Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » The Pete and Everard Show (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: The Pete and Everard Show
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What he said (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Nazis were a Christian party. My bet is that if you were to ask people who were alive at the time they wouldn't identify that as one of the defining characteristics of the party. Neither would modern-day scholars.
I don't think that the Nazis were particularly Christian either, although I do think it was composed of people who were about as Christian as most people today, and in that sense, was a "Christian" organization.

The point is, even if Ev's statement was false, it wasn't a "blood libel". It was just a mistake, albeit a provocative one.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" To call it a Christian party because much of its leadership was nominally Christian is tantamount to calling the Soviets a Jewish empire because many Jews were in leadership positions. It's a silly statement. The Nazis weren't a Christian party because advocating Christianity and Christian values wasn't what they did."

Except that this is false, paladine, in several ways.

1) I called it a christian party because they declared themselves to be christian, and because their contemporary christians recognized them as such.

2)They did a LOT of advocating christianity.

3) Christian values were exactly why they came to power. The methodist and lutheran churches in germany, as well as other conservative christians in germany, voted for the nazi party because of their christian values.

" It was a deliberately provocative statement, and despite the fact that Ev acts shocked, shocked to find that there's gambling going on in this establishment, I'm fairly sure he made the statement with the knowledge that he was going to elicit precisely the response he got."

Nope. It was not a deliberately provocative statement. It was a statement made in response to a direct challenge to name a christian group that commit crimes comparable to the PRC in recent history. It was an ANSWER TO A QUESTION.

Of course, if you want to say it was a deliberately provocative statement, you HAVE to say that Pete's statements preceeding it about the crimes commited by the "ATheist PRC" were provocative. And you HAVE to say they were more provocative, because not only did he call the PRC an atheist organization, he went into some gruesome detail about it.

And guess what? I didn't call Pete a bigot, full of hate, accuse him of spreading blood libel, or say there was no honest way to call the PRC atheist.

On the other hand, Pete did all of that to me... in response to a statement that HAS to be considered more provocative then my statement.

Paladine, how could I possibly answer Pete's question WITHOUT being "provocative," if it is provocative simply to say that a self declared christian organization is a christian organization? Or is the board supposed to give a pass to Pete's challenge, because if we answer the challenge, we will be less provocative then Pete was in issuing the challenge, and concede him the board?

Are we supposed to treat Pete differently because we can't expect him to live up to the boards standards?

Please read that thread again, paying attention to how many insults Pete tossed my direction, and how provocative he was, and then compare what I said to that. You'll find that Pete initiated, escalated, and that I NEVER went to his level of hostility.

"hen you get what any 10 year old could've predicted you'd get."

No ten year old would predict that making a factual statement in direct response to a specific challenge calling exactly for that type of factual statement, would provoke screams of "blood libel."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am often surprised when Pete and Everard get "into it," because I usually don't read whatever remark is the tipping point in the way that the tippee clearly does.

Honestly, from where I sit they demonstrate what appears to be a hypersensitivity to remarks made by the other, that might not be so offensive coming from another board member, and sometimes seem to provoke confrontation with each other, by bringing elements into the discussion that are known to rouse the other. (Please note that I'm trying desperately not to assign motives here, but only describe how the interactions *appear* to me.)

My point is just that exchanges between the two of them almost always deteriorate, regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" or who may be treading on the spirit of the Ornery rules of engagement in a particular case. This doesn't happen between either party and other Ornery members with anything like the inevitability of Ev/Pete exchanges. They don't seem to be able to conduct a decent debate with one another on almost any subject for whatever reason, but both are fully capable of remaining on civil terms with other board members, even in heated debate.

Whatever the problem is, it is something *between them*, not something that is the fault of either alone.

They are both long time members who have interesting and unique points of view, and I wish they'd figure out a way to keep from destructively engaging one another.

[ April 08, 2006, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Funean ]

Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Blood libel is accusing people falsely of killing people...
I submit that your use of "cultural nihilism" accuses people falsely of killing culture. And I don't honestly see much of a distinction, when it comes down to it. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They are both long time members who have interesting and unique points of view, and I wish they'd figure out a way to keep from destructively engaging one another.
Bahhh. Stop being so reasonable.
Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
halfhaggis
Member
Member # 809

 - posted      Profile for halfhaggis   Email halfhaggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
quote:
They are both long time members who have interesting and unique points of view, and I wish they'd figure out a way to keep from destructively engaging one another.
Bahhh. Stop being so reasonable.
Exactly. It's a new season of the Pete and Everard Show, and the show MUST GO ON!

