Tambourine
Well-Known Member
Yes, the Holocaust, where the Nazis killed millions of people of Jewish faith, for being Jews.Was anything else happening at the time that may have been seen as more important?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yes, the Holocaust, where the Nazis killed millions of people of Jewish faith, for being Jews.Was anything else happening at the time that may have been seen as more important?
I have provided a review from a secular, peer reviewed journal that notes the work has merit.
Better yet, can you actually find fault with anything that was said,
Few scholars consider Hitler a lifelong Christian, so it's not exactly a radical work of revisionism.
Atheists like me try to judge things on their merits rather than based on prejudices and ignorance. As I have the advantage of actually having read the book, and read other books on the subject, I can make my own mind up.
You have wasted hundreds of words trying to explain why you can dismiss a source out of hand as it goes against your personal ideological biases.
If it is so self-evidently wrong, attack the content with your superior wisdom and intellect.
I guess the obvious sarcasm was not that obvious to you.
Which Post?
Oh Goody. You have now dropped all pretense at trying to justify Weikart's book. You now want to go down a different road entirely. Sorry, Charlie. It's not baseball.
Yes, the Holocaust, where the Nazis killed millions of people of Jewish faith, for being Jews.
The Nazis didn't actually have any means to determine people's "racial lineage". They rounded up people who were of Jewish faith, or had parents who were of Jewish faith.Was actually referring to WW2 as being the reason why controversial domestic reforms may have been on the back burner.
More accurately though, it was millions of people perceived to be of Jewish 'racial' lineage, as not all were of Jewish faith.
The Nazis didn't actually have any means to determine people's "racial lineage". They rounded up people who were of Jewish faith, or had parents who were of Jewish faith.
So the war clearly was no impediment to get rid of groups of people the Nazis didn't like, on a massive quasi-industrial scale. Had they actually wanted to purge Christians from German society, they would have had the necessary means at their disposal at any time 1933-1945. But they didn't.
Which Post?
It was in the same post with the other evidence you have made about 10 posts shrilly demanding.
I did suggest it might help you to make fewer errors, and commit fewer fallacies, if you started off by reading what was actually posted. You could learn something along the way too
But they didn't have those methods when they started rounding up people and sending them to the camps. And wouldn't have been able to apply them because, well, it was all subjective nonsense with no basis in reality in the first place.They did try to find methods of scientifically determining if someone was Jewish or not (of course they were unsuccessful in this).
The point is though it wasn't about their Jewish faith, it was about their perceived Jewish racial lineage. A 3rd generation Christian convert was still a 'Jew' because the classification was seen as biological, not specifically religious.
The point I have been trying to make (and which I apparently failed to convey properly) is that the Nazis never stopped purging people they saw as "undesirable" during the war. In fact, the war only served to redouble their efforts in this regard.Purging minorities is one thing, purging the vast majority of your society is something completely different.
Look at the Soviet Union who actively had been purging Christians from their society for decades, even they stopped doing this during the war. Even a totalitarian dictator doesn't have a completely free hand, you have to deal with the reality as it is.
If, for the sake of discussion, we assume they were indeed aiming to eradicate Christianity, do you seriously believe they would have tried to do this in a couple of years during the war? It would take a generation or 2 minimum while you wait for the older generation to die out, and whittle away at the existing establishment.
I've heard the argumemt many times that injustices occur often in the name of religion, but I've found it interesting that the same could also be said about Atheism. So what is true about Atheistic ideologies.
What about those who have died in the name of atheistic philosophies such as:
"marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, monopolistic capitalism, robber barronism, industrialization, secularism, jingoism, anarchism, social darwinism, eugenics, malthusianism, messianic scientism, nihilism, anti-humanist terrorism, individualism, narcissism, physicalism, materialism, consumerism, modernism, postmodernism, nietzscheism, Marquis de Sade's sadism, (i.e., sadistic murders) moral relativism, hedonism, radical feminism, (i.e., abortions, infanticide, suicide, false claims of rape) radical environmentalism, (i.e., ecological terrorism) Anton LaVey's satanism, (i.e., ritual murders) and the "Law of Attraction." (i.e., the deaths, including suicides, caused by Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne and other gurus") All of these atheistic philosophies have resulted in the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of human beings. In comparison, the deaths caused by religion seem almost quaint and insignificant."
...What do you say about the hundreds of millions of deaths from the above? Which come from the source below..?
Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”
You have a dull habit of saying it was there (someplace) but you are never able to actually show the post number. I wonder why?
It's better than a dull habit of pretending information doesn't exist as you lack the wit to respond to it with rational argumentation .
"Rational argumentation" coming from a self-proclaimed atheist who uses DI and it's writers as a source. That's tragically funny.
At least I can understand the rationale of a fundamentalist Christian looking to DI as a source. An alleged atheist looking at DI as a legitimate source is not rational.
I've heard the argumemt many times that injustices occur often in the name of religion, but I've found it interesting that the same could also be said about Atheism. So what is true about Atheistic ideologies.
What about those who have died in the name of atheistic philosophies such as:
"marxism, socialism, communism, maoism, Nazism, fascism, totalitarianism, libertarianism, monopolistic capitalism, robber barronism, industrialization, secularism, jingoism, anarchism, social darwinism, eugenics, malthusianism, messianic scientism, nihilism, anti-humanist terrorism, individualism, narcissism, physicalism, materialism, consumerism, modernism, postmodernism, nietzscheism, Marquis de Sade's sadism, (i.e., sadistic murders) moral relativism, hedonism, radical feminism, (i.e., abortions, infanticide, suicide, false claims of rape) radical environmentalism, (i.e., ecological terrorism) Anton LaVey's satanism, (i.e., ritual murders) and the "Law of Attraction." (i.e., the deaths, including suicides, caused by Peter Popoff, Sylvia Browne and other gurus") All of these atheistic philosophies have resulted in the deaths of countless hundreds of millions of human beings. In comparison, the deaths caused by religion seem almost quaint and insignificant."
