Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pope speech compares atheist 'extremism' with Nazism

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:16 PM
Original message
Pope speech compares atheist 'extremism' with Nazism
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 12:33 PM by ZombieHorde
The Pope has compared "atheist extremism" to the Nazi tyranny of WWII in a speech given in Edinburgh as he begins a four-day visit to the UK.

The pontiff praised Britain's fight against the Nazis - who "wished to eradicate God" - before relating it to modern day "atheist extremism".

Afterwards his spokesman Federico Lombardi said: "I think the Pope knows rather well what the Nazi ideology is".

Humanists have said the comments were a "terrible libel" against non-believers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11332515
--------------

The bold is in the original article.

edit to add some pics...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rrneck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Fuck that beady eyed funny hat red shoe sequined dress wearing son of a bitch. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:34 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. ...with a chainsaw
He's presiding over one of the most corrupt institutions in the history of the world, an institution that has been consistently corrupt for many centuries, the rigid hierarchy of Rome.

I really don't think he's got much moral ground to stand on, especially when he's shrieking about people who just want to be recognized as deserving the same human right to conscience that he claims for the flock he's fleecing.

My hope for Catholics all over the world is that they find a way to break with Rome. While there's a great deal of stability to be gained from a centralized hierarchy deciding doctrine, when that centralized hierarchy becomes corrupted the corruption is also stabilized within it as part of its function. That's exactly what has happened to Rome. The Reformation failed to reform it and only caused a schism between Rome and dozens of competing small sects.

Until there is either a break or a true reformation within that corrupt hierarchy, I'll send believer friends who are disgusted by Rome to the Episcopalians. Most of them have found it a great fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democrats_win Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Jesus didn't usually attack the Romans, instead he attacked his own religion.
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 12:23 PM by Democrats_win
Jesus was quite harsh with the "money changers" in the temple. With the pagan Romans, he was more like, "forgive them for they know not what they do." But this "Pope" seems to follow his own desires of more power by attacking atheists. He is wayyyyyy off track.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
3. like I give a rat's buttocks what the pope thinks....
He's insane-- he structures his entire life around a series of delusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cheap_Trick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
4. Hey pope, why don't you go back to doing what you do best?
Covering up for a bunch of child molesting assholes.

Now go open yourself a nice frosty 16 ouncer of SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. Psst, Your Holiness
If as you claim God is omnipotent, then no human idea or force can eradicate him/her/it. If not, then you might want to consider another day job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
7. Notice he said "extremist" atheism. He is right on the money with his claims.
"Extremist atheism" or "militant" atheism has a history equally as violent and repressive as nazism. Regardless of what some think of the Pope, history provides empirical proof of his claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. "He went on to say "aggressive neo-atheism" was widespread in England."
He is talking about the "new atheists."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. "New Atheism" has the same philosophic orientation as any older
forms of atheism. It's language is very much the same and it's potential for other things? Time will tell. I agree with him on this issue. "Extremist" anything has a potential to do great harm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Kinda like your extremist beliefs against atheists.
Very dangerous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Only to extremist atheism. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. So you admit you have extremist beliefs.
That's a start!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. I am extremist when it comes to demanding toleration of any creed or belief, which threatens no one
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 01:43 PM by humblebum
Yes, in that sense I am extremist. Take that any way you see fit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. So whom is "new atheism" threatening?
Did Richard Dawkins issue a fatwa lately?
Christopher Hitchens bomb an abortion clinic?

Or are you the world's first mind reader and even though there is no evidence whatsoever that atheists are threatening anyone, you just KNOW that they are just like the Communists of the early 20th century and want to stamp out religious beliefs by force?

There's a word for that. A pretty ugly word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. History repeats itself.
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 01:50 PM by humblebum
Yes, the potential is there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Yep, the ugly word.
Fits you perfectly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. I told you where I stand. what you tend to think of that is your business.
I can only assume then that you favor intolerance for ideas you do not agree with. There's a name for that too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. "you favor intolerance for ideas you do not agree with"
That's what you just got done telling me you think. Congrats.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #35
42. Nope, caught you.
This one goes in the bookmarks, along with the rest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #42
46. Not only a manipulator but a schemer too. You make atheism
look better all the time. How you got this quote, "you favor intolerance for ideas you do not agree with" from this,"I am extremist when it comes to demanding toleration of any creed or belief, which threatens no one" - I'll never know, but you clearly misquoted that sentence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #46
55. No scheming necessary.
You got caught in your own linguistic web. It's hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #46
67. Wow, you sure are dancing now!
This is hilarious watching you squirm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 03:23 AM
Response to Reply #67
81. I never was much of a dancer, so I'll just stand by what I said.OK?
You show me how it's done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #81
92. Yeah, you stand there in your puddle
of fail.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #46
89. How he got that quote? From post #28, that's where.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #42
90. I tried that once
My browser crashed from the excess data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #35
66. He is? Seems like the same tactic you use all the time.
Hypocrite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #23
71. Potential?
Maybe you oughta do a preemptive strike, you know, just in case.

Pfft, potential.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #23
88. "If Dawkins then Gulags."
Yeah, right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silent3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #20
53. How do you define "toleration"?
Is, say, not supporting discrimination in hiring and housing enough to be considered tolerant? Is wanting the government to maintain separation of church and state enough? Is standing up for the free speech rights of anyone, no matter what their beliefs or philosophy, enough?

Or does tolerance in your view mean never being heard saying a harsh word about what you think of someone else's beliefs? Treating religion as different from, say, politics or scientific theories or taste in music, where either no negativity at all is allowed, or any negativity has to be delivered in the most careful and gingerly way, with scads of disclaimers and praise for areas where one doesn't disagree, to make sure no one thinks you're criticizing the whole believing person in every aspect of their being when you say, for example, that belief in God is a superstition that doesn't make sense? Oh, and perhaps lots of apologizing and grovelling about how your own anti-religion opinion is just your own very humble opinion, of which you're very tentatively uncertain, maybe with an apology for even bringing up the matter? Is that what "tolerance" requires?

Since I've seen little or no intolerance of the first sort here on DU, but you're always at the ready at the drop of a hat to show how very annoyed you are with many vocal atheists on DU, and with any sort of outspoken atheism in general, I can only guess that you define toleration in the ridiculous second way that makes religion, above all else, a special reserved area of human debate demanding special kid gloves treatment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PassingFair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #15
60. Can you give me an example of a dangerous, Nazi-like "extremist atheist"?
Edited on Fri Sep-17-10 06:32 AM by PassingFair
Just so I know who wants to kill me?

:scared:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. I have a strong feeling the word extremist means something different to you than the Pope.
To the Pope, an extremist atheist is an atheist who is vocal about it, such as Richard Dawkins.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Naw, from what I can tell, bumble thinks the same thing. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. The pope has also experienced both nazism and state atheism.
He is probably more qualified than most to make a comparison betwween the two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. When did he face state atheism? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. Nope. Historically incorrect.
Unless he lived in one of a few countries with state atheism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Well, according to bumble,
just imagining how evil atheists could be is the same as knowing that they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
33. Actually, he traveled with John Paul II to several East Block countries
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 02:52 PM by humblebum
and of course he was from Germany, which was divide east and west after the war. Yes,he was very familiar with state atheism. And the list of countries where state atheism existed is quite long. It includes countries of the former USSR, China, East Asia, eastern Europe, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. But you didn't say "familiar with." You said he had "experienced" it.
Pitiful attempt at backpedaling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Generally when one goes to another country and has relatives in that country
it can be said that they experienced the conditions in that country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #36
41. No, it can't be said.
Unless he lived under those conditions, he didn't experience it. Valiant attempt, but you misspoke. Isn't there some book that says something about bearing false witness?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
45. If you spent any time in a communist country, believe me you experienced it.
You are babbling about something you have no knowledge of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #45
54. So you spent time in a communist country?
Really? This is something that you *do* have knowledge of?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #54
57. Yes. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #57
59. Bwah ha ha ha ha.
Sure you did. Caught you AGAIN.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #59
69. He is NOT having a very good day today, is he?
I love it when hypocrites get tangled up in their own deceit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #45
68. The two words of of one who no longer can support their argument : "believe me"
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #33
61. The entirety of east asia and eastern Europe are/were state atheist countries?
Do tell. Have a source for that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #61
80. Who said the entirety? But any marxist communist nation claimed state atheism.
That covers many countries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 07:48 AM
Response to Reply #80
82. So which one were you in? And when? And where did you go?
What horrible abuse by atheists did you endure to give you extensive experience of life in a totalitarian Communist atheistic state? Let's hear ALL the details. *snicker*
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
atreides1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Any examples?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #12
87. Sound of wind blowing. Tumbleweeds roll by. -nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sarge43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #7
26. Aren't you and the Pope confusing God and religion?
They're not the same thing. There have many repressive regimes which have tried to eliminate religious practices, even the religions themselves, and yes in a few cases, seceded. Just how did their actions affected God?

If the Pope wishes to claim atheism, extreme or otherwise, poses a threat to religion, he may have an argument. A threat to God? Unless of course God is a human creation instead of the other way around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #7
30. Notice you are siding with a complete douchebag on this one.
Make you happy? This is the same dickhead that covered up the pedophiles and still refuses to do what is right. This is the same guy that is trying to push the RCC slowly back to Vatican policies and attitudes. The fact that you jumped right in line with him surprises me not and speaks volumes about you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #30
37. Obviously you have not read my statements. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #37
64. And I quote "He is right on the money with his claims."
How in the hell did I misinterpret that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #64
65. And so? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #65
70. I said you were siding with a douchebag.
You said you weren't.
I gave you the quotation above to show you that you were.

Was that really so unclear to you or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:51 AM
Response to Reply #70
79. I thought you had something intelligent to add to the conversation.
My mistake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #79
83. You're cranky when you're getting your ass handed to you. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 07:32 AM
Response to Reply #83
104. Well that explains why he's mad *all the time*.
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #79
112. BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You got OWNED!
How is it I missed this part until today? Fucking hilarious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #7
106. Yes, but nobody ever killed SPECIFICALLY for atheism
The Catholic Church has killed MILLIONS that they thought were infidels and "ignorant savages" who refused to accept Christ.

The only culture I can think of that espoused atheism was Soviets Russia. But they didn't kill all BELIEVERS. They just eradicated THE CHURCH as an organization.

Kind of a HUGE difference there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #106
107. Not much on history are you? So how many millions did the Catholic Church kill?nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. Well, let's see
The Inquisition, the various purges of sects like the Anabaptists, the slayings of the Inca peoples, the Filipino people, native Americans (Hello, Columbus), Africans, the Irish wars....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 12:11 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. I didn't ask who they were nor where they came from. I asked
how many millions were killed. As far as atheist atrocities, under atheistic dictators the number is around 130 million in the 20th Century alone. Largest mass murders in human history. More than all religious wars combined in all of human history. Definitely something to guard against happening again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #110
111. Best To Reduce That To An Actuarial Basis, Sir
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 08:46 PM by The Magistrate
World population ran about a half billion or less in the period when religion did most of its killing, after all.

Sources for your claim of one hundred thirty millions killed by atheist dictatorships in the twentieth century alone ought to be provided. It strikes me as something of an exaggeration, and could not be approached without assuming Hitler as an atheist, and ranging the Imperial cult of Shinto Japan as atheist also.

A key point you clearly do not want to engage is that most religious killing actually proceeds from points of doctrine, as taught by clergy in power, and must necessarily occur where people take the doctrine seriously and obey the clergy. This killing would not occur without religious belief. The killing engaged in by totalitarian and militarist dictators hardly requires atheism,nor does it flow from any element of atheist conviction; believers and unbelievers alike have engaged in it through history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #111
114. that is one of the greatest jobs of rationalization I have ever read.
About the 130 million. That number does not even consider those who died under Hitler. No one can rightfully claim that he was an atheist, or a Christian, or a pagan. Far too complicated of a personality. He was a devoted student of Nietzsche's works - hardly a Christian activity. He was baptised a Catholic, though many Christians died opposing him, and he placed his own loyal people in the churches. He also had a keen knowledge of the 1st Riech's position as defender and co-leader of the Catholic Church and of the German heritage before christianization.

Back to the 130 million thing - sources include the writings of RJ Rummel, the Black Book of Communism, and the Guinness Book of Records. These numbers include those murders under Lenin, Stalin, Kruschev, Mao, Pol Pot, Hoxha, Ceausescu, etc. No atheist connection you say? Many of these acts were encouraged or carried out by members of groups like The League of Militant Atheists, The Society of the Godless, and the Godless. Their stated goal was the implementation of state atheism and the complete destruction of religion. The new replacement for religion was called "Scientific Atheism". All religious publications were banned and newspapers and magazines like "the Atheist" were circulated widely. And you say this did not flow "from any element of atheist conviction." The stated purpose was to establish state atheism.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #114
115. You Are Citing Rummel, Sir? President Obama Is the Greatest Threat To the U.S. Rummel?
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 12:28 AM by The Magistrate
You might as well point us to a John Birch Society reading list and back slowly from the room. The man is a joke in poor taste, with zero credibility.



http://rudyrummel.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-of-american-democracy.html

"The most serious and realistic threats today to the United States of America are two. One foreign -- the threat of an EMP nuclear attack on the country. The other domestic -- that Congress and President Obama will turn the country into a one-party, authoritarian state—a tyranny."

http://rudyrummel.blogspot.com/2009/07/authoritarianism-on-way.html

"I am particularly sensitive to signals that may foretell radical changes in our political system. First, I see that Obama has become a charismatic cult figure, much loved for who and what he is. His followers, including those in the media and schools, are devoted to him. He strokes this devotion with vague and comforting rhetoric that camouflages his lust for power. He will never admit to nationalizing health care. No, he will “reform our system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.” Who is going to oppose that?

"Second, the Democratic Party, with Obama as its head, has a stranglehold on Congress. Hispanics, Blacks, gays, single and employed woman, unions, teachers, most foundations, thousands of lawyers, and the major media strongly support Democrats, in some cases by well over by 70-80% percent. Then there are the leftist groups and the very rich who provide many resources for the Democratic electoral campaigns. Need I mention ACORN?"

http://rudyrummel.blogspot.com/2009/09/was-democratic-peace-killed-part-vi.html

"President George W. Bush, apparently equally impressed by the research on the Democratic Peace, made the democratic peace his Forward Strategy of Peace (see here). It was the basis of his policy. He saw that promoting democracy—freedom—is the way to world peace, and in the fundamental national interest. Realists hated it. It was Wilsonianism reborn, and dangerous; they mistakenly thought it led to forcing democracy on other nations and thus conflict, violence, and war. But Bush and his Secretary of State Rice, stuck to it throughout his administration.

Realists often claim that Bush failed in promoting democracy; there was more democracy in the world when he became president than when he left it. Let us check this using the freedom ratings by Freedom House. For the period of Bush’s two terms, those nations whose rating improved to be the best for Freedom—a rating of 1—went from 29 to 50 in number, almost doubled. The number of electoral democracies remained at 121, and the number of free nations—with a rating of 1 or 2, and sometimes 3—decreased from 91 to 90. To best see the overall change, I averaged the ratings for all nations, and found that for political rights and civil liberties (which range from 1 to 7), those for Bush’s term went from 3.47(last year of Clinton’s presidency) to 3.26 for Bush’s last year. Considering that this is for all 193 nations, the change is significant. Bush’s Forward Strategy Of Peace did promote democracy in the world. Also note that Iraq (rated 6) and Afghanistan (rated 5) are not counted yet among the democracies.

ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S FOREIGN POLICY


To characterize Obama’s foreign policy, let’s look at its major elements.

He apologizes to friends and enemies for past American foreign policy and actions, while ignoring the good that America has done, such as the Marshall Plan, economic aid, being the world’s major source of disaster relief, saving and freeing nations from communism, and democratizing Japan, Germany, and Italy. Also saving a million lives in Somalia and saving Muslim Bosnia and Kosovo; and freeing Kuwait and Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s rule, and Afghanistan from the Taliban, while aiding the constitutional democratization of both.

He placates and supports dictators and authoritarian “democrats,” such as Chavez of Venezuela, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Hu Jintao of China, among others

He firmly believes in the thug ruled and failed UN and wants to support and use it as much as he can.

He believes in the smile and jaw-jaw approach to conflicts and enemies, such as North Korea and Iran. His administration has scheduled to meet with both, even one-on–one, without, to my knowledge, any preconditions.

He has clearly sided with the Palestinians against Israel, including giving aid to Hamas and making demands on Israel that favor of the Palestinians.

He has cut funds for missile defense, cut the defense budget overall, and has decided not to build missile defenses in Poland and Czechoslovakia against Iran as a carrot for better relations with Putin. He refuses to fund an upgrade in our nuclear weapons.

He is anti-nuclear proliferation to stable democracies, although nukes would help defend them.

He has set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq and ending the Iraq War on August 31, 2010, but will leave a force of 35,000 to 50,000 troops.

