What is the Democratic National Committee thinking?
- Thread starter 2ndAmendment
- Start date
Nucklesack said:
you missed a few things he asked for
First, he was not praising all religions, according to Islam, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed are all prophets - if he was praising all religions we would have acknowledged that some religions have different heirarchy for those listed.
Then he asks that all people follow the same path - which according to Islam is the path of Islam, believing Mohammed is the final prophet and that Jesus was not the Son of God. Read it again -
Muslims believee that Islam is the chosen path, if you don't follow it you are doomed -
Okay, true Christians believe the same thing - but this prayer is not a prayer of tolerance that you seem to believe it is.
Very good sentiment, one we should all strive for. In fact I believe that is our current goal, however, the radical suicide bombers are keeping this from happening.
just my two cents
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Allow me to echo Makavide...
*praises all religions and beliefs
*states a position against the war that is typical of Religion, even the Pope was against it, wheres the outcry
*is asking God to stop war, violence, oppression and ocupation - that should be a good thing.
Does anyone see the problem with your interpretation?
A) Makavide is correct in the first assertion. One cannot lump together Jesus Abraham, and Muhammed. They are not reading from the same page. 2 are the roots of the Judiac-Christian beliefs and the other is a child raping looter.
(who writes the Satanic verese then retracts them) mohad. was never a messenger, he was a thug.
Trying to pray to a "God" of all three is ridiculous. Jehovah is the GOD of two.
"allah" is the mythical god of the other.
B) By renouncing violence, he is abandoning the very commandments of his "Prophet"...thus he is abandoning Jihad which was commanded.
It would be like a Christian saying there is no Trinity and refuse to take the sacrament. This element equally invalidates his "prayer." he even refused to use the name of "Allah" which as all muslim's know is the true name of their moon god.
C) "to liberate and fill this earth with justice "...who needs liberating? Americans? Yes in his eyes because we follow the corrupted book and are being led by Jewish ape-men. Who's Justice? Allah's justice which is Sha'ari law.....I will not live under that code of real oppression.
So...his "prayer" to whomever...is invalid for Moslems, invalid for True Christians and still threatening to America. So sorry if you can't figure that out.
*praises all religions and beliefs
*states a position against the war that is typical of Religion, even the Pope was against it, wheres the outcry
*is asking God to stop war, violence, oppression and ocupation - that should be a good thing.
Does anyone see the problem with your interpretation?
A) Makavide is correct in the first assertion. One cannot lump together Jesus Abraham, and Muhammed. They are not reading from the same page. 2 are the roots of the Judiac-Christian beliefs and the other is a child raping looter.
(who writes the Satanic verese then retracts them) mohad. was never a messenger, he was a thug.
Trying to pray to a "God" of all three is ridiculous. Jehovah is the GOD of two.
"allah" is the mythical god of the other.
B) By renouncing violence, he is abandoning the very commandments of his "Prophet"...thus he is abandoning Jihad which was commanded.
It would be like a Christian saying there is no Trinity and refuse to take the sacrament. This element equally invalidates his "prayer." he even refused to use the name of "Allah" which as all muslim's know is the true name of their moon god.
C) "to liberate and fill this earth with justice "...who needs liberating? Americans? Yes in his eyes because we follow the corrupted book and are being led by Jewish ape-men. Who's Justice? Allah's justice which is Sha'ari law.....I will not live under that code of real oppression.
So...his "prayer" to whomever...is invalid for Moslems, invalid for True Christians and still threatening to America. So sorry if you can't figure that out.
TexasPride77
Eat More Beef, Less Chkn
Hessian said:
Ok.. my brain is fried
TexasPride77
Eat More Beef, Less Chkn
Nucklesack said:
So you agree to disagree...good... glad that is settled.
Nucklesack said:
Hypocrisy is a two way street. I as a Christian recognize only one "true" religion but with that said - I respect every American's right to a religion of their own. If you wanna get into a theological debate - then lets throw down - I'm game. But I understand that is not your intent....this is not a 'my daddy is better than your daddy" thing.
If you really wanna start throwing the "Hypocrisy" word around - you need to consider the word is akin to the word "sinner". We are all hypocrits and all sinners. I agree, both sides of the isle have their equal number of hypocrits and fanatics.
The one thing that is not happening (from Christianiac perspectives) is the mass murdering of people because "those" people do not agree with Christian values/standards.
I understand your positions on defending the Imam but as a leader, he needs to understand that when delivering a speech OR explaining his actions - that direct, truthful, and to-the-point answers are necessary to explain why he said or did something. the Imam seemed to squirm like a worm on a hook. I dont care what the minority who are defending the Imam think. All i know is from a outsider's (outside Islam) perspective - the man just couldnt explain or defend his actions in such a way that prevented outsiders (like myself) from having a negative veiw of his conduct. Now who is at fault?
Me, because the man gives me the perception that he cannot stand up and support the very words which come out of his mouth?
Me, because he cannot answer YES or NO to a simple question?
Me, because the man does not give the impression that he knows how to conduct himself in an interview?
This Imam is flawed and gives Islam a bad image. I just dont think he is a decent representative of Islam in general. I would go so far as to say that the majority of Christian televangelists fit the same bill on the Christian side of the house
Last edited:
Nucklesack said:
The thing is, I don't believe he is using the names of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Mohamed as recognition of other religions - because Islam recognizes those same people as the prophets of Islam, not the leaders of Judaism and the Son of God of Christianity. Muslims believe that Islam is the final religion, the others were just stepping stones to get there. By bringing them up, he is trying to show how we come from the same beggining and that in time we "the doomed" will see the errors of our way and embrace the true religion. Which is what he is saying here
Because, as others have pointed out, if you are not Muslim, you are doomed.
Which, truthfully is the same if you don't believe in Jesus, then you are doomed (not saved) as well.
So, there we have something in common - we are all doomed for one reason or another.
PJay
Well-Known Member
Not sure if okay to post this here, if needs to be moved, I understand..but I think for those that missed it you need to listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwSckEh7CyA&eurl=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwSckEh7CyA&eurl=
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
Well isn't this interesting ?
If you knew anything of Islam, and Sharia Law .... all the above are apostates ( non believers ) and would be put to death - maybe offered a chance [at sword point] to convert or die. There is noway an Imam is going to mention an apostate religion in a prayer of thanks or in a good light to do so would open the Imam to them same punishment if he did not revoke his words, Death by Beheading.
Bed time reading material: LINK
A Concise History of the Crusades
Is Fanatic Islam, A Global Threat?
The Sword and The Profit [Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam]
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
A Brief History of the Middle East: How Our View of the Region is Wrong and Must Be Corrected
Christians, Muslims, and Islamic Rage: What Is Going On and Why It Happened
Nucklesack said:
If you knew anything of Islam, and Sharia Law .... all the above are apostates ( non believers ) and would be put to death - maybe offered a chance [at sword point] to convert or die. There is noway an Imam is going to mention an apostate religion in a prayer of thanks or in a good light to do so would open the Imam to them same punishment if he did not revoke his words, Death by Beheading.
Bed time reading material: LINK
A Concise History of the Crusades
Is Fanatic Islam, A Global Threat?
The Sword and The Profit [Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam]
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
A Brief History of the Middle East: How Our View of the Region is Wrong and Must Be Corrected
Christians, Muslims, and Islamic Rage: What Is Going On and Why It Happened
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
Well isn't this interesting ? - II
A Little History Lesson
Appeal of Fascism: Restoration of Religious Values, Moral Crusade (Book Notes: Mothers in the Fatherland)
Appeal of Fascism: Restoration of Religious Values, Moral Crusade (Book Notes: Mothers in the Fatherland)
Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics Many people have wondered, quite legitimately, how fascism could ever be appealing enough to develop a large following. Fascism was popular enough in Germany and Italy to take over those governments. Fascism also developed strong followings in other nations, like France and England. The unfortunate truth is that wherever it appears, fascism promises people what they want most.
In Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics, Claudia Koonz explains how fascism could be so popular:
Americans today see no swastikas on their political horizons. Uniformed, goose-stepping militarism surely died out after the advent missile and guerillas. Still, underneath the unique and dated style of Nazism lurked a more universal appeal — the longing to return to simpler times, to restore lost values, to join a moral crusade. What needs drove those millions of "good Germans" willingly into dictatorship, war, and genocide? Did those needs exist in other nations at other times? ...
In my case, hundreds of Germans shared with their memories of a Nazism without genocide, racism, or war. They recalled a social world of close families, sports activities and vacations, a strong community spirit, high moral standards, and economic security. Men and women looked back with fondness, sad only about the war — that is, the defeat, not the brilliant military victories before the Battle of Stalingrad.
Fascism promises people all the wonderful things they think they want, to restore all the lost values, traditions, and morals which they believe society has lost. Even when fascism in fact also leads to mass violence, destruction, and murder, people later on only remember the good things: how traditional values and morality were restored, leading to a more peaceful society. Many Germans were never sorry about Nazism because they only perceived how the Nazis improved society. The Nazis delivered on their promises and now all those wonderful things are gone.
Could America be moving, slowly, to a more fascist social and political system? Some people think so, and there is no question but that some developments in politics and political debate points the way towards fascism. Whether fascism actually develops or not is, of course, an open question — the presence of proto-fascist ideas and policies does not necessitate actual fascism. We should, however, be very concerned about these developments and look for ways to make sure that it doesn't get any worse.
The problem with "creeping fascism" is that so few of those actually responsible for it are aware that this is what they are doing. In their own minds, their actions are entirely unproblematic. At worst, they are simply engaging in rough politics — but always justified, of course. In practical terms their efforts are directed at denying political legitimacy and social power to their rivals. In theoretical terms, their ideas are centered upon the denial of compromise and accommodation to those who fundamentally disagree on basic agendas and goals. These efforts and ideas are what lead a community towards fascism and that is why they are not acceptable in a democratic state.
Few, if any, Republicans actually think that fascism would be a good idea — they believe in democracy every bit as much as Democrats. That must never be forgotten. However, any Republican who argues that Democrats as a group are unpatriotic and disloyal, any Republican who acts to deny elected Democrats their due political power, any Republican who argues that a political victory for Democrats is a victory for the enemies of America, and any Republican who moves to deny the legitimacy of political accommodation and compromise with non-Republicans, is participating in proto-fascist attitudes and actions. They may not realize it and they may reject such an analysis, but I think that the evidence makes it clear that this is true and must be opposed.
Taken from: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258226.htm
Catholic Complicity in Nazism, Anti-Liberal Ideologies (Book Notes: Catholic Theologians)
Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany There were lots of reasons why Catholic leaders should have opposed Hitler and the Nazis and this makes people wonder why they bent over backwards to accommodate the Nazis. What people need to understand is that there were also lots of reasons why Catholics and other conservative Christians wanted to work with the Nazis. Most were bound up with their common opposition to Weimar and liberalism.
In Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany, Robert A. Krieg writes:
The German bishops made accommodations with Hitler in part because they felt little loyalty to the Weimar Republic. They perceived Germany's first parliamentary democracy to be an embodiment of modernity, of a world in rebellion against God. Emerging out of the abdications of Wilhelm II and Ludwig III, the Weimar Republic manifested a spirit of personal autonomy and of self-determination that challenged centralized forms of civil and ecclesiastical decision making.
This spirit moved women to pursue independent lives, to attain diplomas at the universities, and to exercise their new right to vote in civil elections. It also opened German society to such Jews as Hugo Preuss, who drafted the Weimar Constitution, and Walther Rathenau, who served as its minister of reconstruction (1921) and then as its foreign minister until he was assassinated by nationalists in 1922.
Because the Weimar Republic gave a public role to Jews, it was often called the Jewish Republic by nationalists. The Republic's social and cultural pluralism went contrary to the Idealist's vision of a unitary society. The Republic's political leaders questioned the long-standing practice of the state providing Protestant and Catholic religious education in the public schools; they insisted that civil law should not provide a special status to tne Protestant and Catholic churches. This official toleration of all religions offended the German bishops, who regarded it as implicitly a rebellion against God, the church, and even the German tradition.
The Nazi Party wouldn't have had nearly the success it enjoyed if they and Hitler had simply come out of nowhere and complained about things no one cared about. The simple fact is, the Nazis were successful because they did such an exceptional job capitalizing on precisely the things which other cultural, political, and religious conservatives had been complaining about for years. The Nazis had little to say that was new — they mainly just did a very good job saying what people were used to hearing and what people wanted to hear.
What this means is that the Nazis had a lot of ready-made allies throughout German society — people who didn't necessarily buy into the whole Nazi agenda, but who certainly agreed with the Nazis' attacks on Weimar society, modernity, liberalism, and of course the Nazis' belief that German society had to change dramatically very soon and very quickly.
Among those allies were Catholic bishops. Like the Nazis, Catholic bishops opposed democracy, opposed autonomy — personal, political, and religious — opposed self-determination, opposed women's rights, opposed rights for Jews, and opposed just about everything else that helps characterize the modern world. It would have been absurd for Catholic bishops not to give at least qualified support to the Nazi regime.
One mistake many people make when looking at the Nazis is to imagine that they were unique in political, social, and cultural outlook. This makes it easier for analogous fascist movements to develop and gain allies. People need to understand the sorts of fears and hatred which groups like the Nazis appeal to in order to acquire power. Authoritarian movements, fascist or otherwise, tend to react against the same sorts of social developments and offer the same sorts of solutions.
Not making excuses, but it is interesting how things look 60 yrs down the road with out the background to understand exactly how an act or movement was viewed.
A Little History Lesson
Appeal of Fascism: Restoration of Religious Values, Moral Crusade (Book Notes: Mothers in the Fatherland)
Appeal of Fascism: Restoration of Religious Values, Moral Crusade (Book Notes: Mothers in the Fatherland)
Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics Many people have wondered, quite legitimately, how fascism could ever be appealing enough to develop a large following. Fascism was popular enough in Germany and Italy to take over those governments. Fascism also developed strong followings in other nations, like France and England. The unfortunate truth is that wherever it appears, fascism promises people what they want most.
In Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics, Claudia Koonz explains how fascism could be so popular:
Americans today see no swastikas on their political horizons. Uniformed, goose-stepping militarism surely died out after the advent missile and guerillas. Still, underneath the unique and dated style of Nazism lurked a more universal appeal — the longing to return to simpler times, to restore lost values, to join a moral crusade. What needs drove those millions of "good Germans" willingly into dictatorship, war, and genocide? Did those needs exist in other nations at other times? ...
In my case, hundreds of Germans shared with their memories of a Nazism without genocide, racism, or war. They recalled a social world of close families, sports activities and vacations, a strong community spirit, high moral standards, and economic security. Men and women looked back with fondness, sad only about the war — that is, the defeat, not the brilliant military victories before the Battle of Stalingrad.
Fascism promises people all the wonderful things they think they want, to restore all the lost values, traditions, and morals which they believe society has lost. Even when fascism in fact also leads to mass violence, destruction, and murder, people later on only remember the good things: how traditional values and morality were restored, leading to a more peaceful society. Many Germans were never sorry about Nazism because they only perceived how the Nazis improved society. The Nazis delivered on their promises and now all those wonderful things are gone.
Could America be moving, slowly, to a more fascist social and political system? Some people think so, and there is no question but that some developments in politics and political debate points the way towards fascism. Whether fascism actually develops or not is, of course, an open question — the presence of proto-fascist ideas and policies does not necessitate actual fascism. We should, however, be very concerned about these developments and look for ways to make sure that it doesn't get any worse.
