Unwashed Village
General Discussion => Unwashed Village => Topic started by: Celest on August 08, 2007, 01:10:43 PM
-
For those who want to insist that the US was founded as a christian nation:
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
See, the funny thing is people out there say 'well, that doesnt show anything!' dispite the clear fact that it specificly states that the government was not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.
This post brought on by yet another set of idiotic ramblings by Pat B. :whip:
-
Well.. that was obviously written by communists then.. The word of the lord shall always rule the great nation of America. Against those crazy islamic fundamentalists and their fanatical religion.
-
And monogomous homosexuals. They're the real threat to divine sovereignty
According to Flanders.
-
What about bigamous homosexuals? They're fine? :dizzy:
-
No one respects their home life, they're no threat to the "protected family"
-
For those who want to insist that the US was founded as a christian nation:
Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
See, the funny thing is people out there say 'well, that doesnt show anything!' dispite the clear fact that it specificly states that the government was not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.
This post brought on by yet another set of idiotic ramblings by Pat B. :whip:
I don't know that I ever said the US was a christian nation. I know I said that it was founded by mostly christians which of course influenced the foundation of our government and the way it works.
-
I don't know that I ever said the US was a christian nation. I know I said that it was founded by mostly christians which of course influenced the foundation of our government and the way it works.
I thought they were Illuminati members. The secret society that nobody knows about.
-
I don't know that I ever said the US was a christian nation. I know I said that it was founded by mostly christians which of course influenced the foundation of our government and the way it works.
I thought they were Illuminati members. The secret society that nobody knows about.
And Nicolas Cage should know.
*nods*
-
Crap, they're onto us!
Abort!
O.o
-
While it is true that many of the founding fathers were strongly religious, they also spent 10+ years fighting against a government in which religion was a huge part of the way the government was ran. It's an insult to their intellegence to think that they would make the same mistake that they spent so much and gave so much to fight against.
Not to mention that if you follow alot of the statement and histories of many of the 'key members' of the Constitutional Congress, the vast majority supported secular governments outside of the direct influince of the rule of religion.
That is why if you look at the supream court house... Yes, Moses is up there.. but so are ~20 or so other people, both mythical and real, who all had contribution to human society in the form of establishing laws and evolving laws as a social institution.
Anyways, I wasnt so much saying anyone here has made that statement about the US being a 'christian nation'.. but addressing more that sentament as a whole, especially since people like Pat B love to proclaim the US as some divinely guarded nation under Christ.
-
since people like Pat B love to proclaim the US as some divinely guarded nation under Christ.
My own personal belief is that we once were exactly that. Now as the country has begun to detest and reject that which is right and good and openly embrace that which is evil the slow slide to destruction has begun. It started many years ago but it's fairly obvious to me when I see the rate at which the country is falling apart.
Again, just my personal theory here but I think there's a very good reason that no one can pin down any mention of our country in the book of Revelation. It's my theory that either it won't exist or certainly won't be a major world power by the time Christ returns.
-
Maybe nobody can pin down mention of America in the Book of Revelation because it was written 2000 years ago in opposition to the Roman Empire. It's not a coincidence that the numerical value of Nero Caesar's name is 666, dude. John thought Nero was the antichrist.
If you think the Book of Revelation is an accurate portrayal of the end of the way it's all going down at the end of the world, that's pretty hilarious, since the Vatican is now located squarely in the middle of Babylon.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence either within Revelation itself or the historical evidence tying the contents of Revelation to the events of that time period, then you can pretty much interpret it any way you want. Maybe Bush is one of the kings yet to come! Better yet, maybe Hilary is! Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn!
-
But no, I'm just kidding, you're right. Our country is only 230 years old but it's definitely slowly sliding into destruction now that we're cool with guys assfucking each other. Pretty soon we'll go the way of Sodom and Gomorrah, eh? God was down with it when Jefferson was fucking shit out of his slaves and having kids on them outside of marriage because ole TJ made sure to put the big man on our money, but dudes bangin' dudes? That shit can't stand!
Of course, back in ancient Rome people fucked children all day long and dudes killed other dudes for fun and profit, and Babylon's still standing. In fact, it's basically the center of Christianity. Makes you think, huh? Well, maybe it doesn't make you think, I guess.