He is clearly reluctant to increase American troops in Afghanistan for fear of world criticism.

He has changed the “War on Terror” to “Overseas Contingency Operation.” He says we are not fighting terrorists but al Qaeda, and that fight being our near total focus.

He has used the 9/11 anniversary, the memorial day to honor the innocent and the brave who perished at the hands of terrorists, to promote “community service.” 9/11 is simply another day to move his agenda.

He is now treating incarcerated terrorists as criminals, with all the rights of American criminals. At one point, some were read their Miranda rights when captured. Also torture, regardless of the immediate need to save lives, has been forbidden. Thus, he has changed a War on Terror to a police action as in pre-9/11. He is unnecessarily closing Guantanamo detention camp by January 22, 2010 as a sop to world and domestic leftist opinion.

He is a trade protectionist if so demanded by American unions.

He is pursuing the legal prosecution of those CIA agents that used “torture” on terrorists, although done under the guidance of the Department of Justice, thus undermining intelligence operations.


Where is democracy and human rights in all this? They do pop up occasionally in some of his speeches, but are not central to his foreign policy. Then what is? They are “the “three D’s” of defense, diplomacy, and development, with the emphasis being on diplomacy with friends and enemies, or the use of “soft power”. This is clearly a bow to the realist’s belief in diplomacy, but ignores what also should be a focus on hard power and power balances.

The democratic peace? Gone. Dead. If he has said anything, I could not find it. In this, he a 1960’s anti-war, socialist-radical activist. These radicals believed in love not war, that peace can be had by actively opposing American policies and hands across the seas.

So given all this, how do I characterize the Obama foreign policy? Not soft power, not smart power, not political realism. Might it be then to pacify or placate friend and enemies in what he calls the world community? Yes.

Is it then also to satisfy demands of friends and enemies? Yes

Is it moreover to relieve guilt about America’s past behavior? Yes.

And is Obama making concessions at the expense of realism? Yes.

Then his foreign policy is one of appeasement and appeasement is the way to characterize it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 04:17 AM
Response to Reply #115
116. That doesn't change the numbers one bit. That is his area of expertise
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 04:46 AM by humblebum
regardless of his politics. And his sources are very much in line with Courtois, et al. in The Black Book of Communism, Alexander Solzhenitsyn's estimates, Guinness' Book, and others. BTW, the numbers killed involving the Catholic Church during the time you reference when the population was only half billion or so, were in the thousands, not millions. You should check your sources. I am surprised. Magistrates are supposed to display an analytical mind, critical thinking, impartiality, common sense. Rummel was doing his work long before Obama came on the scene and his credentials are first rate, politics aside. The University of Hawaii is hardly a bastion of conservative thought.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #116
117. It Very Much Affects His Assessment Of The Numbers, Sir
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 06:28 AM by The Magistrate
Among other things, he claims some fifteen millions killed by Stalin between 1946 and 1953, which is simply fantasy. The man has no area of expertise whatsoever, and there is no excuse for anyone to cite him for anything but an example of political lunacy and educated idiocy. We have professors who deny Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, who proclaim Cleopatra was a Negro, who purport to demonstrate white people are more intelligent than blacks by hereditary make-up: saying someone is a professor carries no weight whatever with me.

The 'Black Book' is respectable, but does not get you much above eighty millions, depending on how one deals with estimates giving ranges of three to five millions, or twenty to forty-five millions, things which amount to stating, in plain English, "Beats the hell out of me, so pick your poison, partner, and wear it in good health." Between Mr. Conquest's sturdy old twenty millions and Mr. Medvedev's forty millions probably lies the truth for the Soviet Union, and Mao certainly deserves a toll of similar magnitude, with the rest of the communist pack coming in to a single digit less than a tenth, possibly even but a twentieth, of the total. In short,the figure you gave, which drew my eye to this, is not a supportable one.

And of course, all of this glides over very real distinctions in classes of killing. Most of the deaths attributed to communist regimes were not intended, they were incidental to failures of policy. The point of 'The Great Leap Forward', for instance, was not to kill people; it was to increase agricultural productivity and establish small industrial facilities in tremendous number. What made it lethal was a combination of failure in the means chosen to do these things, and the refusal of people in charge to acknowledge that failure. One could certainly argue depraved indifference, once the thing got going, but pre-meditation intending death is absent. Something like the famine inflicted on the Ukraine, certainly, was a deliberate act aimed at subjugating a rebellious colony, clearly murder, though of a sort common enough to imperial practice throughout history. The portion of people killed directly over questions of belief, mostly political, among the total toll of the communist regimes, is pretty small, probably not more than two millions in the Soviet Union and five millions in Red China.

The killing carried out by religions is purposeful and deliberate killing. There was no reason to massacre the population of Jerusalem, for example, except that it comprised Moslems, Jews, and various eastern Schismatics. There was no reason to burn witches or heretics save doctrinal belief, no reason to wage periodic pogroms against Jews save doctrinal belief. There is no measure of negligence or unintended consequence in the things; pure murder, and nothing but murder.

Now if one were to rate the killings of religion in the past in the same way it is nowadays customary to rate the killings by communists you have brandished, then we would have to look at European history in a new light. For the social order maintained by the Church was lethal to a great many people, killing by hunger and repression of a peasantry who the Church taught ought to be kept in bondage to the nobility. Nor did the Protestants alter this in their early career: to read Luther on the sin and iniquity of rebelling peasants, and the need for their stern punishment, one might be forgiven for thinking he was writing about Jews. A great deal of death by hunger and disease, and violence of political repression would,were the same standards employed, have to be charged up against the Church and its immediate successors. It would no longer suffice to tally up the direct sentences of courts ecclesiastical, and the lowest range of estimates for episodes of massacre in crusades, and pretend that was all there was, anymore than one could get away with saying only the million or so actually sentenced to death in the purges was the whole of what Stalin killed. And none of this gets into the toll of conquering the New World, which certainly killed millions, and was not only embarked on to secure funds for holy war, but explicitly justified by those engaging in it as doing the Will of God in extirpating heathenism and spreading the Christ. If you think that did not involve corpses by the million, you are too far out of your depth to bother treating seriously as a disputant. Similar noises were made during the colonization of Africa, and in many instances doubtless were sincere: to hear the Belgian government tell it, the administration of the Congo was about ending a slave trade conducted by Moslems, and bringing the heart of the Dark Continent to Christ, with ivory and rubber and money mere incidental trifles, though millions perished all the same.

The claim you are really trying to make, that killing by communists was not only owed to atheism, but done in furtherance of atheism, is simply nonsense, and only a person almost wholly ignorant of left history could possibly press it in any seriousness. The intent of the Bolsheviks and their successors was to remake an economic order, from which they believed the existing social order derived. Religion was simply one of the props of the ruling capitalist order, blunting in various ways the fighting spirit of workers. And of course, throughout European history, Christianity had been a very sturdy prop of ruling classes and reactionaries, a dedicated enemy of the political and revolutionary left. From the communist view, religion was just one more institution of capitalist society that had to go for a true communist order to be achieved. It was nowhere near private ownership of the economic engine, the armed forces and the aristocracy and plutocracy on the list of things to do on the way to utopia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 07:38 AM
Response to Reply #117
118. "The 'Black Book' is respectable, but does not get you much above eighty millions" -
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 07:45 AM by humblebum
the Black Book estimates 110 million. As far as Rummel, you have nothing to discredit him with except faulty reasoning, your faulty reasoning, which is that his political ideas are different from mine therefore his numbers are wrong. he trouble Sir is that the Black Book and Rummel both include in their sources the Russian archives among many others. Also your analogy to Holocaust deniers should include those who willfully deny that these atrocities took place. Again, your argument is filled will trying to rationalize the realties away. There is far too much evidence. Professor Rummel is not a marginalized scholar as you would try to paint him. He is well respected in his field as a professor emeritus.

Rummel does not confine himself to Communist regimes. He includes American deaths in Vietnam and, in fact, what he call "megamurders" from all wars and oppressive mass murders. So one could easily paint him anti - American, too
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 07:40 AM
Response to Reply #117
119. That, good sir, was a smackdown of epic proportion. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #119
120. But the fact is that he is denying the obvious and attempting to discredit
someone who has proven themselves to be reliable and unbiased. No different than an Holocaust denier. Rummel's estimates are reinforced by several other sources.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:25 AM
Response to Reply #120
121. You must be speaking of two different people.
Rummel and "someone who has proven themselves to be reliable and unbiased".

Aren't you tired yet of having your ass handed to you?

And when are you going to tell me what communist country/ies you were in and when?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #121
123. As far as denouncing Rummel, his findings are proven. And as far
my personal past - forget it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #123
124. You keep insisting your right-wing hero is right.
And avoiding facing the fact that you bore false witness. Didn't some dude say that was bad?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #124
125. I think false witness is being committed against Rummel. He doesn't play favorites
and if you try to denounce his figures then you also must do so to many others. Magistrate's argument is dead. I am certain you would agree with many other figures that Rummel puts forth in his research on democide. His work is far too well supported to be dismissed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #125
126. The Magistrate's argument is completely unscathed.
Your ass is sitting on a silver platter in front of you.

And you never visited any communist countries.

Jesus must be so proud of you and your hateful, deceitful brand of Christianity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #126
129. it would sure be nice if you were able to make an intelligent argument
of your own instead of relying on a steady stream of ad homs. And yes, I did spend a few years in a communist country back in the 1970's.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:18 AM
Response to Reply #129
130. Why are you demanding something that you haven't provided either?
Which country? When, exactly? For what purpose? Who was the ruler? I want to see just how deep you're willing to go to maintain the deceit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #129
133. Thats ripe! YOU asking someone else to make an intelligent argument. I've seen it all now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #123
127. Rummel Is Crippled By His Bias, Sir, And You Take Only High End 'Black Book' Figures
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 09:57 AM by The Magistrate
You are dealing in exaggerations, not in facts. Nor have you engaged the record of religion as a killing engine in history. Sooner or later, you are going to have to engage it. That will doubtless be entertaining, but will certainly not be pretty. For you seem to be laboring under the belief that references to religion refer only to Christianity, and more specifically, to Medieval and Renaissance Christianity. But of course, religion is far more than that.

Islam spread by violence under a banner of holy war, and continued in that vein for centuries. Virtually every war engaged in by Moslem powers and conquerors has been dubbed holy way by its chieftains, and pressed in the name of religion. Thus we may certainly add, to take just one prominent example, the whole tally of Tamerlane, renowned for towers of skulls, among other things, to the total of people killed by religion.

There is the whole sphere of the Orient to take into this equation. The Taiping Rebellion, a wholly religious outbreak, pressed by a man who believed himself the younger brother of Jesus Christ, and sought to replace the Confucian Imperial cult with worship of God the Father, consumed at least twenty million lives, more likely thirty millions, being about the same proportion of death to the world's population as the Second World War commenced roughly a century later, but all concentrated in China, and all owing to religion and religious belief and a religious command to spread and maintain doctrine. Nor is this outbreak unique in anything but scale: religious belief has been a common mover of rebellion and risings in China, with various Buddhist sects serving as inspirations. Most have been drowned in blood, but one drowned the Mongols in blood, and established the Ming dynasty.

Then we have deeper matters, examining the ancient world. The fact is very little was done by the ancients that lacked religious character; it is difficult for modern persons to appreciate the degree to which religious belief and practice permeated civil life and government. The gladiatorial displays of Rome were religious functions, so were her wars. Early empires, ruled by god-emperors, were wholly religious undertakings in a profound sense, with every act and decision of the man who was government charged with a sacred character. Anyone dead in a war of Pharaoh, by a civil sentence as a criminal, was killed by a religious act. In the form in which such polities survived to modern observation, Imperial China, the imperial cult reached such a pitch that even natural disasters were held to be caused by lack of virtue in the Emperor, so that to a Chinese of the time, deaths in famine or flood or earthquake were the result of a failure in religious duty.

And then, of course, there are more direct methods of religious killing, whose total is beyond estimate. Human sacrifice has been practiced on all continents, and for tens of thousands of years. It certainly reached industrial scale in what is now Mexico before the Spanish came, and had been practiced at that pitch for centuries. There are accounts speaking of tens of thousands killed over a single festival week.

But let us return to the area you seem to think is all that religion and its lethal potential concerns, and close with brief notice of the Thirty Years War, the last of the religious wars of the Reformation on the European continent. In Central Europe, this was a calamity on the order of the Black Death, with large districts losing a third or more of their populations, with death concentrated among males to a point of fifty percent reduction in number. Precise figures are hard to come by, and modern estimates vary widely; an average of around eight millions seems reasonable, being about the same proportion of the world population as forty millions or so would have been in the twentieth century --- again, all concentrated in a quite restricted area, and owing wholly to religious fervor....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:02 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. then that would mean that he is also biased against his figures for other
religious and politically motivated killings. And that would mean that many other scholars are also biased, one of whom is Solzhenitsyn. you also need to contact the Guinness people because they are in agreement as to these constituting the largest mass murders in human history. On top of that it is scary to see you defending people like Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot. I'm content to stand by these figures because they are supported by multiple sources. You have no case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #128
131. You Are Out Of Your League,Sir
Edited on Tue Sep-21-10 10:46 AM by The Magistrate
We are engaged in a comparison of lethalities associated with religiousity and atheism.

You are attempting to thumb the scale in two ways: first, you are ignoring actual motives, and claiming that any death resulting from any action by a person who professes atheism both owes to atheism and was done only to advance atheism; second, you are pressing exaggerated figures, mostly derived from a certifiable lunatic who believes President Obama is a tyrant leading everyone who is not a white man to destroy the United States. Common law has a maxim that translates false in one thing, false in all things; it is just as apt when one substitutes idiot for false.

You have been presented with several things, which you shy still from engaging. It has been shown in outline that atheism had very little to do with the killings done by communist regimes, and it has also been shown that a great proportion of the deaths they caused were more in the nature of criminal negligence than otherwise, that death was not the intent. A fair sketch of the breadth and depth of killing owed to religiousity has been displayed, and that it mostly did owe directly to doctrine shown. It has also been shown that were the sort of broad screen used in assessing communist killing were employed in assessing religion's responsibilities for deaths, the toll of religion would be rated several zeros higher, as a great deal of famine and disease and suppression of rebellion would have to come in to the total where it does not usually now.

You may think you get some mileage out of shrill cries that someone who is presenting facts dispassionately in the round is defending mass murderers, but all you do is amuse me when you do that. The only way it could work is to convince me arguing with you is kind of like pitching fast-balls at a second-grader, which is no good use of a grown man's time, and so incline me to find other amusement, going away and leaving you alone.

You really do need, by the way, to stop brandishing the Guinness book of records at me: it is not a serious source. Cite it in a college paper, and they will tell tales of you in the faculty lounge for years. This is not a bar bet, and does not concern where the biggest pancake ever was baked, or who had the longest mustache ever.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #131
135. I fear, my good man
that if you're waiting for humblebum to engage you in any sort of serious and intelligent fashion that you're in for a long and fruitless wait. Many have tried and failed to get anything intelligible out of him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 11:29 PM
Response to Reply #131
137. Getting a little arrogant are we? Where to begin?
First of all, there are far too many accounts of events to discount what you are trying to discount. Next it can truthfully be said that all of these events happened under the watch of atheist dictators. As far as Guinness Book goes it is just one of many accounts. I never claimed it had academic credibility. You display only a cursory knowledge of these events. Finally, You can make no statement concerning the academic credentials of someone you have no knowledge of.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #137
138. If My Display Of Knowledge Is Cursory, Sir, By All Means Demonstrate Your Deeper Understanding
You should be able to do so readily, if in fact you have any good grasp in depth of the matter. Indeed, opportunities for you to attempt this have been deliberately left open, and you have not stepped up to any of them. It does not seem likely you will; it seems even less likely you would be able to do so to any good effect.

You have simply put out a number, and evidently, from accompanying comment here, you trot it out frequently. The number by your own admission derives from a man whose judgement is so questionable that he imagines the present President of the United States and its present Congress to be a juggernaut of tyranny, and imagines that Bush spread democracy and liberty through the world by his commitment to peace. You imagine that this has no relevance to the man's claims of what his research reveals; you are dead wrong. Research in this field is an assessment of the worth of various accounts, of what documents to hand can be taken to indicate of areas they do not cover, of what resolution is to be made of discrepancies between accounts and documents. Judgement is very much an essential element, and the quality of a man's judgement key. Particularly so in a matter that is still live politically, as the history of Communism definitely is. If you do not know the political views of a man writing on such subjects, you cannot possibly assess their worth, or what degree of truth they convey in what areas. If a man demonstrates that his political views are lunacy, his conclusions cannot be taken seriously.