[ April 08, 2006, 11:02 AM: Message edited by: halfhaggis ]

Posts: 101 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Funean
Member
Member # 2345

 - posted      Profile for Funean   Email Funean   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, jasonr. It's like a sickness. If it's any comfort, I'm very obnoxious in real life. [Big Grin]
Posts: 5277 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good LORD! Is this STILL GOING ON?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
halfhaggis
Member
Member # 809

 - posted      Profile for halfhaggis   Email halfhaggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Actually, it might be re-runs. All the episodes seem the same to me.
Posts: 101 | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whatever this is? Even the that seems to be going on [Wink] .
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
quote:
What he said (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Nazis were a Christian party. My bet is that if you were to ask people who were alive at the time they wouldn't identify that as one of the defining characteristics of the party. Neither would modern-day scholars.
I don't think that the Nazis were particularly Christian either, although I do think it was composed of people who were about as Christian as most people today, and in that sense, was a "Christian" organization.

The point is, even if Ev's statement was false, it wasn't a "blood libel". It was just a mistake, albeit a provocative one.

The statement that you just made, and that I italicized, was "just a mistake." I think that most Christians today have learned from the holocaust. We still have prejudices, but the shame of what some of our fellow-Christians did, or (as was more often the case), failed to do, lingers in our memories, and causes us to second-guess some of our worse impulses. I think that more Christians today would have been like King Christian of Denmark, and put our necks on the line for our Jewish neighbors. I think that fewer Christians today would have done like the US and British "christians" who turned ships full of Jewish refugees and sent them back into Hitler's arms.

My God, I hope we've learned. [Frown]

But libel, in the general sense, doesn't have to be an absolute lie in that the speaker doesn't have to actually know that it is true. If someone says a defamatory statement "in reckless disregard of truth," they have committed libel.
Courts describe disregard of truth as a type of malice. Generally, one that makes up accusations that an other group is committing [insert atrocity here], one does not know for a fact that such a thing has not happened, but they had no real evidence to support it.

But your simple mistake is quite different than saying that the Nazi party was Christian because their PR said that they were Christian. Knowing what we know about Goebbels' PR for the Nazis, for someone to assume that Goebbels was telling the truth about the character of the Nazi party would demonstrate reckless indifference to truth. If it's not blood libel, it's something worse.

[ April 08, 2006, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Just as a small addendum... Pete challenged the board to provide an example of a christian organization that committed attrocities comparable to the PRC, which was what my original post was in response to.

Not true. We were talking about current events, and I asked for 21st century examples of any Christian organization committing atrocities on the scale of the PRC's current treatment of Falun Gong. The PRC is an atheist organization in the same sense that the Inquisition was a Christian organization. Every single member of the top leadership of the PRC is an atheist, the overall philosophy atheist, and they suppress religion. They aren't representative of Atheists everywhere, just like the Inquisition did not represent Christians everywhere (obviously since most of its victims were Christian). Ev's answer was not in the scope of my question. WWII is not contemporary politics, and it's definitely not 21st century. There are dozens of Christian-led countries in the world and only a handful of Atheist-led countries, so it's not unreasonable to focus on current events. Tossing the holocaust into the argument derailed the question, it didn't answer it.

[ April 08, 2006, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jasonr:
I remember that. When I mentioned the Serbians, Pete went on about how both sides were killing each other, so I guess that one doesn't count.

I'm sorry if that's how it came off, because that is not at all what I meant. What the Serbs did (like that which was done to them) was a horrible atrocity. It is not as horrible as what the PRC is doing to Falun Gong. Just as what happened to Falun Gong is not as horrible as what Hitler did to the Jews.

And besides, the real murderers were atheists anyway, apparently.

quote:
That's the beauty of Pete's argument. He gets to pick and choose who qualifies as a Christian nunc pro tunc. He judges them not to have been Christian after the fact, so he can say that Christians never perpatrated such crimes,
You are reading selectively. The First crusade, the Inquisition, hell, the attempted genocides on both my Cherokee ancestors and my Mormon ancestors, were all carried out by Christians. I talked about the inquisition in the thread as a Christian organization. I'd like to deny it, but I can't. My point is that Christian organizations TODAY, because of our history, and because we are literate and have access to our scriptures, the New Testament, are a much kinder and gentler breed. My point is that it's unfair to blame Christians today for what our mostly illiterate progenitors did hundreds of years ago.

quote:
then lays the most horrific offences on the atheists, who are stuck holding all the responsibility for the crimes.
I only did that in response to Atheists who were complaining about Christian "intolerance" of atheists. My point was this: hey, guys, here's some of the stuff that atheist governments and organizations are doing to religious groups. I'll tell you what: you stop blaming us for what other Christians did, and I won't blame you for what your fellow Atheists did.

Jason, you don't run around tossing the inquisition into Christians' faces to shame them, and I'd never have raised the PRC spectre in response to what you said. Now please calm down and realize there's a misunderstanding here.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
1) I called it a christian party because they declared themselves to be christian, and because their contemporary christians recognized them as such.
So the fact that they call themselves something and other people agree makes them that thing? The Nazis said and people believed plenty of things about themselves and others that were just flat-out false. Calling them Christians when their actions and beliefs were absolutely contrary to mainstream Christian doctrine of every major denomination is bizarre in the extreme.

Tangentially, your example of Nazis as a counterpoint to the PRC is fatally flawed even should one accept your bizarre assumption that they were a "Christian" party, as the atrocities and persecutions the Nazis committed weren't motivated by Christian ideology as the PRC's atrocities and persecutions of religious people was certainly informed and motivated by an ideological view that religiousity outside of a state-sponsored context was something that needed to be stamped out. Whether or not what you said constituted a "blood libel" (and I don't believe it did), it's fatally flawed logically speaking.

quote:
Nope. It was not a deliberately provocative statement. It was a statement made in response to a direct challenge to name a christian group that commit crimes comparable to the PRC in recent history. It was an ANSWER TO A QUESTION.

Of course, if you want to say it was a deliberately provocative statement, you HAVE to say that Pete's statements preceeding it about the crimes commited by the "ATheist PRC" were provocative. And you HAVE to say they were more provocative, because not only did he call the PRC an atheist organization, he went into some gruesome detail about it.

Yep, Pete's statement was provocative for sure. But it was also true and logically sound. Some of the PRC's atrocities have been motivated by a desire to impose atheism (or state-centered and controlled puppet religion) upon people who subscribe to different faiths. Can you demonstrate that the Nazis' atrocities were motivated by a desire to impose Christianity upon everyone? Can you show me where the Nazis persecuted atheists for being atheists? If not, then you haven't given a legitimate comparison.

You've relied on self-identification and misunderstanding to characterize a group as being something it patently wasn't, and implied by association that the "Christianity" of the Nazis caused their atrocities as the atheism of the PRC caused theirs. That may not have been your intention, and only you can speak to that. But that was the effect of your statements, to my eyes.

quote:

And guess what? I didn't call Pete a bigot, full of hate, accuse him of spreading blood libel, or say there was no honest way to call the PRC atheist.

On the other hand, Pete did all of that to me... in response to a statement that HAS to be considered more provocative then my statement.

You have a fair point there. These arguments tend to get way too personal for my tastes, and Pete crossed some lines, again in my estimation. Pete shouldn't have questioned your honesty, as you've a long history on this board of meaning what you say and expressing yourself honestly. Speaking as someone who disagrees with you on a multitude of substantive issues, I see and respect that about you.

If Pete doesn't, then he shouldn't talk to you at all (and visa versa). There's no point in discussing something with someone who you believe is hateful, bigoted, ignorant, and/or dishonest.

quote:
Paladine, how could I possibly answer Pete's question WITHOUT being "provocative," if it is provocative simply to say that a self declared christian organization is a christian organization?
When it's untrue? Absolutely. I could call myself an African-American or the Queen of England. You could believe that I'm either or both. I could call myself a Hindu and you could believe me. But neither my statement nor your belief would make me what I say and you believe I am.