Remember kids, everything in the Bible is true, word for word, so you shouldn't get married or have babies, 'cause according to Paul, Jesus was gonna come back before Paul died 1900 years ago, so there was no point! Of course Paul had to deal with the fact that JC hadn't hit the scene yet in his later letters, but even then he was pretty sure the end of days was right around the corner!
And also, not only were the Jews were being punished by God when the Romans destroyed their temple in 70 CE, but their punishment was only just beginning! So, Jews, you're on borrowed time. Just thought you should know. Paul said so. Well, actually it wasn't Paul because most biblical scholars agree that the various anti-Semitic passages in Paul's letters were added later by an anonymous editor
I MEAN STRICT BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION PAUL HATED JEWS
edit: Also, good news for unbaptized babies here!
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0702216.htm)
I'm actually not being sarcastic here. I think it's cool whenever the Vatican loosens up a bit.
"Our conclusion is that the many factors that we have considered ... give serious theological and liturgical grounds for hope that unbaptized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision," the document said.
"We emphasize that these are reasons for prayerful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowledge," it added.
Unfortunately, they're only giving a pass to infants, so if you get to be 4 or 5 and still haven't ever heard of Jesus because you lived in some African shithole then you die of malaria, it's off to limbo or hell with you! Well, until the next study comes out anyway. Still, I love it when the big boys in my religion open their mind a little bit and admit they don't have all the answers. Maybe their example will trickle down a bit!?!?
-
Well to be honest this whole limbo purgatory thing has been an issue with Catholics ever since vatican II. Some people don't agree with it, mainly because of this passage...
All men are called to be part of this catholic unity of the people of God which in promoting universal peace presages it. And there belong to or are related to it in various ways, the Catholic faithful, all who believe in Christ, and indeed the whole of mankind, for all men are called by the grace of God to salvation." Lumen Gentium
To break that down, before one of the board feminists starts accusing catholicism of using gender specific pronouns to keep the woman down, men here is meant in the Tolkien sense, so sorry this doesn't count for Dwarves, Elves, or Hobbits.
But basically, as of the passing of Vatican II (about fifty years ago now), Catholics are called to believe that all religions are fundamentally extensions of divine will, and that only divine will can interperet truth in that nature.
What does that mean? Basically that Catholics believe when Christ died on the cross for all man's sins, he died for ALL (every) MAN'S (human's) SINS (before or after baptism, real or imagined). Unbaptized babies therefore would go to "purgatory" which is not the same as "limbo." Limbo was a concept that was just kind of pushing an issue under a rug, trying to keep the church from looking heartless while upholding the rules so everyone could follow them. Purgatory is seen as a "cleansing" state that transfers anyone from their earthly incarnation to the divine aspect of their heavenly (soul) form, as "no unclean thing may enter heaven," there is a phase by which all unclean aspects of the soul are cleansed.
So : why bother arguing about the existence of limbo? Because of the fact Catholics belive that salvation is an aspect of faith plus works.
In other words if you are a mass murderer but a priest gives you your last rites before you get a lethal injection, you're absolved in the eyes of man. According to the bible every sin is written into the book of death, and an judgement day you are judged according to your works. But since that's in revelations we just say "alright you're cool with us, we're sending you to God now." So you may still go to hell for killing babies, recanting on your deathbed just means you, like all humans, either felt remorse or fear on your deathbed. Either way good for you.
The catholic church therefore has never officially pronounced that anyone has gone to heaven or hell. We're pretty sure Jesus made it, being Jesus and all. But other than that, it's God's job to decide. We just live the best we can on earth and hope it works out for the best once we're at the gates.
This has been some insight into the ancient arcane faith to which myself and millions of other creepy folks (mostly Irish, Italians, and Hispanics) adhere. Any questions can be addressed to me, or Mr. T.
:Mr-T:
On the original topic though, I don't think the US was ever divinely guided. I think we like to imagine we were, for if God be for us, who then could be for them. But I'm not sure Jesus would bomb Iraq, or drop the A-bomb on Japan for that matter.
-
Maybe nobody can pin down mention of America in the Book of Revelation because it was written 2000 years ago in opposition to the Roman Empire. It's not a coincidence that the numerical value of Nero Caesar's name is 666, dude. John thought Nero was the antichrist.
If you think the Book of Revelation is an accurate portrayal of the end of the way it's all going down at the end of the world, that's pretty hilarious, since the Vatican is now located squarely in the middle of Babylon.
