msharmony, you are a what I would consider to be a moderate, open-minded, intelligent, and well balanced person. Someone whom shows respect for others and deserves that respect be shown in return.

Now tell me - do you REALLY think that 'Religions' caused all the
wars? Or were there people in power who USED religious ideology
just as nationalism is used today - as a utility by which to make
the masses fall in line?

msharmony you wrote:



'middleearthing' wrote,
in the last paragraph of his latest post, quoting Monica Duffy Toft:



msharmony, you are a what I would consider to be a moderate, open-minded, intelligent, and well balanced person. Someone whom shows respect for others and deserves that respect be shown in return.

You happen to be a devout christian, and obviously, you apply FOR YOURSELF, and in your life, the principles that you hold dear.

It shows in the manner that you present yourself in these forums, and in the respectful, yet true to self manner that you interact with others in the different discussions in which you chose to partake.

What I find interesting in this particular exchange, is that the point middleearthing is trying to establish with this thread, dealing with religious extremism, does not apply to you in the least, and yet, because it touches on your religion, you appear, consciously or not, to defend or show a rather complacent attitude about 'religious extremism'.
I don't wish for you to take that as an attack on you personally, for there is no intention on my part to attack you personally.

I will admit that you and I don't share the same beliefs. I would suspect highly that you and middlehearting don't share the same beliefs either.
But interestingly, I would suspect that the three of us, and we could include numerous others, share similar values.

Our difference in religious or non-religious beliefs should not matter at all here. It will only divide us. Besides, why focus on that which divides us when there appears much that we share?

I reposted the last paragraph of middleearthing latest post. It establishes a direct link between 'RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS', and extreme actions, where reason is no longer at play.

If you have a problem with the statement 'all the wars', let's just reduce it to the current very contemporary wars that confronts us all today: the Israelo-palestinian conflict, the Iraqi invasion, and the near escalation towards open armed conflict with Iran under Bush, which was significantly deflated since Obama took office.

I think you will agree that there is no greater or more boiling world conflict than the one opposing the Israelis and Palestinians, fighting 'TO THE DEATH' over a piece of land promised to both of them by their respective gods!!! and some zealot christians siding with the Israelis, because THEIR god told them that Jesus was COMING BACK to the Jewish land to pick the 'chosens'!!!

As for the other current conflicts, I don't need to remind you of Bush administration's language to illustrate the religious zealot undertones: 'Axis of evil', 'You're with us or you're against us', 'We shall win the just war against terrorism'.

There cannot be better examples to support middleearthing's point and Monica Duffy Toft's findings about religious ZEALOTS and the potential extreme actions that can be taken as a consequence of such 'out-of-control' religious zealousness.

AGAIN, from Monica Duffy Toft:

"... Thus a secular actor (or state) can be coerced or deterred
by the threat of destruction; whereas a zealot (or theocracy) may be impossible to coerce or deter in the same way...".

Unless you are taking the position that your religion is pure, unblemished and without fault, and thus holds no responsibility whatsoever for the horrible things done in its name, (I don't think you would subscribe to such)

... you might admit that when religious ideology reaches zealousness, and religious right leaders are fueling it through political action, THAT A LINE IS BEING CROSSED!!! And that YOU msharmony, and all those like you, whom do not give into fanaticism, must speak up WITHIN YOUR RELIGIOUS RANKS, AND denounce this human insanity.

The distinction is :

You are clearly of
'... the group of PEOPLE CONTROLLING THEIR RELIGION...'

VS

this other group of religious zealots whom insist that RELIGION BE USED TO CONTROL PEOPLE, ALL THE PEOPLE!!!

If a dialogue along these lines cannot be had between you 'msharmony', a moderate and well balanced individual of the christian faith, and 'middlehearthing', another well balanced individual whom doesn't necessarily shares the same faith,

... then I would regret to admit, religion would truly not right for the human race!!!

'middleearthing' wrote,
in the last paragraph of his latest post, quoting Monica Duffy Toft:



msharmony, you are a what I would consider to be a moderate, open-minded, intelligent, and well balanced person. Someone whom shows respect for others and deserves that respect be shown in return.

