Hitler on the Origins of Religion:

[wynn]

The fact that he was successful (launching anti-Semitism under a Christian banner) is an indictment against the religious people who supported him.

The problem with such thinking is that is assumes that religiousness is the kind of all-or-nothing issue as race (skin color) or biological sex.

Ie. a person who is, for example, white, is white 24/7, come what may, Sunday through Monday, their whole life, in every situation. They can't change anything about that. It's obvious, everyone can see it.
Or, a person who is biologically female, is biologically female, and there is nothing she can do about that. She can mask it, hide it, get surgery, but the DNA tells its own story.


Some people, however, seem to think that religiousness is just like that: that once a person declares to be, say, Roman Catholic, they are Roman Catholic 24/7, their every action inspired by their Roman Catholic beliefs, their every action a representative example of Roman Catholic beliefs.


If you wish to argue that the support Germans gave to Hitler was driven by their Christian beliefs, you need to explain first what Christian beliefs are, what the norm of Christianity is.
Given that even (and esp.) Christians themselves struggle over what exactly the norm of Christianity is, how do you propose to do that?

 

[wynn]

I tell 'em to give me their worst.

They're probably doing that as we speak ...

 

[wynn]

Good point. It is hard to determine with people who do not claim any organized belief system, such as atheists, but with people who claim to believe in particular established religions few are perfect in their faith. Our personal belief systems often trump the doctrine of whatever label we claim. Since a personal belief system is just that, personal, it is unlikely that any large number of people have identical thought processes. I also do not believe that a personal belief system is always in full control of the individual. We are susceptible to our biological urges and psychological imperfections. Sometimes people will be forced into situations when they have to do something against everything they believe in and then they are forced to come to terms with their actions over time. Some people are not stable in their views or beliefs because they are still unsure of how to interpret the world around them.

So, while I do agree with you that our beliefs usually dictate our actions, I was referring more to established belief systems associated with labels that people claim.

I have. I have never suggested that anyone was perfect in their faith or that anyone claimed to be perfect in their faith. I would be willing to bet, if anyone claimed perfection, they would likely be some lunatic that just committed an atrocity and they would soon find themselves in prison for the criminally insane. They would at least not have very many friends, even among their brethren.

So with this in mind, how can we say that religion is the cause of conflict and war?

I am in no position to pass judgment on the mental capacities of any political leaders involved in making the decision to go to war. I did not have access to information they had at the time. I also was not part of the intelligence gathering. I have received the same watered down super spun information that the rest of the public has received and I have little faith in the integrity of our news media. I have my opinion about the war but it was based on the same unreliable information everyone else got, so I would not consider it valid for assertions nor relevant to the discussion at hand.

On the grounds of what should we think that our knowledge of the historical situations, such as WWII here, is any different?

 

[wynn]

Henry the VIII was Christian. Like any other king of the time, he was believed to be ordained by God. Ordained meaning chosen. Unless one believes that God chooses someone for a duty then does not guide them in how to perform it we have to assume that even Henry VIII believed God spoke to him. How many of his wives for reasons such as failing to produce a son, did he murder? I do not believe Christianity condones that behavior. Maybe, Henry VIII's interpretation of it and his position of power allowed him the arrogance to feel justified that if he wanted it, then so did God. But generally in our day and age when someone claims that God speaks to them and guides them they are considered insane not only by atheists but by theists as well. David Koresh would be another example. Christianity was not to blame there either. Again, insanity.

I wonder what all those people who have so much to criticize about Henry, would do if they were in his situation.

Imagine: You are born into a royal family; from the earliest time on, you are raised to compete, to persist, to have high aspirations; the burden of leading a country is placed on you; you live among people who readily betray each other for love, money or political influence, with fatal consequences; you live in the middle of profound political and philosophical disputes.
And you think you could just rise above all that?


What do you actually know about Henry, his actual privacy? What we have is historical conjecture. Even if his personal letters and other documents are preserved, inasmuch are these to be taken as expressions of his privacy, his actual convictions, and how much are they expressions of a statesperson of his time and age?

