Political & Elections

How is a cult of personality centered around a "fearless leader" type different from a religion?

In a few centuries, will miracles be attributed to Mao?

Tammuz was probably a particularly tough shepard who became a local king and whose legends grew in the telling.

Note he predates David by a millinium or two.

Woodwork:

I have not read anything on Hitler in at least twenty years until some computer research today, so my information is old and shallow.  That said, my quick review seems consistent with my memory.  Hitler was raised with religion and confessed religious beliefs through the mid-1930s.  As the Lutheran church turned against the Nazi party, Hitler turned against it.  Churches that remained sympathetic, such as the Methodist church, he did not turn against.  He professed a belief in God in "Mein Kampf." 

I have not seen any evidence that the Nazi party became expressly atheist as did the communist party.  Hitler used religion when it suited his ends, and opposed religions that opposed him.  He seems to have been a religious pragmatist as opposed to an atheist - supporting or opposing religion and churches as it benefitted him.  Is there any clear evidence that either he personally or the Nazi party rejected "God" or a belief in a "Supreme Being?"

You seem to be conflating opposition to organized religion that opposed him with atheism.  Certainly, Hitler opposed any political or religious organizations that opposed his views.  That does not equate to atheism, only a keen eye for political advantage and ruthless methods to acquire power.  Unless he rejected all churches and/or God, he simply discriminated against various organized religions, which religions of the day did as well, though they did not carry it as far as Hitler did.

Also, are you really disputing the proposition that Hitler's primary goal was ethnic cleansing?  He was fighting a race war that sometimes had religious overtones and fallout; however, it was not primarily a religious war.  If you have evidence that Hitler's ultimate goal was the end of all religion and belief in a Supreme Being, I would be interested in reading it.

Can you think of an example where the religious beliefs of a political leader prevented that leader from going to war?  I can think of many examples where religious beliefs were the reason, either real or ostensible, for a leader to go to war.   Religion might have prevented Gandhi or MLK from going to war had they been political leaders, but it did not prevent Bush, an ostensibly religious man, from starting two wars.  I cannot think of an atheistic president other than possibly Lincoln - whose religious beliefs are controversial.  Assuming that he was a Christian, then every war the U.S. has engaged in has been led by a Christian president. 

The only atheist political leaders that come to my mind have been communists.  Granted the Russian communists, who were not true communists but Leninists and Stalinists who perverted the Marxist ideology, had a bad track record for human slaughter, but then so did the religious Russian Tzars who preceded them.   More or less the same thing can be said of Mao - communism was never supposed to result in peasant revolutions.

The point being, totalitarianism can exist with or without religion.  Of course, in a totalitarian state there would be a dominant state religion, not religious freedom.  Totalitarianism is the danger to mass dissenting populations, not atheism.  There was nothing about atheism that ineluctably led to Stalin's or Mao's slaughters.  They could have just as easily believed in a state religion that was intolerant of any opposition.  Given the historical examples of blood thirsty political leaders who professed some religion, you can hardly argue that a religious belief would have prevented Stalin's or Mao's atrocities.  Total power in the hands of a madman is the danger, not total power in the hands of an atheist. 

My bottom line is that I cannot see where personal religious beliefs restrained a political leader from war against other peoples and atrocities against his own, if that leader viewed the acts as politically or economically expedient.  On the other hand, religious beliefs have frequently been an ostensible cause of war or terror, and remain so today. 

You pointed out correctly the beneficial effect of powerful religious personages on the political calculations of others, but such a restraint is at least as much political in nature as religious, if not really more political.  The Kennedy administration and the country was not moved as much by MLK's religious faith, as by his political theater in the form of non-violent religious protests that were met with violent racism cloaked with the legal authority of Jim Crow.   MLK showed the abuse of political power in the south that shamed the nation regardless of one's faith, or lack thereof.  Gandhi did the same thing.  They used their religion to quell the violent impulses of their followers, which made the violence against them appear unprovoked and ghastly - limiting the political ability of their opposition to rely on violence against them without undermining their own political power.



-- Edited by Bogney on Monday 7th of February 2011 09:17:36 PM

-- Edited by Bogney on Monday 7th of February 2011 10:16:41 PM

Donnal,

I am sorry to say, I still do not get your point. Yes, Hitler saw Jews as a race; he also saw Aryans as a race and he was being, intellectually mystical on both counts and historically and scientifically dense as well. Is there a historical Jewish culture outside of the Jewish religion? From what does it derive its essence or significance? Would I get the same answer from a rabbi? Had you have read Kershaw’s Biography of Hitler, rather than a Wikipedia blog (or even read a little further into the blog) you would have seen that Kershaw did not accept the intentionalist view of the Nazis development. His view was far more complex, and much as I described it earlier, as a catch as catch can work in progress…and in the end, Hitler’s utopian ambitions had no room for any organized religion and was enlivened by his hatred of organized religion, which he understood, rightly, to have a conflicting agenda to his own. He wanted empty vessels.

Still, you either intentionally or mistakenly misstate my point and then double down on a tangent that seems to enrage you. I clarify, and you shovel faster and deeper. Why?
As I said :
to me there is nothing in the history of the world that has been the moral equivalent of the holocaust against the Jews in the 20th century. Not anything in any century, not just the 20th. Should I say it more often to relieve you of your righteous anger? How much would be enough …so that I could then go on to mention other people of faith killed by anti-religious bigots in the last century when involved in a discussion of this point, not the point you would, for your own reasons, like to make?

Well, this is all just talk. All the best to you, DonnaL.

Bogney,

In my spare time, last year, I had the pleasure to read Ian Kershaw's masterful 2 volume bio of Hitler. His opinion and yours --on the point of Hitler's hatred of all organized religion-- differ.

This does not make him right and you wrong, but I agree with his view based not simply on his history, but also on the things I have gathered from other extensive readings on the subject. Certainly, this point seems to be a matter of hot contention here.

To me, the fact remains that Hitler saw all organized religion as a threat to his utopia. He therefore crushed these counter-beliefs to the degree that he felt it was a viable solution given time and circumstance. Had he have maintained power, this would have become far more apparent. Clearly, in addition to hatred of organized religion and in particular the Catholic church amongst Christian religions, Hitler was an anti-Semite and he attracted anti-Semites. Some of these malcontents were atheists, some religious and most were simply amoral pragmatists more than happy to get with the program. The hub of the wheel of Hitler's hatred was the Jews and the Jewish religion...but that wheel had spokes.


As to your other point, that religious people are capable of atrocities, there is no dispute. Still, our modern experience puts anti-religious intolerance front and center. The greatest mass-murderers of the last century were remarkable for their hatred of organized religion, not their religious affliation.

Woodwork:

My second comment that you highlighted was amazingly obtuse.  I was thinking of the religion of the particular political leader benefitting the public; i.e. causing a leader to rethink a slaughter or war, rather separate religious leaders positively influencing different political leaders, but that is not what I wrote, so point taken.  My rhetoric got ahead of my rationality, thinking got ahead of typing, etc. 

Debates can be had with some of your examples as to whether violence was reduced, or merely delayed - particularly with Ghandi and MLK, Jr. since violence erupted after their deaths.  Also, one can argue that in fact religon was not influencing the polical leader, the political clout of his religious opponent was, but I will conced that my point as phrased was wrong and yours is generally correct.  My bad.

I stand by the first part though.  Hitler and the Nazi movement was not atheist in policy like the communists.  They were against some religion, not categorically against all religion.  There is a history of persecution of minor religions by more established religious groups, so Nazi persecution of less disfavored religions followed the long standing precedent of European catholics and protestants towards each other, jews, and muslims. 

 

Despite your condescension, I meant every word I said.  And haven't changed my view that the post of yours that I criticized was, in almost every respect, factually inaccurate at a fundamental level.  As well as rather remarkably offensive.  Since you haven't attempted to refute anything I said, there isn't anything more for me to add at this point, is there?

-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:21:20 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Monday 7th of February 2011 12:22:07 PM

The Nazis persecuted groups based on racial grounds more than religious beliefs. The Nazis sought racial purity more than religious purity. I take it from what you wrote that you believe that the Nazis did persecute people based on religious beliefs, and that they were even more likely to persecute people based on flawed notions of race, race itself being little more of a fact than religious belief, but there it is. There is, for instance, no science of race as there is no scientific evidence that race even exists. Race is a cultural phenomenon not a scientific one. If we were to try to isolate Jewish People by race, most would call them part of the semetic family, which is a language group not racial group and it includes, amongst others, Arabs. You cannot remove the religious fact of being Jewish when talking about the holocaust.

Which is to say, you agree that Hitler was an anti-religious bigot that persecuted people for their religious beliefs, and in the case of the Jews exterminated them, not unlike other famous anti-religious bigots like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Trotsky, Pol Pot etc. For instance, there were about 20,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nazis Germany, of those approximately 10,000, 1/2, were sent to the concentration camps. It is absurd to not acknowledge that Hitler was an anti-religious bigot that persecuted people of many faiths and instead suggest that he was “forming his own version of Christianity” while exterminating the Jews. How about even a modicum of evidence to support that whopper.

Radical change leading to slaughters has had religious and political motivations. I have not seen historical evidence of religion acting to decrease violence inflicted by political leaders; it has generally served to inspire violence. This is an amazingly obtuse comment. How do we then explain the lives of Rev Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Mother Theresa, The Reverend Desmond Tutu, Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Rabbi Silver, The Dali Lama, Pope John Pau II, and on and on and on. So you didn’t see any of that, eh?

BigG wrote:

---

If something is of practical benefit, how can it be of dubious morality?

If the benefit is outweighted by the cost of the action, it really isn't a benefit.

Tuna fishing is of dubious morality, to tuna.

When human needs conflict, what is "moral"?

Does every atom of the universe deserve "happiness"?

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K LeGuin
http://www.harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Who decides?

---

The story of Omelas shows where something of practical benefit is of dubious morality.  The benefit to the vast majority does not outweigh the cost to one tortured child.  If the scapegoat is of an age to meaningfully volunteer, and volunteers of his or her own accord, then the morality of the sacrifice changes - see Jesus.

"Crime and Punishment" shows the same thing.  The murder was justifiable if murder can be justifiable for practical reasons.  When human needs conflict, moral choices become grey rather than black and white, but it does not mean that they are no longer worth contemplating and trying to determine what the "right," or less "wrong" thing to do might be.

I doubt that every atom of the universe deserves happiness, but I wish it for them anyway except for those atoms whose happiness is the misery of others.  If we only got we deserved, it would be a tough world indeed.  However, if those at the top only got they actually deserved instead of what they use their positions to help themselves to, then wealth might be more justly distributed through society.  Oh, I forgot, the free market is the ultimate arbiter of fairness.

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 04:37:42 PM

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 04:38:43 PM

"This is an absurd statement. Yes, those of the Jewish Faith were the particular favorites for Hitler's anti-religious brutality, but all religions were beat upon, including Muslims, Catholics and in particular Jehovah's Witnesses. This is just an historical fact. It is not disputed by any serious historian. Of course there are also those that deny the holocaust, as well. Some of these bigots call themselves historians. They are just telling a bigger  lie than those that say other religions were not persecuted. They were. Thousands of dead souls killed for their religion are a historic testimony to that fact. There is no sense in acting like they never existed or were not slaughtered for their beliefs. That is an historical atrocity."

I can't imagine where you found this, but it's historical nonsense, and I can't believe that you (let alone any "serious historian") would have the nerve to present it as "truth."  It's frankly reprehensible, and part of the "big lie" perpetrated by some members of very specific special interest groups who like to pretend  that there was any remote equivalency between the extermination of the Jews (don't belittle it and soften it and trivialize it by characterizing it as mere "persecution") and the persecution of any other religious group.

As Bogney points out, the persecution of Jews was far more racial than religious in origin (even though anti-Semitism itself has its origins in religious hostility towards Jews because they rejected Jesus as the Messiah).  As is demonstrated by the fact that conversion did not help save anyone.  And the fact that even if neither you nor your parents ever professed anything other than Christianity as your religion, you were subject to extermination if you were "racially" Jewish, whether 100% or even three-quarters.  Not to mention the persecution of the mischling.   The *only* way a person who was ethnically Jewish could possibly avoid (at least for a while) arrest and deportation was by marriage to an "Aryan."  (Go read Victor Klemperer's two-volume diary, "I Will Bear Witness": he was an ethnically Jewish professor of Romance Languages at the university in Dresden, who had converted to Christianity in his youth, prior to 1900, but was nonethless kicked out of his job by 1935 because of his Jewish background.  He was married to an Aryan Christian woman, and, as such, although subject to all the laws persecuting Jews, he was not actually subject to being arrested and deported until late in the war, when even "Jews" in his position vanished into the Nacht und Nebel, as the saying went.  He only escaped personally because, by coincidence, the bombing of Dresden took place just as he was scheduled for deportation; in the confusion of the aftermath, he pulled the yellow star off his coat, and he and his wife were able to escape by  pretending to be ordinary Aryan refugees fleeing Dresden.)

Nobody went to the gas chambers, or was exterminated by the Einsatzgruppen, simply because they were Christian.  Nobody.  No Christian babies were thrown out of windows and used for target practice.  None.  No Christians were packed into their churches and then the churches set on fire.  None.  Maybe you were subject to being jailed if you professed your Christianity in ways hostile to the regime.   Maybe you were executed if you protected Jews or preached against their persecution.  And of course Jehovah's Witnesses were persecuted.  Why? Because they refused to swear fealty to the regime.  In other words, it was the inherently political acts (or refusals to act) inherent in that religion that led to persecution.

From Wikipedia:

"Unlike Jews and Romani people (Gypsies) who were persecuted on the basis of their ethnicity, Jehovah's Witnesses had the opportunity to escape persecution and personal harm by renouncing their religious beliefs. The Nazi government gave detained Jehovah's Witnesses the option of release by signing a document indicating renouncement of their faith, submission to state authority, and support of the German military."

In total, between 5 and 10,000 Jehovah's Witnesses were sent to concentration camps, where approximately 2,500 died.  How many were sent to death camps?  How many went to the gas chambers?   I'll let you figure that out.

So, were any Christians exterminated for being Christian?  No.  It simply didn't happen.  Slaughtered?  Please.  Don't insult anyone's intelligence.

And there was no hostility to Christian religious practices per se, so long as they didn't involve hostility towards the government.  Let's not forget that an awful lot of Protestant and Catholic churches continued to function unimpeded throughout the Hitler era.   And that a lot of Protestant and Catholic clergy were very much pro-Nazi.

Sorry, but as long as I stick around here, I will never permit statements such as yours to pass unchallenged.

PS:  How many of you know that even "Jewish pets" were exterminated in May 1942?  Klemperer and his wife saved their beloved cat Muschel from mass extermination only by having a friendly vet put him to sleep.  One was forbidden to save a Jewish pet by giving it to an Aryan.   I only mention this as another example demonstrating the foolishness of pretending that what happened to the Jews was even in the same universe as the persecution of people who were neither religiously nor ethnically Jewish (or Romani, the only other group that was subjected to equivalent persecution). 





-- Edited by DonnaL on Saturday 5th of February 2011 11:51:38 AM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Saturday 5th of February 2011 11:57:33 AM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Saturday 5th of February 2011 12:06:58 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Saturday 5th of February 2011 12:10:41 PM

-- Edited by DonnaL on Saturday 5th of February 2011 12:11:59 PM

Woodwork:

Hitler formed his own version of Christianity and persecuted more orthodox versions versions of Christianity.  The Nazis persecuted groups based on racial grounds more than religious beliefs.  The Nazis sought racial purity more than religious purity.  Christianity was not outlawed.  Many other religions did not protest Hitler's persecution of the Jews because anti-semitism was rampant in the first half of the 20th century.  There are some noble exceptions, but they were noble exceptions.  My prior statement about Hitler was not absurd, and hardly in the category of holocaust denial - your rhetoric outpaces your logic, or knowledge.

Your nice Christian president of choice, Bush, has killed how many noncombatants with his neocon war policy?  My president of choice, the ostensibly Christian Obama, has killed how many noncombatants while continuing the wars?  The Japanese theater of World War II was not between a-religious societies - and neither was the European theater.  WWI was fought between predominantly religious nations, peoples.

Secular atrocities are undisputed but they are a relatively new phenomena.  Almost all atrocities before the 20th century were committed by ostensibly religious leaders with "god on their side."  The fact that 20th century weaponry, transportation, communication, and machinery has made the consequences of totalitarian violence worse in the 20th century than in prior centuries, is not an argument that religion somehow tames the beast in men.  It only shows that science and engineering has given leaders more efficient ways to inflict casualties or kill than ever before.  The impulse to kill those who are different motivated religious leaders throughout are history and inspired an atheistic alternative during the enlightenment.  The inspiration for totalitarian regimes techniques of torture, show trial, and confession was the inquisition of the Catholic Church. 

The culprit responsible for mass extermination of minorities is totalitarianism, whether atheistic or religious.  When the will of the state totally trumps individual rights, then individuals who are not favored will die in droves whether the state is atheist or demands one state religion.  In the balkans, sorting out ethnic and religious hostilities led to the slaughters.  Muslim / Hindu conflicts in Indian and Pakistan have killed hundreds of thousands. 

What do we fear more now - religiously inspired violence from the Middle East or an attack from Communist China?  To the extent we fear China, it is for economic reasons. 

I agree with Samurai that extremism is the enemy - religious or political.  Political extremism does not require atheism and exists in religious and non-religious flavors.  Religious extremism requires religion.  I prefer to keep religion out of politics (not out of society at large unless it simply withers away, which would not break my heart, but I would not advocate it as a political goal).  That won't keep political extremism from occurring, but it will remove one potential type of extremism from government.

When leaders try to radically reshape society on religious or political grounds, that is where slaughters arise - the one shining exception being the American revolution and the subsequent adoption of the Constitution.  That is one of two areas of American exceptionalism that I believe in, the other was geography which has become less important over time.  Radical change leading to slaughters has had religious and political motivations.  I have not seen historical evidence of religion acting to decrease violence inflicted by political leaders; it has generally served to inspire violence. 

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 09:29:26 AM

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 09:32:06 AM

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 09:32:47 AM

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 04:43:57 PM

Silvermoonlock:  Amen

Busdriver and Samurai:  I do not hang out with fundamentalists so I do not know anyone personally who is "buying a stairway to heaven" with good works.  I have read about them though.  You are defending moderate religion, which generally does not need defending.  The only problem with moderate religion is that it is the marijuana of spirituality that can lead to the harder stuff.  If it does not act as a gateway to positively crazy religion, which it does not for most sane people, then go with God.

The good news and bad news is that all religions are protected.  That prevents religious persecution, a very good thing.  It also allows wackos to flourish, a generally bad thing.  Religous wackos may be fringe, but they are often a very dangerous fringe that is also capable of violence.  When violence is "justified" by God or a "prophet," then society has a real problem.  Whatever one thinks of abortion doctors, they should not be executed by religious fanatics.  Women should not be subordinated by religious fanatics, and girls subjected to "spiritual wivery."  In my view, any truly fanatical religious believer from any major faith could become a suicide bomber - all that is needed is belief that God wishes it or God's representative on earth wishes it.   

The bottom line for me is that good people don't truly need religion, and bad people abuse both as followers and leaders.  However, religion won't hurt genuinely good people if they go into with their eyes open and if their minister, priest, whatever is also benevolent - and it clearly does make many people feel better.  It also makes many people feel worse through religiously inspired guilt over things they have no control over like "original sin," the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins, etc. 

-- Edited by Bogney on Saturday 5th of February 2011 08:35:28 AM

That's precisely my point, Silvermoonlock, - the ones that I believe Bogney are talking about, or you just referred to are the extreme side of a religion, which bears little or no resemblence to what most who worship, believe. 

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Saturday 5th of February 2011 08:26:24 AM

"Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment is the attitude of a child, and according to the Bible, we are God's children. We are supposed to to have the attitude of a child, obedient, loving, and unthinking, toward God. IMHO, being an obedient child is not being a "good" or "moral" adult. You aren't thinking about right or wrong, simply doing what one is told out of fear of divine retribution."

I just knew somebody was going to say this.

And from what very little of Christianity that I know, I do know the basic premise. You get into heaven because of your belief and submission to Jesus Christ. That's it. You can do all the gracious and charitable acts you please, but doing the right thing is not getting you a place in heaven. I would assume, unless I am HIGHLY mistaken (which is always possible) that Christians know this. Therefore, they are doing their generous and charitable acts for reasons other than fear of punishment. But I always find it interesting that non-believers, who very probably know this, belittle the generosity of religious people in this manner. They're only doing it so they can get into heaven.

If something is of practical benefit, how can it be of dubious morality?

If the benefit is outweighted by the cost of the action, it really isn't a benefit.

Tuna fishing is of dubious morality, to tuna.

When human needs conflict, what is "moral"?

Does every atom of the universe deserve "happiness"?

The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas by Ursula K LeGuin
http://www.harelbarzilai.org/words/omelas.txt

Who decides?

Doing the right thing out of fear of punishment is the attitude of a child, and according to the Bible, we are God's children.  We are supposed to to have the attitude of a child, obedient, loving, and unthinking, toward God.  IMHO, being an obedient child is not being a "good" or "moral" adult.  You aren't thinking about right or wrong, simply doing what one is told out of fear of divine retribution.

Samurai:  I view working at something that you may not love in order to support your family as a noble example of sacrifice and fortitude.  For the most part, I am lucky and I like my work, but I would have do it anyway if I did not like because I chose to have a family and they rely on me. 

The people who do charitable works to get into heaven have the same mania as those who sacrifice themselves and infidels to get into heaven.   Just for clarification, my distrust of organize religion goes to all organized religion, not just Christianity - even the flying cookie monster sect - perhaps especially them.    If I gave the impression that I was picking on Christianity in particular, that was an error.  The religion that I distrust the most are fundamenalist religions of any stripe.  Those who read the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. as the literal truth / word of God have a blind spot to reality that is frightening. 

Bullet has explained his faith before and I find it admirable and enviable.  I am certainly not suggesting that I view all people of faith as suspect invididuals.  I question the motives of the leaders far more the motives of the followers.  We assume that most church leaders are benevolent because - well they are church leaders.  Many chruch leaders have abused that trust in truly appalling ways - through greed, sexual predation, condemning distrusted persons or groups, and almost all of the same ways politicians have abused their power and trust - except that most religious leaders do not have actual armies.

I view them with same distrust I view political demogogues who wrap themselves in the flag and appeal to the zeal and emotion of their followers.  They are dangerous con men or women who don't want thinking adherents, but want believers who won't question the cause. 

As to your niece, she sounds like a lovely young woman.  I suspect that she would be doing the same thing had her acted in more or less the same way without belonging to a church. 

I heartily disagree that many people are better because of church.  I believe that there are a lot of good people who would care for others and do for others if they read Fielding, Twain, and Dickens rather than the Bible.  Oscar Wild's childrens stories have religious overtones, but are deeply moving stories of sacrifice and redemption apart from the religious symbolism.  Certainly, many good people go to Church, but there is not necessarily a causal relationship between going to church and their being good.

Geeps, I will give you that doing the right thing in order to go to heaven is in fact better than being an unrepentent criminal.  Getting people to do the right thing for the wrong reason is mind control.  There may be a practical benefit to society, but it is dubious morality.  The main character of "A Clockwork Orange," Alex, was hardly moral when the treatment rendered him incapable of violence against others even though he would refrain from harming anyone else.  If one were to donate all of one's money to charity, greatly benefitting a poor African village and improving the lives of hundreds, out of malicious desire to ruin a child to keep him from surpassing your own happiness, I would not be impressed by the charitable works despite the positive effect.

It is an interesting question whether acts should count more than thoughts or intentions.  As with most things, it is probably at neither extreme but somewhere in the middle.

Religous scams and misconduct should be exposed and ridiculed.  That level of hypocrisy should be held in light for all to see and as a cautionary tale to those who would surrender their will to others, or abuse their trust in the care or guidance of others.  People are not trained to trust doctors, engineers, or lawyers the way that they used to be conditioned to trust the clergy.  Professional abuses of trust are bad enough.  However, given their alleged moral authority, clergy should be held to the highest standards and roundly criticised when they fail to live up to them.

I guess I want to know if we all do good work at our jobs because we want to be rewarded with a paycheck.  Most of us would say, yes.  Does that make it less noble?  I work with kids in my job and if I had the means to do it without a paycheck, I would probably still be doing what I do.  But I couldn't afford to do this kind of service without the check.  It's what it is.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 4th of February 2011 02:51:03 PM

I don't dispute that there are very good churches and very good church-goers.  My contention is that the good church goers would be good regardless of church, and going to church doesn't make bad people good.  Churches are mere extension of the people who attend for good or ill.  God has little or nothing to do with it.  If you are good because you fear god, you are a coward, not a good person.  If you are good because God has inspired you, my suspicion is that nature, the world, human suffering, or various other calls to your better angles would have inspired you to good works.  I dohave a profound distrust of organized religion because it encourages faith, not rational belief, and renders the flock subject to being fleeced by unscrupulous shepards.  I have nothing but admiration for those who do good works for benevolent reasons - if you are doing it to get into heaven, then I question the spirit of such acts.

Woodwork:  Do you think that the religious leaders cannot be totalitarian despots.  Look around the Middle East and read history.  Totalitarism is the problem, not atheism.  Hitler was not virulently anti-Christian, and Rome to its shame did not speak out against him until much later.  Christians as a group were not persecuted in Germany, Jews were.  Porgrams occurred in religious Russia and eastern europe before the communists took over.  Ethnic cleansing has been performed by religious and atheists.  Christians dropped the atomic bombs on another religious nation (arguably for good reason), but the there is no viable slant against atheists in terms of atrocity and slaughtering of civilians. 

I think the history of the 20th century is all the proof anyone would need, to know that neither religion or churches are needed to make political leaders and Governments do bad things.

I believe most would agree that of all the world powers of the 20th century, America and Americans were the most religious...and that the least religious were masochistic towards their own people and sadistic towards all else. The death of millions, and neither religion nor god was invoked. Bad people need no more than a narrative to justify their bad acts, transcendence is not required.

There is a difference that many on the left have long ignored between the time-bound misdeeds of medieval religion and modern day Ayatollahs (longing for medielval times) on the one hand and religious Americans of pretty much all flavors on the other. In our lifetimes, it was the avowed secularists that committed the genocides...from Ataturk, to Mao, to Lenin, to Stalin, to Hitler. All were virulent in their hatred of organized religion and all committed genocides on their own people with special hatred and violence delivered to the people of faith they had at their disposal.

As further distinction, we had in our own lives, on the one hand, Ronald Reagan, and on the other Leonid Brezhnev. One a man of faith, the other an atheist --both world leaders lvinging in the same world.

That, to me, should give pause.

Highoverhead:  You said, "Read his book and see if you can come away doubting his character."  That strongly suggests that you believe his book is a compelling argument about Bush's character.  I merely suggested that his authorized biography is likely to be extremely biased in his favor, and therefore not a completely reliable source.  I agree with your next quote, "[n]o one said his book was conclusive proof of his value or intelligence."  You did not say that, but you strongly implied it.  You are also probably correct that while Bush fans will find the book a justification for his actions, Bush critics will be skeptical of it because their "heels are so dug in."  Of course, his supporters "heels are dug in too."

I don't think my criticisms have been refuted.  Busdriver spoke of how religious organizations can distribute funds better than government can, but even if so (and I don't concede it), a pragmatic benefit does not justify a dangerous trend of entangling church and state. 

hayden wrote:

---

There is a fine line between conviction that your faith is right, and arrogance.  

---

 Hayden, that is hard to disagree with.

I'd say there is a fine line between any "conviction that your belief or conviction is right" and arrogance. But that aside, I suppose I would have to ask, what specifically Christian arrogance, specifically, are we talking about in Bush's case? What political position did he have that was otherwise held only by Christians?

I opposed going to war (until we were in it), amongst other things and was not a fan of GWB politically, but I cannot fault a man for his loves or the sincerity of his belief...far from it. I prefer and even expect sincerity from a good person. Arrogance is the opposite of sincerity.

No one said his book was conclusive proof of his value or intelligence.  It does shed a lot of light on his decisions and the process- at least it did for me. 
But- I'm sure there are many who have heels so dug in that nothing would ever dislodge them.

Woodwork:

As I said, Bush brought religion, his personal relationship with Jesus, into politics.   You sort of proved my thesis.  Bush was a true believer who stated that either Jesus or God guided his decisions and truly believed it - which is frightening.  Without looking it up, didn't he bring forward some faith based intiatives forward with government subsidies?  I recall something about actual politicies involving government subsidies for faith based groups doing some sort of alleged good.  That suggests inappropriate church / state engtanglements to me.  It was clear that he did not believe in a wall between the church and state.  I would go with Jefferson on this issue rather than Bush.  To be fair, I would probably favor Bush's views on slavery, though I never heard him actually state them, over Jefferson's.

It is not at all clear to me that George Bush's efforts to "bring religion into politics" were anymore extraordinary than are those of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. Unlike the latter, I believe Bush was actujally a sincerely religious man (and amongst this crew, that would make him extrordinary)...and I think that is where his offense lies.

Barack drops the name of god as quick as he looks into a teleprompter. However, when Bush did it, it seemed heartfelt, and therefore to many, dangerous and offensive.

it's a lot easier to be the critic than the guy calling the shots