You also made the claim that the number of deaths attributable to religion numbers in the thousands. One could, of course, choose to present the distance from New York to Los Angeles in inches rather than miles, so one could say that religion is responsible for thousands of deaths over history, just thousands and thousands upon thousands of. But the fact is that you have been presented with a rather extensive tally of deaths clearly owing to religion in militant phase and Godly practice, and have yet to engage with that set of facts. Sooner or later you are going to have to do, and again, by now, its seems likely you are not just unwilling but unable to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #137
139. Shifting goalposts!
A clear sign even you can't deny how badly you've been smacked down on this thread. Honestly, I'm shocked you haven't slinked away with your tail between your legs by now as you always do.

You started this subthread by claiming that 130 million deaths were directly due to atheism, but now it's merely that "these events happened under the watch of atheist dictators." Too freaking funny.

And pointing to Guinness as a source. My Koresh, bumble, you are a laugh riot and serve as a perfect example of what's wrong with Christianity today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #131
140. And we (thankfully) are well “out” of the League of Militant Atheists
“It has been shown in outline that atheism had very little to do with the killings done by communist regimes....”

From the French revolution to the Cambodian Killing Fields your “outline” is a cardboard cut out of hysterical historical revisionism.

"No God! No Religion! No King! No Constitution!"
http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://raedwald.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html&usg=__52NVwQN5ncHrkml7yzwJHTRjE0c=&h=599&w=429&sz=676&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=ic-k5G7ByLCKWM:&tbnh=142&tbnw=100&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522No%2BGod!%2BNo%2BReligion!%2BNo%2BKing!%2BNo%2BConstitution!%2522%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1020%26bih%3D532%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=232&vpy=44&dur=1280&hovh=265&hovw=190&tx=100&ty=127&ei=b_yZTI2VCJivcNGP8dkH&oei=7vuZTOfLCom0vgOoxozsDA&esq=5&page=1&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0




"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)


"An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
other religious sentiments were often killed.
...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
instead of the family.
About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
- http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html

The Cambodian Genocide:
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/392millo...

"The country's 40,000 to 60,000 Buddhist monks,
regarded by the regime as social parasites,
were defrocked and forced into labor brigades.
Many monks were executed; temples and pagodas were
destroyed or turned into storehouses or jails.
Images of the Buddha were defaced and dumped into
rivers and lakes. People who were discovered praying
or expressing religious sentiments in other ways
were often killed.
The Christian and Muslim communities were among the most
persecuted, as well. The Roman Catholic cathedral of
Phnom Penh was completely razed.
The Khmer Rouge forced Muslims to eat pork, which they
regard as an abomination. Many of those who refused were killed.
Christian clergy and Muslim imams were executed."
- http://countrystudies.us/cambodia/29.htm

"Forty-eight percent of Cambodia's Christians were killed
because of their religion."
http://www.lietuvos.net/istorija/communism/communism_photos2/44camboy...

And you would have us believe-
"....atheism had very little to do with the killings done by communist regimes, and it has also been shown that a great proportion of the deaths they caused were more in the nature of criminal negligence than otherwise, that death was not the intent."

Yea....State imposed atheism singled out, persecuted and killed people of faith by "criminal negligence"....they didn't advise their victims to jump aside when the trigger was pulled........how ’negligent’ of them.


"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #140
146. But don't you realize that Rummel's numbers are way off because
His politics are conservative. It doesn't matter who or what his sources may be, he's just wrong. (SARCASM) I guess if he suddenly became a democrat, his numbers would all of a suddenly be believable. Funny how that works. But Magistrate is a scholar, so he knows.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #146
148. You Know, Sir, This Is Not The Demonstration Your Grasp Of This Matter Is Deeper Than Mine We Await
"It ain't bragging if you can do it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 03:32 PM
Response to Reply #148
150. Um? You ARE bragging and you have not done it. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #150
151. Now, Sir, You Are Just Being Silly....
"Children make the best opponents at Scrabble, as they are both fun to cheat and easy to beat."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:04 PM
Response to Reply #151
153. Then you might want to stick to Scrabble because history is not your strong point. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #153
154. Just To Recap, Sir, For The Audience At Home....
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 04:36 PM by The Magistrate
My engagement in this began with two statements: first, that your figure of 130 millions killed in the name of atheism was unsupportably high, even taken as a total of persons killed by communist dictatorships; second, that assessment of the death toll owing to killing occassioned by religion ought to be put on proportional basis, since the population of the world has so greatly expanded in the last hundred years or so, so that there were many more people available to kill than the religious zealots had at their disposal.

Both these statements have been abundantly demonstrated, and you have offered no defense against the doing.

You have yourself abandoned the figure and claim of killing for the sake of atheism, retreating to a figure many millions lower, and claiming now only that these numbers were killed under the rule of atheist dictators. One particular hole in the figure you initially claimed has been pointed out; you have not engaged that statement. Solid and long respected scholarship has been cited in support of figures for deaths in the Soviet Union that average to thirty millions: you may not be aware of the persons cited, and their stature, but that is of no consequence.

It has been demonstrated that just two great spasms of religious war in fairly recent history, the Thirty Years War in seventeenth century Europe, and the Taiping Rebellion in nineteenth century China, killed, on a basis of deaths per million in the globe's population at the time they occured, a proportion of the earth's population equivalent to killing between eighty and a hundred millions in the twentieth century, with one killing about eight millions at a time when the world's population was about a half billion, and one killing probably about thirty millions when the world's population was about one billion. This is sufficient to demonstrate the point that, on a proportional basis, religion has been every bit as lethal as communism and then some, as these two items are hardly the sole instance of killing owed to religion down the thousands of years of human history.

The only defense you have offered of your position is to assert that a man's demonstrated right wing fanaticism, pushed to lunatic proportions, can have no effect on the validity of his conclusions concerning crimes committed by leftists. That this is utter nonesense is self-evident.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #154
156. I have abandoned nothing.
You said: "You have yourself abandoned the figure and claim of killing for the sake of atheism, retreating to a figure many millions lower, and claiming now only that these numbers were killed under the rule of atheist dictators." I have always maintained that these numbers happened under atheistic dictators, which is quite true. As far as the numbers, they could be much greater. So much was done in secrecy behind the Iron Curtain over a period of 70 or so years and these things have been slowly coming to light since the fall of the USSR and the opening of China.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:54 PM
Response to Reply #156
159. Then, Sir, You Do Not Even Read Your Own Posts
You have turned the corner from mild irritant to active bore....

"As you make your bed so you lie there,
But who'll tuck you in when you do?
And if someone steps up I'll be that one,
And if someone gets stepped on that one's you."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #159
160. I would suggest that you show me where I said that because it's
obvious you are taking something out of context or purposely misstating something I said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 05:19 PM
Response to Reply #160
162. Are You Talking To Me, Sir?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #140
147. Your Effort, Mr. Ironbark, Either Counts On Ignorance In Your Audience, Or Simply Displays Your Own
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 01:43 PM by The Magistrate
As you have not engaged either the Soviet Union or Red China, the tremendous bulk of communst rule, but concentrated on Cambodia and the Khymer Rouge, you have largely conceeded the points established in material presented earlier.

Your own figures show the insignificance of religion in the Cambodian killings. Certainly clergy were killed, but clergy is a very small proportion of the deaths. Killing half the Christians in Cambodia does not amount to much, in cold numbers, since they were barely one percent of the population at the time. The Moslem population was on a similar scale, and the religion was concentrated among a widely despised ethnic minority. The point of the Khymer Rouge program was a complete restructuring of society, starting from 'Year Zero', and they meant to exterminate all influences of the previous social order, and particularly foreign influences. Education, the idea 'brain-work' was superior to physical labor, allegiance to any social structure besides the Party, all were to be destroyed with utmost ruthlessness. In the face of this, the idea 'people of faith' were singled out for persecution simply does not stand; they were simply one of many demographic slices, including people owning any degree of property, people who were literate, people who lived in cities, people who had much contact with foreigners, who were slated for destruction.

You seem to have trouble with the distinction between a death resulting from deliberate intent to kill, and a death resulting from failure or error in some enterprise with another purpose. Fortunately, law does not have this difficulty, but then, law is not engaged in propagandizing and distorting history for the convenience of people who cannot stand that there are people out there who do not believe in any diety. But on the off chance you actually have some interest in the actuality of events, here is the thing spelled out in simple terms. Both the Soviet Union and Red China attempted to restructure agriculture to a collective basis, and did so in the belief this would increase production; the purpose of the policy was to end the concept of private ownership in land and to increase the food supply. Killing people was no part of the intent when the policy was put into practice. A combination of resistance to the policy, and of the ineptness of the policy's execution, and fundamental flaws in the policy itself, produced a great many deaths. The matter is roughly analagous to speeding in an automobile or selling a contaminated product, with the result that someone dies: law will not class this as murder, since the intent to kill was absent, but law will, or can, punish it as some form of negligent homicide, however it is termed in the jurisdiction. Courts make distinctions like this every day, so do ethicists and historians. As was pointed out in my comments above, the famines in the Ukraine, generally accepted as killing something on the order of five millions, were a different kettle of fish. They were deliberate murder. During the Civil War, the Ukraine had sported serious armed resistance to both Bolshevik and Czarist Russian forces, and popular feeling there continued to display considerable tendencies towards independence from Moscow. Moscow could not do without the agriculture and mineral resources of the Ukraine. It took the food, to kill people and weaken their capacity to act as a whole against their rule by Russia and Soviet power.

If you want to go back to the French Revolution, we can certainly do so, and it will illuminate some of the long-standing enmity between the Left and religion, particularly Christianity and Catholicism. The French Revolution certainly took a good shot at destroying religion and killing clergy, just as it took a good shot at destroying aristocracy and killing nobility. It was, in some ways, a 'year zero' effort itself at the start. But it is worth looking into some of the background. The Church was one of the leading landlords of the period in France, and its insistence on privilege and immunity from taxation was one of the major causes economic distress for both the merchant classes and the peasantry, the groups who made the revolution. The Church quite specifically taught that disobedience to the established social and economic order was mortal sin, as these things had been ordained by God, and so to go against them was to go against God. That, when the fury broke through social and military barriers into freedom of action, it turned hard against so sturdy a prop of the Ancien Regime is hardly a surprise. So long as the Church was a major combatant against the left, victories by the left, particularly victories in arms, were going to produce casualties among the clergy and its closest adherents. What the case would have been had the Church consulted other passages of Scripture, and ranged itself alongside the efforts to reform society into more just and equitable structures, is an open question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #147
152. You are seriously trying to rationalize again. Ironbark is right on target
with his assertions. when you are engaged in killing large numbers of people and some die for unintended reasons but directly related to your actions, yes, you are guilty for those deaths also. Tell me, were those Jews who died of starvation or disease while in captivity tallied among the 6 million? Or did that not happen, too?
"You seem to have trouble with the distinction between a death resulting from deliberate intent to kill, and a death resulting from failure or error in some enterprise with another purpose." Sir, you are displaying a complete ignorance of the anti-theist activities that tool place in Russia, China, South Asia, Eastern Europe, etc. during the 20th century. The attempt to eradicate all religion and replace it with state atheism or "Scientific Atheism" was very overt and totally intentional.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #152
155. No one has stated
that communist regimes did not bear responsibility for deaths that were unintended, but a foreseeable consequence of their actions, now have they? They question is whether all those people died in the name of atheism simply because the government happened to espouse atheism (and even then, only when it suited them), or whether they died for reasons that had nothing to do with their religious beliefs, or lack thereof. Can you cite examples of the Stalinist government selectively providing food to atheists and not the religious in areas where famine and starvation hit, or did everyone just die regardless of what they believed? Is every principle espoused by any government directly responsible for every death that occurs under that government? Please.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #152
158. No One Says People Are Not Guilty In Varous Forms Of Negligent Homicide, Sir
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 04:59 PM by The Magistrate
One simply draws the distinction between killing by deliberate intent and killing in whcih that element is lacking. Some consider the moral offence in the latter case to be the worse: whether indifference or malice constitutes the greater evil is a pretty point for debate.

As you have wading into Nazi exterminations here, and it was, after all, the pope equating the exterminationists of the Third Reich with atheists and humanists which commenced this, we can deal with that quickly while illustrating the point.

Hitler, and his Nazi leadership and doctrine, stated explicitly the Jewish race was to be exterminated, that all Jews were to be killed: killing was the deliberate and open intent of Nazi actions and policy towards Jews, and they were indifferent to means: a Jew starved in the ghetto or a Jew gassed in the camp or a Jew worked to death digging an anti-tank ditch was all the same to the killers and their intent.

Mao did not intend to exterminate the Chinese peasantry, or even to kill any portion of them, when he instituted the 'Great Leap Forward': he intended to rapidly expand production of food and simple industrial products, and reach a state of 'pure communism' (defined as the complete absence of capitalist structures and practices) in as short a time as possible. That collectivization did not produce more food but less, that party leadership refused to acknowledge this and inflated reports of food production, on the basis of which food was taken from rural store for urban diet and export contracts, created conditions in which millions in the countryside starved, about thirty millions by the best estimate today. Certainly the party leadership, once the thing got going, displayed depraved indifference to the loss of life; they knew, or should have known, what was going on, but continued the program, and broke dissenters within the party leadership who urged the thing be brought to a speedy end.

Law and ehics both recognize sigificant differences between the two cases. If you cannot see it, that is your problem, not mine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #158
161.  A key element in the establishment of Marxist- Communism was
the elimination of religion. Groups were formed for that specific purpose following the Soviet model. Religious allegiances were either surrendered voluntarily or by force. All card-carry members of the Communist Party were REQUIRED to espouse atheism and participate in the identification and persecution of any religious adherents they encountered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #161
163. This Seems Apt, Somehow, Sir....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #163
173. LOL…The Irony…Magistrate offers ‘Velvet Underground’ for the ‘Velvet Revolution’
Edited on Thu Sep-23-10 03:21 PM by ironbark
You will find (O pompus blustering Magistrate ;-) if you dig deep enough-

“Czech dissident playwright Václav Havel was a fan of the Velvet Underground, ultimately becoming a friend of Lou Reed. Though some attribute the name of the 1989 “Velvet Revolution,” which ended more than 40 years of Communist rule in Czechoslovakia, to the band, Reed points out that in fact the name Velvet Revolution derives from its peaceful nature—that no one was physically killed (“hurt”) during those events.<15> Reed has also given at least one radio interview where he stated that it was called the Velvet Revolution because all of the dissidents were listening to the Velvet Underground leading up to the overthrow, and this music was an inspiration for the events that followed. After Havel’s election as president, first of Czechoslovakia and then the Czech Republic, Reed visited him in Prague.<16>” Wiki


Havel and friends couldn’t gather in a group under Czech Communism….Not as a discussion group or even (surprise surprise) as a church group or community group…
The >ONLY< two options available were to gather in the community garden (too cold and wet) or gather (ostensibly) to make music.
They took the latter option, listened to shitloads of Velvet Underground, didn’t understand the lyrics but sure related to the underlying anger and strove thereafter for the Velvet Revolution’


AND THAT’S HOW AND WHY THERE IS RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL FREEDOM IN Czechoslovakia TODAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Got any more music for crushing State imposed atheism for us?….;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 04:38 AM
Response to Reply #173
174. Oh,It Is Deep All Right,Sir....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #174
177. You want to sell a book? Try reading one first. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Goblinmonger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 10:04 PM
Response to Reply #123
136. So you hide behind Rummel and the Pope.
At what point do you think you will find it that the bedfellows you are keeping are fucking assholes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #120
132. DID YOU JUST EQUATE THE MAGISTRATE WITH A HOLOCAUST DENIER?
You fucking did! You just lost any hope of even the tiniest shred of credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cleanhippie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 09:08 PM
Response to Reply #110
113. Damn, bumbledum, even The Magistrate came in here and handed you your ass.
Gonna be bookmarking his comments to reproduce for you the next time (and I am sure thats not far off) you spew this nonsense again.


OWNED!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #110
134. Once again you trot out the same dishonest BS
You've been challenged time and time again to show evidence of how many of that supposed 130 million were killed as a result of, or in the name of atheism, and you have consistently avoided providing it. The fact is that you have no freaking idea how many people died of what in any of those countries. None. So either back up your claims with hard evidence or stop spreading falsehoods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:24 AM
Response to Reply #134
143. “as a result of, or in the name of “....“100 million deaths under communism”
And what is atheism to Communism?

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

“Washington - The planners of the victims of communism memorial dedicated Tuesday in Washington based the figure of an estimated 100 million political deaths under communism on the book by French scholars, 'The Black book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression,' published by Harvard University.”
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1316649.php/BACKGROUND_100_million_deaths_under_communism

“Estimates for the number of victims in the Soviet Union range between 3.5 and 60 million, and those for Mao Zedong's China range between 19.5 and 75 million” Wiki

And yet..consistently we are told by the apologists, revisionists and deniers that atheism was a “sideshow” to communism, “not a core principle” and that it was just picked up along the way as a tool on the path to power.

