<p>I was not in any way holding Hitler up as a model of Christianity. I tried to make clear in my post (although might have failed miserably), that he used religious language as a way of corralling the masses, as a way to unify them against an enemy, in this case, the hated Jews. I don’t believe for a second Hitler even held Christian beliefs (how could he, with his heinous acts?), but knew how to use religion to manipulate people, as fascists always do.</p>
<p>SJ, I don’t think words or insults justify violence either, and I think the threats against the Pope are horrifying.</p>
<p>The Pope must die! Anyone who insults Islam must get capital punishment immediately. Saying Islam is a religion that is spread by violence is an insult to Islam. </p>
<p>America must be converted to Islam. It angers Allah that American women fail to cover themselves when they show themselves in public. If American became Muslim, American women would not be able to backtalk their husbands and brothers. American men should be free to marry as many submissive wives as they wish.</p>
<p>The only thing the Pope should apologize for is overestimating the intelligence of the Muslims that are presently protesting. He assumed (wrongly of course) that his remarks might be read and digested before they were trumpeted as an affront to Islam. He assumed (wrongly of course) that Muslim leaders might read the remarks, interpret them and explain to the masses what the Pope was trying to do… start a dialogue about violence in Islam. </p>
<p>These religious and political leaders need to wake up and see that they have a big problem. There are approximately 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. There are 4.5 billion non Muslims… and they are not going to stand by idly and watch this violence destroy the planet. There is no other religion presently promoting it’s spread by violence. And yes you can talk about historical problems with Christianity (as noted on this board) but I don’t see any Christians presently blowing themselves up, hijacking planes, or rioting in the streets if someone says something they don’t like about their religion. </p>
<p>The Pope should have gotten a thoughtful response from Muslim leaders on how to deal with the spread of radical Islam and violence in the name of religion. Instead he got a death threat. Is anyone surprised?</p>
<p>The axis of idiocy with not a modicum of bigotry:</p>
<p>Friar Hitler:
</p>
<p>Christianity represents the intersection of religion and violence; in fact, in thousands of ways:
</p>
<p>Still, lets not forget the positive aspects of Christianity:
</p>
<p>In the end, Christianity–the teachings of Jesus–reach for the teleological truth in the ovens:
</p>
<p>Whats more, not only did Christianity beget Western Civilization and the Nazis, it reached well down into its dirty-bag-o-tricks to incarnate the Axis of Evil in American Democracy:
</p>
<p>Good thing that the religious hate du jour for the left is Christianity; I cannot image addressing any other faiths and getting away with this kind of vile bigotry, though there is still plenty of human history ahead of us to do it: this is a hatred of which there is no end nor limit.</p>
<p>Untwist your panties, FS. Fact is, fascists use religion all the time, in ways that often yield evil or violent results. They did in the past, and they continue to do so in the present. Because religion really is the Opiate of the Masses, it is very easy for any sort of charismatic leader to inflict terrible damage in the name of religion.</p>
<p>And yes, Christians have done it in the past, and continue to do so in the present. As have members of other religions. </p>
<p>Discussing these methods is not “vile bigotry”, despite your moral outrage.</p>
<p>Allmusic, can you point out exactly where Christians today are “inflict[ing] terrible damage in the name of religion?”</p>
<p>Just so you know, many of us don’t view religion as the “Opiate of the Masses.” (Karl Marx is not a friend of mine.)</p>
<p>I have friends who are Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, Christian Science, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and are members of the Self Realization Fellowship. I must admit that I don’t have any friends who are atheist. </p>
<p>So maybe atheists view religion as an opiate, but the people I know view it as a path toward enlightenment. I understand people of different faiths – I don’t understand people without any faith. So, it bothers me when people denigrate those who follow a belief system as being so naive or unsophisticated as to follow a particular religion. I know you didn’t use those exact words, but I don’t know how else to interpret such a derogatory remark.</p>
<p>Atheists, who denigrate religion (such as it being the “opiate of the masses”) must do so in extreme terms to totally discredit it, so that they may feel comfortable with their own very tenuous beliefs (for how can they “know” – just as those of faith cannot “know”) that when you are dead you are DEAD.</p>
<p>Hitler, by the way, was raised Catholic but turned on virtually all religions, except perhaps Lutheranism, since they demanded allegiance to something other than Germany – or the state. Lutheranism was tolerated by him only insofar as it was subservient to the state.</p>
<p>mini, it wasn’t the Christian teachings that led to the ovens, it was the rejection of Christian teaching that led to the ovens. Hitler rebelled against the constraints of the Catholic Church. The jews may have been the largest individual group killed, but other groups jointly outnumbered them. Hitler killed inteligentsia, the infirm, handicapped, gypsies, ministers and priests and nuns, etc. My great-uncle was killed for being a priest! And what is so wrong about comparing what is happening today with what happened yesterday, or 1000 years ago? Isn’t that how we learn and analyze situations? And he did apologize, which I wish he hadn’t. John Paul II apologized to the muslims for the Crusades, there was no equal response. (Is it possible because they still feel their ancestors were entitled to do what they did?) Both sides did horrific things in the name of religion, but why is it not OK for Christians, but OK for muslims? They don’t have to apologize, because the world is so worried about hurting their sensibilities. This is the same attitude that allowed Hitler to take power - don’t upset them, and they will see we are OK, and leave us alone. Live and let live is where they will be after we set the example. That didn’t happen, did it? He just became more powerful. BTW, more power to our US muslims who generally have ignored this whole situation.</p>
