Sudan Massacre

[Politesse]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

 

[laughing dog]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

I do not understand how you think that certain nations (but not others) that were predominantly Christian started 20th century wars because of Christianity. This seems to be your implication, but clearly this was not the case. If it is not the case that you think these wars were started because of Christianity, then I again have no idea what your point is, except to slur Christians. Note that I am an atheist.

“Because of Christianity “ has not been used by me. I stated my opinion. Clearly you don’t get it. I observed what I think is a strong correlation. While correlation is not causation, it may be suggestive.

Yes, and I pointed out that correlation was not causation, with which you now agree. So again, what is your argument here?

The bold-faced parts succinctly state my observations and reasons. I fail to understand your failure to understand. I am not trying to get anyone to agree my view.

Hitler was not leading a Christian theocracy. His ideology was essentially a state religion revolving around supposed Aryan superiority over “inferior races.” Likewise, Stalin had a state religion called Communism that actively suppressed the church. Hitler did too, to some extent

Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church in Germany

The barest sketch of an argument here would be that there was always a strain of anti-Semitism in Christianity, which would have coincided with HItler’s anti-Semitism.

Completely irrelevant to my observation.

 

[pood]

Since Hitler and his merry band of murderers were basically all atheists, ....

You know Hitler outlawed all the atheist organizations, don't you? And his associates report him criticizing atheism in private conversations. He appears to have been some sort of deist or pantheist, rejecting existing organized religions but believing in a higher creator. You really can't generalize about the merry band of murderers -- like any gang tied together by secular purposes their religious views varied. Several of them were deists of some sort; Bormann was a known atheist; Goering was into the old pagan Germanic religion; Himmler was an esoteric religious nutcase who wouldn't let atheists join the SS; and the only thing Goebbels appears to have worshipped was Hitler.

All granted. The point is that Hitler was trying to create his own secular religion around Nazism, just as Stalin was doing around Communism. Stalin was already oppressing Christianity and Hitler intended to do the same, though he was temporarily creating a modus vivendi with Catholics and Protestants until he could wipe them out. As noted upthread, however, he was already persecuting Catholics and Protestants both in Germany and Poland after he occupied it, where he was particularly brutal.

 

[pood]

War II.

Then you lack both historical education and reading comprehension.

Please fuck off. I have far more historical education and reading comprehension than you.

Hitler was the head of an explicitly theocratic state,

No he was not. He was the head of a fascist state. Do try to learn the difference.

that both created and endorsed a Christian denomination.

Untrue. He tried to exploit and coerce Christianity in the service of his broader goals, because pragmatically he recognized that most Germans were Protestant and Catholic. But, as noted above with cites, he persecuted both Catholics and Protestants.

If that is not "really" Christian, what would be?

Nothing that you have said.

I really don't care what the aristocracy privately thinks, or says to friends, or writes about in their diaries. A fascist theocratic state functions exactly the same way whether its head of state "really believes" the doctrines it enforces on the populace or not. My general presumption is that no authoritarian leader is particularly religious - piety and egotism don't exactly sleep comfortably together - but that doesn't change the impact of their actions.

Yeah, and I have already said that both Hitler and Stalin were both trying to create fascist/Communists secular theorcratic states, and so what? What does that have to do with Christians?

 

[pood]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

 

[pood]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

 

[laughing dog]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

I linked them - correlation is linking. You agreed.

 

[Politesse]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

Christianity is a very abstract concrpt, meaning a lot of things to billions of people. But is it "linked" to Nazism snd Italian Fascism? Yes, and by the Nazis snd Fascists themselves, who were adamant in trying to use it to support their regime internally and justify it internationally. Many Christians resisted the Nazi movement as well, some unto death, but at least within the Third Reich, not nearly as many people rejected as accepted it, and certainly not nearly enough to do anything about it before the situation ended in grim tragedy and lasting infamy. Ask the average Germans today why they don't believe the church should wield strong governmental power, and they'll tell you the whole grim story in much more detail than I or LD have.

 

[Politesse]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

Then read. If you won't read the posts in this thread, consider a book:

Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics...

Find the best prices on Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics by Fasching, Darrell J at Biblio | Paperback | 1992 | Augsburg Fortress Publishing | 9780800625313

www.biblio.com

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me. And with many other people. You're denying history that is:

1. Common knowledge
2. Very important for everyone in the Christian world to understand.

 

[Bomb#20]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

 

[Bomb#20]

The USA is currently waging a religious war on Muslims, so therefore USA is pre-democratic (the latter is true of course regardless of its Islamaphobia.

Which ongoing American military adventure are you characterizing as "a religious war on Muslims"?

Easy - the USA. Of course not as drastically as what you mention, but getting there, or it would be if massive resistance wasn't growing, that spikes the dominionists' plans.

So, none. Is it the Australian press that paints you this absurd picture of America, or are you getting it from some internet echo chamber?

In the USA, Australia, NZ, and so on Islam is not a threat, but Christianity is, especially in USA.
In 2019, Australian Brenton Harrison Tarrant in Christchurch, NZ, attacked a mosque and an Islamic Centre, killing 51 people. He was a right-wing Islamaphobe. Similar incidents against Christians have not occurred.