You happen to be a devout christian, and obviously, you apply FOR YOURSELF, and in your life, the principles that you hold dear.

It shows in the manner that you present yourself in these forums, and in the respectful, yet true to self manner that you interact with others in the different discussions in which you chose to partake.

What I find interesting in this particular exchange, is that the point middleearthing is trying to establish with this thread, dealing with religious extremism, does not apply to you in the least, and yet, because it touches on your religion, you appear, consciously or not, to defend or show a rather complacent attitude about 'religious extremism'.
I don't wish for you to take that as an attack on you personally, for there is no intention on my part to attack you personally.

I will admit that you and I don't share the same beliefs. I would suspect highly that you and middlehearting don't share the same beliefs either.
But interestingly, I would suspect that the three of us, and we could include numerous others, share similar values.

Our difference in religious or non-religious beliefs should not matter at all here. It will only divide us. Besides, why focus on that which divides us when there appears much that we share?

I reposted the last paragraph of middleearthing latest post. It establishes a direct link between 'RELIGIOUS ZEALOTS', and extreme actions, where reason is no longer at play.

If you have a problem with the statement 'all the wars', let's just reduce it to the current very contemporary wars that confronts us all today: the Israelo-palestinian conflict, the Iraqi invasion, and the near escalation towards open armed conflict with Iran under Bush, which was significantly deflated since Obama took office.

I think you will agree that there is no greater or more boiling world conflict than the one opposing the Israelis and Palestinians, fighting 'TO THE DEATH' over a piece of land promised to both of them by their respective gods!!! and some zealot christians siding with the Israelis, because THEIR god told them that Jesus was COMING BACK to the Jewish land to pick the 'chosens'!!!

As for the other current conflicts, I don't need to remind you of Bush administration's language to illustrate the religious zealot undertones: 'Axis of evil', 'You're with us or you're against us', 'We shall win the just war against terrorism'.

There cannot be better examples to support middleearthing's point and Monica Duffy Toft's findings about religious ZEALOTS and the potential extreme actions that can be taken as a consequence of such 'out-of-control' religious zealousness.

AGAIN, from Monica Duffy Toft:

"... Thus a secular actor (or state) can be coerced or deterred
by the threat of destruction; whereas a zealot (or theocracy) may be impossible to coerce or deter in the same way...".

Unless you are taking the position that your religion is pure, unblemished and without fault, and thus holds no responsibility whatsoever for the horrible things done in its name, (I don't think you would subscribe to such)

... you might admit that when religious ideology reaches zealousness, and religious right leaders are fueling it through political action, THAT A LINE IS BEING CROSSED!!! And that YOU msharmony, and all those like you, whom do not give into fanaticism, must speak up WITHIN YOUR RELIGIOUS RANKS, AND denounce this human insanity.

The distinction is :

You are clearly of
'... the group of PEOPLE CONTROLLING THEIR RELIGION...'

VS

this other group of religious zealots whom insist that RELIGION BE USED TO CONTROL PEOPLE, ALL THE PEOPLE!!!

If a dialogue along these lines cannot be had between you 'msharmony', a moderate and well balanced individual of the christian faith, and 'middlehearthing', another well balanced individual whom doesn't necessarily shares the same faith,

... then I would regret to admit, religion would truly not right for the human race!!!

I appreciate what you are saying and I agree with the points you have made. I believe ANY type of extremism to be dangerous and I truly was just bothered by the all inclusive statement middle made regarding wars. Extreme patriotism or racial pride, or religion, or classism,,,or any other number of philosophies practiced to the extreme result in no win situations.

Because God is a big part of who I am , to make such a statement , that 76 percent of all wars in human history were due to religion,, its as insulting (to me) as saying that 76 percent of all violent crime ever has been commited by minorities(in most recent american history this could be argued but to apply it to all of history would be insulting to me,, as a minority).