...What do you say about the hundreds of millions of deaths from the above? Which come from the source below..?
Atheist Myth: “No One Has Ever Killed in the Name of Atheism”
But they didn't have those methods when they started rounding up people and sending them to the camps. And wouldn't have been able to apply them because, well, it was all subjective nonsense with no basis in reality in the first place.
Religion, however, could be objectively verified due to existing data on the population available to the government. And that's what they did.
The point I have been trying to make (and which I apparently failed to convey properly) is that the Nazis never stopped purging people they saw as "undesirable" during the war. In fact, the war only served to redouble their efforts in this regard.
The idea that the Nazis would refrain from their mass murders during a major war sounds logical on the surface, but it's not consistent with available facts. The Nazis did not refrain from conducting industrial scale murder even while they were fighting a total war.
How many 3rd generation Jewish people were actually targetted, compared to practicing Jews? (This is an honest question, I haven't been successful in finding any relevant sources on the subject.)Sorry, forgot to reply to this before.
But they weren't doing this to identify religious Jews, they were using it as a method to identify what they perceived as racial Jews. This is how a 3rd generation Christian could still be a 'Jew'. Jews were also linked to 'godless communism' which shows that they were not a group defined by religion but by 'blood'.
My argment isn't about the Khmer Rouge, it's about the Nazis, and I don't find this analogy particularly convincing in the first place. The two were so ideologically and materially distinct that I find it problematic to make them analogous in the first place, except perhaps in the broadest sense of both being totalitarian regimes based on ideology and rhetoric with nationalist elements.At times, the Khmer Rouge identified 'intellectuals' for punishment/execution based on them wearing glasses or having soft hands. They were still being persecuted for being intellectuals though, no matter how they were identified as being intellectuals.
Being of Jewish religion was a reason to be transported to a concentration camp. Anti-Jewish pogroms under the Nazi regime similarly targetted people of Jewish religion predominantly.Jewish people were persecuted for their perceived race, not adherence to the wrong religion as had been true with historic anti-Jewish pogroms.
All people of Jewish religion were considered part of the "Jewish race" by German race theorists. The two aren't separate to the degree you're argueing that they are. And in material practice, there were even fewer distinctions to be made, as the Nazis had no reliable means to identify people of "Jewish race" than by their religion, or their parentage (which was indirectly also based on religion, as people would be categorized as "Jewish" or "half Jewish" based on what religion their parents practiced).The term anti-semitism was specifically coined in response to the classification of Jews as a an inferior 'race' in comparison with 'Aryans' so people were clearly making the distinction back then.
They did, however, engage in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish religion instantly and during a war, thus refuting the claim that Christians specifically were a Nazi target.They didn't stop persecuting (certain) Christians either or reducing the influence of Christianity on society (see for example my earlier post about military chaplains). What they didn't do was to engage in a foolhardy attempt to eradicate the religion instantly and during a war.
While I agree with his claim that National Socialism was not a Christian movement, I find Piper's argument here unconvincing, especially in light of his reliance on Kroll, a self-proclaimed Christian Conservative with connections to German nationalist networks.In a review of Holy Reich (a text I quoted earlier) for the Journal of Contemporary History, Ernst Piper notes:
On no account, therefore, can one infer a positive relationship Christianity from Hitler's restraint vis-a-vis the Churches. Instead, he regarded the great Christian Churches as enemies which for the time being were too strong for him to risk a final confrontation with, since more than 95 per of Germans belonged to them. He did not mince his words in his Table talk:
'Once the war is over, that's the end of the Concordat', to secure long term
National Socialist domination it was necessary, as Frank-Lothar Kroll put it,
'to do away with all ideologies which opposed and resisted National
Socialism'," amongst which, judging by its substantial support, Christianity
was the most significant and therefore the most dangerous. There would be a
reckoning after the war...
the contention that National Socialism was a profoundly anti-Christian movement endured for so long not because it was convenient for researchers not to prove otherwise but because it is a fact
How many 3rd generation Jewish people were actually targetted, compared to practicing Jews? (This is an honest question, I haven't been successful in finding any relevant sources on the subject.)
My argment isn't about the Khmer Rouge, it's about the Nazis, and I don't find this analogy particularly convincing in the first place. The two were so ideologically and materially distinct that I find it problematic to make them analogous in the first place, except perhaps in the broadest sense of both being totalitarian regimes based on ideology and rhetoric with nationalist elements.
Being of Jewish religion was a reason to be transported to a concentration camp. Anti-Jewish pogroms under the Nazi regime similarly targetted people of Jewish religion predominantly.
All people of Jewish religion were considered part of the "Jewish race" by German race theorists. The two aren't separate to the degree you're argueing that they are. And in material practice, there were even fewer distinctions to be made, as the Nazis had no reliable means to identify people of "Jewish race" than by their religion, or their parentage (which was indirectly also based on religion, as people would be categorized as "Jewish" or "half Jewish" based on what religion their parents practiced).
In Austria (and IIRC a few other countries as well), this was even more pronounced, as birth records typically were not kept by state officials, and so the Nazis had to rely almost completely on records kept by religious institutions there.
They did, however, engage in an attempt to eradicate the Jewish religion instantly and during a war, thus refuting the claim that Christians specifically were a Nazi target.
I find Piper's argument here unconvincing, especially in light of his reliance on Kroll, a self-proclaimed Christian Conservative with connections to German nationalist networks.