to murder and the death penalty, the logical conclusion of that principle. It is suplamented by the additional principle that the strong should protect the weak from harm.

Ok, so you are talking opening a private school to teach students. I thought we were talking about the Church of England being taught in public schools due to them being a large source of money for the education system.

Nope, I'm talking about setting up a State school sponsored by a religious denomination, and the restrictions you should and should not allow for that.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent.

Right and wrong is a binary distinction.

But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is.

I'm not talking about right or wrong yet. You are talking about moral "right", I have only begun with logically correct.

According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

This statement makes no sense, it has no logically defined paramatars, what is a "Muslim" in this context, why am I opposed to them?

And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

It is more morally wrong to kill the child?

Sorry not buyin it.

Why does the child deserve death?

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

Genuine objective morality has to come from somewhere external, shorthand "God", otherwise you have consensus morality. Under consensus morality homosexuality is only ok so long as the consesnus agrees it is. Under theistic morality harming people because they are homosexual (assuming homsexuality does not make one an evil servant of the "Devil") is always wrong. This is why some, but not enoguh, Christians opposed Hitler when he started rounding up Jews, and why priests in Italy helped them esacape.

onsensus is not a major concern for absolute morality - which is why Jesus got himself Crucified.

[tibilicus]

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

[rory_20_uk]

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

That's all its every truly been there for.

[Beskar]

That's all its every truly been there for.

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

Who said religion was anything about god? He is just a casus belli to be used against the people.

I agree with your statement.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

[Rhyfelwyr]

“a moderate pro-lifer”: An anti-abvortionist generally pro death penalty can't be seen as a pro-life.

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

I would think not putting everything into black and white would be more logically and morally consistent. But I guess when you say "consistent" you are talking about the straight definition of the word and not correlating it to how "smart" or "right" it is. According to you, "All Muslims are either with us or against us. It doesn't matter what sect or portions they follow." would be very logically consistent in that, saying "well it depends on how they interpret the koran" is a very weak argument apparently.

I know it's easy to dismiss religious people as seeing everything in black and white, but I would have thought even a secular humanist would agree that the right to life is an absolute value. Therefore if you treat an absolute value as having grey areas, you are being logically inconsistent.

I also don't see how you're analogy with Islam works, because while we both (I think?) accept that the right to life is a single, aboslute principle, Islam is of course simply an umbrella term for a huge range of beliefs.

And in your example, that is far from putting "practicality above consistency" to those who choose to differ when to abort a baby based on the status of the father (rapist or not) it is all about morality. They feel that it is more wrong for a mother to live raising the son of the man who raped her for the rest of her life and for the child to live knowing his father was one of the most despicable kind of men that scour society then to have the baby aborted. That's not practicality, that's morality.

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I just think neither of you two can see that morals don't have to come from your religion or religion period and that there are some morals which do have some validity to them that haven't emerged from religion period. And now you simply just dismiss them as "not consistent" or "practicality".

I think people often like to dismiss us like this because it is easier than actually seriously thinking about their own positions on the issue. You need to adress the lack of any sort of logical consistency in your argument. At least the extreme fringe of the pro-choice movement are logically consistent, although you would have to wonder why the baby suddenly becomes human at the point of birth.

Well it looks like Rhy was right. The Pope arrives draped in tartan and the crowds talk of how great it is for "Scottish" culture. They know nothing. What a shame the Vatican can't just come here with a spiritual message over 400 years since we rejected Rome.

Justification at last! Nobody ever believed me, they just said I'm a crazy Hun, a bigot etc. But at last the experts are catching up, Mr. Devine was on the news last night and finally acknowledged that Catholics are increasingly driving the nationalist movement. Said it years ago myself in a paper for one of my politics classes (in a more academic tone than I do here of course, without the bias!), when you know the historical perpective it all makes sense, you've got to look beyond Scotland itself and understand how these identities all relate with Britain and Ireland etc.

It just shows to me that the Varican doesn't care about it's spirituality, it cares about its heiarchy and institution.

I would be ignoring the beam in my own eye if I upbraided them for this. Sadly what you said is true for many churches today. They are more like a social club, they have no interest in actually following the Gospel.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

Small Gods is my favourtie after Night Watch and The Fifth Elephant.

[HoreTore]

Sorry I'm an idiot, I meant a moderate pro-choice person.

"Choice" is the buzzword of the right.

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

[Beskar]

A proper leftie calls himself "pro-abortion", because that's what we want to enable people to do. Choices are for the bourgeoisie.

