Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 51 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Despite what the vile Televangelist Preachers say, America is not, and was never meant to be a Christian Nation. No, for after all, the Founders were Deists, if anything. Moreover, it is precisely a couple of Nations, whom Americans hate and dread above all others, over in Europe, namely Russia and Germany (dare I make mention of either) which really were founded on the Christian religion. You see, that is precisely why they have, historically, been more than a bit anti-Jewish.

From Deism, of course, comes the conception of The Separation of Church and State. And, from the Separation of Church and State comes the idea of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. That is, the idea that any born within the borders of The United States of America is a US Citizen, with all the rights of one. Indeed, the 14th Amendment, could be termed The Separation of NATION and State.

Of course, having said that, I may as well say that I consider myself to be a Deist. After all, Christianity is more than a bit anti-Jewish for my taste. And, that is especially true of Roman Catholic Christianity, with its Replacement Theology. And any who have read the history of Europe, in any depth, realizes that Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and most of the other top Nazi officials were born into the Roman Catholic faith. Mind you, the Founders were wise for coming up with The Separation of Church and State. For they knew that they, as Deists, would always be a minority. And, it was one way of keeping the Christians from persecuting Muslims and Jews; while at the same time not harming Christians too much, lest Christians accuse us of persecuting them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
Hitler and Christianity

Your ignorance is impressive. Germany was a predominantly Protestant country, and Hitlerism was anti-Christian:

“The Führer has the highest regard for Japanese religiosity which is equal in importance to genuine Japanesedom. How regrettable that we don’t have something similar. Because of its constitution and spiritual structure our brand of Christianity will always be opposed to a strongly nationalistic attitude. Its whole essence is, after all, predetermined by Judaism. A religion which proceeds from the basic principle that we must love our enemies, not kill, and turn the right cheek when we have been struck on the left one is not suited as a virile example for defending the Fatherland. Indeed Christianity is a doctrine in decay. Modern man will only despise it.Given modern science, to be a Christian indicates a lack of intelligence. What can Christianity do for modern man? One can only marvel that Christianity’s extraordinarily vague representations of the hereafter can still touch intelligent people. The ideal of the hereafter as painted by Christianity has no inner substance … Clearly this entire doctrine must somehow be replaced in the course of the decades.”

Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Goebbels Diaries, Part II: Diktate 1941–1945, vol. 2: October – December 1941 (Munich 1996), 506ff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Hmmm. I hate Nazism as much as anyone else. Do not mistake me. Still, I firmly believe that Hitler firmly believed himself to be a Christian, and doing what he did in the name thereof. Have you ever heard of Christian anti-Judaism? It is rooted right in the New Testament of the Bible (John 8:44).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Your ignorance is impressive. Germany was a predominantly Protestant country, and Hitlerism was anti-Christian:

“The Führer has the highest regard for Japanese religiosity which is equal in importance to genuine Japanesedom. How regrettable that we don’t have something similar. Because of its constitution and spiritual structure our brand of Christianity will always be opposed to a strongly nationalistic attitude. Its whole essence is, after all, predetermined by Judaism. A religion which proceeds from the basic principle that we must love our enemies, not kill, and turn the right cheek when we have been struck on the left one is not suited as a virile example for defending the Fatherland. Indeed Christianity is a doctrine in decay. Modern man will only despise it.Given modern science, to be a Christian indicates a lack of intelligence. What can Christianity do for modern man? One can only marvel that Christianity’s extraordinarily vague representations of the hereafter can still touch intelligent people. The ideal of the hereafter as painted by Christianity has no inner substance … Clearly this entire doctrine must somehow be replaced in the course of the decades.”

Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Goebbels Diaries, Part II: Diktate 1941–1945, vol. 2: October – December 1941 (Munich 1996), 506ff.
Judaism, with its claim that the Jews are The Chosen People, is itself Nationalist.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Your ignorance is impressive. Germany was a predominantly Protestant country. . ."
NORTHERN Germany was Protestant, Southern Germany was not. Hitler, of course, was from Austria. Himmler was from the Catholic portion of Germany, and hence, Catholic. Germany, much like Ireland, has a Protestant North and a Catholic South. Whatever religion most Germans had, the Nazi leadership were Catholics almost to a man.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
If you want to be coherent with your logic, you have either to hear what the Nazi leaders said as you're listening to the founders, or you have to consider in which religion they were born in, like you do for the Nazi leaders.

John Adams: born in a congregationalist (puritan) environnement. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
Benjamin Franklin: bron from a Puritan family. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
Alexander Hamilton: was Presbyterian earlier in his age, then Episcopal. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
John Jay: was Episcopal
Thomas Jefferson: was Episcopal. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
James Madison: Presbyterian. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
George Washington: Anglican family. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism

Not one wasn't born in a protestant environnement. Even if most embraced some form of mixed Deism or theistic rationalism. You have here a classic freemason and liberal influenced and influencer bunch of people, at the times where freemasonry was at its peak of popularity and on the raise, as well as at the time of the birth of liberalism.

And by the way, the separation of the church was an idea that Martin Luther had. John Locke advocated too for the separation of the church, and was also a protestant, he's the one who justified the theft of the territory of american Indians. He definitely heavily influenced what happened in this continent until the creation of the United States. I mean, he's one of the founder of liberalism, the ideology of the United States.

So we have a clear continuity with protestant and anglican christianity and the ideas of the founders, and that without a big rupture, as much as we would like to see modernity as an era of ruptures, most of the times it's actually a continuation of past ideologies and religions. Nazism, as well as liberalism, were in continuity with the past, this doesn't mean, we had to get throught this the way we did, we could have well seen the nazi party being smashed if the liberals weren't scared by communism and hadn't seen Hitler as a rampart against communism. And now the future lies past liberalism, and on and on. So history goes.

For example the European Union is heavily influenced by catholicism, more than protestantism, which kinda explain, more or less, the Brexit. It's always more complicated than that, but people and political institutions are predictable none the less.

The rise of Nazism seems, as most far-right movement, to hold back to some highly disconnected ideas in the sense that their history is short with a lot of discontinuation between all of them. They're opportunists, take whatever they have to be granted power, they're oftenpseudo-revisionist (as revisionism is something historians do, but with sources and methodology), so they build a new history out of fabricated pseudo-historical sources. They're a product of modernity and if we have to consider a political movement which really want to make ruptures, it will be the far-right movements. We can now make a history of those political movement, not so much by the direct content of their thoughts, but by the way they address the present, the future and the past. The past being glorified and the present being decadent, the future being the rebirth of the past, an idealised mythical past.

To build a bridge from Nazism to catholicism or even christianity is to forget that religion could be a tool as much as anything else for them. But at the same time, catholicism is clearly more compatible with nazism than protestantism. The content of Nazism doesn't hold so much idea of catholicism quite the contrary, it's mostly a rejection of communism and international free market capitalism and a rebirth of antiquity, christianity is rarely mentioned. The content isn't really there, or when there's one, you'll find two paragraph later a contradiction, but they don't care so much about contradictions. What's important is to speak to the emotions of the public and to constantly engage in conflictual interactions so it seems that there're no reason to be held, just "we win or we lose", but if we can include most of the people in the "we" through emotions, then everyone think in terms of us against them and so the far-right party can rise to power.

Far-right movements are auto-destructive and most of the time they don't last long, but more your political ground is closer to the far-right, more you keep a door open to them, whatever is the content of your thought, if your political agenda is to keep things like they are or to come back to a glorified past, you're transforming your public into a prey for the far-right.

And something else, which have been often missed, is that the idea to create an historical rupture, is also condemned to create a reactionary movement. If your political agenda is meant to create a whole new order in deny of the historicity of the social movements which cross the society itself, you get as much Nazism than Stalinism or Maoism. It's not to say we shouldn't think about the future, quite the contrary, we have to get past liberalism once and for all, but we need to do it with history in mind, liberal ecology is as stupid as primitivism, we need post-capitalist ecology, we need a post-modern ecology while acknowledging modernity and all the ideologies which structured modernity, from liberalism to marxism.