Any doctrine, religious or political, when used to unjustly harm others can appear to be bad.

You'll need to elaborate on this.

Is there a way to "justly harm" others?

And how can a religious doctrine be used for good, or for bad?

 

[seagypsy]

So with this in mind, how can we say that religion is the cause of conflict and war?

I cannot speak for anyone else but I DON'T believe religion IS the cause. I think people use religion as a psychological tool to manipulate the emotions and perspectives of the people they need support from. The ones who actually declare war are usually motivated by greed and arrogance, IMO. The ones declaring war may even use the religion as a tool against themselves so that they can justify actions they instinctively know to be "wrong".

On the grounds of what should we think that our knowledge of the historical situations, such as WWII here, is any different?

Well I have most of my information about WWII from school textbooks growing up. Seventy years of expert scrutiny over events leading up to the holocaust give me more faith in the validity of information available about it. Also, my having read most of "Mein Kamph" (though admittedly with a 4th grade perspective), and reading heavily scrutinized articles about Hitler's apparently mental degradation over time and testimony of his personal doctor stating that he administered illicit drugs to Hitler in his later days of power. I don't have any such information regarding the Iraq war. All I have right now is what I perceive to be propaganda.

Perhaps, 70 years from now we will have much more reliable information about the Iraq war as well and I will be able to reach more analytical conclusions

 

[Balerion]

I cannot speak for anyone else but I DON'T believe religion IS the cause. I think people use religion as a psychological tool to manipulate the emotions and perspectives of the people they need support from. The ones who actually declare war are usually motivated by greed and arrogance, IMO. The ones declaring war may even use the religion as a tool against themselves so that they can justify actions they instinctively know to be "wrong".

You're right that religion is used as a motivator for the footsoldiers (we even do it to a troubling extent in the United States, which evangelical chaplains giving fiery sermons to our troops at bases both home and abroad), but to say religion isn't also the cause is naive.

 

[Neverfly]

I wonder what all those people who have so much to criticize about Henry, would do if they were in his situation.

Imagine: You are born into a royal family; from the earliest time on, you are raised to compete, to persist, to have high aspirations; the burden of leading a country is placed on you; you live among people who readily betray each other for love, money or political influence, with fatal consequences; you live in the middle of profound political and philosophical disputes.
And you think you could just rise above all that?

Who cares? His deeds speak for themselves, as do the deeds of people today.

You could say the same about Hitler, Charles Manson or Gary Larson.
Who knows why they feel why they did what they did but they did it anyway.

Larson, I can forgive.

 

[seagypsy]

I wonder what all those people who have so much to criticize about Henry, would do if they were in his situation.

Imagine: You are born into a royal family; from the earliest time on, you are raised to compete, to persist, to have high aspirations; the burden of leading a country is placed on you; you live among people who readily betray each other for love, money or political influence, with fatal consequences; you live in the middle of profound political and philosophical disputes.
And you think you could just rise above all that?


What do you actually know about Henry, his actual privacy? What we have is historical conjecture. Even if his personal letters and other documents are preserved, inasmuch are these to be taken as expressions of his privacy, his actual convictions, and how much are they expressions of a statesperson of his time and age?

I admit, I don't know so much about his private life or his deep inner thoughts. I am a layperson and never found Henry VIII fascinating enough research him outside of classroom requirements. I only know that he was reportedly Christian and had a bad habit of killing his wives. I cannot say that I would have handled his life situations any differently than he did. But from how you put it, I think I would have a hard time holding on to sanity under that kind of pressure. Considering mental illness was virtually unheard of back then and that it was highly improper to suggest that a person of Royalty was ever acting outside of Divine guidance, I doubt anyone tried an intervention of any kind.

In my personal life, I have crumbled under far less stress than any Royal person has to endure. So still I am left to think he was a sandwich short of a picnic. Imperfect anecdotal evidence I know. It would not hold up in court but I am analyzing it to the best of my ability with what information I have.

You'll need to elaborate on this.

Is there a way to "justly harm" others?

