Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
I'm going with option B because after reviewing your sources and mine(including books), it's hard to say what Hitler was exactly. He has so many contradictory statements and actions that the only thing we can say about him conclusively is that he was a raging homosexual. So yes, I was wrong. And I realize the Nazis were trying to replace religion(mainly Christianity) with something of their own, but you should concede that they were making shit up as they went along.
They were definitely changing their standing towards the Christian Churches as they went along. Their philosophy / ideology however was already "good to go" before they even took over. Both "Mein Kampf" and "Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts" were written before 1933.
So when Hitler and the Germans blamed Jews for their collapse in the 20s, it was due to the Jews' religion?
It was due to Christian tradition. Bernard of Clairvaux (a monk and spiritual leader of the 2nd Crusade) was the first one that linked Jews to "capitalism" (or money for that matter) - in the 12th century. Racism didn't play much of a role back then. The Nazis did pretty much use 800 year old arguments to blame the Jews for the Depression 1929. And other antisemitist didn't do it in another way. Let me quote Werner Sombarts "The Jews and modern Capitalism":
Jews — that is to say, members of the people who profess the Jewish faith. And I need hardly add that although in this definition I purposely leave out any reference to race characteristics, it yet includes those Jews who have withdrawn from their religious community, and even descendants of such, seeing that historically they remain Jews. This must be borne in mind, for when we are determining the influence of the Jew on modern economic life, again and again men appear on the scene as Christians, who in reality are Jews.
As you can see, he excludes references to the race and links his ideas that Jews have a strong bound to money / capitalism to their faith. That's clearly an religious argument.
From what I understand, Muslims believe that while their religion is largely based on us, we got it wrong and that's why Mohammed came, and the land of Israel shouldn't belong to us because we're the infidel, but should belong to them because Islam worked out the kinks of Judaism.
There are far less problems in terms of theology between Jews and Muslim than there are between Jews and Christians. Christian faith includes the ideas (New Testament) that the Jews are largely responsible for the death of Christ (deicide), where the Muslims don't believe that Jesus died on the cross. Likewise they don't believe in a "son of God" but see Mohammed as a prophet, which also goes along with Jewish faith better, than with Christian views. And historically, Jews had a better standing in Muslim countries then they had in those ruled by Christians.
Todays antisemitism in the Muslim world is pretty much Anti-Zionism. They hate Israel as a state and not the Jews for their religion. That might spawn from the fact that Israel was their land before 1948 and it was pretty much taken away from them by the winners of the WW II. Consequently, the contemperorary antisemitic voices in the Muslim world mostly say that "Israel has to be destroyed" - arguing against the state and not necessirily against the individuals living there.
What I don't understand is how the bolded can't be applied to secular humanism and other isms? I may not be understanding it properly but from what I understand, a belief in the governing of human affairs, any belief in that matter, constitutes as a "religion". So by that logic( assuming I'm correct of course), all of those isms more or less can be considered a "religion".
a)
There isn't anything being "worshipped" in secular humanism. The opposite is the case. Secular humanism simply assumes that humanity as a whole (and each human being individually) can develop according to it's own abilities. So you don't need any help of "higher beings". Of course this form of humanism did criticize religion a lot (Feuerbach, Marx, Freud) but only because viewing it as illogical and infantile. Human beings aren't worshipped here or put to a higher place.
b)
Humanism doesn't contain a specific moral code. And I think that's were your previous "problems" did come from. In general, there are certain "highest" principles of practical thoughts (e.g. Kant's categorical imperative), with sets of practical principles being derived from them (e.g. "I don't want that it becomes a common rule that everyone can commit murder like he wants, thusly I have to say murder is wrong"😉. What ethics are consquently missing are rules to apply their maxims to everday situations. (E.g.: "I don't want murder to be legal, but what about the Death Penalty?"😉.
The problem is, that if the "highest" principle is replaced by some dogmatic statement, the entire (secular) moral system can go down the path to the Dark Side so to say.
What about the idea that religion is replaced with "the state" as being the supreme being? would that be secular dogmatism?
Well. I think that question can't be answered that easily. Firstly: I don't think that "secular dogmatism" even exits. Mainly because I view "dogma" as a vocable that clearly belongs into the field of religion, even if used in the context of social / political ideologies / theories. In the same moment, if that "religious" mindset is activated, I don't consider a system to be "secular" any longer. Does it matter if I worship a higher being that I perceive as some superhuman entity, or whorship the state as some antropomorphic personification of a certain set of believes?
So instead of differentiating between religious and secular extremism, can't we throw out "extremism" altogether and attribute all of it to "dogmatism"? Or is that just replacing one word with another, and essentially giving it the same meaning?
I don't think so. "Dogmatism" means that people believe in a certain dogma. The core principles of all monotheistic religions happen to have a dogmatic nature. That doesn't mean that everybody who does believe in God is an extremist. You need dogmatism and extremism in order to make things go extremely wrong. Usually even then, most people who are extremists and believe in dogma (which applies to every fundamentalist) don't necesserily go violent. It needs some kind of radicalization.
For example: Marx didn't tell people to go out and kill everbody not believing in a classless society and Jesus most certainly didn't tell his followers to "kill all infidels".
What I have trouble dealing with is the secular humanists making fun of religious people while adhering strictly to the laws of man, while at the same time religious people making fun of atheists/secular humanists for not believing in a mythical being. That sounds like a contradiction but it isn't.
Well. Since nobody can prove or disprove the existence of God, it's quite absurd to engage in an activity as poking fun at the others beliefs - he could be right.