<p>Quoting Marx isn’t usually the way to make friends and influence people. Sorry about that…I’m not communist lover myself, nor do I follow religious edicts blindly, even those of my own religion. It is my duty to question and read and learn, not just accept, as too many people do. </p>
<p>It’s true that people might be on the path to enlightenment, but then again, the suicide bombers think they are meeting a whole lot of virgin on their path…so the view of an individual path is not universal. </p>
<p>Unfortunately, history proves that people will support and justify evil actions based on religious doctine, or support from those they believe have religious justification.</p>
<p>Bush claimed G-d told him to invade Iraq, and millions of Christians nationwide were told in their churches to support and pray for Bush. I’d say this was clearly an example of Christians inflicting terrible damage. Where were the Christians standing up against their ministers, who were telling their constituents to pray for (and vote for) Bush? The damage caused by Bush’s claim will be our collective punishment for decades.</p>
<p>“Both sides did horrific things in the name of religion, but why is it not OK for Christians, but OK for muslims?”</p>
<p>It’s not “okay” for either, which is exactly what made the Pope’s choice of quotations so untoward. He could easily have started with a dissertation on Jesus’ words on “bringing a sword” rather than peace into the world, and how Christians (including millions of followers of “positive Christianity” - which is precisely how the Catholic Church in Germany described National Socialism, and for which Benedict fought) had chosen that to mean the killing of infidels for some 1,700 years. Benedict claims to be the spokesman for more than a billion Catholics (I say “claims” because most of the Catholics I know in the U.S. reject him as a spokesman), and Islam is hardly his “field of expertise”. </p>
<p>And he could have them take down the cross at Auschwitz.</p>
<p>“Just quoting you and your gang, my dear. I thought you’d be flattered.”</p>
<p>I AM flattered - you made my point for me - how words have power. If my little words can have such impact on such a nice, tolerant adolescent, you can begin to imagine the impact of Benedict’s words on others.</p>
Bush didn’t invade Iraq in order to convert all Muslims to Christianity, so I don’t think the parallel applies. As I remember, Congress (Democrats and Republicans alike) voted to go into Iraq for political/national security reasons.</p>
<p>mini, people can call themselves whatever they like, but the Catholic Church is not a democracy. It has a specific set of beliefs, and if people don’t want to follow those, they are free to join another church. At least you called him, “Benedict” so I feel we are making progress. ;)</p>
<p>Once again, is the cross at the Center for Dialogue and Prayer? If so, it was built in concert with Jewish leaders and funded by a lay organization (not part of the hierarchy). If that’s the case, then I don’t think the Pope can order it’s removal, although I think it’s insensitive.</p>
<p>mini, you like to quote the Bible. Luke 6:27-36 reflects my understanding of what it means to be a Christian.
<p>a) God did not “tell” GWB to invade Iraq: GWB prayed for guidance, as he does with everything. Those are two entirely different things.
b) Some people are buying into all this “the evangelical fundamentalist Christians are taking over the U.S.” (see comments on the Jesus Camp thread) propaganda, which is resulting in intelligent, caring people like AM truly believing that they are our greatest threat–not radical Muslim.
c) All of the Catholics I know do accept the Pope as their spokesman; that’s another piece of propaganda we’re constantly fed in order to tear down the Church (see TheDad, for example)–that most Catholics are just chomping at the bit to liberalize the church (female priests, no more celibacy, etc.) is not true at all (so sadly for some, though).
d) So let’s blame all of our problems on the Pope now, along with the evangelicals and GWB. That’ll pretty much complete a total “reaction formation”-as the WSJ described it yesterday.</p>
<p>Bush claimed God told him to invade Iraq? Riiight! Oh, you mean the claim by a Palestinian that he said this? Could you come up with a more credible source before you buy into this and then repeat it as a “fact”? I know that you desperately want to believe this, but this should be a tip off to you that perhaps it is not true and you should look at this with a bit more of a critical eye.</p>
<p>Christian told to pray for Bush? Probably … but they are routinely asked to pray for whomever is President - even Clinton. So what’s the big deal.</p>
<p>Ministers telling their constituents to vote for Bush? Not likely since this would jeopardize their tax exempt status. Certainly there were many ministers that supported Bush, but there are also many that supported Kerry/Gore.</p>
<p>HH, I think radical Islam is hugely dangerous, possibly disasterously so. My concern about what is happening with fundamentalism in this country is a separate issue, and no, I don’t think the threat is in any way comparable.</p>
<p>FF, LOL! Really! Churches wouldn’t jeopordize their tax exempt status? Telling voters to support Bush was RAMPANT, and well known!</p>
<p>"When Vance of the state Republican Party went looking for someone to rally the evangelical community last spring, he heard about Fuiten. “You know, there’s a guy already doing this,” other pastors told him. Both Vance and the Bush campaign asked Fuiten to broaden his efforts on their behalf.</p>
<p>When Fuiten agreed, the Bush campaign sent him a strategic plan. “It was just a dumb policy,” he says. It called for asking churches to supply their lists of members—raising obvious privacy issues—and overtly stumping for Bush among these folks. Fuiten thought he had a better way of doing things. “Just register them to vote,” he says he told the Bush campaign in a plan of his own that he forwarded to the national organization. “You don’t have to tell them how to vote. They’re going to vote overwhelmingly one way anyway.”</p>