| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Dean 
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
 Posted: September 09 2010 at 05:07 |
 Any Colour You Like wrote:
Well, that contradicts things I have read before, including extracts from Mein Kampf. Anyway, I still don't think this is a valid point of distinction. Hitler's religious contempt was mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that he actively persecuted only one group - the Jews. He may have claimed some aspects of Christianity were "bland", but he definitely engaged in an active political mutation of religion, nationalism and culture. Such fusion was neccessary to gain and hold support for the Nazi Party as they progressed towards the state which eventually waged a campaign of war and destruction. |
Not arguing with you - the "true" English translation of that quote has a slightly different slant and bias and "bland" is replaced with "gutless"
Mussolini did the same thing in Italy - there he had a more difficult situation to deal with and vacillated between Atheism and Catholicism to appease his ideology with the general population. He even set-up the Vatican as a seperate microstate in an attempt to seperate Church and State.
|
|
What?
|
 |
Any Colour You Like
Prog Reviewer
Joined: May 15 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 12294
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 05:13 |
|
Mussolini was an interesting case indeed.
Anyway, I think I've beaten this topic to death enough already.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 06:00 |
Dean wrote:
Any Colour You Like wrote:
Well, that contradicts things I have read before, including extracts from Mein Kampf. Anyway, I still don't think this is a valid point of distinction. Hitler's religious contempt was mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that he actively persecuted only one group - the Jews. He may have claimed some aspects of Christianity were "bland", but he definitely engaged in an active political mutation of religion, nationalism and culture. Such fusion was neccessary to gain and hold support for the Nazi Party as they progressed towards the state which eventually waged a campaign of war and destruction. |
Not arguing with you - the "true" English translation of that quote has a slightly different slant and bias and "bland" is replaced with "gutless"
Mussolini did the same thing in Italy - there he had a more difficult situation to deal with and vacillated between Atheism and Catholicism to appease his ideology with the general population. He even set-up the Vatican as a seperate microstate in an attempt to seperate Church and State. |
Fascinating, so before Mussolini came to power, the Vatican was just part of Rome and not the separate sovereign state it is now ? Well I'll be damned.... 
Edited by ExittheLemming - September 09 2010 at 07:50
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 06:13 |
Any Colour You Like wrote:
Mussolini was an interesting case indeed.
Anyway, I think I've beaten this topic to death enough already.
|
Didn't the Muss man wind up beaten to death as well? Oh, this is good, first place I heard of it was on Bartcop.com: Well,
distribution has begun...Refuse new coins!
True Americans
will refuse these
Please help
out..our world is in enough trouble without this too!
U.S.Government
to Release New Dollar Coins
You guessed it
'IN GOD WE TRUST' IS GONE!!!
If ever there was a reason
to boycott something, THIS IS IT! ha ha
DO NOT ACCEPT THE NEW DOLLAR COINS AS CHANGE
Together we can force them out of circulation..
Yes, because you can't
seriously spend money without God's name on it.
If you run into any of this godless money, don't spend it,
send it to Ol' Bart and I'll know what to do with it.
Edited by Slartibartfast - September 09 2010 at 06:28
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened... 
|
|
seventhsojourn
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 09:39 |
Dean wrote:
Any Colour You Like wrote:
Well, that contradicts things I have read before, including extracts from Mein Kampf. Anyway, I still don't think this is a valid point of distinction. Hitler's religious contempt was mostly irrelevant beyond the fact that he actively persecuted only one group - the Jews. He may have claimed some aspects of Christianity were "bland", but he definitely engaged in an active political mutation of religion, nationalism and culture. Such fusion was neccessary to gain and hold support for the Nazi Party as they progressed towards the state which eventually waged a campaign of war and destruction. |
Not arguing with you - the "true" English translation of that quote has a slightly different slant and bias and "bland" is replaced with "gutless"
Mussolini did the same thing in Italy - there he had a more difficult situation to deal with and vacillated between Atheism and Catholicism to appease his ideology with the general population. He even set-up the Vatican as a seperate microstate in an attempt to seperate Church and State. |
Mussolini had himself re-baptised in 1927, but this was really nothing more than an attempt to neutralize Catholic opposition. Most Italians were Catholic and The Church was one of the few remaining threats to his power (along with the Mafia... no connection of course!  ). By the time he signed the Lateran Treaty of 1929, with a representative of Pope Pius XI, the other political parties had been outlawed and Italy was a police state. However The Church had international standing and couldn't be suppressed, but thanks to the Lateran Treaty he resolved the longstanding rift with The Church and gained legitimacy for his government. All of which basically agrees with your points, except I would question whether he was ever really Catholic.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 09:45 |
^ never said he was 
|
|
What?