Of course, if you refuse to acknowledge any of the evidence either within Revelation itself or the historical evidence tying the contents of Revelation to the events of that time period, then you can pretty much interpret it any way you want. Maybe Bush is one of the kings yet to come! Better yet, maybe Hilary is! Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn!
*sigh* I'll just reply to your two uninformed rants by saying that many people believe that whoever is Pope during the years leading up to the return will be a very evil man. So yes I do know where the Vatican sits and I'm not surprised by it at all.
And no, that isn't an attack on all Catholics or Catholicism.
-
And no, that isn't an attack on all Catholics or Catholicism.
I'd like to note here that I am never offended by anything said about Catholics or Catholicism. I'm sure my priest would argue I should be but for the most part I just laugh.
But if someone says something erroneous in earnesty I'll correct them. Or just make shit up to make it worse.
-
God was down with it when Jefferson was fucking shit out of his slaves and having kids on them outside of marriage because ole TJ made sure to put the big man on our money
Ahhhh, good old TJ. Loved to espouse George Mason and Locke and all those other freethinkers who believed that man should be free to choose his own destiny. However, even on his deathbead the fucker still didn't free his slaves. Don't get my girlfriend started on that. She'll rant for a really long time on that one.
If you think the Book of Revelation is an accurate portrayal of the end of the way it's all going down at the end of the world, that's pretty hilarious, since the Vatican is now located squarely in the middle of Babylon.
When I first read this, I was going to mention how Jack T. Chick (among others) seems to think that the antichrist will show up in the guise of the pope. And apparently Brug believes this idea to have some merit.
-
While it is true that many of the founding fathers were strongly religious,
Actually, I'm pretty sure that most weren't very religious. Very little mention of church / god / etc in any of their personal writings (not enough to make anyone think they were overly religious at all.) Of course, they lived at a time when religion was much more a fabric of day to day life, so they had that to contend with. The formality of much of the writing almost needs to mention divine this or god that.
But from what I can gather, I like to think most of them privately were very skeptical in regards to religion.
-
When I first read this, I was going to mention how Jack T. Chick (among others) seems to think that the antichrist will show up in the guise of the pope. And apparently Brug believes this idea to have some merit.
Nope. Not what I said at all actually.
-
Well, Im refering more to the context of the time(as you mentioned) in which poiusness was a very important part of the daily lives of the vast majority of people. Of course, this was also a time in which religion wasnt becoming more and more secularized, thus the devout didnt feel the need to go out and express their piousness in every way imaginable(different times, different contexts).
As for Revalations.. correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt the events depicted there been 'imminent' since Paul?
Also, on the topic of jews... Christians,(especially roman catholics), used the jew's role in the death of Jesus to persecute them for a millenia.. If not for a certain short mastached man, that wouldnt have changed either.
-
As for Revalations.. correct me if Im wrong, but hasnt the events depicted there been 'imminent' since Paul?
Also, on the topic of jews... Christians,(especially roman catholics), used the jew's role in the death of Jesus to persecute them for a millenia.. If not for a certain short mastached man, that wouldnt have changed either.
Yes Revelation was written in such a way that it can be applied to whatever time period one is currently in. Presumably this is so God can keep everyone in constant readiness for the return of Christ.
As far as the Jews go, yes they were wrongly persecuted in the past by various christian groups. How that pertains to our current discussion I have no idea. I suppose I could start randomly inserting references to the millions and millions of people killed in the name of atheism in various communist regimes into all our debates but I don't really see the point of doing either.
-
Also, on the topic of jews... Christians,(especially roman catholics), used the jew's role in the death of Jesus to persecute them for a millenia.. If not for a certain short mastached man, that wouldnt have changed either.
I think you mean "some Christians (and most notably a small group of Roman Catholics)." Catholicism teaches that Jesus suffered under Pontius Pilate (say it every week in mass), and that the Jews on the whole were not responsible for Christ's crucifixion, only a small sect of them who did it because he threatened their power. And you can bring up the whole Benedict XV and Pius XII being neutral during WWII, but that makes them no more anti-semitic than Switzerland. But Pius was devoutly anti-communist, and threatened to excommunicate any Catholic who supported communist political leaders (which is beyond the bounds of Papal decree as of Vatican II btw). I'll admit the dude had a screw loose, but if you're going to accuse him of anything accuse him of anti-communist ideals that would make McCarthy look like the president of the Lenin fan club.