The problem with "creeping fascism" is that so few of those actually responsible for it are aware that this is what they are doing. In their own minds, their actions are entirely unproblematic. At worst, they are simply engaging in rough politics — but always justified, of course. In practical terms their efforts are directed at denying political legitimacy and social power to their rivals. In theoretical terms, their ideas are centered upon the denial of compromise and accommodation to those who fundamentally disagree on basic agendas and goals. These efforts and ideas are what lead a community towards fascism and that is why they are not acceptable in a democratic state.
Few, if any, Republicans actually think that fascism would be a good idea — they believe in democracy every bit as much as Democrats. That must never be forgotten. However, any Republican who argues that Democrats as a group are unpatriotic and disloyal, any Republican who acts to deny elected Democrats their due political power, any Republican who argues that a political victory for Democrats is a victory for the enemies of America, and any Republican who moves to deny the legitimacy of political accommodation and compromise with non-Republicans, is participating in proto-fascist attitudes and actions. They may not realize it and they may reject such an analysis, but I think that the evidence makes it clear that this is true and must be opposed.
Taken from: http://atheism.about.com/b/a/258226.htm
Catholic Complicity in Nazism, Anti-Liberal Ideologies (Book Notes: Catholic Theologians)
Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany There were lots of reasons why Catholic leaders should have opposed Hitler and the Nazis and this makes people wonder why they bent over backwards to accommodate the Nazis. What people need to understand is that there were also lots of reasons why Catholics and other conservative Christians wanted to work with the Nazis. Most were bound up with their common opposition to Weimar and liberalism.
In Catholic Theologians in Nazi Germany, Robert A. Krieg writes:
The German bishops made accommodations with Hitler in part because they felt little loyalty to the Weimar Republic. They perceived Germany's first parliamentary democracy to be an embodiment of modernity, of a world in rebellion against God. Emerging out of the abdications of Wilhelm II and Ludwig III, the Weimar Republic manifested a spirit of personal autonomy and of self-determination that challenged centralized forms of civil and ecclesiastical decision making.
This spirit moved women to pursue independent lives, to attain diplomas at the universities, and to exercise their new right to vote in civil elections. It also opened German society to such Jews as Hugo Preuss, who drafted the Weimar Constitution, and Walther Rathenau, who served as its minister of reconstruction (1921) and then as its foreign minister until he was assassinated by nationalists in 1922.
Because the Weimar Republic gave a public role to Jews, it was often called the Jewish Republic by nationalists. The Republic's social and cultural pluralism went contrary to the Idealist's vision of a unitary society. The Republic's political leaders questioned the long-standing practice of the state providing Protestant and Catholic religious education in the public schools; they insisted that civil law should not provide a special status to tne Protestant and Catholic churches. This official toleration of all religions offended the German bishops, who regarded it as implicitly a rebellion against God, the church, and even the German tradition.
The Nazi Party wouldn't have had nearly the success it enjoyed if they and Hitler had simply come out of nowhere and complained about things no one cared about. The simple fact is, the Nazis were successful because they did such an exceptional job capitalizing on precisely the things which other cultural, political, and religious conservatives had been complaining about for years. The Nazis had little to say that was new — they mainly just did a very good job saying what people were used to hearing and what people wanted to hear.
What this means is that the Nazis had a lot of ready-made allies throughout German society — people who didn't necessarily buy into the whole Nazi agenda, but who certainly agreed with the Nazis' attacks on Weimar society, modernity, liberalism, and of course the Nazis' belief that German society had to change dramatically very soon and very quickly.
Among those allies were Catholic bishops. Like the Nazis, Catholic bishops opposed democracy, opposed autonomy — personal, political, and religious — opposed self-determination, opposed women's rights, opposed rights for Jews, and opposed just about everything else that helps characterize the modern world. It would have been absurd for Catholic bishops not to give at least qualified support to the Nazi regime.
One mistake many people make when looking at the Nazis is to imagine that they were unique in political, social, and cultural outlook. This makes it easier for analogous fascist movements to develop and gain allies. People need to understand the sorts of fears and hatred which groups like the Nazis appeal to in order to acquire power. Authoritarian movements, fascist or otherwise, tend to react against the same sorts of social developments and offer the same sorts of solutions.
Not making excuses, but it is interesting how things look 60 yrs down the road with out the background to understand exactly how an act or movement was viewed.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
in digging for material to make a response ....
I found numerous web sites full of book quotes and lots pictures of evil Nazis @ churches, church officials with Nazi leaders ..... everyone believing they had found the link between Nazis and colluding churches Catholic and Protestant
but it was interesting to note they pictures seemed 1930's Germany - with a new government promising a change:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/begins.htm
Great Depression Begins
When the stock market collapsed on Wall Street on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it sent financial markets worldwide into a tailspin with disastrous effects.
The German economy was especially vulnerable since it was built out of foreign capital, mostly loans from America and was very dependent on foreign trade. When those loans suddenly came due and when the world market for German exports dried up, the well oiled German industrial machine quickly ground to a halt.
As production levels fell, German workers were laid off. Along with this, banks failed throughout Germany. Savings accounts, the result of years of hard work, were instantly wiped out. Inflation soon followed making it hard for families to purchase expensive necessities with devalued money.
Overnight, the middle class standard of living so many German families enjoyed was ruined by events outside of Germany, beyond their control. The Great Depression began and they were cast into poverty and deep misery and began looking for a solution, any solution.
Adolf Hitler knew his opportunity had arrived.
In the good times before the Great Depression the Nazi party experienced slow growth, barely reaching 100,000 members in a country of over sixty million. But the Nazi party, despite its tiny size, was a tightly controlled, highly disciplined organization of fanatics poised to spring into action.
Since the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler had changed tactics and was for the most part playing by the rules of democracy. Hitler had gambled in 1923, attempting to overthrow the young German democracy by force, and lost. Now he was determined to overthrow it legally by getting elected while at the same time building a Nazi shadow government that would one day replace the democracy.
Hitler began his career in politics as a street brawling revolutionary appealing to disgruntled World War One veterans predisposed to violence. By 1930 he was quite different, or so it seemed. Hitler counted among his supporters a number of German industrialists, and upper middle class socialites, a far cry from the semi-literate toughs he started out with.
He intentionally broadened his appeal because it was necessary. Now he needed to broaden his appeal to the great mass of voting Germans. His chief assets were his speech making ability and a keen sense of what the people wanted to hear.
By mid-1930, amid the economic pressures of the Great Depression, the German democratic government was beginning to unravel.
Gustav Stresemann, the outstanding German Foreign Minister, had died in October 1929, just before the Wall Street crash. He had spent years working to restore the German economy and stabilize the republic and died, having exhausted himself in the process.
The crisis of the Great Depression brought disunity to the political parties in the Reichstag. Instead of forging an alliance to enact desperately need legislation, they broke up into squabbling, uncompromising groups. In March of 1930, Heinrich Bruening, a member of the Catholic Center Party, became Chancellor.
Despite the overwhelming need for a financial program to help the German people, Chancellor Bruening encountered stubborn opposition to his plans. To break the bitter stalemate, he went to President Hindenburg and asked the old gentleman to invoke Article 48 of the German constitution which gave emergency powers to the president to rule by decree. This provoked a huge outcry from the opposition, demanding withdrawal of the decree.
As a measure of last resort, Bruening asked Hindenburg in July 1930 to dissolve the Reichstag according to parliamentary rules and call for new elections.
The elections were set for September 14. Hitler and the Nazis sprang into action. Their time for campaigning had arrived.
The German people were tired of the political haggling in Berlin. They were tired of misery, tired of suffering, tired of weakness. These were desperate times and they were willing to listen to anyone, even Adolf Hitler.
Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3679
Germany and the Great Depression
Why did Germany suffer so badly from the Great Depression?
Germany was, indeed, especially hard-hit by the Great Depression. A major factor was the Treaty of Versailles, which was supposed to settle outstanding disputes following the cessation of hostilities in World War I.