Further research on the claim that 76% of all wars were over religion is turning up some interesting information. I found a site that claimed that only 7% were but they reference the War Encyclopedia….$300 bucks and not in my local library, plus the site doesn’t quote data from where they derived their count nor how they measured it, interesting also was the sites’ admitting the “War on Terror” is religious based. They don’t distinguish concerning which side is more prominent but even with their own admission it confirms we can add another one million deaths due to religious extremisms. ..no one challenged the 850...no, the 851 million that have died in religion based conflicts.

~~~

Point, the Dippic definitely used religion for support of our wars, I doubt his faith tho~, I mean he may have the “fear“ but not the heart of humanity, and with his drinking less the mind,…he’s a dry alcoholic and never did the steps and began drinking again by 2004, he opposed abortion but never led a revolt, he had a Faith Czar and the Faith Based Initiative but both were under funded and just for show…and for his amusement.

David Kuo: (former deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives)

“Kuo says the office was misused to rally evangelical Christians, the Republican base voters, to get GOP politicians elected. Not only that, Kuo claims Bush officials mocked evangelical leaders behind their backs, alleging that in the office of political guru Karl Rove they were called "the nuts."

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2570947&page=1

So these wars then were the results of religious people being used…and begs to question WHY the religious people are not pissed off about this, not a peep from the Christian right, shouldn’t they at east feel even a little dirty? No, they just move onto the Palins, Becks, Limbaughs, and anyone else who won’t bring up these points….these disasters must have been “gods will” so therefore not the voter’s fault. So much for taking responsibility by seeing, owning the damage and then voting smarter next time. Now extremists have gone on to T-bagging parties and Obama “Is not one of us” bashing orgies…

Happy Festivus!

If we cant be sure that everyone that believes a thing will use it to do no harm,,should we discredit that thing completely and toss it out? I hope that noone believes such a thing because I have personally seen much more good being done around me and in everyday life in the name of 'religion' than I have bad.

Sorry, but I wouldn't bring this to light if it were not true. Here are some observations from Hitler's life and reign:

"Hitler’s involvement with the Church:

a) Hitler was baptized as Roman Catholic during infancy in Austria.

b) As Hitler approached boyhood he attended a monastery school. (On his way to school young Adolf daily observed a stone arch which was carved with the monastery’s coat of arms bearing a swastika.)

c) Hitler was a communicant and an altar boy in the Catholic Church.

d) As a young man he was confirmed as a “soldier of Christ.” His most ardent goal at the time was to become a priest. Hitler writes of his love for the church and clergy: “I had excellent opportunity to intoxicate myself with the solemn splendor of the brilliant church festivals. As was only natural, the abbot seemed to me, as the village priest had once seemed to my father, the highest and most desirable ideal.” -Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

e) Hitler was NEVER excommunicated nor condemned by his church. Matter of fact the Church felt he was JUST and “avenging for God” in attacking the Jews for they deemed the Semites the killers of Jesus.

f) Hitler, Franco and Mussolini were given VETO power over whom the pope could appoint as a bishop in Germany, Spain and Italy. In turn they surtaxed the Catholics and gave the money to the Vatican. Hitler wrote a speech in which he talks about this alliance, this is an excerpt: “The fact that the Vatican is concluding a treaty with the new Germany means the acknowledgement of the National Socialist state by the Catholic Church. This treaty shows the whole world clearly and unequivocally that the assertion that National Socialism [Nazism] is hostile to religion is a lie.” Adolf Hitler, 22 July 1933, writing to the Nazi Party

g) Hitler worked CLOSELY with Pope Pius in converting Germanic society and supporting the church. The Church absorbed Nazi ideals and preached them as part of their sermons in turn Hitler placed Catholic teachings in public education. This photo depicts Hitler with Archbishop Cesare Orsenigo, the papal nuncio in Berlin. It was taken On April 20, 1939, when Orsenigo celebrated Hitler’s birthday. The celebrations were initiated by Pacelli (Pope Pius XII) and became a tradition.

Each April 20, Cardinal Bertram of Berlin was to send “warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany with “fervent prayers which the Catholics of Germany are sending to heaven on their altars.” (If you would like to know more about the secret dealings of Hitler and the Pope I recommend you get a book titled: Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII, by John Cornwell)

