Secularism and tolerance

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
A lazy answer for you:

"The Christianity promoted by the Nazis was labeled “positive Christianity,” a perspective that focused on the relationship between Christian promises of salvation and the German Volk as a special race of people. Point 24 of the NSDAP Party Program, created in 1920 and never rescinded, reads:

“We demand freedom for all rel ...[text shortened]... mmunism, and religious values. "


http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/HolyReich.htm

Here, here.

Ol' Adolf was all about reform and returning the Fatherland to its former God-ordained glory (likely in reaction to the assault on biblical inerrancy which began in the mid- to late-1800's, but that's another story).

One recent 'fiery' reformer comes to mind when considering the rhetoric of Adolf's speeches: Alan Keyes. Electricfying, passionate. Quite the charismatic firebrand for the politicized 'Christian right.' Very scary stuff, really.

Originally posted by sjeg
Hey, we seem to have caught one on the line here.

Secularity is the state of being free from religious or spiritual qualities, and here we are talking about the state, from which the secularist wishes to expunge the religious aspect, by definition.

Please post links supporting this persecution of atheists in the Third Reich. This is something I am unfamil ...[text shortened]... religious? Please. Or communism.

Refute the point with evidence or argumentation, if you can.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

An excellent site depicting many artifacts that document the close relationship between Christianity and Nazism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Here, here.

Ol' Adolf was all about reform and returning the Fatherland to its former God-ordained glory (likely in reaction to the assault on biblical inerrancy which began in the mid- to late-1800's, but that's another story).

One recent 'fiery' reformer comes to mind when considering the rhetoric of Adolf's speeches: Alan Keyes. Electricfying, pa ...[text shortened]... charismatic firebrand for the politicized 'Christian right.' Very scary stuff, really.

Yes, I think sjeg was sorely mistaken to lump Nazi Germany under secular states. As for its persecution of atheists, from what I've been reading over the past few days, the Nazi party targeted them primarily because of association with communism, an ideology the Nazi's worked hard to stamp out.

His example of the Soviet Union (or communist states in general) was better. I don't think however that this implies that secular states are doomed to generating heinous atrocities (after all there are many officially secular states functioning just fine today). Pol Pot, Stalin, and Mao Zedong remind me not of the dangers of keeping religion out of government, but rather of the dangers of concentrating power in a tiny unchecked minority.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
One recent 'fiery' reformer comes to mind when considering the rhetoric of Adolf's speeches: Alan Keyes. Electricfying, passionate. Quite the charismatic firebrand for the politicized 'Christian right.' Very scary stuff, really.

Fascists do tend to depict communists (their polar opposites) as immoral. Communists turn into fascists by some process I don't quite understand. A principle of reversibility seems to be at play.

Originally posted by telerion
His example of the Soviet Union (or communist states in general) was better. I don't think however that this implies that secular states are doomed to generating heinous atrocities (after all there are many officially secular states functioning just fine today).

After all Great Britain and the USA, who played no small part in removing Nazism, were also secular states.

Originally posted by rwingett
http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm

An excellent site depicting many artifacts that document the close relationship between Christianity and Nazism.

Elegant and tasteful..."Gott mit uns"..."in God we trust"...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Elegant and tasteful..."Gott mit uns"..."in God we trust"...

And then there's:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

which has many photos of Nazis fraternizing with Cardinals and Bishops, clergy giving the Nazi salute, and various Nazis engaged in christian services.

Originally posted by telerion
Yes, I think sjeg was sorely mistaken to lump Nazi Germany under secular states. As for its persecution of atheists, from what I've been reading over the past few days, the Nazi party targeted them primarily because of association with communism, an ideology the Nazi's worked hard to stamp out.

His example of the Soviet Union (or communist states in g ...[text shortened]... of government, but rather of the dangers of concentrating power in a tiny unchecked minority.

The problem with Stalin's anti-theism wasn't really related to secularism, but with an active repression of religion.

Although I favour laicist states over secular states, I must say that neither secular states nor theocratic states are, by definition, actively repressive. It can just mean that one current of thought is privileged over another, which I believe is not tantamount to repression.

Originally posted by Palynka
The problem with Stalin's anti-theism wasn't really related to secularism, but with an active repression of religion.

Although I favour laicist states over secular states, I must say that neither secular states nor theocratic states are, by definition, actively repressive. It can just mean that one current of thought is privileged over another, which I believe is not tantamount to repression.

Theocratic states may not be repressive by definition, but in practice they invariably are. History and current affairs are replete with examples from which to choose. The maxim that theocracies work toward the detriment of both government and of religion, holds true by a wide margin.

Originally posted by rwingett
Theocratic states may not be repressive by definition, but in practice they invariably are. History and current affairs are replete with examples from which to choose. The maxim that theocracies work toward the detriment of both government and of religion, holds true by a wide margin.

The UK is a good counter example. Examples prove nothing and, for the theist, one good example suffices.

Originally posted by Palynka
The UK is a good counter example. Examples prove nothing and, for the theist, one good example suffices.

Having a state religion and having a theocracy are not the same thing. Iran is a theocracy. The UK is not.

Originally posted by rwingett
Having a state religion and having a theocracy are not the same thing. Iran is a theocracy. The UK is not.

The Queen is head of state and head of the state church. how is that not a theocracy?

Originally posted by Palynka
The Queen is head of state and head of the state church. how is that not a theocracy?

The church does not run the state. If anything, it's more the other way around. If the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of state, or had great influence in the running of the state, then maybe you'd have a theocracy. With the repeal of The Test and Corporation Acts, in 1829, one need not even be a member of the Church of England to hold public office. I repeat: the UK is no theocracy.

Originally posted by rwingett
The church does not run the state. If anything, it's more the other way around. If the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of state, or had great influence in the running of the state, then maybe you'd have a theocracy. With the repeal of The Test and Corporation Acts, in 1829, one need not even be a member of the Church of England to hold public office. I repeat: the UK is no theocracy.

Do you agree that the UK is a monarchy? And that it's monarch is Head of State?

As defined by its CONSTITUTION, the monarch is both Head of State and Fidei Defensor (defender of the faith) of the State Church.

If you don't think that qualifies as a theocracy, all I can say is that you'll have a hard time finding examples of theocracies.

Originally posted by Palynka
Do you agree that the UK is a monarchy? And that it's monarch is Head of State?

As defined by its CONSTITUTION, the monarch is both Head of State and Fidei Defensor (defender of the faith) of the State Church.

If you don't think that qualifies as a theocracy, all I can say is that you'll have a hard time finding examples of theocracies.

The monarch (head of state) was made the head of the church in an effort to make the church more subservient to the state and limit it's independance. Bishops and Archbishops are chosen by the Prime Minister and sent to the monarch for formal nomination. That does not constitute a theocracy, regardless of the dual role of the figurehead monarch. If the Archbishops were choosing the monarch or the Prime Minister, then you'd have a theocracy. As it is, the Church of England has very little involvement in the running of the civil state as they run their own affairs largely independant from one another, despite having a monarch who is nominally in charge of both.

This contrasts with Iran, for example, where Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the Supreme Leader of Iran and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is second in authority to him. Candidates for public office must be approved by a Council of Guardians, which consists of six clerics chosen by the Supreme Leader and six other members, to insure that their interpretation of Islam is being upheld. In other words, the civil state is subservient to the clerics in every respect. The clerics are instrumental in choosing the magistrates for the civil state and in determining both the political and religious character of the nation. THAT is a theocracy in action.

Present day Iran, Afghanistan under the Taliban, and the Papal States under the Pope were all examples of theocracies. The UK, on the other hand, is not a theocracy.