All Comments (373)

And I suppose at the end of this article you will encourage Jews to drop their claim to being the "chosen ones"...??

feuar browless pyrotherium interisland cageling thiophenic tellurist secondly
Top Drawer Soccer
http://www.hpo.ukgo.com/

As a former Catholic, I can assure you that there is one group that is madder at Benedict than Jews and Protestants -- that is liberal Catholics. Liberal Catholics have been aware of the oppressive Ratzinger/Benedict for years and have been forced to either abide in some ways with that oppressiveness or go elsewhere for spiritual sustenance. Jews and Protestants can be angry but, ultimately, the Pope has no control over their lives.

Is everyone done children? Good. Now we can go on to more important issues.

Duckphup,

if it were not for the last line, I would have wondered why you would even answer such illiterate drivel, lol!

OK... here's the setup...

Finder wrote:

"This is what it comes down to. So there are no questions to ask about what I say."

"Any thing short of that is dead wrong!"

"And anyone who does not believe that well I hate to say it but your looking at a pretty bad eternity."

"I don't give a rip how many books you've read because I've haven't even read all of this one and I know the truth."

********

That was the set-up. Now... here's the punch-line:

"I am an open minded guy..."

*****************

LOL... what a hoot.

Finder... 'open-minded' means that one is willing to consider alternative possibilities. That implies 'intellectual honesty'.

Intellectual honesty means that one is willing to question and doubt one's own presumptions.

Sorry, Bubba... YOU LOSE on ALL counts.

Now, here's the SAD part... that is pretty much TYPICAL of the religiose mind.

Why do you insist on this forum page? It's pointless! All refuse to move. Why do we visit this site? to debate the topic? No! All of these forums boil down to whether or not God exists and or the divinity of Christ Jesus.

You come here and gain nothing by coming here. You argue for nothing. It doesn't change the truth. Why debate with all your citations and so-called education? This is what it comes down to. So there are no questions to ask about what I say.

The One, who tells Moses "I Am who I Am" He is God
He created this universe and everything in it in SIX days
His Son, Jesus of Nazereth is God in the flesh came to die for our sins so we may spend eternity with Him in Heaven

Any thing short of that is dead wrong!

And anyone who does not believe that well I hate to say it but your looking at a pretty bad eternity.

I don't give a rip how many books you've read because I've haven't even read all of this one and I know the truth.

I love you guys even though I don't know you but it's time for tough love.

I am an open minded guy but I'm not trying to be so open minded that my brain falls out. There comes a time to say these two words you all have on your tongues.

YOU'RE WRONG!!!

Thanks Jihadist; have a good flight, it's been a pleasure meeting you.

Regards

A Hermit

A Hermit:)

Thanks for that link. Now I understand what E Favorite meant by Christian Humanism. I'm still here, still waiting for the flight to take off.

Christian Humanism sounds like Buddhism where Buddha is regarded as a teacher and there is no belief in God or the supernatural. Just as Jesus is regarded as a teacher by the link you provided.

Is this half-way measure by those who want to be part of organised faith, quasi-religious entity, but don't believe in God and yet, balked at being called atheists?

Is this a measure to ensure Christians who have doubts about the divinity of Christ and the Trinity do remain within the fold of Christianity?

Will the New Church of Christian Humanists be eligible to register as a religious entity and get tax exemptions and qualify for funding under faith-based initiatives?

Whatever it is, Christian Humanism is still "organised" with its own tenets and principles of beliefs. Should be very interesting to see how it develop over the years, with its own music and rites too I suppose.

I am going to miss the essays and threads in On Faith in the next few weeks. It is getting to be very interesting.

Bye and best regards as always.

J

PS - Your "Tenets of Atheism" in response to my jocular one weeks ago in another On Faith thread is the only post I copied in On Faith. Love it.

Just for interest's sake:

http://christianhumanist.net/default.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_humanism

Jihadist – cannot respond in too much depth – both lack of time and lack of knowledge. That said – I think marxism/communism is totalitarian government, which cannot support humanism. In my opinion, democratic government is needed for humanism to work.

Regarding the Latin mass – yes, I’m sure it will be a growth industry for the church. If times get tough, maybe I can make a few bucks teaching the Latin mass (kidding) – I can still do it.

I think Doctors without Borders is a secular organization. I think the doctors’ motives for doing good is immaterial, as long as they know medicine and don’t try to proselytize their religion.

I don’t think my definition of “Christian Humanist” is new. It could be that some of these terms are so little used or talked about that people have developed their own meaning for them (like atheist vs. agnostic – which is often just a preference in terms but not a difference in meaning).

I would say Mother Theresa was a Christian who was living her Christian ideals – many of which overlap with humanism. But assuming she believed in the supernatural like all good Christians (especially nuns), then she was not, by definition, a humanist.

A Muslim who still believes in Allah, etc. (supernatural things) is a Muslim believer, irrespective of his/her beliefs about Jesus or any other religion’s god. A Muslim who dropped belief in the supernatural might become a Muslim humanist or a Christian humanist, depending on which “teacher” they followed. Or they might just become a humanist, not choosing to favor any one religious teacher’s philosophy. I consider myself a humanist now – no supernatural beliefs. Jesus is fine, but I don’t feel any special affiliation. My interest in Christian humanism would be for the traditional aspects (music, ritual) that I like and am used to.

Mary Cunningham, what does it mean to you, to be a Christian? I cannot see anything very Christlike in you. In saying that, I am not trying to be personally insulting, as I assume you may take it that way. To say that any one individual person is not very Christ-like is not a particularly mean thing to say, I think. I am just struck by your generally hostile and sarcastic demeanor, while trying to defend Christianity. You seem much more involved with the political and institutional aspects of church religion than with seeking to pursue a Christ-like life. That's all.

Oddly enough, Voltaire was a deist (unless Wikipedia is completely on crack, which is, of course, entirely possible)

" Jacques Berlinerblau is writing about it on his blog"

Oh joy. After his last post . . .

Mary,

your chain of reasoning is pretty adventurous. Let me reduce it to the consequences it has on me personally: I strongly believe I was born free (I even once had the illusion the US was, at least described itself as the land of the free). But now I have to learn that this silly attitude of mine leads straight to terrorism. I sure have to get used to my new role as a potential terrorist.

You seem to be completely unable to use your intellect and your education on any different path that deviates from your predefined Christian concepts. Your historical sequence is the old post hoc - propter hoc error, an error I thought was below your intellectual ability. As if historical events and their sequence were always monocausal simplicities!

The original sin is the ring through the nose of the cattle: Any power greedy authority uses it and has always used it for suppression. "Redemption" is available only through faith, and faith only through the church(es), especially yours.

Dan S.

The atheism I write of is intimately linked with the totalitarian movements I listed:
Jacobinism,
Communism,
Nazism.

Jacobinism is important (and unhappily you wrote you are not particularly knowledgeable here) because it was the template of the later two movements—remember I wrote Lenin particularly studied the French Revolution.

The intellectual world view of the Jacobins was derived from the Enlightenment ideal, mostly of Rousseau: “Man born free, but everywhere in chains.” This stands in direct opposition to *Christian* world view of man “born bad” (original sin) and redeemed only by God himself. For the *philosophes * what enchained man were institutions, remove or change them and man would be free. Thus Enlightenment atheism—the atheism of Voltaire and Rousseau—stands in direct opposition to Christian beliefs. Since the philosophes were French the Church was thus one of the main obstacles to the ‘freedom’ of man...add to their philosophic bent a visceral anti-clericism and voila! we have the ideology of the Jacobin movement.

The atheism posted here is more of less the same as that originally conceived of by Voltaire, (one wit even posts under the his characters).

Assuming you accept this, you can see why this virulent brand of atheism for me is so very disturbing.

For we know where it led—to totalitarianism and terror. Jacques Berlinerblau is writing about it on his blog, so I’ll post this there as well. Maybe we can discuss it further, assuming the above is clear enough & that you agree.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham

PS I won't discuss it here on the Jacoby...just as my own (OK feeble) protest about the virulence of her anti-Catholic bigotry.

E Favorite

Interesting points you made. Would love to give a longer response, but going off to there and there again.

Am throwing some ramdom points for you to have fun in thrashing. This much we can agree to -Humanism is, fundamentally, systems of beliefs that concentrates on common human needs that seek rational, not divine, ways of solving them. Secularism is fundamentally focussed on non-religious and non-spiritual matters.

Is Marxism/Communism really humanism and secularism gone awry in their rational and non-divine inspired way of solving human needs? It got that part about "religion is the opiate of the masses" right for secular humanists/atheists. But not on human nature, self-interest and self-preservation.

Secular humanism is a rather recent cooption (less than 100 years) by atheists to describe their philosophy and/or values. As you know, it is really sourced from Christianity and subsequently Enlightenment thoughts and values. Secular humanism is the end result, the "souless" and "dry" one some believers think, of all that mind-wringing on the nature of God, if there is a God, why we are here, why can't I get pasta cooked al dente.

Would love to go into how the Greek philosophers influenced the classical Muslim thinkers like Ibn Rushd, who influenced Jewish and Christian thinkers like Moses Maimondes and Thomas Aquinas (on God), who led to the Enlightment, and on to humanism and secular humanism (sans God), again as "end" result and a sort of premature "resolution" of all that mind-wringing on what is God's and what is man's domain, and who and what is God anyway?

Addressing poverty, environmental degration, fostering economic growth etc certainly does not call for divine interventions or theological discourse, except perhaps for charity.

I believe in the the multiplication of fishes and loaves to feed the hungry hordes. Say, to find better ways to develop genetically enhanced and better yielding wheat, more acreage for wheat, and better production methods for processing flour and baking bread. Voila! It's a miracle! Of modern science and technology in the multiplication of loaves. And we figured it all out with no help from God. It would be pleased eh?

Most of the solutions on personal and state's needs and interests are addressed by non-faith-based methods, but laced with faith flavoured purposes for added motivations and incentives if one has nothing to lose or nothing to go on. See the enterprise of Scientologists for example.

Economics, sociology, demographics etc. are non-religious based knowledge and methodology used for secular and religious pursuit of specific objectives. The methodology may be secular, but the objective may not necessarily be so.

Which raises the questions of the economics of having Mass in Latin from teaching it, making books available in it and who really benefits from the encouragement of using Latin in Mass.

Apart from specific reasons as stated by the Vatican, what are really its opportunity cost, its cost benefit analysis, its needs analysis?

You: "Because they also believe in the supernatural, which is a no-no for humanists and a must for christianity (at least you have to SAY you believe in it)."

What about, say, Christians who happen to be doctors, but gave up profitable private practices to join Doctors Without Borders not only because some may think they are doing the Lord's work, but also because of the humanisitic impulse in their personal beliefs as opposed to instutionalised dogmas and tenets of their faith as stipulated by their organised religion?

Personal belief can be seperated from and different from the organised religion one is adherent to. Unless one get excommunicated or is being called a heretic. But one can always start a new sect or church and ask for state help under faith-based initiatives and get tax exemptions.

A Catholic who remains devout in going to Mass and in believing in the divinity of Christ and the Trinity, but does not agree with the Pope on abortion or using Latin in Mass is still a Catholic. And can we say, s/he is a Catholic freethinker?

You : "A Christian humanist would be a person who respects the teachings of Jesus, but does not believe he was the son of God."

Is this a new defination of a Christian humanist you are giving that I have yet to come across?

It is contrary to the dogma of Christian faith, no? as the divinity of Christ is very important for the Pope and many Christians as a tenet of faith.

And so, as Muslims believe in and respect the teachings of Jesus, but don't believe he was the son of God, are Muslims, in fact, Christian humanists by your defination?

Is Mother Teresa not a Christian humanist for helping the lepers of Calcutta regardless of Christian, Hindu or Muslim? Is Desmond Tutu not a Christian humanist for pursuing peace?

You : " I might be a Christian humanist, if I had the chance. Get rid of the supernatural and the feigning of belief in it, keep the music and ritual (in some form) and I'll take a real close look at it."

Blaming the church for no chance? Want to rejoin the Catholic Church? To my mind it is the Cadillac of Christian denominations for all the formality, the stateliness, the regalness of its rites.

Must be all those non firstborn sons of European aristocracies who join the church as they have no chance of inheriting their father's lands and titles who put the pomp and pegeantry into its rites. And to give themselves addresses such as Your Eminence, Your Grace etc as Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals etc to be called by the lay believers.

I don't know about you, but Mahalia Jackson and black gospel really rocks and is very uplifting. I listen to that music wihout having to join a Baptist church.

All the best. I'm off to pillage and plunder again as a barbarian at your gates.

"why can't believers call themselves secular humanists too, if they are all for seperation of church and state, and are involved in political and social activities focussed on human rights advocacy and protection?"

Because they also believe in the supernatural, which is a no-no for humanists and a must for christianity (at least you have to SAY you believe in it). A Christian humanist would be a person who respects the teachings of Jesus, but does not believe he was the son of God.

I might be a Christian humanist, if I had the chance. Get rid of the supernatural and the feigning of belief in it, keep the music and ritual (in some form) and I'll take a real close look at it.

The "spiritual atheist" thing is an idea I like to throw out when the discussion gets to the "atheists are cold calculating rationalists with no human emotion" stage.

"Secular Humanist" is a more accurate description of mt ethical stance; and yes, Jihadist, it's not very different from Catholic or Muslim (or other religiously inspired) humanism. Like the kind that shines through in many of your comments.

Regards

A Hermit

Maurie Beck:

Sorry but I respectfully disagree. Gardasil has not had near enough testing. Merck is buying off the govt. to make tons of money by exploiting our fears. We have no idea what the potential side effects may be. To foist this unproven drug onto our girls through the schools under the guise of a vaccine is asinine and unethical.

How many other drugs were rushed to the marketplace only to be taken off of the shelf because of side effects over the past 10-15 years? You may be surprised.

Our govt. is in their pocket and vice/versa.

Jihadist wrote: "Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn."

"There are two kinds of people in this world... those who put people into categories, and those who don't." ~ Unknown

Jihadist - Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn.

Dear Jihadist,

From the time I've met your acquaintance, I'd say your list is not only too short and simple, but lacks your actual depth.

Gerry

Atheists, agnostics and freethinkers are better and more honest descriptions to describe those who subscribe to non-belief in subtle variations and shades.

"Spiritual atheist"?

I can go along with that, although some atheists stated that Buddhism is most attractive to them as a form of and manisfestation of spiritualism minus belief in God.

One is never sure when atheists say they are spiritual as to whether they mean they practice meditation. Or that they subscribe to Buddhist ethics and values. Or that they live by the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights and related human rights conventions ranging from political rights to rights of migrant workers. Or all of it. Believers live by those too.

And while we are at it, why not Humanist Catholics to describe Catholics with humane and humanitarian concerns, and Secular Catholics for those who support the seperation of church and state? Or even Secular Humanist Catholics?

"Secular humanism" has a very attractive ring of high sounding intent and purpose of an atheist into social activism for the good of all mankind. So, why can't believers call themselves secular humanists too, if they are all for seperation of church and state, and are involved in political and social activities focussed on human rights advocacy and protection?

"Spiritual atheism" sounds like an atheist who is a vegetarian, meditate to new age music, wears clothes and shoes made from no animals, listen to folk music, reads Omar Khayyam in his/her spare time, and is a tree-hugger. If so, why would anyone object?

Just say that atheists also do seek personal peace and security in their life too. That they live their life like everyone else. That they have different political aligments, taste in food, arts, clothes and sports. That they can be homophobic, racist and sexist too. But that they just have no belief in God and organised religion.

I'd rather call an atheist into saving the environment an environmentalist. An atheist into heavy metal music a metalhead. An atheist into fine food a gourmet or a gourmand, depending on how he eats and why.

Now, how shall I describe myself. A Secular Muslim? A Humanist Muslim? A Secular Humanist Muslim? A Temporal Muslim? A Pragmatic Muslim? A Spiritual Muslim? A Pious Muslim? A Devout Muslim? Oh, but wait, I am also a woman, a mother, a wife, a banker. Darn.

CWS - Even in it's ads it merely says the Gardasil MAY prevent SOME (emphasis mine)kinds of viruses that may lead to some types of cervical cancer... That is hardly a "cure".

If it stops 10% of cervical cancers, it is worth it.

"Spirituality" in other languages (German, French, Spanish e.g.) is by no means identical to "religiousness" of any brand, as seems to be the prevalent meaning in American usage.

So I join you wholeheartedly with the label "spiritual atheist": A person with awe and infinite respect and wonder to the miracles of life and nature, with a thirst for knowledge and wisdom, with an insatiable curiosity, and above all: without the (understandable) wish to reduce the unknown, maybe unknowable to simple manageable, even trivial human dimensions, as religions were obliged to invent for want of more valid, maybe more complex explanations of life and nature.

One more thought on the "science = atheism = communism" trope being pushed by a few commenters; one of the major causes of all those deaths under Communism was the great Chinese famine, which came about in large part because of Mao's embrace of the Stalinist doctrine of Lysenkoism, which was a rejection of what's often referred to as "Darwinian" evolutionary theory.

Just because such movements called their ideas scientific doesn't make it so. North Korea, after all, calls itself a "Democratic" republic...I don't buy that one either...

Regards

A Hermit

Good points made by Dan S re: the religion of the French Revolution. Were there atheists involved? No doubt. Was it a movement inspired by atheism? Not at all.

It's probably worth pointing out that the other great Revolution of the Enlightenment took place in America, and was no less of a utopian dream than the French revolt. That one's had it's high and low points too (sadly we're in the middle of one of the lows right now) but on the whole it's done more good than harm, as I see it. To trace a straight line from the Enlightenment to the Khmer Rouge, as our friend Ms. Cunningham tries to do, is laughable. History, like life, is just a wee bit more complicated, I think.

Regards

A Hermit

PS. I'm with you on the "religion is eeeeevil" crowd; Harris is a little too hysterical on the subject for my liking, and Hitchens is, well Hitchens. 'Nuff said...

Limbo of the innocents (unbaptized babies who still have original sin) is not dogma. It is a matter still up for debate.

Hey MonkeyBoy!

"The Roman Catholic Church believes the dogma is supported by scripture (e.g. her being greeted by Angel Gabriel as "full of Grace"), as well as either directly or indirectly by the writings of many of the Church Fathers, and often calls Mary the Blessed Virgin (Luke 1:48). Catholic theology maintains that since Jesus became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, she needed to be completely free of sin for her fiat."

Ms. Cunningham, I've rather lost track of your argument. Perhaps you could restate it, or reference some previous comment?

Certainly Communism is an ideology that includes atheism (as we've seen, Nazism didn't, and I'm mostly skipping over Jacobinism out of general ignorance, although I don't know if anything involving a "Cult of the Supreme Being" could be reasonably counted as atheism, and wikipedia (in an article at least partly cribbed from the 11th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica) claims (correctly or not, I dunno) that they were "foes of both the Church and of atheism,"), and also was involved in many terrible deeds throughout the 20th C.

Where things become confusing is whether this can be reasonably attributed to *atheism* (which, after all, is merely the lack of belief in deities), or if the proper level of analysis is *Communism* (at least in its various 20th C. forms).

You seem to argue that atheism inherently propelled various utopian movements into slaughter: without an afterlife, attempts were made to create heaven here on earth, which ultimately turned out to require killing countless folks who got in the way. It's an interesting idea to consider. Of course, for quite a few centuries in Europe, Christian societies became quite obsessed with, one might put it, creating a purified Christendom; the importance of ensuring people would get to heaven (in the afterlife) often justified various terrible things being done to living people, so we seem maybe to find that under certain circumstances people will find ways to justify deeply horrible deeds as the sadly necessary cost of making a better world.

While I'm not a big fan of 'religion is Eeeeevil!' thinking, one *might* make the argument that in *these specific* circumstances*, specific religious ideas and developments are 'closer', more connected to the corresponding atrocities than atheism - since, as Duckphup points out, those atrocities weren't in any sense being carried out in the name of a lack of belief in deities; rather, out of specific ideologies. But I dunno.

Anyway, taking little steps, can we agree that the various atheisms one *actually* finds today aren't actually utopian revolutionary movements that subordinate individuals and human interests to the state/race/other supposedly transcendent goal(if anything, quite the opposite, with most folks probably being more or less humanistic)?

(btw, if you are set on debating some calculus of depravity, don't forget to factor in both population size and technology (both mechanical and social). We've become very efficient at causing suffering and death (and have many people to do so with) - even the Rwandan genocide utilized modern communications (radio broadcasts), as they carried out an often very low-tech horror. But really, perhaps it would be better to skip this particular game?

Mary,

You got owned!

"Nazism was certainly totalitarian [here we completely agree - ds] and had its own pagan creed . . ."

Er . . . so, you're disagreeing with your own 8:22 post? (pagan =/= atheist; they're different things, y'know!)

Wikipedia has a section on religion in Nazi theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Religion
- of perhaps special interest is this paragraph (see also the rest)

"Volkism was inherently hostile toward atheism: freethinkers clashed frequently with Nazis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. On taking power, Hitler banned freethought organizations and launched an “anti-godless” movement. In a 1933 speech he declared: “We have . . . undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” This forthright hostility was far more straightforward than the Nazis’ complex, often contradictory stance toward traditional Christian faith."

And - um, what's with the frog obsession?

MC, (replace the salutatory address to your convenience)

first, I didn't call you "stupid", but I resent people calling others stupid. (Unless .. well, skip it, or refer to Einstein)

Second: Of course I agree Nazism was totalitarian, whatever the fine semantic distinctions may mean. I never doubted it.

Third: The aryan follies of the Nazis were racist, not religious. And I am even aware of the fact that Aryan is an Indian attribute, thanks for the information. My point was not the racist part but the atheist part of Nazism, since I differ with the assumption that Nazism was based on atheism. Since you are so well-versed in debates, you might stick to the topic.

Fourth, you don't have to believe my simple report of what I experienced as a boy, but there is very little possibility of "slanting" my memory, for whatever it is worth. I didn't even claim to conclude any additional "truth" out of these simple statements, leaving it up to you or anybody else to make whatever you want out of it.

Fifth, in order to embellish our conversation, you are implicitly calling me a liar, since you allege I made up ("slanted") these memories to prove something on which you seem to disagree. The little stories about Hitler youth and church are part of my biography. I couldn't possibly make them up, and they certainly can't be thrown into a bag where traffic accidents witnesses belong. They continued for several years in my childhood.

Sixth, we were discussing the fact that Hitler got along well with religious institutions. Gestapo etc. is a completely different chapter.

I find myself vulnerable to misunderstanding, as if I was defending something, only while trying to stick to an issue. But I certainly learned a new facet of debating culture, thanks.

Mary, (or do you prefer Ms. Cunningham? Miss? Mrs? Just let me know and I'll stick to whichever you prefer) instead of parsing my comments looking for something to interpret as an insult so you can justify continuing your own childish behaviour why don't you go back and try reading for comprehension this time?

I'm well aware of the differences between totalitarian, authoritarian, Fascist, Nazi, Communist etc. All of which is irrelevant here. Are the victims of Jasenovac any less dead because their killers were Ustase fascist authoritarians and not Nazi fascist totalitarians or Khmer Rouge Communist totalitarians? Do the victims sent to the camps by Italian Fascists and French Vichy collaborators not count because those regimes weren't fully totalitarian? Are those killed by Pinochet and the other South American military dictators less dead than Castro's victims?

I realize your goal of demonizing those who don't share your faith is made more difficult if you take an honest approach to history instead of cherry picking the numbers and re-categorizing inconvenient associations, but that doesn't get you the truth, Ms. Cunningham. It makes you either a liar or a fool.

I'll go over this again for you:

My goal is not to play a numbers game with you (although I'm not going to let your misinformation go unchallenged); I thought I made it pretty clear what I think about the value of all that. You are playing a cheap rhetorical game in an attempt to discredit those who don't share your religious beliefs by making them share the blame for crimes committed in the name of ideologies which none of us here embrace. This is dishonest, ignorant and bound to get the kind of angry reaction you can use to paint yourself as the victim of incivility.

Only someone who is incapable of a rational defense of her own position would resort to such lowbrow, dishonest, childish tactics. Instead of complaining about the mote of condescension in my comments you would do well to remove the plank of hubris from your own. You're really not as smart or as well informed as you seem to think you are, and your persistent use of the "body count" game is proof of that fact.

If you want an intelligent, adult conversation I'm willing, but you really will have to grow up a little first.

Regards

A Hermit

PS, I'm not in the least bit French (not that there's anything wrong with it!); my lineage is Dutch Mennonite. You remember; the kind of people your Church used to burn at the stake for heresy...;-)

Gerry,

Nazism was certainly totalitarian and had its own pagan creed:in the place of God, the worship of the state as embodied in a particular race. (A race they made up too--the Aryan, which was Indian, not German, but that's another story). As you noted, Hitler formed accords with churches, granted, whilst simultaneously creating his *own* parallel institutions, the Gestapo for the police, Hitler Youth for schools, his own publicity machine, &tc.

May I note your debating technique would improve if you would resist the impulse to call your opponent "stupid" and direct them to "brush up on history".

Also, commanding someone to "Try your logic and reason, if your faith permits it!" is not a good way to begin a reasonable discussion. It's called an anchoring bias. If I were a normal person, I would get angry, and that would colour everything I read of you work afterwards. It's rhetoric, really, isn't it? And here you are...citing logic! Pot and kettle, eh?

As well, the argument that "I was around then; hence, my view is true" is also weak. Hindsight is notorious in slanting "what really happened."

But I am in the Jacoby forum and the lady herself is fairly prejudiced.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
(sometimes sign myself as MC)

PS, Darling sweet Kermit, my green-toed Hermit, how does telling someone with whom you disagree to "take a deep breath", followed by the exhortation to "grow up" advance the cause of Reason, a cause you cite incessantly?

XXXXXXX and a hug too,
Mary C.

Ah Hermit, you conceited little frog! All that condescension--all that y'see Mary, you're confused, Mary, you're ignorant, Mary--and here I asked you not to do so, and I was courteous too, wasn't I? I asked nicely,didn't I? But you wouldn't, would you, my little Kermit, 'mon vieux', 'mon ami'?

Now I asked you for a few definitions and instead I get fuzzy thinking plus some ad homs...not good, mon vieux, not good. Plus your with all your condescensions, you miss the argument.

Ah well.

But I started with *Totalitarian*: look it up, mon vieux, my 'petite grenouille', my ardent atheist.

Anyway, since you seem not to be able to I'll define totalitarianism--total control by the state of all facets of the lives of its citizens.

Now, if you agree with that definition you can see (and you don't even have to bring in your friend! you can do it all by yourself, 'mon vieux', mon petite grenouille)that whilst Nazi Germany *was* totalitarian, fascist Italy was not. Nor--by any stretch of the word--was Rwanda. But don't take my word, my little friend, take Robert O Paxton's, I think it's called "The Anatomy of Fascism".

All my faux conceits--aping your style darling froggie---have tired me out. However, should my sweet friend, my darling Hermit the Kermit, my sweet froggie prince, wish to debate-- say,as one intelligent person to another--despite the fact the latter is female *and* Catholic, (Oh! I know it is hard, little Kermit) perhaps someday, someday, someday soon...when we agree definitions I can show you some before and after population figures of the Jacobite, Bolshevik and Nazi terrors.

Until then, goodnight sweet frog.

XXXXXXX
Your friend,
Mary C.

To MC:

Strange how a person in possession of her wits can implicitly connect atheism with the idea of an "utopian ideology". A-theism is the logical, "semantic" opposite, the absence of religious ideology of whatever brand. The fact that people start utopian political ideologies has nothing to do whatsoever with atheism. They can start such ideology with or without atheism. There is no causal connection. Try your logic and reason, if your faith permits it!

And before calling everybody stupid and uninformed, you might brush up your 20th century history a little bit as well: Hitler never tried to abolish churches, he even invented a new brand: "Deutsche Christen". And he established the "Reichskonkordat", a treaty with Pope Pius XII. And in most of his speeches he mentioned "Providence", aka god, to pander to the religious.

Never mind what he personally believed (there seems to be a huge difference between his 1920, more religious years after WWI and towards the Christianity hating time at the end of the war).

I was a German youngster at that time: On Saturday afternoon everybody (including the later Pope) regularly went to the mandatory (like school) Hitler youth activities (a sort of Nazi boy scouts, organized very appealingly to youngsters, Goebbels knew his business!), and on Sunday morning we went equally regularly to church, singing, praying, learning bible texts, performing crib plays for Christmas (our pastor also knew his business.).

I hope nobody alleges I am defending Hitler, gosh, but his crimes are not based on atheism, an all-too-comfortable illusion which does not win truth by constant repetition by people who want additional ammunition for their atheist-bashing. Hitler even legitimized the Holocaust relating to Luther, who was in favor of extinguishing the Jews (just google Luther, who wasn't far away as to this point from catholicism).

My liberating path to atheism afterwards was founded on science and history studies, on my profession as an artist and on my reflecting on religion and its absurdities itself, not by any "evil" ideology planted into me.

Oh, just for the record Mary, I am not a fan of Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens because they do the same thing you do when they saddle all believers with the worst excesses of religion, so yes I know atheists do it too. Doesn't mean you and I have to play that silly game...

Regards

A Hermit

Mary's dishonesty (or perhaps its just ignorance) is immediately revealed as she attempts to saddle atheists with Hitler's Holocaust.

No Mary, no one with a lick of knowledge about the era would agree with your simple minded assertion that Nazism was a) and ideology rooted in atheism or b)not Fascist!

Did you follow the link I gave you to the history of Jasenovac, Mary? The camp run by the Nazi's Croation allies, and their clerical servants? The program of forced conversions?

One can argue about how sincere Hitler was about his religion, but there's no question he used religion to inspire his movement and unite people behind him.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm

How "Christian" the Nazi movement was is another matter of debate, but it certainly wasn't an "atheist ideology" Mary; he had his Gestapo close down secularist groups, but he made deals with the Churches, both Catholic and Protestant.

And as for your Jacobins, yes they were a nasty bunch, but frankly when one compares the extent of their terror to the democides unleashed in the religious wars of the 17th century they were amateurs. The Thirty Years War was responsible for killing off almost a third of the population of Central Europe, Mary. Look it up sometime.

In any case, you've completely missed the point, haven't you? I'm surprised that someone who tries so hard to sound like an educated woman could fail to understand, but I'll try and spell it out a little more plainly for you.The numbers are irrelevant. Any ideology, pursued to an extreme, can be used to justify evil. That's why I (like most of the atheists I'm familiar with) don't attach myself to any particular ideology. I prefer to do my own thinking, thank you.

The point here,Mary, is that it is wrong to use the crimes of Communists to question the morality of all atheists, which you frequently do in this forum. It's even worse when you throw in the crimes of the Nazis and their Fascist allies, who were in most cases sympathetic to, if not actively allied with, the religious establishment. (again, look it up; think Franco's Spanish Falangists, Hungary's "Arrow Cross" party, Romania's "Iron Guard", France's Vichy collaborators...)

But back to the point; I don't think the fact that Rwanda's genocide was carried out by Catholics, abetted in some cases by clergy and even by nuns, reflects on the morality of all Catholics everywhere. Why would you think the Jacobins should be the yardstick by which atheists should be judged 200 years after the Terror? I make no excuses for their crimes, and have no sympathy for their political excesses.

In short, you need to do a little growing up, Mary dear. Take a deep breath, think about how you feel when some mindless bigot condemns you because of the behaviour of some other Catholic and then ask yourself if you really want to be like them.

Regards

A Hermit

Mary Cunningham -

Regarding another era - English colonialism of America. Would you agree that the English were avowedly Christian? and that the colonists they were trying to subdue were also largely Christian?

I wonder what you think about the role of Christianity during the US Revolution compared to atheism in the eras you mention.

Actually should back up, before we start trading statistics.

We would have to agree that the following three totalitarian ideologies were avowedly athist:

Jacobinism (the Terror 1792-1794)
Communism
Nazism (not fascism)

I have confidence that the atheism of the last two stemmed from the atheism of the first. But if atheists will agree a common definition of totalitarianism awa factors with which to judge whether a regime was admittedly atheist we might be able to discuss.

It will certainly be preferable to enduring more anti-Catholic cant.

Mary Cunningham wrote: "I most certainly *do* want to get into a body count with you. If you believe, as I do, that totalitarian states, animated as they were by atheist, utopian ideologies, used terror as an integral part of their governing and, as a result,killed more far *of their own people* than other states. They were, in fact, killing machines."

**************

The key word there is 'ideology'. There are certainly 'utopian' ideologies. But there is absolutely NO SUCH THING as an 'atheist ideology'. An atheist is just someone who is not stupid and gullible enough to think that the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant gaggle of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering, marauding goat-herders represents some king of holy cosmic 'truth' pertaining to fundamental nature of existence and reality.

Admittedly, some atheists are bad people... just like some Christians, jews, Moslems, Hindus, etc., are bad people. But nobody has ever carried out mass murder in the name of 'rational skepticism'... they carry out mass murder and genocide in the name of various 'ideologies'... and those ideologies can be religious, political, social. But there are no 'atheist beliefs'... there is no 'atheist dogma'... there is no 'atheist doctrine'. The only thing that defines 'atheists' is the fact that they do not believe in dieties... ANY dieties. The word 'atheist' is, in itself, unnecessary. The point that you are making is no more valid than if you were making the claim that these totalitarian regimes non-believers in astrology... or Odin... or Zeus, and thus, azeusism was a motivating factor in genocide.

"I contend that we are both atheists.  I just believe in one fewer god than you do.  When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." ~ Stephen Roberts

"With or without it (religion) you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things... that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000

Dear Hermit,

Oh ho! Hermit. I most certainly *do* want to get into a body count with you. If you believe, as I do, that totalitarian states, animated as they were by atheist, utopian ideologies, used terror as an integral part of their governing and, as a result,killed more far *of their own people* than other states. They were, in fact, killing machines.

I will take the body count before and during the French terror and a similar body count before and during the Bolshevik terror. I’ll even limit the Bolshevik terror to five years: 1917-1923.

Later, ‘mon ami’ (I am feeling very French today, in honour of the Jacobins and the first utopian terror.)

(But thank you for not condescending with a Y’see, Mary, &tc. &tc.)

Later.

the subject, about the pope demanding the re-installation of some tradition. JESUS rebuked the jewish pharisees because they were to concerned with the traditions of man rather than the worship of GOD. there seems to be a close relation between these two cases. we don't need to go speak latin to worship GOD, we don't even have to go to church to worship GOD.

they're is nothing wrong with the jewish faith. as long as they seek atonement for they're sins in a manner that is pleasing to GOD, i have no problem. i just wish that they would accept JESUS because he has atoned for all sins.

the jewish community is not to blame for the crucifixion of JESUS all of mankind is. the pope is just as guilty for JESUS's crucifixion as me or any other human who had walked or is walking this planet.

lastly, the pope is not infalable, GOD is. the pope is a simple man of flesh and is sinful in nature. the only infalable person to ever walk this planet was and is GOD in flesh CHRIST JESUS of nazareth son of mary.

i've said my do

IDuckphup, Anon,

I do not agree with Papal's views. But I must side with him on Gardasil.

Even in it's ads it merely says the Gardasil MAY prevent SOME (emphasis mine)kinds of viruses that may lead to some types of cervical cancer.

That is hardly a "cure".

This drug has most definately NOT been tested enough. We have no idea of the possible long-term or even short term side effects of this "vaccine".

The government in Texas and elsewhere is exploiting fears of parents to line the pockets of Merck.

It is disgusting.

Duckphup,

Ya don't get it. I'm not interested in getting the drug companies to sponsor our schools. Merck wants to get Gardisil integrated as part of a federal program which means you could NEVER sue Merck for long term adverse effects of this drug. And did you know that it has never been tested 5-10 years out, who knows its long term affects? Do the politicians? Does Merck? No. And yet they are salivating at the chance to inject our kids with it. No body knows and yet its supposedly a slam dunk. Are they kidding us?

I'm much more worried about her getting killed in a car accident. I'm more worried about her getting assaulted. The list is practically endless.

While we're at it, why is it you think that vaccinating does not send a mixed message of encouragement to sex to children in a world swirling with STDs?

PAPAL wrote: "My daughter is 8 times more likely to die in a car crash every single year of her teenage years than to die of squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix."

Hmmm... 8 times, huh? Satistics show that 80% of women end up getting infected with the cancer-causing palpilloma viruses that Gardisil protects against, in their lifetime. Now, admittedly, only a small percentage of those infections result in cancer... and the drug does not provide protection against ALL cervical cancer-causing viruses... just against the the viruses that are the MAJOR cause of cervical cancer.

So... lets see... you say your daughter is 8 times more likely to die in a car crash... statistics show that 80% of females end up with the cervical cancer causing viral infections that the drug prevents... HEY... I'll bet you could easily increase those odds from 8 - to - 1 to... oh, I don't know... maybe 1,000 - to - 1? 10,000 - to - 1? 100,000 - to - 1? Waddya think?

Nah... never mind... forget it. 8 - to - 1 is good enough. Gotta keep that deterrent effect viable. And you're happy... so long as she never gets her hands on any condoms.

(Remember... before you go postal... YOU'RE the one who brought your daughter into this... not me. I didn't even know you HAD a daughter.)

Dan S:

Huh? did Mr. Duckphup actually have a question in there or was it 30 questions?

I suggest a hard look at what we are selling our kids. I'm not going to do anything to give my daughter the impression that I approve of sexual intercourse before marriage, because I love her. Do I need to go further and give a comprehensive answer about all the things I would or wouldn't teach her to a little bomb thrower like Duckpup? Has he earned it by engaging in a respectful discourse?

While we are at it Dan why should I bother with someone like you who agrees with his methods.

I didn't take years of medical classes to hop on the latest trend coming from big Pharma. You want to vaccinate your daughter, I'm not stopping you, but I don't see enough risk to justify the mixed message I'd be sending my loved ones. I've seen this big money game before.

"Yes, indeed, the Latin rite does include prayers for the conversion of the Jews - and the rest of humanity, too. We believe that in doing so, we are praying for their best interests. I have friends praying for my conversion away from Catholicism to other Christian denominations. While I believe they're erroneous, I do not take offense at that, believing that they are only wishing me well. Such paranoia on the part of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and others is symptomatic of our hyper-sensitve era . . ."

Yes, well . . . the last 15-odd centuries of Christians 'wishing us well' has, oddly enough, resulted in some wariness and rather bad memories; one might want to try to understand such responses in this context. If you're not familiar with that history, perhaps start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anti-Semitism#Persecution_of_Jews_in_the_Middle_Ages

So, Papal, that's basically a "yes" to Duckphup's question, eh?

What a surprise.