Aside from that, Catholicism was the target of several hate organizations over the past millenia, including Hitler. Hitler HATED catholicism, and mainly because of how similar it was to Judaism in unity of faith (directly opposed to fascist ideals). If you follow the pope you can't be a complete German national zombie soldier.
Also, if we're talking about the faith of our founding fathers, any of the study I've done shows them all to be highly gnostic in nature, in that they were very spiritual in the transcendental way that men of their time were, but that their ties to religion were more for show than practice (except for Washington who was at least devout in everything we can find on his thoughts on religion so if nothing else he faked it really well).
-
Actually, Im not refering to the pope during WWII but those since ~1000 AD which used the roles that the jewish leadership played in Jesus's death as an excuse to stick it to the jews.. a policy that wasnt changed until after the concentration camps were found in WWII.. You know, the thing that caused a fundamental shift in christian doctern as a whole in the second half of the 20th century.
I was just commenting on the jews, though, since they were brought up earlier in the post.
Also, silly asertion on communism and Atheism. Communism didnt enforce Atheism. The only reason that religion was suppressed was to suppress congregations. It wasnt about religion(hell, Russian Orthodoxy has been one of the major religion throughout the former USSR countries for ages, long before and will be long after Communism). The whole point of this suppression was so that there couldnt be a 'rival power' to that of the state.. also to eleminate group gatherings so the people couldnt 'conspire against the state'. Even in the vaunted China, Religion isnt suppressed. Only congregations such as churches are due for the reasons I stated.
The biggest reason why it was presented as some grand Atheist state was due to McCarthism. It was yet another way to rile up the natives against the 'great evil of Communism' by saying they are godless heathens.
-
Actually, Im not refering to the pope during WWII but those since ~1000 AD which used the roles that the jewish leadership played in Jesus's death as an excuse to stick it to the jews.. a policy that wasnt changed until after the concentration camps were found in WWII.. You know, the thing that caused a fundamental shift in christian doctern as a whole in the second half of the 20th century.
I was just commenting on the jews, though, since they were brought up earlier in the post.
Also, silly asertion on communism and Atheism. Communism didnt enforce Atheism. The only reason that religion was suppressed was to suppress congregations. It wasnt about religion(hell, Russian Orthodoxy has been one of the major religion throughout the former USSR countries for ages, long before and will be long after Communism). The whole point of this suppression was so that there couldnt be a 'rival power' to that of the state.. also to eleminate group gatherings so the people couldnt 'conspire against the state'. Even in the vaunted China, Religion isnt suppressed. Only congregations such as churches are due for the reasons I stated.
The biggest reason why it was presented as some grand Atheist state was due to McCarthism. It was yet another way to rile up the natives against the 'great evil of Communism' by saying they are godless heathens.
Communism suppresses religion for the reasons you gave. They don't want the people to have an allegiance to anything greater than the state. It is forced atheism.
Oh and religion isn't suppressed in China? Heh, there are tons of people in China's prisons that would beg to differ with that statement. For instance, Christians in China have two choices. Either they can attend a state run church where what is taught is limited by what the state says is ok or they can attend illegal small home-based church groups and risk getting imprisoned if they are caught.
-
Fact of the matter is they can practice religion. Not to the extent they would like to but that is a far cry from forced atheism. Until China actively eleminates religion across the board, not just saying 'you have to worship in our church', then they arnt trying to force atheism on anyone. That doesnt make what they are doing right but then that doesnt make the idiotcy of claming that Communism is an atheistic entity hold any more water.
Actually, suppression is the wrong word to use in this instance. Suppression means to put a stop to something, to abolish it, to eleminate it, which isnt what is happening. It could be arguing semantics but I have yet to see anything from communist states that shows they are actively trying to eleminate religion as a whole as opposed to limiting their ability to challange the state as the 'ultimate' authority to the people.
Limiting it is a better word since even at the height of Stalin and Lenin, 1/3 of the USSR population openly admitted and practiced their religion(hell, the USSR even tried to establish a 'Zion' for Jews, which isnt an act of an atheistic state).
There is a big difference between a state saying 'Well, we will allow you to practice religion, but only if you do so in this way' and a state saying 'There is no god, if you worship a god you are breaking the law of the state'. Ultimately, the practice of limiting religion under communist states isnt done with any ideal of Atheism in mind. It's all about controling where the power is.