I'm anarcho-communist by the way, so I'm not advocating for middle ground, just so you know. But I kept my comment out of the subjectivity of my political position. I almost never advocate my political position, I prefer to take a critical stance whenever I can.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Hitler was no Nationalist, whether German or otherwise. To believe he championed the German people, as a people, is every bit as dumb as to believe that the Soviet Communists, of all people, really cared about the plight of African Americans in the South, or anywhere in America. No, he perceived Germans as a useful tool in the fight against what he perceived to be Jewish Bolshevism, and other Jewish Ideologies. This is much like how, during The Cold War, Communists thought that African Americans would be useful in destroying The United States of America.

To call Hitler Pro-German is every bit as stupid as to call the Communists Pro-Black, at least in my view. Moreover, it is really stupid of the Marxists to claim that the Nazis were not True Socialists, since they created such an evil tyranny. After all, by the same argument, one could say that the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China were not Truly Socialist either. Do you know what I think? Well, let me put it to you this way: though I hate Hitler as much as any, I firmly believe that he firmly believed himself to be a Christian. I could be wrong. But that is my conviction!

Moreover, the term Aryan is not merely a fancy term for German. After all, not all Aryans were Germans and not all Germans were Aryans. Indeed, the English were considered every bit as Aryan as the Germans, and those Germans who adhered to the Jewish faith, were considered no more Aryan than other Jews, despite their looks. Still, however one may feel about the Germans, or even the Nazis, the idea of the Aryan Master Race is not all that different than the conception of the Jewish Chosen People. Both are racial supremacist doctrines based on mere religious superstition. Indeed, the conception of the Aryan Master Race, indeed, originated in Northern India, among the Hindus!

And wait, Deism could be argued to have Protestant roots. For, they were horrified by the Religious Wars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Needless to say, Hitler destroyed any good reputation Germany ever had. The reputation of Germany never really recovered from The Third Reich. Moreover, I doubt it ever will.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Your ignorance is impressive. Germany was a predominantly Protestant country, and Hitlerism was anti-Christian:

“The Führer has the highest regard for Japanese religiosity which is equal in importance to genuine Japanesedom. How regrettable that we don’t have something similar. Because of its constitution and spiritual structure our brand of Christianity will always be opposed to a strongly nationalistic attitude. Its whole essence is, after all, predetermined by Judaism. A religion which proceeds from the basic principle that we must love our enemies, not kill, and turn the right cheek when we have been struck on the left one is not suited as a virile example for defending the Fatherland. Indeed Christianity is a doctrine in decay. Modern man will only despise it.Given modern science, to be a Christian indicates a lack of intelligence. What can Christianity do for modern man? One can only marvel that Christianity’s extraordinarily vague representations of the hereafter can still touch intelligent people. The ideal of the hereafter as painted by Christianity has no inner substance … Clearly this entire doctrine must somehow be replaced in the course of the decades.”

Elke Fröhlich (ed.), Goebbels Diaries, Part II: Diktate 1941–1945, vol. 2: October – December 1941 (Munich 1996), 506ff.
Come on, now. Hitler did not admire the Japanese. He could not. How could he? The Japanese were not white. Those whom Hitler admired were the British, those whom he viewed as his fellow Aryans. I think you made up that quote. Moreover, only the north of Germany was Protestant; the South, Catholic. Besides, do you have a link to that diary quote? I doubt it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,315 Posts
Again, don't blame Christianity, people use religion for all sorts of excuses.

I do agree America wasn't founded on true Christianity, it was founded on Freemasonry, and they don't like Christians. (Despite what they say on their website.)

Not everyone who is Christian is Catholic.

In fact I'm Christian but I'm nothing like a Catholic, we don't even have bishops, and fuck the pope. Bunch of pedophile satanists that lot.

But yes the Catholic Church and Hitler worked together, along with some Arab nations because they wanted to kill Jewish people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,378 Posts
How did Catholic Nazis reconcile their Catholicism with the Thule Society's practice of sorcery?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
253 Posts
If you want to be coherent with your logic, you have either to hear what the Nazi leaders said as you're listening to the founders, or you have to consider in which religion they were born in, like you do for the Nazi leaders.

John Adams: born in a congregationalist (puritan) environnement. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
Benjamin Franklin: bron from a Puritan family. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
Alexander Hamilton: was Presbyterian earlier in his age, then Episcopal. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
John Jay: was Episcopal
Thomas Jefferson: was Episcopal. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
James Madison: Presbyterian. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism
George Washington: Anglican family. Did embrace Deism or some form of theistic rationalism

Not one wasn't born in a protestant environnement. Even if most embraced some form of mixed Deism or theistic rationalism. You have here a classic freemason and liberal influenced and influencer bunch of people, at the times where freemasonry was at its peak of popularity and on the raise, as well as at the time of the birth of liberalism.

And by the way, the separation of the church was an idea that Martin Luther had. John Locke advocated too for the separation of the church, and was also a protestant, he's the one who justified the theft of the territory of american Indians. He definitely heavily influenced what happened in this continent until the creation of the United States. I mean, he's one of the founder of liberalism, the ideology of the United States.

So we have a clear continuity with protestant and anglican christianity and the ideas of the founders, and that without a big rupture, as much as we would like to see modernity as an era of ruptures, most of the times it's actually a continuation of past ideologies and religions. Nazism, as well as liberalism, were in continuity with the past, this doesn't mean, we had to get throught this the way we did, we could have well seen the nazi party being smashed if the liberals weren't scared by communism and hadn't seen Hitler as a rampart against communism. And now the future lies past liberalism, and on and on. So history goes.

For example the European Union is heavily influenced by catholicism, more than protestantism, which kinda explain, more or less, the Brexit. It's always more complicated than that, but people and political institutions are predictable none the less.

The rise of Nazism seems, as most far-right movement, to hold back to some highly disconnected ideas in the sense that their history is short with a lot of discontinuation between all of them. They're opportunists, take whatever they have to be granted power, they're oftenpseudo-revisionist (as revisionism is something historians do, but with sources and methodology), so they build a new history out of fabricated pseudo-historical sources. They're a product of modernity and if we have to consider a political movement which really want to make ruptures, it will be the far-right movements. We can now make a history of those political movement, not so much by the direct content of their thoughts, but by the way they address the present, the future and the past. The past being glorified and the present being decadent, the future being the rebirth of the past, an idealised mythical past.

To build a bridge from Nazism to catholicism or even christianity is to forget that religion could be a tool as much as anything else for them. But at the same time, catholicism is clearly more compatible with nazism than protestantism. The content of Nazism doesn't hold so much idea of catholicism quite the contrary, it's mostly a rejection of communism and international free market capitalism and a rebirth of antiquity, christianity is rarely mentioned. The content isn't really there, or when there's one, you'll find two paragraph later a contradiction, but they don't care so much about contradictions. What's important is to speak to the emotions of the public and to constantly engage in conflictual interactions so it seems that there're no reason to be held, just "we win or we lose", but if we can include most of the people in the "we" through emotions, then everyone think in terms of us against them and so the far-right party can rise to power.

Far-right movements are auto-destructive and most of the time they don't last long, but more your political ground is closer to the far-right, more you keep a door open to them, whatever is the content of your thought, if your political agenda is to keep things like they are or to come back to a glorified past, you're transforming your public into a prey for the far-right.

And something else, which have been often missed, is that the idea to create an historical rupture, is also condemned to create a reactionary movement. If your political agenda is meant to create a whole new order in deny of the historicity of the social movements which cross the society itself, you get as much Nazism than Stalinism or Maoism. It's not to say we shouldn't think about the future, quite the contrary, we have to get past liberalism once and for all, but we need to do it with history in mind, liberal ecology is as stupid as primitivism, we need post-capitalist ecology, we need a post-modern ecology while acknowledging modernity and all the ideologies which structured modernity, from liberalism to marxism.

I'm anarcho-communist by the way, so I'm not advocating for middle ground, just so you know. But I kept my comment out of the subjectivity of my political position. I almost never advocate my political position, I prefer to take a critical stance whenever I can.
John Locke justified the territory grabbing of the Native Americans? My god, that is stupid. What is John Locke's MBTI type. Intuitive at least.

I wonder if I 'd learn this in my high school US History or AP World History class it doesn't seem like I did.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
John Locke justified the territory grabbing of the Native Americans? My god, that is stupid. What is John Locke's MBTI type. Intuitive at least.

I wonder if I 'd learn this in my high school US History or AP World History class it doesn't seem like I did.
Here, something to learn.

"That’s true of course. Considered in the American context, however, Locke is not offering a theory of original acquisition. Rather, his theory is one of expropriation, designed specifically to justify the “fraud and injustice” to which Hume refers.

Locke’s central idea is that agriculturalists, by mixing their labor with the soil, thereby acquire a title to it. He immediately faces the objection that before the arrival of agriculture, hunters and gatherers worked on the land and gained sustenance from it. So, it would seem, the would-be farmer has arrived too late. The obvious example, to which he refers several times, is that of European colonists arriving in America. Locke’s answer is twofold.

First, he invokes his usual claim that there is plenty of land for everybody, so appropriating some land for agriculture can’t be of any harm to the hunter-gatherers. This is obviously silly. It might conceivably be true for the first agriculturalist (though on standard Malthusian grounds there is no reason to suppose this), or the second or the fiftieth, but at some point the land must cease to be sufficient to support the preexisting hunter-gatherer population. At this point, well before all land has been acquired by agriculturalists, his theory fails.

Locke must surely have known his claim to be false, not as a matter of abstract reasoning, distant history, but in terms of contemporary fact. His Treatises on Government were published in 1689, a year after the outbreak of King William’s War (the North American theatre of the Nine Years War). The core issue in this war, as in a string of earlier conflicts, was control of the fur trade, the most economically significant form of hunter-gatherer activity. But underlying that was the general pressure arising from the steady expansion of European agriculture into lands previously owned by Indian tribes.

As a capitalist, and shareholder in American businesses such as the (slaveholding) Bahama Adventurers, Locke could scarcely have been unaware of these facts. Indeed he refers in the Treatise to American contacts who gave him his information.

Locke’s real defense is that regardless of whether there is a lot or a little, uncultivated land is essentially valueless. All, or nearly all, the value, he says, comes from the efforts of the farmers who improve the land. Since God gave us the land to improve, it rightfully belongs to those who improve it."

Taken from this article: https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/06/locke-treatise-slavery-private-property/
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
24 Posts
The death penalty is legal in most states of America. The Tree Strike law too. Pity is not something American, nor forgiveness. In fact the Americans are closer to the Old Testament and therefore to the Jews than the original christanism.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,778 Posts
Depends on what year you designate as "founded" and what type of Christianity you're discussing. The God of the Old Testament? Hell yeah. Jesus? Nah. Even so, it's nothing but a veil. America's true God is money, and I imagine it's the same for nearly every developed and developing nation, no matter what religion they claim to espouse.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,983 Posts
Again, don't blame Christianity, people use religion for all sorts of excuses.

I do agree America wasn't founded on true Christianity, it was founded on Freemasonry, and they don't like Christians. (Despite what they say on their website.)

Not everyone who is Christian is Catholic.

In fact I'm Christian but I'm nothing like a Catholic, we don't even have bishops, and fuck the pope. Bunch of pedophile satanists that lot.