Killing someone in self defense would be justified harm. When one soldier kills another under orders of his country's leader, the killing is considered justified even though it certainly harms the soldier killed as well as the one doing the killing.

And how can a religious doctrine be used for good, or for bad?

If a person is distraught over the death of a loved one, convincing the bereaved that their loved one is in a better place gives them comfort and helps them to emotionally let go of the dead and move on with their life. This is a good thing because it leaves anguish and pain that could lead to long term depression.


If a woman is indoctrinated to believe that the only way to please God is to please her husband and her husband is also indoctrinated or at least is aware of how she is indoctrinated, then uses her beliefs to justify forcing her into horrible acts or physically abusing her telling her she will go to hell if she doesn't do what he says, then this is bad. I really hope I don't have to explain why it is bad.

 

[seagypsy]

You're right that religion is used as a motivator for the footsoldiers (we even do it to a troubling extent in the United States, which evangelical chaplains giving fiery sermons to our troops at bases both home and abroad), but to say religion isn't also the cause is naive.

Maybe I am naive. I haven't known EVERYTHING since I was 16. What motivates those in power to declare war is something that takes place in the mind of those individuals. With the human mind still being so much of a mystery, speculation is sadly the bulk of what we have to work with.

But to even suggest that religion is the only or even merely the primary cause of war implies that if all the world were atheists then we would have world peace. I don't think anyone truly believes that peace would break out and last forever if we got rid of religion entirely.

I believe, as long as there are at least 2 human beings that disagree on something there will be motivation for war. Religion is not required for violent disagreement. This is evidenced in observation of school children fighting over a swing, chimpanzee groups warring with other groups for resources and territory, or two boxers in a ring.

 

[wynn]

If a person is distraught over the death of a loved one, convincing the bereaved that their loved one is in a better place gives them comfort and helps them to emotionally let go of the dead and move on with their life. This is a good thing because it leaves anguish and pain that could lead to long term depression.

??
I have never understood why some people think this works. Nor have I ever seen it work.

In some books on communication, reassuring is specifically noted as mostly counterproductive, especially under stress.

If a woman is indoctrinated to believe that the only way to please God is to please her husband and her husband is also indoctrinated or at least is aware of how she is indoctrinated, then uses her beliefs to justify forcing her into horrible acts or physically abusing her telling her she will go to hell if she doesn't do what he says, then this is bad. I really hope I don't have to explain why it is bad.

Actually, it would be very revealing if you would explain why you think it is bad; it would clarify your underlying assumptions.

 

[wynn]

Who cares?

You should, if you seek to judge him.

 

[wynn]

The fact that he was successful (launching anti-Semitism under a Christian banner) is an indictment against the religious people who supported him.

I've always found it amusing how atheists pretend that having a social/political agenda (and therefore the potential to screw up wholesale) is the exclusive property of theists (and that any apparent wrong doing of an apparent atheist is a consequence of their moustache or ethnicity or some other aspect)

It needs to be emphasized though that theists tend to be expected to be perfect,
and that this expectation is justified,
and that the disappointment of that expectation is justified as well.

Theists are supposedly a light unto all men - and when theists fail to be such a light, men are justly grieved by that.
God's name should not be taken in vain.


And LG - I will personally push you toward that perfection, even if that makes us enemies, until death, or better insight, do us part.

 

[Aqueous Id]

If you wish to argue that the support Germans gave to Hitler was driven by their Christian beliefs, you need to explain first what Christian beliefs are, what the norm of Christianity is.

No, obviously there were all kinds of people for or against him, including those with a conscience who were deeply troubled and living in fear.

I am referring to the strident Nazis who also happened to be Christian. Since Christianity accounts for about 99% of WWII Germans, that would be just about all strident Nazis.

I'm saying the act of his success is an indictment against them, since they (we would hope) can not claim the psychopathic excuse that attaches to Hitler. Therefore, they would have had a more reasoned and deliberate mens rea for which we see his success as an indictment against them.

Given that even (and esp.) Christians themselves struggle over what exactly the norm of Christianity is, how do you propose to do that?

As you see I am headed in another direction. But clearly there is no norm of Christianity that necessarily distinguishes the Nazis from the French underground. What distinguishes them, I believe, is the guilty mind that deliberates and then executes a plan of action which it knows will terrorize and destroy innocent people. The fact that the deliberateness occurred en masse is phenomenal, something that deserves special treatment, and which we have seen played out in other killing fields from Bosnia to Rwanda.

Obviously this did not occur all at once to all Nazis over all of that era. Many people can be excused for following orders under pain of retaliation against their loved ones.

However, episodes such as Kristallnacht must have been a brutalizing experience for the aggressors, one that would have given them a chance to rethink the worth of senseless aggression and then to stand up to the forces of oppression, even if it only meant desertion.

Obviously there were heroes among the Germans, too, even martyrs.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Hitler considered the Roman Emperor Constantine to be the greatest traitor in European history. Not for personally accepting Christianity, but for officially promoting it. A religion that was not only foreign to aryan Europe, but also self-mortifying.

Its the 'self-mortifying' part which led to the later 'destruction from within' of the empire, in his opinion.

I believe he saw his own life as an great act of restoration...the restoration of European cultural integrity, as described in Nietzsche's little book called 'The Antichrist' published in 1895.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Antichrist_(book)

My view of Hitler was that he was not very well educated and suffered from acute psychopathic aberrations even before he hit the beer halls.

No doubt he could pick up on any recollection of a figure like Constantine or maybe some overheard remark about Constantine and drill this into some frenzied idea about himself and his place in the world.

I would be surprised if Hitler could articulate Nietzsche's thesis in this or any other work. Even if Nietzsche was striking a note among German intellectuals, it's hard to say how the drill sergeants and corporals responded to any such influence. In fact I think there was some contention like this - about the ideological goals of Nazism vs the practicalities of seizing power - that became evident during the Putsch. It would seem to me that Nietzsche may have had the effect of softening up the core of German society that would have otherwise obstructed Hitler - by planting this idea that oppression is within the natural order of things. They may have actually seen Hitler as a logical manifestation of Nietzsche's world view.

 

[Aqueous Id]

One more thing - Hitler certainly set out to restore the Rhineland. It's one of his earliest fantasies. In this regard I think you're on the mark as far as his view of himself.

 

[Neverfly]

You should, if you seek to judge him.

No, not really.

After-all, it's easier to judge, than to care, right?

When I was a kid, I wondered how it was that it seemed like good people could do bad things.
Even my mom, who wasn't notorious for bouts of sanity- would comment on how so and so would do this terrible thing, but wrap the comment up with, "But he's still a good person..."
Maybe that was an influence. But it occurred to me that when a good person does bad things- then they are bad people. No matter what their excuses are.

And it's not everyone else- I'm just as bad. I'm a bad person, too. I've done terrible things. I can be classified as more than just bad- even a monster.

It's something I'm well aware of and I'm working on it. But why go into denial over it?
So, I ain't a great man, not a good one. I'm not even an 'ok' guy.
So, I can judge Henry the eighth or Hitler or George Lucas. And if you think that's bad- add it to my list.

 

[Aqueous Id]

And if you think that's bad- add it to my list.

I'm reminded of: "He's so bad he's good."

 

[seagypsy]

??
I have never understood why some people think this works. Nor have I ever seen it work.

In some books on communication, reassuring is specifically noted as mostly counterproductive, especially under stress.

It may not have been the best example but typing after midnight after having had a long day, I was not able to think of any other example. Also I prefer to try to keep things simple so that even the simplest of laymen can understand it. But perhaps it was too simplistic of an example.

Another example may be using one's faith in God to motivate them to show compassion for others would be a better.

That being said, as a child, being told that my great grandfather was in heaven did make me feel better than it would have, had I been told that he no longer exists and his body will now go to the worms. Sometimes the truth is too horrifying for someone to deal with.