Religion has done a LOT of bad I agree. But so has dogmatism(especially secular).
As stated above. I don't believe in "secular dogmatism". To me, anybody that tries to replace religion with a political agenda, ideology or some wierd pseudo-religion does possess a "religious mindset". Don't get me wrong. That doesn't mean I attribute anything bad happening to "religion". I merely feel that people, who attempt to objectively analyse their own motivation, agenda, actions would not be able to kill several million people - just to defend their personal view of the world.
Also, I'm extremely pissed off at your country for offering Greece a bailout.
Well. That was the only logical thing to do - with the possible exception of kicking them out of the Euro-Zone.
I loved the reports in the media, though. Did you know that every Greek spends one monthly wage per year on bribery? They bribe everybody from their doctors to their driving test supervisors. And the people taking it have to take it, because they need to spent extra money on people they need a service from.
Definitely good read, I learned something. Also, that specific bailout caused our markets to tank, that's why I'm pissed(although I actually made money on triple leverage ETFs). It sends the WRONG message to countries such as Greece, and eventually Spain. "You can mess it up and we'll just bail you out". It didn't work in the states, and it certainly won't work in Europe.
On the other hand, I have to hand it to Europe with how they're dealing with this crisis. They're efficiently cutting budget deficits of various countries at an alarming rate. I wish we were as efficient.
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
Definitely good read, I learned something.
Thanks.
Also, that specific bailout caused our markets to tank, that's why I'm pissed(although I actually made money on triple leverage ETFs). It sends the WRONG message to countries such as Greece, and eventually Spain. "You can mess it up and we'll just bail you out". It didn't work in the states, and it certainly won't work in Europe.
Well. They had nice list of demands attached to them lending Greece money.
I still don't get how the Greeks did react on that crisis. Actually the Greece government was trying to save money before (and the only way to do that is cut the wages of officials). What do they do? Start a strike! I mean, okay: Their government pretty much f*cked it up and that system encorporating corruption anywhere certainly can't work for the future. Still ignoring that there is no money and start a strike seems to be quite idiotic.
But I'm actually less worried about Spain than I'm worried about Italy and Belgium...
Regarding the bailouts: I find it kind of funny, that certain people, banks, corporations and even countries sticked to the "too big to fail" doctrine and...failed. One should assume they have learned something during the last 50-90 years. Apparently they didn't. Sometimes I can only wonder how certain people are actually capable of making money on the financial markets. I can only suppose this is based on "luck" which they attempt to sell as "expertise".
A German comedian summoned this kind of system by quoting a "financial expert" from the German stock market. The guy - and this is no joke - commented a stock price with the words: "There is much fantasy in that quotation". That pretty much sums up my view on the stock markets.
On the other hand, I have to hand it to Europe with how they're dealing with this crisis. They're efficiently cutting budget deficits of various countries at an alarming rate. I wish we were as efficient.
The "budget deficit cutting" certainly doesn't work for Germany. We are aiming for a record deficit of about 100 billion Euro (mainly because of the financial crisis). Luxembourg and the Swiss are certainly doing better. 😉
Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
What do you expect from our fearless leader? It's a surprise he even pretends to support Israel anymore. Not that any of you are questioning what Israel did, right?
Obama's hardline stance on Israel makes me smile, because Israel's had it coming since 1948.
Originally posted by Nephthys
What happened?
A bunch of aid activists (mostly Turkish) were trying to bring aid to Gaza and get past Israel's blockade. Dumb idea.
Israeli troops stormed the aide ships and a few of the activists responded violently (another dumb idea.) In return, the Israeli troops opened fire with paintguns and then resorted to livefire weapons when that wasn't enough. At least nine people were killed in the mess.
Obama's hardline stance on Israel makes me smile, because Israel's had it coming since 1948.
Israel did not break the law. According to United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, foreign civilian vessels can be boarded on the high seas for a number of different reasons. For example, if they thought the cargo of the ship was illegal and wanted to inspect it. **** it, they can board a god damn ship off the coast of their country for a ****ing safety inspection - The US Coast Guard does it all the time.
Let me break this down into small items.
1) Blockade is legal.
2) Ships legally told not to run blockade before it left port.
3) Ships ordered to turn around off the coast of Israel.
4) Israel exercises it's legal right under international law to board ship off it's coast.
5) During boarding, Israeli boarding party is attacked.
6) Under international law, off the coast of Israel, Israeli navy defends itself.
So tell me Veneficus, what International Law applies here exactly? A blockade was in place, and this fleet was warned before they left not to attempt to run the blockade. Once at sea, they were told to turn back.
I'm gonna say this once. A fleet of ships approached the coast of Israel, was ordered to stand down by the Israeli Navy, and refused. Thus, in accordance with international law, they were boarded, by force, by the Israeli Navy.
It's not much different than any ship approaching the US. If they refuse to submit to inspection, they can be and most likely will be boarded, in accordance with international law. This pretty much happens at sea a hundred times a day.
Now, you can argue that the ships weren't going to Israel, they were going to Gaza. But there is a blockade around Gaza - to prevent anyone in Gaza from having weapons which in turn is being used to attack Israel. Egypt also takes part in this blockade.
I'm not a ship captain and don't plan to be in the near future. Someone needs to find out what international laws apply here. I'm pretty sure that according to international law, countries have the right to stop and inspect ships - The US does it up and down the Gulf Coast and in the Pacific, as well as off the Florida keys, looking mostly for drugs. I know about the three mile territory limit, but I'm pretty sure legally according to international law countries can patrol and have rights far outside of that area.