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
|
Posted: September 09 2010 at 09:54 |
shockedjazz wrote:
when i come back i will setlle that even with bibliographie...hope you search on the net before i come back.
"Todo cruzamiento de razas provoca tarde o temprano la decadencia del producto híbrido, mientras el elemento superior del cruzamiento sobreviva en puridad racial. Cuando se ha b*****deado hasta el último vestigio de la unidad racial superior, es cuando desaparece para el producto híbrido el peligro de extinción”.
Spanish wikipedia
"Debe procurar que sólo engendren hijos los individuos sanos, porque el hecho de que personas enfermas o incapaces pongan hijos en el mundo es una desgracia, en tanto que el abstenerse de hacerlo es un acto altamente honroso”.
- "En España, bajo la dominación de los Árabes, la civilización alcanzó un nivel que raramente se ha repetido. La intromisión del cristianismo ha traído el triunfo de la barbarie. El espíritu caballeresco de los Castellanos es efectivamente una herencia de los Árabes. Si Carlos Martel hubiera sido derrotado, el mundo habría mudado su faz. Ya que el mundo estaba condenado a la influencia judaica (y su subproducto, el cristianismo, ¡es algo tan insípido!), hubiera sido mejor que triunfara el Islam. Esta religión recompensa el heroísmo, promete a los guerreros la gloria del séptimo cielo" (28/08/1942, Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944, Enigma Books, 2000, p.667)
|
}
The translation Dean asked:
| "Any racial crossbreeding causes sooner or later the decadence of the hybrid product, until the superior element of he crossbreaeding survive in racial purity. Only when the last remain of racial superiority has bastardised disappears the extinction risk for the hybrid product"
Spanish Wikipedia
""We must procure that only that only healthy individuals bread, because the fact that sick or incapable persons place sons in the world is a disgrace, on the other hand avoiding this is an honourable act"
"During the Spanish domination of the Arabs, civilization reached a level that had rarely been reached before. The intromission of Christianity brought the triumph or barbarism. The knightly spirit of the Castilian is effectively an inheritance of the Arabs.If Carlos Martel had been defeated, the world would had changed it's face.
Being that the world was doomed to a Jewish influence (And it's byproduct the Christianity. Something so tasteless!), would had been better that Islam won. This religion compensates the heroism, because promises the glory of the seventh heaven to the warriors"
(28/08/1942, Hitler's Table Talk 1941–1944, Enigma Books, 2000, p.667) |
I honestly believe Hitler was trying to create a parallel between Islam and the Germanic or Nordic sagas of warriors receiving their prize in Valhalla and all the barbarism of Germanic mythology like Tannhäuser, who despite the opposition of the Medieval Church was supposedly redeemed by God , ignoring the moral and holy element of Islam in order to enhance the warrior chauvinism of the Germans.
The guy was trying to use Islam (Not because of believe but because it was opposed to Judaism) depraving it of it's moral essence, something that the Moslems would had ever accepted.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - September 09 2010 at 10:37
|
|
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: September 14 2010 at 22:17 |
OK maybe this will help"
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 04:41 |
I know this will set the theists aflame so I'm really talking to the non-theists here-
Do you think there is any grounds for a non-theist to not offer jobs to theists over a legitimate concern over how this individual's mind works? On the surface it looks like prejudice, but many non-believers have said they have concerns over voting for politicians who believe and this doesn't seem to be controversial. So why can the same not apply to giving people positions in your company? I mean, imagine this job interview:
Me: So tell me about your core beliefs, what drives you in life and so on.
Interviewee: My faith.
Me: Tell me about that.
Interviewee: I believe benevolent magical fairies govern the universe.
M: What?
I: They're all around us, controlling everything. Sometimes I whisper to them at night so that they will give me what I want.
M: And do they?
I: About half and half. But that it ever happens at all proves they're there.
M: Mmhmm. Well I'm a bit concerned about what sense of responsibility and order of logic someone who believes in this has.
I: Oh no, it's fine, I'll behave just like any other worker. I take full responsibility and I'll work hard to make things come out right.
M: But surely that's in the hands of the magical fairies.
I: Yes it is.
M: So we're back to what I said just before. This gives me concerns about how you think and what kind of decisions you make.
I: YOU'RE A RACIST!
And so on.
Obviously I don't think this is prejudice but do you? Isn't it OK for an employer not to hire someone he finds irrational? And isn't this how a non-believer may see a theist?
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 05:05 |
Textbook wrote:
I know this will set the theists aflame so I'm really talking to the non-theists here-
Do you think there is any grounds for a non-theist to not offer jobs to theists over a legitimate concern over how this individual's mind works? On the surface it looks like prejudice, but many non-believers have said they have concerns over voting for politicians who believe and this doesn't seem to be controversial. So why can the same not apply to giving people positions in your company? I mean, imagine this job interview:
Me: So tell me about your core beliefs, what drives you in life and so on.
Interviewee: My faith.
Me: Tell me about that.
Interviewee: I believe benevolent magical fairies govern the universe.
M: What?
I: They're all around us, controlling everything. Sometimes I whisper to them at night so that they will give me what I want.
M: And do they?
I: About half and half. But that it ever happens at all proves they're there.
M: Mmhmm. Well I'm a bit concerned about what sense of responsibility and order of logic someone who believes in this has.
I: Oh no, it's fine, I'll behave just like any other worker. I take full responsibility and I'll work hard to make things come out right.
M: But surely that's in the hands of the magical fairies.
I: Yes it is.
M: So we're back to what I said just before. This gives me concerns about how you think and what kind of decisions you make.
I: YOU'RE A RACIST!
And so on.
Obviously I don't think this is prejudice but do you? Isn't it OK for an employer not to hire someone he finds irrational? And isn't this how a non-believer may see a theist? |
Well apart from exaggerating the responses for comedic effect it is not entirely implausible. Your opinion of someone after you have met them couldn't really be deemed PRE judice at a pinch (to the letter if not the spirit of the law) Bottom line is that we are considerably more than just our beliefs e.g you gonna fire an employee for having a phobia about cats (assuming it ain't a pet shop  )
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 05:15 |
^ The word "racist" was misleading though - "bigot" is the typical insult hurled at you when you insist on logic and reason. 
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 05:51 |
|
Well as Lemming noted, I was attempting comedic effect. I just wondered if "I get nervous about entrusting the fate of my company to people who think ideas are facts" would stand as a legitimate defence against hiring religious people.
|
|
Chris S
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 05:55 |
You could always round up all the religious applicants in one room and perform a kind of bulk " cleansing" 
|
|
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian
...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
|
|
Textbook
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 06:10 |
I'm aware of an uncomfortable parallell that no one's drawn yet (but I anticipate it) between this and people who, for instance, honestly believe that black people are all criminals or women are stupid or something of that nature. By my logic, isn't the employer who does not give them a chance justified?
I would say no because it is not a matter of fact that women are stupid or all black people are criminals. Concrete evidence to the contrary can be produced readily in abundance. However, it is a matter of fact that a religious person cannot provide concrete evidence that their god exists- they may even freely admit this, as this is what creates the capacity for faith, the lack of evidence. So I could still maintain that this person believes in things without evidence and that that is a way of thinking I do not want to see represented in my business. A theist may respond with "Oh but that's just how I see spirituality, it's not how I see business. I turn it off when I'm at work." I would say that such a person is a fake theist though, a sincere believer in god does not ever "turn it off" because there could be nothing more important to them than god and the afterlife. It would always be first priority.
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 06:50 |
|
The same thing can be applied to an atheist. He cannot provide concrete evidence that no gods exist. You say the belief that there is no god is rational and the belief that there is at least one god is irrational just because you think so.
To a impartial and scientific point of view, there is no concrete evidence either that a god exists or not, so anyone who chooses one side is using imperfect theories (and most likely rhetoric, the worst enemy of real science) to jump to conclusions that fit your belief, which means being irrational.
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 06:59 |
|
I wouldn't be biased against hiring religious people though - most religious people can be perfectly rational in other areas than religion. That's also where Textbook's fictional conversation is flawed (it assumes that a person is inherently irrational just because he/she holds one irrational belief). This may very well be the case to some degree, but it depends on the actual person.
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 07:03 |
|
^ And there is a fundamental difference in believing in something proven not true by science and something that cannot be proven or refuted by lack of evidence, that is why you can't generalize as well.
Edited by akin - September 15 2010 at 07:04
|
|
Mr ProgFreak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 07:13 |
|
^ Science never "proves" theories - it's all about probabilities, or degrees of certainty.
With that in mind, what you're talking about believing in something that science as shown to be wrong by a high degree of certainty, and something that is unfalsifiable. I think that both choices are irrational and unreasonable, although the former is certainly more obviously so than the latter. I would use the word "rational" to decisions which are based on what can be demonstrated to be true to a high degree of certainty.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 07:24 |
Mr ProgFreak wrote:
^ Science never "proves" theories - it's all about probabilities, or degrees of certainty.
|
Math does 
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
akin
Forum Senior Member
Joined: February 06 2004
Location: Brazil
Status: Offline
Points: 976
|
Posted: September 15 2010 at 07:28 |
|
^^Science can prove things some things, most of the things goes to statistic proofs, as you pointed. Of course you can call irrational some belief that was proven, for example, with 99,9999% of certainty that it is wrong, like some literal interpretations of some religious book histories. It is not sufficient, though, to dismiss all the beliefs of that religion as unlikely.
Edited by akin - September 15 2010 at 07:28
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