h) Due to Hitler’s involvement with the Church he began enacting doctrines of the Church as law. He outlawed all abortion, raged a death war on all homosexuals, and demanded corporal punishment in schools and home. Many times Hitler addressed the church and promised that Germany would implement its teachings: “The National Socialist State professes its allegiance to positive Christianity. It will be its honest endeavor to protect both the great Christian Confessions in their rights, to secure them from interference with their doctrines (Lehren), and in their duties to constitute a harmony with the views and the exigencies of the State of today.” –Adolf Hitler, on 26 June 1934, to Catholic bishops to assure them that he would take action against the new pagan propaganda “Providence has caused me to be Catholic, and I know therefore how to handle this Church.” -Adolf Hitler, reportedly to have said in Berlin in 1936 on the enmity of the Catholic Church to National Socialism

How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:

Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.

Now, you must remember before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.



How the Nazi Regime converted the people:

a) In the 1920s, Hitler’s German Workers’ Party (pre Nazi term) adopted a “Programme” with twenty-five points (the Nazi version of a constitution). In point twenty-four, their intent clearly demonstrates, from the very beginning, their stand in favor of a “positive” Christianity: “We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the morality and moral sense of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession...”

b) The Nazi regime started a youth movement which preached its agenda to impressionable children. Hitler backed up the notion that all people need faith and religious education: “By helping to raise man above the level of bestial vegetation, faith contributes in reality to the securing and safeguarding of his existence. Take away from present-day mankind its education-based, religious- dogmatic principles-- or, practically speaking, ethical-moral principles-- by abolishing this religious education, but without replacing it by an equivalent, and the result will be a grave shock to the foundations of their existence.” – Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

c) The Nazi regime began to control schools insisting that Christianity was taught.

d) The Nazi regime included anti-Semitic Christian writings in textbooks and they were not removed from Christian doctrines until 1961.

e) The Nazi regime having full blown power over the people began to forcibly convert all its military.

f) The Nazi regime forced the German soldiers to wear religious symbols such as the swastika and they placed religious sayings on military gear. An example here is this German army belt buckle (I believe my Opa had one) which reads “Gott Mit Uns”. For those of you who do not speak German it is translated as “God With Us”.

g) The German troops were often forced to get sprinkled with holy water and listen to a sermon by a Catholic priest before going out on a maneuver.

h) The Nazis created a secret service called the “SS Reich” that would act as spies on the dealings of other citizens. If anyone was suspected of heresy (Going not only against the Socialist party but CHURCH DOCTRINE) they would be prosecuted

Quotes from Hitler:

More, a lot more.....at

http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

Not that again Eljay?!?!?!

Hitler was baptized and raised in the most thorough of Christian tradition and faith.

Like you Eljay, he developed his own interpretation of what a GOOD CHRISTIAN was, and devoted his whole life to it. What he ended up concluding was that the catholic church failed him and his people, protestants only deserved his utmost contempt, and JESUS counted on him to deliver the real fight!!!

Hitler showed every sign of a devout christian youth, turned christian militant, turned fundamentalist, and the rest is history.

Was Hiltler sane and balanced in his view of christianity, Jesus, Jews, himself, his nation, etc.???

Like all fundamentalists, he started out posting a mildly paranoid neurotiuc behavior. For just the right number of fundamentalists (the leaders), when this behavior not only goes unchecked, but is instead encouraged by a shared mass neurosis, the dormant neurosis turns rapidly into a a dangerous phychosis.

So if it will make you happy Eljay, Hitler progressively became, in hte last quarter of his lifetime, a dangerously psychotic fundamentlist christian of a church of one.

But a christian he sure was. Your personal meaning and interpretation of christian, however true it may for you, is totally irrelevant.

The point 'middleearthing' is making, is one worth discussing and mastering: 'fundamentally :), FUNDAMENTALISM IS LATENTLY DANGEROUS, whether in the hands of religious, political, social or individual entities.

You have brought up some good discussion points - but let me ask you a question or three.

As long as there is something to be gained 'politically' by any organization do you think there will be any lack of extremism?

If a religious organization makes a 'profit' as indicated by generally accepted accounting principles, do you think they should be exempt from taxation?