You had to go back six years for that. That averages out to nine people a year. In 2001, some Saudi Islamists in New York, USA, attacked the WTC, killing about 2400 Christians. That averages out to one hundred people a year.

Who said anything about the military in regard to war on Muslims? The USA is doing similar things to what India is doing, but on a lesser scale, and admittedly not so lethally (yet).

So which non-military non-lethal activity are you characterizing as "a religious war on Muslims"? Is this like the "war on Christmas"?

The Australian mainstream press, like that of USA, is dominated by Murdoch, just like the USA is with the USA additionally dominated by other like-minded right-wing media.

The Murdoch family dominates about 13% of the US media. Which of the other members of "The Big Six" do you regard as like-minded right-wing?

Six years, compared to the x 4 = 24 years that you went back. The NZ attack was one individual terrorist, and there have been no NZ Muslim attacks in response. The WTC attack was a very organized action backed by the same state actor that Trump has been cosying up to, meeting with their leader recently,

You mean Saudi Arabia? Two thirds of Saudi employees are in the government, so how could there not be links? But do you have evidence that backing the attack was government policy?

and providing them with current USA technology, so a very different response. Also USA retaliated for the WTC attack, though not against the perpetrator but a third party.

Yes, W. is an idiot; that's not news to anyone. What's that got to do with how dangerous Islam is?

That one hundred people a year is a silly way of looking at the situation; by that logic in a thousand years time it will be only 3 people a year.

And? If in a thousand years time there have been no further mass murders by Muslims but there's been another 51-dead mosque attack six years earlier then it will be reasonable to think Islam is less dangerous to infidels than vice versa. On the other hand if in a thousand years there's been another 51-dead mosque attack six years earlier and also Muslims killed sixteen people at a Jewish celebration zero years earlier, then it will be reasonable to think Islam is more dangerous to infidels than vice versa. I don't see what's silly about that way of looking at it; but if you have a better formula for the time discount rate on body count when calculating dangerousness of ideologies, I'm all ears.

The NY attack involved scores of people directly, and countless backup support people, so using this same crazy logic, one person killed 51 people, but the WTC terrorists killed an average of at max 150 people each to less than one victim per perpetrator.

Huh? That's not how responsibility works. If you hired me to kill Jimmy Hoffa and I subcontracted the job to a Mafia guy I knew, that doesn't make us each guilty of a third of a murder. Each individual hijacker, and each individual support person who knew what they were planning and helped anyway, murdered 2996 people.

 

[WAB]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

If pood is a Holocaust denialist, I'm Lincoln's grandfather.

 

[Politesse]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

Everyone wants to absolve themselves of responsibility for the Holocaust by denying its basic facts of it. I am not accusing him of denying that the Holocaust happened at all, but I am saying that he is denying basic facts thereof in an effort to place all of blame for what happened on a elite "evil" minority rather than on the many powerful social institutions, the church included, that supported, justified, and executed persecution of Jews in Germany for centuries, with the full and enthusiastic support of Christians in Germany and around the world, culminating very directly in the Shoah.

Even the most extreme forms of denialism are built on lies about what happened. Audacious lies casually accepted are the basic ingredients of any conspiracy theory. Pood is trying to deny the involvement of the church, and that's already a pretty fantastical historical lie given that more than 99% of the perpetrators of the genocide were Christian, and every Christian body in Germany either corroborated or became targets of the regime themselves. Who else are we supposed to let off the hook? Everyone who wasn't Hitler or one of his generals?

Germans, I note, don't do this bullshit "Yeah, but it wasn't MEEE" routine - they have a functioning education system there, and it does not stand for attempts to absolve the German people from moral responsibility.

Do you agree with pood that Christians were not responsible for the Holocaust?

 

[Politesse]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

If pood is a Holocaust denialist, I'm Lincoln's grandfather.

Yeah, well, Abraham Lincoln was my (checks notes) 5th great-grandmothers cousin by marriage, and as his cousin but also someone who reads, I can assure you that Lincoln was not the kind of man who hears terrible news and immediately starts brainstorming ways to obscure facts and hide his own complicity in whatever happened. He never had to contend with the Holocaust but he did live through another shameful period of history, and his response was to face the evils of his time head on, not construct fanciful false narratives that absolved his church or his countrymen from moral responsibility for slavery and insurrection. He died, in fact, of standing on principle.

 

[WAB]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me.

"rude". Interesting choice of thing to apologize for. Falsely accusing someone of Holocaust denialism is a lot of things you'd owe an apology for and "rude" doesn't really make the top ten. So you can quote him denying the Holocaust, can you?

If pood is a Holocaust denialist, I'm Lincoln's grandfather.

Yeah, well, Abraham Lincoln was my (checks notes) 5th great-grandmothers cousin by marriage, and as his cousin but also someone who reads, I can assure you that Lincoln was not the kind of man who hears terrible news and immediately starts brainstorming ways to obscure facts and hide his own complicity in whatever happened. He never had to contend with the Holocaust but he did live through another shameful period of history, and his response was to face the evils of his time head on, not construct fanciful false narratives that absolved his church or his countrymen from moral responsibility for slavery and insurrection. He died, in fact, of standing on principle.

It was a joke. The quote is from The Good the Bad and the Ugly.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

This is a bit of motte and bailey, LD.

You're citing countries engaged in aggression, and looking to the most common religions in those countries. But the actual claim under discussion is the aggression of the religious tenets, and the way that war and terrorism against civilians is being undertaken explicitly in the name of a religious faith.

Muslim theocracies and theocratically motivated organizations have been attacking and killing non-believers in the name of their religion for a substantial portion of my adult life. And it's not just a small handful of crazy fundamentalists - it's a rather large number of practicing muslims who follow sharia.

Yes, there have been religious nutjobs non-stop throughout history, and yes, within the last few hundred years there have been occasional christian nutjobs who engage in small-scale terrorism.

But you have to go back to the damned inquisition to find organized, state-backed, wide-spread religious warfare being practiced in the name of christianity.

For islam, you have to go back to yesterday.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is so fascinating how people online, when confronted with disagreement, fall back on “you are uneducated” or “you lack reading comprehension.” This is the smarmy little dodge of posters who cannot actually defend their BS. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows neither charge is true of me.

Then read. If you won't read the posts in this thread, consider a book:

Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics...

Find the best prices on Narrative Theology After Auschwitz: From Alienation to Ethics by Fasching, Darrell J at Biblio | Paperback | 1992 | Augsburg Fortress Publishing | 9780800625313

www.biblio.com

I apologize for being rude, but Holocaust denialism, even the selective variety, is a pretty sore point with me. And with many other people. You're denying history that is:

1. Common knowledge
2. Very important for everyone in the Christian world to understand.

Nothing pood has written even ventures into the same time zone as holocaust denialism.

Seriously, Poli, have you completely lost the ability to make a rational argument? All you ever seem to do is toss around ad-hom insults and attempt to poison the well via disinformation.

 

[laughing dog]

I am genuinely stumped.

Based on my understanding of history, it is my opinion that kn general, Christian nations were more dangerous to world than Islamic countries during the 20th century based on them starting WWI and WWII in Europe, and their willingness to violently intervene in 3rd world countries/colonies. This dangerous potential is exhibited in this century as well.

In my opinion. Islamic countries are more dangerous in general to their citizens than Christian countries.

This is a bit of motte and bailey, LD.

You're citing countries engaged in aggression, and looking to the most common religions in those countries. But the actual claim under discussion is the aggression of the religious tenets, and the way that war and terrorism against civilians is being undertaken explicitly in the name of a religious faith.

Muslim theocracies and theocratically motivated organizations have been attacking and killing non-believers in the name of their religion for a substantial portion of my adult life. And it's not just a small handful of crazy fundamentalists - it's a rather large number of practicing muslims who follow sharia.

Yes, there have been religious nutjobs non-stop throughout history, and yes, within the last few hundred years there have been occasional christian nutjobs who engage in small-scale terrorism.

But you have to go back to the damned inquisition to find organized, state-backed, wide-spread religious warfare being practiced in the name of christianity.

For islam, you have to go back to yesterday.

Ignoring the lessons of history makes your argument less convincing. Saying “it’s the others” while whitewashing “us” is the age old tactic of demogogues.

Go ahead, fear Islam and ignore white Christian nationalists today.

 

[pood]

I linked them - correlation is linking. You agreed.

Correlation is not causation. So you concede you have no argument. You just felt like tarring Christians with guilt by association.

 

[pood]

This entire line of argument, if it can be called that, seems to be gesturing at guilt by association, which is precisely why we should not confuse causation with correlation.

I can think of nothing more irrelevant than asking whether Christianity "caused Nazism" or "caused Hitler". No one thing "causes" an entire historical era or a complex social institution, and even if one somehow isolated such a "cause", it would only lead you to the next unsolveable question of causation (Well what caused that then? And what caused that? turtle upon turtle back to to the Big Bang).

I fully agree. So what is your point? The discussion here is LD trying (and failing) somehow to link the wars of the 20th century to Christianity. Your view? Agree? Disagree? Or what?

Christianity is a very abstract concrpt, meaning a lot of things to billions of people. But is it "linked" to Nazism snd Italian Fascism? Yes, and by the Nazis snd Fascists themselves, who were adamant in trying to use it to support their regime internally and justify it internationally. Many Christians resisted the Nazi movement as well, some unto death, but at least within the Third Reich, not nearly as many people rejected as accepted it, and certainly not nearly enough to do anything about it before the situation ended in grim tragedy and lasting infamy. Ask the average Germans today why they don't believe the church should wield strong governmental power, and they'll tell you the whole grim story in much more detail than I or LD have.

So what? I have already stated that while many Christians resisted Nazi and fascist policies, many others caved, because that is what a great many humans naturally do in circumstances such as these out of self-preservation. Again: Where is the argument that Christian-dominated nations were somehow responsible for the wars of the 20th century, when in fact many predominately Christian nations were victims of it? Now LD denies he is claiming that World War II was because of Christians, so again, WTF is his argument? It appears to be guilt by association, which is a fallacy.