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

[HoreTore]

You are actually incorrect, since "Pro-abortion" is different to "Pro-Choice", as "Pro-Abortion" pretty much means "abort all babies", opposed to "Pro-Choice", where you have the option of abortion or not.

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative. "pro-abortion" doesn't mean abort all babies, it means that I support(pro) the abortion law.

Btw: thank you Philipvs, for proving my point, that a christian majority will implement draconian laws and be a complete disaster to our nations, beyond all doubt.

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Commies, fascists and christians; may they never gain power again.

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

[Beskar]

Nonsense. If I'm "pro-trains", does that mean I want to ban all other forms of transportation? Of course not, but it does mean that I support having trains as a viable and competitive alternative.

Huh? What was nonsense is saying pro-trains = ban others forms of transport.

If you are pro-trains, you are for the promotion of trains as a means of transport, over other types. For example "When it comes to transport, I am pro-train, I advocate the use of trains above the rest". So pro-train would be the active advocation of using trains or in favour of it being used. So pro-abortion would be the active advocation of using abortion or in favour of it being used.

Pro-Choice sums it up correctly, I only view it as a complete last resort, however, I do not want it to be illegal/banned, as that would cause more problems then solve them and I am no problem with people having the choice of abortion.

[HoreTore]

Yeah we stop people from violating babies' right to life, what will we do next...

If that's your view; fine by me. It's not my view that a fetus is anything more than a lump of cells, which is why I hope you won't gain power because your stance is the complete opposite of mine.

No hard feelings bro, we just disagree is all!

Another example:

I am strongly in favour of immigration. However, I don't consider it illegitimate to want the opposite. That however, doesn't mean I won't hope that they'll never gain the power to stop immigration. And if they do, I will still consider it a draconian law.

@Beskar: When I think about it, "abortion-supporter" is probably a better translation of the term used to describe those in favour of abortion here.

[Beskar]

A row erupted during a speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".


People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years. There needs to be some militant atheism to help put away these old dinosaurs who are long past their expiry date.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

A row erupted during a speech in which the Pope appeared to associate atheism with the Nazis has prompted criticism from humanist organisations.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".


People dare accuse that atheism and secularism is aggressive when non-believers had to constantly put up with this nonsense for years. There needs to be some militant atheism to help put away these old dinosaurs who are long past their expiry date.

I think he was poking the Hornet's Nest, and the reaction has been a scream after some of the things said in the Liberal press recently:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...xvi-secularism

Someone at the Guardian agrees with me!

[drone]

The Catholic Church has moved to play down the controversy, saying the Pope knew "rather well what the Nazi ideology is about".

[naut]

I heard on Sunday a programme where people were desperately trying to justify why everyone should be respectful to the Pope...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Any yet Atheists complain about "libel".

[Furunculus]

I think that Small Gods by Terry Pratchett hit the nail on the head. Sometimes the trappings of religion get so large that the whole original point is completely lost.

agreed.

on the subject of catholics and nazi's:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity...vote-1932.html

[gaelic cowboy]

Birth defects, rape, unfit to be a mother etc... all these issues cannot be used to overrule an absolute principle like the right to life.

To take your bolded example, you are completely inconsistent here. Would you kill that baby for those reasonsif it had already been born? Of course not.

Yet strangely, when it comes to a baby which would be born into a healthier environment, a moderate pro-choice person like yourself might say that baby has the right to life after the first trimester. Well babies created through rape would surely be no different in this respect, would they? So if that baby has the right to life, how on earth can it be justly aborted after the first trimester?

I would agree with this sentiment and I don't believe in God/Gods at all.

It strikes me that a lot of the reasoning stems almost from a medieval demon seed type fear hence the use of potential rape as a vaild reason.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

agreed.

on the subject of catholics and nazi's:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity...vote-1932.html

As Rhy noted, Luthar was an anti-Semnite (common at the time), and Protestants were therefore more likely to be anti-Semnites in turn in Germany. Having said that, some of Hitler's earliest detractors and critics were Protestant theologians, irrc.

[HoreTore]

As Rhy noted, Luthar was an anti-Semnite (common at the time), and Protestants were therefore more likely to be anti-Semnites in turn in Germany. Having said that, some of Hitler's earliest detractors and critics were Protestant theologians, irrc.

That may be, but the vast majority of his early opponents were lefites in some form; communists, social democrats, anarchists, unionists, etc etc.

Hitlers army did, however, have the words "Gott Mitt Uns" on their belt buckles.