-
Fact of the matter is they can practice religion. Not to the extent they would like to but that is a far cry from forced atheism. Until China actively eleminates religion across the board, not just saying 'you have to worship in our church', then they arnt trying to force atheism on anyone. That doesnt make what they are doing right but then that doesnt make the idiotcy of claming that Communism is an atheistic entity hold any more water.
Actually, suppression is the wrong word to use in this instance. Suppression means to put a stop to something, to abolish it, to eleminate it, which isnt what is happening. It could be arguing semantics but I have yet to see anything from communist states that shows they are actively trying to eleminate religion as a whole as opposed to limiting their ability to challange the state as the 'ultimate' authority to the people.
Limiting it is a better word since even at the height of Stalin and Lenin, 1/3 of the USSR population openly admitted and practiced their religion(hell, the USSR even tried to establish a 'Zion' for Jews, which isnt an act of an atheistic state).
There is a big difference between a state saying 'Well, we will allow you to practice religion, but only if you do so in this way' and a state saying 'There is no god, if you worship a god you are breaking the law of the state'. Ultimately, the practice of limiting religion under communist states isnt done with any ideal of Atheism in mind. It's all about controling where the power is.
They can't practice true Christianity in China's state run churches because the core of the message is gutted. Like I said, Communist countries don't want the people to care about anything more than they care about the state.
Yes, the home-based churches are being suppressed in China.
BTW, I actually know someone who did some mission work in China. They had to go secretly and not let the Chinese government know what they were actually doing there.
-
Which, again, is different from the state saying 'there is no god'. Like I said, it's not right what they are doing but what they are doing isnt forcing atheism.
-
Which, again, is different from the state saying 'there is no god'. Like I said, it's not right what they are doing but what they are doing isnt forcing atheism.
Well no it's enforcing the atheistic beliefs of the leaders on the people.
-
Which is so clearly demostrated by the USSR's 'Zion', the fact that it isnt 'illegal' to have a religion and the fact that there has been no attempt to outright abolish religion in communist states, right?
Overal, Communism is Secular. Yes, there have been a good bit of Athiests in the higher echalons of Communist states, but as a whole, outside of wanting to limit the people's ability to gather in uncontrolled enviroments, they dont really give a damn about if someone is a christian, muslem, jew or any number of religions out there.
If communism was truely an 'atheistic' state who forced atheism... it wouldnt be illegal to go to a non state sponsered church(as there wouldnt even be a state sponsered church), it would be flat out illegal to simply beleive that there are deities.
-
Which is so clearly demostrated by the USSR's 'Zion', the fact that it isnt 'illegal' to have a religion and the fact that there has been no attempt to outright abolish religion in communist states, right?
Overal, Communism is Secular. Yes, there have been a good bit of Athiests in the higher echalons of Communist states, but as a whole, outside of wanting to limit the people's ability to gather in uncontrolled enviroments, they dont really give a damn about if someone is a christian, muslem, jew or any number of religions out there.
If communism was truely an 'atheistic' state who forced atheism... it wouldnt be illegal to go to a non state sponsered church(as there wouldnt even be a state sponsered church), it would be flat out illegal to simply beleive that there are deities.
If you are controlling what is taught in the churches so the people will continue to value the state even over their own faiths then you are not allowing any true freedom of religion or religious thought. So yes, the leaders of the communist states were suppressing religious freedom in order to keep control over the people.
It's like telling someone they are free to drive a car but that they have to use car owned by the government that has a tracking system and can only be used to go to certain acceptable locations.
-
Which is why what they are doing is wrong. Still doesnt make it atheistic.
-
Which is why what they are doing is wrong. Still doesnt make it atheistic.
Ah so let me get this straight. When a christian politician is trying to push for policies that agree with his/her beliefs then the left is free to cry "Oh nooes! Theocracy! They are trying to limit our rights based on their religion!!!" but when an atheist does the same thing in order to limit freedom of religion it has nothing to do with atheism?
-
If they were actually forcing Atheism, I'd agree with the sentament you are presenting.
Again, though, they arnt forcing Atheism. Forcing limits on religion != Atheism and if they were truely forcing Atheism onto their people, then the mere beleif in a god would be illegal. While under such a system, religion doesnt thrive.. that is a far cry from an active policy of abolishing religion.