But yes the Catholic Church and Hitler worked together, along with some Arab nations because they wanted to kill Jewish people.
Eh to be fair. Christianity is supposed to be based on a pope, the position was meant to be created by Jesus for Saint Peter in his Church and passed down according to the Bible.

Although the Church that was historical Christianity split into two later on, being the Orthodox and Catholic sides.

Some of the things being debated on being; whether the Bishop of Rome (The Apostle Peter's seat) among the Bishops is supposed to have Papal Supremacy (Catholic), or equal to other Bishops but having a special recognition and ceremonial role without centralization based on papal supremacy.

Protestanism came with Martin Luther who wanted to take out excerpts from the bible.

When invaders of the Roman Empire settled and gave rise to people like Charlemagne there's theories that he and the warlords tried to change Christianity to their own benefit. Vatican II was supposed to knock out their influences, and go back to before that.

As for Catholicism, if we empowered the radicals inside the church they could get rid of the pedophiles for us.

The inquisition tbh did do some good in that it protected the church from pedophiles in the past because people spied on the priests constantly or used social engineering methods to make sure they were believers in the doctrine. The reason they are more common now compared to back then is because the inquisitors are no longer around to scan the church for them and maintain its security.

You would have 'radical priests' who take the religion extremely seriously instead of agnostic priests who have pedophile tendencies if inquisitors were around to protect the church. One is preferable to the other one still because they can be trusted and are safe to be around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,248 Posts
Of course the USA is Christian(ish) - it's just not very religiously Christian, nor was it founded to be. It's very culturally Christian though, rather specifically culturally mainstream moderate Protestant Christian.

As for Catholics, I grew up Catholic. My grandparents are pretty traditionalist. I've never had any anti-Semitic exposure via the Catholic Church. Actually it was pretty respectful of Judaism. It was one of the few religions/cultures we actually learned about in Catholic school. Obviously Catholics, like other Christians, think Christianity is "more right" than Judaism, so in that sense they do "prioritize" Christians and Christianity, but I always was taught that Jewish people were basically our theological siblings and they just followed the old laws. TBH at this point I think besides a few neo-con weirdos most "replacement theology" is just Christians having good excuses for not following Kosher dietary laws. Now - I'm not saying anti-Semitism isn't out there - it is, I've been exposed to it and it pisses me the heck off - but I don't think the Catholic Church is particularly a bastion of it more than other Christian denominations.

ponpiri said:
America's true God is money
Yes, that. Or more like some amalgamated identity of self that hinges on money, personal independence, and tribalist pride.

Hero of Freedom said:
The inquisition tbh did do some good in that it protected the church from pedophiles in the past because people spied on the priests constantly or used social engineering methods to make sure they were believers in the doctrine. The reason they are more common now compared to back then is because the inquisitors are no longer around to scan the church for them and maintain its security.

You would have 'radical priests' who take the religion extremely seriously instead of agnostic priests who have pedophile tendencies if inquisitors were around to protect the church. One is preferable to the other one still because they can be trusted and are safe to be around.
As much as it pains me to open this can of worms... while I agree the Church really needs to address its pressing issues with the priesthood and child sexual abuse, it has historically tended to get a bit caught up in "let's blame people for not being 'faithful enough'" and getting sidetracked with all the external money/war/power factors involved in that and losing sight of focusing on how to support believers and shepherd them, priesthood included. I think the Church would do far better to offer more extensive mental health and counseling support to its priesthood - this could help individuals identify and admit to any paraphilia including pedophilia and would offer them medication and therapy to address it as needed, as well as potentially providing exit counseling to priests for whom it appears unlikely that they will be able to manage their inclinations - rather than increasing external surveillance regulations based on trying to tease out the "most faithful", which will have very little ability to successfully identify priests who actually have inclinations towards being sexually abusive. Otherwise it'd be like trying to find the pointiest needle in a haystack based on which one shines the most. Ineffective, random, and self-destructive all at once.
 
1 - 20 of 51 Posts
Top