Asking “how many of that supposed 130 million were killed as a result of, or in the name of atheism” is unadulterated “dishonest BS”.
Atheism and State imposed atheism was a central and essential component of communism- “natural and inseparable”. If the victims were killed in the propagation of communism they were also killed “as a result of, or in the name of” atheism for communism “necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”.

Like it or not >that< has been the mindset of every totalitarian despotic communist regime seeking to establish State imposed atheism- hand in hand- communism/atheism “natural and inseparable”... and millions died “as a result of, and in the name of” the propagation of their objectives.
To ask someone to “show evidence of how many” of those millions can be attributed just to atheism is absurd and obscene.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #143
149. Not Even Enough Cherries Picked For A Pie, Mr. Ironbark: Lenin Said A Lot Of Things....
Edited on Wed Sep-22-10 02:05 PM by The Magistrate
The progressive historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two brief propositions: increase in the productive forces of social labour, and the socialisation of that labour. But both these facts manifest themselves in extremely diverse processes in different branches of the national economy.

Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, The “The Mission of Capitalism” (1899)



Perhaps the profoundest cause of disagreement with the Narodniks is the difference in our fundamental views on social and economic processes. When studying the latter, the Narodnik usually draws conclusions that point to some moral; he does not regard the diverse groups of persons taking part in production as creators of various forms of life; he does not set out to present the sum-total of social and economic relationships as the result of the mutual relations between these groups, which have different interests and different historical roles. ...

Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, The “The Mission of Capitalism” (1899)



If the writer of these lines has succeeded in providing some material for clarifying these problems, he may regard his labours as not having been fruitless.

Lenin, The Development of Capitalism in Russia, The “The Mission of Capitalism” (1899)



In the history of modern socialism this is a phenomenon, that the strife of the various trends within the socialist movement has from national become international.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)



If democracy, in essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why should not a socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world by orations on class collaboration?

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)



Those who are really convinced that they have made progress in science would not demand freedom for the new views to continue side by side with the old, but the substitution of the new views for the old.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)



We are marching in a compact group along a precipitous and difficult path, firmly holding each other by the hand. We are surrounded on all sides by enemies, and we have to advance almost constantly under their fire. We have combined, by a freely adopted decision, for the purpose of fighting the enemy, and not of retreating into the neighbouring marsh, the inhabitants of which, from the very outset, have reproached us with having separated ourselves into an exclusive group and with having chosen the path of struggle instead of the path of conciliation. And now some among us begin to cry out: Let us go into the marsh! And when we begin to shame them, they retort: What backward people you are! Are you not ashamed to deny us the liberty to invite you to take a better road! Oh, yes, gentlemen! You are free not only to invite us, but to go yourselves wherever you will, even into the marsh. In fact, we think that the marsh is your proper place, and we are prepared to render you every assistance to get there. Only let go of our hands, don’t clutch at us and don’t besmirch the grand word freedom, for we too are “free” to go where we please, free to fight not only against the marsh, but also against those who are turning towards the marsh!

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)



In a country ruled by an autocracy, with a completely enslaved press, in a period of desperate political reaction in which even the tiniest outgrowth of political discontent and protest is persecuted, the theory of revolutionary Marxism suddenly forced its way into the censored literature before the government realised what had happened and the unwieldy army of censors and gendarmes discovered the new enemy and flung itself upon him.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Criticism in Russia” (1901)



This fear of criticism displayed by the advocates of freedom of criticism cannot be attributed solely to craftiness. No, the majority of the Economists look with sincere resentment upon all theoretical controversies, factional disagreements, broad political questions, plans for organising revolutionaries, etc.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Criticism in Russia” (1901)



History has now confronted us with an immediate task which is the most revolutionary of all the immediate tasks confronting the proletariat of any country. The fulfilment of this task, the destruction of the most powerful bulwark, not only of European, but (it may now be said) of Asiatic reaction, would make the Russian proletariat the vanguard of the international revolutionary proletariat. And we have the right to count upon acquiring this honourable title, already earned by our predecessors, the revolutionaries of the seventies, if we succeed in inspiring our movement, which is a thousand times broader and deeper, with the same devoted determination and vigour.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Criticism in Russia” (1901)



Since there can be no talk of an independent ideology formulated by the working masses themselves in the process of their movement, the only choice is – either bourgeois or socialist ideology. There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a “third” ideology).

(This does not mean, of course, that the workers have no part in creating such an ideology. They take part, however, not as workers, but as socialist theoreticians, as Proudhons and Weitlings, to the extent that they are able to acquire the knowledge of their age and develop that knowledge.)

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats” (1901)



To belittle the socialist ideology in any way, to turn aside from it in the slightest degree means to strengthen bourgeois ideology. There is much talk of spontaneity. But the spontaneous development of the working-class movement leads to its subordination to bourgeois ideology; for the spontaneous working-class movement is trade-unionism, and trade unionism means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie. Hence, our task, the task of Social-Democracy, is to combat spontaneity, to divert the working-class movement from this spontaneous, trade-unionist striving to come under the wing of the bourgeoisie, and to bring it under the wing of revolutionary Social Democracy.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats” (1901)



Revolutionary Social-Democracy has always included the struggle for reforms as part of its activities. But it utilises “economic” agitation for the purpose of presenting to the government, not only demands for all sorts of measures, but also (and primarily) the demand that it cease to be an autocratic government.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Trade-Unionist Politics And Social-Democratic Politics” (1901)



A basic condition for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organisation of comprehensive political exposure.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Political Exposures And ‘Training In Revolutionary Activity’” (1901)



It is particularly necessary to arouse in all who participate in practical work, or are preparing to take up that work, discontent with the amateurism prevailing among us and an unshakable determination to rid ourselves of it.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries” (1901)



This struggle must be organised, according to “all the rules of the art”, by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. The fact that the masses are spontaneously being drawn into the movement does not make the organisation of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary.

Lenin, The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries (1901)



This struggle must be organised, according to “all the rules of the art”, by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries” (1901)



Attention, must be devoted principally to raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries; it is not at all our task to descend to the level of the “working masses.”

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Primitiveness of the Economists and the Organization of the Revolutionaries” (1901)



Every question “runs in a vicious circle” because political life as a whole is an endless chain consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the one that is most important at the given moment, the one that most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole chain.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Plan For an All-Russia Political Newspaper” (1901)



A newspaper is not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective organiser.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “The Plan For an All-Russia Political Newspaper” (1901)



If the Congress was a struggle between the Iskra-ist and the anti-Iskra-ist elements, were there no intermediate, unstable elements who vacillated between the two? Anyone at all familiar with our Party and with the picture generally presented by congresses of every kind will be inclined a priori to answer the question in the affirmative.

Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, (1904)



But every little difference may become a big one if it is insisted on.

Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, “Paragraph One of the Rules” (1904)



Are we to build the Party on the basis of that already formed and welded core of Social-Democrats which brought about the Party Congress, for instance, and which should enlarge and multiply Party organisations of all kinds; or are we to content ourselves with the soothing phrase that all who help are Party members?

Lenin, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, “Paragraph One of the Rules” (1904)



In the beginning we had to teach the workers the ABC, both in the literal and in the figurative senses. Now the standard of political literacy has risen so gigantically that we can and should concentrate all our efforts on the more direct Social-Democratic objectives aimed at giving an organised direction to the revolutionary stream.

Lenin, New Tasks and New Forces (1905)



Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

Lenin, Two Tactics of Social Democracy (1905)



The basic mistake made by those who now criticise What Is To Be Done? (1901) is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long past, period in the development of our Party.

Lenin, Preface to the Collection “Twelve Years” (1905)



That today, when the wave has ebbed, there remain and will remain only real Marxists, does not frighten us but rejoices us.

Lenin, Two Letters (1908)



When the masses are digesting a new and exceptionally rich experience of direct revolutionary struggle, the theoretical struggle for a revolutionary outlook, i.e., for revolutionary Marxism, becomes the watchword of the day.

Lenin, Two Letters (1908)



1) Things exist independently of our consciousness, independently of our perceptions, outside of us, for it is beyond doubt that alizarin existed in coal tar yesterday and it is equally beyond doubt that yesterday we knew nothing of the existence of this alizarin and received no sensations from it.
2) There is definitely no difference in principle between the phenomenon and the thing-in-itself, and there can be no such difference. The only difference is between what is known and what is not yet known. And philosophical inventions of specific boundaries between the one and the other, inventions to the effect that the thing-in-itself is “beyond” phenomena (Kant), or that we can and must fence ourselves off by some philosophical partition from the problem of a world which in one part or another is still unknown but which exists outside us (Hume)—all this is the sheerest nonsense, Schrulle, crotchet, invention.
3) In the theory of knowledge, as in every other branch of science, we must think dialectically, that is, we must not regard our knowledge as ready-made and unalterable, but must determine how knowledge emerges from ignorance, how incomplete, inexact knowledge becomes more complete and more exact.

Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)



Once we accept the point of view that human knowledge develops from ignorance, we shall find millions of examples of it just as simple as the discovery of alizarin in coal tar, millions of observations not only in the history of science and technology but in the everyday life of each and every one of us that illustrate the transformation of “things-in-themselves” into “things-for-us.”

Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908)



It goes without saying that in examining the connection between one of the schools of modern physicists and the rebirth of philosophical idealism, it is far from being our intention to deal with specific physical theories. What interests us exclusively is the epistemological conclusions that follow from certain definite propositions and generally known discoveries. Our object, therefore, will be confined to explaining clearly the essence of the difference between these various trends and the relation in which they stand to the fundamental lines of philosophy.

Lenin, The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism (1908)



Behind the epistemological scholasticism of empirio-criticism one must not fail to see the struggle of parties in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis reflects the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society.

Lenin, The Recent Revolution in Natural Science and Philosophical Idealism, Conclusion (1908)



The art of any propagandist and agitator consists in his ability to find the best means of influencing any given audience, by presenting a definite truth, in such a way as to make it most convincing, most easy to digest, most graphic, and most strongly impressive.

Lenin, The Slogans and Organisation of Social-Democratic Work (1919)



All official and liberal science defends wage-slavery, whereas Marxism has declared relentless war on that slavery.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



The Marxist doctrine is omnipotent because it is true. It is comprehensive and harmonious, and provides men with an integral world outlook irreconcilable with any form of superstition, reaction, or defence of bourgeois oppression. It is the legitimate successor to the best that man produced in the nineteenth century, as represented by German philosophy, English political economy and French socialism.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



Where the bourgeois economists saw a relation between things (the exchange of one commodity for another) Marx revealed a relation between people.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



Capital, created by the labour of the worker, crushes the worker, ruining small proprietors and creating an army of unemployed.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



By destroying small-scale production, capital leads to an increase in productivity of labour and to the creation of a monopoly position for the associations of big capitalists.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



Capitalism has triumphed all over the world, but this triumph is only the prelude to the triumph of labour over capital.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



When feudalism was overthrown and “free” capitalist society appeared in the world, it at once became apparent that this freedom meant a new system of oppression and exploitation of the working people.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



People always have been the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, and they always will be until they have learnt to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



And there is only one way of smashing the resistance of those classes, and that is to find, in the very society which surrounds us, the forces which can—and, owing to their social position, must—constitute the power capable of sweeping away the old and creating the new, and to enlighten and organise those forces for the struggle.

Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism (1913)



I am in general trying to read Hegel materialistically: Hegel is materialism which has been stood on its head (according to Engels) – that is to say, I cast aside for the most part God, the Absolute, the Pure Idea, etc.

Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Logic (1914)



Dialectics is the teaching which shows how Opposites can be and how they happen to be (how they become) identical,—under what conditions they are identical, becoming transformed into one another,—why the human mind should grasp these opposites not as dead, rigid, but as living, conditional, mobile, becoming transformed into one another.

Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Logic (1914)



These parts of the work should be called: “a best means for getting a headache!”

Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Logic (1914)



It is impossible completely to understand Marx’s Capital, and especially its first Chapter, without having thoroughly studied and understood the whole of Hegel’s Logic. Consequently, half a century later none of the Marxists understood Marx!!

Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Logic (1914)



Dialectics as living, many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every approach and approximation to reality (with a philosophical system growing into a whole out of each shade)

Lenin, Summary of Dialectics (1914)



Philosophical idealism is only nonsense from the standpoint of crude, simple, metaphysical materialism. From the standpoint of dialectical materialism, on the other hand, philosophical idealism is a one-sided, exaggerated, development (inflation, distension) of one of the features, aspects, facets of knowledge, into an absolute, divorced from matter, from nature, apotheosised.

Lenin, Summary of Dialectics (1914)



Human knowledge is not (or does not follow) a straight line, but a curve, which endlessly approximates a series of circles, a spiral. Any fragment, segment, section of this curve can be transformed (transformed one-sidedly) into an independent, complete, straight line, which then (if one does not see the wood for the trees) leads into the quagmire, into clerical obscurantism (where it is anchored by the class interests of the ruling classes).

Lenin, Summary of Dialectics (1914)



War cannot be abolished unless classes are abolished and Socialism is created.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



We fully regard civil wars, i.e., wars waged by the oppressed class against the oppressing class, slaves against slave-owners, serfs against land-owners, and wage-workers against the bourgeoisie, as legitimate, progressive and necessary.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



If tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slave-owning, predatory “great” powers.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



The working class cannot play its world-revolutionary role unless it wages a ruthless struggle against this renegacy. spinelessness, subservience to opportunism and unexampled vulgarization of the theories of Marxism.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



Convert the imperialist war into civil war.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



A revolutionary class cannot but wish for the defeat of its government in a reactionary war.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



Socialists must explain to the masses that they have no other road of salvation except the revolutionary overthrow of “their” governments, and that advantage must be taken of these governments’ embarrassments in the present war precisely for this purpose.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



Socialists cannot achieve their great aim without fighting against all oppression of nations.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



The Socialists of oppressed nations must, in their turn, unfailingly fight for the complete (including organisational) unity of the workers of the oppressed and oppressing nationalities.

Lenin, Socialism and War (1915)



The war of 1914-18 was imperialist (that is, an annexationist, predatory, war of plunder) on the part of both sides; it was a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and spheres of influence of finance capital.

Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)



We Social-Democrats always stand for democracy, not “in the name of capitalism, ” but in the name of clearing the path for our movement, which clearing is impossible without the development of capitalism.

Lenin, Letter to Inessa Armand (1916)



Monopolies, oligarchy, the striving for domination and not for freedom, the exploitation of an increasing number of small or weak nations by a handful of the richest or most powerful nations — all these have given birth to those distinctive characteristics of imperialism which compel us to define it as parasitic or decaying capitalism.

Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)



When nine-tenths of Africa had been seized (by 1900), when the whole world had been divided up,there was inevitably ushered in the era of monopoly possession of colonies and, consequently, of particularly intense struggle for the division and the redivision of the world.

Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1914)



The so-called Great Powers have long been exploiting and enslaving a whole number of small and weak nations. And the imperialist war is a war for the division and redivision of this kind of booty.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



It is not done in modern socialist parties to talk or even think about the significance of this idea, — the “withering away” of the state.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



A standing army and police are the chief instruments of state power.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks themselves share, and instil into the minds of the people, the false notion that universal suffrage “in the present-day state” is really capable of revealing the will of the majority of the working people and of securing its realization.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



the working class must break up, smash the “ready-made state machinery,” and not confine itself merely to laying hold of it.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich — that is the democracy of capitalist society.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority.

Lenin, State and Revolution (1917)



In our attitude towards the war, which under the new government of Lvov and Co. unquestionably remains on Russia’s part a predatory imperialist war owing to the capitalist nature of that government, not the slightest concession to “revolutionary defencism” is permissible.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



The masses must be made to see that the Sovietsof Workers’ Deputies are the only possible form of revolutionary government.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



Abolition of the police, the army and the bureaucracy. The salaries of all officials, all of whom are elective and displaceable at any time, not to exceed the average wage of a competent worker.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



It is not our immediate task to “introduce” socialism, but only to bring social production and the distribution of products at once under the control of the Soviets of Workers’ Deputies.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



It is, of course, much easier to shout, abuse, and howl than to attempt to relate, to explain.

Lenin, April Theses (1917)



A party is the vanguard of a class, and its duty is to lead the masses and not merely to reflect the average political level of the masses.

Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question November 14 (1917)



It is the duty of the revolution to put an end to compromise, and to put an end to compromise means taking the path of socialist revolution.

Lenin, Speech On The Agrarian Question November 14 (1917)



The Russian is a bad worker compared with people in advanced countries. It could not be otherwise under the tsarist regime and in view of the persistence of the hangover from serfdom. The task that the Soviet government must set the people in all its scope is - learn to work. The Taylor system, the last word of capitalism in this respect, like all capitalist progress, is a combination of the refined brutality of bourgeois exploitation and a number of the greatest scientific achievements in the field.

Lenin, The Immediate Task of the Soviet Government (1918)



Human child birth is an act which transforms the woman into an almost lifeless, bloodstained heap of flesh, tortured, tormented and driven frantic by pain.