Show where they are actively trying to abolish all religion then you can equate their policy to forcing atheism. Until you can actually demostrate a clear desire to eleminate religion(as opposed to just limiting it for the purpose of exerting state control), then you are just spouting McCarthism( you know, the source of the whole communist=atheist BS in the first place)
-
If they were actually forcing Atheism, I'd agree with the sentament you are presenting.
Again, though, they arnt forcing Atheism. Forcing limits on religion != Atheism and if they were truely forcing Atheism onto their people, then the mere beleif in a god would be illegal. While under such a system, religion doesnt thrive.. that is a far cry from an active policy of abolishing religion.
Show where they are actively trying to abolish all religion then you can equate their policy to forcing atheism. Until you can actually demostrate a clear desire to eleminate religion(as opposed to just limiting it for the purpose of exerting state control), then you are just spouting McCarthism( you know, the source of the whole communist=atheist BS in the first place)
There's no way to make the belief in God illegal unless you're a mind reader. They are doing the best they can to stamp it out in those countries without having the people revolt. They give them pseudo religious freedom as an illusion to keep them pacified.
-
And the fact of the matter is that religion isnt illegal. Limited, yes, illegal, no.
Again, it's wrong to have limited religion but how you jump from 'limited religion' to 'forced atheism' is beyond me and fairly paranoid.
-
And the fact of the matter is that religion isnt illegal. Limited, yes, illegal, no.
Again, it's wrong to have limited religion but how you jump from 'limited religion' to 'forced atheism' is beyond me and fairly paranoid.
I'm just making the same leap that the left does under the same circumstances when it's a christian conservative in power.
-
Except that the 'right' doesnt make any attempt to hide where they get their policies from. I mean, hell, come on.. faith baised initiative?
It's not a leap of faith when those who are implementing it actively acknowledge the source.
-
Except that the 'right' doesnt make any attempt to hide where they get their policies from. I mean, hell, come on.. faith baised initiative?
It's not a leap of faith when those who are implementing it actively acknowledge the source.
Ahhh so dishonesty is the trick?
-
More like actions(or in this case, lack of action).
Again, while communist states have limited religion, they have yet to even attempt the step of abolishing it.
Would you like to continue to go around in circles?
-
Would you like to continue to go around in circles?
Nah. I just consider it another double standard from your side of the fence and move on.
-
Didnt know I had a 'side of the fence'. *shrugs*
If you want to compare apples to tangerines, though, go right ahead.
*edits to add*
To clarify, the only thing that im really 'liberal' about are social issues. I fall more along the conservative side when it comes to fiscal considerations.
-
To add another comment.. Im not even sure where you are getting the 'double standard' from anyways.
Im not denying that what they are doing is 'bad' and 'wrong'. Im just attempting to correct your ficticious idea that this is somehow being done out of a desire to force Atheism onto the people when those states havent even taken the step to 'force atheism', just to limit the power of religion in comparison to their own power.. which isnt, in any way, an atheistic ideal.
-
Well, actually the original communist manifesto required a complete abolishment of religion:
"There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience."
However, most "implementations" of communism has very little to do with actual communism as originally intended. Whether communism is atheist depends on how you define communism: as the original ideas of the communist manifesto, or as country X's version of communism. They will differ vastly.
-
I'm lost as to which assertions were mine or others. To clarify, here are my takes:
1) Communism may or may not be inherently atheist. The original manifesto calls for an abolishment of religion but only as it exists as political entity. It does not call for the abolishment of spiritual philosophy but that such philosophy is of course the "opiate of the masses." My point was that people who call Pius a fascist are off-base as he was primarily anti-communist.
2) Celest: If your assertion is that Christianity as a whole engaged in anti-semitic behavior on an institutional basis you're also asserting that they were aware of this as differing from the societal norm of all religion, which was not the case. All big three monotheistic religions assert exclusivity, in other words "we're right and you're wrong." Catholicism of course has broken from this, now taking a complementary (as opposed to pluralistic) approach since Vatican II, which was in response to the growth of American catholicism versus traditional catholicism (party due to WWII, but only because of the baby boomers being a massive generation with a lot of influence). All religions change a great deal every year, let alone 2000 years. Saying that the trend is one way for 1900 years and then suddenly changes for the first time ever is a bit myopic. During the second crusade, St. Bernard of Clairvaux and other high ranking members of the Vatican spoke out against anti-semitic behavior, especially after the death of a large number of jews in Rhineland. The church's official stance was, as of the Vatican Edict of 1150 (734e Introspectamus) - "And thus in all the holy mother church may stand, righteously or not impaired, our brothers in God of Hebrew faith are one in communion of deed though not word, and must be protected by act and deed of all orders of our faith."
So in conclusion, just like with everything else in society, there are always members for and against bigotry. Ever since Mel Gibson put out the Passion, everyone is buying into this idea that Christianity is all about persecuting Judaism on an institutional basis, which is just assuming a lot, and a lot of which is contradicted by official documents of all the sects of Christianity you find. I can't speak to the practice of the individual, but the institution has always frowned on anti-Semitism.
3) I am seriously fiending for a pizza right now.
-
And yet I didnt make the assertion that Christianity as a whole was anti-semetic. I said a few denominations within the christian faith used the jews role in Jesus's death as an excuse to oppress them and made docternal policy based on that perception that lasted almost a mellinia.
Here is a nice summation of what im refering to, specificly about the Roman Catholic church and their ties to the Papacy:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/italytime.html
This wasnt just in Itally.. there are notable events, such as the blame of the jews for the Black Plague across europe.
*edits to add*
Just so you know, the three biggest groups who did this, two of which with strong ties to the Papicy, were the Roman Catholics, the Normans and the post conversion Saxons.
-
Here is a nice summation of what im refering to, specificly about the Roman Catholic church and their ties to the Papacy:
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/italytime.html
*edits to add*
Just so you know, the three biggest groups who did this, two of which with strong ties to the Papicy, were the Roman Catholics, the Normans and the post conversion Saxons.
Thanks for the link, it's a great read. But you have to admit, some of this is just full of insinuation and paranoia. For example..
1948 — The last edition of the papal "Index liborum prohibitorum" includes Jewish publications.
Well duh. It has books from every major religion, including Catholics. It's a very long list. I agree, it's close-minded and stupid. But in a general sense, everyone is equally tarred and feathered. I don't think there's any evidence that it's specifically anti-semitic.
1937 — Pope Pius XI issues and encyclical, "With Burning Anxiety," which reflects the race-conscious myths of ‘race’ and ‘blood’ as contrary to Christian truth, but does not mention, nor directly criticize anti-semitism.
If you read that encyclical, it's incredibly general and doesn't specifically mention any race, because as a political entity the church had to be as ambiguous as possible. Besides, the next year the following happened:
1938- Pope Pius XI declares in an address to pilgrims, "It is not possible for Christians to take part in anti-Semitism." This statement is omitted from all Italian newspaper accounts of the address
And that's the fault of the church, and not the Italians, specifically the fascist leadership that was supposedly "in league" with the Catholic church?
My point here is that your original statement was
Christians,(especially roman catholics), used the jew's role in the death of Jesus to persecute them for a millenia.. If not for a certain short mastached man, that wouldnt have changed either.
In your last post you said you didn't mean all Christianity, rather a few denominations. Okay, I see what you mean, especially given your examples. But you also said it was for "a millenia" (which btw I think singular it's millenium, so I'm not sure if you meant one or two thousand years), and didn't change until Hitler, but I've given evidence of multiple cases (within the last two millenia) of the church directly condemning anti-semitism or racism. That was my point about the difference between "institutional" and "personal" bigotry, in that the institution didn't openly allow any of it to happen.
It's like blaming your company if your boss sexually harrasses you. If the company does nothing about it, they're to blame. But if their policy is for it not to happen and they enforce it, the liability is on your boss, who was breaking the rules to do so. The issue in the catholic church is that since the reformation, they didn't have the authority to enforce policy except by excommunication, but that's a whole different topic altogether. The catholic church doesn't have an army any more (and rightly so).
I'm not denying anti-semitism in members of christianity. I'm also not denying that Mel Gibson is a total freaking whack job. But I'm saying there's a difference between a national acceptance of a policy and people independently practicing it. Nazi Germany had a policy of exterminating people based on their religion, and catholics were included in that group. A large portion of the Polish prisoners were Catholic. If some Nazis were nice guys who didn't practice these policies, they were against the norm. If a catholic practised it, however, they were in direct violation of the recognized rules of their oganization, which to me is the exact opposite of what we're seeing there.
-
Well, I didnt say that was a perfect link(nor is it the source of where my informantion is).. just that it did a decent summation of the doctern used against jews from christian sources and that it happened for quite a long time. The point of bringing up Christianity as an influince on this is that they use pretty much THE central event of the christian faith as justifications for their policy(the cruxifiction of Jesus). Also, ya, One is what I meant.. cant ever really remember how to spell that word properly.
My personal view on Hitler is that, while he wasnt 'mainstream christian' or even really beleived in the faith, that he saw that it was a tool that he could use to further his purpose... which is why he spent so long and so much effort finding the relics of the christian faith and trying to 'revise' christian history to support his ideal of one supream race above all others. So, while he might not have been a representative of the Christian Faith, he did try to use it as a tool to justify and unify the german people with his 'goals'.
-
Okay I see what you're saying. My only point was really that it's hypocritical the way a lot of people (and I'm not including you in this, some of your sources maybe but not you) use Christians as a scapegoat for using other peoples as a scapegoat.
Not only because it's generalized (as all scapegoat tactics are) but because of the fact that it's based on the assumption of a lot of basic tenets of faith that differ greatly in the however many denominations of each faith that there are.
When a religion is around for a couple thousand years people start revising the history to fit their agenda. I mean this happens with religions not even a hundred years old (read: Scientology) but the more lost the origin is the easier it is to claim "well Christians don't know this but Jesus was gay. Says so in this book I read, that a guy wrote... once."
-
Jesus was gay?
Dang...
-
Okay I see what you're saying. My only point was really that it's hypocritical the way a lot of people (and I'm not including you in this, some of your sources maybe but not you) use Christians as a scapegoat for using other peoples as a scapegoat.
Not only because it's generalized (as all scapegoat tactics are) but because of the fact that it's based on the assumption of a lot of basic tenets of faith that differ greatly in the however many denominations of each faith that there are.
When a religion is around for a couple thousand years people start revising the history to fit their agenda. I mean this happens with religions not even a hundred years old (read: Scientology) but the more lost the origin is the easier it is to claim "well Christians don't know this but Jesus was gay. Says so in this book I read, that a guy wrote... once."
Yes but then gays (at least the American version) always seem to want to claim everyone famous as one of their own.
"You know how I knew Tom Cruise had gone completely over the edge crazy? Because the gays don't want him anymore." - Kathy Griffin
-
My mom claims everyone of any notoriety is gay. Including
Jimi Hendrix
Jesus (yeah she actually said that)
The Entire Male Cast of Dallas
John Elway
In my opinion she mixed John Elway and Troy Aikman up. But the rest are just bunk.
-
John and Troy hooked up?
You learn lots of cool info in this forum.
-
Their adopted children would grow hooves.
Dallas and Denver can only produce evil when paired. Go to a Stars/Avs game and you'll see what I mean. I came home with enough teeth to make a necklace.
-
I don't know that I ever said the US was a christian nation. I know I said that it was founded by mostly christians which of course influenced the foundation of our government and the way it works.
I thought they were Illuminati members. The secret society that nobody knows about.
And Nicolas Cage should know.
*nods*
No. That's the Freemasons. Not that I know 'anything' about them... ;)
-
And Nicolas Cage should know.
*nods*
No. That's the Freemasons. Not that I know 'anything' about them... ;)
I'm sorry but if I say that Nicolas Cage is a Minion of the Illuminati, then Nicolas Cage IS a Minion of the Illuminati.
End of argument.
Your welcome.
-
I suspect certain cartoon characters of being gay.
Snagglepuss
Pink Panther
Velma from Scooby Doo
Marcie and Peppermint Patty (Whatever you say... sir.)
Maybe Bugs Bunny but I think he just did it for kicks.
-
I suspect certain cartoon characters of being gay.
Maybe Bugs Bunny but I think he just did it for kicks.
Yup.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/02/05/cartoon_characters/index.html
"I was in constant fear of being found out," says Popeye, sipping herbal tea.
-
And Nicolas Cage should know.
*nods*
No. That's the Freemasons. Not that I know 'anything' about them... ;)
I'm sorry but if I say that Nicolas Cage is a Minion of the Illuminati, then Nicolas Cage IS a Minion of the Illuminati.
End of argument.
Your welcome.
You walk in Darkness, my friend.
:)
-
Your welcome.
Yes.
My Welcome.
And don't you forget it!