Instead, the Allies allowed their desire for revenge to get the better of them, and historians are nearly unanimous in their judgment that the terms dictated to Germany were unnecessarily debilitating. Germany reeled from the huge burden of reparations payments required of it as a condition of the treaty. Payments made by Germany to the victorious Allies represented a drain of capital that would have otherwise been directed toward the growth of German industry.
Another devastating factor contributing to Germany's economic collapse was the international trade war triggered by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States in 1930. This provision effectively prevented many German industries from selling their goods in foreign markets.
In order to pay its debts for World War I, as dictated by the Versailles Treaty, Germany engaged in a tremendous hyperinflation of its currency, printing paper marks until, by 1923, they became utterly worthless. The destruction of the currency wiped out the people's savings, which meant that there would be very little capital available within the German economy for years to come.
No other World War I combatant nation so destroyed its currency. This factor alone would have produced a depression for Germany. Add this ingredient to the others and you can see why Germans were especially hard-hit.
With the coming to power of Adolf Hitler in 1933, the German economy became increasingly socialized and militarized, which frightened foreign investors and prevented a healthy economic recovery. Instead, the "recovery," when it happened, was focused on war industries as opposed to those industries manufacturing goods that better the lives of everyday consumers.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_depression_1929.htm
I found numerous web sites full of book quotes and lots pictures of evil Nazis @ churches, church officials with Nazi leaders ..... everyone believing they had found the link between Nazis and colluding churches Catholic and Protestant
but it was interesting to note they pictures seemed 1930's Germany - with a new government promising a change:
http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/begins.htm
Great Depression Begins
When the stock market collapsed on Wall Street on Tuesday, October 29, 1929, it sent financial markets worldwide into a tailspin with disastrous effects.
The German economy was especially vulnerable since it was built out of foreign capital, mostly loans from America and was very dependent on foreign trade. When those loans suddenly came due and when the world market for German exports dried up, the well oiled German industrial machine quickly ground to a halt.
As production levels fell, German workers were laid off. Along with this, banks failed throughout Germany. Savings accounts, the result of years of hard work, were instantly wiped out. Inflation soon followed making it hard for families to purchase expensive necessities with devalued money.
Overnight, the middle class standard of living so many German families enjoyed was ruined by events outside of Germany, beyond their control. The Great Depression began and they were cast into poverty and deep misery and began looking for a solution, any solution.
Adolf Hitler knew his opportunity had arrived.
In the good times before the Great Depression the Nazi party experienced slow growth, barely reaching 100,000 members in a country of over sixty million. But the Nazi party, despite its tiny size, was a tightly controlled, highly disciplined organization of fanatics poised to spring into action.
Since the failed Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, Hitler had changed tactics and was for the most part playing by the rules of democracy. Hitler had gambled in 1923, attempting to overthrow the young German democracy by force, and lost. Now he was determined to overthrow it legally by getting elected while at the same time building a Nazi shadow government that would one day replace the democracy.
Hitler began his career in politics as a street brawling revolutionary appealing to disgruntled World War One veterans predisposed to violence. By 1930 he was quite different, or so it seemed. Hitler counted among his supporters a number of German industrialists, and upper middle class socialites, a far cry from the semi-literate toughs he started out with.
He intentionally broadened his appeal because it was necessary. Now he needed to broaden his appeal to the great mass of voting Germans. His chief assets were his speech making ability and a keen sense of what the people wanted to hear.
By mid-1930, amid the economic pressures of the Great Depression, the German democratic government was beginning to unravel.
Gustav Stresemann, the outstanding German Foreign Minister, had died in October 1929, just before the Wall Street crash. He had spent years working to restore the German economy and stabilize the republic and died, having exhausted himself in the process.
The crisis of the Great Depression brought disunity to the political parties in the Reichstag. Instead of forging an alliance to enact desperately need legislation, they broke up into squabbling, uncompromising groups. In March of 1930, Heinrich Bruening, a member of the Catholic Center Party, became Chancellor.
Despite the overwhelming need for a financial program to help the German people, Chancellor Bruening encountered stubborn opposition to his plans. To break the bitter stalemate, he went to President Hindenburg and asked the old gentleman to invoke Article 48 of the German constitution which gave emergency powers to the president to rule by decree. This provoked a huge outcry from the opposition, demanding withdrawal of the decree.
As a measure of last resort, Bruening asked Hindenburg in July 1930 to dissolve the Reichstag according to parliamentary rules and call for new elections.
The elections were set for September 14. Hitler and the Nazis sprang into action. Their time for campaigning had arrived.
The German people were tired of the political haggling in Berlin. They were tired of misery, tired of suffering, tired of weakness. These were desperate times and they were willing to listen to anyone, even Adolf Hitler.
Copyright © 1996 The History Place™ All Rights Reserved
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=3679
Germany and the Great Depression
Why did Germany suffer so badly from the Great Depression?
Germany was, indeed, especially hard-hit by the Great Depression. A major factor was the Treaty of Versailles, which was supposed to settle outstanding disputes following the cessation of hostilities in World War I.
Instead, the Allies allowed their desire for revenge to get the better of them, and historians are nearly unanimous in their judgment that the terms dictated to Germany were unnecessarily debilitating. Germany reeled from the huge burden of reparations payments required of it as a condition of the treaty. Payments made by Germany to the victorious Allies represented a drain of capital that would have otherwise been directed toward the growth of German industry.
Another devastating factor contributing to Germany's economic collapse was the international trade war triggered by the passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States in 1930. This provision effectively prevented many German industries from selling their goods in foreign markets.
In order to pay its debts for World War I, as dictated by the Versailles Treaty, Germany engaged in a tremendous hyperinflation of its currency, printing paper marks until, by 1923, they became utterly worthless. The destruction of the currency wiped out the people's savings, which meant that there would be very little capital available within the German economy for years to come.
No other World War I combatant nation so destroyed its currency. This factor alone would have produced a depression for Germany. Add this ingredient to the others and you can see why Germans were especially hard-hit.
With the coming to power of Adolf Hitler in 1933, the German economy became increasingly socialized and militarized, which frightened foreign investors and prevented a healthy economic recovery. Instead, the "recovery," when it happened, was focused on war industries as opposed to those industries manufacturing goods that better the lives of everyday consumers.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/weimar_depression_1929.htm
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
Religon and Politics never Mix well ............
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/019492.htm
Political Christians vs. Nazi Liberals
Getting involved with politics is a double-edged sword for religious groups: on the one hand, they have the opportunity to affect national policies in a way that is compatible with their beliefs; on the other hand those beliefs may become corrupted by the political process. Usually this is an observation one might hear from religious liberals, but religious conservatives are also noticing.
Novakeo wrote for EtherZone a couple of years ago:
The ultimate heresy of bringing into human government a religious attitude and perspective will not save this country it will guarantee its destruction. It is no different when Christians create politically religious states then it is for Moslems. Both are equally perverse and suicidal. In God’s word it simply states – “My kingdom is not from this world; if my kingdom were from this world; my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36
Sounds like a person who makes a lot of sense. Much of the article is taken up by comparisons with Nazi Germany and how Germany Christians compromised themselves by associating too closely with the government:
German Christians and conservatives knowingly and deliberately aligned themselves with what they thought to be their political and cultural savior who promised to return them to the Christian traditions which once was Germany. They wanted to believe to the point of willful blindness. ... The deception was complete, established by an intense Christian component and an enthusiastic community which wanted to believe despite its obvious fallaciousness. This delusion was further cemented by the miraculous economic turnaround and the reemergence of a prideful nation under the Nazis. To conservatives it was further proof of the righteousness of Hitler and his bunch of twerps.
That also makes a lot of sense. Novakeo seems to lose it, however, when writing:
Ultra liberalism permeated German society on all levels; everything that conservatives and Christians regarded as perverse was glorified in post World War I Germany. Sexual promiscuity, sodomy and feminism were the order of the day. In the media, any deviancy was magnified and glorified and declared normal behavior. ... We all know that Hitler and his gang brought liberal excess to new heights, the Nazis were the quintessence of immorality — sodomites and pedophiles they were, but in the end that did not matter, what he said was more influential and important than what he did.