Lenin, Prophetic Words (1918)



Let the “socialist” snivellers croak, let the bourgeoisie rage and fume, but only people who shut their eyes so as not to see, and stuff their ears so as not to hear, can fail to notice that all over the world the birth pangs of the old, capitalist society, which is pregnant with socialism, have begun.

Lenin, Prophetic Words (1918)



The passing of state power from one class to another is the first, the principal, the basic sign of a revolution, both in the strictly scientific and in the practical political meaning of that term. To this extent, the bourgeois, or the bourgeois-democratic, revolution in Russia is completed.

Lenin, Letters on Tactics (1918)



The Bolshevik slogans and ideas on the whole have been confirmed by history; but concretely things have worked out differently; they are more original, more peculiar, more variated than anyone could have expected..

Lenin, Letters on Tactics (1918)



“The revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry” has already become a reality in the Russian revolution, for this “formula” envisages only a relation of classes, and not a concrete political institution implementing this relation.

Lenin, Letters on Tactics (1918)



The crisis in Germany has only begun. It will inevitably end in the transfer of political power to the German proletariat. The Russian proletariat is following events with the keenest attention and enthusiasm. Now even the blindest workers in the various countries will see that the Bolsheviks were right in basing their whole tactics on the support of the world workers' revolution.

Lenin, Letter To A Joint Session Of The All-Russia Central Executive Committee (1918)



In the course of two years Soviet power in one of the most backward countries of Europe did more to emancipate women and to make their status equal to that of the “strong” sex than all the advanced, enlightened, “democratic” republics of the world did in the course of 130 years.

Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women (1919)



Down with this contemptible fraud! There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be “equality” between the oppressed and the oppressors, between the exploited and the exploiters. There cannot be, nor is there nor will there ever be real “freedom” as long as there is no freedom for women from the privileges which the law grants to men, as long as there is no freedom for the workers from the yoke of capital, and no freedom for the toiling peasants from the yoke of the capitalists, landlords and merchants.

Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women (1919)



Bourgeois democracy is democracy of pompous phrases, solemn words, exuberant promises and the high-sounding slogans of freedom and equality. But, in fact, it screens the non-freedom and inferiority of women, the non-freedom and inferiority of the toilers and exploited.

Lenin, Soviet Power and the Status of Women (1919)



Modern monopolist capitalism on a world-wide scale — imperialist wars are absolutely inevitable under such an economic system, as long as private property in the means of production exists.

Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (1920)



We must display determination, endurance, firmness and unanimity. We must stop at nothing. Everybody and everything must be used to save the rule of the workers and peasants, to save communism.

Lenin, Speech to Third All-Russia Congress of Textile Workers (1920)



But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship.

Lenin, The Trade Unions, The Present Situation and Trotsky's Mistakes (1920)



The Bolsheviks could not have retained power for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years, without the most rigorous and truly iron discipline in our Party.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



How is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



Russia achieved Marxism—the only correct revolutionary theory—through the agony she experienced in the course of half a century of unparalleled torment and sacrifice, of unparalleled revolutionary heroism, incredible energy, devoted searching, study, practical trial, disappointment, verification, and comparison with European experience.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



Thanks to the political emigration caused by tsarism, revolutionary Russia acquired a wealth of international links and excellent information on the forms and theories of the world revolutionary movement, such as no other country possessed.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



Bolshevism went through fifteen years of practical history (1903-17) unequalled anywhere in the world in its wealth of experience. During those fifteen years, no other country knew anything even approximating to that revolutionary experience, that rapid and varied succession of different forms of the movement—legal and illegal, peaceful and stormy, underground and open, local circles and mass movements, and parliamentary and terrorist forms.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



It is at moments of need that one learns who one’s friends are. Defeated armies learn their lesson.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



Experience has proved that, on certain very important questions of the proletarian revolution, all countries will inevitably have to do what Russia has done.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



Without such thorough, circumspect and long preparations , we could not have achieved victory in October 1917, or have consolidated that victory.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



To reject compromises “on principle,” to reject the permissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness. A political leader who desires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat must be able to distinguish concrete cases of compromises that are inexcusable and are an expression of opportunism and treachery.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



In 1912 the agent provocateur Malinovsky got into the Bolshevik Central Committee. He betrayed scores and scores of the best and most loyal comrades; he was obliged, with the other, to assist in the education of scores and scores of thousands of new Bolsheviks through the medium of the legal press.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



If you want to help the “masses” and win the sympathy and support of the “masses,” you should not fear difficulties, or pinpricks, chicanery, insults and persecution from the “leaders,” but must absolutely work wherever the masses are to be found.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



All efforts and all attention should now be concentrated on the next step — the search after forms of the transition or the approach to the proletarian revolution.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



One must not count in thousands, like the propagandist belonging to a small group that has not yet given leadership to the masses; in these circumstances one must count in millions and tens of millions.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



any army which does not train to use all the weapons, all the means and methods of warfare that the enemy possesses, or may possess, is behaving in an unwise or even criminal manner. This applies to politics even more than it does to the art of war.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



It is not difficult to be a revolutionary when revolution has already broken out and is in spate, when all people are joining the revolution just because they are carried away, because it is the vogue, and sometimes even from careerist motives. It is far more difficult—and far more precious—to be a revolutionary when the conditions for direct, open, really mass and really revolutionary struggle do not yet exist.

Lenin, Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder (1920)



One of the biggest and most dangerous mistakes made by Communists is the idea that a revolution can be made by revolutionaries alone. On the contrary, to be successful, all serious revolutionary work requires that the idea that revolutionaries are capable of playing the part only of the vanguard of the truly virile and advanced class must be understood and translated into action.

Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)



Without an alliance with non-Communists in the most diverse spheres of activity there can be no question of any successful communist construction.

Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)



The most important thing is to know how to awaken in the still undeveloped masses an intelligent attitude towards religious questions and an intelligent criticism of religions.

Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)



No natural science can hold its own in the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook unless it stands on solid philosophical ground. In order to hold his own in this struggle and carry it to a victorious finish, the natural scientist must be a modern materialist, a conscious adherent of the materialism represented by Marx, i.e., he must be a dialectical materialist.

Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)



Modern natural scientists (if they know how to seek, and if we learn to help them) will find in the Hegelian dialectics, materialistically interpreted, a series of answers to the philosophical problems which are being raised by the revolution in natural science.

Lenin, The Significance of Militant Materialism (1922)



the prime factors in the question of stability are such members of the C.C. as Stalin and Trotsky. I think relations between them make up the greater part of the danger of a split.

Lenin, Letter to the Congress (1922)



Comrade Stalin, having become Secretary-General, has unlimited authority concentrated in his hands, and I am not sure whether he will always be capable of using that authority with sufficient caution.

Lenin, Letter to the Congress (1922)



Stalin is too rude and this defect, although quite tolerable in our midst and in dealing among us Communists, becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead.

Lenin, Letter to the Congress (1922)



Our schoolteacher should be raised to a standard he has never achieved, and cannot achieve, in bourgeois society. This is a truism and requires no proof.

Lenin, Pages from a Diary (1923)



If a definite level of culture is required for the building of socialism (although nobody can say just what that definite ‘level of culture’ is, for it differs in every Western European country), why cannot we began by first achieving the prerequisites for that definite level of culture in a revolutionary way, and then, with the aid of the workers’ and peasants’ government and Soviet system, proceed to overtake the other nations?

Lenin, Our Revolution (1923)



Napoleon, I think, wrote: “On s’engage et puis ... on voit.” rendered freely this means: “First engage in a serious battle and then see what happens. ” Well, we did first engage in a serious battle in October 1917. And now there can be no doubt that in the main we have been victorious.

Lenin, Our Revolution (1923)



We must follow the rule: Better fewer, but better. We must follow the rule: Better get good human material in two or even three years than work in haste without hope of getting any at all.

Lenin, Better fewer, but Better (1923)



While the bourgeois state methodically concentrates all its efforts on doping the urban workers, adapting all the literature published at state expense and at the expense of the tsarist and bourgeois parties for this purpose, we can and must utilise our political power to make the urban worker an effective vehicle of communist ideas among the rural proletariat.

Lenin, Pages from a Diary (1923)



Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1902)



So long as the state exists there is no freedom. When there is freedom, there will be no state.

Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)



Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat's struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labor and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”.

Lenin, The State and Revolution (1917)



We say: our aim is to achieve a socialist system of society, which, by eliminating the division of mankind into classes, by eliminating all exploitation of man by man and nation by nation, will inevitably eliminate the very possibility of war.

Lenin, War and Revolution (1917)



The real education of the masses can never be separated from their independent political, and especially revolutionary, struggle. Only struggle educates the exploited class. Only struggle discloses to it the magnitude of its own power, widens its horizon, enhances its abilities, clarifies its mind, forges its will.

Lenin, Lecture on the 1905 Revolution (1917)



Capital is an international force. To vanquish it, an international workers' alliance, an international workers' brotherhood, is needed.
We are opposed to national enmity and discord, to national exclusiveness. We are internationalists.

Lenin, Letter to the Workers and Peasants of the Ukraine (1919)



<...> I must say that the tasks of the youth in general, and of the Young Communist Leagues and all other organisations in particular, might be summed up in a single word: learn.

Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues (1920)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 05:50 PM
Response to Reply #149
164. But you can’t find any relevant to the issue?

As for Lenin’s quotes being “Cherries Picked”....it aint hard to find those philosophical fruits at the core of communist endeavour and intent... from the outset and onwards.

You want to pretend religion was not a specific target of communist regimes and State imposed atheism was not a core component of their stated objectives?...Go for it. Like I said to another...it’s not me you will have to convince but the surviving families and refugees from the bloody terror that was unleashed against people of faith because their very faith stood in the way of ideological/political objectives...State imposed atheism being central-“ the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #164
166. There Is No Issue You Raise, Sir: You Quote Lenin a Time Or Two On Atheism, And Ignore All Else
It is not even a good parlor trick.

No one bothers to deny atheism is one element of Communist party dogma: what is at issue here is the degree of importance best ascribed to that fact.

People are stating that the sum of people killed in communist countries were killed because communists were atheists, and in specific furtherance of atheism, and that establishing atheism was the leading purpose of communism.

These statements are false.

The purpose of communsm was re-structuring an economic order, so that there would be no property, no money, none of the things commonly associated with the capitalist order. That this failed is beside the point, whether it is even possible or not is beside the point; it was the intent. Religion was simply one element of the capitalist order communism sought to supplant; it was repressed, just as ownership of property was, and a variety of other things associated with bourgeois and capitalist society were. Communists, as atheists, killed no more than other tyrannical authoritarians through the ages: a disposition for mass killing is part of human nature, particularly at the top of the heap of wealth and power, and whether one believes in a diety or not seems on the record to make no difference at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 06:10 AM
Response to Reply #166
167. The “issue” is the historical role of atheism in communism.
As expounded by Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and all the manifestos and party policies there of.

YOU COULD NOT >BE< A MEMBER OF THE SOVIET CENTRAL COMITTIE WITHOUT BEING AN ATHIEST.

If it WASN'T THAT IMPORTANT....THAT CENTRAL..................why make it an atheists only power broking club?

That’s the point, issue and historical reality…not dependant on a couple of quotes from Lenin nor ignoring all or anything else.

“No one bothers to deny atheism is one element of Communist party dogma:”

Bullshit. For 3+ years a number of atheists on this board have dismissed, denied and rejected >any< acknowledgement of the role of atheism within communist theory, ideology and application. Apologetics and denial of the most absurd and bizarre nature have been frequently presented…the pretence that atheism was somehow “picked up” (post revolution) as a tool to power, that it was a “sideshow” not central party policy or something seriously considered or advocated by the communists. Worst of all the desperate spin that the real issue was not State imposed atheism but rather the ‘religion’ that Stalin/Mao made of the cult of personality.
In short…there are dozens of examples on this board of critical thinking Liberals on this board denying that atheism had >any< significant role in communist ideology or regimes.

My objection (despite your prior fabrication of my pov) is not to atheism per se but to the denial and falsification of clear historical record.

“…what is at issue here is the degree of importance best ascribed to that fact.”

Ah huh. And such consideration and determination of “the degree of importance best ascribed” must begin (at very least) with the recognition of the “fact” that atheism had/has a role within communism and was not (as presented by local apologists) some kind of accidental/incidental/inadvertent/sideshow.

From this board Wed Jul-14-10 -
“Atheism was a side show, just a part of Stalinism, not the core principle. It's not even a core principle of communism; communism is strictly an economic philosophy.”

>Someone< “bothers to deny atheism is one element of Communist party dogma” …and in doing so they are not alone in their denial and falsification of history.

“People are stating that the sum of people killed in communist countries were killed because communists were atheists,and in specific furtherance of atheism, and that establishing atheism was the leading purpose of communism.
…”

Are they? Who? In what post?
I ask because I haven’t seen anyone say anything like that and I strongly suspect it is another of your “'Only Atheists Kill'…” bullshit fabrication projections.

Who said or suggested people got killed "because communists were atheists"?

How do you get from the recognition that atheism was >a< core principle in communism to the fabrication- "atheism was the leading purpose of communism".

"These statements are false."

I beleve you are right....they are 'false' statements because you made them up. Nobody else said anything like it.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #167
168. What You call Denying, Sir, Is Simply Not Sharing Your Exaggerated Valuation Of The Thing
Communism is primarily an economic view, albeit one pitched towards revolution and total restructuing, rather than reform or ameloration of abuses and iniquities. Being pressed by serious revolutionaries, when it came into power it was guided by persons of extraordinary ruthlessness.

As most of the above consist of you refuting yourself, usually by refusing to understand the plain meaning of words or refusing to acknowledge what follows logically from your own statements, the principle of standing aside while an opponent is beating himself up applies....

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove anything they believed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #168
169. The Magistrate has so far demonstrated very poor skills of reasoning.
He is eliminating anything factual that he considers irrelavant and he dismisses the work of scholars simply because he does not agree with their political views, even though their writings and research have been peer reviewed, and their academic credentials are first rate. The establishment of atheism in not only the Soviet Union but under all Marxist governments was a primary and necessary objective. Its forceful implementation varied by degrees according to the government dictates.

"The League of the Militant Godless (LMG), under Emelian Yaroslavsky, was the main instrument of the anti-religious campaign and it was given special powers that allowed it to dictate to public institutions throughout the country what they needed to do for the campaign <37>.

After 1929 and through the 30s, the closing of churches, mass arrests of the clergy and religiously active laity, and persecution of people for attending church reached unprecedented proportions.<1><58>. The LMG employed terror tactics against believers in order to further the campaign, while employing the guise of protecting the state or prosecuting law-breakers. The clergy were attacked as foreign spies and trials of bishops were conducted with their clergy as well as lay adherents who were reported as 'subversive terroristic gangs' that had been unmasked<61>. Official propaganda at the time called for the banishment of the very concept of God from the Soviet Union<62>. These persecutions were meant to assist the ultimate socialist goal of eliminating religion<62><63>. From 1932-1937 Stalin declared the 'FIVE YEAR PLANS OF ATHEISM'and the LMG was charged with completely eliminating all religious expression in the country<62>. Many of these same methods and terror tactics were also imposed against others that the regime considered to be its ideological enemies."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians_in_the_Soviet_Union#Anti-religious_campaign_1928-1940
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #169
171. Dear humblebum….a short story.

I have spent the day talking to my elder brother about the origins of our understanding of Communist regimes…how we came to know/believe as we do.
It needs be pointed out we come from a very Left of Centre family…Dad was a member of the International Socialist Youth Alliance and elder brother studied Economics/ Revolutionary History and Theory- Hegel, Marx, Marcusa…and married a Communist.
I have heard and read enough communist theory to last two lifetimes and endured enough armchair revolutionary fervour to last three ;-)

Little or nothing of what I ever read or heard (though educational/informative) ever swayed or persuaded me away from my baseline socialism…not Stalin’s purges nor Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

What impacted on all our thinking was the steady trickle of immigrants and refugees from former Soviet Block countries…Poles, Latvians, Yugoslavs…. These men came to work with my father and dad brought many of them home. What struck me first (as a teen) was that many of these men were Professionals- Engineers, Chemists, Teachers, Professors…who had all left well paid positions, comfortable environments and sometimes family behind to start a new life in a new country doing menial/low skill low pay jobs in heavy industry.
Listening to them (and their wives) talk to my parents the obvious question arose time and again- “Why leave such materially comfortable conditions and positions”?
The answer was a constant- The absence of Political and Religious freedom.

I guess we took both for granted and didn’t care much about religion/religious freedom at all. These people did…passionately and often tearfully they recounted the devastating effects of ideological oppression, spying and destruction of formerly vibrant community. They willingly gave up material benefit, prestige and even holidays on the Black Sea to gain freedom of worship, freedom of political association and the >community< that came with both.

Later in life as a Welfare Worker I encountered exactly the same phenomena among immigrants and refugees from Viet Nam and Cambodia.

