The Antichristian Phenomenon
Monotheism, the crutch of Fascism
Posted by: Db0 in Religion, SocioPolitical, tags: Fascism, Free-Thought, monotheismI’ve always found [tag]fascism[/tag] to be something inherently flawed. It comes out from the idea that ones own race, nation or whatever other group you might think of, is somehow superior to everything else. The whole point of it was that the “fascio” (which is Italian for union) is stronger than than the single unit. So by coordinating together, the members of a specific group became stronger than the divided people around them. Unfortunately, as is doomed to happen with such endeavors, when these groups manage to come to power, their members get corrupted. Not only that but all examples of ideals that fascist leagues have stood for, have been ones that reasonable people have found flawed. Nationalism especially takes the cake for being so completely unfounded on any other idea than the supposed superiority of ones nation.
Now, if the ideals behind Fascism are flawed, how did it manage to come into power? Where was the resistance from the outraged people?
Certainly there were powers that wanted Fascism to come into power. Powers that wanted a strong opposer to the newly fledged Communist block and these are the ones that orchestrated the situations that allowed the breeding ground for these systems to exist. However, Mussolini and Hitler did not come into power through a military coup, as in a normal Junta. Rather they got the people behind them; Mussolini his fascist groups that threatened civil war unless the government caved in and Hitler got elected normally.
It is absolutely amazing to me that a majority free and critical thinkers would allow monsters such as these to take over… And this is exactly what did not happen. These free thinkers were too few.
Fascism and Nazism managed to come into power because their citizens were already conditioned to accept a higher ruler. Someone who would gladly make all the hard decisions for them. Someone who would look after them and take them into the promise land, if they only followed his unquestionable orders. All they had to do is support their ruler. Work lawfully, don’t question the rules, support what is needed and you will live better than you ever had. You are the chosen ones after all.
What? You think that killing all the Jews is bad? But they are the money-changers of the world. If we take them out our national debt is gone. You’ll live better.
What? You think we should not be killing gypsies either? Didn’t I know what I was doing with the Jews? Didn’t you start living wonderfully after I came into power and gave my love unto you? Why do you challenge me? Well, if you insist on asking; they are dirty, filthy and a pox upon out proud race and nation. They must be eradicated before we are tainted by their obscene morals
Now you ask me about the homosexuals and the disabled? I’m starting to think that maybe you do not like the promise land after all. If you are so determined to support the ones that are inherently evil, off to the camps with you, to join them. Off to Hell!
If my deliberate examples remind you of another such totalitarian entity that rules his subjects with an iron fist, you would have gotten the point I am trying to make, not especially discreetly. If not, then let me make it clear:
The only other entity in the history of mankind that ruled with such absolute power has been the Abrahamic God. The same God of Endless Love who’s history is one of Endless Hate. Just think of the examples we have from the bible about this god.
- An angel dares to challenge him with the free will he was given and is cast down to hell for all eternity. Of course this is a children’s story but the message is clear. Do not challenge the will of the God.
- The first couple ignore his will and eat from the tree of knowledge. As a result they are cast down to living hell for not following his absolute orders. Do not seek knowledge when it is not needed.
- A town is not following the morals of the all-knowing god and it struck down, all the inhabitants killed. Do not challenge the living will of the god coming through the Prophet’s mouth.
- The world does not follow the morals set to it? Then it is to be destroyed. Do not ignore the god’s will and do not let anyone else ignore it, else everyone will perish.
The examples are truly endless but they basically amount to one thing. Subjugation to the will of the god that comes through the mouth of his chosen representatives. Knowledge is something to avoid. Stay humble so that you can inherit the earth. Do not, under any circumstances, challenge anything you are told.
If people are already taught to think like that from childhood, is it any wonder that they gladly followed these human made totalitarian systems without resistance? Does it surprise anyone that Italy and Germany had (and still have) some of the most Catholic-pious people? Is it strange that enlightened England and rebellious US (what with their majority of Protestants) along with the ever reactive little Greece, never thought of joining the Axis? Japan gladly did however. After all their leader was a living God right? Right.
This is the result of being brainwashed by a religion that needs you to be “meek” – that is, dumb and obedient – so that you might inherit the world. It is no coincidence that in the places where totalitarian regimes are still active, the people are ignorant and commonly very religious, for there is no better way to keep them obedient than to have them agonize to get into heaven. If that isn’t enough just throw some sports in the mix.
So now you understand why all fascist regimes had religion as one of their core values (along with nation and family). Why reinvent the wheel when you can just let religion train people for you. No extra propaganda costs needed. Add to that the fact that religious people seem to accept the worst dregs of humanity, as long as they claim that the same deity exists, and this becomes a killer combo.
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith.. we need believing people.”
—Adolph Hitler’s speech,
April 26, 1933
Of course they need “believing people”. How else is the oligarchy going to stand on their backs, unless they are conditioned to “believe” without questioning?
People like to think that you change as you grow up, but habits like this will always mar your perception subconsiously. Like any normal muscle, if Critical Thinking is not nurtured from a young age then it will atrophy and die, without a hope of recovery, damning the subject to a life of unhappy obedience as he flutters from false hope to false hope while “believing” each of them in turn will better his life. If one of those hopes happens to be an extreme right political party, well…you know how it goes…
Then you see the blatant betrayal from organized religion, that glady supported a regime that was going to lead people back to their loving grace. It is no secret that the Catholic church backed Mussolini, even to the point of making children’s songs about him. Why would they do that? But of course because, like many dictators who wanted to concentrate power in their hands, he forced people to be christians. This has been repeated time after time after fucking time in the last two millenia that it’s not even surprising anymore. The Romans enforced it (Genociding the rebelious ethnic Greeks in the process), the medieval feudal lords & kings enforced it, the conquering Ottomans enforced it (who actually did not care if you were Muslim or Christian as long as you believed) while the Clergy pissed themselves from joy.
Like the fictional One Ring that gave the heroes amazing power and failed them as soon as their end was approaching, so does the Church, in its mind-boggling hypocrisy, look to distance itself from the failing powers. As soon as defeat was inenvitable the priests became the greatest (spiritual) “rebels” and sought to take credit for themselves for all the “spiritual support” they granted in times of trouble.
This all goes back to the roots of this whole farce; when the Jews were ruled by their absolute theocracy. As a result of this, their nation became one of the most worthless in the ancient world, fast left behind by everyone else. With only their religious texts as wisdom and not a drop of “evil” philosophy, their people were absolutely obedient to the clergy and absolutely hopeless as far as culture was concerned. It’s no wonder that the Romans thought they were they most pathetic race they conquered.
It was only when the Roman Kings were convinced by Paul/Saul of the power this religion granted that the whole religion was revived in it’s second incarnation – Christianity, forced down the throats of everyone in the empire andsubsequently plunged the whole western world this time, into the same dark age that plagued the people of Israel so many aeons before.
Nowadays, we just see history repeat itself. As all the Muslim nations descend into Theocracy, so does their social structure become more and more friendly/similar to fascism. Their rulers lead with one hand on the gun and the other in the Quran, passing morality laws to “protect” their people. Of course, the only real goal is to stop people from seeing what other options there are. “God forbid” that someone might discover Free Thought and start to challenge.
And there is where all of us must strike.
The Iraq war has displayed just how much military might fails us when the people are conditioned in a specific way.
Take one leader out and – like the mythical Hydra – 2 more will sprout to take his place. Not only that, but take the invading army away (or just wait too long) and each head you’ve released will start feeding on its own flesh, the innocent civilians, in order to gain the upper hand. Same as in mythology, the Beast can only be defeated by fire, or in our case, the flames of wisdom.
Teach the people to think for themselves and then they will not blindly throw their lives away for silly causes like religion or nation. However, since we cannot do that while Abrahamic religions assault them from every turn, be it school, family or friends, teaching ignorance as a virtue, so then must we strike at the root of the problem and rip out the rotten ideas that threaten to plunge the world into the same gloom of the previous millenia.
Postscript
On my daily surfing of the atheosphere I’ve been discovering various nuggets of thought that reinforce my own as presented in this article. I will post them here as I find them for your perusal.
- On human sinfullness @ The Uncredible Hallq (Found on 03/09/07)
- Religion is Totalitarianism @ Debunking Christianity (Found on 19/10/07)
Loading ...
July 8th, 2007 at 5:10 am - Edit
[...] Everyone should join it. Then again, that could lead to fascism. And The Antichristian Phenomenon wouldn’t like that. After discussing Hitler and Mussolini, we read this: The only other entity in the history of [...]
July 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm - Edit
“Does it surprise anyone that Italy and Germany had (and still have) some of the most Catholic-pious people? Is it strange that enlightened England and rebellious US (what with their majority of Protestants) along with the ever reactive little Greece, never thought of joining the Axis?”
Except Hitler recieved the lowest amount of votes in the majority Catholic voting districts, and most German Catholics lived outside the Reich. If you are going to blame Nazism in part on religion you might start by re-examining Luther. Also, to take just one example, your assertion the spread of Chrisitianity “plunged” the West into a dark age is laughably ignorant.
July 9th, 2007 at 9:52 pm - Edit
I’d love to. Tell me where to start. If you mean however that Lutheranism goes against the idea of ignorance then you might need to re-examine it.
Oh really? Under what pretense where the ethnic Greeks genocided then? Atheism perhaps? What were the Roman emperors that shut down all the philosophical schools whose mere existence threatened their rule? I guess that it is just a random coincidence that Europe descended into the Dark Ages just as Christianity spread eh? Certainly if religion had nothing to do with it, there must be some other major effect happening at the same time wouldn’t you think? After all the Romans has inherited quite a wealth of knowledge from the Greeks while the philosophies of Medicine, Physics and Mathematics were blooming when Christianity came about. Surely they would have advanced more in the 1300 years that followed until the Renaissance. But you will find that scholars from the Renaissance based their science on ideas before Christianity.
I could go on and on but I will not until you present some antilogue which I am assuming you won’t.
July 9th, 2007 at 11:27 pm - Edit
“a random coincidence that Europe descended into the Dark Ages just as Christianity spread”
Coincided? The period historians refer to as the “Dark Ages” didn’t begin until well after Christianity was widespread. Justinian didn’t shut down the Neoplatonic academy in Athens until 529, well after the so-called Dark Ages were well under way. And if you think the stifling of neoplatonic philosophy was a blow against rationalism then you’ve never read any of it.
“Certainly if religion had nothing to do with it, there must be some other major effect happening at the same time wouldn’t you think?”
Exactly. There were a lot of things going on, over an extended period of time. Any standard introductory history text can fill you in on the details.
“Surely they would have advanced more in the 1300 years that followed until the Renaissance.”
There was considerable advancement (again, you should avail yourself of a history text). The Renaissance (if it even existed) did not suddenly spring forth in full bloom. The advancement of science, medicine and mathematics in the Middle Ages were hindered most by wars, political instability and the Black Death.
“you will find that scholars from the Renaissance based their science on ideas before Christianity.”
No, they built on the work of scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages (who themselves had already built upon the Classical tradition), men such as Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, and William of Ockham (who all belonged to Franciscan orders), Nicole Oresme (a bishop), Robert Grosseteste (a bishop), and Thomas Bradwardine (who was briefly Archbishop of Canterbury).
July 10th, 2007 at 12:30 am - Edit
Did I mention the neoplatonic theory? If anything else I do not even “like” the Stoicism (and derivants) school of thought. But at least neo-platonic thought and stoicism did promote knowledge.
You also seem to forget Constantine that in 324 declared Christianity as the official religion and later on Theodosius who’s rule started in 379 and incidentally started enforcing Christianity as the official religion of the empire. Nevermind the multiple Library burnings, Scholar persecutions, Philosopher massacres etc, Clearly the Dark Ages had their basis in their Ethnocide of the ancient Greeks and persecution of scholars. Once the only source of free thought was extringuished it is easy to see how the world ended as it did.
Please be a but more condescending. I don’t think I’m getting enough.
Why don’t you mention some of those things that were happening that in your impression led to the dark ages…Just as a comparison.
Certainly the wars (started on religious grounds), Political instability (Schism maybe?) and Black Death (Where was the medicine? Oh yeah I remember now…demon cats…). No of course the advancement of science, medicine and mathematics was not hindered at all by the wide-spread assault on critical thought and free thinking and the promotion of “meekness” as a virtue. Certainly! just ask Galileo… (who I will remind you, was born well after the Dark Ages and during the height of the “non-existent” (oh man…) Renaissance. Certainly during the friggin’ Dark Ages, science must have been much more free…
Now please excuse me for the excessive use of sarcasm, but when you mention “Monks” as the founding thinkers where later scientists based their ideas you just show how ignorant you are. Please do yourself a favour and read on Descartes, Galileo, Newton and of course Copernicus.
Don’t forget to check the amazing effect the Church had on medicine as well. Of Particular interest is the church sanctioned witch hunt against all “competitors” to exorcists…
July 10th, 2007 at 5:52 am - Edit
“Did I mention the neoplatonic theory?”
I made the reasonable assumption you were referring to Justinian.
“Clearly the Dark Ages had their basis in their Ethnocide of the ancient Greeks”
By the time the Dark Ages took place Greeks weren’t ancient. What specific “ethnocide” are you referring to?
“Why don’t you mention some of those things that were happening that in your impression led to the dark ages”
Like the series of wars, internal politcal strife, and waves of human migrations? Again, why don’t you read an introductory history book?
“Certainly the wars (started on religious grounds)”
No, for the most part in the time we are talking about, the big ones weren’t, instead being traditional wars of territory. The age of religious war in Europe arrived after the Renaissance.
“Please do yourself a favour and read on Descartes, Galileo, Newton and of course Copernicus.”
You might want to look up the names I mentioned above. For example, Robert Grosseteste is considered by historians of science as the founder of the English intellectual tradition, and made major contributions to the development of the scientific method. He did pioneering work in optics, which was further advanced by his student Bacon.
Some of Oresme’s work in math prefigured Descartes much later work in analytic geometry. 100+ years before Copernicus Oresme demonstrated in his Traité du ciel et du monde that if the Earth was rotating and we were all rotating with it, an arrow shot in the air would land back on the spot it was launched rather than behind, as the arrow would carry the Earth’s rotational movement. It’s not known if Copernicus knew of Oresme’s work, or came to similar conclustions independently. Oresme wrote a proof of the Merton, or mean speed rule, which was discovered by Bradwardine and the other so-called Oxford calculators. This proof is similar to Galelio’s proof of his first thereom.
The Church had adopted Aristotlean cosmology, so you can’t blame the hostility to Galelio and Copernicus on the Dark Ages.
“when you mention “Monks” as the founding thinkers where later scientists based their ideas you just show how ignorant you are”
Besides a general history text, you would be well served in adding an introductory history of science text to your reading list as well.
“Don’t forget to check the amazing effect the Church had on medicine as well”
Knowledge of classical medicine persisted into the Middle Ages, and the theory of “humours”, which was central to Medieval medical practice, was derived from classical sources.
July 10th, 2007 at 11:16 am - Edit
OK, I’ve had enough of your condescending tone, implying that I’ve never read even a basic history or science book. You seem to have lost the main point of the article and you also seem to be a master at ignoring the parts of my responses that you don’t have a reply to, instead trying to lead this discussion into a path that I have no interest (or time) in arguing at this point.
Perhaps someone with more time to indulge you will pick this up.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:17 pm - Edit
My initial post adressed one of the key points in your main article, then you began shifting the subject. It’s difficult to respond to your many points when you make odd claims (like the Greek “ethnocide”) and have such little grasp of basic facts.
July 10th, 2007 at 8:47 pm - Edit
An initial point? You mean when you mentioned that the Catholic districts did not vote as much for Hitler? That does not take away the fact that Germany and Italy were and still are some of the most catholic places in Europe (Barring Poland). Nor does it take away the fact that Hitler and Mussolini where Christian and promoted christianity.
On the other hand when I said that you missed the point I meant that what your mentioned is “minor” compared to the whole article. You did not argue the fact that Christianity promotes obedience nor the fact that obedience breeds fascism.
And how did I shift the subject by replying to your points?
July 10th, 2007 at 9:13 pm - Edit
“You mean when you mentioned that the Catholic districts did not vote as much for Hitler?”
The fact that Hitler recived so little support from Catholics completely undermines your claim that religous belief, Catholicism in particular, predisposes a population to fascism.
” That does not take away the fact that Germany and Italy were and still are some of the most catholic places in Europe (Barring Poland).”
So what?
“Nor does it take away the fact that Hitler and Mussolini where Christian and promoted christianity.”
I disagree (the Nazi’s were hostile to Chrisitanity, perciving Christianity (like you do) as for the “meak” and weak. Mussolini was never a practicing Catholic.), but that aside, how even if true is it relevant? The countries they invaded were Christian countries. Churchill and FDR were Christians. If facism were a product of Christianity why were Germany and Italy allied with muslims and shintoists against other Christians?
“you missed the point I meant that what your mentioned is “minor” compared to the whole article.”
If you’re innacuracies are so minor, why do you refuse to acknowledge them?
You actually hit upon the real source of facism, when you stated, correctly, that “Hitler got elected normally”. The problem isn’t Christianity, it’s democracy.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:38 am - Edit
You still miss the point of the article. You seem to think that I said Fascism was a religious system when it was not. It was a totalitarian system that was made easy to come to power because of religion. The fact that the leaders where not devout christians does not make any difference. They only used the results of the christian doctrine to gain power. The world war was not a religious war and I never said that, so stop fighting your straw men to make a point.
And when I mention minor points, I do not say that they innacurate, just that I cannot spend the time to eloquently back them up just because you want to press the issue.
About democracy…no, I won’t even comment on that…
July 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm - Edit
“They only used the results of the christian doctrine to gain power”
Which is inconsistent with the fact Catholics in Germany didn’t support Hitler. It wasn’t religion which produced Hitler, it was democracy.
“The world war was not a religious war and I never said that, so stop fighting your straw men to make a point.”
My point was not a straw man. You claim fascism derives from religious belief, but the anti-fascist countries in WWII were as religious as the fascist ones. If not more – you might want to look up the Weimar Era.
“I cannot spend the time to eloquently back them up”
Elequently backing them up isn’t necessary. A date for the “ethonicde” of the Greeks by the Romans would suffice.
July 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pm - Edit
“Which is inconsistent with the fact Catholics in Germany didn’t support Hitler. It wasn’t religion which produced Hitler, it was democracy.”
So democracy was the reason that Hitler’s rule depended fully on the SA and SS? The Reichstag Fire also was most definitely very democratic. The Enabling Act was definitely a very pro-democratic law as well.
And yes, you completely missed the point of the article.
Centuries of Monotheistic Abrahamic Rule breeds a populace to be obedient to leaders, consciously or subconsciously. Fascism requires people to be obedient for it to function. In the end, whether those leaders are religious themselves or not, they feed on the mentality that was bred by monotheism.
July 11th, 2007 at 11:07 pm - Edit
“you completely missed the point of the article”
Since it’s premised on innacuracies and ignorance, it’s impossible to take the “point” seriously.
“Centuries of Monotheistic Abrahamic Rule breeds a populace to be obedient to leaders, consciously or subconsciously”
The Chinese are obedient to leaders – more so, certainly, than Europeans and Americans. Funny, no centuries of “Centuries of Monotheistic Abrahamic Rule” there. And facism didn’t happen in other Christian countries. And unlike their pagan counterparts, early Christians often refused to obey the Roman authorities. But really, if you have any basis for that statement, please provide it.
July 12th, 2007 at 6:27 am - Edit
No it’s not.
You have an unremarkable talent to being able to only see what suits you. If anything else, the Chinese are even more conditioned by birth and as a result they are now stuck with a Totalitarian system as well. It is not about Christianity itself. Christianity does not automatically lead to Fascism and that is why “It did not occur in other Christian countries”.
It is quite tiresome that you still fail to understand what this article is about, even after such a longwinded discussion and you continue to claim that it’s inaccurate because I do not care to argue every minor point with you.
How exactly did you go from the “Majority of Catholic voting districts” to “Catholics in Germany”? and while we’re here would you care to present your sources on that fact?
If nothing else, the Lutherans of the lowest classes gladly supported Hitler’s party which still makes my point.
No, I am not claiming that.
Excellent! 324, 335, 390, 346, 354, 364, 380-…oh hell just consider the whole period between 324 and 530.
July 12th, 2007 at 8:59 am - Edit
“If anything else, the Chinese are even more conditioned by birth and as a result they are now stuck with a Totalitarian system as well. It is not about Christianity itself. Christianity does not automatically lead to Fascism and that is why “It did not occur in other Christian countries.”
After your initially hyperbole, it’s nice of you to finally concede that. Of course it completely undermines your claims.
“would you care to present your sources on that fact?”
See Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s Liberty or Equality.
“the whole period between 324 and 530″
That’s so incredibly stupid I’ve realized the pointlessness of this. One word buddy: Byzantines.
July 12th, 2007 at 1:19 pm - Edit
It may completely undermine the strawman you set up to fight, but not the main article in any respect.
Good this think that you’ve got such solid facts like “Incredibly stupid”. What makes you think I do not know about Byzantium in the first place?
In any case, I really hope you find it hopeless because I’m tired of trying to explain the same thing over and over.
July 12th, 2007 at 3:46 pm - Edit
Some of the most vocal support for Mussolini and Hitler both in their own countries and abroad came from educated elites. Aristocrats, scientists, and academics of many stripes supported Mussolini and Hitler. While the Catholic Church initially supported Mussolini this was based upon Mussolini reversing many of the anti-Catholic actions of previous regimes that had been viciously anti-Catholic. While many progressives in Britain and America were speaking positively of Hitler and Nazism Catholic and Protestant priests and theologians all over Germany were speaking out against him.
You wrote: “…you also seem to forget Constantine that in 324 declared Christianity as the official religion…”
Wrong. Constatine de-criminalized Christianity but Sol Invictus remained the ‘official’ religion. Theodosius made it the official religion.
Rife with errors and contradictions. You argue in the post that religious thinking leads to fascism and then claim in comments that religious thinking does not lead to fascism.
July 12th, 2007 at 5:30 pm - Edit
I think the way the wording of the article is a little off. You were on the right track Db0, but I don’t think the thought behind the article came out quite right.
First I think it’s fair to state that Monotheistic religions can act as an enabler of oppressive regimes such as Fascism. The question for me would be as to whether Nazi Germany is the best source material. I’ve personally never thought of the Nazi party coming to power because of Christianity – I’ve only ever seen it as an economically destitute society siding with a charismatic sociopath who claimed he could solve all their problems (and, for the most part, delivered). That’s not to say that Christianity couldn’t have assisted with his rise to power, and is an interesting theory, just that I’d never thought of it like that.
In many ways current and recent events in the US may be better source material. An incapable and incompetent leader not only getting elected, but reelected after proving to the world the ineffectiveness of his administrations policies, decidedly due to the fact that conservative voters sided with a man marketing himself as a devout Christian and using more religious references than any other single President before him. That is not to say that the WHOLE of Christianity sided with Bush, but if you’ve witnessed sermons of Tom Haggard, interviews with blowhards like Bill Donohue, movies like Jesus Camp or books such as Righteous by Lauren Sandler, there is at the very least a small portion of Christianity which has become politically motivated to support and “maintain” the word of God, which they feel they can do through Dubya. Without the support of this denomination, Bush quite likely could not have won either of his last two elections.
Now when Bush was elected into power it was not an oppressive regime. The events of 9/11 changed that to an extent, but the general consensus (at the time) was that they were justifiable reactions in response to that event. But by the second election it should have been clear that his administration was not on the right path. In the end one could argue it was more Kerry losing than Bush winning, but the same Christian voters who supported the first time around supported him the second time around. The problem is that they’re not supporting him because of his administration’s policies or the acts they’ve carried out; they support him because he is the “most” Christian candidate. And it got him elected. Did he plan that? Perhaps not. But that’s not what’s being debated here. His religion got him into office because the vast majority of US citizens are of the same religion, with at least some of those voters casting their ballots solely on that fact.
The religious indoctrination within the US has brought the focus of the 2008 elections onto the religious beliefs of the varying political candidates moreso than what they intend to do for the country. CNN even hosted a sort of “Faith in Politics” segment with Obama, Hillary and Edwards around 2 months back where each proclaimed how their faith has helped them over the course of their lives and how they will use it to bring change to their country. Obama offered reasonable and insightful solutions in addressing issues such as healthcare and education but had to cocoon his policies within the guise that they are religiously conceived or oriented. His ideas had nothing to do with religious denomination or faith-inspired solutions, but his simple, rational solutions are not good enough by themselves. It is undeniable that an atheist would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected today, regardless of their policies or political positions, intelligence or experience, Republican or Democrat. If you were to run on a platform with policies, opinions and charisma identical to that of the next President of the United States but with a worldview other than that of Christianity, you would lose.
I’m running off on a tangent here, and may address this further after some thought, but the underlying point Db0 was trying to make does have merit.
August 14th, 2007 at 11:35 pm - Edit
“”You wrote: “…you also seem to forget Constantine that in 324 declared Christianity as the official religion…”
Wrong. Constatine de-criminalized Christianity but Sol Invictus remained the ‘official’ religion. Theodosius made it the official religion.”"
That is correct actually.The same Theodosius (whom the church named the Great) who hired Gaul mercenaries to burn down Sparta (and not just). Because they were not christians. As for BMW, who seemed to doubt the ‘ethnocide’ of the Greeks by Christians, why dont you read the history you accuse db0 of not having read. ‘Ethnocide’ may not be the word I’d use, but all heathens were hunted down. Think of the Vikings a few centuries later.Not to mention the Aztecs, Mayans etc.
[“you will find that scholars from the Renaissance based their science on ideas before Christianity.”]
“”No, they built on the work of scientists and thinkers of the Middle Ages (who themselves had already built upon the Classical tradition), men such as Duns Scotus, Roger Bacon, and William of Ockham (who all belonged to Franciscan orders), Nicole Oresme (a bishop), Robert Grosseteste (a bishop), and Thomas Bradwardine (who was briefly Archbishop of Canterbury).”"
Why does this sentence begin with the word “No”?? You disagree with yourself a line later. Also, the Arabs saved those ideas from the Christians and were lately returned to the West. And may I say that I only know Roger Bacon of these people
[“Certainly the wars (started on religious grounds)”]
“”No, for the most part in the time we are talking about, the big ones weren’t, instead being traditional wars of territory. The age of religious war in Europe arrived after the Renaissance.”"
….It may be cliche-d, but do the Crusades ring a bell? Or do they dont count cause they were outside Europe?
and just an add-on:
“”For example, Robert Grosseteste is considered by historians of science as the founder of the English intellectual tradition, and made major contributions to the development of the scientific method.”"
You copied that from wikipedia and failed to mention that the “historians of science” were one man.I do not doubt the man’s contribution to science, but you are trying to appear more impressive using the plural.I sense some insecurity.
September 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm - Edit
Db0, do you consider democracy a better form of government than fascism? If so, why?
September 5th, 2007 at 2:48 pm - Edit
Yes I do, but I don’t think this is in the scope of this article. Perhaps we should discuss this in the forum…
January 21st, 2008 at 9:44 pm - Edit
I don’t know if you’ve discussed this, because I’ve just discovered your site – monotheism, semantically speaking, is the belief in one deity, but in practice, christians worship all these so-called holy people who have “earned” their holiness after various acts of faith that, some of them even manifesting supernatural powers. Shouldn’t they be considered deities as well ? In this case, christianity shouldn’t be called montheistic. Or are saints’ powers considered as given by this one deity ? But still, worshiping *multiple* figures is clearly not monotheistic.
I’m bringing this up because christians usually consider their religion superior to paganism and all polytheistic religions. Well, christians consider themselves superior in general.
What do you think ?
January 21st, 2008 at 9:56 pm - Edit
Mara, of course you are right. This is a fact that is obvious to everyone but Christians. But this is nothing in front of the ridiculousness of The Trinity
March 29th, 2009 at 4:19 pm - Edit
What db0 said. Christians would never acknowledge it.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:25 am - Edit
[...] Design Smackdown on Amazon.comLeaT – Power, but to whom and why?LeaT – A short list of questionsLeaT – Monotheism, the crutch of FascismWaldheri – Intelligent Design Smackdown on Amazon.compatriot – Intelligent Design Smackdown on [...]