History shows Religion is the only force against totalitarian state domination of your entire being

[Libby von H]

Unless of course, that religion also gets secular powers and becomes a theocracy, e.g., Iran today or Medieval Spain.

But that is the point of Burleigh, That it is the worst people in history that use that line of argument to impose HELL on everybody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Dadoalex]

Yeah , you shoot your mouth on here, never a citation or reference.
Now, several scholars have made this their study, chief among them Michael Burleigh and he calls 3 of your premises downright stupid

IN his book Earthly Powers about the worst tyrannies
"The most violent and repressive of these systems mimicked many of the functions of religion. "
[ Earthly Powers is a magisterial history that sheds new light on the momentous struggles between church and state, from the French Revolution to the totalitarian movements of the twentieth century. ]

From his history of the Nazis
"how the carefully crafted Nazi propaganda replaced religion in Germany to become the one-party regime of those convoluted 1920-30."
From this perspective, the German people, defeated in WWI and impoverished by reparations and Depression, emerge, not as unwitting dupes, but as desperate believers in a new state religion propounded by Hitler
This idea, of Nazism as a religion, gives the book a helpful focus and a unifying theme around which to organize the enormous amount of information which Mr. Burleigh has assimilated and lays out here. In addition, where the prior treatment Hitler and Nazism as a historical exception may have acted as a balm to our liberal sensibilities, Burleigh's treatment of them helps us both to understand their similarity to the Soviet Union and Communism, and to understand how such movements could rise again.

From his Sacred Causes
" Nazism and Communism were classic examples of political religions; they were messianic movements that offered redemption in an earthly manner. Both movements attempted to displace religion. In the interwar period religion became a symbol of a discredited past. People looked to science and militant nationalism to deliver them from the depths of the economic depression. In this atmosphere of seige the church was forced to make accommodations to the secular powers, at least in Germany. In the Soviet Union, the property of the church was confiscated by the state altogether."

TYPICAL BOTTOM LINE
" "Although they were subjected to relentless assault from state-sponsored atheism, the Christian Churches remained the only licensed sanctuaries from the prevailing world of brutality and lies" (p 344). Solidarity, Pope John Paul, and Poland brought down communism."

I don't think Burleigh is Catholic (though he might have converted by now) but he said this long ago and I never forgot it

Michael Burleigh’s interview with Inside The Vatican, in which he takes note of the present crisis (“religious extremism and terrorism in all its monstrous forms, weapons of mass destruction; the culture of death, beginning with unrestricted abortion-on-demand and ending in easy euthanasia; continuing war, genocide, disease, famine, persecution…horror is all around us”) and asserts the Church’s unique capacity to respond:

did I mention Germany?
Did I reference NAZI?

NO?

Seems you're trying to divert the conversation because your OP is a long stack of crapcakes.

If you need a link to know that the Pharaohs were gods or that the Catholic Church was a big supporter of Fascism, or that the Catholic church stood at the front of the Spanish armies murdering natives in the Americas may I suggest you start with 4th grad history and work your way up.

Some other things not requiring links:
24 hour days
Sun rising in the east
Water is wet.

 

[Libby von H]

did I mention Germany?
Did I reference NAZI?

NO?

Seems you're trying to divert the conversation because your OP is a long stack of crapcakes.

If you need a link to know that the Pharaohs were gods or that the Catholic Church was a big supporter of Fascism, or that the Catholic church stood at the front of the Spanish armies murdering natives in the Americas may I suggest you start with 4th grad history and work your way up.

Some other things not requiring links:
24 hour days
Sun rising in the east
Water is wet.

Makes you look terrible , keep it up.

 

[Libby von H]

This is kind of redundant this is.

NO, it is a cognate object , used when you want to add information to a intransitive verb

 

[alang1216]

But that is the point of Burleigh, That it is the worst people in history that use that line of argument to impose HELL on everybody !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Absolute power, political or religious, corrupts absolutely.

 

[alang1216]

NO, it is a cognate object , used when you want to add information to a intransitive verb

You Catholics have always been anti-semantic.

 

[Dadoalex]

Makes you look terrible , keep it up.

If you think I look terrible then I'm definitely in the right.

 

[22lcidw]

Absolute power, political or religious, corrupts absolutely.

Tell us all the options. The United States today is in a free fall. Living off of our religious past while accusing those who live today as White Christian Nationalists. Words coopted from the Progs for their benefit. We lived as a nationalist country for centuries. A lot of comforts from it. Now our industrial might is reduced and it is taking a lot longer to produce anything while costing up to several times more than originally anticipated.

 

[alang1216]

Tell us all the options. The United States today is in a free fall. Living off of our religious past while accusing those who live today as White Christian Nationalists. Words coopted from the Progs for their benefit. We lived as a nationalist country for centuries. A lot of comforts from it. Now our industrial might is reduced and it is taking a lot longer to produce anything while costing up to several times more than originally anticipated.

I'm not sure what connection there is between what I wrote and what you replied but it matters not. Especially since most of what you wrote was just incorrect.

• United States today is NOT in a free fall.
• Religion in our past had little to do with how we live today.
• Those who live today as White Christian Nationalists are a small, racist minority of the USA.
• We (as in White Protestants) lived as a nationalist country (whatever that means?) for centuries. A lot of those comforts came from the labor of slaves or the lands of the Native Americans
• "Now our industrial might is reduced and it is taking a lot longer to produce anything while costing up to several times more than originally anticipated." Nope, the US is one of the most productive nations on Earth and that is the reason we can compete with countries with lower wages.

 

[Libby von H]

History shows what now?????

The history I remember is absolutely full with totalitarian regimes who drew their legitimacy from religion.

In fact, I'd argue it's the MOST common historical form of government.

Well you are dumb...even the way you phrase it.
So they became totalitarian and then the religions signed on? How likely is that? Think what you are saying.

Stalin tried to utterly subject the Orthodox Church, killed tons of them
Mao issued his Red catechism and proceeded to kill ---- of his own citizens -- Mao's policies were also responsible for a vast number of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions

HItler is worst of all as we now know from the recoverd Nazi diaries

Albert Speer on Hitler's religious beliefs​

Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

— Extract from Inside the Third Reich, Speer's memoir

Martin Bormann on Hitler's religious beliefs​

Bormann was a rigid guardian of Nazi orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible". He said publicly in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable".

Joseph Goebbels on Hitler's religious beliefs​

The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed.

— Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939


He was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time.

— Ernst Hanfstaengl

"Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.." — Adolf Hitler's view on Islam, Hitler's Table Talk

 

[Libby von H]

This is kind of redundant this is.

NO,it is a cognate object, used by the best of writers.
You can't say I dreamed badly so you have to say I dreamed a bad dream.

 

[forkup]

Well you are dumb...even the way you phrase it.
So they became totalitarian and then the religions signed on? How likely is that? Think what you are saying.

Stalin tried to utterly subject the Orthodox Church, killed tons of them
Mao issued his Red catechism and proceeded to kill ---- of his own citizens -- Mao's policies were also responsible for a vast number of deaths, with estimates ranging from 40 to 80 million victims due to starvation, persecution, prison labour, and mass executions

HItler is worst of all as we now know from the recoverd Nazi diaries

Albert Speer on Hitler's religious beliefs​

Around 1937, when Hitler heard that at the instigation of the party and the SS vast numbers of his followers had left the church because it was obstinately opposing his plans, he nevertheless ordered his chief associates, above all Goering and Goebbels, to remain members of the church. He too would remain a member of the Catholic Church he said, although he had no real attachment to it. And in fact he remained in the church until his suicide.

— Extract from Inside the Third Reich, Speer's memoir

Martin Bormann on Hitler's religious beliefs​

Bormann was a rigid guardian of Nazi orthodoxy and saw Christianity and Nazism as "incompatible". He said publicly in 1941 that "National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable".

Joseph Goebbels on Hitler's religious beliefs​

The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of their religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end they will be destroyed.

— Goebbels Diaries, 29 December 1939


He was to all intents and purposes an atheist by the time.

— Ernst Hanfstaengl

"Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke.." — Adolf Hitler's view on Islam, Hitler's Table Talk

Your response to "history is full of totalitarian regimes who drew their legitimacy from religion" is... besides calling me dumb that is, "well I've got examples of totalitarian regimes that where hostile to religion." Congratulations. Do you think history started in the 20th century?

"King by the grace of God", does that sound familiar? It should. It was how most kings in history presented themselves. What do you think the phrase absolute monarch means? EVERY CROWNED HEAD with the exception of Napoleon claimed he had a divine right to rule. And the overwhelming majority of those were totalitarian regimes.

Just because you can site a few... and it truly are just a few examples of totalitarian regimes NOT using religion as a way to gain legitimacy. A few that doesn't include Germany btw. (You don't personally have to believe to use religion as a way to have legitimacy.) Doesn't mean it isn't BY FAR the most common type of totalitarian regime.

 

[surada]

I am glad you posted because that is the stupid reply I wanted someone to make.
It shows almost total misunderstanding of archaeology

1)A myth has to have a literary form so when you seem to admit that Archaeology often deals with pre-history (that is pre-writing) there can be no conflict !!!
2) Though there are rare literary finds (which even a moron like you must admit) most of it is 'material culture' and cannot be self-interpreting !!! I remember a MAD magazine cartoon aimed at clods like you. It showed an archaeologist holding up two toilet seats and talking about a very tall huge race that used these earrings to make themselves attractive.

Don't jump off a bridge but do start to act adult, okay.

You're wrong. Archaeology has grown up. It no longer tries to force the evidence to fit the myth. The evidence stands on it own. Have you been to Baalbek or Byblos?

 

[Libby von H]

Your response to "history is full of totalitarian regimes who drew their legitimacy from religion" is... besides calling me dumb that is, "well I've got examples of totalitarian regimes that where hostile to religion." Congratulations. Do you think history started in the 20th century?

"King by the grace of God", does that sound familiar? It should. It was how most kings in history presented themselves. What do you think the phrase absolute monarch means? EVERY CROWNED HEAD with the exception of Napoleon claimed he had a divine right to rule. And the overwhelming majority of those were totalitarian regimes.

Just because you can site a few... and it truly are just a few examples of totalitarian regimes NOT using religion as a way to gain legitimacy. A few that doesn't include Germany btw. (You don't personally have to believe to use religion as a way to have legitimacy.) Doesn't mean it isn't BY FAR the most common type of totalitarian regime.

Just like you to lump St Louis IX in with Henry VIII, but your reputation is beyond repair anyway.
and you spell that "CITE" not "SITE"

This is all false as anyone who's studied history knows. Absolute monarch certainly didn't equate to totalitarian at all Many of those kings and queens were part of tripartite governments, It was so in England and in France

The killers in France were the opponents of the KIng !!! The French Revolution with its extensive killling wa in spite of the monarch. And in England those kings had to curry the favor of Parliament. There were many King Charles type kings before now. MANY

 

[forkup]

Just like you to lump St Louis IX in with Henry VIII, but your reputation is beyond repair anyway.
and you spell that "CITE" not "SITE"

This is all false as anyone who's studied history knows. Absolute monarch certainly didn't equate to totalitarian at all Many of those kings and queens were part of tripartite governments, It was so in England and in France

The killers in France were the opponents of the KIng !!! The French Revolution with its extensive killling wa in spite of the monarch. And in England those kings had to curry the favor of Parliament. There were many King Charles type kings before now. MANY

"Just like me", "my reputation?" You do realize this is an online board? A relatively noxious one even? The way I see it, I'm a hell of a lot more intellectually honest then most people here. Take for instance this.

the overwhelming majority of those were totalitarian regimes.

This is what I said

Absolute monarch certainly didn't equate to totalitarian at all.

This is what you claimed I said.

What do you think is worse. A person misspelling a word, or a person putting up strawmen? I didn't claim all were. Just the overwhelming majority. Even if you'd go through the history of the countries you mentioned. You'd still conclude that nearly all kings drew their legitimacy from religion. And most were totalitarian. Just because over the years they had to consider the feelings of other people more they all of a sudden weren't totalitarian anymore. Moa and Stalin had a politburo. Would you say they weren't totalitarian?

In England the king's are LITERALLY the head of the Church.
Louis XIV is attributed to have said l'etat c'est moi (I'm the state), kind of put a lie to the idea it wasn't a totalitarian state. In fact, it was the king's expenses, namely those resulting from paying for the court in Versailles that's widely considered a main reason for that revolution.

So even by your selective, Eurocentric examples you still fail to make the case that Religious Totalitarian states aren't the historical majority.

But by all means. Try to malign me some more. I'm sure I won't notice your lack of cohesive argument.

 

[JoeB131]

So, several on here objected with objections that the world scholar on this topic has dealt with Michael Burleigh, so to him I turn

Historically, of course, as has been pointed out by such thinkers as Marcel Gauchet and George Weigel Christianity had much to do with the notion of the autonomous, sacrosanct individual, with the preservation of a sphere beyond the state that anticipated civil society, with the notion of elected leadership, and with holding rulers accountable to higher powers.


On the eve of the Bolshevik coup d'état, the Orthodox Church claimed a hundred million adherents, two hundred thousand priests and monks, seventy-five thousand churches and chapels, over eleven hundred monasteries, thirty-seven thousand primary schools, fifty-seven seminaries and four university-level academies, not to speak of thousands of hospitals, old people’s homes and orphanages. Within a few years, the intuitional structures were swept away, the churches were desolated, vandalized or put to secular use. Many of the clergy were imprisoned or shot; appropriately enough the first concentration camp of the gulag was opened in a monastery in Artic regions.

The Austrian Catholic newspaper Volkswohl even parodied life in a future Nazi state in a manner that seems extraordinarily prescient. Every newborn baby’s hereditary history would be checked by a Racial-Hygienic Institute; the unfit or sickly would be sterilised or killed; dedicated ‘Aryan’ Catholics would be persecuted: ‘The demonic cries out from this movement; masses of the tempted go to their doom under the Satan’s sun. If we Catholics want to save ourselves, then I can never be in a pact with these forces.’

Christianity regarded all earthly existence as transient, while the Nazi thought in terms of rendering life eternal through a sort of biological Great Chain of Being. The individual was nothing, but the racial collective would endure through the aeons

The Enabling Law permitted the government to pass budgets and promulgate laws, including those altering the constitution, for four years without parliamentary approval. In democracies, constitutional amendments are especially solemn moments; here they were easier than changing the traffic regulations. None of the guarantees Hitler extended to the Churches or the judiciary in his address to the Reichstag amounted to a hill of beans.

Religion as a counter to the state?

Ask the Iranians how that is working out for them.

 

[SavannahMann]

So, several on here objected with objections that the world scholar on this topic has dealt with Michael Burleigh, so to him I turn

Historically, of course, as has been pointed out by such thinkers as Marcel Gauchet and George Weigel Christianity had much to do with the notion of the autonomous, sacrosanct individual, with the preservation of a sphere beyond the state that anticipated civil society, with the notion of elected leadership, and with holding rulers accountable to higher powers.


On the eve of the Bolshevik coup d'état, the Orthodox Church claimed a hundred million adherents, two hundred thousand priests and monks, seventy-five thousand churches and chapels, over eleven hundred monasteries, thirty-seven thousand primary schools, fifty-seven seminaries and four university-level academies, not to speak of thousands of hospitals, old people’s homes and orphanages. Within a few years, the intuitional structures were swept away, the churches were desolated, vandalized or put to secular use. Many of the clergy were imprisoned or shot; appropriately enough the first concentration camp of the gulag was opened in a monastery in Artic regions.

The Austrian Catholic newspaper Volkswohl even parodied life in a future Nazi state in a manner that seems extraordinarily prescient. Every newborn baby’s hereditary history would be checked by a Racial-Hygienic Institute; the unfit or sickly would be sterilised or killed; dedicated ‘Aryan’ Catholics would be persecuted: ‘The demonic cries out from this movement; masses of the tempted go to their doom under the Satan’s sun. If we Catholics want to save ourselves, then I can never be in a pact with these forces.’

Christianity regarded all earthly existence as transient, while the Nazi thought in terms of rendering life eternal through a sort of biological Great Chain of Being. The individual was nothing, but the racial collective would endure through the aeons

The Enabling Law permitted the government to pass budgets and promulgate laws, including those altering the constitution, for four years without parliamentary approval. In democracies, constitutional amendments are especially solemn moments; here they were easier than changing the traffic regulations. None of the guarantees Hitler extended to the Churches or the judiciary in his address to the Reichstag amounted to a hill of beans.

It isn’t Religion, or the absence of Religion that guarantees rights and justice. Look at the long history of religious abuses of the people. The Inquisition is of course well known. But it continued after that. People put to death for being Witches. Centuries after the Inquisitions ended.

A better way to look at it is power. Where the leaders derive their power is less important. Power corrupts. Even David gave into Temptation in the Bible. The Bible is full of examples of Good Men chosen by God doing bad things when they became comfortable with the power.

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Religion is supposed to act as a check to that power. The idea of being judged for your actions in the next life. But that judgement is based upon the belief that the Almighty who has given this leader absolute power, who pointed the divine finger at that one, or that group, loves them more than any other. What could they do wrong?

And it is not just Christianity that has succumbed to the lure of absolute power. History is full of religions sacrificing people and animals to placate the desires of a deity or group of gods.

 

[Libby von H]

"Just like me", "my reputation?" You do realize this is an online board? A relatively noxious one even? The way I see it, I'm a hell of a lot more intellectually honest then most people here. Take for instance this.

This is what I said


This is what you claimed I said.

What do you think is worse. A person misspelling a word, or a person putting up strawmen? I didn't claim all were. Just the overwhelming majority. Even if you'd go through the history of the countries you mentioned. You'd still conclude that nearly all kings drew their legitimacy from religion. And most were totalitarian. Just because over the years they had to consider the feelings of other people more they all of a sudden weren't totalitarian anymore. Moa and Stalin had a politburo. Would you say they weren't totalitarian?

In England the king's are LITERALLY the head of the Church.
Louis XIV is attributed to have said l'etat c'est moi (I'm the state), kind of put a lie to the idea it wasn't a totalitarian state. In fact, it was the king's expenses, namely those resulting from paying for the court in Versailles that's widely considered a main reason for that revolution.

So even by your selective, Eurocentric examples you still fail to make the case that Religious Totalitarian states aren't the historical majority.

But by all means. Try to malign me some more. I'm sure I won't notice your lack of cohesive argument.

IN England literally the king has NO PREFERENCE of Church

"Almost 30 years ago, Charles triggered a furore when he suggested he would be defender of faith in general, rather than defender of the faith, stemming from a desire to reflect Britain’s religious diversity."

WERE YOU SLEEPING IN THE FORST

 

[forkup]

IN England literally the king has NO PREFERENCE of Church

"Almost 30 years ago, Charles triggered a furore when he suggested he would be defender of faith in general, rather than defender of the faith, stemming from a desire to reflect Britain’s religious diversity."

WERE YOU SLEEPING IN THE FORST

Church of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Take particular notice of who the particular "supreme governor" of this particular religion is. Hint: first name Charles.

But your third ad hominem is noted.

Care to try again, in the hope I won't notice the next time, you aren't actually offering a counter-argument.

Here's the premise again. Historically, rulers who use religion to gain legitimacy for autocratic rule has been the most common form of government.

You've called me dumb, dishonest, and a bad speller, (the last one I'd agree too. On the other hand I can do this in 3 languages so there's that.) What you haven't done is offer a coherent counter-argument. So do you have an actual argument. Or do you think offering fallacies is sufficient?

 

[Libby von H]

This is kind of redundant this is.

It's called a cognate object, dropout, used in the best writers