The Nazis get called a lot of things, but liberals? What was it, exactly, that identified them and their policies as liberal: opposing homosexuality? Opposing prostitution? Opposing divorce? Opposing women in politics and having careers outside the home? It’s true that Weimar Germany got involved with a lot of liberal ideas — but what Novakeo seems to miss is the fact that the reaction to these liberal ideas is what helped increase support for the Nazis.
People were upset over changing gender roles, increased promiscuity, and so forth. The Nazis used this by attacking all forms of liberalism. The Nazis were anti-liberal in every sense of the term. Even their anti-Semitism was, at its heart, a form of anti-liberalism because Jews have been the scapegoats for opponents of modernity since the beginning of the Enlightenment. For most of the modern era, European anti-Semitism has been an expression of anti-modernity and anti-liberalism, a conservative and reactionary hatred of everything which has defined the modern world.
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/019492.htm
Political Christians vs. Nazi Liberals
Getting involved with politics is a double-edged sword for religious groups: on the one hand, they have the opportunity to affect national policies in a way that is compatible with their beliefs; on the other hand those beliefs may become corrupted by the political process. Usually this is an observation one might hear from religious liberals, but religious conservatives are also noticing.
Novakeo wrote for EtherZone a couple of years ago:
The ultimate heresy of bringing into human government a religious attitude and perspective will not save this country it will guarantee its destruction. It is no different when Christians create politically religious states then it is for Moslems. Both are equally perverse and suicidal. In God’s word it simply states – “My kingdom is not from this world; if my kingdom were from this world; my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36
Sounds like a person who makes a lot of sense. Much of the article is taken up by comparisons with Nazi Germany and how Germany Christians compromised themselves by associating too closely with the government:
German Christians and conservatives knowingly and deliberately aligned themselves with what they thought to be their political and cultural savior who promised to return them to the Christian traditions which once was Germany. They wanted to believe to the point of willful blindness. ... The deception was complete, established by an intense Christian component and an enthusiastic community which wanted to believe despite its obvious fallaciousness. This delusion was further cemented by the miraculous economic turnaround and the reemergence of a prideful nation under the Nazis. To conservatives it was further proof of the righteousness of Hitler and his bunch of twerps.
That also makes a lot of sense. Novakeo seems to lose it, however, when writing:
Ultra liberalism permeated German society on all levels; everything that conservatives and Christians regarded as perverse was glorified in post World War I Germany. Sexual promiscuity, sodomy and feminism were the order of the day. In the media, any deviancy was magnified and glorified and declared normal behavior. ... We all know that Hitler and his gang brought liberal excess to new heights, the Nazis were the quintessence of immorality — sodomites and pedophiles they were, but in the end that did not matter, what he said was more influential and important than what he did.
The Nazis get called a lot of things, but liberals? What was it, exactly, that identified them and their policies as liberal: opposing homosexuality? Opposing prostitution? Opposing divorce? Opposing women in politics and having careers outside the home? It’s true that Weimar Germany got involved with a lot of liberal ideas — but what Novakeo seems to miss is the fact that the reaction to these liberal ideas is what helped increase support for the Nazis.
People were upset over changing gender roles, increased promiscuity, and so forth. The Nazis used this by attacking all forms of liberalism. The Nazis were anti-liberal in every sense of the term. Even their anti-Semitism was, at its heart, a form of anti-liberalism because Jews have been the scapegoats for opponents of modernity since the beginning of the Enlightenment. For most of the modern era, European anti-Semitism has been an expression of anti-modernity and anti-liberalism, a conservative and reactionary hatred of everything which has defined the modern world.
Hessian
Well-Known Member
Uh Oh..
Radio, any moment now some net junky is going to jump in and say you violated "Godwin's Law" because you referenced Nazism.
Brendar and Toxic were the last to blow the whistle on me....
um, in fact they can keep blowing until they are blue in the face.
This is just a heads up for you to expect a bizarre penalty flag to be pulled out and disrupt your point....all for frivilous reasons...
Carry on!
Oh, Nucklesack: I won't be having you kid in class. If he did show up and spout the nonsense you do,...He'd be kicked out by the end of the first week of school and we would still keep your first $1500 in tuition.
Thanks for the donation!
Radio, any moment now some net junky is going to jump in and say you violated "Godwin's Law" because you referenced Nazism.
Brendar and Toxic were the last to blow the whistle on me....
um, in fact they can keep blowing until they are blue in the face.
This is just a heads up for you to expect a bizarre penalty flag to be pulled out and disrupt your point....all for frivilous reasons...
Carry on!
Oh, Nucklesack: I won't be having you kid in class. If he did show up and spout the nonsense you do,...He'd be kicked out by the end of the first week of school and we would still keep your first $1500 in tuition.
Thanks for the donation!
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
This was in interesting find
Point and counter point:
October 14, 2005
Muscular Christianity
The National Council of Churches recommended a new documentary looking at the state of Christianity under Hitler. They noted that in the 1930s Germany thought of itself as a most Christian country and that Hitler was a blessing from God because he was bringing the word of God to the world.
The church under Hitler: unified and defiant? Look again.
The documentary film, Theologians Under Hitler, examines post-war Allied revisionism and the portrait of a German church unified, defiant against Nazism. Historical research uncovers a very different story. The film, scheduled for PBS release November 9 (check local listings), is an effort by producer Steven D. Martin and his company; Vital Visuals, Inc., to ask what this history teaches us about religious faith, institutions, ourselves and evil. Based upon the research of Robert Erickson, Ph.D. (Pacific Lutheran University), the film introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, -- men who were also outspoken supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.
You can watch a excerpt from the film here.
In the Germany of the 1930s, the most renowned theologians were firmly in the camp of Hitler.
This film, based upon groundbreaking research, introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, men who were also outspoken supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1933 Althaus spoke of Hitler's rise as "a gift and miracle of God." Hirsch saw 1933 as a "sunrise of divine goodness." And Kittel, the editor of the standard reference work on the Jewish background of the New Testament, began working for the Nazis to find a "moral" rationale for the destruction of European Jewry.
According to the film, religion was transformed from the meek and apologetic Christianity which many thought was too feminine to a muscular movement which attracted strong young men and those who found their brand of forceful and righteous anger attractive. The churches gloried in their patriotism, displayed national flags and honored the war heroes. And those who found this message compelling were strongly anti-intellectual. Too many brains and too much reason was seen as suspect. They compared Hitler to Jesus (favorably) and declared that the "Third Reich is God's Kingdom".
Today, concerned Christian leaders are asking, can what happened in Germany happen again? And what could we learn from the experience of Germany?
There are some signs that our own religious tradition is displaying some of the same ominous traits. During the last days in the runup to war, there were many stories about how George W. Bush had come to believe that he was the arm of God, put on this earth to smite the infidels.
Gary Wills wrote an oped before the start of the war worrying about how Christianity was being co-opted by the warriors. He wrote about the lengths the American Christian leaders had gone in justifying the upcoming war. Even Catholic priests found reason to beat the drums of war rather than listen to their Pope who was actively trying to stop the illegal war.
The priests who do not bow to the War God are, in a chaplain's words that Dreher quotes with approval, reinforcers of the notion that ''religion is for wimps, for prissy-pants, for frilly-suited morons.'' This is what used to be called ''muscular Christianity,'' and Dreher thinks it is the only authentic form of his faith.
This year in May Harper's Magazine had several investigative pieces on the Christian Right. One of the movements they investigated was the most powerful Mega-Church in the US: the New Life Church, run by Pastor Ted Haggard. As Harper's reported, Haggard's New Life Church defines what it means to be evangelical:
...[evangelicals are an] army of Christian capitalists.... "They're pro-free market, they're pro-private property," he said. "That's what evangelical stands for."
...he describes the church that good Christians want: "I want my finances in order, my kids trained, and my wife to love life. I want good friends who are a delight and who provide protection for my family and me should life become difficult someday... I want stability and, at the same time, steady forward movement. I want the church to help me live life well, not exhaust me with endless 'worthwhile' projects." By "worthwhile projects" Ted means building funds and soup kitchens alike. It's not that he opposes these; it's just that he is sick of hearing about them and believes that other Christians are, too. He knows that for Christianity to prosper in the free market, it needs more than "moral values" - it needs customer value.
New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, "like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society." ... He believes it is time "to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry."
Pastor Ted sees the New Lifers as the bulwark against Islam.
"My fear," he says, "is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state."
And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. "I teach a strong ideology of the use of power," he says, "of military might, as a public service." He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible's exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because "the Bible's bloody. There's a lot about blood."
If Pastor Ted is the leader of the fastest growing church and he wields the power on politicians that this article says, then I fear our some American versions of Christianity have way too much in common with that of Hitler's Germany.
Update: rephrasing the conclusion as Jack K's point is valid. There is a faux-Christianity in this country that gets too much attention. Describing it as Christianity is a blasphemy on what Jesus actually preached.
[Update (11/02/2006): Harper's posts Jeff Sharlet's article online upon breaking news that Ted Haggard was paying for gay sex.]
Point and counter point:
October 14, 2005
Muscular Christianity
The National Council of Churches recommended a new documentary looking at the state of Christianity under Hitler. They noted that in the 1930s Germany thought of itself as a most Christian country and that Hitler was a blessing from God because he was bringing the word of God to the world.
The church under Hitler: unified and defiant? Look again.
The documentary film, Theologians Under Hitler, examines post-war Allied revisionism and the portrait of a German church unified, defiant against Nazism. Historical research uncovers a very different story. The film, scheduled for PBS release November 9 (check local listings), is an effort by producer Steven D. Martin and his company; Vital Visuals, Inc., to ask what this history teaches us about religious faith, institutions, ourselves and evil. Based upon the research of Robert Erickson, Ph.D. (Pacific Lutheran University), the film introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, -- men who were also outspoken supporters of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party.
You can watch a excerpt from the film here.
In the Germany of the 1930s, the most renowned theologians were firmly in the camp of Hitler.
This film, based upon groundbreaking research, introduces the viewer to three of the greatest Christian scholars of the twentieth century: Paul Althaus, Emanuel Hirsch, and Gerhard Kittel, men who were also outspoken supporters of Hitler and the Nazi party. In 1933 Althaus spoke of Hitler's rise as "a gift and miracle of God." Hirsch saw 1933 as a "sunrise of divine goodness." And Kittel, the editor of the standard reference work on the Jewish background of the New Testament, began working for the Nazis to find a "moral" rationale for the destruction of European Jewry.
According to the film, religion was transformed from the meek and apologetic Christianity which many thought was too feminine to a muscular movement which attracted strong young men and those who found their brand of forceful and righteous anger attractive. The churches gloried in their patriotism, displayed national flags and honored the war heroes. And those who found this message compelling were strongly anti-intellectual. Too many brains and too much reason was seen as suspect. They compared Hitler to Jesus (favorably) and declared that the "Third Reich is God's Kingdom".
Today, concerned Christian leaders are asking, can what happened in Germany happen again? And what could we learn from the experience of Germany?
There are some signs that our own religious tradition is displaying some of the same ominous traits. During the last days in the runup to war, there were many stories about how George W. Bush had come to believe that he was the arm of God, put on this earth to smite the infidels.
Gary Wills wrote an oped before the start of the war worrying about how Christianity was being co-opted by the warriors. He wrote about the lengths the American Christian leaders had gone in justifying the upcoming war. Even Catholic priests found reason to beat the drums of war rather than listen to their Pope who was actively trying to stop the illegal war.
The priests who do not bow to the War God are, in a chaplain's words that Dreher quotes with approval, reinforcers of the notion that ''religion is for wimps, for prissy-pants, for frilly-suited morons.'' This is what used to be called ''muscular Christianity,'' and Dreher thinks it is the only authentic form of his faith.
This year in May Harper's Magazine had several investigative pieces on the Christian Right. One of the movements they investigated was the most powerful Mega-Church in the US: the New Life Church, run by Pastor Ted Haggard. As Harper's reported, Haggard's New Life Church defines what it means to be evangelical:
...[evangelicals are an] army of Christian capitalists.... "They're pro-free market, they're pro-private property," he said. "That's what evangelical stands for."
...he describes the church that good Christians want: "I want my finances in order, my kids trained, and my wife to love life. I want good friends who are a delight and who provide protection for my family and me should life become difficult someday... I want stability and, at the same time, steady forward movement. I want the church to help me live life well, not exhaust me with endless 'worthwhile' projects." By "worthwhile projects" Ted means building funds and soup kitchens alike. It's not that he opposes these; it's just that he is sick of hearing about them and believes that other Christians are, too. He knows that for Christianity to prosper in the free market, it needs more than "moral values" - it needs customer value.
New Lifers, Pastor Ted writes with evident pride, "like the benefits, risks, and maybe above all, the excitement of a free-market society." ... He believes it is time "to harness the forces of free-market capitalism in our ministry."
Pastor Ted sees the New Lifers as the bulwark against Islam.
"My fear," he says, "is that my children will grow up in an Islamic state."
And that is why he believes spiritual war requires a virile, worldly counterpart. "I teach a strong ideology of the use of power," he says, "of military might, as a public service." He is for preemptive war, because he believes the Bible's exhortations against sin set for us a preemptive paradigm, and he is for ferocious war, because "the Bible's bloody. There's a lot about blood."
If Pastor Ted is the leader of the fastest growing church and he wields the power on politicians that this article says, then I fear our some American versions of Christianity have way too much in common with that of Hitler's Germany.
Update: rephrasing the conclusion as Jack K's point is valid. There is a faux-Christianity in this country that gets too much attention. Describing it as Christianity is a blasphemy on what Jesus actually preached.
[Update (11/02/2006): Harper's posts Jeff Sharlet's article online upon breaking news that Ted Haggard was paying for gay sex.]
TexasPride77
Eat More Beef, Less Chkn
Homesick said:
**shaking head**
Again, I just dont get this guy NOR what move the DNC to allow this guy to open his mouth - WHY THIS GUY??????
He cannot answer a simple question. I walk away with the understanding that Hannity has angered Jesus, Mohammad, etc ALL because he asked Al-Husainy of his opinion.
I mean, the guy could have just came out and said I HAVE NO OPINION or I DO NOT WISH TO COMMENT on any of the questions. Instead, he rattles off (in very broken english) things which have NOHTING to do with answering the question.
I said it once - I'll say it again. Al-Husainy is NOT a credible representative of Islam. He has NO business opening his mouth because he lacks the fortitude to stand by his ideals. This guy is all about smoke and mirrors - not a person of substance.
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
bloggers followup
Posted by Mary at October 14, 2005 07:30 AM | Religion | Technorati links
Comments
...I don't fear so much for "our American version of Christianity". It's not the mainstream of Christianity that is beginning to bear a resemblence to '30's Germany. I do fear the rise of this bizarre faux "Christianity" offered by certain minority viewpoints that is gaining the upper hand in terms of visibility and influence. They no more represent the American version of Christianity than the Republican Party represents the actual viewpoints of the majority of Americans. In both cases we are talking about message dominating over actual substance, and Haggard is a classic example. He may hold a particular fast growing congregation under his twisted anti-biblical spell, but there are entire denominations that are doing ok nation-wide that don't hold any of his viewpoints...
Posted by: Jack K. at October 14, 2005 10:04 AM
I think we continually need to emphasize that most Christians are not fundamentalist bigots. Most Christians support a woman's right to choose, see no conflict between evolution and spirituality, believe in equal rights for all of us, and generally are fairly reasonable sorts.
We should also ask, if we're going to have a national church, which church is it going to be? And how do we choose who's going to run it- the same way we pick a president? Weighty questions....
Posted by: serial catowner at October 14, 2005 03:20 PM
Whow, let's hold our proverbial horses here! The National Council of Churches does NOT speak for American Christianity, anymore than Greenpeace speaks on behalf of all those who love the environment. I suggest you read the accounts of "real" Christians of all backgrounds, races, creeds, etc who were actually there. Hitler was a pseudo-cult self-worshipper, dabbling in many different religions, including Hinduism and Taoism. He WAS NOT a Christian, nor were any of his inner circle. Defiant Christians were burned in the ovens and gassed just like Jews and other "undesirables." I also suggest you read accounts by the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (such as his "Cost of Discipleship"), one of the primary leaders of underground Christians in Nazi Germany. He was shot in the head in a prison camp.
In fact, this seems a little like fear-mongering hate speech to me. Let's just blame "the religious right" and "the Christians" for our all society's problems ... what?
How does such a post further elucidate diversity and plurality? How is it that every other group besides the religious in nature can speak out and make their point, and the "religious types" somehow can't, or, at the very least, are often subjected to this kind of slamming, one-dimensional portrayal? Why?
Just wanted to present another point of view.
Posted by: Bill at October 14, 2005 08:23 PM
Bill,
As your own scare quotes suggest, defining " 'real' Christians" is historically problematic. What criteria do you propose?
Let's just blame "the religious right" and "the Christians" for our all society's problems ...
Where does Mary blame "all society's problems" on anyone?
How is it that every other group besides the religious in nature can speak out and make their point, and the "religious types" somehow can't, or, at the very least, are often subjected to this kind of slamming, one-dimensional portrayal?
Not to say one-dimensional portrayals are a good thing (and I'm glad to see Mary moderate her concluding sentence), but other groups are also caricatured. Feminists, socialists, and environmentalists — see your own mention of Greenpeace — spring to mind. What makes you think religious types are especially discriminated against in this regard?
Posted by: Contradictory Ben at October 15, 2005 03:28 AM
Personally, what scares me about this flavor of "faux" Christianity over all other types of fanatical thinking is that God is used as the justification for all their beliefs.
And as we know, and certainly the historical record shows, many many terrible things have been done all in the name of God.
THAT is what I find truly terrifying ...
Posted by: Gregory L. Marx at October 15, 2005 10:21 AM
A couple of points, Bill.
First, this documentary says nothing about Hitler's beliefs. It only talks about the influential theologians in Germany and how many of the churches backed Hitler's regime because they associated it with their beliefs and it supported the Muscular Christianity that they practiced. As Gary Wills said in his oped, this is a direct co-optation of Christianity in a form that was very far from the actual words of Jesus.
Second, if one practices what Jesus preached, then Muscular Christianity is a true perversion of that doctrine. Last weekend I posted another piece that discussed the series by Brad Hicks that showed exactly how the Christian Right is wrong in their beliefs.
In the United States, not all Christians hold these perverted beliefs and not all evangelicals believe them either. But a good number of people who call themselves Christians do have a very strange set of beliefs that are antithetical to the preaching of Jesus. And in my opinion, they have too much power and are just as scary as those that backed Hitler so ardently. Pastor Ted is responsible for the statements about loving preemptive war and glorying in blood.
And, yes, in Germany there were some extraordinary people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who refused to be conned by those who loved the violent fantasies of a cleansing blood bath which ended up tying too many German Christians to Hitler's dream. That type of courage and clarity of purpose is evident in a number of remarkable people in our country today as well. They actively preach love and act as if that was important. They protect and serve the weakest among us rather than strive for their own gain. They continue to be role models of what a true Christian can be.
Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2005 11:58 AM
There you go again. The liberals have been going through mental gymnastics trying to compare Bush to Hitler. What a bunch of partisan nonsense.
Posted by: muckdog at October 15, 2005 07:42 PM
There you go again. The liberals have been going through mental gymnastics trying to compare Bush to Hitler. What a bunch of partisan nonsense.
Posted by muckdog at October 15, 2005 07:42 PM
I see the Muck Filled Pus Toad has expanded his duties as a Repugnicant operative.
What about all of the conservatives and their mental gymnastics trying to elevate Putsch to the second coming of the Jesus fable? funny how you seem to be strangely silent about that sort of thing...
My fear is that todays' children will be forced to grow up in a christian fundamentalist state.
Posted by: Tom at October 17, 2005 06:55 AM
You state that "In the Germany of the 1930s, the most renowned theologians were firmly in the camp of Hitler." This statement is incorrect, even if it is referring only to Christian theologians (and, thereby, excluding Martin Buber). I believe it is universally acknowledged that Paul Tillich and Karl Barth were the most renowned Christian theologians in Germany in the 30's. In fact, I would be surprised if any student of theology ranked them below Althaus, Hirsh or Kittel in renown. I do not believe I ever read Althaus, Hirsch or Kittel in my seminary studies; however, Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, Tillich and Bonhoeffer were assigned readings. I believe all these Christian theologians, who either studied or thought in Germany, were vocal critics of Hitler and the Nazi party. Tillich, for instance, was an early critic of Hitler and was the first non-Jew to be barred from teaching at German universities. Barth was a key member of the Confessing Church, wrote the Barmen Declaration and urged resistance of the Third Reich. It is, therefore, utterly wrong to claim that minor figures such as Althaus represent German theological thought or tradition.
There are other inaccurancies and misrepresentations in this post (which I came across via the Daou report), but I do not have the time to identify or correct them.
Posted by: Jared at October 17, 2005 10:51 AM
Posted by Mary at October 14, 2005 07:30 AM | Religion | Technorati links
Comments
...I don't fear so much for "our American version of Christianity". It's not the mainstream of Christianity that is beginning to bear a resemblence to '30's Germany. I do fear the rise of this bizarre faux "Christianity" offered by certain minority viewpoints that is gaining the upper hand in terms of visibility and influence. They no more represent the American version of Christianity than the Republican Party represents the actual viewpoints of the majority of Americans. In both cases we are talking about message dominating over actual substance, and Haggard is a classic example. He may hold a particular fast growing congregation under his twisted anti-biblical spell, but there are entire denominations that are doing ok nation-wide that don't hold any of his viewpoints...
Posted by: Jack K. at October 14, 2005 10:04 AM
I think we continually need to emphasize that most Christians are not fundamentalist bigots. Most Christians support a woman's right to choose, see no conflict between evolution and spirituality, believe in equal rights for all of us, and generally are fairly reasonable sorts.
We should also ask, if we're going to have a national church, which church is it going to be? And how do we choose who's going to run it- the same way we pick a president? Weighty questions....
Posted by: serial catowner at October 14, 2005 03:20 PM
Whow, let's hold our proverbial horses here! The National Council of Churches does NOT speak for American Christianity, anymore than Greenpeace speaks on behalf of all those who love the environment. I suggest you read the accounts of "real" Christians of all backgrounds, races, creeds, etc who were actually there. Hitler was a pseudo-cult self-worshipper, dabbling in many different religions, including Hinduism and Taoism. He WAS NOT a Christian, nor were any of his inner circle. Defiant Christians were burned in the ovens and gassed just like Jews and other "undesirables." I also suggest you read accounts by the likes of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (such as his "Cost of Discipleship"), one of the primary leaders of underground Christians in Nazi Germany. He was shot in the head in a prison camp.
In fact, this seems a little like fear-mongering hate speech to me. Let's just blame "the religious right" and "the Christians" for our all society's problems ... what?
How does such a post further elucidate diversity and plurality? How is it that every other group besides the religious in nature can speak out and make their point, and the "religious types" somehow can't, or, at the very least, are often subjected to this kind of slamming, one-dimensional portrayal? Why?
Just wanted to present another point of view.
Posted by: Bill at October 14, 2005 08:23 PM
Bill,
As your own scare quotes suggest, defining " 'real' Christians" is historically problematic. What criteria do you propose?
Let's just blame "the religious right" and "the Christians" for our all society's problems ...
Where does Mary blame "all society's problems" on anyone?
How is it that every other group besides the religious in nature can speak out and make their point, and the "religious types" somehow can't, or, at the very least, are often subjected to this kind of slamming, one-dimensional portrayal?
Not to say one-dimensional portrayals are a good thing (and I'm glad to see Mary moderate her concluding sentence), but other groups are also caricatured. Feminists, socialists, and environmentalists — see your own mention of Greenpeace — spring to mind. What makes you think religious types are especially discriminated against in this regard?
Posted by: Contradictory Ben at October 15, 2005 03:28 AM
Personally, what scares me about this flavor of "faux" Christianity over all other types of fanatical thinking is that God is used as the justification for all their beliefs.
And as we know, and certainly the historical record shows, many many terrible things have been done all in the name of God.
THAT is what I find truly terrifying ...
Posted by: Gregory L. Marx at October 15, 2005 10:21 AM
A couple of points, Bill.
First, this documentary says nothing about Hitler's beliefs. It only talks about the influential theologians in Germany and how many of the churches backed Hitler's regime because they associated it with their beliefs and it supported the Muscular Christianity that they practiced. As Gary Wills said in his oped, this is a direct co-optation of Christianity in a form that was very far from the actual words of Jesus.
Second, if one practices what Jesus preached, then Muscular Christianity is a true perversion of that doctrine. Last weekend I posted another piece that discussed the series by Brad Hicks that showed exactly how the Christian Right is wrong in their beliefs.
In the United States, not all Christians hold these perverted beliefs and not all evangelicals believe them either. But a good number of people who call themselves Christians do have a very strange set of beliefs that are antithetical to the preaching of Jesus. And in my opinion, they have too much power and are just as scary as those that backed Hitler so ardently. Pastor Ted is responsible for the statements about loving preemptive war and glorying in blood.
And, yes, in Germany there were some extraordinary people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer who refused to be conned by those who loved the violent fantasies of a cleansing blood bath which ended up tying too many German Christians to Hitler's dream. That type of courage and clarity of purpose is evident in a number of remarkable people in our country today as well. They actively preach love and act as if that was important. They protect and serve the weakest among us rather than strive for their own gain. They continue to be role models of what a true Christian can be.
Posted by: Mary at October 15, 2005 11:58 AM
There you go again. The liberals have been going through mental gymnastics trying to compare Bush to Hitler. What a bunch of partisan nonsense.
Posted by: muckdog at October 15, 2005 07:42 PM
There you go again. The liberals have been going through mental gymnastics trying to compare Bush to Hitler. What a bunch of partisan nonsense.
Posted by muckdog at October 15, 2005 07:42 PM
I see the Muck Filled Pus Toad has expanded his duties as a Repugnicant operative.
What about all of the conservatives and their mental gymnastics trying to elevate Putsch to the second coming of the Jesus fable? funny how you seem to be strangely silent about that sort of thing...
My fear is that todays' children will be forced to grow up in a christian fundamentalist state.
Posted by:
Tom at October 17, 2005 06:55 AMYou state that "In the Germany of the 1930s, the most renowned theologians were firmly in the camp of Hitler." This statement is incorrect, even if it is referring only to Christian theologians (and, thereby, excluding Martin Buber). I believe it is universally acknowledged that Paul Tillich and Karl Barth were the most renowned Christian theologians in Germany in the 30's. In fact, I would be surprised if any student of theology ranked them below Althaus, Hirsh or Kittel in renown. I do not believe I ever read Althaus, Hirsch or Kittel in my seminary studies; however, Barth, Brunner, Bultmann, Tillich and Bonhoeffer were assigned readings. I believe all these Christian theologians, who either studied or thought in Germany, were vocal critics of Hitler and the Nazi party. Tillich, for instance, was an early critic of Hitler and was the first non-Jew to be barred from teaching at German universities. Barth was a key member of the Confessing Church, wrote the Barmen Declaration and urged resistance of the Third Reich. It is, therefore, utterly wrong to claim that minor figures such as Althaus represent German theological thought or tradition.
There are other inaccurancies and misrepresentations in this post (which I came across via the Daou report), but I do not have the time to identify or correct them.
Posted by: Jared at October 17, 2005 10:51 AM
R
RadioPatrol
Guest
yeah true
but i am providing a whole lot of historical background ................ so everyone better understands ........ NAZIS =
Hessian said:Radio, any moment now some net junky is going to jump in and say you violated "Godwin's Law" because you referenced Nazism.
Brendar and Toxic were the last to blow the whistle on me....
um, in fact they can keep blowing until they are blue in the face.
This is just a heads up for you to expect a bizarre penalty flag to be pulled out and disrupt your point....all for frivilous reasons...
Carry on!
Oh, Nucklesack: I won't be having you kid in class. If he did show up and spout the nonsense you do,...He'd be kicked out by the end of the first week of school and we would still keep your first $1500 in tuition.
but i am providing a whole lot of historical background ................ so everyone better understands ........ NAZIS =
Last edited by a moderator:
TexasPride77
Eat More Beef, Less Chkn
Nucklesack said:
I would have to guess that the media didnt think that Al-Husainy as being newsworthy until he began to become involved with the DNC. I can only speculate though. That is a very interesting question though. I do know that many have kept their eye on Al-Husainy and his actions. I think Hannity asked Al-Husainy if he had attended a Hezbollah gathering...and Al-Husainy made the comment that the rallies were for pro peace (or something like that). He didnt come out and say "Yes" I was there - he just said the rallies were conducted for the purposes of expressing the need for peace.
Nucklesack said:
I didnt know (must have missed it) that nothing had been comfirmed but I assumed as much seeing how Hannity was asking the questions. I assumed that had things been confirmed - Hannity would have not been asking Al-Husainy questions so that confirmation would be obtained.
Now, YES "FOX News had left out the first two lines of his prayer". My impression was that Fox was focusing on the definitions of of Al-Husainy's words in the latter portions of the speech. The first two lines were vividly clear in their meaning. Thats the only thing i can think of as to why Fox didnt mention the lines to begin with. OF COURSE - this provided a means for Al-Husainy to utilize the omission for purposes of killing airtime - which aided him in being able to “bob and dodge” when answering the questions.
Nucklesack said:
Perhaps this Jihad is akin to the Inquisition. Times have changed and people wised up when they realized that everyone deserves equal rights when it comes to religious freedoms. The war between Islam and Christianity has been going on for centuries. The inquisition ended long ago but my understanding is that a Jihad has existed and never ended since the inception of the Islamic faith. If this is the case who is responsible for keeping the fire going? How much have the wars waged against Israel influence the continuation of things? Overall, I dont think the answers really matter. Everyone will debate over them so much that they loose meaning because everyone will get tired of not being able to convince the “other side” that their way of thinking is socially wrong.
I think that most Americans live their lives by Christian-like ideals. I believe this is the case predominately because out nation’s founders were Christian and not of another religion. I could be wrong… but my point is that now American ideals are gradually changing but not because other religions are playing positive roles in that change. In retrospect, I think that the Islamic faith has faced overall rejection by America because of the ill actions of the minority of radicals.
Americans who do and do not associate themselves to a religion have become fanatics against Muslims in general. We don’t know how to differentiate between a faithful follower versus a radical. The leaders of American Muslims don’t seem to help the issue either because they are staying silent. Then you have Imam’s like Al-Husainy who’s conduct make people question his political and religions affiliations. If it were a Christian American under the same spot light – I doubt HIGHLY that there would be “bob and dodge” tactics used when these individuals are asked for clarification of their positions.
Last edited: