Jesus Hated War -- Why Do Christians Love It So Much?

[StarfarerBill]

By Gary G. Kohls, Consortium News

"When Gulf War I ended (during George Bush the Elder’s presidency), General Norman Schwartzkopf, the field commander, triumphantly proclaimed, “God must have been on our side!”

"Such statements aren’t unusual for glory-seeking dictators, kings, princes, presidents and generals, regardless of what religion justified their particular war, but I cringed when I heard this self-professed Christian warrior claim God’s blessings on the war that made him famous.

"In his memoir, It Doesn’t Take A Hero, Schwartzkopf claimed that he kept a Bible at his bedside throughout the war.

"I cringed knowing that, according to the biblical Jesus, God is never on the side of the victors. The God of love that Jesus revealed was on the side of the victims, the oppressed, the starving, the sick, the naked, the meek who were victimized by unjust power.

"Jesus’s God would not be on the side of the war-makers, but on the side of the peacemakers, the compassionate and long-suffering ones who work to prevent killing and to relieve the suffering of the victims of war."

More:
http://www.alternet.org/belief/144818/jesus_hated_war_--_why_do_christians_love_it_so_much

[Captain Hilts]

1. Like religion, it keeps men in charge. nt

[RKP5637]

2. Christians thrive on twisted views! n/t

[ixion]

3. Because they're nuts

next question.

Personally, I think Jesus would be appalled at what mainstream Jesusism has become.

[stopbush]

74. I can hear Jesus now: "What the hell is this preaching to the Gentiles crap?

"I was quite specific that I came to preach exclusively to the Jews. Did you forget that little incident with the Canaanite woman and her sick daughter? I laid it all out there. I mean, I said my helping non-Jews would be like taking the food out of a child's mouth and throwing it to the dogs. Wasn't I clear enough? Now, the first thing people think of when they hear the words "follower of Jesus' is some hillbilly from Alabama. Jesus Christ!"

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. Once you have a group you belong to...

...then everyone else who doesn't belong to it is fair game. Whether it stops at snowballs or escalates further is simply a matter of degree.

Of course The Famous Jewish Guy kept trying to point out that doesn't work, by raising the (Roman) centurion's daughter, and asking the Samaritan woman for water (she's a Them on about three different scores), and the woman from Canaan with the possessed daughter -- all three should have been kept out of the treehouse.

[madrchsod]

5. not all christians love war

those so called "christians" use the old testament to justify their hate.

[TZ]

6. If Christianity is by nature anti-war

Why do we have such songs as "Onward Christian Soldiers"? And really, the Old Testament is filled with God justified conflict. But I forget, only the New Testament counts right? :eyes:

[RC]

7. How can anybody that worships this be peaceful too.

[DeSwiss]

18. Mmmmm. Looks mouth-watering & delish! :-) n/t

[CrispyQ]

8. Because they have taken the 'Christ' out of 'Christian.'

Apologies for my over generalization of Christians. I realize not all are this way. Sadly, the ones that are, are loud & vocal & are getting all the media attention. We need more Frank Schaeffer's.

[rrneck]

9. Money nt

[moobu2]

10. Because obviously Chrisianity was developed as an Empire tool,

a very effective one.


Basically, the new testament Jesus is used to spread cultural homogeny through conversions and the old testament is used to justify military violence when the ruling class find that necessary. The rest is just icing on the cake.

[rd_kent]

39. Ding Ding Ding!!!! WINNER!!!!!

[Sal316]

76. No, it wasn't.

....but keep pimping that garbage if it makes you feel better.

[Silent3]

11. Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword"

Yes, I know there are interpretations of this that try to make it sound less war-like. The fact still stands, however, that the Bible is the kind of work where people of all persuasions can pick and choose and adjust interpretations in order to end up claiming that the Bible supports what they want it to support, including war.

[classysassy]

12. Understanding

the bible ,one must have an open mind,seek the facts not as you see them but as they really are.Think about that.

[Silent3]

13. What's to think about?

I don't think there is any mystical, magical "as they really are" to be discovered. To the extent that one can decipher the original intent of the words contained in the Bible, there's a lot of nasty, mean-spirited stuff in there, especially in the Old Testament. If you imagine that the disparate parts of the Bible somehow all come together to form a coherent message of nothing but love and peace, I'd say that's more wishful thinking on your part than a lack of an open mind on my part.

[ZombieHorde]

35. What objective would you suggest using to see the facts as they really are? nt

[rd_kent]

40. What "facts" are you talking about? There really aren't any "facts" in the bible....

[stopbush]

45. Well, there are some facts, like the fact that Quirinius was governor of Judea.

Unfortunately for them, when the authors of the Bible attempt to weave their fictions around the facts, they often fail. That's how you end up with two birth dates for Jesus separated by a decade. That's how you concoct a fiction like the Exodus - everybody knew that Egypt existed but who back then knew that archeology would come along a put the lie to the story - only to have the whole story come a cropper a few thousand years later.

The Bible is what we would today call a historic novel, a fiction woven around history, sort of like Gone With The Wind. The problem arises when the religious aver that the fact the Robert E Lee/Quirinius is mentioned in GWTW/The Bible is proof that Rhett Butler/Jesus existed as well.

[roguevalley]

23. given that the bible was put together hundreds of years after the

death of Jesus, that almost none of the original Jesus movement survived the fall of Jerusalem in 70 and since it all sprung from the sour mind of the man who used to hunt them down to bring them to their deaths- Paul - its easy to see how it came to pass. Go to the Bible and read james. then you will know more closely what Jesus had to say about how to live. Works plus faith, love thy neighbor and you are your brother's keeper is what Jesus and the messianic movement taught. They made war with Paul over his many and vast heresies.

[Silent3]

27. I don't consider the Bible a reliable source of information...

...at all, and I think there's a good chance that Jesus is just a myth and not an historical person, so for me it's kind of pointless to worry about what parts of the Bible reflect the "real" Jesus or "true" Christianity.

My point is that no one should be surprised that a person can call themselves Christian and still support war, because if war is what you want to justify there's plenty in the Bible to support a pro-war position.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

78. Jesus endorsed violence in the NT. Xtians choose to ignore that.

He was endorsing all the violence and arbitrary cruelty in the OT.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Early Christians were pacifists

and some groups (Quakers, Mennonites, etc.) rediscovered that tradition.

Becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire dealt a death blow to the pacifist strain in the faith.

[stopbush]

20. Got any historical proof for your statement about the early Xians?

Or are you just spouting another convenient "fact" concocted by the Xian myth factory?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

21. My aren't we in a mood today

And that one poster was wondering why no Christians post in R/T.

Anyway, if you're really interested and not just trying to score points, this Wikipedia article contains a whole slew of quotes from the Patristic period, pre-Constantine:

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

[stopbush]

22. Your Wiki link is a collection of quotes made by the usual Christian apologists

who are pre-disposed to voice the pacifist position.

But the historic fact is that there were definitely Xians in the Roman Army as early as 170CE, possibly earlier. The literary fact is that the NT is full of military jargon directed at Christians, and it is pretty well known that many early Xians saw the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem as divine judgment being visited on the Jews, with the Romans acting as god's agent in the process.

C John Cadoux covers both sides of the issue in his book The Early Christian Attitude to War. Like most Xian apologists, he comes down heavily on the side of the "early Xians were pacifists" argument, but he at least acknowledges that this was not a black-and-white issue among early Xians.

See here: http://keithakers.com/Cadoux/TOC.htm

On edit: I would also point out the story in Matthew in Luke wherein Jesus heals the servant of the Roman centurion. The Centurion tells Jesus that he is a "man under authority" who makes life and death decisions for those under his command. Yet, Jesus does not order this man to quit his military post as penance for the man's servant being healed. Instead, Jesus marvels at the man's faith. Funny how Jesus didn't take this rather pregnant opportunity to make a statement about serving in an army that was known for persecuting the Jews and others.

[roguevalley]

24. so what? Name a group that doesn't worship war? Name one from

the past and now. Religion is the panacea of some people to justify their aggression. But since Christianity has only been around 2000 years and war has been around since FOREVER, to blame aggression on religion is rather not seeing the forest for the trees. The nature of man can be good but even without religion, the downturn began when possessions became important. Period.

[roguevalley]

25. given that Jesus didn't write anything and all the sayings attributed

to him were second and third and fourth hand, no one knows what he truly said or how people with their agendas have changed things. Given that he was a Jew, the idea of taking care of the poor, the weak, widows and orphans and living a life of works justifying faith, he was probably a damned, damned good man. Don't blame him for the idiots that have used him for ill all these years.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. "The usual Christian apologists"? Just the biggest names in theology for that era

I'm actually in the midst of a course in church history now, and these fellows were in the midst of forming Christian theology on a number of topics.

Are you saying that you'll accept a statement that the early Christians were pacifists only if it comes from a non-Christian source?

OK. Whatever.

[stopbush]

29. No, I took issue with your original post that made the blanket statement that

the early Christians were pacifists. My research on the subject reveals that there's more nuance to it than that.

There are a lot of myths about the earliest Christians that were created to give the impression that Jesus arrived on Earth, preached and died, and that from that point on, the church just took off in all it's glory and pacifism and was unstoppable.

For some reason, the church has always been averse to reporting the history as it was. The church likes to advance the myth that the power of Jesus' ministry was such that people went unflinchingly to their deaths rather than renounce him, when recorded history paints quite a different picture. The Xian pacifist meme is another one of those biased accounts of history put out there to support the idea that belief that the power of Jesus ministry to a people for whom war was practically a birthright (the Jews) was so overwhelming that they just all became pacifists in the twinkling of an eye.

It would help in this discussion if we would define the parameters of what time frame constitutes the early church "era". It would help if we made a distinction between "early Christians" and the "early church." If we're talking about the mid-second to third century CE up til the time of Constantine, then yes, the church and many of its factions had pretty much officially adopted a stance of pacifism. If we're limiting our discussion to the first hundred and fifty years after the supposed death of Jesus, and speaking of Christians who lived before the church was actually established, then it's not so clear.

The earliest of the church leaders on your Wiki list lived around 150-220 CE, so yes, they were advocates of pacifism (and we're talking about 2nd and 3rd-century church LEADERS here, not early Christians in general). But does that mean that the earliest Christians - ie: people who were possibly alive when Jesus was up to those who lived until about 170CE when we know Xians were members of the Roman army - were pacifists as well? I think the jury is out on that one.

In any case, nice chatting.

[Igel]

38. There's a lot of NT stuff about current states versus potential states.

You're in the army? Fine--do your job, honor your commitment.

You're married? Fine--honor your commitment, but it's better if you don't seek marriage if you can help it.

Are you a slave? Fine--honor your commitment, but if you can avoid enlisting in servitude do so.

The reason for pacificism, IMHO, was fairly simple: Why fight for this world's governments?

Now, I think it's been taken to an extreme. Xians, in the NT, are to not resist violence when it's done for reasons of their faith. I've heard some say that if a robber is in your house, don't stop him; if he's going to rape and kill your wife and then you, don't stop him. I think that's hard, even if he's going to do it because he hates Xians, but unnecessary if he's doing it simply because he doesn't want witnesses to his crime.

So some violence is okay. Some isn't. Finding the dividing line is sometimes an individual thing.

As for much of the OP, I guess God really frowned on stopping Hitler. Yes, Godwin and all that, but it stands as a fairly standard, and fairly conclusive, response to such drivel: If God is only for those who make peace through non-violent means, well, there's no way around it. The Allied effort in Europe was certainly lacking in non-violence. If you'd prefer having all of Korea be N. Korea, that's fine. Or allowing Japan to have the run of E & SE Asia. Whatever.

[rd_kent]

41. "in a mood"? Asking for somthing to substantiate your claim is "in a mood"?

And you wonder why non-believers jump all over shit like this?

[Meshuga]

46. I think it has to do with tone

There is a chance that the frustration from the poster resulted from the way the reply was presented. Not the request for proof necessarily.

If a person says something that I view as inaccurate I don't need to make assumptions by default accusing the poster of "spouting another convenient 'fact'" in such a dramatic tone. It does not hurt to give the person the benefit of the doubt and try to educate in order to clear any misconceptions if I do have facts to present and I think the person is wrong.

[Sal316]

77. Well, one can see you're interested in rational discussion....

....not.

What pissed the Romans off was that early Christians didn't participate in their Empire games. They understood what Jesus meant when he said "My kingdom is not of this world". That's why they were hunted down and killed.

[trotsky]

36. Not exactly.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/christianpacifism.html

Post Enlightenment Christianity often emphasizes the peaceful nature of Jesus, as opposed to the very numerous accounts of divinely sanctioned violence or warfare in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament). Proponants of the Christian pacifist position sometimes point to the early Church, the first three centuries of Christianity, and cite it as "pacifist" in arguing against Christian participation in warfare, under any circumstances. Such claims are often cited as a means of illuminating the supposedly un-Christian character of the crusades.This point was once brought up during an interview by ChristianityToday with the highly respected crusades scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith.. A partial transcript follows and the response by Dr. Riley-Smith is well worth reading.

...

Riley-Smith is right to point out the modern misconception that early Christians were uniformly "pacificist." While Christians may have generally been opposed to war, this is far different than saying they opposed all war under all circumstances. In fact a considerable number of Christians served in the Roman Army before the reign of Constantine and few, if any, of the major early Christian theologians who wrote about the issue were uniform in their opinions. Indeed, some theologians, such as Tertullian, seem to have held multiple positions at different stages of their life. Yet at one time or another each seems to have seen a usefulness for the military or war. Note for example how in the following passage, Tertullian, whose works are often cited to argue early Christians were pacifists, prays for the Roman Empire to have "brave armies."

...

Origen also points to the militarism of the Hebrews when he suggests that if Christians ever came to control a country and its government, which did not happen until the reign of Constantine (long after Origen's death), then Christians also would have an obligation to protect their lands and people.

...

Finally, an important distinction needs to be made between the sin of murder (always condemned by early Christians) and killing (executions and warfare) which God often called for according to the Hebrew scriptures. Basil noted this distinction among the early fathers when in 374 (CE) he wrote, "Our fathers did not think killing in war was murder;" Modern scholars of Hebrew have argued that Exodus 20:13 should be translated, "Thou shalt not murder" rather than "Thou shalt not kill." The distinction is important, as otherwise the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testement), full of divine exhortations to kill, whether in combat or by means of execution, would make no sense.

[Goldstein1984]

15. Mark Twain said, "If Jesus were alive today...

...the last thing he'd be is a Christian."

I wish Mark Twain were alive today.

[Gregorian]

16. Because "they" aren't Christians.

There are so few Christians on this planet, one can count them fairly quickly.

Go and try to find those who believed we should forgive Bin Laden. I dare one to try that. Good luck. I know of a few. But we're freaks. I mean, if one forgave Bin Laden that would be treasonous, right?

[DeSwiss]

17. But Christianity....

...has always been heartened at anytime and by anything which reduces their competition's size and strength. And of course when you're a Christian, the act of perpetrating God's Justice isn't a war - war, its a "Just War." The kind that has god's approval.

But whether via pestilence or disease (even when done on purpose like with smallpox blankets), whether its through starvation or and bald-faced LIES (aka: "Manifest Destiny"). And whether the hand of god himself moves against his enemies with storms and the wind and the rains (two words: "New Orleans"), god hates those who make war, but he loves him a "Just War." And as such, He loves all the "Just Warriors." Just look it up -- they're all throughout the bible. The only difference today is, he just cut out all the approved rapiness and pedophilia of little girls. Well, its still done of course. But it's not specifically "Yahweh Approved" anymore.

- So its not as good a time at war, as it was in the 'Ol Daze.....

K&R




{Posted for the irony & sarcasm-impaired}

[stopbush]

19. Jesus' "dad" Yahweh was a genocidal maniac.

And since Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are one-in-the-same, Jesus was also a genocidal maniac.

I guess it all depends on your definition of peacemakers, victims and long-suffering.

Ask an Amalekite the next time you see one.

[humblebum]

28. About 130 million or so died under atheistic dictators in the 20th century

Imagine how many would have died had those guys been Christian. Could have really been bad.

[moobu2]

30. You've been spending way to much time

on Christian propaganda websites.

[humblebum]

33. The Guinness Book of Records is not a " Christian propaganda website". nt

[moobu2]

34. Where is that listed in The Guinness Book of Records?

[stopbush]

31. False argument. Those dictators didn't wage the wars in the name of atheism.

That's a bit different than the religious wars we see even today waged in the name of god.

Adolf Hitler was raised a Catholic. In a speech in 1922 he remarked, "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a fighter..." In Mein Kampf, Hitler stated:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Throughout his life, Hitler invoked God and "the Lord," demonstrating his religious, not atheistic, nature. Hitler was a Catholic and aligned himself with the church. The church returned the favor during WWII by aligning itself with Hitler. Hitler never renounced his Catholic faith and never made a peep about being an agnostic or atheist. You Christians may as well get used to the fact that Hitler was quite the member of your flock.

Josef Stalin's mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin was, of course, baptized. Stalin himself supposedly claimed that his father had been a priest. As a youth, Stalin spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary, after which he purportedly renounced his religion. In his later years, Stalin apparently embraced Christianity once more. As Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, "During his mysterious retreat of June 1941 the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." Radinsky likewise chronicles a number of religious comrades in Stalin's immediate circle. It is evident that, whether for good or bad, religion played a significant role in Stalin's life, notably from at least 1941 forward, ie: the time when he was committing his greatest atrocities.

More important, though the Soviet brand of Marx-inspired Communism did contain an atheist plank in the Party platform, and even though the Party promoted itself as anti-religion and pro-science, it was, in fact, the opposite. Communism paid lip service to science while adopting disastrous anti-scientific practices in farming etc. Communism itself was a religion, with god replaced by the almighty state. The fact is that Communism was anti-any-religion-but-Communism.

And if you want to throw in the atrocities of the Japanese in the 20th century, these were also religiously inspired. That's easy to see if we don't taken the word "religion" to exclusively mean "Christianity," and if we don't apply the tag "atheist" to any religion that is not Christianity.

[humblebum]

32. Actually they were largely waged in the name of atheism.

Groups like 'The League of Militant Atheists' and 'Society of the Godless' were formed to openly spread the doctrines of "Scientific Atheism". All card-carrying Communists were required to officially renounce any attachment to religion and to declare themselves atheists and to openly persecute any religious adherents encountered. Atheism was inculcated in schools, factories, and homes. Thousands of religious structures were demolished. Countless numbers of clergy were executed or imprisoned and entire towns were starved into submission for refusing to cease religious practices. 'The Atheist' newspaper was widely circulated while all religious publications were made illegal. These things happened under Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev and this soviet model was exported to China,South Asia, and Eastern Europe. So, given that groups were formed in the name of atheism, that a major publication was called 'the Atheist', and that the official state atheism was called "Scientific Atheism" - I must conclude that,yes, much was done in the name of Atheism. It was not just a side note in history, but a major part of the communist revolution.

[rd_kent]

43. Hogwash!

Total exaggeration on your part.

[darkstar3]

49. Source? n/t

[rd_kent]

42. No, they didn't. You need to check your history.....

Hitler was a catholic....

[humblebum]

44. Hitler was also a devout student of Neitzsche.

But I know you'll call that hogwash, too. And yes, I have checked my history. Many sources of reference:'Storming the Heavens...', by Peris,'Godless Communists', by Husband,'The Black Book of Communism', by Courtois et al., etc..

[rd_kent]

47. None of the people you mentioned committed the atrocities "In the name of atheism". None.

Now, they may have been anti-religious because organized religion was a threat to their plans, but making everyone an atheist was not the reason.......

[humblebum]

48. I think you need to study YOUR history. Far too much supporting evidence.

I never said that everything was done in the name of atheism, but when atheists are ordered to persecute, harrass, report the religious and their activities, and when groups do the things they do with the name "atheist" clearly labled, and when millions of religious are killed, imprisoned, or both to advance the policies of Scientific Atheism- It was most certainly done in the name of atheism. It was NOT 'League of Militant Communists, but of 'Militant Atheists or Godless'. You are in denial.

[darkstar3]

50. You should study the history

of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the amount of power it held over the laypeople. That church stood as a huge obstacle to absolute hegemony and the Party was obsessed with crushing it under their collective boot. It had nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with power.

[humblebum]

51. That's just another dimension of Russia's history, but you are

trying to ignore the obvious. The philosophical roots of Soviet atheism are identical to those of the new atheist movement today.

[darkstar3]

52. How did you jump to that conclusion?? n/t

[humblebum]

54. You must first make the distinction between individual atheism

(which is a person's right to be a part of and that right should be respected)and organized atheism, which is nothing new and has a defined history that can be traced back.

[darkstar3]

55. And what IS "organized atheism"?

Where on this planet do you see "organized atheism"?

[humblebum]

57. Have you read any of the above posts? nt

[darkstar3]

58. I have,

but you haven't answered the question. What IS organized atheism, and where do you see it today??

[humblebum]

60. Do you think that organizations like American Atheists are not

organized atheism? or campus atheists? Aren't they non-profits with mission statements just like any other organization. And don't you consider The League of Militant Atheists to be an organization that had a defined purpose and common ideals and goals among its members. Atheists can and do organize just like any other group.

[darkstar3]

61. Good work,

now tell me how these toothless organizations such as American Atheists are ANYTHING like "Soviet Atheism".

ETA: BTW, for you to compare "campus atheists" to "The League of Militant Atheists" is a sickening display of bigotry on your part. The two groups are so radically different from each other as to have no parallels, but drawing a comparison between them lets you paint "campus atheists" with an evil brush.

[humblebum]

62. I said that they were all examples of organized atheism. That

they are.

[darkstar3]

64. Actually, they're not.

The League of Militant Atheists was created specifically to increase the power of the Communist Party. It was an anti-church (specifically the Russian Orthodox Church) organization that used atheism as a convenient tool in the hopes of stamping out religious opposition to the party.

The other groups you cited, however, namely the American Atheists and the Campus Atheists, are designed specifically as nothing more than support groups. Various atheists have gathered together to form these groups so that they don't have to stand alone against the bigotry and intolerance constantly stacked up against them.

To put it simply, if the League of Militant Atheists was an example "organized atheism", then the KKK is an example of "organized Christianity."

[humblebum]

65. In a manner of speaking I would have to say you're right.

The Klan does claim to be Christian so for better or worse they are organized and they are christian , if in name only. The League was created specifically to inculcate atheism at all levels of society. They didn't persecute and report people for not being communists, but for not being atheists. All communist party members were atheists but not all atheists were communists and there were many more declared atheists than communists. You are making more out of the word 'organized' than is necessary. It is no more than people coming together for a specific purpose. The Girl Scouts are organized and the Mafia is organized but the simlarities stop there.

[darkstar3]

66. So let me see if I have this right:

You're saying that you think the KKK is an example of organized Christianity?

[humblebum]

67. I think they are organized for a specific purpose and i think they

consider themselves to be Christian. That's about as far as it goes. Do I consider them Christian? No. I think it is possible for any grouping of human beings to be extremist or fanatical under any banner, religious or otherwise.

[darkstar3]

68. So you don't consider them Christian,

but you consider their counterparts "atheist"?

How does that work?

[humblebum]

69. And just who are you considering as their counterparts?

[darkstar3]

70. Have you been reading here?

I consider the League of Militant Atheists to be the counterpart of the KKK, which is why I drew the parallel.

You consider the League of Militant Atheists to be genuinely atheist, while I do not. I view their atheism through the lens of history, and I realize that it was merely used as a tool to stamp out religious opposition to the rule of the Party.

Some people consider the KKK to be genuinely Christian, but we do not. We view their Christianity through the lens of history, and realize that it is merely used as a tool to whip up religious frenzy in order to balloon their numbers and support their bigoted actions.

I think it is very apt to refer to the two as counterparts.

[humblebum]

71. The L of M Atheists took much of its direction from Lenin and

Lenin developed many of his ideas with input from contemporaries such as B. Russell and from groups such as the Paris Commune. Later on the epistemology of logical positivism which was defined at the Vienna Circle was adopted by the Russian scientific community as their Scientific Atheism. There are common philosophic roots used by prominent atheists today,eg. both Hawking and Dawkins are admitted positivists. And that old bolshevik/trotskyite, C. Hitchens sounds like he could have jumped right out of old Moscow when he exhorts his audience to show "ridicule, hatred, and contempt" for religion. The Soviet Atheists also used the media heavily to advance their objectives, ie. anti-religious advertisements, anti-religious cartoons and posters, plays and anti-religious performances - all very similar to today. So yes, I see much in common between then and now. And given the right circumstances who knows what could happen. Very little common philosophic ground between the KKK and the methodists.

[darkstar3]

72. Wow,

don't look now, but your bigotry is showing. You have engaged here in ad hom, false parallels, and topped the whole nasty sundae off with a slippery slope fallacy. Between this and the fact that you won't source your claims made here and elsewhere, your anti-atheist feelings are becoming quite clear.

"And given the right circumstances who knows what could happen."
Just, damn...everything I needed to know about your twisted opinion on atheists is rolled into that single sentence.

[humblebum]

73. I have shown my sources and i have to say that

calling someone a bigot is an ad hominem. You show me one thing I've said that is not true. By the way, remember the subject of this thread.

[rd_kent]

75. Here is something you need to see, humblebum. It may change your mind.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=230687&mesg_id=230710

read that and get back to me.

[humblebum]

63. Considering the subject of this thread I think

you need to consider who is bigoted here.

[stopbush]

53. You wrote,"Actually they were largely waged in the name of atheism" in #32 a few posts up.

But now you say, "I never said that everything was done in the name of atheism." This looks like a transparent attempt on your part to move the goal posts, from "waging war" to "everything."

But nobody here is talking about "everything." They're talking about your assertion that the wars of the 20th century "were largely waged in the name of atheism."

So what is it?

[humblebum]

56. I fail to see your distinction, but I am claiming that establishment

of Scientific Atheism was one primary objective of the communist revolution. In that respect it was a large part of the overall agenda, and I believe history confirms that fact.

[stopbush]

59. Your failure to see the distinction extends beyond my last post.

I'd ask, respectfully, that you go back and reread the back-n-forth that you initiated. Perhaps you'll see the distinctions, because they're pretty clear to me and the others engaged in this dialogue.

[rd_kent]

37. Kick

[ZombieHorde]

79. Religion has nothing to do with the source material. Liberals have a liberal god while

conservatives have a conservative god.

People are just deifying their own world view.