Show me examples of Nazi policy being heavily influenced or driven by Christian theology. Show me a pattern of the Nazi party even acting in accordance with with the beliefs associated with the label you want to stick on them. If you can't do that, then you're relying on the words of liars and the misconceptions of the ignorant to classify one of the most repressive and evil regimes in history as being a part of my (and Pete's) faith. If yours were a true statement, I'd lump it up and tell Pete to do the same. But it just ain't so. Truth's only a fair defense when it's true.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To correct a few misrepresentations:
Paladine, I did not call Ev a bigot in that thread, or dishonest. I said that the *statement* was bigoted and hateful. Ev's the one who talked about his full hatred for me.

Can a person make a bigoted statement, and yet not personally be a bigot? I think so. I don't consider Ev to be a bigot. I called him one, once, because I'd misunderstood something he said, and later apologized profusely.

On reflection, I think that Ev's probably right that the words are inflammatory, and I'll support any movement to make their use unacceptable on this board.

I actually went out of my way not to state my opinion about his sincerity in the argument. Either
1. Ev sincerely believed that we should rely on Nazi newsreels and propaganda, and Goebbels' PR about the Nazi party being "Christian," or
2. Ev was absolutely indifferent to whether the Nazi party was actually Christian, but said it anyway because he was angry.
Which possibility is giving Ev the "benefit of the doubt?"


quote:
If Pete doesn't, then he shouldn't talk to you at all (and visa versa). There's no point in discussing something with someone who you believe is hateful, bigoted, ignorant, and/or dishonest.
True. But it's hard to not reply to someone who follows your threads and discussions and demands that you answer him. Try to do it some time. Have you ever seen anyone pull it off? People announce all the time "I'm not talking to you anymore." No one ever follows through. I've asked Ev to agree that we stop talking to each other, but he replies that he'll only do this if I either stop posting new threads, or officially change my position on the nature of the ssm movement. [Mad]

quote:
Show me examples of Nazi policy being heavily influenced or driven by Christian theology. Show me a pattern of the Nazi party even acting in accordance with with the beliefs associated with the label you want to stick on them. If you can't do that, then you're relying on the words of liars and the misconceptions of the ignorant to classify one of the most repressive and evil regimes in history as being a part of my (and Pete's) faith. If yours were a true statement, I'd lump it up and tell Pete to do the same. But it just ain't so. Truth's only a fair defense when it's true.
Nicely said, Paladine.

[ April 08, 2006, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This reminds me of the musical Confessions of the Sachsenhausen Chaplains [Eek!] , a gay spoof on Springtime for Hitler. And yes I do think the role of Christianity in something that happened in my lifetime is bloody recent enough to be considered contemporary!

Pal said: "Show me examples of Nazi policy being heavily influenced or driven by Christian theology." Well, for a few things, Wagner's Parzifal, the Wandervogelbevegung, and The New Chivalry. And heavily is an understatement when it comes to Hitler's quotations of Luther's Jew-baiting.

cf:

¶ Steigmann-Gall, Richard: The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945.
¶ Melle, Bishop F. H. Otto: Letter of Thanks to A. Hitler; 1939; thanking Hitler for a donation of DM10,000 marks in 1939 to purchase an organ.
¶ Müller, Ludwig: who headed Hitler's foundation of the Protestant Reich Church, which was, in fact, an act of eccumenicism.
¶ etc., etc.

Does it matter if Reich III was disingenuous in its promotion of Christian 'virtue'? or does it reflect on Christian virtue's willingness to sell its soul to Nazism?

And as for Catholic support of Nazism, truly it is a grab bag at a church picnic.

I clearly remember reading in Rise and Fall, however obsolete it is, that Chancellor von Papen (born into a noble and veddy Catholic family), hoped for a Christian-Nazi partnership, long after the Konzentrationslagerreich had been introduced (at least by 1936).

But here is the clincher, if taking last communion in the bunker doesn't cinch it; Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church. And why not? Was he not considered a good Catholic by the Roman Catholic Church throughout his lifetime?

I don't mean to pit Dennis? Daniel I think Goldhagen against claims of Christopher Browning as to German motivations -- but one cannot deny the results of Church ambivalence! If the Dutch Catholic clergy could condemn the Nazis under occupation, surely Rome could condemn Nazism under a good Catholic like Mussolini.

AND IT DID NOT.

Christians have done their damnest to deflect responsibility for their guilty associations with Nazism by creating a Völkisch myth in Hitler which was a minor part of Hitler's world. Secret cults, the Thuleanish Gruppe, even the claim that he was a secret member of the Georgekreis (!!!). It is nonsense.

Whilst Himmler showed a keen interest somewhat beyond its symbollic and Bernaysian usefulness in creating 'image', as Steigmann–Gall notes pointed, Hitler and most of his clique attended Christian services.
_________________________

It is a very queer feeling being on Everard's side of this debate, so do forgive any egregious errors due to unfamiliarity with the territory and its pitfalls [Smile] .

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Adolph Hitler was never excommunicated by the Catholic Church. And why not? "

Like I said: Duress. The Catholic church was in the hands of Hitler and Mussolini. Would you have stood up and made yourself a target?

"It is a very queer feeling being on Everard's side of this debate,"

I have no quarrel with you, because although you are dead wrong, at least you aren't resting your whole argument on Goebbels' word.

Your statement of how Hitler used Martin Luther's antisemitic rantings is true. I think this shows that Christians carry a heavy responsibility for letting Hitler come to power, for having fostered antisemitism which Hitler used and magnified, and for letting Hitler and Goebbels deceive us. In that, we've changed. With respect to shutting our eyes to an atrocity out of fear or wishful thinking, I'm afraid that we haven't changed; we're still as cowardly and timid as the rest of the human race. Atrocities occur as we speak that we are aware of, and we do nothing, because it is not convenient.

But that's not quite the same thing as committing the atrocities ourselves.

It's obvious that when the party chants "we have no more need for Jesus Christ .... Hitler is our savior," that they have renounced Christianity, if they were ever Christians to begin with. Jason sneers that this is very "convenient" for me. It's fact, and I'm sorry if it's inconvenient for him.

[ April 08, 2006, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And yes I do think the role of Christianity in something that happened in my lifetime is bloody recent enough to be considered contemporary!
Ah, Monsieur Dey, do you not know that the modern world erupted a la Big Bang from Kennedy's cranium in November 1963?

quote:
It is a very queer feeling being on Everard's side of this debate, so do forgive any egregious errors due to unfamiliarity with the territory and its pitfalls
Like that fine Orson Welles cinema scene in the roomful of mirrors. You turn the corner, and there is not you but – him!

quote:
It's obvious that when the party chants "we have no more need for Jesus Christ .... Hitler is our savior," that they have renounced Christianity, if they were ever Christians to begin with.
Not necessarily a renunciation but, in their minds, transcendent evolution of Xtianity.

Since Catholicism long since declared prophecy and revelation to be no more on the face of the earth, it would require some new form of Xtianity to make such a declaration and still carry Xtianity in its embrace.

I'd call this extreme syncretism. Mormonism could, by design, achieve such a change and remain the One True Church that was no longer Xtian but nonetheless contained Xtianity within it like a vestigial organ. (I'm NOT saying that I think Mormonism is inclined toward such an end, but divine revelation is not to be argued against by a prophet's fauthful.)

Hitlerism subsumed Xtianity but had insufficient time to digest the Holy Mother Church, which was found still alive when Germany's carcass was lain open on V-Day.

quote:
you don't run around tossing the inquisition into Christians' faces to shame them
True. You throw it in their face to SCARE them. The Inquisitional logic: torturing and killing innocwent victims in order to save a 'hypothentity' – their souls – from everlasting hell, is a logic that only dogmatic metaphysics such as religion can bring about on an institutional basis.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
God pete when I am agreeing with Richard you can be pretty sure that its as solid a fact as can be obtained.

Face it pete you have a communist, a fascist, and some sort of pro gay intellectual all agreeing that you are simply and almost totally wrong in your interpretation of the political and historical events.

GIVE UP YOU LOST.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Face it pete you have a communist, a fascist, and some sort of pro gay intellectual all agreeing that you are simply and almost totally wrong in your interpretation of the political and historical events.
When all the residents of an asylum agree upon a delusion it becomes reality?

Richard's accusations of Catholic complicity in Nazi horrors are bizarre in the extreme. A wave of criticism of the Church registered briefly on the radar screen in the 1960s following the publication of "the Deputy". It was resoundingly beaten down by prominent Jews who had either themselves been saved by the efforts of the Church and the Pope or who had friends and relatives saved by the same.

The Church's stance on Nazism and the horrors accompanying it wasn't questioned by the people who were actually persecuted by fascist butchers; they knew the Church stood with them because the Church saved them.

The criticsm has begun to arise again in the late 20th and early 21st century because most of the people who were actually there are no longer able to answer the libelous accusations and testify about what they saw and experienced.

The Church was no friend of the Nazi movement. If you don't believe me, ask a Nazi.

quote:
Joseph Goebbels wrote on 26 March 1942 in his diary

"It's a dirty, low thing to do for the Catholic Church to continue its subversive activity in every way possible and now even to extend its propaganda to Protestant children evacuated from the regions threatened by air raids. Next to the Jews these politico-divines are about the most loathsome riffraff that we are still sheltering in the Reich. The time will come after the war for an over-all solution of this problem."

Lochner, The Goebbels Diaries, 1948, p. 146.

quote:
"In a manner never known before...the Pope has repudiated the National Socialist New European Order. His radio allocution was a masterpiece of clerical falsification of the National Socialist world-view....His speech is one long attack on everything we [the Nazis] stand for....God, [Pius XII] says, regards all peoples and races as worthy of the same consideration. Here he is clearly speaking on behalf of Jews... Here he is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward the Jews, and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."

The Vatican in the Age of Dictators: 1922–1945, 1973, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, pp. 272-273).

Virtually every major Jewish figure of the time recognized the bravery of what the Church did during the second world war, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet somehow we let these silly myths persist.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red, I have learned to value your knowledge and expertise, but I have no respect whatsoever for bald appeals to authority; it's the second-to-last refuge of those who don't have the facts on their side. The last refuge, of course, is to write a full sentence in CAPS. [Big Grin]

Even if I did buy the whole authority thing, we are way out of your fields of expertise in this and safely into my own fields of expertise: rhetoric, persuasion, and religion. I can't imagine a worse appeal to authority than an appeal to conformity.

[ April 09, 2006, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by livermeer kenmaile:
quote:
It's obvious that when the party chants "we have no more need for Jesus Christ .... Hitler is our savior," that they have renounced Christianity, if they were ever Christians to begin with.
Not necessarily a renunciation but, in their minds, transcendent evolution of Xtianity.
Ah. That would explain why they said that they are no longer Christian. [Roll Eyes]

Or this:
quote:
We are the joyous Hitler Youth,
We have no need for Christian virtue.
Our leader is our savior;
The pope and rabbi shall
be gone. We shall be pagans once again.

Note the source is a Jewish site that correctly condemns many of the actions of Christian churches and organizations, but they don't buy into this blood libel that Nazis were a "Christian" organization.)

Is reverting to paganism a "transcendent evolution" of Christianity? "Once again" here means going back to what they had in the past. Not moving towards something new.

[ April 09, 2006, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
RS:

Catholics also saved a lot of the butchers for the Argentine, too.

I think in the 1st instance it's Pius XII, in the 2nd to Pius XI. No?

Goebbels', whilst he's disgruntled with Rome -- and a lot of others too, you know -- is not excommunicating himself, nor, one might note, is he being excommunicated by Rome.

Whilst this is going on, he's refounding the Teutonic Order, a Christian army! Doesn't every altar boy dream of becoming pope and going to heaven some day?

He also suggests in his diaries that he's going to make a coup in Prussia -- a Catholic reclaiming lands for the Protestants thereof. Now the Protestant overlords will have to bow and scrape to him.

The Church was not concerned about Nazi politics; it was concerned with Nazi obedience -- and Nazi Catholics were obstreporous. Of course the Church was annoyed with the Nazis, but not enough to demand that Nazi Catholics get in line with "church teachings" -- which in any event were all for destroying atheistic commies, most of whom were being led to perdition by Jews.

You know what Goebbels was complaining about in his diary, don't you? He was complaining that human-rights activists around the world had finally embarrased the Church to join in the complaints about Mengele. It obliged the Nazis to stop -- or, in any event, go to all the effort and expense of doing it in secret laboratories. Did the Church lead the fight in the 1st place? No.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, I was thinking of you Paladine [Smile] , but I typed RS.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Richard

I was about to say WTF why is richard telling me about something I already know way too much about...then I saw the paladine clarification.

Paladine/Pete

Is there evidence that Nazi members publicly renounced Christianity? Yep sure is. The point is that for every instance where it happens, you also have instances of Nazis either exploiting or coercing the various christian churches as a part and parcel expression of state policy and propaganda purposes that required at the very least tacit support to the church by either the party or the government.

We could engage in a several year long slug fest of tit for tat examples which support each view equally. I however think it better to note just some basic points...

1. the party as a whole moved from anti catholicism, then to neutrality, then to apathy in concern with the christian churches through its life span as both political movement, political party, and government.

2. Individual party leaders at times went far beyond party official policy and enacted harsh penalties against churches, and truly did renounce Christianity.

3. The government under the nazis never really changed its pre nazi relationship with christian churches. However the relationship between the churches and Nazi party did change as noted in point 1.

and I'll stop there to keep it simple.

No one should be making blanket absolute statements. But in general the original dispute over the Nazis renouncing christianity as a general and official policy is pretty much bunko. But It is possible to find speeches and enacted orders throughout the ebtirerty of Nazi German existence that shows at times the christian church was being formally repudiated by individual nazis or individual organizations contained within the Nazi party.

Now can we agree to go lick our wounded arteries in private and stop derailing threads about respecting atheists with speculation on if Nazis renounced Christianity or not?

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speculating that Nazis were a "Christian organization" derailed the thread.

I defy you to show me how saying "nazis were a Christian organization" fits within the scope of respecting atheists.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now can we agree to go lick our wounded arteries in private and stop derailing threads about respecting atheists with speculation on if Nazis renounced Christianity or not?
This thread was about respecting atheists?

Damn. I forgot my charcoal and kerosene...

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Big Grin]

Well, PaH, nobody said that the Nazis were a Jewish organization, did they?

Wasn't the point really that Christians were calling the Nazis atheists? Search NAZI and ATHEIST on the net. See what lies there are out there. It turned out not to be true at all.

If you'll think about it in a wider context, it was a largely Christian western army and a far larger atheist eastern army that defeated Hitler. To be honest, I think the atheists are being short-changed here.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you'll think about it in a wider context, it was a largely Christian western army and a far larger atheist eastern army that defeated Hitler.
As I mentioned before, Stalin allowed Xtian worship during WWII to give The Proles something to rally for. I don't know the details. During the height of WWII European bloodshed, they all went with the cross of Jesus going on before (but the Nazis put those little serifs on them). [Wink]
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bingo. The Russians would not fight hitler under an atheist banner.

The Swaztika itself was taken from the Vedic symbol for the eternal cycle of death. Naziism combined some pagan and Christian elements, and represented itself with an ancient Hindu symbol.

In short, it was a New Age movement [Big Grin]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ubertarianism.
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ken, the thread was about why Atheists are "the most distrusted minority":

quote:
Originally posted by KnightEnder:
Study
Atheists identified as America’s most distrusted minority, according to new U of M study
quote:

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL (3/28/2006) -- American’s increasing acceptance of religious diversity doesn’t extend to those who don’t believe in a god, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

The study is co-authored by assistant professor Joseph Gerteis and associate professor Doug Hartmann. It’s the first in a series of national studies conducted the American Mosaic Project, a three-year project funded by the Minneapolis-based David Edelstein Family Foundation that looks at race, religion and cultural diversity in the contemporary United States. The study will appear in the April issue of the American Sociological Review.


In response to this and later questions on the thread, I listed some of the things that atheist governments such as the PRC and North Korea are doing right now during the 21st century. These things are on the news, and I think they relate to why many Americans might be intolerant of atheists. It's obviously unfair to judge Atheists in America for what's being done in China, but people are unfair. I pointed out that now, in the 21st century, the largest-scale atrocities being committed are being committed by Atheist states.

Ev retaliated to this by saying that the Nazi party was a Christian organization. Kind of off topic, since Nazi atrocites are not a 21st century event, and since the question of Nazi Christian affiliation has nothing to do with why people might distrust Atheists.

But Red says that it's Paladine and I who derailed the thread by saying that Nazis renounced Christianity [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by livermeer kenmaile:
Ubertarianism.

[Big Grin] Good one.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not just good one. BEST one. ALL one. Uber-one!

(apologies to The Protocols of the Elders of Rabbi Hillel and Bronner's Magic Soaps All ONe! All One! All One!)

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I, Rabbi-bot
Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the Atheist thread, http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=008456;p=9&r=nfx Richard Dey said that

quote:
the Boys Scouts and the Wandervogelbewegung, and the Sturmabteilung, and the SS were all Christian organizations. The only exception, really, was the SA under the homosexuals when Jews were encouraged to join.

Richard, why is it that Roehm is a "devout Catholic" when you're trying to prove that the Nazi party was Christian, and yet becomes a nonChristian homosexual when you're praising the SA over the SS?

And Red, why is it on topic on a thread about why people distrust athiests, for people to argue that Nazis were Christians, but not on topic for people to argue that Nazis weren't Christians?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<----- head explodes.
Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
livermeer kenmaile
Member
Member # 2855

 - posted      Profile for livermeer kenmaile   Email livermeer kenmaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
<----- head explodes.
Difference see grammar understand. 'Head explodes' one way means; 'explodes head' mean who by did. Arrow ---> or <--- way show which splatter go.

Syntax. Grammar. Kidneys!

Posts: 1449 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SA

Sorry, Roehm was a devout Roman Catholic and a devout homosexual, and not nearly the bad guy everybody says he was. The Communists hated him. He used to distrup their meetings. Nazism would never have come to power without his private army. I have to correct my 2.5-million to 4.5-million. I forgot the youth group which became the Hitlerjugend eventually. Hindenburg and the Reichwehr were extremely resentful of the SA. Likewise, Roehm had to go if the Nazis were to achieve a dictatorship.

Roehm had a rather typical upper-middle-class Bavarian catholic background. In the gay world he was called 'Piggie' (not Schweinie) because he did somewhat resemble one; apologies to any pigs hereabouts. [Smile] He was an amazing recruiter, and was an excellent administrator. He was not "antisemitic". He wasn't even a racist. That was one of the problems, apparently. He was a 'tough guy', but he was also genial and amazingly free of the class envy which characterized most of the Nazi bigwigs.

Can one really imagine Goebbels as a street tough? [Big Grin] He just had a big mouth.

Roehm, who was Socialist, thought the Nazis had taken a wrong turn in their 'revoluton', and was planning to overthrow the government. With a 4.5-million-man personal guard, this would not have been difficult. Goring and Himmler knew this because of the world's first-known case of wire-tapping. The idea that he was accepting Frf 3 million to do it has never been confirmed, and was probably part of the Nazi plot to get rid of him.

Hitler came to power in a homophobic coup d'etat. It's how it happened. Nazism would not have been what it became if it hadn't happened the way it did in history. Repeat 1st line of ¶.

Homosexuals are often blamed for all manner of things that the SA did after the homosexual leaders in it were murdered. After Long Knives (which btw was another pop song), it was subordinated to the SS; but Roehm's Avengers began murdering SS officers. Roehm's Avengers still exist, as a matter of fact. They murdered several outstanding Nazis after the war or in hiding.

Kristalnacht Footnote

If you don't know it already, PaH, Kristalnacht was ticked off not by a Jewish assassination of a French diplomat. In fact the Jew killed his lover. Ernst vom Rath, a secretary at the German Embassy in Paris, was killed by one Herschel Grynszpan, a Polish Jew who had met him at the cafe Tout va bien in the capacity of a pimp arranging encounters with French hustlers. There are possibly two ironies here. 1st is the possibility that Grynszpan was 'a pretty-boy front-man', wasn't gay, and was just hustling homosexuals. Another example of Jewish protection of homosexuals is the case of Ira Gershwin, the lyricist, who managed a gay baths in NYC at one time. The 2nd irony is that Grynszpan was in a French prison when Paris fell to the Nazis in 1940. Grynszpan was not executed by the Nazis, but survived the war. Gay people interviewed him.

In fact, most German Jews survived the war; most Polish Jews did not.

cfque: Proctor, Rbt N. (reliable): Racial Hygiene, Medicine Under the Nazis; Harvard University Press (1988).

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I didn't demonize Roehm, unless you count his close friendship with Hitler. I actually feel sorry for Roehm. I just pointed out that you use Roehm as a wildcard: to emphasize the "Christianity" of the Nazi party, but to downplay the "Christianity" of the gay-friendly SA. Depending on your argument needs, Roehm's presence makes an organization either more "Christian" or less "Christian." [Razz]

I haven't repeated my err that you corrected last year re the SA; I looked up the history and dates, and found, suprise, you were right, so I retracted. The night of long knives purge occurred 4 years before Krystalnacht. I admitted my wrong a year ago and ye need not pound my head about it again. [Smile]

[ April 09, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1