Bottom line….Text books, written histories, argument and debate over the ‘facts’ never made much difference to my beliefs nor those of my family….but the stories, the narratives, the recounted experiences of all those who lived in and under communist regimes had a profound impact on us all.

While I agree that the “poor skills of reasoning” you identify are indeed >a< problem…..I am not convinced they are >the< problem ;-)

Keep up the honest fight for historical accuracy…and keep one eye open for the moving narrative ;-)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. Good story. thanks. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 04:49 AM
Response to Reply #171
175. Fallen Away From The Ancestral Faith, Eh, Sir? That Explains Most Of This Nonesense Of Yours
Guilt comes from a variety of directions, and a convert's zeal keeps the focus firmly outwards.

The trick is to shed the structure of perception: it does no good to simply reverse polarities,and substitute one black and white for another. Things are pretty much grey....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #175
178. Not at all. I/we have retained our left leaning social justice principles.

But no intelligent human being at this point in history can be blind to the shitfest that communist regimes and their State imposed atheism inflicted on their people….lest one embraces ideological wilful ignorance….hows that working out for you?

“Guilt comes from a variety of directions, and a convert's zeal keeps the focus firmly outwards.”

No “conversion” took place, no “guilt” arose as a consequence.

I am fascinated by your seemingly endless propensity to steadfastly ignore all pertinent points/questions put to you while you argue from broad brush unsubstantiated allegations or bullshit extrapolation.
Do you ever argue the issue or is lame personal attack your one trick pony schtick?

“The trick is to shed the structure of perception: it does no good to simply reverse polarities,and substitute one black and white for another. Things are pretty much grey”

This advice from someone whose “black and white” “perception” leads them to accuse another of having expounded- “Only Atheists Kill”…and yet cannot find or present a single word of substantiation to support the allegation.

Please stop pissing down my back and trying to tell me its raining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #178
180. Being a socialist or leaning toward a social justice political viewpoint
doesn't automatically mean that a person is an atheist or abandons any type of religious belief. So I don't find it strange at all that you have your POV. As a matter of fact one can be an atheist or agnostic and still have the same opinion. Your observations and opinions ring true to me because I have heard the same type of remarks from people who lived most of their lives under communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:12 PM
Response to Reply #178
182. Discuss Your Sexual Fetishes Elsewhere, Sir: Urolangic Desires Have Little To Do With Theology
Edited on Fri Sep-24-10 05:16 PM by The Magistrate
There is a reason such imagery comes readily to some people's minds. There is nothing wrong with spending time imagining people urinating on you, and it is not that uncommon a fetish, but it does strike a jarring note here, and you would be wisest to avoid such revelatory figures of speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #182
186. You were funnier when you played us the Velvet Underground.
Edited on Fri Sep-24-10 11:10 PM by ironbark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-23-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #168
170. Piss and wind....no substance.

Not even the feigned attempt to pretend that any issue/point was met or pertinent question answered-

YOU COULD NOT >BE< A MEMBER OF THE SOVIET CENTRAL COMITTIE WITHOUT BEING AN ATHIEST.
If it WASN'T THAT IMPORTANT....THAT CENTRAL..................why make it an atheists only power broking club?

Just puffed up egocentric and pointless bluster….all victory dance and not a striking shot fired.

"As most of the above consist of you refuting yourself...."

But you cant identify/cite a single example....we must take it on faith and simply believe...

"..usually by refusing to understand the plain meaning of words..."

But you cant identify/cite a single example....we must take it on faith and simply believe...

"refusing to acknowledge what follows logically from your own statements..."

But you cant identify/cite a single example....we must take it on faith and simply believe...

You make a religion of baseless unsubstantiated unsuported knowledge claims to be taken as gospel and pretend the other is beating himself up while you flee the entire issue.

Not even a Court Clerk.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #143
157. What's absurd and obscene
is to claim that every one of the deaths under all of those regimes was a direct result of atheism, with absolutely no evidence for that at all. Show us some quotes of any of those leaders saying "these people must die because they are not atheists" or any words to that effect.

Did atheism inspire communism? Can you show us anywhere in Lenin's writings where he espoused the deaths of as many non-atheists as possible? What evidence can you cite from any scholarly biography of Stalin showing that atheism was the primary motivating force for his political repression?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #157
165. IF such a "claim" had been made it might be "absurd and obscene "

But it hasn't so it isn't.

"Show us some quotes of any of those leaders saying "these people must die because they are not atheists" or any words to that effect."

Ahhh huh....and if no such "quotes" can be found then logic demands that State imposed atheism was not central to communism and no one was persecuted/killed seeking those objectives?

"Did atheism inspire communism?"

YES!!!!!
Clearly, unequivocally and historically undeniably!
It was an inspirational central tenant and objective...AS STATED by every communist leader from Marx through to Pol Pot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:22 AM
Response to Reply #165
176.  So if communism was inspired
by the desire to impose atheism on everyone, where were all of the mass killings attributable to atheism before Lenin and Marx came along? Does the blame lie with atheism itself, or with communism's misguided attempts to impose it (as well as their attempts to impose many other things). Or with a few paranoid sociopaths who aren't representative of anything?

"Ahhh huh....and if no such "quotes" can be found then logic demands that State imposed atheism was not central to communism and no one was persecuted/killed seeking those objectives?"

No, please don't attribute leaps of logic to me that I have not made. If no such quotes can be found, it calls into question of whether 130 million people were killed in the name of atheism. You'd have no trouble finding analogous quotes about Jews from Hitler.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #176
179. Where are the killing fields “before” the perps had means and opportunity?
“…where were all of the mass killings attributable to atheism before Lenin and Marx came along”

You seem to be in pursuit of a notion not put. No one is suggesting or has suggested that if you smoke atheism you flip out and start killing people with an axe.

The communists had an agenda of establishing a social utopia and State imposed atheism was central to that objective. One could not be a member of the Soviet Central Committee >WITHOUT< being an atheist…it was that important/central.

“Does the blame lie with atheism itself, or with communism's misguided attempts to impose it”

The “blame” resides with >all those< communist/atheists who believed in the imposition/ of the State for the ‘good’ of the people…all those who believed that the people must (like it or not) be freed/liberated from the strictures of superstitious religion.
Their atheism was inseparable from their communism, their communism inseparable from their atheism…any >non atheist< communist was purged, imprisoned or rendered impotent…even many who had well/influentially served the revolution.

“Or with a few paranoid sociopaths who aren't representative of anything?”

No. Absolutely and definitely not. The question itself (and the frequency with which variations of “a few paranoid sociopaths” arises) honestly frightens me.
It is reflective of the comic book mad/bad guy mindset that predominates and it is dangerously false. The shit that went down in the Soviet, China, Cambodia wasn’t conducted by Joe ‘The Joker’ Stalin and a few loopy henchmen or ‘Penguin’ Mao or Pol the Riddler Pot…it took thousands and thousand of people to be committed to the communist vision and willing to pursue its agenda. Sure there was leadership, orders and inspiration…but there was also immense organization, willingness and belief in pursuit of the socialist utopia. And a key part of that utopia was the cool, calm, rational and considered conclusion of >thousands< of communists that the objective required the elimination of religion.

“No, please don't attribute leaps of logic to me that I have not made.”

Then please don’t ask for anything as ludicrous as “… quotes of any of those leaders saying "these people must die because they are not atheists".
For such a request demonstrates either insincerity in ascertaining the role of atheism within communism and/or a profound naivety regarding how the regimes in question operated.

Wiki is near and simple enough for starters to provide what anyone ought to know-

“Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.
Continuous persecution in the 1930s resulted in the Orthodox Church’s near-extinction as a public institution: by 1939, active parishes numbered in the low hundreds (down from 54,000 in 1917), many churches had been leveled, and tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938”…”


"100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938” is that near enough to "these people must die because they are not atheists" for ya?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #179
181. There are several good sources besides those already mentioned.
I've listed these before, but they do lend credibility to your assertions. Primary sources include the eyewitness publications William Henry Chamberlin, which were written during the early years. Also, 'Storming the Heavens ...',by Daniel Peris, "Godless Communists", by William B. Husband, and a public display of Soviet atheist propaganda from the period at

http://www.smith.edu/artmuseum/exhibitions/godlesscommunists/bibliography.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #176
183. All This Pair Has Done So Far, Mr. Scott
Is strip-mine a disputed Wikipedia entry.

There is no reason to expect they will do any more in future.

This is a hobby-horse they ride regularly down here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #183
184. Only a few of the sources are related to wiki, and even those have
sources listed. As of yet, I don't think you have been able to produce anything to back up your own privileged reasoning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-24-10 10:57 PM
Response to Reply #183
185. So, which of the claims do you wish to dispute?

That atheism was not central and essential to communist party platform/policy?

That the communist party did not perceive atheism as a “natural and inseparable part of Communism."?

That you couldn’t be a member of the Central Committee without being an atheist?

That “…tens of thousands of priests, monks and nuns were persecuted and killed. Over 100,000 were shot during the purges of 1937–1938”…”

If these historical facts are not in dispute…then which are?

"An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
other religious sentiments were often killed.
...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
instead of the family.
About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
- http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.h...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #185
187. The Problem With Your Line, Sir, And This Will Be My Last Comment On It, Is One Of Scale
You do not understand the size of things; it is like conversing with a child who has not yet quite got the hang of big, bigger, biggest....

Communism aimed at a full overthrow of the existing economic, social, and political order, and its replacement by an entirely new system. Religious belief was part of the existing order to be overthrown, as were many other things, most noticeably aristocracy and private property. You are mistaking a means for an end in your insistence atheism was a central focus of communist purpose.

The figures you brandish establish the opposite of your central claim. If communists in Soviet Russia killed at least thirty millions, which is a fair assessment, the figures you present for deaths resulting from persecution of the religious by communists in Soviet Russia are a rounding error, a fraction less than one percent of the total. If recollection serves, before the Great War commenced there were roughly fifty thousands each of Orthodox priests and nuns in Russia, so it is possible those figures contain some element of exaggeration, since obviously the whole of the Orthodox clergy was not killed, as there was staff for the Orthodox revival during the Great Patriotic War.

There is no need to repeat what was said earlier concerning the Khymer Rouge, save to note that, again, what you cite does not demonstrate claims you cite it in support of. Even the extracts you cite make clear that breaking down the whole of a social order, from urbanization right down to inter-familial loyalties, was the aim of the Khymer Rouge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #187
188. You are clearly in denial Mr. Magistrate.
"You are mistaking a means for an end in your insistence atheism was a central focus of communist purpose." The establishment of atheism as one primary objective in the imposition of communism and as a requirement for all card-carrying members of the party has clearly been demonstrated. I suggest you do some serious nhistorical research. That is an area in which you are sorely lacking.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #187
189. I’m sure you’ve heard before that “size doesn’t matter” ;-)
Unless of course it’s a discourse and the measure is the number of answers to direct, specific pertinent points and questions (see those posed in prior post) and your capacity to answer is “size” ZERO.

”You are mistaking a means for an end in your insistence atheism was a central focus of communist purpose.”

Ah huh. Not “a central focus of communist purpose” but you couldn’t be on the CENTRAL COMITTIE without being an atheist!
“Communism aimed at a full overthrow of the existing economic, social, and political order” so they made pre requisite for being on the Central Comittie-
“economic” qualification?…………………..NO.
“social” science qualification………………NO.
ANY KIND OF EDUCATIONAL/EXPERIENCE QUALIFICATION to transform a nation and its social order?…………………………..NO.

To be on the Communist Central Committee you had NO OTHER pre requisite to Communist Party Membership than BEING AN ATHIEST.

Tell us again it wasn’t “a central focus of communist purpose”.

“…the figures you present for deaths resulting from persecution of the religious by communists in Soviet Russia are a rounding error….”

Yea? Over 100,000 priests, monks and nuns shot during the brief period 1937–1938 alone is a “rounding error”?
The “error” was “rounding” them up rather than shooting them down on the spot?
It runs with your prior bullshit revisionist apologetics- “the distinction between a death resulting from deliberate intent to kill, and a death resulting from failure or error in some enterprise with another purpose.”
“Whoops….we rounded up and shot over 100,000 priests, monks and nuns while pursuing another purpose…..dang Cleetus”

“…If recollection serves, before the Great War commenced there were roughly fifty thousands each of Orthodox priests and nuns in Russia….”

No Captain Rounding Error…that’s the number of Orthodox Church active parishes, 54,000 in 1917, … the ones with the churches and monasteries that got knocked down/burnt down accidentally “while pursuing another purpose”


I understand your desire to cut and run at this point…when the Velvet Underground fat lady sings state imposed atheism is over
and so is your argument/credibility.

Bye ;-)


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 04:03 AM
Response to Reply #189
190. Numbers Are Not Your Strong Point, Sir
Edited on Sat Sep-25-10 04:53 AM by The Magistrate
The existence of 54,000 parishes in 1917 hardly refutes a statement there were about fifty thousand priests and fifty thousand nuns in 1914; indeed, it tends to support it. But my grasp of facts concerning history has never been in question here.

One hundred thousand is one percent of ten million, and one third of a percent of thirty millions. If one were tallying up the number of dead by various demographic categories, such a fractional percentage would hardly stand out as the key element. You could as easily claim the purpose of communism was to eradicate the Communist Party, as well over one hundred thousand Party members perished in the various purges: one of the most dangerous things to be was someone who had been a member of the Bolshevik Party prior to the October Revolution.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #190
191. That 100,000 was merely one early episode. The huge numbers
account for deaths over a period of about 70 years, mainly under Lenin, Stalin, and Kruschev. Your grasp of history is definitely in question here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 09:48 AM
Response to Reply #191
192. You Really Do Not Know The First Thing About the Matter, Sir, Or The Art, Do You?
The fellow quoted a claim of 100,000 clergy killed in the height of the Stalinist purges. It is the largest figure available in the Wikipedia entry you are both mining assiduously, so it was the best shot he could take; it does not offer much more but a few adjectives and imprecise nouns. The fact is very few people were killed specifically over religious belief in the Soviet Union. This makes manifestly false attempts to claim communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion, and thus that all killing by communists owes to atheism and the drive to destroy religion. But this has been demonstrated abundantly already in this discussion....

"Say something once,why say it again?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #192
193. Their lack of serious historical knowledge
also prevents them from understanding that many religious people in Stalinist Russia were killed or imprisoned simply because they refused, on principle, to cooperate with a totalitarian bureaucracy in any way. The principles that led to their refusal (and in some cases their death) may have been religious in nature (and they should be commended for their courage, whatever the reason, in contrast to Catholic leaders in Nazi Germany), but that is a far different matter than having been killed simply because they believed in god, as opposed to not believing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #192
194. I have never claimed that
"communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion", and I don't believe anyone else has either. However, it is undeniably a main goal of the government. It would not have been given the high priority that it was by Lenin and Trotsky; nor it's own 5 year plan by Stalin,nor would Kruschev have specifically called for the final eradication of religion in "The Atheist's Handbook". Really you have very little knowledge of Russian history. We have not even begun to scratch the surface yet. You seem to be fixated in Wikipedia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #194
195. You Have Claimed Nothing But That, Sir
The things you adduce as 'proof' of your position display the lack of knowledge concerning Russian, Soviet, or Left history under which you are laboring.

The real problem, by now, is that your limitations in this are so severe and so obvious that it is hard to justify even the small effort of engagement with you. You, clearly, are not going to be improved by it, and there is more than enough for persons reading the exchange to draw informed conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #195
196. Then I would challenge you to show me where I or anyone else claimed that
"communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion" or any statement expressing that idea. The only reason you are still holding your head above water in this discussion is that you are so engaged in trying to twist people's statement like you have just done. The establishment of state atheism was A prime goal,one of several.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #196
198. It aint going to happen humblebum

As you have identified.
The clear and repeated gambit is to take whatever is said...spin and falsify it into a convenient Straw Man...and rebuke that false propisition.

"communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion" is just one more in an endless string of bullshit smoke generating gambits to avoid what is actualy said and argued.

Not as good as "Only Atheists Kill" but cast from the same crap mould.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 08:11 PM
Response to Reply #198
200. Do, Please, Keep Helping This Stay Up Atop The Forum, Sir....
The more views this receives, the better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #200
202. No problem. you have yet to cite one credible piece of evidence to support
your POV. You attempt to deny, to rationalize, to cajole, to spin, and to BS your way through this thing and ignore evidence put right under your nose. When thousands upon thousands of people join groups such as the League of Militant Atheists, and dedicate their efforts to intimidate, persecute, and prosecute any religious adherent. When they distribute atheist publications (The Atheist) on a massive scale in factories, homes, and schools, when radio continuously broadcasts atheistic propaganda, when Scientific Atheism is espoused as replacing religion - it's pretty easy to say that much was done in the name of atheism by atheists. Now I realize that you will try to rationalize all of this away, but the solid evidence is overwhelming. Good luck.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #200
204. More than happy to oblige.