I also remember my great grandmother's passing. I was the only one with her and she had been hanging on for a long time in a coma at the age of 91. The nurses were having to come in about once and hour to suction the water out of her lungs and rigor mortise had already begun to set, evident by the hardening of her extremities. Yet she still lingered. I contacted my mother and grandmother by cellphone and placed the phone to her ear so they could say their goodbyes and she could hear their voices one last time. Though she was in a deep state of dementia and may have had no idea who they were or who I was. She at one point opened her eyes and raised her head to look at me for just about 15 seconds. At the time I was Muslim and wore a scarf. Due to my great grandmothers strong Christian faith she may well have thought she was looking at the virgin Mary. But I told her that her duties to her family are well beyond fulfilled and that it was time for her to join her husband in heaven who was waiting for her, he had his fiddle and her banjo and was waiting to play their old stringed duets again. She almost immediately gave up the struggle. This is anecdotal and I am sure there is plenty of scientific explanation for why she displayed the physical behaviors she did and why at that very moment she finally lost the fight. But at the time, I was a believer, and correlating her behaviors as reactions to my words gave me comfort that she (meaning her psychological existence) was still in tact right up to the end. Even though her behavior before the onset of coma clearly indicated that "she" hadn't been there for a very long time.

So in this situation, her faith as well as mine were used to console me. Maybe they consoled her as well, we will never know. But they did help me to deal with the loss of a loved one. And it also helped me deal with the guilt I would have had for asking the nurse to stop suctioning her lungs since, by the nurse's advice and my own observation, it seemed to be causing her great pain and was only delaying the inevitable.


You might say hogwash to the rigor mortise statement I made. I am not studied in the process of death but the nurse told me it was rigor mortise and that it happened to every patient as they died. It usually happens after death but if the death is slow and drawn out it does happen before official death of the mind has actually occurred.

Actually, it would be very revealing if you would explain why you think it is bad; it would clarify your underlying assumptions.

My only assumption is that you, like most people, would see oppression and abuse of another human being as bad. Perhaps you don't.

 

[wynn]

My only assumption is that you, like most people, would see oppression and abuse of another human being as bad. Perhaps you don't.

You said -

If a woman is indoctrinated to believe that the only way to please God is to please her husband and her husband is also indoctrinated or at least is aware of how she is indoctrinated, then uses her beliefs to justify forcing her into horrible acts or physically abusing her telling her she will go to hell if she doesn't do what he says, then this is bad. I really hope I don't have to explain why it is bad.

The bolded part - what does that have to do with religion?

It's not uncommon for people (religions and non-) to interpret religious doctrine that way, but it's not clear how they arrive at the conclusion that for a woman to please her husband, she must let him treat her like shit.

Are we to ignore all those other religious instructions to men/husbands about how they are supposed to treat women/wives (all that about how every human is part and parcel of God and must be treated with respect)?

 

[seagypsy]

You said -



The bolded part - what does that have to do with religion?

It's not uncommon for people (religions and non-) to interpret religious doctrine that way, but it's not clear how they arrive at the conclusion that for a woman to please her husband, she must let him treat her like shit.

Are we to ignore all those other religious instructions to men/husbands about how they are supposed to treat women/wives (all that about how every human is part and parcel of God and must be treated with respect)?

Her religion was used as a tool to manipulate and abuse her. I do not know why you are unable to see that.
Obviously, the man was likely to be violating the religion in harming her but he still used HER faith against her to twist the rules and cause her harm.

I have stated, "Religion can be used as a tool". A hammer is a tool. If used correctly it can be quite productive and good, but if it is slammed into the skull of human being it can be bad. So in this sense, the hammer is neither good nor bad. It is purpose for or method of how it was used that is actually good or bad.

If one is sincere in one's faith, as I used to be, one may not concern oneself with the obligations of others. I only concerned myself with my own obligations. Because I could not control what others did. If one person violated the rules that did not justify my violation of the rules. If it did then the rules of religion or laws of any land for that matter would be pointless.

it would be like saying, "Other people steal so I should too." or "Someone lied to me, so it is ok for me to lie as well."

So if the woman is sincere, the man can use her faith against her and constantly remind her of her "place" keeping her in a state of submission. In some religions women are given no recourse for justice.