Is the question above not one of politics?

If a religious organization is not allowed to persue converts, by door to door, or by public displays of symbology - do you think they are being discriminated against?

Is that not a matter of politics?

Can the use of mass media, ultimately, brings in revenue which amounts in any way to profit, is that a business?

Yes, I think it is discrimination to deny any freedom of expression that does not incite riot or promote harm to others.

i don't think freedom works if amendments are made, it is not possible to verbally formulate to all situation, thus a regulative addition like "does not incite" ironically will incite deliberation in one form or another. i understand that you mean every one needs the freedom to express without it being intentional malicious, but the human perspective can sometimes be skewed and manipulated.

I agree, nothing is true of all situations. I just believe, in the case of religious expression , it is discriminatory for people to be able to discuss and display everything BUT their religious beliefs.

Voile;

How are you my friend.

Please Voile - do not insult the general intelligence of those on the site, and their opinion of what you have to offer by claiming that Hitler was a Christian because he was Baptised. And further more - I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that God was unaware of the decisions that Hitler made in his life (or was going to make after his baptism) and indwelt him with the Holy Spirit anyway?

Perhaps you are confusing the issue by equating Religious Fanaticism and Christainity, and defining them as mutually exclusive? If so - we have directly opposing definitions of Christainity. That would mean that Fanatics like Osama bin Laden, and Christopher Hitchens are Christains by this definition.

A casual perusual of the bible clearly demonstrates that by Hitlers actions - he was anything BUT a Christian. He was the poster boy for Darwinism if he was anything, and I know a great number of posters on this site who will be appalled at my calling them Christains because they believed in the Darwinian world view.

HI VOIL so nice to hear your voice again - be well.

Hello Eljay, and let me wish you and yours the happiest of Christmas holidays!!!

Insulting people's intelligence?!?!?! Me!?!?!? Now! Now! Now! Eljay! You should know better than to go there!!!

Let me use a simple example to demonstrate where the insult to intelligence, if such was made, lies.
Since we are in the heart of Christmas Holidays, with all the family gatherings that we will all be plunged into, let me use the family as the perfect metaphor to clarify this 'state of belonging' with which you appear to have a serious issue.

Here goes the metaphor:

Two young couples meet in the local park of a new suburb where they have both recently bought their first homes. Among other things, they women discover that they are both pregnant with their first child and are both planning to have more children in the future.

Time passes, life is good, and our two families are spotted at the park again, as they have been doing for years, along with backyard family barbecues, camping trips, and a variety of other activities neighborhood families share together.

Paying attention to the discussion, though, all is not as well as it might have first appeared.

Mother 'B', is telling couple 'A', the latest episode of their '2' child. At 17, '2' child is purging his second jail term for drug trafficking, car jacking, and 7-Eleven store hold-ups.

In his early years, '2' was an exemplary young child. Without warning, somewhere in early adolescence, '2' started showing signs of minor delinquency. Escalating into full blown crime, laced with aggressive, rebellious and abusive conduct towards all.

'... I just don't know what happened!!!...', Keeps repeating Mother 'B'.
'... It is like I don't know him. It is as though he is not our son!!! ...'

'2' no longer behaves according to the family's values and principles. '2' doesn't live up to what a 'good' family member should be.

You get it Eljay?!?!?! Regardless of whether or not you live up to the 'subjective' ideal that 'family values' impose, '2' IS STILL THE SECOND CHILD OF THAT FAMILY. He still carries the name, is he's still an integral part of the fabric of that family.

Be ashamed of him all you wish, talk of disowning him all day long, '2' is still the delinquent son of that family.

Like it or not, that's what this family MUST OWN UP TO!!!

Likewise, that is what you and your christian family MUST OWN UP TO!!!

Excommunication from a family, biological, christian or otherwise, based on one's 'bad behavior', is not only cowardly and hypocritical, it is totally contrary to the most basic christian values.

It is time for all of us to put down our Pharisee's 'good behavior' checklists, and not only take responsibility for, but fully embrace the black sheeps in our respective families. That is the first lesson Jesus, whom you claim to serve, taught us all!!!

Now, the insult to anyone intelligence would be to keep peddling the 'good little christian morality checklist', like Mao's 'redbook', to arbitrarily judge who's 'in' the club! That is the insult to christians' intelligence IMO Eljay!!!