People will indeed have the oportunity to judge wether phrases such as "communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion" or "Only Atheists Kill" are in any way reflective of anything I (or others) have said....or.....simply bullshit straw man smoke and spin ;-)

And thereupon will credability and integrity reside ;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #192
197. Repeated argument from the (unwarranted) presumption of authority
“You Really Do Not Know The First Thing About the Matter”
“my grasp of facts concerning history has never been in question here”190

Repeating “I know what I’m talking about you don’t” is not an argument (nor a foundation for one)

"Say something once,why say it again?" and again and again…

To hopefully convince others you are a scholar with scholarly authority and attributes, Sir.?

“The fellow quoted a claim of 100,000 clergy killed in the height of the Stalinist purges. It is the largest figure available in the Wikipedia entry”


And other sources put the figure at 80-100,000, so what’s your “I do numbers” quibble?

“some 80000 Orthodox priests, monks and nuns had lost their lives,”
'Russian Orthodoxy and Religious Pluralism: Post-Soviet Challenges
Contemporary Europe Research Centre, Melbourne University.
http://www.cerc.unimelb.edu.au/publications/CERCWP012003.pdf

No historian will claim or pretend there is any precision to the numbers and no one of scholarly integrity would pretend that examining the issue “boils down to
“Only Atheists Kill”..”

“This makes manifestly false attempts to claim communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion,”

Ahhhh….it’s the subtlety of your spin, falsification and misrepresentation I enjoy so much.
No one claimed or even suggested “communism's great purpose was the destruction of religion…”
But the apologetics, spin, historical revisionism would have folk believe the destruction of religion was either not a purpose at all or not an important/central purpose.

The clear historical record undemines your argument to the point at which it collapses-

“League of Militant Atheists launched an atheistic crusade that was intended to totally secularize Soviet society by 1937. According to the
League’s own count, this voluntary organization steadily grew since its formation in 1926
By 1932, the League boasted over 5.6 million members; this number draws some suspicion
when one considers that the Communist Party only had around 1.8 million members at the time.”
http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z3211C.pdf

Two logical conclusions. Either-
1/ The figures are correct and there were >more< League of Militant Atheist members than Communist Party members.
2/ The League figures are inflated and that’s ok with the Communist Party because the “atheistic crusade that was intended to totally secularize Soviet society” was so bloody important and >central< to their objectives.

Go figure.

“The League was determined to create atheist “cells”
across the entire Soviet Union in order to reach rural citizens who were currently ignorant of the
atheistic science.
What parishes are for the Church the cells were to be for the League of Militant Atheists, only cells were to
outnumber the parishes at the ratio of sixty to one or so. The Five Year Plan of anti-religious propaganda which
was adopted in 1932 and was to run until 1937 provided for the organization of 400,000 cells in town alone; not
less than one cell was to be founded in each factory, government office and school. In addition, 600,000 cells were to be founded in the countryside, one cell in every inhabited locality, collective farm and machine tractor station.”
(Kolarz 1962:11)
38 JOURNAL FOR THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION

Of course this is all a kind of accidental “means” picked up along the way in pursuit of other “ends”…not at all central or important to the Communists…more of an inadvertent side show.

“In one especially fierce effort to eradicate religious possessions, the League of Militant Atheists “claimed that an epidemic of syphilis in the countryside was being spread through the practice of kissing icons”
(Peris 1998:85).

Well…at least it is reassuring to see the consistency and longevity of desperation in atheist argumentation ;-)

"...all killing by communists owes to atheism and the drive to destroy religion"

What a great rebuttal.
What a great pity NO ONE has put up an argument that says or suggests “all killing by communists owes to atheism” for it to rebut up against.
SOAP. Standard Operating Atheist Procedure- Ignore what your opponent says. Spin, straw man, falsify, misrepresent….then argue steadfastly against your own spin. Never hear or address what the other is actually saying.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #197
199. It only makes sense that when we already know that the Russian
Edited on Sat Sep-25-10 08:17 PM by humblebum
Orthodox Church was so central to Russian society, to assume that the subjugation and eventual destruction of that church would require a program or effort equally significant to counter the Orthodox Church. That program was "Scientific Atheism" or state atheism. It would have had to have a more significant standing in the Bolshevik cause to overcome the influences(and they were many) of something so all pervasive as the Russian Orthodox Church. State Atheism had that standing. Though it was never able to achieve its intented destruction of all religious influences, its influence was felt at all levels of society - in the factories, in the home, in the market places, and in the schools - even right in the churches, ie. Komsomol Christmas and Komsomol Easter. These were all places where the Church had exercised great control and presence, and to counter that presence, militant atheism conducted a campaign of propaganda, intimidation, and education and any resistence resulted some degree of retribution - very often prison, or execution, or being given the status of becoming a "non-person".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-25-10 08:31 PM
Response to Reply #199
201. So how was the multiple million death count arrived at?
It came from the thousands of villages and towns across a vast nation spanning 11 time zones, where religious structures were forcefully destroyed or taken over for other purposes and many or all of those who stood in the way were were executed on the spot, after a mock trial, or sent to a gulag where they eventually died. It came from the intentional starvations of entire populations who were of the wrong class or stood up to intimidation. Gulags, mass executions, mass starvations all combined over a 70 year period to tally such large numbers. What makes all of this so impossible to deny is the fact that it is all so relatively recent that eyewitness accounts are still available, some episodes were photographed or filmed, and Soviet archives have made available information that was inaccessible only a short time ago.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #201
203. "so relatively recent that eyewitness accounts are still available"
As an adolescent I sat one day and listened to one of my fathers work buddies recount his childhood in the Soviet. They went to church one Sunday only to find the Priest had been replaced by (a Commissar? A member of the League? I don’t remember) who replaced the usual sermon with a three hour lecture on the stupidity of superstition and the corruption that is religion. At the end of the lecture a single elderly male member of the congregation of four hundred rose to declare “Christ is risen” and the entire congregation responded “Christ is risen”.

And every single adult male (including the narrators father) was removed and never seen again.

I was an agnostic when I heard the recounting, I remain an agnostic to this day. I don’t have to be a theist to appreciate the courage of conviction of those who knew what the consequences of their simple expression of belief would be…nor do I have to be an enemy of atheism to reject the historical revisionism that seeks to erase its role in communism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-26-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #203
205. I think you have some interesting insights and I fully agree
Edited on Sun Sep-26-10 12:54 PM by humblebum
with your personal views on atheism and theism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:10 AM
Response to Reply #7
142. No it doesn't. That's bullshit.
You can't pin the crimes of Stalin on nonbelievers. Stalin would have been a tyrant with or without dogmatic atheism. Anyway, Ratzinger is clearly talking about those who today are vocally promoting atheism by argument (not bullets or the threat of eternal damnation).

He is in no position to claim moral superiority over nonbelievers (however militant he thinks they are) or anyone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:58 AM
Response to Reply #142
144. By your own line of reasoning....

theists are now entitled to reject any crimes commited by believers and claim the perp “would have been a tyrant with or without dogmatic religion”

“You can't pin the crimes of Stalin on nonbelievers. Stalin would have been a tyrant with or without dogmatic atheism.”

There is no mention of “Stalin” in the post you are responding to. The author stated- “"Extremist atheism" or "militant" atheism has a history equally as violent and repressive as Nazism”...that statement would cover all communist regimes and is historically accurate.
To attempt to sideline shift or narrow the issue to a single individual and what he might/might not have done “without dogmatic atheism” (“...the natural and inseparable part of Communism." Lenin...).....is absurd.

Fact is each communist “tyrant” was motivated by core principles and beliefs, recorded in Manifesto and Party Programe, and atheism was central and essential to that programme.

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

Go right ahead...pretend Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and all the rest of the “tyrants” would have behaved the same if they didn’t fervently believe in State imposed atheism as “natural and inseparable” to Communism. Or that it was a lone nutter tyrant not acting on core principles/ beliefs and not supported by a State machine and thousands who shared those principles/beliefs.


It’s not me you will have to convince....it’s the families of the millions dead or persecuted who still, vividly, remember the purges, burning churches and temples and fleeing to a country that does not shoot you on the basis of belief.

"An atheist, Pol Pot suppressed Cambodia’s Buddhist religion:
monks were defrocked; temples and artifacts, including statues of
Buddha, were destroyed; and people praying or expressing
other religious sentiments were often killed.
...the government emptied the cities through mass evacuations
and sent people to the countryside. Cambodians were overworked
and underfed on collective farms, often succumbing to disease or
starvation as a result. Spouses were separated and family meals
prohibited in order to steer loyalties toward the state
instead of the family.
About 1.7 million Cambodians, or about 20 percent of the population,
were worked, starved, or beaten to death under Pol Pot’s regime."
- http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761579038/pol_pot.html





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #144
145. The Nazis murdered Jews specifically because they were a religious minority...
...Christian dogma had for centuries encouraged the persecution, expulsion and murder of Jews.

The man who shot Dr. Tiller did so specifically because of his Christian beliefs. Accept that an embryo is a person and that terminating it is murder and the murder of Tiller becomes a reasonable act. Those who deprive women and girls the right to autonomy over their own bodies do so for religious reasons. Those who would punish people just for being gay do so solely for religious reasons. Those who oppose scientific advances like stem cell research or evolution promote ignorance because of religion. Our harsh justice system is so because of a puritanical desire to punish sin.

The 9/11 hijackers were the most devoutly religious people on those planes. They did what they did because of their belief in Islamic martyrdom. The same is true with all the other acts of terrorism against civilians. All have a religious cause. Look at that army doctor who shot up a base. As soon as it was clear that it was a murder-suicide attempt, I immediately knew his religion. Today, the abuses by Islamic states against women are legendary. Actual slavery exists only where it can be "justified" by Islam. The whole problem in Palestine is solely one of religion. If all the Isrealis converted to Islam or all the Palestinians converted to Judaism, the problem would be over. (I suggest they all convert to Jainism.)

Ratzinger's authority is completely based on religion and he uses it to oppress women and especially their reproductive rights. He excludes them for no real reason from leadership in his church. He rails against homosexuals for no reason. He opposes the rights of workers. He opposes reasonable measures to control AIDS. Finally, he is at the center of an international ring of child rape and has actively facilitated it. Because of his teachings, millions of children go to bed everynight worried that they might go to hell. He's a monster and it is precisely because of his religion.

Stalin's evil says nothing at all about the veracity of the claims religion makes. He can be an evil atheist and there is still no god. But he wasn't entirely evil, was he? He and his Red Army deserve much of the credit for ending fascism in WW2. The enforced public atheism of Soviet Russia was a reaction to the church-supported tyrany of the Czars. The people had been hurt so badly and for so long by the Russian church that their revolutionary instinct was to wipe them out and to reclaim the treasures that, after all, they and their ancestors had bought. I oppose the persecution of any religious group, but it is understandable (but not justifiable) nonetheless.

Anyway, the kind of dogmatic atheism enforced by the Soviet state is not what we are talking about here. We are not advocating replacing the dogma of religion with the dogma of an authoritarian enforced atheism. The atheism espoused by pretty much everyone except for Soviet-type communists is one of skepticism and free thought. We know full well that a person cannot be forced to believe or disbelieve in something. At most, a dogmatic authority can only make someone pretend to believe. We want a state free from dogma that protects everyones right to believe or not to believe. Our weapons are always, always, always words and the insistence on enforcing the seperation of church and state through law. We will never resort to violence and if any one of us ever does, he will quickly find himself being condemned by his friends. What Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Ali and others mean by atheism has absolutely nothing to do with a dogmatic state system that makes itself god. That is the real reason why the comparison is false. But I suspect you know that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-28-10 08:03 PM
Response to Reply #7
207. Can we have some examples, please?
Apart from your usual Pol Pot, Stalin, et al., who were just power mad psychopaths.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ironbark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-28-10 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #207
208. The thousands and thousands

of Party/League/Central Committee members/Commissars and henchmen who in the name of Communism and its inseparable State Imposed Atheism were prepared to carry out acts of tyranny, death and destruction that >CANNOT< be sheeted home to or laid at the feet of >JUST< a couple of "power mad psychopaths".

Very well educated human beings sat down together and worked out their philosopy, policy, platform and proceedure...atheism was a central component and no accident/sideshow to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
8. Excellent pics of Palpatine, there!
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 01:05 PM by FiveGoodMen
Also: "wished to eradicate God" ...

Gott mit uns?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlecBGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
10.  that caught my attention too
from my limited understanding of WWII history, the Germans were every bit as religous as Americans back then. Much of the justification for 'solving' the 'jewish problem' was based upon scripture.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
izquierdista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:21 PM
Response to Original message
11. A box of Fruit Loops..
..with eyes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ikonoklast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
16. Yeah, sure.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. Perhaps you would like to provide some dates and context for your photos?
As far as I know, the Marine church photo is currently dated only from the fact that one knows topnazi was in Wilhelmshaven on approximately this-or-that-day, and there are essentially no significant records of the visit. So if you can shed any real light on the photo, perhaps you would be making a genuine historical contribution

It is very popular in this forum to post photos and misrepresent their significance. I have seen that photo displayed here several times to prove "Hitler was Catholic," but of course that is just silly, as the Marine church is a Lutheran church. And certainly in the Nazi era, the propaganda value of staged images for mass media was well-recognized and exploited: so a snapshot of someone walking through a doorway may not at all signify what the bare image suggests

And what is the first photo? Where and when was it taken? Who does it show? What is the actual context of the photo?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vehl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
47. How about these pictures
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm













There are many many more such pics in the link provided above

:)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
humblebum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. That's also why they banned the teaching of religion in schools in Nazi Germany.
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 06:47 PM by humblebum
Go figure.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #47
49. My question was not, "Are you able to wave photos and smirk?" My question was,
"If you have a photo, can you identify when and where it was taken, and who it actually shows, and can you then understand it in its historical context?"

One might guess from costumes that your final photo, for example, includes some Catholic dignitaries. But if so, who and where and when? When matters, in fact, a great deal, as you ought to know if you intend to comment on the Nazi period and its politics. Before the appointment of Hitler as Chancellor, most Catholic dioceses in Germany actually forbid Catholics to be members of the Nazi party, so if the picture was taken in 1931 (say) you are looking at hardcore Nazis. After Hitler became Chancellor, all government employees were required to be members of the Nazi party, and so the Catholic hierarchy was under great pressure from Catholic government employees to allow Catholics to join the party; with further elections approaching, which the Nazis wanted to win, the official Nazi propaganda became suddenly conciliatory towards the churches, and a number of people (mistakenly) convinced themselves that the Nazis-in-government would be more moderate than they had been before coming to power. Within a year or so, the Nazis began by decree to require the Hitler salute from more and more sectors of society. By perhaps 1936, the Hitler salute was required of everyone, and apparently almost everyone in Germany (mistakenly) convinced themselves that simply a good patriotic gesture -- so if your picture is taken in 1938, it merely shows some people on a platform doing something that almost everyone without exception in Germany did then

It may seem idiotic to you sitting comfortably at your keyboard perhaps seventy five years later. But I say you cannot understand the time unless you can put yourself in the mindframe of the people of the time. The entire older generation of Catholics in the 1930s had grown up in the long shadow of Bismarck's kulturkampf, that strange episode in German history where Catholics were officially vilifiedas anti-patriotic and many imprisoned or deported; thus, in the 1930s, there was still a considerable tendency for German Catholics to defensively temper any disagreements with the government with definitive demonstrations of their patriotism

As further context, let me point out that people who refused to give the Hitler salute began simply to vanish from public view very early in the Nazi era, so rather quickly most people did not encounter anyone who did not give the Hitler salute:

This is the story of a man who did not want to say Heil Hitler! He belongs to a religious sect ... God had forbidden him to give the Hitler salute ... This brought him to Lichtenberg ... He tirelessly swept the cell and the hallway and went to fetch water and was helpful to all. But he would not raise his arm to salute ... The first time the guard noticed, he shouted "Why didn't you salute?" "Because God forbids me to" ... That evening they came to get him. Solitary! For a week! Afterwards we saw him come back with swollen and black eyes. "Be reasonable," his friends told him ... He shook his head. The next day he way caught again. He went back to solitary for two weeks. When he came back he was unrecognizable. But he would not raise his arm ... Accompanied by five SS they took him into the little courtyard. "Raise your arm! Raise your arm! Raise your arm!" ... They rained blows upon him. He slipped on a frozen puddle and fell ... They beat him until he lost consciousness. His blood froze on the ground ... He would not salute. We gave up hope. They separated him from us and placed him in a cell with "inveterate criminals" ... Every day he has to empty the latrine pits on the run. His hands bleed from carrying buckets. And when it's not that, it's solitary or beatings ... The SS made bets about him. "Will salute! "Won't salute!" ... He was supporting himself against the wall. He met an SS in the vestibule. His right hand came up awkwardly. The extended hand was coated with dried blood
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=250591&mesg_id=253686
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skepticscott Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 07:54 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. Your context is below
although you seem to have ignored it. But do continue your apologetics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:33 AM
Response to Reply #47
77. If you are too lazy to supply context for your photos, I'll supply some for the next-to-last:
it was taken in September 1934 and shows topnazi shaking the hand of "Reich Bishop" Ludwig Muller with former Abbot Alban Schachleiter looking on

It's popular in this forum to call Muller a Catholic, but he wasn't: he was part topnazi attempt to take over and nazify the German protestant churches; Muller committed suicide at the end of WWII

Former Abbot Alban Schachleiter was Catholic, but he was a rabid German nationalist, and for that reason had already been expelled by the Catholic church from his Prague abbey in 1918; the Church later instructed him to stop speaking and writing in support of the Nazis, but Schachleiter simply ignored them. Costumed appearances like this by Schachleiter were without any official Catholic portfolio
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vehl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #77
99. The links had the context for the pictures...dont be too lazy to check em out :)
Edited on Sat Sep-18-10 03:35 PM by Vehl
Almost all the pictures found in the links given above had captions detailing the occasion/people found in those pictures.

The point im trying to make here is that the Nazis were NOT atheists, nor were they secular. They were religious, yet Am i implying that they were mainstream Christians?(if there ever is one in the first place)nope. But did they have their own version/incorporate a heavy dose of Christianity into their worldview? Yes


As you could see from some of the pictures ive posted, and the ones in the link, its easy to note the heavy christian influence in the Nazi philosophy.


The iconography/symbolism as well as the words used in this particular video underscore the point I'm trying to make


http://www.nobeliefs.com/images/HitlerOath.mpg

Hitler Oath:

I swear by God,
this holy oath,
to the Führer of the German Reich and people.
Adolf Hitler...


One more




The caption reads: "Der ergreifende Abschlub der Kundgebung in Wien: Wir treten zum Beten..."
"The touching and emotional end of the rally in Vienna: Let us pray..."

(Source: Hitler: The Hoffmann Photographs, Vol. 1, Ray R. Cowdery, Ed., 1990)




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #99
102. The context there, however, is sloppy and misleading: for example,
in the photo showing Muller and Schachleiter, Schachleiter is identified as "Abbot Schachleitner," which not only gets the name wrong but ignored the fact that he had been dismissed as Abbot about fifteen years before the photo

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Permanut Donating Member (477 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
38. The Pope seems to have missed this
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. "

- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
39. Fuck the motherfucker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoneOffShore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-28-10 08:02 PM
Response to Reply #39
206. That's the one.
Fuck the motherfucker.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
40. The attitude of Nazis towards religion can be gauged somewhat
from facts like the following

Alfred Rosenberg, author of the anti-semitic Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts, was appointed Deputy for the Supervision of the Spiritual and Ideological Training in 1934. Rosenberg advocated a bizarre mishmash of ideas, including Nordic mythology and the idea that only so-called "Aryans" have a soul, as noted with concern by a number of people during the Church-Struggle period of the early Nazi consolidation of power

The Nazis subsequently supported an Institute for de-judaicizing Christianity, which produced a "revised" Bible from which any and all references to Judaism were removed -- including words like Sabaoth, Jehova, Hallelujah, and Jerusalem -- which which substantially reworked the "ten commandments" into twelve, including "Honor Thy Fuhrer." Susannah Heschel has documented the work of the Institute in detail.

... Back in the mid-1970s, Rita Breuer began collecting old German Christmas ornaments after her husband expressed the desire for a good old-fashioned Christmas tree like his grandmother used to have. Breuer, who hails from the small town of Olpe, 60 kilometers from Cologne, scoured flea markets and raided friends' attics in the search for baubles ... The Breuers started to get interested in how Christmas had been abused for propaganda purposes over the years, most blatantly by the Nazis ... The exhibition, which looks at the history of Christmas and propaganda from the 19th century until the present day, focuses on how the Nazis misused Christmas for their own foul purposes and tried to turn it into a "Germanic" winter solstice festival ... "You can still read in places about how Christmas is really an ancient Germanic festival of the winter solstice," Breuer says, pointing out that there is little evidence of any such celebration ...
Swastikas and Tinsel
How the Nazis Stole Christmas
By David Gordon Smith
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,661161,00.html

... Father Christmas had nothing to do with the bearded figure in a red robe who looked like a bishop: the Nazis reinvented him as the Germanic Norse god Odin, who, according to legend, rode about the earth on a white horse to announce the coming of the winter solstice. Propaganda posters in the exhibition show the "Christmas or Solstice man" as a hippie-like individual on a white charger sporting a thick grey beard, slouch hat and a sack full of gifts. But the star that traditionally crowns the Christmas tree presented an almost insurmountable problem. "Either it was the six-pointed star of David, which was Jewish, or it was the five-pointed star of the Bolshevik Soviet Union," said Mrs Breuer. "And both of them were anathema to the regime." So the Nazis replaced the star with swastikas, Germanic "sun wheels" and the Nordic "sig runes" used by the regime's fanatical Waffen SS as their insignia ... Mary and Jesus became the Germanic mother and child, while dozens of Christmas carols, including the famous German hymn "Silent Night", were rewritten with all references to God, Christ and religion expunged. At the height of the anti-Christian campaign, an attempt was made to replace the coming of Christ the Saviour with the coming of Adolf Hitler – the "Saviour Führer" ...
How the Nazis stole Christmas
Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was an oriental religion, so Hitler's followers reinvented Yuletide as a pagan festival – and cast the Führer as the Messiah. Tony Paterson reflects on a dark footnote of history
Monday, 21 December 2009
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/how-the-nazis-stole-christmas-1846365.html

The actual fact is that the Nazis in the most cynical manner imaginable set out to take over existing institutions and traditions and to recast these institutions and traditions so that they served the totalitarian interests of the Nazi state, with its glorification of "Aryan blood," the "German nation," and the "Fuhrer."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. Thank you for your defense of the pope as he slanders atheists with lies.
I knew I could count on you! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DeSwiss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 05:24 PM
Response to Original message
44. So Popey Ratboy is NOW saying that they don't like Nazis no more???




- Talk about your lousy fair-weather friends......
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
51. I get it
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Awesome. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ChadwickHenryWard Donating Member (692 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:38 PM
Response to Reply #51
56. What makes it particularly pathetic is the fact that he was there.
Ratzinger lived in Nazi Germany during his youth. It's not like he has no knowledge of that time and place. He lived it. So he's just baldly lying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 01:23 AM
Response to Original message
58. Looky, looky... Razi the Nazi is saying what?
Gott mit uns... eh Razi?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #58
62. I think that picture is photoshoped. I believe the original shows both hands up
for some Catholic ritual.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #62
73. Interesting... Thanks for correcting me.
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #62
85. That is possible. Where's the original?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:40 PM
Response to Reply #85
93. Here it is...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moobu2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #85
95. This is the original
The future Pope is on the right and the fellow on the left is his brother Georg Ratzinger later connected to some child molestation cover ups in Holland and Germany. The other photo was cropped from this but still there is something weird about the stiff way they are holding their hands and arms. Knowing these guys Nazi background, I could see this being a disguised Nazi salute.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_JRkgseRT7NY/S5mNSQLWH_I/AAAAAAAABM8/xH3aC-hkkfY/s1600/georg%2Bratzinger%2Bbrother%2Bpope%2Bbenedict%2Bjoseph+ordination+mass+picture.jpg
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 11:18 AM
Response to Reply #58
72. You should have more intellectual integrity than to post misleadingly cropped photos
Benedict was born in 1927 and was about 18 when WWII ended; he was ordained at 24 in 1951, six years after the war ended. Nobody was giving Hitler salutes in that era

Perhaps you could post the uncropped photo and tell us when and where it was taken and provide the context?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 05:58 PM
Response to Reply #72
74. OH SNAP!!! I knew I could count on you to educate me on "cropped" arguments.
You are very knowledgeable and quite masterful at "cutting and pasting" arguments for what I have seen here in R/T.

BTW... you just needed to point out I was wrong. No need to get all hostile. Lol!!! :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #74
75. I'll assume that means your dishonesty is ugly and deliberate, not accidental
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:55 PM
Response to Reply #75
76. No, ferociously defending criminals as you do is ugly and deliberate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. I cannot see how insisting on historical accuracy counts as "ferociously defending criminals"
I do however regard it as intolerably asinine and ugly to trim a photo from the Ratzinger brothers' ordination in the early 50s to create the impression the man is giving a Nazi salute and then to claim it as evidence that he was a Nazi

Why should anybody believe anything you say, if you are willing to do that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #78
84. You are deliverately ignoring the fact that I acknowledged the picture as "photoshopped"
Edited on Sat Sep-18-10 10:38 AM by Lost-in-FL
... just like the church ignores its past involvement in the mass murder of millions during wwii that now the pope disingenuously blames on atheism. So please tell me, educate me, when historical accuracy or "intellectual integrity"
is permitted. What's going to happen next?... that your hero Benedict will blame atheist priests for abusing catholic children? That would be no different than photoshoping the truth. Would you be there to side with history as it happened or how the church tells you to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #84
97. Not only did you post a cropped photo, you gave a misleading gloss to it:
that can scarcely be accidental, since the gloss is your own, in your own words. That little cropped photo that you posted shows up here with tiresome regularity, as you no doubt know, and it invariably appears with the dishonest ugly interpretation you gave it

Anti-Catholic bigotry is common in this forum, and I regard that anti-Catholic bigotry of yours as vicious and illiberal. Personally, I don't much care whether or not you like the Catholic church; I personally find much to criticize there, but then I come from a Lutheran tradition that splintered from Rome nearly half a millennium ago. Nevertheless, there is some advantage to honesty and attention to actual facts, as opposed to dishonesty and rapid barking indifferent to the truth. When you suggest, for example, that the Catholic church was somehow involved in the Nazi era exterminations, you are promulgating a fiction that serves only your own bigoted hatred


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Are you talking about "Gott mit uns"? Show us your bookmark to explain that one. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lost-in-FL Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 04:26 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Almost forgot...
Since when pointing out child molestation sponsored by Benedict and also the church's cozing up to Hitler and his troops equated to anti-catholic bigotry and hatred? Are those two events fiction or is it your desire for everyone to remember these well documented, historically accurate events as fiction?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #75
86. That post is totally NOt a personal attack and within DU rules so stop saying that!!11(biblepi/3)1!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cleobulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 09:31 AM
Response to Original message
63. The Pope can go fuck himself with a petrified cactus, damned homophobic...
misogynist, pedophile apologist piece of shit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 12:11 PM
Response to Original message
91. I guess that's the new "Jews killed Christ".
Ah well. Maybe 1900 years from now we can manage to make THAT Christian-inspired bigotry unnacceptable too. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
94. And how about the "Atheist Ratlines" for Nazi war criminals...
Edited on Sat Sep-18-10 01:53 PM by onager
Oh! Sorry! My mistake...

Bishop Alois Hudal was rector of the Pontificio Istituto Teutonico Santa Maria dell'Anima in Rome, a seminary for Austrian and German priests, and "Spiritual Director of the German People resident in Italy".

Hudal used this position to aid the escape of wanted Nazi war criminals, including Franz Stangl, commanding officer of Treblinka, Gustav Wagner, commanding officer of Sobibor, Alois Brunner, responsible for the Drancy internment camp near Paris and in charge of deportations in Slovakia to German concentration camps, and Adolf Eichmann...

In his memoirs Hudal said of his actions: "I thank God that He (allowed me) to visit and comfort many victims in their prisons and concentration camps and to help them escape with false identity papers." He explained that in his eyes:

"The Allies' War against Germany was not a crusade, but the rivalry of economic complexes for whose victory they had been fighting. This so-called business ... used catchwords like democracy, race, religious liberty and Christianity as a bait for the masses. All these experiences were the reason why I felt duty bound after 1945 to devote my whole charitable work mainly to former National Socialists and Fascists, especially to so-called 'war criminals'."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(history)

Just personal opinion, but that bland reference to the "Drancy internment camp" deserves special mention. The Nazis left the map of Europe stained with many dark places, but that suburb of Paris was one of the darkest. For one thing, it was run until 1943 by the oh-so-civilized French, who proved equal to the Germans in hateful racist idiocy. For another, its specialty was children, infants to teens, who were torn from their parents upon entry and immediately sent to the death camps. It was also a staging area for kids whose parents had already been "deported."

Thousands of bewildered, often sick little children, all suddenly orphaned, waiting themselves to die right in the shadow of Notre Dame cathedral and the Louvre. When I ponder that, I really don't want to hear one fucking pretentious, uppity word about "European civilization."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
96. "Wie wir Weihnachten feiern" (Wilhelm Beilstein | N.S.-Briefe | December 1939)
How We Celebrate Christmas
by Wilhelm Beilstein

Christmas is to us Germans the most lovely and meaningful season of the year ... Despite many foreign influences, over the course of centuries it has remained an ancient German holiday, and its nature can only be understood within the territory of our people. Today, we have once again come to know the true meaning of our Christmas customs and traditions, freeing them from foreign names and influences (see the article in N.S.-Brief of December 1938). The following remarks will provide ideas and direction for organizing Christmas and Advent festivities.

The real Christmas community celebration (which we cannot conduct this year due to the demands of the war) is the winter solstice ... The winter solstice celebration is not a matter for party organizations, but rather a matter for the whole people. Party units only organize the ceremonies. The whole people's community should participate in celebrating the winter solstice. However, the events will differ from place to place. In smaller places, the whole village community can gather around one fire. In larger cities, it has to be done by local groups, or even by individual party organizations. The community experience, in such cases, is maintained by lighting the fires at the same time, and by returning to a central gathering place for a community meeting. The torches of those coming together can then be thrown into a community fire. The community fire will be kept burning by party organizations until 24 December ...

The winter solstice fire each year brings many millions of Germans into the winter forest, and forges them strongly together into an unshakable unity. And the solstice fire has always been a proclaimer of Germandom along our borders. In the past, the solstice fire was never a sacrificial fire to some sort of divine being ...

When we celebrate a German Christmas, we include in the circle of the family all those who are of German blood, and who affirm their German ethnicity, all those who came before us and who will come after us, all those whom fate did not allow to live within the borders of our Reich, or who are doing their duty in foreign lands amidst foreign peoples ...

http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/christmas1939.htm


The systematic Nazi effort to seize control of the entire society and all of its existing institutions, and to turn all of these into tools of the NSDAP, is really rather well documented. The Nazis had a well-developed programme for subverting Christianity, by eliminating all "Judaic" influences and replacing them with "Germanic" ideas
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #96
98. Hitler never believed that would fly.
There's a famous anecdote about Hitler attending one of Heinrich Himmler's "authentic Aryan" Xmas celebration. You can find references to it on the Internetz, but I don't feel like spending half the day digging thru my own library to find the actual story.

Anyway, as I remember it: Himmler, a real crackpot on the whole "Aryan" thing, decided to show the Fuehrer what a real German Xmas should look like.

Himmler dressed up some SS officers and young women in ridiculous ancient costumes. Then he sent them galumphing all over a dance floor in some sort of Authentic Aryan Folk Dance. As re-imagined by Himmler, anyway.

Hitler watched for a few minutes, turned to his entourage and said: "I don't think this will ever replace 'Silent Night.'"


Hmmm. Now here's an interesting comparison. I was glancing thru R.G.L Waite's The Psychopathic God and saw this quote from William L. Shirer. He was watching a Nuremberg rally in September 1934:

About ten o'clock tonight I got caught in a mob of ten thousand hysterics who jammed the moat in front of Hitler's hotel shouting "We want our Fuehrer!"

...They reminded me of the crazed expressions I saw once in the back country of Louisiana on the faces of some Holy Rollers who were about to hit the trail. They looked up at him as if he were a Messiah, their faces transformed...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagAss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-18-10 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
103. That is one scary looking sick fuck !
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 05:36 PM
Response to Original message
105. That, Sir, Must Be Why Catholic Bishops Smuggled Nazi Jew-Killers To Safety After The War....
The fact is that the Church was hand in glove with the Nazi party for most of Hitler's chancellorship....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iggo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 10:45 PM
Response to Original message
108. Nazi Pope. Nazi Pope. Nazi Pope. FUCK OFF!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-21-10 08:29 AM
Response to Original message
122. He sure reminds me of the Grinch in the picture on the right.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deep13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-22-10 09:05 AM
Response to Original message
141. Hypocrit. His church collaborated with Nazis and fascists...
...during the war and helped prominent Nazis escape after the war. To this day it has not excommunicated any of the 3rd Reich leaders except for one who married a Protestant.

Has Ratzinger ever renounched the oath of personal loyalty to Adolph Hitler he took when fighting for the Nazis in World War II?

Last time I checked, there was no international ring of child rapists being promoted and protected by atheists. I'm also pretty sure atheists are not spreading AIDS in Africa by preaching against condom use.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC